• ECF adopts a cautious, transparent, and human-centred approach to AI in scholarly publishing, in line with Ca’ Foscari University’s guidelines, the ethical principles of COPE and best practices in humanities research. Furthermore, this policy is fully consistent with and complies with the relevant requirements of Article 50 (entitled “Transparency obligations for providers and deployers of certain AI systems”) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of 13 June 2024, which establishes harmonised rules on artificial intelligence.
• AI tools may assist with minor editorial or linguistic tasks, but must never replace the intellectual contribution of human authors, editors, or reviewers.
• No AI tool shall be recognised as an author or co-author under any circumstances.
• All uses of AI must be explicitly disclosed, documented, and validated by responsible human agents.
• Undisclosed or inappropriate use of AI may result in editorial action, including manuscript rejection, retraction, or institutional notification.
• ECF itself does not use AI tools for decision-making in peer review or editorial evaluation.

Policy for Editors-in-Chief of Series and Journals

Editors-in-chief bear responsibility for enforcing this policy within their editorial boards and among contributors.

Permitted uses:

• Spelling, grammatical and syntactical revision of texts (e.g. correction of typos or grammatical errors): it shall be the responsibility of the author and/or the editor of the magazine or series to inform the Publisher of the AI system(s) used, if any, so that the Publisher may assess the full compatibility of each system or tool actually used with the provisions of this policy.
• Use of AI tools or systems also for purposes other than those listed in the preceding point – for example, and as a rule, in the function of anti-plagiarism control – provided that such systems have been deemed compatible by the Publisher with the modalities set out in the preceding point.

Prohibited uses:

• Using AI tools to evaluate submissions, select reviewers, or make editorial decisions.
• Uploading any unpublished manuscript content to AI platforms (e.g. for summarisation or review drafting).
• Delegation to the IA of editorial correspondence or evaluation of contributions submitted for publication.

Responsibilities:

• Ensure that authors and reviewers comply with ECF’s AI policy.
• Report suspected misuse of AI tools to the ECF editorial office.
• Validate that all published content results from transparent, human-led processes.

Policy for Authors (including Editors of Edited Volumes)

Authors retain full responsibility for the integrity of their work, including any sections drafted with AI support.

Permitted uses (with disclosure):

• Grammar or style revision.
• Translation support, with authorial post-editing.
• Text mining or data analysis, with transparent methodology.

Prohibited uses:

• Generating original content, arguments, or interpretations.
• Fabricating references, data, or quotations.
• Creating or modifying figures or images via AI tools.
• Using AI to paraphrase existing content to evade plagiarism detection.

Disclosure Requirements (if AI tools were used):

• Declare tool name, version, and purpose.
• Include disclosure in the “Acknowledgements”, “Methods” or a dedicated note.
• Confirm human verification of all AI-assisted output.

Undisclosed use of AI may constitute a breach of publication ethics and lead to sanctions.

Policy for Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers must provide assessments based solely on their own critical judgment and expertise.

Permitted uses:

• Grammar or clarity checking of the review text (not the manuscript), provided the reviewer does not enter manuscript content into external tools.
• Translation of the review (not manuscript content), subject to verification and disclosure.

Prohibited uses:

• Uploading any part of the manuscript under review to AI platforms.
• Using AI to summarise, analyse, or critique the manuscript.
• Generating reviewer comments or decisions via AI tools.

Responsibilities:

• Disclose any allowed use of AI in the reviewer comments.
• Maintain confidentiality and refrain from exposing manuscript content to third-party systems.
• Failure to comply with these rules may result in removal from the reviewer pool and notification to relevant editorial boards.

ECF reserves the right to update this policy as AI technologies and international best practices evolve.

• Third-party independence and autonomy: Evaluation is entrusted to qualified external reviewers who are not members of the editorial bodies involved in the publication of the work and who have no conflicts of interest with the author(s). Each contribution is assessed by at least two independent experts in the relevant field. Reviewers preferably belong to institutions other than that of the author and that to which the journal or series is affiliated, in order to guarantee impartial judgement free from internal influence. The involvement of members of the Scientific Board or Editorial Board of the same journal/series as reviewers or authors is strongly discouraged, except in rare and explicitly justified cases. This ensures effective independence in the decision-making process.
• Impartiality and fairness of judgement: Each contribution is evaluated exclusively on its scholarly merit, without personal, commercial or ideological bias. Wherever possible, ECF adopts a double-blind peer review system, in which authors and reviewers remain mutually anonymous. This safeguards objectivity and prevents bias linked to identity, reputation or institutional affiliation. Editorial decisions are based on reviewers’ reports and quality criteria, not on the academic, geographical or disciplinary origin of the author(s), in accordance with principles of equity and international best practices.
• Transparency of the process: Peer review procedures are clearly defined and communicated to all parties involved. ECF provides detailed descriptions of its review policies on its website and in editorial documentation, specifying for each publication whether and how peer review is conducted. The entire evaluation workflow is tracked and archived within the ECFPeerflow platform and remains accessible within users’ personal profiles once the process has concluded. For monographs and edited volumes, ECF may also adopt forms of open peer review, whereby reviewers’ identities are disclosed and reports may be published alongside the work, enhancing transparency and accountability. In all cases, any exceptions or special procedures (e.g. contributions not subject to peer review because of their non-scholarly nature) are explicitly declared.
• Collaboration and mutual respect: At ECF, peer review is conceived as a constructive and collaborative process aimed at improving submitted work. Reviewers and authors interact indirectly through editorial mediation in a spirit of cooperation: reviewers provide detailed comments and suggestions for improvement, and authors are encouraged to respond professionally and constructively. The ECFPeerflow platform enables Scientific Directors to interact with reviewers to clarify assessments and request additions to evaluation forms, in order to obtain thorough and useful reports. This fosters a constructive (though always mediated) dialogue aimed at strengthening the manuscript. All parties are required to maintain a respectful and civil tone, even when expressing criticism, recognising their shared commitment to the advancement of research.
• Supporting the enhancement of scholarly quality: The primary aim of peer review at ECF is to enhance the quality of publications. The process does not merely select suitable contributions but provides authors with qualified feedback to refine their work. Reviewers’ comments and evaluations must clearly justify the assessments expressed and indicate any shortcomings, methodological weaknesses or sections requiring improvement, enabling authors to intervene in a targeted manner. Reviewers are not merely evaluators but expert peers capable of helping authors refine the content of their contribution. In turn, ECF Scientific Boards and editorial bodies encourage authors to regard peer review as an opportunity for development and improvement, offering full support throughout the process. This philosophy of mentorship and continuous enhancement forms an integral part of ECF’s identity as an academic publisher.

These principles – independence, impartiality, transparency, a spirit of collaboration, and the improvement of the entire process – guide every stage of peer review at ECF and are consistent with the identity of an open access academic publisher in the field of the humanities and social sciences. As a member of OASPA and indexed in DOAJ, ECF adheres to internationally recognised best editorial practices.

