Your basket is empty
Publication proposals are submitted to the FUP Editorial Board by the Editor-in-chief, together with an initial editorial, technical and economic evaluation. The FUP Editorial Board - composed of eminent scholars covering a wide range of humanistic and social disciplines and natural, technological and biomedical sciences - evaluates the proposal and either accepts it for publication, rejects it or decides to request a revision from the author. Where revision is required, compliance with the requested changes is monitored by the Editor-in-chief. In the event of discrepancies, the publication is submitted anew to the FUP Editorial Board for a final evaluation.
Publication proposals can be submitted to the FUP Editorial Board directly by the author, or by a recognised Scientific Committee belonging to the FUP Catalogue.
The individual submissions are subject to dual peer review (one by a member of the FUP Editorial Board and one by an academic referee external to the Board).
Publications proposed by the Scientific Committees belonging to the FUP Catalogue must be accompanied by the opinions of two referees: one peer review by a member of the proposing Committee and one by an academic referee external to the Committee. The ultimate decision regarding publication nevertheless lies with the FUP Editorial Board, which must give its approval.
Without prejudice to the required approval of the FUP Editorial Board for all publication proposals, in exceptional cases the requirement for external peer review may be waived in view of the intrinsic nature of certain works.
The names of the members of the FUP Editorial Board and those of the Scientific Committees belonging to the FUP Catalogue (over thirty) are published in the online FUP Catalogue. The members of the Scientific Committees belonging to the FUP Catalogue are also indicated on a specific page of each publication (rear of half title page). The peer review criteria of the above Scientific Committees are also published in the online FUP Catalogue.
Peer Review Process up to December 2010