Reviewer Guidelines

Tempo di lettura: 4 minuti

Purpose of a Fair-Peer-Review

An innovative and transparent peer-review system will be adopted, which aims to encourage the free flow of scientific ideas, and which we called «fair-peer-reviewed». Articles, in fact, after being received by the Editorial Board of EJ, will be evaluated by the journal’s editor and published online, in a dedicated section of, for 30 days. During this time, topic experts, with public identity (they will indicate their name while reviewing) and specify their own research expertise and affiliation (a kind of public peer review), can send their comments and suggestions on the basis of what is reported in the scientific papers (methodology, results, lan-guage, etc.). After the deadline of 30 days, the articles will be sent back in the hands of the Editorial Board of EJ which will assess the validity of the comments and sug-gestions of the public-reviewers, and, prior to publication in the next online and PDF number of VG-EJ (which will receive a

Digital Object Identifier, DOI), may:
a) decide to directly accept the article without further changes by the authors, if the comments of the public-reviewers are positive;
b) ask the articles’s authors to make changes based on the suggestions of the public-reviewers;
c) choose to do not publish the article if the comments of the public-reviewers show relevant problems in the methodology or in the exposition of the scientific work.
If, after 30 days, comments from public-reviewers are lacking or insufficient for the evaluation of the article, the paper will be sent to an external referee (with a direct request) by the Editorial Board, who will review the paper. On the base of these comments the Editorial Board will decide if the paper can be considered or not to be published, but only after having received the response to the referee comments by the authors.
At the end of this process of fair-peer-review the scientific papers will be published in the next issue of «Villaggio Globale» Trimestrale, in the section «Economology Journal», will receive a DOI, will be indexed in scientific databases and can be cited in the following form: «Author name, Article title, “Economology Journal”, in “Villaggio Globale” Trimestrale, Number (Issue), Pages, Year – doi: xxx-xxx-xxxx».
Be aware when you submit your review that any recommendations you make will contribute to the final decision made by the editor.

You will be asked to evaluate the article on a number of criteria:

Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does it add to the canon of knowledge? Does the article adhere to the journal’s standards? Is the research question an important one? In order to determine its originality and appropriateness for the journal it might be helpful to think of the research in terms of what percentile it is in? Is it in the top 25% of papers in this field? You might wish to do a quick literature search using tools such as Scopus to see if there are any reviews of the area. If the research been covered previously, pass on references of those works to the editor.

Is the article clearly laid out? Are all the key elements present: abstract, introduction, methodology, results, conclusions? Consider each element in turn:
– Title: Does it clearly describe the article?
– Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?
Where graphical abstracts and/or highlights are included, please check the content and if possible make suggestions for improvements. Follow these links for more information
– Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated? Normally, the introduction is one to two paragraphs long. It should summarize relevant research to provide context, and explain what findings of others, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, hypothesis (es); general experimental design or method
– Methodology: Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?
– Results: This is where the author/s should explain in words what he/she discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. Youwill need to consider if the appropriate analysis been conducted. Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, advise the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.
– Conclusion/Discussion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?
– Language: If an article is poorly written due to grammatical errors, while it may make it more difficult to understand the science, you do not need to correct the English. You may wish to bring it to the attention of the editor, however.

Finally, on balance, when considering the whole article, do the figures and tables inform the reader, are they an important part of the story? Do the figures describe the data accurately? Are they consistent, e.g. bars in charts are the same width, the scales on the axis are logical.

-Previous Research
If the article builds upon previous research does it reference that work appropriately? Are there any important works that have been omitted? Are the references accurate?

-Ethical Issues
◦Plagiarism: If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another work, let the editor know, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible.
◦Fraud: It is very difficult to detect the determined fraudster, but if you suspect the results in an article to be untrue, discuss it with the editor
◦Other ethical concerns: If the research is medical in nature, has confidentiality been maintained? If there has been violation of accepted norms of ethical treatment of animal or human subjects these should also be identified Back to top.