Procedures and Stages of the Peer Review Process

The peer review process at Edizioni Ca’ Foscari is structured into clearly defined stages and is managed entirely through the digital platform ECFPeerflow. This platform, developed internally by ECF, ensures an efficient, traceable workflow that respects anonymity. The main stages of the review are described below.

For operational reasons and in order to facilitate the progress of review activities, the platform allows authorised users (e.g. ECF Editorial Administration, the Scientific Director of a journal or series, the editor(s) of an edited volume) to temporarily impersonate reviewers or authors, exclusively to carry out essential actions of a technical or administrative nature. This faculty is exercised following transparent communication to the person impersonated and is recorded in the system for traceability purposes.

Official Submission Channels and Initial Traceability

ECF accepts proposals exclusively through official channels, in order to ensure full traceability from the very first contact between content and publisher.

• Spontaneous submissions (journal and series homepages): Each journal/series provides a submission form on its homepage.
• Submissions in response to a Call (Call for Papers/Projects): Calls are issued by the Scientific Director(s) through the dedicated procedure within ECFPeerflow (including call ID, deadlines, scope, requirements). Proposals must be submitted through the specific form linked to the Call, which inherits its metadata (deadlines, criteria, documentary requirements), ensuring registration, timestamping and full traceability.

• Acceptance: the contribution is considered publishable as it stands or with minor editorial corrections;
• Request for revision: the contribution is potentially publishable but requires substantial modifications. The author is therefore requested to submit a revised version, which may be re-examined by the same reviewers or by new reviewers, at editorial discretion;
• Rejection: the contribution is not considered publishable due to serious shortcomings or inadequacy with respect to the standards of the series/journal.

If the evaluations are divergent (e.g. one positive and one negative), the Scientific Director may decide to involve a third reviewer in order to obtain an additional opinion.
Responsibility for the final decision communicated to the author lies with the Scientific Director of the journal or series, having consulted the Scientific Board. It is possible for the editorial decision to diverge from the reviewers’ recommendations, even contradicting them (e.g. rejecting a contribution despite two favourable evaluations, or vice versa). In any case, the outcome is reasoned and accompanied by the transparent sharing of the reviewers’ reports. The ECF Editorial Office oversees this dynamic and, where appropriate, may report cases deserving verification to the Editorial Board.

The final decision is communicated through the platform, together with the evaluations received and any additional indications from the Scientific Director. In the case of a request for revision, the author accesses the comments and is invited to submit a revised version; where appropriate, this is followed by a new round of peer review focused on the modified sections. If the contribution is accepted (either directly, with two positive evaluations, or after submission of a second draft), it proceeds to the subsequent stages of editing and publication. Publication takes place only after all required scholarly and formal quality criteria have been met: for example, even if an article is accepted in terms of content, the Scientific Director of the journal or series may request further minor adjustments of style, bibliography or formatting in accordance with the editorial guidelines before considering it ready for publication.

1. Archiving and traceability: Once the peer review process is concluded, the ECFPeerflow platform digitally archives all related documentation: submission dates, (confidential) names of reviewers, original and revised texts, evaluation forms, and final decisions. This archive is accessible, in the relevant parts, to the users involved in the process (for example, authors can review their own peer review reports by accessing their profile, and reviewers can see their archived contributions). Permanent archiving ensures both retrospective transparency (ECF can document completed reviews, for instance in case of quality audits or ANVUR requests) and the historical memory of the internal editorial process, useful for statistical analyses of review times, monitoring review quality, etc.
2. Timelines: ECF is aware of the importance of efficient timelines in peer review. For this reason, it plans the review schedule in collaboration with the Scientific Committees, aiming to provide reviewers with adequate time to conduct a thorough evaluation without excessive delays. Generally, a journal article review is completed within a few weeks or months, depending on the journal’s publication frequency; monographs and edited volumes follow planned publication windows (for instance, ECF schedules four windows per year for the release of accepted volumes, coordinating peer review and production phases). ECF clearly communicates the expected timelines to authors and updates them in case of any extensions, in the spirit of transparency. Initiatives such as “Publication in Progress” for articles (which allows an accepted and formatted article to be published online without the author having to wait for the release of the issue to which it is assigned) demonstrate ECF’s commitment to completing the publication process promptly, as soon as the peer review has a positive outcome.



Management of Peer Review Timelines

Edizioni Ca’ Foscari defines peer review timelines clearly, realistically, and flexibly, in accordance with international practices and respecting the research and writing time of authors and reviewers.

General Guidelines

• Journal articles: reviewers are asked to complete the evaluation within 2-3 weeks from acceptance of the assignment.
• Monographs: the indicative time for evaluation is 4-6 weeks, due to the greater length of the texts.
• Edited books (chapters): the timelines are generally aligned with those of articles (2-3 weeks), but can be coordinated uniformly by the editor or the Scientific Direction.
• Autori/autrici: for submitting revised versions following requested modifications, the standard deadline is 10 days, unless otherwise specified with justification.

Nature of Deadlines

Deadlines are not binding or blocking: the ECFPeerflow platform still maintains access for reviewers beyond the deadlines, avoiding forced interruptions of the process. Deadlines serve as guidance and encouragement, with the objective of keeping the process within reasonable and predictable timeframes.

Management via Platform

The Scientific Directions set the deadline schedule in ECFPeerflow on a case-by-case basis, at the time of assigning the review or sending requests to the author.

• The platform sends automatic notifications (upon acceptance, near the deadline, in case of delay).
• The Directions can also send manual and personalized reminders to reviewers.
• Each deadline and any extension are recorded and tracked in the user profile, ensuring transparency.

Flexibility and Collaboration

ECF acknowledges that meeting deadlines depends on the academic and professional commitments of the individuals involved. Motivated extensions are therefore allowed, agreed upon between reviewers, authors, and the Scientific Direction via the platform. This approach balances the need for editorial efficiency with respect for the actual availability of the participants in the process.

3. Exceptions and special cases: In general, all scientific contributions published by ECF must undergo external peer review. Exceptions are only made for texts explicitly excluded (e.g., prefaces, introductions, bibliographic reviews, editorials), which, by academic convention, are not peer-reviewed as they belong to the genres of commentary or editorial curation. Furthermore, ECF allows deviations from the standard process in certain specific cases: for example, critical editions of sources, grammars, literary translations, conference proceedings, Festschriften, catalogues, or other ‘atypical’ publications may follow a different evaluation path (such as a single review instead of two, or the inclusion of an internal reviewer alongside an external one). Such exceptions must be approved by the ECF Editorial Committee on a case-by-case basis and communicated transparently. In no case, however, can an edited volume avoid the review of individual chapters: even in conference proceedings or commemorative volumes, each individual contribution must be evaluated separately. ECF excludes self-publishing: no volume or article is published without an independent external evaluation. This also applies to works by independent or unaffiliated authors: any self-funded publication (in exceptional cases) is only allowed after a positive peer review, ensuring that scientific rigor is never compromised.

