The Miscellanea INGV series 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 types of publication , each with a specific review process.

Types of Publication and Review Process

1. Publications with Internal Editorial Review : This category includes works such as collections of abstracts from scientific conferences, seminar proceedings, teaching manuals or summary documents . For these publications, the control process is entrusted to the authors themselves or to the organizers of the event , who also act as editors responsible for the contents. In these cases, the editorial function is internal and aimed at ensuring the coherence and organization of the collected material, without providing for a formal external scientific review.
2. Peer- Reviewed Publications : These works, which represent original scientific contributions, thematic insights or studies of significant impact, are subjected to a rigorous process of external review by experts in the field (peer review). This guarantees the scientific validity, quality and originality of the contents. 

 

The Role of the Peer Reviewer

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 Even after publication, any use of unpublished information requires the explicit permission of the authors.

When you are offered a review, we suggest you accept only if:

1. a) you are truly competent in the sector;
2. b) there is no conflict of interest .

 

 

Reviewers are required to objectively judge the technical-scientific quality of the manuscript , ensuring that it is in line with the objectives and scope of the INGV Miscellanea, and to do so in full respect of the intellectual independence of the authors.

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

Assigning the article

The Associate Editor (EA) will assign you the article through the Editorial Office. The latter will send you the manuscript together with the official assignment email and the Reviewer Questionnaire, which you will be asked to fill out at the end of the evaluation. At this stage, the Editorial Office will remind you of the deadline for submitting the review (i.e. 4 weeks from the assignment date ) and the link to the Reviewer Guidelines.

 

 

Manuscript Review

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

• Scientific content and originality of the work : Evaluate whether the work offers new discoveries or significant perspectives in the field of research covered.
• Relevance for INGV Miscellanea : Check whether the topic covered is in line with the objectives and scope of the journal.
• Technology Level : Evaluate the sophistication and appropriateness of the technologies described or used.
• Utility of the submitted work : Consider the applicability and potential benefit of the work for the interests of INGV and research in general.
• Presentation and organization of the structure :
• Does the title accurately reflect the content of the article?
• Are the goals 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 : Express an opinion on the clarity of exposition and linguistic correctness.

 

Reviewer's Final Assessment

At the end of the review, you will have to indicate your evaluation by choosing from the following options:

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

Additionally, you will be asked to give your consent for your name to be disclosed to the authors . This is a matter of the review transparency policy, not the content rating.

The revision must be sent to the Editorial Secretariat, who will forward it first to the EA and then, at its direction, to the Authors to inform them of the decision taken. 

If the article is considered acceptable only on the condition that the authors make revisions, the review process will continue until you, as the reviewer, declare it finally acceptable for publication.