Edizioni Ca’ Foscari

The peer review process at Edizioni Ca’ Foscari is structured into clearly defined stages and is managed entirely through the digital platform ECFPeerflow. This platform, developed internally by ECF, ensures an efficient, traceable workflow that respects anonymity. The main stages of the review are described below.

For operational reasons and in order to facilitate the progress of review activities, the platform allows authorised users (e.g. ECF Editorial Administration, the Scientific Director of a series, the editor(s) of an edited volume) to temporarily impersonate reviewers or authors, exclusively to carry out essential actions of a technical or administrative nature. This faculty is exercised following transparent communication to the person impersonated and is recorded in the system for traceability purposes.

Official Submission Channels and Initial Traceability ECF accepts proposals exclusively through official channels, in order to ensure full traceability from the very first contact between content and publisher.

Spontaneous submissions (series homepages): Each series provides a submission form on its homepage.
Submissions in response to a Call (Call for Papers/Projects): Calls are issued by the Scientific Director(s) through the dedicated procedure within ECFPeerflow (including call ID, deadlines, scope, requirements). Proposals must be submitted through the specific form linked to the Call, which inherits its metadata (deadlines, criteria, documentary requirements), ensuring registration, timestamping and full traceability.

Personal Contacts and Off-Platform Submissions Informal communications, email exchanges or personal contacts between colleagues do not constitute a valid submission. Any materials received outside the platform are redirected to the official form; only after upload to ECFPeerflow is the proposal considered received. In order to preserve traceability, the Editorial Office may upload to the platform (or request that the author do so) any documents received through alternative channels, associating them with the relevant submission record.

Transparency, Assistance and Unblocking of Procedures Should the author or reviewers encounter operational difficulties, the Scientific Director and the Admin (ECF Editorial Office) may, in the cases provided for, provide assistance or technically impersonate the user to complete blocked steps (uploads, formal forwarding, phase closure). Such actions are tracked and remain visible retrospectively in the personal areas of the parties concerned upon their next access.

Outcomes and Subsequent Steps Once the submission has been formally registered, the proposal enters the workflow and, if suitable, the reviewer selection phase in accordance with ECF policies. Decisions and communications take place exclusively through the platform, in order to ensure uniformity, transparency and auditability of the process.

Submission and preliminary screening: The proposing party (individual author or editor) submits the manuscript through the online forms available on ECF. The text must be prepared in accordance with ECF editorial guidelines. The Scientific Director of the series carries out an initial editorial check to verify compliance with formal requirements and thematic scope. If the contribution is considered suitable, it proceeds to the peer review stage; otherwise, it may be declined by means of a desk rejection, accompanied by a reasoned communication to the proposing party.

Selection of reviewers: The Scientific Director (or the editor of the work/volume, in agreement with the Scientific Director of the series) identifies two qualified external reviewers with subject expertise, drawing on their scholarly network or referee databases. The selected reviewers must possess specific competence in the topic and a significant scholarly profile (e.g. a curriculum including relevant publications). Furthermore, they must not be in situations of conflict of interest with the proposing party or the work (recent co-authorship, direct academic relationships, personal interests, etc.) and, as stated, are preferably affiliated with institutions different from those of the author and the hosting series, in order to ensure independence. Reviewer selection and invitation take place through the ECFPeerflow platform, which sends invitation emails containing the anonymised title and abstract of the contribution. Reviewers confirm their availability on the platform within a specified timeframe or decline the invitation (in which case the Scientific Director selects another name). Responsibility for this phase – ensuring suitable and available reviewers – lies with the Scientific Director of the series, while the ECF Editorial Board oversees compliance with general policies in this area (e.g. that reviewers are external and appropriate).

Anonymous peer review: Reviewers who accept the assignment receive access to the anonymised manuscript via ECFPeerflow. If the double-blind option is adopted, neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identity; alternatively, open peer review may be adopted (subject to agreement with ECF), in which case reviewers’ identities are disclosed and their names will be made public at the end of the process. During peer review, reviewers examine the text according to criteria of scholarly quality (originality, methodological rigour, clarity, bibliographical relevance, etc.) and complete a structured evaluation form.

