Code of Conduct for Publication

Rivista di Criminologia, Vittimologia e Sicurezza (RCVS) (The Criminology, Victimology and Security Journal) is a scientific peer-reviewed open-access journal. Its Code of Conduct refers to the Codes of Conduct published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The Code of Conduct is a standard set of basic conduct rules to which everyone involved in the publication of this journal (authors, editors, referees) must adhere.

 
Ethics and Responsibility of Author

1)   The article submitted to this Journal must be original, as to say that it has not been previously published. The author should give due recognition to all bibliographic sources relating to his/her submitted manuscript by way of correct reference and citation

2)      The author ensures that his/her text is submitted for publication in only one journal or publishing house at a time

3)      The author declares all sources of funding for the research work in the manuscript 

4)     If he/she finds a mistake or a significant inaccuracy in his/her text, he/she must promptly inform the editors and give them all information required to allow a quick communication of due corrections  

5)      He/she is responsible for protecting privacy, dignity, and anonymity of all research work participants

6)      He/she gives due acknowledgement to all researchers contributing to the work

7)      It would be appreciated if authors submitting a text for this Journal accepted a succeding invitation to become a referee 

 
Ethics and Responsibility of Editor

1)  The editor in chief, the coordinator of the editorial board and the chief editor are responsible for the choice of articles that will be published among all proposals. They are required to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed. Together with the editorial board, they strive to constantly improve the Journal  

2) The editor in chief, the coordinator of the editorial board and the chief editor chose articles to be published on the basis of their content without any discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, nationality, political beliefs of their authors   

3) The editor in chief, the coordinator of the editorial board and the chief editor should play their role without personal or ideological prejudices, and without practicing favouritism 

4)   In order to evaluate the proposed articles, a double-bind-review procedure is followed. In this procedure, authors remain anonymous to the referees and vice-versa

5)    The editor in chief, the coordinator of the editorial board and the chief editor have the responsibility to give authors justified reasons about their decision to publish or not their manuscripts

6)    The editor in chief, the coordinator of the editorial board and the chief editor must ensure that material submitted to the Journal remains confidential while under review. They of course can discuss it with referees, potential referees and authors

7)      Without explicit consent of authors, the editor in chief, the coordinator of the editorial board and the chief editor do not use contents of proposed articles     

8)      The editor in chief, the coordinator of the editorial board and the chief editor should provide new editorial board members with guidelines on everything that is expected of them and should keep existing members updated on new policies and developments

 
Ethics and Responsibility of Referee

1)     During the peer-review process, the referee collaborates with editors in order to make decisions about proposals. By means of the editorial staff, the referee is required to suggest authors some changes in order to improve their texts

2)      The referee should be objective and impartial in their reviews. Therefore, he/she is required to adequately justify his/her decisions

3)     The referee respects the confidentiality of peer-review process and does not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review. He/she may discuss it only with the editorial staff or with people authorized by the editorial staff. Details or other information obtained during the peer-review process should not be used for personal motives

4)      The referee notifies the journal immediately if suspects the identity of the author(s)  

5)      The referee promptly informs the editors if he/she cannot return the review by the requested deadline

6)      The referee also declares if he/she does not have the subject expertise required to carry out the review 

7)      The referee notifies the journal immediately if he/she is aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a published work he/she knows

 Homepage | Current Issue | Past Issues | Review | Submission | Call for Papers | Staff |

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.