PUBLICATION ETHICS

The Italian Review of Agricultural Economics (REA) operates within the framework of Open Science in scientific publishing. The Journal is fully committed to upholding the core principles of honesty, transparency, accountability, and fairness throughout the entire process of selection, peer review, and publication of the international scientific contributions it features. 

REA’s Publication Ethics is based, in large part, on the guidelines and standards developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics – COPE. It is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the editor, and the reviewer.

For further details, please visit Ethical oversight | COPE.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF AUTHORS

Originality and prior publication

By submitting a manuscript to REA, the author(s) warrant that the manuscript is their own, original work and that it has neither been published previously nor is currently being considered for publication elsewhere. They also warrant that the sources of any ideas and/or words in the manuscript that are not their own have been properly attributed through appropriate citations and/or quotes. An author should not normally publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in multiple journals or publication venues. Such redundant publication is generally considered to constitute unethical publishing behavior, and if discovered may result in a manuscript under consideration being rejected, or a published article being retracted. Authors of manuscripts reporting on original research should present an accurate account of the work performed, accompanied by an objective discussion of its significance. 

Data accuracy and reproducibility

Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. The fabrication of results and the making of fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and may be cause for rejection or retraction of a manuscript or published article. 

Authorship criteria

The authors’ names should be listed on the article in order of their contribution to the article, and all authors take responsibility for their own contributions. Only those individuals who have made a substantive contribution should be listed as authors; those whose contributions are indirect or marginal (e.g., colleagues or supervisors who have reviewed drafts of the work or provided proofreading assistance, and heads of research institutes/centers/labs) should be named in an “Acknowledgments” section at the end of the article, immediately preceding the Reference List. The corresponding author must ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the article, and that all listed co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the article and agreed to its publication. Where an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in an article of his/hers that has been published in REA, he/she has an obligation to promptly notify the editors and cooperate with them to correct the article or retract it as appropriate. Authorship criteria follow the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Each author is expected to meet all four ICMJE criteria for authorship. Further details are available at www.icmje.org. 

Conflicts of interest

Where the manuscript reports on commercial software, hardware, or other products, authors must include a declaration at the beginning of the manuscript in which they must either state that no conflict of interest exists or describe the nature of any potential conflict. All sources of financial support for the research should also be disclosed in the manuscript. 

Copyright

The author(s) of a manuscript agree that if the manuscript is accepted for publication with REA the published article will be copyrighted using a Creative Commons “Attribution 4.0 International”. This license allows the author(s) to retain the copyright and allows anyone to download, reuse, re-print, modify, distribute and/or copy the final version of the papers. The works must be properly attributed to its author(s). While no permission is required for reuse under the CC BY 4.0 license, the journal welcomes being informed of significant reuses of its published content, as this helps us monitor the reach and impact of our publications. Authors are responsible for obtaining written permission to include any images or artwork for which they do not hold copyright in their articles, or to adapt any such images or artwork for inclusion in their articles. The copyright holder must be made explicitly aware that the image(s) or artwork will be made freely available online as part of the article under a Creative Commons “Attribution 4.0 International” license. 

RESPONSIBILITIES OF REVIEWERS

REA is committed to transparency in its editorial processes and explicitly operates under a Double-Blind Peer Review model, ensuring that the identities of both the authors and the reviewers remain strictly anonymous throughout the evaluation. 

Reviewers work for the journal on a volunteer basis. Given that most of these individuals are in full-time employment, their reviewing activities for REA must, by necessity, not be their top priority. Reviewers are free to decline invitations to review particular manuscripts at their discretion, for example, if their current employment workload and/or other commitments make it prohibitive for them to complete a review in a timely fashion and to do justice to the task in the available timeframe. They should also not accept manuscript review assignments for which they feel unqualified. 

Reviewers who have accepted manuscript assignments are normally expected to submit their reviews within three weeks. They should recuse themselves from the assignment if it becomes apparent to them at any stage that they do not possess the required expertise to perform the review, or that they may have a potential conflict of interest in performing the review (e.g., one resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, institutions, or companies associated with the manuscript). 

