Sulla rivista

Scopo e ambito

 I Quaderni della Rivista di Psicologia Clinica nascono on line nel 2013, per consentire a professionisti e ricercatori di proporre contributi che sviluppino una cultura psicologico clinica attenta al mandato sociale della professione (“a che serve l'intervento” entro le aspettative del contesto?) e alle modalità di intervento che ne derivano. Nel 2021 Quaderni della Rivista di Psicologia Clinica diventa Quaderni di Psicologia Clinica, mantenendo la sua finalità: proporre una alternativa alle riviste che puntano in modo prevalente all’indicizzazione, conservando un’alta qualità scientifica e concentrando l’attenzione sulla relazione tra intervento, modelli e contesto. Quaderni pubblica due numeri l’anno, a Luglio e Dicembre.

Processo di Peer Review

Quaderni di Psicologia Clinica adotta una procedura di double blind peer review. La procedura viene attivata dall'editor che, letto il contributo, ne verifica la coerenza con gli obiettivi e gli standard formali e di contenuto della rivista. Gli autori possono sottoporre contributi scritti in italiano includendo titolo, abstract e parole chiave in inglese. Il processo di revisione è da intendersi come opportunità per promuovere uno scambio volto a garantire un elevato standard scientifico per la rivista ma allo stesso tempo fornire agli autori l'opportunità di migliorare la qualità dei loro contributi.

Open Access Policy

Questa rivista fornisce accesso aperto e immediato ai suoi contenuti, nel principio che rendere le ricerche disponibili liberamente al pubblico aumenta il livello di scambio globale maggiore di conoscenza.

Politica etica della rivista

The chief goal of our policy is threefold: to provide advice for our authors, to maintain the scholarly integrity of our journal and its content, and to detail the ethical responsibilities of Rivista di Psicologia Clinica, our editors and authors.

We expect all authors to read and understand our ethics policy before submitting to our journal. This is in accordance with our commitment to the prevention of ethical misconduct, which we recognise to be a growing problem in academic and professional publications. It is important to note that most incidents of plagiarism, redundant publication, copyright infringement or similar occur because of a lack of understanding, and not through fraudulent intent. Our policy is one of prevention and not persecution.

  Authors' Responsabilities

  Authors should: 

• Ensure that all researched work submitted is original, fully referenced and that all authors are represented accurately. The submission must be exclusive and not under consideration elsewhere.
• Provide accurate contact details for a designated corresponding author, who shall be deemed by the publisher and editor as fully responsible for the authorship of the paper and all communications concerning the ethical status and originality of the paper. This includes any queries or investigations that may arise, pre- or post publication.
• Openly disclose the source of all data and third party material, including previously unpublished work by the authors themselves. Anything that could compromise the originality of the submission should be expressly avoided and/or discussed with the editor in the first instance.
• Identify any third party material that they intend to include in their article, and obtain written permission for re-use in each instance from the relevant copyright holders. Such permissions should be submitted once the manuscript is accepted, or requires small changes to be accepted. 
• Openly disclose any conflict of interest - for example, if publication were to benefit a company or services in which the author(s) has a vested interest.
• Expect to sign a Creative Commons Attribution License. 
• Fully correspond and comply with the editor and publisher in any requests for source data, proof of authorship or originality in a timely manner, providing reasonable explanation for discrepancies or failures to disclose vital information.
• Fully co-operate with any consequent investigations if the editor and/or publisher are dissatisfied with the evidence available or the explanations provided.
• Expect transparency, efficiency and respect from the publisher and the editor during the submissions process.
• Remain in good communication with both the publisher and the editor.
• When necessary, submit corrigenda in a timely and responsible fashion.
• Co-operate fully with the publication of errata and with the retraction of articles found to be unethical, misleading or damaging.
• Remain in good communication with the editor(s), the publisher and any co-authors.

  Editors' Responsabilities

  Editors should:

• Protect the reputation of the journal and published work by only publishing content of the highest quality and relevance in a timely and responsible manner.
• Carry out thorough, objective and confidential peer review for original article submissions that pass the initial quality check and editorial assessment.
• Provide a transparent review and publication process as far as is possible, with full respect and care paid to the author(s).
• Provide advice and give reasonable explanation and updates to authors during the submissions process and once a decision has been made.
• Allow authors the right to appeal any editorial decision.
• Only accept papers based on the original merit, quality and relevance of their content.
• Support authors in queries concerning the originality of their submissions and request the support of RPC if necessary.
• Advise the publisher of any third party material which has been included for which they do not believe sufficient permission has been cleared.
• Be ready and prepared to publish corrections, corrigenda, errata when necessary, as well as retract articles that deem unethical, misleading or damaging.
• Remain in good communication with both the publisher and the author(s).

  Reviewers' Responsabilities

  Reviewers should:

• Adhere to journal’s policy of confidential peer review of the journal. This includes, but is not restricted to, keeping their identity hidden from authors and not externally distributing any work that is passed to them for their eyes only.
• Only accept invitations to review work that is relevant to their own expertise and speciality.
• Review submitted work in a responsible, impartial and timely manner.
• Report any suspected ethical misconduct as part of a thorough and honest review of the work.
• Avoid the use of unnecessarily inflammatory or offensive language in their appraisal of the work.
• Accept the commitment to review future versions of the work and provide 'follow up’ advice to the editor(s), if requested.
• Seek advice from the editor if anything is unclear at the time of invitation.
• Remain in good communication with both the publisher and the editor.