Peer Review Process

1. The review process is guided by the criteria of transparency, auditor autonomy and absence of conflicts of interest.
2. Scholars and experts who have given their willingness to serve as referees, after verification of their competence by the Editor-in-Chief and the Steering Committee, are included in the Reviewer’ List, which does not constitute a body of the Journal, but represents the list from which the Reviewers are identified, in rotation and according to their respective competencies.
3. The list of Reviewers is public on the Journal's website and in each issue to allow reviewers' selection criteria to be verified and ensure transparency in the process.
4. Availability to carry out the review process implies acceptance of this Code of Ethics and the duties it stipulates for the Reviewer.
5. The Editor-in-Chief will anonymously submit publication proposals, which have passed a prior screening by the Editor-in-Chief himself, the Steering Committee or the Editor-in-Chief, to two reviewers, who will themselves remain anonymous.
6. The review process must be conducted objectively.
7. The Reviewers may give favorable opinion on publication; give opinion against publication; make favorable opinion subject to the acceptance of suggestions, aimed at improving the publication.
8. Within 15 days of the request to be available for refereeing, the Reviewers will send the filled in review form to the Editor-in-Chief, who will either retain it or they will promptly notify if they do not feel adequate for the proposed task or if they know they cannot proceed with the review in the requested time, so that another Reviewer will be identified.
9. In the event that the Reviewer's opinion is not rendered within the allotted time, the Editor-in-Chief may substitute him/her.
10. The Reviewers' opinions and any suggestions for changes will be communicated by email to the Author, ensuring the Reviewers' anonymity. If the Author decides to comply with the Reviewers' suggested changes, he/she will resubmit the revised contribution to the Editor-in-Chief, who, if appropriate assisted by the Steering Committee or the Managing Editor, will consider whether to resubmit it for review or initiate it for publication.
11. In case of an negative opinion by even one of the Reviewers the paper proposed for publication will not be published.
12. Final acceptance of publication proposals is subject to the final opinion of the Editor-in-Chief.
13. In case the Editor-in-Chief is the author of the contribution, the selection and sending to the reviewers and the final opinion on the publication will be up to the Steering Committee.
14. Any text assigned for reading to the Reviewer should be considered confidential.