Privileged information or ideas obtained by reviewers through the peer review process must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents, and must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the Editor. When conducting their reviews, reviewers are asked to do so as objectively as possible, refraining from engaging in personal criticism of the author(s). They are encouraged to express their views clearly, explaining and justifying all recommendations made. They should always attempt to provide detailed and constructive feedback to assist the author(s) in improving their work, even if the manuscript is, in their opinion, not publishable. Reviewers should identify in their reviews relevant published work that has not been cited by the author(s), together with any instances in which proper attribution of sources has not been provided. They should call to the responsible editor’s attention any major resemblances between a manuscript under consideration and other published articles or papers of which they are aware, as well as any concerns they might have in relation to the ethical acceptability of the research reported in the manuscript.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF EDITORS

The Editor has ultimate responsibility for deciding if a manuscript submitted to REA should be published, and in doing so is guided by the Journal’s policies as determined by the journal editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The Editor may consult with the Associate Editor and other members of the editorial team, as well as with reviewers, in making publication decisions. The editors will evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the ethnic origin  color, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s). 

The editors will not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers, and in some instances the REA Editorial Board members, as appropriate. Additionally, the editors will make every effort to ensure the integrity of the blind review process by not revealing the identity of the author(s) of a manuscript to the reviewers of that manuscript, and vice versa. When evaluating a manuscript for publication, in addition to considering standard criteria pertaining to the rigor of the manuscript, the quality of its presentation, and its contribution to humanity’s stock of knowledge, the editors will also seek evidence that ethical harms have been minimized in the conduct of the reported research. They will question whether the benefits outweigh the harms in the particular study’s case.

Since REA welcomes the submission of manuscripts from any country, it is necessary to recognize that laws and regulations regarding research ethics and ethical approval vary worldwide. As such, the editors may need to seek clarification in this regard with the author(s) and request that they supply a letter from the relevant institutional ethics committee or board that approved the research. The editors will be guided by COPE’s Guidelines for Retracting Articles when considering retracting, issuing an expressions of concern about, and issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published in REA. They are committed to working closely with research organizations and institutions in line with COPE’s advice on Cooperation between Research Institutions and Journals on Research Integrity Cases.

EDITORIAL ETHICS

The Editors of REA evaluate manuscripts without regard to the authors’ ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, citizenship, or political philosophy. Publication decisions are made on the basis of reviewers’ evaluations and the journal’s ethical and scientific standards.

The Editors of REA are responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published. Editorial decisions are based exclusively on the scholarly merit of the submissions, including their originality, methodological rigor, scientific relevance, and contribution to the advancement of knowledge. Particular consideration is given to the international relevance of the data and findings presented.

REA is a Diamond Open Access journal that provides immediate, free, and unrestricted access to all published content. In line with the principles of equitable and inclusive scholarly communication, the journal does not charge authors any submission fees or Article Processing Charges (APCs). By adopting the Diamond Open Access model, the journal promotes the widest possible dissemination of scientific knowledge, removes financial barriers for both authors and readers, and supports the ethical principles of openness, accessibility, and fairness in academic publishing. 

REA applies a double-blind peer review process to ensure impartiality, fairness, and academic integrity. The journal adopts Open Journal System (OJS) for the management of peer review procedures, and does not accept submissions by e-mail. The international relevance of the data to be published and the significant contribution to the advancement of knowledge are major requirements. Submissions are first evaluated by the Editor and by the members of the Editorial Boards. If the manuscript is considered suitable for publication, it is sent to at least two reviewers. The peer review process is double-blind, whereby both referees and authors are kept anonymous. Reviewers are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest—whether financial, professional, or personal—that could compromise the objectivity of their evaluation, and must recuse themselves from the review process if such a conflict arises. If the reviews are positive, but the manuscript requires to be revised and resubmitted, the author is expected to submit the revised version. 

The handling Editor makes the final decision on each manuscript. The time to render a first decision averages about 6 weeks, but times vary depending on how long it takes for the editor to receive and assess reviews. 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

A conflict of interest, also referred to as a competing interest, arises when an author, the author's institution, employer, funding body, or other affiliated organization has financial, commercial, legal, personal, or professional relationships that could affect, or be perceived to affect, the conduct, interpretation, or reporting of research.