• Review procedure: All research articles submitted to ECF journals must undergo double-blind peer review, without exceptions. This means that each article is assigned by the journal to two anonymous reviewers external to the Editorial Board. The identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the entire process, ensuring impartiality. Exceptions are made only for non-research sections of the journal, such as editorial notes, columns, or reviews, which may not require formal peer review. Each article is uploaded to the ECFPeerflow platform in anonymised form by the author and assigned by the Scientific Editor to the two selected reviewers. Reviewers then work in parallel and independently, completing the evaluation form on the platform and issuing their verdict (accept, revise, or reject).
• Editorial responsibilities: The Scientific Editor of the journal guarantees the process for each article. They assign reviewers through the platform, monitor compliance with review deadlines, and ensure that reviewers provide detailed and high-quality evaluations. If reviews lack sufficient detail, the Editor may request further input. Once the two reports are collected, the Editor formulates the final editorial decision, taking both evaluations and the journal’s policies into account. The decision is communicated to the author via the platform, with reviewers’ comments attached (anonymised). In cases of conflicting outcomes, a third reviewer may be involved to ensure certainty. The Editor is also responsible for ensuring that any revisions requested from the author are properly implemented.
• Specific variants: Accepted articles proceed to the editorial phase and are published in the scheduled issue (according to the journal’s periodicity, e.g., biannual). ECF also offers “in progress” early publication for ready articles, publishing them online as soon as they are edited rather than waiting for the complete issue, thus accelerating dissemination. To ensure quality, all ECF journals are monitored by the ECF Editorial Committee: while respecting the autonomy of individual Editorial Boards, ECF ensures that each journal correctly applies peer review according to declared standards. This is also important for the recognition of journals in ANVUR and internationally. Each published issue carries a “scientific certification” statement, usually indicating that all essays have received favourable reports from at least two external expert reviewers through double-blind peer review under the responsibility of the Scientific Editor.

• Review procedure: Academic monographs (e.g., specialised essays, scientific studies in a single volume) published by ECF undergo peer review following one of two approaches: double-blind or open peer review. In both cases, at least two reviewers external to the Editorial Board of the series in which the volume is proposed are appointed.
  The default double-blind method maintains mutual anonymity of authors and reviewers; the open method, instead, makes their identities known (in ECF, this means that reviewers are named in the published book and, in the near future, their evaluation forms may be made accessible online alongside the volume). The choice between double-blind and open review depends on the discipline and practices of the scientific community and is made by the Scientific Editor of the series, in agreement with the ECF Editorial Committee in the case of open review. In all cases, the aim is to ensure a rigorous assessment: even in open review, where identities are transparent, the same level of independent judgment is expected (reviewers must not have close collaborative relationships with the author).
  At Edizioni Ca’ Foscari, open peer review explicitly requires two cumulative conditions:

1. publication of reviewers’ names in the volume colophon;
2. full online publication of the evaluation reports produced by reviewers, accessible to the public.

Evaluations made available online are considered citable, identifiable outputs, with DOI and metadata, as they represent a form of qualified secondary literature. This approach highlights the intellectual work of reviewers, granting full visibility and recognition to their critical and reasoned contributions.

As stated, the choice between double-blind and open review rests with the Scientific Editor, in agreement with the ECF Editorial Committee. In open review, these conditions form an integral part of the peer review process, ensuring traceability, transparency, and public citability.

• Review process: For monographs, authors often submit an initial publication proposal (including an extended abstract, table of contents, author CV, etc.), which is evaluated by the Series Editor and the ECF Editorial Committee before the full peer review begins. If the proposal is accepted, the author submits the complete manuscript, which is sent to external reviewers similarly to journal articles. Reviewers evaluate the monograph in its entirety (unlike anthologies, where chapters are assessed individually) and complete an extended peer review form, often more detailed given the length of the text. Multiple rounds of revision may be required: monographs benefit from iterative feedback, with reviewers checking subsequent versions if the initial submission required changes. Each monograph must receive two favourable reports to proceed toward publication; otherwise (two rejections or very negative evaluations) it is either rejected or, if possible, subjected to a major revision and reassessment.
• Final decision and approval: Once peer review is completed, the Series Editor examines the reviewers’ reports. If both reviewers recommend publication (possibly after corrections), the monograph is approved for publication, subject to completion of requested revisions. If issues remain, the Series Editor may decide on further review (e.g., involving a third expert) or, in serious cases, reject the monograph. The final decision is communicated to the author via the platform. It is important to note that, beyond scientific judgment, ECF checks compliance with its editorial standards: a content-approved monograph must still pass professional editorial stages, during which the ECF Editorial Office verifies language, style, apparatus (notes, bibliography), and layout, ensuring a high-quality final product. Only at the conclusion of this integrated process – scientific peer review plus editorial work – is the book considered ready for publication.
• Exceptions for monographs: Some types of monographs (source editions, catalogues, etc.) may follow slightly different evaluation procedures. For example, highly specialised critical editions may involve a reading committee instead of two individual reviewers, or a single in-depth review may be accepted if finding two independent reviewers is difficult. ECF allows such variants only in justified circumstances and with the approval of its Committee. In no case does ECF publish monographs without external evaluation: the publisher does not accept “camera-ready” manuscripts submitted by authors without intervention, but always subjects texts to editorial work and peer review (self-publishing is not practiced). This policy ensures that every book published by ECF receives a “scientific certification” meeting academic standards.

