GUIDELINES FOR AUDITORS

The MISCELLANEA INGV journal stands out for its wide variety of publications , designed to cover a broad spectrum of content. Precisely because of this flexibility, there are two distinct publication types , each with its own review process.

Publication Types and Review Process

  1. Publications with Internal Editorial Review :

This category includes works such as  collections of scientific conference abstracts, seminar proceedings, teaching manuals, or summary documents . For these publications, the review process is entrusted to the authors themselves or to the event organizers , who also act as editors responsible for the content. In these cases, the editorial function is internal and aimed at ensuring the coherence and organization of the collected material, without requiring formal external scientific review. 

  1. Peer-reviewed publications :

These works, which represent original scientific contributions, in-depth thematic analyses, or studies of significant impact, are subjected to a  rigorous external peer review process by experts in the field. This guarantees the scientific validity, quality, and originality of the content. The following is specified for publication type.

Manuscripts submitted to the journal MISCELLANEA INGV undergo a rigorous  single-blind review process . This means that the reviewer's identity is kept confidential and not revealed to the author, while the author's identity is known to the reviewer.

The entire review process is strictly confidential. Reviewers are required to treat all information acquired during the review process as confidential and not to disclose it to any third parties not directly involved with the manuscript, except under specific agreements with the Associate Editors. The use of confidential information obtained during the review process before article’s publication is strictly prohibited. Even after publication, any use of unpublished information requires the explicit permission of the authors.

When a review is proposed, it is recommended to accept only if:

a) you are truly competent in the relevant field;

b) No conflict of interest exists.

The Role of the Auditor

Reviewers are required to objectively assess the scientific quality of the manuscript, ensuring that it aligns with the aims and scope of  QUADERNI di GEOFISICA, while fully respecting the intellectual independence of the authors.

Below is a detailed description of the article review process, with a specific emphasis on your key responsibilities as a Reviewer.

Manuscript Assigning

The Associate Editor (EA)  assigns the manuscript via the Editorial Office. The Editorial Office will send the manuscript along with the official invitation email and the Reviewer Questionnaire, which is requested to be completed at the end of the evaluation. At this stage, the Editorial Office will remind you of the review deadline (i.e.,  4 weeks from the assignment date) and provide the link to these Guidelines.

Manuscript Review

Peer review of each article focuses on objective and technical aspects to determine whether the work is sufficiently well conceived, structured, and described. The main points to check are:

 

  • Scientific content and scientific analysis : Evaluate the scientific content of the article, verifying the correctness of the methodologies used, the validity of the data presented and the logical consistency of the conclusions.

 

  • Relevance to  QUADERNI di GEOFISICA: Ensure that the manuscript topic aligns with the aims and scope of QUADERNI di GEOFISICA. This helps maintain the focus and coherence of the journal.

 

  •  Originality of the work: consider whether the work adds a significant contribution to the field of geophysics and whether it presents elements of originality with respect to the existing literature.

 

  • Presentation and organization of the structure :

           ○ Does the title accurately reflect the content of the article?

           ○ Are the objectives and arguments clear?

           ○ Is the work structure logical, clear and well-organized?

           ○ Are figures, tables and graphs relevant, clear, complete and supportive of the text?

           ○ Is the bibliographic and web section relevant and complete?

 

  • Linguistic and formal quality : Evaluate the clarity of the writing, the logical presentation, and internal consistency of the article. A good article not only presents good research, but communicates it effectively.

Reviewer's Final Evaluation

At the end of the evaluation, the Reviewer must provide an assessment by choosing one of the following options:

  • Acceptability in its current form: The manuscript can be published as is.
  • Needs revisions : The manuscript requires changes before publication.
  • Not acceptable : The manuscript is not suitable for publication.

Reviewers are also asked to indicate whether they agree to disclose their name to the authors. This relates to the journal’s transparency policy, not the content evaluation.

The review must be submitted to the Editorial Secretariat, which will first forward it to the EA and then, under their guidance, to the Authors to inform them of the decision.
 
If the article is deemed acceptable only after the Authors make revisions, the review process will continue until the Reviewer confirms the manuscript’s final acceptability for publication.