Authors are required to disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest at the time of submission, either in the cover letter or through the journal’s online submission system. Conflicts of interest may be financial or non-financial in nature. In the interest of transparency and research integrity, authors should also declare any relationships, activities, or affiliations that could reasonably be perceived by others as influencing their work, even if no actual conflict exists.

When an editor has a potential conflict of interest with respect to a submitted manuscript, he/she must recuse him/herself from all editorial decisions concerning the manuscript. In such cases, the manuscript will be reassigned to another member of the Editorial Board or to an independent editor appointed by the Editor-in-Chief. Any editor who is an author of a submitted manuscript is automatically excluded from all editorial handling of that submission. 

RESEARCH INTEGRITY AND ACTION FOR PLAGIARISM

REA is committed to upholding the highest standards of research integrity and academic ethics. The journal respects intellectual property rights and promotes the publication of original scholarly work. Authors submitting manuscripts to the journal are expected to ensure that their contributions are entirely original and that all sources and relevant prior work are properly acknowledged.

To safeguard the integrity of the scientific record, all submitted manuscripts are screened for textual similarity through Crossref Similarity Check (powered by iThenticate, from Turnitin)  before entering the peer-review process. By submitting a manuscript, authors acknowledge and accept that their work may be subjected to plagiarism detection procedures and similarity assessments as part of the journal’s editorial evaluation. Manuscripts with a similarity index above a defined threshold are flagged for editorial review; this limit is indicatively set close to a 25% similarity with other sources. 

Any indication of plagiarism, redundant publication, inappropriate citation practices, data misappropriation, or other forms of research misconduct will be carefully investigated by the Editors in accordance with internationally recognized standards of publication ethics. When concerns arise, authors will be contacted and invited to provide an explanation and any relevant supporting documentation within a reasonable timeframe.

Where misconduct is confirmed, the journal reserves the right to reject the manuscript, withdraw the article from consideration, or, in the case of published articles, issue corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, or other appropriate measures. The journal may also inform the authors’ affiliated institutions or funding bodies when deemed necessary. Retracted articles may be removed from journal platforms and third-party services where appropriate, while preserving the integrity and transparency of the scholarly record.

USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI)

The use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools - such as ChatGPT and others based on large language models (LLMs) - in developing any portion of a manuscript must be disclosed transparently and in detail in the Methods section (or via a disclosure or within the Acknowledgements section, as applicable). The author remains fully responsible for the accuracy of any information provided by the tool and for properly referencing any supporting work on which that information relies. GenAI tools must not be employed to create, alter, or manipulate original research data and results. The final decision regarding whether the use of a GenAI tool is appropriate or permissible for a submitted manuscript or published article rests with the journal’s editor or other party responsible for the publication’s editorial policy.

Disclosure instructions

Authors must disclose the use of GenAI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process by adding a statement at the end of their manuscript in the core manuscript file, before the References list as a section entitled: ‘Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process’, and must strictly adhere to the following standard template:

Note for authors: Please replace the bracketed and italicized text below with the specific details of your tool/service and your reason for use. 

During the preparation of this work the author(s) used [NAME TOOL / SERVICE] in order to [REASON]. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the publication.

This declaration does not apply to the use of basic tools for checking grammar, spelling, references etc. If there is nothing to disclose, there is no need to add a statement.

GenAI tools cannot be accountable for a published work or for research design, which is a generally held requirement of authorship, nor does it have legal standing or the ability to hold or assign copyright. Therefore - in accordance with COPE’s position statement on Authorship and AI tools - these tools cannot fulfil the role of, nor be listed as, an author of an article.

GenAI use by peer reviewers

GenAI tools should be used only in a limited capacity during peer review. Editors or peer reviewers may use a GenAI tool to enhance the clarity of written feedback in a peer review report. Such use must be transparently disclosed when submitting the peer review report to the manuscript’s handling editor. Aside from this limited use case, editors and peer reviewers must not upload manuscripts (or any parts thereof, including figures and tables) into GenAI tools or services.