• Characteristics of edited volumes: Edited volumes consist of multiple contributions by different authors, collected into a single work under the supervision of one or more editors. Typical examples include conference proceedings, thematic volumes with essays by various scholars, Festschriften (books in honour of colleagues), and similar works. Given the heterogeneous nature of these volumes, peer review must ensure the quality of each chapter individually, not only the volume as a whole. Therefore, Edizioni Ca’ Foscari requires that each individual contribution in an edited volume undergoes separate and independent peer review. It is not acceptable, for instance, for an entire volume to be approved based on a single global evaluation or solely on the editor’s judgment: each essay must be assessed by expert reviewers.
• Review procedure: Similar to monographs, both double-blind and open peer review are allowed for individual chapters in edited volumes. The choice often depends on the discipline and the preferences of the editor(s) and the contributing authors. In both cases, each contribution must receive at least two evaluations from reviewers external to the Scientific Editor and the Editorial Board of the series in which the volume will be published. In practice, the volume editor, in agreement with the Scientific Editor, proposes a pool of reviewers for each chapter (avoiding conflicts of interest: for example, one author cannot review another contribution in the same volume). Reviewers work in parallel, each on the chapter assigned to them. In some cases—particularly in conference proceedings—all contributions may undergo review simultaneously to provide a coherent overview; in other cases, chapters are reviewed individually as authors submit them. Reviewers complete individual evaluation forms, exactly as for journal articles, recommending acceptance, revision, or rejection for the chapter reviewed. If an editor contributes a chapter to the volume, the peer review of that contribution will not be managed by the same editor. Instead, it will be handled directly by the Scientific Editor, and within the ECFPeerflow platform, the editor’s own contribution will not be visible or accessible to them within the volume, ensuring maximum impartiality and transparency.
• Role of editors and outcomes: Volume editors play an active role in the process: they are responsible for collecting manuscripts from the various authors, ensuring they are anonymised for peer review, selecting (in agreement with the Scientific Editor) appropriate reviewers for each contribution, and integrating the various parts of the volume. After peer review, editors receive the individual chapter evaluations via the platform and forward them to the respective authors so that requested revisions can be made. Some chapters may receive a negative outcome (rejection); in such cases, that contribution will not be published in the volume unless the author fully revises it and submits it for a new round of review with a positive outcome. The final decision on the entire volume is therefore made once all chapters have successfully passed their respective peer review. The Scientific Editor of the series reviews all evaluations before giving approval for publication. As a rule, an edited volume is published only if all accepted contributions meet the standards; if the removal of one or more chapters undermines the coherence or value of the volume, the work may not be published in that form.
• Transparency for edited volumes: In ECF-published collective volumes, it is normally stated on the credits page or in the preface that contributions underwent external anonymous (or open, where applicable) peer review. In open peer review, the names of reviewers for each chapter may be indicated in the volume for transparency and recognition. The same ethical rules apply as in other publications: editors must not unduly influence reviewers (who operate independently), nor reveal reviewers’ identities to authors (in double-blind cases). Editors act as intermediaries between reviewers and authors, similarly to the role of the Scientific Editor in journals: they collect the reviews and ensure that authors address the requested revisions. As with other publications, the ECFPeerflow platform is used to manage the entire workflow, guaranteeing the archiving of communications and evaluations for each individual chapter.

In summary, despite their specific characteristics, all ECF publications (articles, books, chapters) follow a peer review process that ensures independent evaluation by external experts, anonymity (unless open review is explicitly chosen), multiple judgments (at least two), and rigorous editorial oversight. This structured system guarantees impartiality, transparency, and quality from the initial draft to the final published work.

• Impartiality and management of conflicts: Scientific Editors must ensure that the selection of reviewers and decisions regarding publication are based solely on scholarly merit, without personal favouritism. They are required to avoid and declare conflicts of interest: for example, a member of the Editorial leadership must not manage the peer review of their own contribution or of contributions by relatives or individuals with whom they have ongoing professional or collaborative relationships, but must delegate such duties to another member of the Editorial leadership or to an independent external substitute. As an internal rule, it is discouraged for members of the Editorial leadership or Scientific Committee to author contributions in their own series or journal; any exceptions must be transparently reported and justified to ECF. Operationally, this means that within the ECFPeerflow platform, members of the Scientific Editor team exclude themselves as potential reviewers and refrain from taking decisions where they have direct involvement, assigning the case to a colleague. The Scientific Editor also selects qualified external reviewers, ensuring the impartiality of the evaluation (reviewers should not belong to the journal’s or series’ Scientific or Editorial Committees, nor, where possible, to the same institution as the author).
• Responsibility for the process and compliance with deadlines: The Scientific Editor directs the peer review workflow: through the platform, they assign manuscripts to designated reviewers, set deadlines, and monitor the progress of each review. It is the Scientific Editor’s responsibility to send reminders to reviewers in case of delays, replace a reviewer who becomes non-compliant, and ensure that the entire process proceeds within a reasonable timeframe. More generally, the Scientific Editor plans, together with the ECF Editorial Office, a realistic review schedule, allowing sufficient time for reviewers while maintaining a commitment to authors to provide feedback within acceptable deadlines. On the platform, the Scientific Editor can at any time check the status (pending, ongoing, completed) of reviews and send communications to reviewers via the appropriate function, keeping a written record of each reminder.
• Ensuring the quality of reviews: Scientific Editors have the duty to assess the quality of the reports submitted by reviewers. If a peer review form is excessively brief or lacks comments or justification, it must not be passively accepted: rather, ECF recommends that the reviewer be contacted courteously and asked to provide more detailed feedback. The ECFPeerflow platform allows the form to be returned to the reviewer for completion. This reflects ECF’s commitment to constructive peer review: the Scientific Editor collaborates with reviewers to ensure that feedback to authors is complete and useful. Moreover, if significant discrepancies emerge between two reviews, the Scientific Editor is responsible for investigating further: they may consult the reviewers to understand the reasons for disagreement, or decide to involve an independent third reviewer to obtain an additional assessment. In all cases, editorial decisions are motivated on the basis of the expert opinions received, and when communicating the outcome to the author, the Scientific Editor summarises the reasons and provides the anonymised reports.
• Editorial discretion and reasoned decisions: The Scientific Editor must base the editorial decision on the reviewers’ assessments but may, in exceptional and duly justified cases, depart from them, either favourably or unfavourably. This means that a contribution may be accepted despite one or more negative evaluations (for example, where critical observations can be addressed and the work appears promising), or rejected despite favourable evaluations (for example, in the presence of unresolved doubts, serious methodological inconsistencies, or ethical concerns).
  In all cases, ECF guarantees full transparency: the author receives the complete reviewers’ reports as well as an explicit communication of the Scientific Editor’s decision, clearly stating whether and why it aligns with or diverges from the assessments received. This principle safeguards the integrity of the process and strengthens the trust of authors, reviewers, and readers in the ECF selection system.
• Delegated actions and technical impersonation: Within the editorial process managed through the ECFPeerflow platform, it may become necessary – in specific and documented cases – for authorised persons to carry out certain operations on behalf of an author or reviewer when the latter are unable to do so independently for technical, operational, or personal reasons (e.g., access difficulties, explicit request from the person concerned, prolonged inactivity, urgency in meeting editorial deadlines).
  The roles authorised to exercise this technical impersonation function are:
  • the Scientific Editor, within their own journal or series;
  • the Admin (ECF Editorial Office), for all journals and series.

  Impersonation consists of temporarily accessing the platform interface as if one were the user concerned, in order to:

  • insert a requested comment or upload not yet completed;
  • formally transmit a review already provided by email;
  • complete an interrupted procedural step;
  • close one stage in order to initiate the next in compliance with the schedule.

  This procedure is not notified in real time to the impersonated user, but it is always recorded in the system and traceable afterwards: any author or reviewer may verify it by accessing their personal profile on the platform. Traceability ensures that no operation is carried out covertly or arbitrarily.
  ECF considers this function a facilitative editorial service, intended exclusively to unblock the process transparently, in accordance with the principles of timeliness, traceability, and fairness.

In summary, Scientific Editors and members of the Scientific Committees are required to operate with professionalism, independence, and responsibility. Their task is to manage the peer review process in such a way that every decision results from a fair and documented procedure. In doing so, they guarantee the scholarly credibility of ECF publications and foster the trust of authors and readers in the integrity of the review system.

