Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Economia Internazionale / International Economics adheres to the principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing as recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The Journal is committed to maintaining the highest standards of integrity, impartiality, and academic quality at all stages of the publication process.

1. Duties and Responsibilities of Authors

Authors must submit only original works that have not been published elsewhere and are not under consideration by another journal. Any form of plagiarism, including self plagiarism, duplicate publication or unjustified text recycling, is unacceptable and may result in rejection of the manuscript or retraction of the published article.

All persons who have made a substantial contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study should be listed as authors. Others who have contributed in a more limited way should be acknowledged appropriately. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all co authors have approved the final version of the manuscript and agree with its submission and potential publication.

Authors are responsible for the accuracy of the data and results reported in their manuscripts. They should be prepared to provide access to the underlying data upon reasonable request and, where possible, to deposit data and code in a trusted repository, in line with the Journal’s data sharing policy.

All sources of financial support and any potential conflicts of interest that might influence the results or their interpretation must be clearly disclosed in the Title Page and, where appropriate, in the article itself.

If authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their submitted or published work, they must promptly notify the Editors and cooperate with them to correct or retract the paper when necessary.

2. Duties and Responsibilities of Editors

Editors evaluate manuscripts exclusively on their academic merit (importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the Journal’s scope), without discrimination based on the authors’ gender, race, ethnicity, citizenship, religious beliefs, or institutional affiliation.

The Journal operates a double blind peer review process. After an initial screening of scope and basic quality, manuscripts considered suitable are typically sent to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise. Based on the reviewers’ reports and the Journal’s editorial criteria, the handling editor formulates a recommendation.
The Editor in Chief (or a delegated senior editor) has the final responsibility for the decision on each manuscript (acceptance, revision, or rejection). The Journal aims to provide an initial decision within a reasonable timeframe; indicative average review times are communicated on the Journal’s website.

Editors and editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Complaints or appeals concerning editorial decisions, alleged ethical breaches, or other matters related to the Journal should be submitted in writing to the Editorial Office. All complaints will be investigated promptly, fairly, and impartially, and a reasoned response will be provided. Where necessary, cases may be escalated to the Editorial Board or to the publisher.

In cases of suspected research or publication misconduct (including plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, manipulation of images or data, or undisclosed conflicts of interest), editors will follow COPE guidelines. This may include contacting the authors’ institutions or funding bodies. When appropriate, the Journal will issue corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions.

3. Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Peer reviewers assist the Editors in making editorial decisions and may also help authors improve their manuscripts through constructive feedback.

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shared with others or discussed outside the peer review process without the explicit permission of the Editors.

Reviews should be conducted objectively, with clear, evidence based and well argued comments. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

Reviewers must immediately inform the Editors if they recognize the authors or if any conflict of interest exists (for example, competitive, collaborative, or other relationships). In such cases, they should decline the review.

Reviewers who feel unqualified to review a manuscript or are unable to do so within the requested timeframe should notify the Editors as soon as possible and decline the invitation, so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

4. Data Sharing and Reproducibility

The Journal encourages authors to make the data, code, and materials that support their findings publicly available, when this is legally and ethically possible. When data cannot be shared openly (for reasons of confidentiality, privacy, or contractual obligations), authors should clearly state the reasons and specify the conditions under which the data can be accessed.

The Journal may, when necessary, request access to data in order to verify the robustness and integrity of the results.

5. Corrections, Retractions, and Post Publication Discussion

If errors, ethical issues, or concerns about the integrity of a published article are brought to the Journal’s attention, the Editors will investigate the matter following COPE recommendations. Depending on the outcome, the Journal may publish a correction, an erratum, an expression of concern, or a retraction.

The Journal welcomes post publication comments and scholarly debate. Reasoned comments on published articles can be submitted to the Editorial Office and will be considered for publication or for communication to the authors where appropriate.