Linee guida per gli autori

Pnyx intends to assist researchers by cutting down tedious tasks and turnaround times, so that our colleagues can focus more on what they do best: research, think, and write. In the link below we list our house rules for your reference to support the peer-review and production process by providing a coherent work (style, spelling, referencing). Our team will take care of formatting and ensure consistency, but it may be helpful if you could try abiding by some of the conventions that follow, especially the referencing system; citations in footnotes should follow the Author, Date: Page No. format, and a full bibliographical reference should be given in the Bibliography section.

We welcome submissions of long papers, from 8,000 to 18,000 words long, as we are well aware of the pressure generated by a tight, low word limit and its impact on paper quality and coverage. Digital print knows no size restrictions, but papers longer than the size suggested above are difficult to maintain focus, clarity, and readers' interest.  

Please follow the link to inspect our House Rules: House Rules (v1.2)

Isegoria aspires to uphold academic integrity and impeccable research ethics. Ourselves, our contributors, our collaborators, and our processes are driven by the standards, principles, and stipulations expressed in COPE and the EU Commission's Ethics for Researchers. For more detailed information we kindly refer you to the publisher's website for our Editorial Policies and ethics. 

To facilitate production, but also to ease the workload of researchers, we recommend using a reference management tool, such as EndNote, Zotero, Mendeley, or any other. It may be time-consuming at first, but as every user will tell you, it is a great investment of time: it proofreads your references and bibliography and, with a click of a button, you can change your referencing style to abide by different house rules when submitting manuscripts for publication. Authors are kindly asked to share with Pnyx the part of their Reference Database that is pertinent to the article. 

The review process: double-blind, two-step peer review

At Pnyx we value fairness, inclusivity, and collaborative work. All papers are evaluated on the basis of argument, originality, and importance. No author will be sent away on account of language, style, structure, or any considerations other than merit and integrity. If needed, the editors will bring papers closer to academic standards, respecting the author’s voice and academic background at all times. Please follow the link to the publisher’s website to read more about our views on academic English and our vision for Classical Studies and Archaeology. If you are happy with our Editorial Policies, Code of Ethics, and Licencing, please register on our website as an author and submit your manuscript via the system, so that the reviewing process may begin.

All papers undergo two rounds of peer review. The first one is internal and takes 1 to 3 weeks, depending on workload: the editors and the members of the Advisory Board with the relevant expertise make an evaluation and decide on publication, publication with revisions, or rejection, and provide authors with feedback. After the authors accept publication or submit with revisions, papers undergo language editing, which may take up to two weeks. Papers are then sent to two external reviewers who make recommendations for improvements and pinpoint errors, omissions, or redundancies. We expect external reviewers to report within 4 weeks. Authors, editors, and reviewers converse to agree on ways forward before publication. The authors make all agreed-upon revisions, send the paper across, and will have the chance to check the proofs before papers are published digitally.

When submitting a paper, in the Comments to the Editors section, authors are given the opportunity to exclude reviewers whom they consider as potentially hostile or unfavourably predisposed to a specific train of thought. Authors are kindly reminded to exclude from the review process all colleagues who have seen the paper or earlier versions of the manuscript.

We look forward to reading your work and we invite you to become part of our growing network of friends and collaborators. We view the scholarly community for what it is, a community, whom we aspire to serve. No fees, full service.

The reviewers' commitments

We believe in collaborative work and aim to reduce the effect of erratic, idiosyncratic, unpredictable reviews. We ask our reviewers to engage with papers and authors in a positive, constructive manner to suggest improvements, while the decision to publish the paper remains with the editorial team upon completion of the internal peer review. We kindly ask our reviewers to consider the following points.

• Professional Conduct. The review process is the equivalent of collaborative work between colleagues and co-workers. As such, all interactions must be respectful, all feedback constructive, and all objections or arguments well-grounded. 
• Blind Peer Review. We kindly ask our reviewers to refrain from any attempt to establish the identity of the author. If during the review process the reviewer thinks that they may have surmised the author's identity, they are kindly requested to inform the publishers in writing.
• Merit and Fairness. All evaluations must be grounded on scientific validity, regardless of personal or political views. Disagreeing with a viewpoint does not make that viewpoint unpublishable. 
• Timeliness. Peer review is a voluntary task to the benefit of the scholarly community. Several colleagues view it as a duty to the community and we are working with other organisations to find ways to credit our reviewers. Meanwhile, we would very much appreciate timely responses to review requests (within one week) and submissions of review forms (within one month). If in the process of reviewing the reviewer realises that time is an issue, they are kindly asked to notify the publishers in writing as soon as possible. If they must recuse themselves, it would be useful to recommend a replacement, with whom they have checked to confirm capacity. 

If you are interested in becoming a reviewer for Pnyx, please get in touch or register with the journal as a reader and tick the box next to the question 'Do you want to become a reviewer?'.