• Compliance with submission guidelines: The author must prepare the manuscript in strict accordance with the editorial guidelines provided by ECF (editorial rules, formatting, citations, etc.) and, in particular, must ensure that an anonymised version of the text is uploaded to the platform. Any reference that may reveal identity (name in the heading, acknowledgements, autobiographical references in the first person, file metadata or file properties containing information about the author) must be removed prior to submission. This also includes the removal of recognisable self-citations (“As I discussed in my previous work…”) or their replacement with neutral formulations (e.g. “Smith (2022) has demonstrated…”). Editors of edited volumes are required to ensure that all chapters submitted by contributors are similarly anonymised before being forwarded for peer review. Failure to remove identifying information compromises double-blind review and must therefore be carefully avoided.
• Originality, accuracy and scholarly integrity: Authors must submit original works resulting from their own scholarly effort and must fully comply with ethical rules of research and publication. This entails: (a) no plagiarism or self-plagiarism – all sources must be properly cited; (b) data and results must be reported accurately and honestly, without fabrication or manipulation; (c) any conflicts of interest (funding, affiliations relevant to the work, etc.) must be declared at the time of submission; (d) simultaneous submission of the same contribution to ECF and to another publisher is not permitted (no dual submission): the author undertakes to publish with ECF in the event of a positive peer review outcome, unless the contribution is formally withdrawn beforehand. Editors, for their part, guarantee that the contributions included in their volumes are unpublished and not under consideration elsewhere, and that all authors have agreed to submit them to the ECF process.
• Collaboration and communication during the process: Once peer review has begun, authors are required to cooperate actively with ECF. In practical terms, they must respond promptly to editorial communications: acknowledge receipt of decisions, comply with deadlines assigned for revisions, and submit revised versions within the indicated timeframe. If, for any reason, an author requires additional time to implement changes (e.g. to conduct further analyses requested by reviewers), this must be communicated promptly to the Scientific Editor, providing reasons for the requested extension. Maintaining clear and respectful communication with the Scientific Editor is essential. Similarly, editors of volumes act as intermediaries between the ECF Editorial Office and the various authors: they are required to promptly forward reviewer feedback on the respective chapters, coordinate the collection of revised versions, and ensure that each author implements the requested changes. They must also consolidate the final volume by integrating any modifications (for example, updating the introduction if certain chapters are revised or removed following peer review).
• Acceptance of the process and of criticism: Authors are required to accept that their work will be critically evaluated. They should therefore adopt an open and balanced attitude towards reviewers’ comments, without perceiving them as personal criticism, and use them as constructive guidance to improve the submitted contribution. Even if the final outcome is negative, the author should acknowledge it professionally. It is important to respond to all issues raised by reviewers during the revision phase: where requested, the author should prepare a response letter listing in detail the changes made or providing reasoned explanations for points not addressed (the letter will be uploaded to the platform together with the revised version, facilitating verification by reviewers). A collaborative and proactive attitude increases the likelihood of successful publication. Under no circumstances should the author attempt to influence the process: contacting reviewers (if their identity has been inferred despite anonymity) is strictly prohibited, as is exerting improper “pressure” on the Scientific Editor outside the official and legitimate channels of communication. All interactions must take place transparently through the platform or via the Editorial Office.
• Responsible use of Artificial Intelligence: Edizioni Ca’ Foscari requires authors to comply with its AI Policy concerning the use of Artificial Intelligence tools in the preparation of contributions. In particular, any use of AI that may call into question the intellectual authorship, integrity, or originality of the work is prohibited. This means that an author must not submit texts generated, wholly or partially, by ChatGPT or similar tools as if they were original work. If AI tools are used for limited purposes (e.g. grammar correction, automatic translation of a draft, or preliminary textual analysis), the author must retain full control, verify every suggestion, and above all ensure that no unverified AI-generated content remains in the final text. Every datum, statement, or source must be personally checked by the author; any errors introduced by an AI system remain the author’s responsibility. AI may not in any case be credited as a co-author (as it has no legal status or accountability), and authors must not attribute creativity or scholarly judgment to a machine. For example, if an author uses an algorithm to generate images, text, or summaries subsequently included in the article, this must be declared in the notes or acknowledgements, in line with COPE recommendations on transparent AI use. At present, ECF’s orientation in the humanities and social sciences is to strongly limit the use of generative AI: writing and argumentation must result from the author’s own critical and personal elaboration, not from an “artificial” author. During peer review, reviewers or the Scientific Editor who identify AI-generated text are entitled to report it, with the consequences this may entail for acceptance or rejection. Authors are therefore urged not to use ChatGPT (or similar tools) to draft parts of their contribution, to summarise others’ works without direct reading, or to compile bibliographies (which, when generated by AI, often contain non-existent works).
  By contrast, the use of spelling or grammar-checking software is permitted and even encouraged, provided it is used correctly and responsibly. Editors of edited volumes must adhere to the same principles: they should not use AI to write introductions or linking chapters without disclosure, nor to translate contributions into another language without human supervision. Moreover, editors must not use automated systems to “review” chapters in place of reviewers: all evaluations must be carried out by expert human beings. In short, the indispensable rules regarding AI tools are transparency of conduct by all parties involved and the primacy of human intellect: AI may serve as a technical aid, but never as a substitute for the intellectual and critical work required of authors and editors.
• Fairness and respect in responses: If an author disagrees with certain reviewer comments, they may provide reasoned replies in the response letter, explaining why a particular suggestion was not followed. Divergences of opinion are legitimate, provided they are expressed in a reasoned and non-confrontational manner. Defensive or polemical attitudes should be avoided: if a reviewer’s comment appears unjust or based on a misunderstanding, the author may clarify the point with evidence and references, maintaining a professional tone. Editors, when managing others’ contributions, must monitor the responses of all authors in the volume, ensuring that each respects standards of courtesy and academic propriety in replying to reviewers. Under no circumstances should reviewers be contacted directly: dialogue must always be mediated by the Scientific Editor.
• Compliance after acceptance: Once peer review has been successfully completed and acceptance granted, authors and editors must still fulfil certain final tasks. They must, for example, review the editorial proofs provided by ECF in order to correct any remaining typographical errors and approve editorial changes. Even at this post-review stage, substantial modifications should not be introduced: new claims or additional paragraphs – on which reviewers have not had the opportunity to comment – should not be added without consulting the Scientific Editor. Any significant post-peer review addition may require further verification; it is therefore advisable to limit changes to formal refinements. Editors of edited volumes must also ensure that, following revisions, all chapters are coherent with one another (e.g. consistency of bibliographic style and terminology, avoidance of duplication across contributions) and must inform the Scientific Editor of any changes in chapter order resulting from exclusions or additions. Finally, authors and editors are required to comply with publication agreements: sign the publishing contract, confirm the agreed Open Access licence (at ECF typically CC BY 4.0, in accordance with the publisher’s Open Access statement), and observe the self-archiving policies in institutional repositories as indicated by ECF.