Evaluation Form and Expected Standards All ECF reviewers, upon accepting the assignment through the ECFPeerflow platform, receive a structured evaluation form, which must be completed in all its parts. This form is designed to ensure consistency, completeness and transparency in assessments, and to provide detailed and useful feedback both to the Scientific Director and to the author. The form is divided into three main sections:

Overall evaluation

The reviewer must indicate one of the following options, selecting the one that best represents their overall assessment of the contribution:

Positive evaluation
Positive evaluation with minor revisions
Positive evaluation with major revisions
Negative evaluation

Detailed evaluation according to analytical criteria

The form requires a detailed assessment of each of the following aspects, with a mandatory selection on a qualitative scale (Poor – Needs improvement – Average – Good – Excellent) and mandatory supporting comments:

Relevance of the contribution
Relevance to the theme/scope of the publication
Originality and innovativeness
Soundness and adequacy of the methodology
Completeness and accuracy of bibliographical references
Coherence of argumentation and clarity of exposition
Quality of written expression (language, structure, style)

Separate comments for the Scientific Director and for the author

The form provides two distinct fields for:

Comments reserved for the Scientific Director, useful for reporting observations not to be shared with the author (e.g. suspicions of plagiarism, concerns regarding integrity, etc.)
Comments addressed to the author, which must be written in a constructive, professional and respectful tone and constitute the core of the feedback.

Important note: evaluations lacking comments or formulated in a vague or telegraphic manner will not be accepted. The Scientific Director may request additions or clarifications before proceeding with the editorial decision. ECF recommends that reviewers consider the form as a tool for mentoring and improvement, not merely for judgement. The rigorous completion of the evaluation form is an indispensable condition for the traceability of the process and for the attribution of “scientific certification” to ECF publications.

If they deem it appropriate, reviewers may also upload an attachment.

Each review is automatically archived by the platform, ensuring traceability and preservation.

It is essential that there be no direct contact between reviewers and authors during the review: all communication must take place through ECFPeerflow and be mediated by the Scientific Director. Anonymity and confidentiality must be maintained at every stage of the process. ECF requires that evaluations always be substantiated: reports lacking justification or formulated in generic terms may be rejected and returned for completion. The platform enables the Scientific Director to request clarifications or further elaboration from reviewers, with the aim of obtaining feedback that is genuinely useful and constructive.

Outcome of the review and editorial decision: Once both reviewers have completed their evaluation, the Scientific Director (or the editor of the work, in agreement with the Director of the series) examines the reports received. The possible outcomes are:

Acceptance: the contribution is considered publishable as it stands or with minor editorial corrections;
Request for revision: the contribution is potentially publishable but requires substantial modifications. The author is therefore requested to submit a revised version, which may be re-examined by the same reviewers or by new reviewers, at editorial discretion;
Rejection: the contribution is not considered publishable due to serious shortcomings or inadequacy with respect to the standards of the series.

If the evaluations are divergent (e.g. one positive and one negative), the Scientific Director may decide to involve a third reviewer in order to obtain an additional opinion.

Responsibility for the final decision communicated to the author lies with the Scientific Director of the series, having consulted the Scientific Board. It is possible for the editorial decision to diverge from the reviewers’ recommendations, even contradicting them (e.g. rejecting a contribution despite two favourable evaluations, or vice versa). In any case, the outcome is reasoned and accompanied by the transparent sharing of the reviewers’ reports. The ECF Editorial Office oversees this dynamic and, where appropriate, may report cases deserving verification to the Editorial Board.

The final decision is communicated through the platform, together with the evaluations received and any additional indications from the Scientific Director. In the case of a request for revision, the author accesses the comments and is invited to submit a revised version; where appropriate, this is followed by a new round of peer review focused on the modified sections. If the contribution is accepted (either directly, with two positive evaluations, or after submission of a second draft), it proceeds to the subsequent stages of editing and publication. Publication takes place only after all required scholarly and formal quality criteria have been met: for example, even if a contribution is accepted in terms of content, the Scientific Director of the series may request further minor adjustments of style, bibliography or formatting in accordance with the editorial guidelines before considering it ready for publication.

Archiving and traceability: Once the peer review process is concluded, the ECFPeerflow platform digitally archives all related documentation: submission dates, (confidential) names of reviewers, original and revised texts, evaluation forms, and final decisions. This archive is accessible, in the relevant parts, to the users involved in the process (for example, authors can review their own peer review reports by accessing their profile, and reviewers can see their archived contributions). Permanent archiving ensures both retrospective transparency (ECF can document completed reviews, for instance in case of quality audits or ANVUR requests) and the historical memory of the internal editorial process, useful for statistical analyses of review times, monitoring review quality, etc.
Timelines: ECF is aware of the importance of efficient timelines in peer review. For this reason, it plans the review schedule in collaboration with the Scientific Committees, aiming to provide reviewers with adequate time to conduct a thorough evaluation without excessive delays. Generally monographs and edited volumes follow planned publication windows (for instance, ECF schedules four windows per year for the release of accepted volumes, coordinating peer review and production phases). ECF clearly communicates the expected timelines to authors and updates them in case of any extensions, in the spirit of transparency.

Management of Peer Review Timelines Edizioni Ca’ Foscari defines peer review timelines clearly, realistically, and flexibly, in accordance with international practices and respecting the research and writing time of authors and reviewers.

