The journal Axon. Greek historical inscriptions intends to fill a gap in the panorama of the scientific and didactic experience of Greek History and Epigraphy. Each issue includes a series of specific contributions dedicated to individual Greek entries selected on the basis of their historical relevance. For each document there is an articulated digital file, built according to shared standards and vocabulary, which is included into a freely accesible database, according to a ductile and targeted search mask. This file is accompanied by an original and in-depth commentary on all the paleographic, linguistic, historical, institutional, cultural and contextual aspects of the document in question proposed by specialists.
Use the form to submit a proposal.
The article processing charges are regulated by the Publisher. For more information please visit: Publish with us.
Every article published by ECF was accepted for publication by no less than two qualified reviewers as a result of a process of anonymous reviewing (double-blind peer review). The reviewers are independent of the authors and not affiliated with the same institution.
The Journal’s Editor-in-Chief guarantees the proper execution of the peer review process for every article published in the Journal.
Peer review policies for the different sections:
To be published all manuscripts must comply with the following guidelines. In case of blatant violation of the guidelines, the editor (ECF) can suspend at any time the manuscript’s publication.
The instructions for the preparation of your manuscript, its abstract and its bibliography, are an integral part of the requirements for the manuscript submission. They are downloadable from the menu ‘Publish with us’ at the item ‘Editorial Guidelines’.
To find out more, please contact Edizioni Ca’ Foscari’s editorial staff at email@example.com.
DOAJ - Directory of Open Access Journals
ERIH PLUS - European Reference Index for the Humanities
Ethical Code of Axon. Iscrizioni storiche greche
Axon. Iscrizioni storiche greche is a peer-reviewed scientific journal whose policy is inspired by the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Ethical Code. See the Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
The Publisher must provide the Journal with adequate resources and the guidance of experts, in order to carry out its role in the most professional way, aiming at the highest quality standard.
The Publisher must have a written agreement that defines the relationship with the owner of the Journal and/or the Editor-in-Chief. The agreement must comply with the Code of Behavior for Publishers of Scientific Journals, as established by COPE.
The relationship among the Editor-in-Chief, the Advisory Board and the Publisher is based on the principle of publishing independence.
The Editor-in-Chief and the Advisory Board of Axon alone are responsible for the decision to publish the articles submitted.
Submitted articles, after having been checked for plagiarism by means of the anti-plagiarism software Compilatio that is used by the University and is made available to us, will be sent to at least two reviewers. Final acceptance presumes the implementation of possible amendments, as required by the reviewers and under the supervision of the Axon Editor-in-Chief.
The Axon Editor-in-Chief and Advisory Board must evaluate each submitted paper in compliance with the Journalʼs policy, i.e. exclusively on the basis of its scientific content, without discrimination of race, sex, gender, creed, ethnic origin, citizenship, or the scientific, academic and political position of the Authors.
Allegations of misconduct
If the Axon Editor-in-Chief and Advisory Board notice (or receive notifications of) mistakes or inaccuracies, conflict of interest or plagiarism in a published article, they will immediately warn the Author and the Publisher and will undertake the necessary actions to resolve the issue. They will do their best to correct the published content whenever they are informed that it contains scientific errors or that the authors have committed unethical or illegal acts in connection with their published work. If necessary, they will withdraw the article or publish a recantation.
All complaints are handled in accordance with the guidelines published by the COPE.
Concerns and complaints must be addressed to the following e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org. The letter should contain the following information:
Authors must follow the Guidelines for Authors to be downloaded from the Axon website.
Authors must explicitly state that their work is original in all its parts and that the submitted paper has not been previously published, nor submitted to other journals, until the entire evaluation process is completed. Since no paper gets published without significant revision, earlier dissemination in conference proceedings or working papers does not preclude consideration for publication, but Authors are expected to fully disclose publication/dissemination of the material in other closely related publications, so that the overlap can be evaluated by the Axon Editor-in-Chief.
Authors are strongly encouraged to use their ORCID iD when submitting a manuscript. This will ensure the authors’ visibility and correct citation of their work.
Authorship must be correctly attributed; all those who have given a substantial contribution to the design, organisation and accomplishment of the research the article is based on, must be indicated as Co-Authors. Please ensure that: the order of the author names is correct; the names of all authors are present and correctly spelled, and that affiliations are up-to-date.
The respective roles of each co-author should be described in a footnote. The statement that all authors have approved the final version should be included in the disclosure.
Conflicts of interest and financing
Authors, under their own responsibility, must avoid any conflict of interest affecting the results obtained or the interpretations suggested. The Axon Editor-in-Chief will give serious and careful consideration to suggestions of cases in which, due to possible conflict of interest, an Author’s work should not be reviewed by a specific scholar. Authors should indicate any financing agency or the project the article stems from.
Authors must see to it that all works consulted be properly quoted. If works or words of others are used, they have to be properly paraphrased or duly quoted. Quotations between “double quotes” (or «angled quotation marks» if the text is written in a language other than English) must reproduce the exact wording of the source; under their own responsibility, Authors should carefully refrain from disguising a restyling of the source’s wording, as though it was the original formulation.
Any form of excessive, inappropriate or unnecessary self-citation, as well as any other form of citation manipulation, are strongly discouraged.
Whenever required, the research protocols must be authorised in advance by the Ethical Committee of Ca’ Foscari University of Venice.
When Authors find a mistake or an inaccuracy in their own article, they must immediately warn the Axon Editor-in-Chief, providing all the information needed to make the due adjustments.
By means of the peer-review procedure, reviewers assist the Axon Editor-in-Chief and Advisory Board in taking decisions on the articles submitted. They are expected to offer the Authors suggestions as to possible adjustments aimed at improving their contribution submission.
Timing and conflicts of interest
If a reviewer does not feel up to the task of doing a given review, or if she/he is unable to read the work within the agreed schedule, she/he should notify the Axon Editor-in-Chief. Reviewers must not accept articles for which there is a conflict of interest due to previous contributions or to a competition with a disclosed author (or with an author they believe to have identified).
The content of the reviewed work must be considered confidential and must not be used without explicit authorisation by the Author, who is to be contacted via the editor-in-chief. Any confidential information obtained during the peer review process should not be used for other purposes.
Reviewers should see themselves not as adversaries but as advocates for the field. Any comment must be done in a collaborative way and from an objective point of view. Reviewers should clearly motivate their comments and keep in mind the Golden Rule of Reviewing: “Review for others as you would have others review for you”.
Reviewers should report any similarity or overlapping of the work under analysis with other works known to them.