• Acceptance of the assignment and competence: When invited via ECFPeerflow to review a manuscript, potential reviewers should objectively assess whether they possess appropriate subject expertise and whether they can complete the review within the requested timeframe. If they consider themselves insufficiently qualified on the specific topic, or unable to dedicate the necessary time for a thorough review by the indicated deadline, they must promptly decline the invitation, preferably suggesting (if known) another suitably qualified scholar. Accepting a review without adequate competence is contrary to professional ethics and may compromise the process. Reviewers must also immediately declare any potential conflict of interest. For example, if they recognise the author (despite anonymisation) as a close colleague, former student, or previous co-author, or if they have financial or professional interests related to the results of the work. In such cases, they should decline the assignment or, if they believe the relationship does not impair their objectivity, inform the Scientific Editor, who will decide whether to reassign the review. Transparency at this initial stage is essential to safeguard impartiality.
• Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat the manuscript as a confidential document. It must not be shared with colleagues, students, or collaborators without explicit authorisation from the Scientific Editor. If a reviewer wishes to consult a colleague on a specific technical aspect, prior authorisation must be obtained, and the consulted individual must also observe strict confidentiality. Information acquired through the review must not be used for personal advantage or for the reviewer’s own research prior to publication. Unpublished data must not be disclosed or appropriated. In double-blind review, reviewers must take care not to reveal their identity inadvertently (for example, by inserting their name in comments, referring to their own work in a way that reveals authorship, or leaving identifying metadata in attached files). In open review, although identities are disclosed, the obligation of confidentiality regarding the manuscript remains fully in force.
• Objectivity and fairness: Reviews must be conducted objectively, based on scholarly criteria rather than personal opinion. Criticism should address the content – methodology, soundness of argumentation, relevance of references – not the author as a person. Offensive, sarcastic, or derogatory comments are unacceptable. Reviewers are required to maintain a professional and respectful tone, especially when identifying significant weaknesses. Critical observations must be substantiated. Rather than stating that a work is “confused” or “unoriginal”, reviewers should explain which sections lack clarity or why the results add limited value, ideally suggesting improvements. Bias related to gender, nationality, academic position, or other irrelevant characteristics must be avoided. Reviewers should not reject work merely because conclusions differ from their own views, provided they are supported by evidence, nor should they be unduly lenient due to an author’s reputation. Impartiality is fundamental.
• Completeness and clarity of the report: The reviewer is required to provide a complete, structured, and clear report through the ECFPeerflow platform. Typically, the form requests a summary judgement (score or recommendation) and comments. In the comments, the reviewer should cover all relevant aspects: merits and strengths of the work, any weaknesses (e.g. methodology not sufficiently robust, superficial analyses, gaps in the bibliography, factual errors), and suggestions for improvement (e.g. “expand section X”, “add a comparison with theory Y”, “correct figure Z because…”). The comments should be sufficiently specific to enable the author to intervene: for example, if there is an unclear passage, indicate which section or page is being referred to; if important references are missing, it would be useful to cite one or two; if there are errors in the use of language, the reviewer may provide some useful suggestions for correction or improvement without, however, having to correct every single typo (the reviewer is not a proofreader, but indicating general language issues falls within their role as evaluator). It is the moral obligation of the reviewer to substantiate their evaluations: especially in the case of rejection or a request for substantial revisions, they must articulate the reasons in detail (for example: “although the study addresses an interesting topic, it presents serious methodological problems: the sample is small, there is no control group, and the statistical analysis is not appropriate, as detailed below…”). ECF strongly discourages telegraphic reviews or reviews without comments, as they do not assist either the Scientific Board or the author. If, for any reason, a reviewer finds themselves unable to provide an adequate report, it is preferable to decline the assignment rather than submit a hasty judgement. The ECFPeerflow system also tracks reviewer activity: regularly submitting quality reports is essential in order to maintain a relationship of trust with the publisher and the scholarly community.
• Timeliness: Reviewers should respect the agreed deadlines for the review. If they accept the assignment, they undertake to submit their evaluation within the established timeframe (cf. above). In the event of unforeseen impediments or unavoidable delays, the reviewer must inform the Scientific Editor as soon as possible, who may decide whether to grant an extension or reassign the work. It is essential not to allow deadlines to lapse without communication, as this slows down the process and disadvantages authors awaiting a decision. ECF values punctuality and reliability in the delivery of reports and records such parameters; a reviewer who systematically delays without justification may no longer be involved in the future. On the other hand, ECFPeerflow sends automatic reminders before deadlines and ECF adopts an understanding and collaborative approach towards justified extension requests; reviewers are therefore encouraged to maintain an open dialogue with the Scientific Editor also regarding timelines.
• Thoroughness and verification: A reviewer who accepts the assignment undertakes to read the contribution with the utmost care, even more than once if necessary, verifying the robustness of data and arguments. If the contribution includes empirical data, the reviewer should check that the analyses are correct (e.g. whether the statistics are sound, whether the graphs correspond to the figures in the text); if it includes theoretical demonstrations or translations of texts, the reviewer with specific expertise should examine them on their merits. It is permissible (indeed advisable) for the reviewer to verify the bibliographical sources cited, at least the principal ones: for example, to check that a citation is appropriate and correctly reported, or that no fundamental studies on the topic have been ignored by the author. The reviewer may also use anti-plagiarism tools or databases to ensure that the author has not copied parts from other works (these checks are often systematically carried out by the publisher, but if the reviewer notices suspicious similarities with known works, this must be reported). Should the reviewer identify substantial errors (inconsistent data, incorrect calculations, incomplete bibliography), these must be clearly highlighted in the comments. If, during the reading, the reviewer realises that they are excessively influenced by their own ideas and opinions (e.g. they hold a strongly divergent view on a key theory presented in the work) and are therefore unable to maintain a neutral approach, they should inform the Scientific Editor for the appropriate decisions regarding the continuation of the process.
• Prohibition of delegation to third parties (human or AI): The review assignment is strictly personal. The reviewer must not delegate the drafting of the report to an assistant, collaborator, colleague or even a student without the explicit consent of the publisher. Above all, as already mentioned, the use of generative Artificial Intelligence tools to draft (or have drafted) the review is not permitted. Entering the abstract or the entire text into ChatGPT (or similar systems) and asking it to evaluate it would constitute a serious breach both of confidentiality (as a confidential document would effectively be shared with an unauthorised external service) and of professional ethics, since the judgment must derive from human experience and critical analysis. ECF is very clear on this point: the reviewer may not delegate their critical work to an AI. Beyond ethical risks, it should be considered that, at the current state of technology, an AI system may provide a superficial and sometimes erroneous summary of the contribution. If a reviewer wishes to use software tools for legitimate purposes – for example a programme to check textual similarities between texts (plagiarism or self-plagiarism) or to translate from English a brief excerpt of the paper in order to better understand its content – they may do so, but always with caution and active intervention. In general, however, the review must be the result of the reviewer’s personal work: ECF relies on human expertise and the use of AI to make the activity faster or easier is contrary to its policy. Reviewers who submit reports manifestly generated by AI (generic, imprecise language, possibly indicating errors not present in the evaluated text) will be excluded from the process and, if necessary, reported to the academic bodies of the institution with which they are affiliated.
• Constructive feedback and collaborative tone: In line with the principle of supporting improvement, reviewers are asked to formulate their comments in such a way as to help the author understand exactly what needs to be improved and, where possible, how. Even in the case of a negative judgment, the reviewer should provide indications that may be useful to the author for the future (e.g. “this study does not meet the requirements for X reasons… A more effective approach might be…”, or “the manuscript lacks a solid theoretical framework; I suggest reading Rossi 2020, which addresses the topic in greater depth”). A polite and constructive tone is not only ethically appropriate, but also increases the likelihood that observations will be accepted and implemented by the author in the subsequent revision of the contribution. If the reviewer identifies significant shortcomings but considers the basic idea to be valid, they should state so (“the work has potential, but needs extensive revision in A, B, C”). Conversely, if they consider the work unacceptable and not capable of improvement, they must recommend rejection and clearly explain the reasons. ECF values the work of reviewers who devote time and effort to writing detailed reviews: Scientific Editors often publicly thank reviewers in journals or volumes (in the case of open review, mentioning them by name). Reviewers are required to act with a sense of responsibility: by accepting the assignment, they actively contribute to the advancement of knowledge and to the quality of scholarly literature, in a spirit of academic collegiality.
• Follow-up and availability: After submitting the review, the reviewer may be called upon for a follow-up. For example, if the author submits a revised version, the Scientific Editor may ask the same reviewer to evaluate it again. In such a case, it is desirable that the reviewer be available for this second reading, for the sake of consistency and in order to make use of the familiarity and knowledge already acquired. The reviewer will examine the author’s response (if any letter has been provided) and the changes made, verifying whether their comments have been adequately addressed. If so, they should give a favourable opinion; if not, they will indicate what they still consider to require improvement. Moreover, if requested by the Scientific Editor, the reviewer may clarify certain points of their initial judgment (via the platform or by email mediated by the Scientific Editor) – for example, the Scientific Editor might ask: “could you elaborate on your criticism of the methodology? The author states that it has been revised as requested; do you agree that it is now adequate?”. Proper and timely communication between the Scientific Editor and the reviewer at this stage is important. The reviewer should not consider their assignment concluded upon submission of the first report, but should remain available to review the revised version of the contribution if necessary and compatible with their commitments. If the reviewer is unable to evaluate the contribution again for unforeseen reasons, they should immediately inform the Scientific Editor so that suitable alternatives (e.g. assignment to a new reviewer) can be promptly identified.
• Compliance with the platform and procedures: Operationally, reviewers are required to use the ECFPeerflow platform for all required actions: confirming or declining the assignment, downloading the contribution, entering their comments and final recommendation in the designated fields, and submitting the review form. The platform is designed to safeguard anonymity and to preserve information in an orderly manner; it is therefore important that reviewers strictly respect the process and operate within the system (for example, they should not send the review by private email to the Scientific Editor, as this would compromise traceability and could reveal their identity). If they experience technical difficulties with the platform, they may contact support (ecf_support@unive.it) or the Scientific Editor, and subsequently enter the contents into the system once the issue has been resolved. In addition, they should ensure that any additional files are uploaded to the platform where appropriate (for example, some reviewers prefer to insert notes and comments directly on the PDF of the contribution; this practice is permitted provided that the PDF is uploaded to the platform as a supplementary file intended for the author). Ultimately, compliance with ECF’s digital procedures ensures a regular and secure workflow: reviewers are required to familiarise themselves with the interface (which is designed to be intuitive) and to follow the instructions provided.