General Guidelines

Monographs: the indicative time for evaluation is 4-6 weeks, due to the greater length of the texts.
Edited books (chapters): reviewers are asked to complete the evaluation within 2-3 weeks from acceptance of the assignment, but the timeline can be coordinated uniformly by the editor or the Scientific Direction.
Authors: for submitting revised versions following requested modifications, the standard deadline is 10 days, unless otherwise specified with justification.

Nature of Deadlines Deadlines are not binding or blocking: the ECFPeerflow platform still maintains access for reviewers beyond the deadlines, avoiding forced interruptions of the process. Deadlines serve as guidance and encouragement, with the objective of keeping the process within reasonable and predictable timeframes.

Management via Platform The Scientific Directions set the deadline schedule in ECFPeerflow on a case-by-case basis, at the time of assigning the review or sending requests to the author.

The platform sends automatic notifications (upon acceptance, near the deadline, in case of - delay).
The Directions can also send manual and personalized reminders to reviewers.
Each deadline and any extension are recorded and tracked in the user profile, ensuring transparency.

Flexibility and Collaboration ECF acknowledges that meeting deadlines depends on the academic and professional commitments of the individuals involved. Motivated extensions are therefore allowed, agreed upon between reviewers, authors, and the Scientific Direction via the platform. This approach balances the need for editorial efficiency with respect for the actual availability of the participants in the process.

Exceptions and special cases: In general, all scientific contributions published by ECF must undergo external peer review. Exceptions are only made for texts explicitly excluded (e.g., prefaces, introductions, bibliographic reviews, editorials), which, by academic convention, are not peer-reviewed as they belong to the genres of commentary or editorial curation. Furthermore, ECF allows deviations from the standard process in certain specific cases: for example, critical editions of sources, grammars, literary translations, conference proceedings, Festschriften, catalogues, or other ‘atypical’ publications may follow a different evaluation path (such as a single review instead of two, or the inclusion of an internal reviewer alongside an external one). Such exceptions must be approved by the ECF Editorial Committee on a case-by-case basis and communicated transparently. In no case, however, can an edited volume avoid the review of individual chapters: even in conference proceedings or commemorative volumes, each individual contribution must be evaluated separately. ECF excludes self-publishing: no volume is published without an independent external evaluation. This also applies to works by independent or unaffiliated authors: any self-funded publication (in exceptional cases) is only allowed after a positive peer review, ensuring that scientific rigor is never compromised.

The main variations of the peer review process by type of publication are detailed below.

Peer Review for Scholarly Monographs (Single Books) • Review procedure: Academic monographs (e.g., specialised essays, scientific studies in a single volume) published by ECF undergo peer review following one of two approaches: double-blind or open peer review. In both cases, at least two reviewers external to the Editorial Board of the series in which the volume is proposed are appointed. The default double-blind method maintains mutual anonymity of authors and reviewers; the open method, instead, makes their identities known (in ECF, this means that reviewers are named in the published book and, in the near future, their evaluation forms may be made accessible online alongside the volume). The choice between double-blind and open review depends on the discipline and practices of the scientific community and is made by the Scientific Editor of the series, in agreement with the ECF Editorial Committee in the case of open review. In all cases, the aim is to ensure a rigorous assessment: even in open review, where identities are transparent, the same level of independent judgment is expected (reviewers must not have close collaborative relationships with the author). At Edizioni Ca’ Foscari, open peer review explicitly requires two cumulative conditions:

publication of reviewers’ names in the volume colophon;
full online publication of the evaluation reports produced by reviewers, accessible to the public.

Evaluations made available online are considered citable, identifiable outputs, with DOI and metadata, as they represent a form of qualified secondary literature. This approach highlights the intellectual work of reviewers, granting full visibility and recognition to their critical and reasoned contributions.

As stated, the choice between double-blind and open review rests with the Scientific Editor, in agreement with the ECF Editorial Committee. In open review, these conditions form an integral part of the peer review process, ensuring traceability, transparency, and public citability.

