CODE OF ETHICS

READ IN ITALIAN

SEASCAPE has its own Code of Ethics, drafted in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The journal is committed to maintaining high standards of ethical behavior throughout all stages of the publication process. The Authors, the Editorial Board, the Editorial Office members, the Scientific Committee, additional external Reviewers, and Publishers are required to comply with the provisions of the Code of Ethics.

INTRODUCTION

SEASCAPE is an international, multidisciplinary open-access journal that particularly focuses on Architecture, Urban Planning, Landscape Architecture, History, Technology, and Geomorphology (www.seascape.it). The journal employs a double-blind peer review process to select published articles, managed in accordance with the “Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors” developed by COPE – Committee on Publication Ethics (www.publicationethics.org). The journal also takes responsibility for addressing any potential fraud identified during the review and publication process. All parties involved – Authors, Editors, and Reviewers – should be aware of and adhere to the following ethical requirements.

DECLARATION OF PUBLICATION INTEGRITY

SEASCAPE upholds the high standards of the Declaration of Integrity, which includes principles concerning:
– Honesty in all aspects of research;
– Scrupulous care, thoroughness, and excellence in research practice;
– Transparency and open communication;
– Care and respect for all participants and research subjects.
In addition to these general principles, the editorial team provides specific guidelines and policies for authors on research integrity and ethics appropriate to their topics and disciplines.

EDITORIAL PROCESS

The editorial independence of SEASCAPE is not compromised by conflicts of interest or other political influences. SEASCAPE does not discriminate against authors or peer reviewers based on personal identity. For the selection of authors, “Call for Abstracts” are structured for each issue of the journal: each author can submit his or her proposal, which is then evaluated anonymously. Editorial decisions on submitted articles are based on independent peer review reports.

PEER REVIEW

Peer review is fundamental to maintaining SEASCAPE’s standards.
The SEASCAPE Editorial Office ensures to:
– Provide adequate systems, training, and support to facilitate rigorous and effective peer review;
– Expect those overseeing the peer review process to recognize signs of fraudulent or manipulated peer review;
– Support peer reviewers in acting on any suspected cases of manipulated or fraudulent peer review;
– Protect the confidentiality of participants in the peer review process where anonymity is part of that process.
To report any concerns about the peer review process, contact the journal at editorial.seascape@gmail.com.

DUTIES OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD, SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE, AND ADDITIONAL REVIEWERS

The Editorial Board, the Scientific Committee, and additional Reviewers are responsible for selecting the articles to be published from those submitted to the journal. They are willing to publish amendments and clarifications when necessary. They operate in the best interest of the journal, aiming to enhance its scientific quality. In making decisions, they must respect the journal’s editorial strategies and structure. They are also bound by current regulations on defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The Editorial Board, the Scientific Committee, and additional Reviewers select papers based on their content without prejudice regarding the race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or political inclinations of the Author(s). The Editorial Board, the Scientific Committee, and the Editorial Office commit to not disclose any information about submitted works to anyone other than the Author(s), Reviewers, potential Reviewers, collaborators, and the Publisher. The Editorial Board, the Scientific Committee, and the Editorial Office undertake not to use the content of an article submitted for publication in their research without the written authorization of the Author(s).

DUTIES OF REVIEWERS AND THE DOUBLE-BLIND PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Reviewers are Professors, Researchers, Research Fellows, and Ph.D. holders affiliated with Italian and foreign universities, active in academic and professional fields, authors of essays, articles, books, and experts in their field of study. Reviewers are external and internal to the Scientific Committee and are chosen based on the competencies needed to evaluate specific contributions. Reviewers, through the double-blind peer review process, assess the quality of contributions, supporting the work of the Editorial Board. Through communications mediated by the Editorial Office, Reviewers may suggest modifications to the Author(s) to improve the proposals. The selection of articles takes place through a two-phase evaluation. The first phase consists of a blind review process of contributions, initially presented in abstract form (via a semi-annual call), conducted by a minimum of three Reviewers per abstract. Each Reviewer evaluates the contribution with a score ranging from 1 to 30. This evaluation considers the relevance of the contribution to the call, the originality of the topic, the clarity and methodology of the research, and the ideas behind the research and projects. The second phase requires authors who have been successfully evaluated to submit a complete article. The complete article undergoes a double-blind peer review by two Reviewers, who review the article without prejudice, avoiding personal criticisms of the Author(s), and adequately motivating their judgments. In this second phase, Reviewers express their opinion on the relevance of the topic to the call, the originality and critical approach to the topic, the structure and articulation of the work, the clarity and style of exposition, the quality of syntax, the correctness of spelling, the quality and exhaustiveness of the reference bibliography, and the quality of images, also in relation to the text. Reviewers structure their observations to improve the clarity of the document’s content, and any potential criticism must be constructive. Each Reviewer identifies in the papers they evaluate any missing references to already published works. Reviewers’ statements regarding the lack of third-party citations must be supported by appropriate references. Each Reviewer reports to the Commission any similarities or overlaps identified in the paper under evaluation, related to other known works. Any contribution read by a Reviewer is to be considered confidential; therefore, texts may not be discussed with others without the explicit consent of the Editorial Board. If a Reviewer feels unqualified to evaluate a submitted research paper or is unable to provide a timely review, they must notify the Editorial Board. They will then withdraw from the review process to avoid compromising its regular conduct and out of respect for the journal’s bodies. Information or data learned during the double-blind peer review process must be considered confidential and cannot be used for personal purposes.

