About the Journal
Evaluation of Scholarly Contributions
Peer Review Procedure for Contributions Submitted to the journal Rassegna di Diritto dell'economia
1. General principles of the review procedure
1.1. Review procedures are formalised so as to guarantee transparency, the independence of reviewers and, in general, the absence of conflicts of interest, in accordance with the rules set out below.
1.2. The review of individual articles may not be assigned to the Editor-in-Chief or to the members of the Scientific Committee or of the Editorial Committee of the journal.
1.3. Only in exceptional cases may the Editorial Board directly assume responsibility for publication, noting this circumstance and the relevant reasons in a note on the first page of the contribution. In particular, the Editorial Board may decide to exempt from review those contributions consisting of conference proceedings for which the Journal proceeds to the full publication of the reports or presentations.
1.4. All contributions published in each issue are subject to peer review, with the exception of those not relevant to the purposes underlying the classification of journals, such as bibliographic notices, forum contributions and/or scholarly discussions, editorials, introductions or afterwords of a purely informative nature, as well as all material whose authorship is not ascribed to one or more authors.
2. Proposal for publication of contributions
2.1. The proposal for publication of each contribution to the journal is submitted to the Editorial Board directly by the author.
2.2. The Editorial Board carries out an initial editorial assessment, concerning the general thematic suitability of the proposed contribution with respect to the approach and topics addressed in the Journal, the existence of the minimum requirements of scholarly quality of the contribution, as well as the author's compliance with the Journal's code of ethics.
2.3. To this end, the Editorial Board may assign to the Editorial Committee the task of carrying out random checks to ascertain the existence of plagiarism or cases of self-plagiarism.
3. Peer review
3.1. Where a proposal for publication is preliminarily accepted by the Editorial Board pursuant to point 2.2, it sends the contribution provided by the author to an external reviewer holding at least the same academic rank as the author.
3.2. In identifying the reviewer for each contribution, the Editorial Board proceeds first by selecting the person with the greater competence on the subject of the contribution, while in any event applying rotation criteria.
3.3. The contribution is transmitted to the external reviewer in fully anonymised form, without indication of the author's name, and omitting any references, including bibliographic ones, that might reveal the author's identity. At the same time, the author is in no way made aware of the name of the external referee to whom the contribution has been transmitted, for the entire duration of the review process and thereafter.
3.4. Relations with the external reviewer are managed directly by the Editor who, on behalf of the Journal's Editorial Board, has taken charge of the article.
3.5. The Editorial Board may also replace the reviewer where the assessment is not delivered or can be delivered only in terms incompatible with the Journal's editorial timeline.
3.6. In dealings with external referees, the Editorial Board may avail itself of a member of the Editorial Committee, but only after having anonymised the contribution.
3.7. As external reviewers are identified, a list is compiled, which is kept confidential and updated by the Editorial Board, in order to facilitate the future identification of reviewers. That list is published on the Journal's website and periodically updated.
4. The reviewers' assessment
4.1. The external reviewer identified by the Editorial Board promptly reviews the contribution received and expresses an opinion regarding its publication in the Journal.
4.2. The assessment is discursive and concise in nature and concerns: (a) the novelty/originality of the contribution, (b) the methodology followed by the author, (c) the clarity and style of the presentation. The assessment may also contain confidential remarks for the Editorial Board, which are not transmitted to the author.
4.3. The assessment may conclude with: a) an indication that the contribution is worthy of publication; b) a recommendation not to proceed with publication; c) requests for revision of the contribution, on which a finding of worthiness for publication is made conditional.
4.4. In the last-mentioned case, the Editorial Board immediately forwards to the author, always in anonymous form, the requests for revision received, inviting the author to adjust the text accordingly. The Editorial Board verifies the contribution's compliance with the revision requests, where necessary sending it again — if required and above all in relation to the quantity and scope of the revisions requested — to the external reviewer who formulated them.
4.5. In any event the reviewer's anonymous assessment, excluding any notes reserved for the Editorial Board, is brought to the author's knowledge.
5. The Journal's confidential archive
5.1. All documents relating to the review, including the preliminary assessments of the Editorial Board deciding not to publish the articles submitted to it, are kept in a confidential archive, to which only the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal has access.
5.2. Upon request by ANVUR, however, the confidential documents shall be made accessible, in order to verify the transparency of the review procedure, the independence of the reviewers and, in general, the absence of conflicts of interest.
6. Functions of the Managing Editor
6.1. The Editor-in-Chief may appoint a Managing Editor with functions of coordination and management of the Journal.
6.2. By delegation of the Editor-in-Chief, all documentation relating to the Journal is kept by the Managing Editor.
Code of Ethics
Code of Ethics of the journal Rassegna di Diritto dell'economia
Preamble
The Code of Ethics of the journal Rassegna di Diritto dell'economia was adopted by the Journal's Scientific Committee at its meeting of 10 January 2026, in compliance with the guidelines set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and in fulfilment of Article 10 of the Regulation for the Classification of non-bibliometric journals approved by ANVUR by Resolution of the Governing Council no. 42 of 20 February 2019. It aims to foster an ethical approach to publication in the Journal and is signed personally by the Editor-in-Chief, on behalf of all the members of the Journal's bodies. A copy of the Code is published on the Journal's website and is sent, at the first available opportunity for contact, to all those who have dealings with the Journal's bodies, whether Authors or Reviewers.
