About

IJPP adheres and conforms to the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Ethical guidelines.

The editors of the Italian Journal of Planning Practice (IJPP) are responsible, with the help of anonymous referees, for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. In evaluating the submitted works, the editors should limit themselves only to the intellectual content. The editors should not be influenced by matters such as race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. The editors can choose to ignore any material that breaks legal requirements regarding label, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors ensure the confidentiality of the submitted works until they are published. In case the editors decide not to publish a material, the manuscript should not be used for other purposes without the express written consent of the author.

The referees of IJPP assist the editors in taking the decision of publishing a submitted manuscript. Also, by formulating suggestions to the authors, the referees can contribute to the improvement of submitted works.  In order to achieve these goals, the referees are to evaluate objectively the submitted works and to clearly present their views regarding the manuscript. The referees are bound to treat the manuscript received for peer reviewing as confidential. Since IJPP employs the double blind peer review system, the communication regarding the submitted manuscript would be made exclusively between the referees and the editors of IJPP.

The authors submitting articles to IJPP should draft their works in accordance to IJPP Author Guidelines (See Author Guidelines). The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works. When  the authors use other materials,  sources should be appropriately cited.  Any attempt of plagiarism should be followed by the rejection of the submitted manuscript. Authors should not submit the same work or describe essentially the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior. When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor in correcting the material.

Reviewers are asked to provide feedback on the following points:

1) Does the abstract clearly and concisely summarize the paper and state the main results? Can the abstract and main body of the paper each stand alone?

2) The introduction builds a logical case and context for the problem statement. The conceptual framework is explicit and justified. The research question (research hypothesis where applicable) is clear, concise, and complete.

3) The literature review is up-to-date and well-integrated. The number of references is appropriate and their selection is judicious.

4) The research design and methods are clearly described and sufficiently detailed to permit the study to be replicated. The design is appropriate for the research question.

5)  Data analysis procedures are sufficiently described. Data analysis procedures conform to the research design; hypotheses, models, or theory drives the data analyses.

6) Results are organized in a way that is easy to understand. Results are presented effectively and are contextualized.

7) The conclusions are clearly stated; key points stand out. Justification of conclusions is well articulated. Interpretations of the results are appropriate; the conclusions are accurate (not misleading). The study limitations are discussed.