Peer review policy
The main objective of Eon is to publish articles of a high scholarly standard. Decisions to publish or reject articles are made in line with editorial policy, which involves the considerations of legal and ethical issues. The journal reserves the right to reject submissions in cases of slander, the proliferation of xenophobia, copyright infringement, multiple publications of an article and plagiarism. Articles are evaluated in a double-blind peer review procedure and are scanned with a plagiarism software: Plagiarisma.net
EVALUATION AND PEER REVIEW PREPARATION
Each article submitted to Eon for publication is subject to an initial evaluation through the editor-in-chief or by a co-editor, who then selects the manuscripts on the basis of the following criteria: originality, clarity, scholarly and ethical rigour, thematic profile of the journal. Articles that meet the minimum publication criteria are sent to two experts for evaluation, in accordance with the double-blind peer review procedure.
Preparation of the manuscript for peer review
Given the requirements of the double-blind peer review, the manuscript will be sent to reviewer without the author's name and affiliation (s), but also without other elements (self-citations, wording such as "as shown in another study", the presence of the author's name in Information from the document in Word, Excel, etc.) that could unwittingly lead the reviewers to find out the identity of the researcher / researchers.
In turn, the author will not know who is evaluating the article. This whole process will be treated with the utmost confidentiality.
The evaluation of each article is undertaken in a double-blind-peer review process with the aim to asses the scholarly quality of the work submitted for publication.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF REVIEWERS
The reviewer takes part in the evaluation of the article, assists the editor and supports the author, if necessary, in order to improve the article.
Referees who are unable to respond promptly to the request for peer review should notify the editor or the editor-in-chief to be replaced by other experts in the field.
Any material received for evaluation must be treated with the utmost confidentiality. The article must not be presented or discussed with persons other than those authorized by the responsible publisher.
Reviewers should, if possible, identify relevant works that have not been cited by the author and recommend them to him.
Comments and arguments must be accompanied by relevant citations.
Any similarity between the material analyzed and another published paper must be reported to the editor-in-chief.
Disclosure and conflict of interest
Information or ideas obtained from the evaluation process should not be used by the reviewer for personal gain.
Reviewers should only give a scholarly assessment of the article and should not look at whether or not the author is in a conflict of interest.