Peer-Review Policy

Studi Economici e Sociali: Rivista di vita economica applies a double-anonymous peer-review process. The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors. The journal seeks to ensure that every manuscript is evaluated fairly, confidentially, independently, and by specialists with appropriate knowledge of the subject.

All peer-review procedures are managed through the journal’s controlled editorial workflow. The journal publicly describes its review model, editorial stages, decision criteria, and ethical expectations in accordance with recognised transparency principles for scholarly publishing. COPE states that peer-review processes should be transparently described and properly managed. (Publication Ethics)

Initial Submission Check

After submission, the editorial office checks whether the manuscript is complete and complies with the journal’s technical and administrative requirements. The check covers the manuscript files, anonymisation, authorship information, declarations, references, abstract, keywords, language quality, ethical approvals where applicable, funding disclosure, conflict-of-interest statement, and data-availability statement.

Manuscripts that are incomplete or incorrectly prepared may be returned to the authors before editorial assessment.

Editorial Screening

The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor evaluates whether the manuscript is relevant to the journal’s aims and scope, sufficiently original, academically credible, clearly written, methodologically appropriate, and compliant with publication-ethics requirements.

A manuscript may be rejected without external review when it is outside the journal’s scope, lacks an identifiable scholarly contribution, contains major methodological deficiencies, does not comply with ethical requirements, duplicates previously published work, or is not sufficiently developed for peer review. Desk rejection is an editorial decision and does not imply that the topic itself lacks academic value.

Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are normally sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject or methodological expertise. Reviewers are selected according to their academic qualifications, research experience, publication record, knowledge of the manuscript’s subject, availability, independence, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Reviewers should not normally be affiliated with the same institution as the authors, have recent close collaborations with the authors, or possess financial, professional, personal, or intellectual interests that could compromise impartiality.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the originality, theoretical contribution, methodological quality, validity of the evidence, interpretation of the results, relevance of the literature, ethical compliance, clarity of presentation, and suitability of the manuscript for the journal.

Reviewers must treat the manuscript and all associated materials as confidential. They must not use unpublished information for personal advantage, share the manuscript without permission, contact the authors directly, or delegate the review to another person without editorial approval.

Reviewers must disclose conflicts of interest and decline the assignment when they cannot provide an objective evaluation. Any use of generative artificial intelligence or external automated services in reviewing confidential manuscripts is prohibited unless expressly authorised by the journal and compatible with confidentiality and data-protection obligations.

Editorial Decisions

Following peer review, the editor considers the reviewers’ reports, the manuscript’s academic merits, and its compliance with journal policies. The possible decisions are:

Accept: the manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision.

Minor revision: limited changes are required before the manuscript can be accepted.

Major revision: substantial theoretical, methodological, analytical, or presentational changes are required. A major-revision decision does not guarantee eventual acceptance.

Reject and resubmit: the manuscript requires fundamental redevelopment and may be submitted as a new manuscript.

Reject: the manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal.

The final decision rests with the responsible editor and is not determined by a mechanical count of reviewer recommendations.

Revision and Reassessment

Authors invited to revise must submit a revised manuscript and a detailed, point-by-point response explaining how each editorial and reviewer comment was addressed. When a suggestion is not adopted, the authors must provide a clear academic justification.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers, evaluated by new reviewers, or assessed directly by the editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.

Conflicting Reviews

When reviewer reports differ substantially, the editor may seek an additional review, request methodological advice, consult another editor, or make a reasoned editorial decision based on the manuscript and the available reports.

Review Time

The journal aims to conduct editorial screening and peer review as efficiently as possible. However, review time may vary depending on the manuscript’s subject, methodological complexity, reviewer availability, required revisions, and author response time. The journal does not guarantee a fixed decision or publication date.

Any review-time statistics published by the journal must be calculated from actual editorial records and must specify the measurement period.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant factual, procedural, or ethical error affected the evaluation. Appeals must identify the contested issue and provide a reasoned academic explanation. Disagreement with the reviewers’ conclusions alone is not sufficient.

The appeal is examined by an editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision whenever feasible. The outcome of the appeal is final.

Complaints concerning reviewer conduct, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, discrimination, editorial interference, or procedural irregularities are handled under the journal’s complaints and publication-ethics policies.