GUIDELINES FOR AUDITORS

The journal MISCELLANEA INGV is characterized by a wide variety of publications , designed to cover a broad spectrum of content. Precisely because of this flexibility, two distinct types of publication are envisaged, each with a specific review process.

Publication Types and Review Process

  1. Publications with Internal Editorial Review :

This category includes works such as collections of abstracts from scientific conferences, seminar proceedings, educational 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 such cases, the editorial function is internal and aimed at ensuring the coherence and organization of the collected material, without requiring a formal external scientific review.

  1. Peer-reviewed publications :

These works, which represent original scientific contributions, in-depth thematic studies, or research of significant impact, are subject to a rigorous external peer review process conducted  by experts in the field. This ensures the scientific validity, quality, and originality of the content. According to the type of publication the following applies.

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

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 Even after publication, any use of unpublished information requires the explicit permission of the authors.

When a review invitation is received, reviewers are encouraged to accept it only if:

a) they are truly competent in the subject area;

b) there is no conflict of interest.

The Role of the Auditor

Reviewers are required to objectively assess the scientific quality of the manuscript, ensuring that it is consistent with the aims and scope of MISCELLANEA INGV, while fully respecting the intellectual independence of the authors.

Below is a detailed description of the review process for submitted manuscripts, with particular emphasis on your key responsibilities as a Reviewer.

Assignment of Manuscript

The Associate Editor (EA)  assigns the manuscript through the Editorial Office. The latter will send the manuscript together with the official assignment email and the Reviewer Questionnaire, which reviewers are asked to  complete at the end of the evaluation. At this stage, the Editorial Office will also remind reviewers of the review deadline (i.e., 4 weeks from the date of assignment) and provide the link to these Guidelines.

Manuscript Review

The peer review of each manuscript focuses on objective and technical aspects in order to determine whether the work has been adequately conceived, structured, and described. The main points to assessed are:

 

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

 

  • Relevance to MISCELLANEA INGV: Verify that the manuscript topic is consistent with the aims and scope of MISCELLANEA INGV, helping to maintain the focus and coherence of the journal.

 

  • Originality of the work: Assess 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 clearly stated?

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

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

           ○ Is the bibliographic and sitographic section relevant and complete?

 

  • Linguistic and formal quality : Assess the clarity of the writing, the logic of presentation, and the 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 indicate their recommendation by choosing one of the following options:

  • Acceptable in its current form: The manuscript can be published as it is.
  • Revisions required: The manuscript requires changes before publication.
  • Not acceptable: The manuscript is not suitable for publication.

The Reviewer is also asked to indicate whether they consent to disclosure of their name to the authors. This point concerns the journal’s review transparency policy and does not affect the content evaluation.

The review must be submitted to the Editorial Secretariat, which will forward it first to the EA and then, under their guidance, to the Authors to inform them of the decision taken.
 
If the article is deemed acceptable only on the condition that the Authors make revisions, the review process will continue until the Reviewer declares the manuscript definitively acceptable for publication.