Ethics and Malpratice Statement

Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Studia Philologica Valentina is committed to publishing original research articles of high-quality content. The scientific publishing process is complex and includes editors, authors, reviewers, and publishers. All these parties are expected to understand and accept SPhV’s policies on publication ethics and malpractice, which are closely aligned with COPE’s (Committee on Publication Ethics) Core Practices document, which can be accessed at:

Responsibility of the Editor: The editor-in-chief is the main responsible for determining the publication of the articles submitted to the journal after a double-blind pee review process. The decision on a submission's publication will be only based on its quality, whereas the author’s identity, race, gender, religious or political beliefs, ethnicity, or citizenship will not be considered.

Confidentiality: The double-blind peer review process requires a high level of confidentiality. Only the appropriate information concerning a submitted article or the peer reviews related will be revealed to author, reviewers, editorial board members, or the publisher in order to preserve the anonymity of all the parts involved in the process.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest: Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from personal, professional, competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors or, eventually, institutions or group of research connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.

Responsibility of Reviewers: The peer review process is a basic and helpful tool to improve both the quality of the submission and the publication and to determine whether an article should be approved or rejected. Reviewers are expected to withdraw from the review process if they feel unqualified to evaluate the submission or unable to inform on it in the deadline and conditions determined by the editor. In addition, reviewers should withdraw from the review process if they are in a situation as the one described in the aforementioned section "Disclosure and conflict of interests". Manuscripts for review must be considered confidential documents. Information concerning the manuscripts should not be discussed with others.

Objectivity: Reviewers should strive to be objective in their assessments. Reviewers’ comments should be clearly expressed and supported by data, scientific evidences or solid arguments. Personal criticism of either the author(s) or his/her work is not appropriate.

Acknowledgment of sources: 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. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (conversations, correspondence, or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential tasks, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

Responsibility of the Author: Authors of original research articles should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Data access and retention: Authors could be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the paper for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable. In any event, authors should ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals for at least ten years after publication (preferably via an institutional or subject-based data repository or other data center), provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.

Originality, plagiarism, and acknowledgment of sources: Authors will submit only entirely original works and will appropriately cite or quote the work and/or words of others. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work should also be cited. Plagiarism is completely forbiden. The journal's institution uses appropriate tools to detect plagiarism (Urkund). Every article will be scanned by this tool before its approval for publication.

Multiple, redundant, or concurrent publication: In general, papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal. Submitting the same paper to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Manuscripts which have been published as copyrighted material elsewhere cannot be submitted. In addition, manuscripts under review by one journal should not be submitted to other publications while the manuscript under review.

Authorship of the paper: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain major aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. 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 and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Fundamental errors in published works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is his/her own obligation to immediately notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with them to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains significant errors, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or to provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.

Please send questions, concerns or comments at