If any part of the evaluation of the claims made in the manuscript was supported by an AI tool, we request that peer reviewers clearly declare the use of such tools in the peer review report.

CORRECTIONS AND RETRACTIONS

In accordance with generally accepted standards of scholarly publishing, the REA is committed to preserving the integrity of the scholarly record. Published articles should remain accessible, accurate, and unchanged whenever possible. This principle supports transparency, accountability, and trust in scholarly communication.

In cases of significant errors or suspected research misconduct, REA may publish corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern in accordance with internationally recognized publication ethics standards and COPE guidelines.

Corrections

When errors are identified that substantially affect the accuracy, interpretation, or understanding of a published article, the journal may issue a correction notice. The correction will be linked to the original publication, which will remain available as part of the scholarly record.

Authors or readers who identify an error that may require correction should contact the Editorial Office, providing the article citation, DOI, a description of the issue, the proposed correction, and any supporting documentation where applicable.

If you wish to report an error in your publication that may warrant a correction, please contact the Editorial Office at redazione.rea@crea.gov.it 

Retractions

In accordance with the COPE Retraction Guidelines, the Editors may consider retracting a publication when there is clear evidence that:

Retraction notices will be clearly linked to the retracted article and will identify the article concerned through its title and authorship. Such notices will be issued promptly, remain freely accessible to readers, and clearly explain the reasons for the retraction using objective and factual language.

Expressions of Concern

Where an investigation into potential misconduct or serious concerns is ongoing and conclusive evidence is not yet available, the Editors may publish an Expression of Concern to inform readers of issues relating to the reliability or integrity of the publication.

Individuals wishing to report concerns regarding the integrity, validity, or reliability of a published article should contact the Editorial Office and provide the full citation, DOI, and a detailed explanation of the concerns raised. The journal will investigate all allegations fairly, confidentially, and in accordance with COPE recommendations.

To report concerns pertaining to the research integrity, validity, or reliability of any article published in REA, contact the Editorial Office at redazione.rea@crea.gov.it 

Post-Publication Discussion

REA welcomes scientific debate and post-publication discussion on its published content. Readers may submit formal letters, with comments, or critiques, regarding published articles to the Editorial Office  at redazione.rea@crea.gov.it. When justified, the journal will provide the original authors with the opportunity to respond. 

COMPLYING WITH ETHICS OF RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMANS OR ANIMALS

With effect from July 2026, all manuscripts submitted to REA reporting on research involving human participants or animal subjects are required to comply with the strict ethical standards described in this section. For manuscripts submitted prior to this date, the journal applied ethical oversight on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with the standards in force at the time of submission. To this end, authors must ensure that all reported research has been conducted in an ethical and responsible manner, and is in full compliance with all relevant codes of experimentation, data protection, and legislation

In the event that a manuscript reports on animal experiments or studies involving human participants (including clinical trials, surveys, interviews, or the use of personal data), authors must include a written statement in the Methods (or Declarations) section.  This should explain that all work was conducted with the formal approval of the local human subject or animal care committees (institutional and national), including the specific protocol/approval number. Authors who do not have access to formal ethics review committees should instead include a statement clarifying that their study follows the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Additionally, for all studies involving human subjects, authors must explicitly state that:

DATA AVAILABILITY POLICY

REA is committed to promoting open science and research reproducibility. In alignment with the FAIR Data Principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable), the journal asks all authors to include a Data Availability Statement in their manuscript upon submission, detailing where and how the underlying data supporting their results can be accessed. In accordance with Firenze University Press (FUP) policies, all metadata associated with the published articles and datasets are released under a Creative Commons “CC0 1.0 Universal”, thereby ensuring maximum discoverability, interoperability, and unrestricted reuse across international networks. If data cannot be made publicly open due to ethical, legal, or privacy restrictions, this must be clearly stated within the manuscript.

REPOSITORY POLICY

REA encourages authors to deposit their preprint or pre-publication manuscript in institutional repositories prior to and during the submission process. 

Following publication, authors should archive the publisher's final formatted PDF version without any embargo period. These practices foster early scholarly exchange, maximize visibility, and accelerate the citation impact of the published work.