• editorial publications in PDF and HTML format (books, articles, proceedings, journals);
• the public website edizionicafoscari.unive.it;
• the peer review platform (restricted access);
• special digital projects (e.g., digital scholarly editions in EVT (Edition Visualization Technology)).

The following are excluded from the obligation to comply with the regulations:

• publications released before June 28, 2025;
• elements or sections that are purely decorative or non-essential for the use of the content;
• third-party content that cannot be modified by ECF;
• prototypes, testing environments, or non-public archives.

For excluded content, where possible, an alternative and equivalent solution, accessible upon request, is nonetheless guaranteed.

3. Accessibility Status of PDF and HTML Content

All PDFs published from July 2025 onwards follow an internally certified workflow validated through:

• Adobe Acrobat Pro (Full Check);
• PAC (PDF Accessibility Checker) 2024;
• Manual verification with screen readers (NVDA (NonVisual Desktop Access), VoiceOver).

PDFs are equipped with:

• compliant tag structure (headings, paragraphs, lists, tables, footnotes, etc.), according to the PDF/UA – ISO 14289-1:2014 standard (PDF/Universal Accessibility);
• complete metadata (language, title, author, keywords, etc.);
• alt-text for all content-related images;
• color contrast compliant with WCAG 2.1 AA (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines);
• logical and verified reading order;
• PDF/UA identifier in metadata;
• visible statement on the web page;
• navigable table of contents according to a hierarchy of semantically structured headings and subheadings.

Any residual reports from automatic validators have been analyzed and, if deemed non-impactful on usability, documented with technical justification.

Accessibility is not planned for PDFs published before 2025, but an HTML version is guaranteed for them, accessible upon request. We believe this choice represents a reasonable compromise between operational sustainability and real impact on user experience. We remain available to evaluate the implementation of more efficient tools, provided this can be achieved in a (also economically) sustainable manner.

In addition to the PDF, Edizioni Ca’ Foscari produces an accessible HTML version for every publication, available within variable timeframes relative to the PDF release. The HTML version:

• is fully navigable by keyboard and screen reader;
• follows a semantic structure compliant with WCAG 2.1 AA (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines), as adopted by ISO/IEC 40500:2012;
• contains alternative text for content images and extended descriptions. According to regulations and reference standards, accessibility obligations apply exclusively to information and functionalities considered salient or essential for use. Purely decorative or accessory elements (e.g., non-informative graphic elements, visual redundancies, aesthetic effects) may be omitted from the accessibility path, provided they are properly declared and ignored by assistive technologies where necessary;
• is responsive and optimized for mobile devices and assistive technology;
• compensates for the rigidities of the PDF format (e.g., zoom, reflowability, content linearization, fast navigation);
• is produced through the same integrated editorial workflow that generates the PDFs, thus ensuring consistency and quality between the two versions.

This complementarity between PDF/UA and accessible HTML represents one of ECF’s core editorial choices in response to the EAA: these are not simple conversions, but two coordinated interfaces, each designed to best meet different access and usage needs. Where permitted by the requirements of maintaining the current typographic form of the content, Edizioni Ca’ Foscari reserves the right to also produce an EPUB (Electronic Publication) version, upon justified request and after verifying compatibility with the type of work distributed.

