Statistics: peer review and authors (2010-2012)
2009-2012 reviewers list
The journal employs the double-blind
peer review process, where both
reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout
the review process. All research articles
are submitted to two anonymous experts,
usually not belonging to either the Editorial
Staff or the International Advisory Board
(90%). The reviewers are chosen preferibly
outside of the Department (80%).
Every proposal submitted for publication
is read at least by an editor, for an initial
review. If the paper agrees with editorial
policies and with a minimum quality level,
is sent to two reviewers. Reviewer selection
for each article submitted is assigned to
the Managing editors, who ask one or more
of the Editors to provide a list of relevant
academics with expertise in the field. The
Managing Editor then chooses two reviewers
from this list.
The reviewers won’t
know the author's identity, as any identifying
information will be stripped from the document
before review. Reviewers' comments to the
editors are confidential and before passing
on to the author will made anonymous.
The names of the reviewers remain strictly
confidential, with their identities know
only the Managing Editor, the Associate
Editor and the Editor-in-chief.
Peer reviewers will have four possible
options for each article
 Accept without revision
 Accept with minor amendments
 Support publication
with significant revisions and likely re-review
In cases where there is strong
disagreement either among peer reviewers,
further expert advice may be sought.
Based on the reviewers' comments,
the Editorial Board makes a final decision
on the acceptability of the manuscript,
and communicates to the authors the decision,
along with referees' reports.
Whether significant revisions are
proposed, acceptance is dependent on whether
the author can deal with those satisfactorily.
The purpose of the review
is primarily to identify means of maximising
the potential of the paper. Peer reviewers
are asked to consider the following:
- How might the paper make a more distinctive
and effective contribution to the existing
- In what ways might the paper be made to
fit more clearly within, and address, the
central theme of the issue?
- How might the coherence, cogency and clarity
of the paper be improved?
- In what ways might contentious elements
of the article be made subject to reasonable
Peer reviewers are asked to say if the article
is not sufficiently clearly written for
publication. In such cases authors are asked
to revise the article.
Reviewers should treat the contents of the
manuscript under review as strictly confidential,
not to be disclosed. The reviewers’
assessments will be sent to the authors,
although the names of the evaluators will
not be revealed.
The list of all referees (in
alphabetical order and with no connection
with the article reviewed) might be passed
on to the commissions of the societies in
charge of the scientific evaluation of the
journals or published in compliance with
the requirements of the relevant authorities.
In no case the connection between the referees
and the given article reviewed will be revealed.
TYPE OF CONTRIBUTIONS:
Articles: papers evaluated
by double-blind peer review
Editorial material: submissions
not evaluated by double-blind
Dossier: peer reviewed
Essays and Researches (Studi e ricerche):
Communicating History (Comunicare storia):
generally not peer reviewed
Sources and documents (Fonti e documenti):
generally not peer reviewed
Forums (Dibattiti): not
Library (Biblioteca): not