Authors who publish with this Journal/Series agree to the following terms:
To find out more, please contact Edizioni Ca’ Foscari’s editorial staff at email@example.com
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/Series’ Scientific Director guarantees the proper execution of the peer review process for every article published in the Journal/Series. The evaluation is conducted in accordance with the following criteria:
Revision policies for the different sections:
This handbook describes the main editorial guidelines adopted in the journal. For special cases and further indications (such as the list of permitted abbreviations), please refer to the complete editorial guidelines of the Edizioni Ca’ Foscari:
I. Composition of the text
The journal publishes articles (40,000 characters with spaces), notes (10,000 characters with spaces) and book reviews (5,000 characters with spaces, including bibliographic data and number of pages of the work reviewed, without footnotes).
Formatting the Word file: limit formatting to what is strictly necessary, adopting 12 characters and avoiding small caps, special styles and line spacing other than 1. A particular case is constituted by long text citations. The use of bold is allowed for titles.
Dates, numbers, measures
The numbers must be indicated in abbreviated form omitting the parts that do not change (except for the so-called ‘teens’, 11-19). For example: 1960-5, 270-1, 256-70, 311-18 (n.b.), 1,000, 120 × 240 cm; 5 March-7 May; il Eighteenth Century; the Thirties.
Citations within the text
If less than 10 words in length, they remain in the body of the text in double quotation marks (“ ”). Lines are separated by the sign |. If longer than 10 words, the citations must be:
Quotation within quotation: single high quotation marks (‘...’) within double quotation marks (“ ”).
Source citations should be in the original language. The translation of the quoted text, if necessary, follows immediately, in brackets and in round characters.
Omissions in the body of the quotes are marked with ‘[...]’.
Foreign words and translations
If not included in the Treccani dictionary (http://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/), they must be written in italics. Transliterations are also italicized. Relevant translations go between round brackets immediately after the term. Example: Totenmal (funerary monument).
High quotation marks (‘’) can also be used to highlight a ‘concept’, highlight the precise meaning of a ‘term’, signal the ‘idiomatic’, ‘metaphorical’ or ‘improper’ use of a word.
The titles of literary, pictorial, sculptural, photographic, cinematographic, theatrical, musical, etc. works are italicized with capital letters.
II. Bibliographic references
Abbreviations in the footnotes.
Write the author’s surname, the year of publication and the page number preceded by a comma only. This abbreviation refers to every occurrence, avoiding the use of idem, ibidem, and similar expressions.
If an edition or a translation of ancient, medieval or early modern texts is cited, at the first occurrence a unique topological reference is provided (e.g. book, chapter, paragraph; song, verse, verse, etc.) and declare the edition or translation used; in subsequent citations the univocal topological reference is sufficient. To indicate in an abbreviated form the edition or translation of similar texts, reference is made to the name of the publisher/translator, rather than that of the author.
For the citation of works of Greco-Roman antiquity, refer to the abbreviations contained in the dictionaries compiled by Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott (A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford, 1996, http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu /lsj/05-general_abbreviations.html) and by Luigi Castiglioni and Scevola Mariotti (Il vocabolario della lingua latina. Turin, 1966 and subsequent editions), italicizing the abbreviation relating to the title of the work.
For the items of dictionaries and encyclopedias, the surname of the author of the form and the date of publication are indicated. Example: Rossi 2004, 7. To which in the final bibliography will correspond:
Rossi, M. (2004). s.v. “Bianchi, Antonio”. Enciclopedia degli autori italiani. http://www.enciclopediaautoriintaliani.org/articles/antonio-bianchi.
For manuscripts, the conservation institution and the fund are indicated in abbreviated form. Page numbers are not preceded by abbreviations; the column ones are instead introduced by ‘col./coll.’ and the paper ones by ‘c./cc.’, which is the abbreviation to be adopted if the paper sheet is bound; ‘fol./foll.’ is the abbreviation to be preferred if the sheet is loose. In the latter two cases whether the number of paper or sheet refers to the front and/or the reverse is also indicated. The use of the abbreviation ‘ms’, where superfluous, is omitted. Example: ASV, ASC, numerazione rossa, pratica 614, b. 4235, fasc. 3, cc. 2r-v, 3v [numerazione moderna]; ASV, ASC, b. 4235, s.p. [ma 44].
Abbreviations relating to bibliographic entries are listed after the text of the article. The items are listed in alphabetical order and, for the same author, from the oldest to the most recent. Each bibliographic entry reports, in the language of the cited publication:
The work can be indexed by referring to the name of the Translator (especially in the case of classics) or, alternatively, to that of the Author, provided that the choice is consistent with the criteria adopted for the bibliographic abbreviations in the note.
Opera in multiple volumes and essay in opera in multiple volumes
Contribution in edited work
The title and subtitle of the contribution are shown in low brackets. After a point, the surname and name of the editor are indicated followed by '(edited by)' or similar expressions, and a comma; follows the title of the collection in italics.
For electronic publications, the DOI (to be preferred, if available) or the URL are used. The DOI codes, which can be deduced from the https://search.crossref.org site, are cited as: https://doi.org/10.xxxx/xxxxx.
Smith, P. (2019). Review of My Work, by Black, J. Journal of Contemporary Art, 23(4), 24-7.
Follow these guidelines:
Send tiff files, in colour or in black and white, numbered in coherence with the captions, with a resolution of at least 300 ppi.
Verify that the article:
For information and clarifications, please contact the Edizioni Ca’ Foscari editorial staff at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Ethical Code of Rassegna iberistica
Rassegna iberistica 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 Editorial Board and the Publisher is based on the principle of publishing independence.
The Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board of Rassegna iberistica 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 Rassegna iberistica Editors.
The Rassegna iberistica Editors and Editorial 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.
If the Rassegna iberistica Editors and Editorial 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. If necessary, they will withdraw the article or publish a recantation.
Authors must follow the Guidelines for Authors to be downloaded from the Rassegna iberistica website.
No multiple submissions
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 Rassegna iberistica Editors.
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. 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 Rassegna iberistica Editors 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. Citations 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.
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 Rassegna iberistica Editors, providing all the information needed to make the due adjustments.
By means of the peer-review procedure, reviewers assist the Rassegna iberistica Editors and Editorial 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 Rassegna iberistica Editors. 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.