4. Publisher’s Website and Digital Interfaces

The website www.edizionicafoscari.unive.it underwent extensive review and updates during 2025, with particular attention to the following aspects:

• structure compliant with WCAG 2.1 AA;
• navigability by keyboard and screen reader (tested with NVDA and VoiceOver);
• alternative texts for images;
• high-contrast colors and text readability;
• clear and consistent navigation elements (menus, breadcrumbs);
• semantic code structure (headings, landmarks, ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) regions, roles, labels);
• optimization for mobile devices (responsive design);
• progressive loading and lightweight DOM;
• facilitated access to all publications;
• contact form for reporting inaccessibility issues.

Further improvements are underway based on Lighthouse test results (averaging 85%) and feedback collected from users with visual impairments.

Backend platforms (peer review, metadata management, production) are being updated to meet EAA requirements by June 2026. Restricted access interfaces used by researchers, reviewers, and editors have been mapped and prioritized according to their relevance and criticality.

Future adjustments will also integrate machine-readable accessibility statements in accordance with the WAI/W3C Accessibility Statement model.

5. Future Commitments and Continuous Improvement

In the medium term, ECF plans to:

• complete the adaptation of the PeerFlow platform by 2026;
• extend the accessible HTML format to open access books (in addition to articles);
• release, for each digital edition in EVT, an alternative accessible HTML version, reorganized sequentially and without dynamic synoptic comparison features;
• establish a working group with blind and visually impaired users for qualitative assessments;
• document the process in a machine-readable format according to international best practices.

ECF also maintains strong attention to continuous training of editorial staff and collaborators, making familiarity with PDF/UA and WCAG standards mandatory.

6. Compliance with U.S. Legislation (ADA) and International Standards

Edizioni Ca’ Foscari – Venice University Press, as an open access publisher active at European and global level, considers it essential to extend its commitment to accessibility beyond what is strictly required under the European Union regulatory framework (European Accessibility Act – EAA), integrating compliance with the requirements and best practices provided by the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) and related technical references in the United States into its practices.

In particular, ECF voluntarily promotes a “global compliance” approach towards the following regulations and standards:

• Americans with Disabilities Act, in its section relating to digital services and accessible electronic communication;
• Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (USA), which specifies accessibility requirements for electronic and IT content in public institutions;
• WCAG 2.1/2.2 as a cross-cutting technical standard recognized in both Europe and the United States;
• EPUB Accessibility Guidelines 1.1 and ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications).

Compared to the work already carried out for the EAA, ADA/508 alignment requires greater attention in several complementary areas:

• an accessibility statement in English compliant with WCAG–Section 508 guidelines (currently in preparation);
• inclusion of more detailed ARIA attributes in HTML versions of publications, with particular attention to roles, labels, and explicit landmarks;
• verification of EPUB accessibility for readers compatible with DAISY or North American screen readers (JAWS, NVDA, VoiceOver);
• preparation of VPAT (Voluntary Product Accessibility Template) upon request from U.S. institutions or international libraries;
• ensuring compatibility with assistive technology widely used in the USA, including mobile devices with TalkBack (Android) and iOS.

As members of the Open Book Collective and active partners in DOAB and OAPEN, we consider it crucial to provide multi-level accessibility guarantees, responding to standards applied in other jurisdictions and to general ethical expectations regarding equity in access to knowledge. Our objective is to:

• be considered compliant in both the European (EAA) and international (ADA, Section 508) contexts;
• provide accessible content to North American libraries, universities, and users;
• ensure an adequate and documented level of transparency regarding applicable standards;
• contribute to the definition and promotion of best practices in open access publishing.

This attention and commitment will be explicitly stated in the 2025 Accessibility Statement in English and will be made visible on our website.

7. Technological Exceptions: the Case of EVT

For some native digital publications, Edizioni Ca’ Foscari uses Edition Visualization Technology (EVT), an open-source viewer developed for scholarly critical editions. EVT allows dynamic synchronization and comparison between the main text, variants, commentary, critical apparatus, translations, and images. However, at present, assistive technologies are unable to correctly interpret EVT’s dynamic structure and synoptic interface, making the experience insufficiently accessible for users with visual impairments.

Since ECF considers EVT an essential tool for specific research fields (philology, textual history, complex editions), and pending its evolution towards solutions compliant with accessibility standards, each EVT publication is accompanied by an accessible sequential HTML version presenting the main content reorganized linearly. This version is produced internally and made available upon request or via a link on the project page.

8. Approach and Openness to Dialogue

All adaptation processes have been carried out internally by ECF, thanks to its natively digital publishing infrastructure and independence from third-party intervention. This has ensured greater flexibility, direct control over individual processes and systems, and the ability to intervene across the entire workflow (text production, metadata, exports, interfaces).

We are aware that digital accessibility is an evolving objective whose full achievement requires constant procedural updates. In light of this, ECF welcomes and encourages reports, suggestions, or remarks from competent authorities, persons with disabilities, sector associations, academic partners, and colleagues in the open access publishing community. Our commitment is ongoing and transparent, and we hope this statement may serve as a useful tool for fostering dialogue and collaboration among operators and stakeholders.

9. Complaints, Reporting and Collaboration

We invite users to report any issues or suggestions by writing to: ecf_support@unive.it We will evaluate every report with care and responsibility, even if not arising from a formal obligation. We consider user feedback a valuable resource and an opportunity for learning.

10. Certification and Validation

We are aware that there is currently no single official body for EAA certification. However, ECF is evaluating forms of “bottom-up” validation with: recognized organizations for visual disability (e.g., UICI); experts recognized at European level (e.g., IAAP); automatic validators and multiple screen readers; participation in professional accessibility communities.

Any formal certifications (e.g., IAAP, WCAG compliance) will be considered if and only if they are compatible with the University Press’s open access mission, proportionate in terms of cost–benefit balance, and genuinely effective for users.

11. Conclusions

This statement expresses the intention of Edizioni Ca’ Foscari to be fully compliant with the spirit and objectives of the EAA. For us, accessibility is a publishing practice, not merely a regulatory requirement. We will continue investing in technological autonomy, native semantic structuring, process control, and collaboration with communities.

We are convinced that accessibility is not a technical endpoint but a cultural process. In this spirit, we remain open to relevant observations, external contributions, and constructive collaborations.

References and Technical Documentation

• Directive (EU) 2019/882 – European Accessibility Act
• Legislative Decree May 27, 2022, n. 22 (EAA transposition in Italy)
• WCAG 2.1 AA – Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (W3C/WAI)
• ISO/IEC 40500:2012 – WCAG Technical Standard
• ISO 14289-1:2014 – PDF/UA (Universal Accessibility)
• PDF Accessibility Checker (PAC) – 2024 version
• Adobe Acrobat Pro – Full Check tools
• Screen readers used: NVDA (NonVisual Desktop Access), VoiceOver (macOS)
• Lighthouse – web performance and accessibility tests

Contacts

For information, reports, or requests for accessible content: