Main Language: English
Additional Languages : French, German, Italian
Submissions
Interested authors are invited to submit their papers by the end of May.
Submissions should be sent to:
Prof. Mauro Antonelli
Dipartimento di Psicologia
Università di Milano - Bicocca
20126 Milano, Italy
E-mail: mauro.antonelli@unimib.it; eyhp@unimib.it
Peer Review Procedure
All volumes in this series are evaluated by an Editorial Board, strictly on academic grounds, based on reports prepared by referees who have been commissioned by virtue of their specialism in the appropriate field. The Board ensures that the screening is done independently and without conflicts of interest. The definitive texts supplied by authors are also subject to review by the Board before being approved for publication.
Guidelines for Authors
Author guidelines in English can be found at: https://www.brepols.net/permalink/stylesheet-author
Licencing & Copyright
This journal offers different licence options. A standard licence gives Brepols the exclusive copyright for all published content. Gold Open Access articles will be published under a CC BY-NC 4.0 Licence. For these articles the copyright remains with the authors. Please discuss with your Publishing Manager if you or your funding body require an alternative CC-licence.
Open Access Options
When you opt for publishing in Gold Open Access, we charge an APC of 1000 EUR (+ VAT, if applicable), which is designed to cover the cost of our publishing services. This consists of dedicated editorial support; qualitative, rigorous peer review; manuscript editing and professional typesetting; high-quality printing and digital publishing on BrepolsOnline and other leading platforms; guaranteed permanent access; worldwide physical distribution and online dissemination; and worldwide specialized marketing and targeted commercial initiatives.
Researchers from low- and middle-income countries, early career scholars, independent researchers, and other authors who do not have the resources to pay the APC are invited to contact the editor-in-chief.
See our dedicated webpages for further details on our open access options at https://www.brepols.net/open-access/journals, and our self-archiving policies at https://www.brepols.net/open-access/self-archiving-policy.
Ethics, Malpractice and Authorship Statement
https://www.brepols.net/ethics
Archival
All articles are digitally archived in Portico
Publication Policies and Ethical Principles
Author’s duties
The Journal’s policy prohibits an author from submitting the same manuscript for concurrent consideration by two or more publications. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper, having agreed to its submission for publication. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. Authors of accepted manuscripts are required to transfer the copyright to the Journal.
Publication decisions and Editor’s duties
The editorial board members of the Journal are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the Journal should be published. The editorial board is guided by the policies of the Journal’s publisher and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editorial board seeks the support of at least two reviewers in making this decision, according to a double-blind peer review procedure.
An editor, at any time, must be evaluating manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, as well as scientific, academic, or political orientation of the authors.
The editors and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editors’ own research without the expressed written consent of the author. When the editorial board is notified or discovers a significant problem regarding errors/ inaccuracy, undisclosed conflict of interest, plagiarism, in a published article, the editorial board will promptly notify the corresponding author and the publisher and will undertake the necessary actions to clarify the issue and in case of need to retract the paper or publish an Erratum.
Peer reviewer’s duties
Peer reviews assist the editors in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
(E-journal)
