The Refereed Series on Islamic Finance covers original monographic scientific works in Arabic, English, Italian and Persian. The series is accredited by the Italian Academy of Business Economics (AIDEA).
The Series is open to contributions based on different methodologies and methods with theoretical, empirical, or experimental research, positive, interpretative, and critical approaches.
The Editorial Board makes an initial assessment of the publication proposals, considering their consistency with the Series's objectives and scope. The Editorial Board chooses the reviewers and ensures a correct and transparent application of the anonymous double-referencing process.
Editorial Board members and other scholars of value contribute as reviewers, based on their specific expertise. Any member of the Editorial Board may make publication proposals: in this case, the Scientific Committee cannot be involved in the review process.
It is the responsibility of the Editor in Chief and the Editorial Board to adhere to the editorial policy.
The Scientific Committee's functions refer to directly assisting the Editor in Chief in evaluating submissions and the assignment of referees.
Referees carry out the full review of monographs and are scholars (at least Associate Professor or equivalent) in different universities' disciplinary field.
Scholars (though not associate professors) who have published a monograph in the Series may also be included in the referees' list.
The publication of a monograph in the Series is subject to the occurrence of two circumstances:
- acceptance of the editorial proposal submitted by the author (s) according to the format defined by the Series;
- obtaining a positive opinion on the volume from two anonymous reviewers.
The editorial proposal follows the following procedure:
- submission to the Editor in Chief through the email box email@example.com (with a request for receipt) in the format provided for the Series by the Publisher;
- evaluation of the proposal/manuscript by the Editor, who decides whether to reject it or send it for refereeing (please note that in the evaluation process, the Editor may be supported by the Scientific Committee);
- proposals that receive a positive evaluation are accepted;
- the Editor re-evaluates proposals that do not receive an entirely positive evaluation with the Scientific Committee's support to formulate the final judgment.
The refereeing of the volume follows the acceptance of the editorial proposal.
Two reviewers conduct refereeing. They can be chosen within the Scientific Committee and outside it, among academics who have adequate expertise on the issues addressed in the monograph included in the referees' list. The evaluation takes place through the following parameters:
- objectives of the work;
- scientific starting point;
- articulation and development of the work;
- research methodologies adopted;
- main results.
The Editor chooses reviewers. Reviewers must not know the name of the author of the volume being evaluated.
Reviewers shall formulate their judgement within two months of receiving the volume. The decision is structured according to the points contained in a specially prepared reference form (Annex 1).
The opinion is sent to the Editor. If, for both reviewers, the judgement is positive and no revision suggestions are made, the volume goes straight to press. If one or both reviewers propose corrections, the Editor forwards the recommendations to the author for revision. The corrected monograph is sent back to the Editor for a second revision within a maximum of one month. In the event of conflicting opinions, the Editor decides whether to obtain a third opinion, print the volume anyway or reject it.
For more information, please write to the Editor-in-Chief: firstname.lastname@example.org