Ethical duties of the Editorial Board, the Scientific Committee and the Editorial Committee
Decisions concerning publications
The Editorial Board, in the person of the Editor-in-Chief, is responsible for the decision to publish or not to publish the articles proposed by Authors to the Journal, availing itself for this purpose of an anonymous double-blind peer review, prepared by an expert reviewer.
The Editorial Board may, for particular issues of the journal, delegate a member of the Scientific Committee to carry out the functions referred to in the preceding point.
Principle of non-discrimination
The Editor-in-Chief, in making the determinations referred to in the preceding point, takes into account exclusively the scholarly value of the contribution, with particular reference to its originality, completeness and depth, without any discrimination as to race, religion, ethnic origin, citizenship, gender or gender identity, age and political orientation of the authors.
Duty of confidentiality
The Journal's bodies undertake not to disclose information about articles proposed for publication to persons other than the Author, the Reviewer and the Publisher.
Prohibition of use or disclosure prior to publication
The Journal's bodies further undertake not to use for their own research the contents of articles that have not yet been published without the express consent of the Author, evidenced in writing.
Identification of the Reviewer
The Journal adopts the double-blind peer review procedure to ensure that submitted material remains strictly confidential during the review process.
The Editor-in-Chief identifies the Reviewer on the basis of specific competence in relation to the subject addressed in the contribution, in order to obtain an adequate assessment for the purposes of publication.
Ethical duties of the Authors of the articles
Scholarly originality
The Author guarantees that the article submitted for evaluation is unpublished, written with rigorous scholarly method, and original.
Prohibition of simultaneous submission of writings to other journals
The Author guarantees that the article submitted for evaluation has not been simultaneously submitted to other journals, volumes or periodicals, save where this has been expressly permitted by the Editorial Board.
Where, subsequent to publication in Rassegna di Diritto dell'economia, the author intends to publish the article in other periodicals or volumes, the author must inform the Journal's Editorial Board, which may consent to it. In this latter case, however, it is the author's duty to state expressly in the new publication that the contribution has already been the subject of publication in Rassegna di Diritto dell'economia.
Citations
Citations must strictly comply with the Journal's editorial rules.
Authors who refer to the thought of other scholars are required to cite the sources used.
Corrections or additions
Also following the anonymous assessment of the Reviewer, the Editorial Board may request from the Authors any correction and addition it deems appropriate, without prejudice to the right of the Authors themselves to express observations or objections in this regard, engaging with the Editorial Board.
The Editorial Board reserves in any event the right to make purely formal changes to the writings even after the correction of proofs by the Authors, in order to ensure the uniformity of publications in the Journal.
Right to know the assessment
The Authors have in any event the right to know the assessments rendered by the external Reviewer, save for the additional and strictly confidential communications that the Reviewer may see fit to convey to the Editorial Board.
Authorship of the work
The authorship of the work must be clearly apparent: all those who have made a significant contribution to the production of the article must appear as co-authors. The contribution significantly made by other persons to certain phases of the research must also be explicitly acknowledged.
In the case of jointly authored contributions, the part attributable to each Author must be clearly apparent.
Conflicts of interest
The Author must not have conflicts of interest that could have influenced the results obtained, the theses advanced or the interpretations proposed. The Author must also indicate any funders of the research or of the project from which the article derives.
Use of generative artificial intelligence
Authors are required to declare, at the time of submission, any use of generative artificial intelligence tools in the preparation of the contribution, specifying their nature, purpose and manner of use. The use of such tools does not exempt authors from full scholarly, legal and ethical responsibility for the content. AI tools may not be listed as authors or co-authors of the contribution.
Ethical duties of the Reviewers
Function of the Review
The Review serves to assess the scholarly relevance of the contribution submitted to the Journal.
It also serves to open a scholarly dialogue, while respecting anonymity, between Reviewer and Author, as well as to improve the latter's contribution.
Suitability of the Reviewer and observance of deadlines
A Reviewer who does not feel adequate or sufficiently qualified for the task requested to review the writing submitted for consideration, or who is unable to review it within the time indicated by the Journal's Editorial Board, is required to communicate this to the Editorial Board with the utmost promptness, declining the assignment.
Fairness and objectivity of the assessment
The Review must be carried out fairly and objectively. The Reviewer is required to substantiate their assessments of the article submitted in an adequate and documented manner, without offending the Author, whose name in any event remains unknown. Observations must be technically well formulated and cannot take the form of ideological criticism or the expression of strictly personal judgements. Preferably, each observation by the Reviewer should be supported by a corresponding citation.
Possible indication of texts
The Reviewer is invited to indicate precisely the bibliographic details of fundamental works overlooked by the Author in the article. The Reviewer must also report any cases of plagiarism with respect to other works known to them.
Conflict of interest and disclosure
Contributions submitted for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown or discussed with anyone without the express authorisation of the Journal's Editorial Board.
Any confidential information obtained through the Review procedure must be regarded as confidential and may not be used for one's own advantage.
Reviewers are required not to accept for review articles for which a conflict of interest emerges owing to prior specific relationships of collaboration or competition with the Author (in itself unknown, but nonetheless identifiable by inference) and/or to connections with the authors, bodies or institutions associated with the contribution submitted for review.
Principle of Equal Opportunity
Co-editorship
The journal Rassegna di Diritto dell'economia systematically applies the principle of equal opportunity.
Activities of the journal
Compatibly with the need to select for its scholarly activities the scholars who have most extensively investigated the specific aspects of each issue addressed, all activities organised by the Journal shall value the contribution of researchers of both sexes.