DUTIES OF AUTHORS

Authors undertake to present their research accurately, as well as to discuss its significance and originality impartially. Therefore, they must thoroughly introduce all the data used in the paper. The use of false statements and/or conscious inaccuracies represents behavior contrary to professional ethics and is unacceptable. Authors guarantee to present entirely original works and provide accurate identification of every citation or reference mentioned. Authors explicitly cite and acknowledge the work of others and/or the content of archival documents, including design and research projects. Authors cite publications that have influenced the research work presented and clarify the references related to archival documents, including projects. Submitted articles must not be previously published in other journals that hold the rights. Furthermore, during the review phase, contributions cannot be submitted to other journals with publication intent. By submitting a contribution and signing the related disclaimer, the Author agrees that if the article is accepted for publication, their right of use will be transferred to the Journal Board and the Publisher according to the disclaimer’s specifics. If an article is written by multiple Authors, all Authors must declare they have read and approved the final version of the work submitted to SEASCAPE for publication. When an Author identifies a significant defect or inaccuracy in their work, they must promptly inform the Journal’s Editorial Office and provide them with all the necessary information so that appropriate amendments can be made.

PLAGIARISM

SEASCAPE does not tolerate plagiarism in any of its publications and reserves the right to check all submissions using appropriate plagiarism detection tools. Proposals containing suspected plagiarism, whether total or partial, will be rejected. Plagiarism is defined as “the use of ideas, words, data, or other material produced by someone else without acknowledgment”. Plagiarism can occur in all types of sources and media: text, illustrations, etc.; material downloaded from websites or taken from manuscripts or other media; unpublished material; false references. By signing an appropriate release, Authors declare that they are the authors of texts, drawings, and photos. If their contributions also include the publication of material produced by others (e.g., photos and drawings), they present the necessary documentation attesting to the permission granted. The journal undertakes to verify these conditions. In case of insufficient documentation proving the permissions, SEASCAPE rejects the unpublishable material.

DUPLICATE PUBLICATION AND SELF-PLAGIARISM

SEASCAPE does not tolerate duplicate publications and “self-plagiarism”. Duplicate publication and “self-plagiarism” occur when a work or substantial parts of a work is published more than once by the authors without adequate cross-references or justifications for the overlap. Every work must contain the citation of the original source. SEASCAPE expects its readers, reviewers, and editors to contact the Editorial office to report any suspicion of duplicate or redundant publication via email at editorial.seascape@gmail.com.

DEFAMATION AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

SEASCAPE supports freedom of expression but does not tolerate false statements that harm the reputation of individuals, groups, or organizations.

POST-PUBLICATION DEBATE, RETRACTIONS, AND CORRECTIONS

To ensure the transparency and quality of scientific research, SEASCAPE considers the procedures for the publicity of post-publication debate and the management of corrections and retractions of articles as crucial elements.
SEASCAPE editors consider retractions and corrections based on COPE’s Retraction Guidelines. If it is found that an author has made a mistake, the journal will issue a corrigendum. Any article found to include fraudulent results will be retracted, or an appropriate correction will be issued.
SEASCAPE is committed to following COPE principles of transparency and best practices in academic publishing and encourages its editorial partners to uphold these same principles. Following COPE guidelines, SEASCAPE ensures retractions are handled transparently, fairly, and responsibly, contributing to trust in scientific research.
The Editorial and Management Board are available to receive reports and take appropriate actions.

TRANSPARENCY

SEASCAPE is committed to following COPE principles of transparency and best practices in academic publishing and encourages its editorial partners to uphold these same principles.
The Journal’s Principles of Transparency are described on this web page.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

A conflict of interest may occur when an author or its institution, a referee, or a member of the Editorial Team has a personal or financial relationship that could improperly influence their conduct in terms of judgment, influence, or evaluation. This conflict could occur even if the individual believes that the relationship would not influence them. The Editorial Committee manages the review process through double-blind peer review to prevent these circumstances.

Adopted in January 2022. Download the Code of Ethics (ITA+ENG).