Review process: For monographs, authors often submit an initial publication proposal (including an extended abstract, table of contents, author CV, etc.), which is evaluated by the Series Editor and the ECF Editorial Committee before the full peer review begins. If the proposal is accepted, the author submits the complete manuscript, which is sent to external reviewers. Reviewers evaluate the monograph in its entirety (unlike anthologies, where chapters are assessed individually) and complete an extended peer review form, often more detailed given the length of the text. Multiple rounds of revision may be required: monographs benefit from iterative feedback, with reviewers checking subsequent versions if the initial submission required changes. Each monograph must receive two favourable reports to proceed toward publication; otherwise (two rejections or very negative evaluations) it is either rejected or, if possible, subjected to a major revision and reassessment.
Final decision and approval: Once peer review is completed, the Series Editor examines the reviewers’ reports. If both reviewers recommend publication (possibly after corrections), the monograph is approved for publication, subject to completion of requested revisions. If issues remain, the Series Editor may decide on further review (e.g., involving a third expert) or, in serious cases, reject the monograph. The final decision is communicated to the author via the platform. It is important to note that, beyond scientific judgment, ECF checks compliance with its editorial standards: a content-approved monograph must still pass professional editorial stages, during which the ECF Editorial Office verifies language, style, apparatus (notes, bibliography), and layout, ensuring a high-quality final product. Only at the conclusion of this integrated process – scientific peer review plus editorial work – is the book considered ready for publication.
Exceptions for monographs: Some types of monographs (source editions, catalogues, etc.) may follow slightly different evaluation procedures. For example, highly specialised critical editions may involve a reading committee instead of two individual reviewers, or a single in-depth review may be accepted if finding two independent reviewers is difficult. ECF allows such variants only in justified circumstances and with the approval of its Committee. In no case does ECF publish monographs without external evaluation: the publisher does not accept “camera-ready” manuscripts submitted by authors without intervention, but always subjects texts to editorial work and peer review (self-publishing is not practiced). This policy ensures that every book
published by ECF receives a “scientific certification” meeting academic standards.

Peer Review for Contributions in Edited Volumes (Chapters in Collective Works)

Characteristics of edited volumes: Edited volumes consist of multiple contributions by different authors, collected into a single work under the supervision of one or more editors. Typical examples include conference proceedings, thematic volumes with essays by various scholars, Festschriften (books in honour of colleagues), and similar works. Given the heterogeneous nature of these volumes, peer review must ensure the quality of each chapter individually, not only the volume as a whole. Therefore, Edizioni Ca’ Foscari requires that each individual contribution in an edited volume undergoes separate and independent peer review. It is not acceptable, for instance, for an entire volume to be approved based on a single global evaluation or solely on the editor’s judgment: each essay must be assessed by expert reviewers.
Review procedure: Similar to monographs, both double-blind and open peer review are allowed for individual chapters in edited volumes. The choice often depends on the discipline and the preferences of the editor(s) and the contributing authors. In both cases, each contribution must receive at least two evaluations from reviewers external to the Scientific Editor and the Editorial Board of the series in which the volume will be published. In practice, the volume editor, in agreement with the Scientific Editor, proposes a pool of reviewers for each chapter (avoiding conflicts of interest: for example, one author cannot review another contribution in the same volume). Reviewers work in parallel, each on the chapter assigned to them. In some cases—particularly in conference proceedings—all contributions may undergo review simultaneously to provide a coherent overview; in other cases, chapters are reviewed individually as authors submit them. Reviewers complete individual evaluation forms, recommending acceptance, revision, or rejection for the chapter reviewed. If an editor contributes a chapter to the volume, the peer review of that contribution will not be managed by the same editor. Instead, it will be handled directly by the Scientific Editor, and within the ECFPeerflow platform, the editor’s own contribution will not be visible or accessible to them within the volume, ensuring maximum impartiality and transparency.
Role of editors and outcomes: Volume editors play an active role in the process: they are responsible for collecting manuscripts from the various authors, ensuring they are anonymised for peer review, selecting (in agreement with the Scientific Editor) appropriate reviewers for each contribution, and integrating the various parts of the volume. After peer review, editors receive the individual chapter evaluations via the platform and forward them to the respective authors so that requested revisions can be made. Some chapters may receive a negative outcome (rejection); in such cases, that contribution will not be published in the volume unless the author fully revises it and submits it for a new round of review with a positive outcome. The final decision on the entire volume is therefore made once all chapters have successfully passed their respective peer review. The Scientific Editor of the series reviews all evaluations before giving approval for publication. As a rule, an edited volume is published only if all accepted contributions meet the standards; if the removal of one or more chapters undermines the coherence or value of the volume, the work may not be published in that form.
Transparency for edited volumes: In ECF-published collective volumes, it is normally stated on the credits page or in the preface that contributions underwent external anonymous (or open, where applicable) peer review. In open peer review, the names of reviewers for each chapter may be indicated in the volume for transparency and recognition. The same ethical rules apply as in other publications: editors must not unduly influence reviewers (who operate independently), nor reveal reviewers’ identities to authors (in double-blind cases). Editors act as intermediaries between reviewers and authors: they collect the reviews and ensure that authors address the requested revisions. As with other publications, the ECFPeerflow platform is used to manage the
entire workflow, guaranteeing the archiving of communications and evaluations for each individual chapter.

In summary, despite their specific characteristics, all ECF publications follow a peer review process that ensures independent evaluation by external experts, anonymity (unless open review is explicitly chosen), multiple judgments (at least two), and rigorous editorial oversight. This structured system guarantees impartiality, transparency, and quality from the initial draft to the final published work.