Ethics and malpractice statement

The Scientific committee, directors and editing staff of the magazine guarantee the highest standards in regards to all aspects of publication, assistance to the authors and editors of the specific issues regarding research and any possible publication misconduct. To this end periodic meetings are organized and members are kept in close contact via videoconferences and email.

The Editorial Board supports and authorizes the publication of editions concerning research, reflections and experiences concerning classical and in particular recent literature, both theoretical and clinical, which are useful for discussion and for the development of the group’s psychoanalysis.  The editorial board will assume the role of providing the guidelines. These will be developed in harmony with the network of authors and researchers, both academic and professional, who are engaged with the journal and who are indicated in the list of the Scientific Board.

The Scientific Board is the guarantor of the ethics of the journal and of the rules of publication of any articles and editions. It also has the function of controlling that the standards of publication are respected in every issue, and of inspiring the work of the editorial board and of the referees through a system of exchange and collaboration.

The Editorial Board will perform an ulterior control before publication and guaranties the quality and academic standard of the editions and their correspondence with the general guidelines. It also guaranties that the level of quality asked of the authors in contributions is independent of the economical needs of the journal.

The economical needs are in fact partly subsidized by the Department of Dynamic and Clinical Psychology of the Sapienza University in Rome, who own the journal. Even if the authors’ works and the Boards’ members are not paid, the Department sometimes has given special bonuses to the journal for the quality and constancy of its publications.

The Editorial Board takes care of the revision and corrections of eventual mistakes in the publications in collaboration with the authors. It is also engaged in re-elaborating the guidelines so as to guarantee their update and makes sure the authors are informed when they are about to be included in an edition. The editorial board asks specific articles and themes from the authors, it does not accept previously published contributions. When a rare case of a published text of renowned merit and public usefulness is included, the previously published date must be noted on the article. The editorial board relies on Italian, European and international authors and every edition has to contain at least two contributions from the latter international authors.

Scientific Review Procedure of the Articles

Each item received is submitted – after any initial assessment by the Board – to be judged by two external reviewers. A positive opinion concerning the publication standards of the text and the adaptation of the written observations of the reviewers is considered essential for publication.

Illustration of the scientific review process:

The Board verifies the presence of the minimum requirements for publication. Thereafter the article is made anonymous, eliminating any additional evidence that could lead to the identification of the author (as well as any bibliographic references of the same author). The work is sent to two scientific reviewers, with renowned expertise of the issues in question, identified by Board.

The reviser is asked to express:

  • a general opinion of the article, to be communicated to the author
  • an analytical judgment on individual aspects of the article,
  • a judgment on the publishable text, structured into five possibilities:
  1.  Acceptable for publication in the current version.
  2. Acceptable but only after secondary revisions.
  3. Acceptable but with substantial revisions and indications to send the text again to the magazine with a consecutive new review procedure.
  4. Not acceptable for publication, but we recommend to the authors to propose the work for another more suitable issue.
  5. Not acceptable for publication.

In the event of a judgment of the second type, after the author has made the changes requested by one or both reviewers, the Board will decide autonomously whether adjustments are correct. In the case of a judgment of the third type, after the author has performed the changes requested by one or both reviewers, the Board re-refers the article back to the auditor or auditors who issued the judgment, to ensure the possibility to be able to verify that adjustments are consistent with the requests.

In the event that the two reviewers communicate differing judgments, a third reviewer, who is not aware of the results of the previous reviews will be contacted and his judgment will be decisive for publication.

The total duration of the procedure of refereeing will differ depending on the nature of the scientific assessments of the reviewers and the speed with which the authors introduce the required changes. The review should be completed within two months of sending the texts to the editorial board of the magazine.

Referees for each article have the following responsibilities: to know and be updated on the literature inherent within the topic of the single article under examination; to investigate the regularity of national and international quotations and the coherence of references in every single article, informing the editorial board and the authors of eventual irregularities. Therefore the referees have the task of verifying the authenticity of the data of the research and transparency of its contents. Referees have to make objectively impartial valuations of the texts and not give subjective valuations. Moreover, they have the obligation of professional secrecy for all examined articles.