Firenze University Press

III. Peer review policy

Publishing proposals (Submissions policy) are submitted to the FUP Editorial Board via the Director of the publishing house, who gives an initial editorial, technical and economic evaluation. The Editorial board is composed of academics, spanning from the domain of human and social sciences to that of the natural, technological and biomedical sciences. Their task is to decide on the proposal by accepting it, refusing it, or asking the author to revise it. If a revision of the work is requested, the referees verify whether the Author has made the requested changes. If there are inconsistencies with what has been requested, the work is submitted again to the Editorial board for a final evaluation. A new publishing proposal can be submitted by the author, or by a Scientific board already publishing a series in the FUP catalogue (https://www.fupress.com/comitatoscientifico).

• The author’s proposal is evaluated by at least two reviewers through a single-blind peer-review process.
• The publishing proposal submitted by a Scientific board must be accompanied by the report of two referees: at least one of the two must be external to the proposing Committee.

The FUP Editorial board, however, has the last word on the publication decision. Every publishing proposal must be deliberated by the FUP Editorial Board; exceptionally, some works may not be subject to external refereeing process due to their specific nature.
The FUP Editorial board’s members’ names, as well as the Editor-in-Chief’s and the FUP Series Scientific board’s members’, are published in the on-line catalogue and in every single book.

FUP Editorial board



Published by FUP
CC BY 4.0
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/fup_best_practice.3

» Firenze University Press Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing