LIRPA Journal evaluation process covers products belonging to the following scientific areas:

1) BASIC RESEARCH: it includes fundamental research  typical activities , and in particular experimental or theoretical works carried out above all to acquire new    knowledge on phenomena and observable facts foundations/grounds , without any high risk content  direct applications or  practical uses ;

2)  SCIENTIFIC CULTURE SPREADING: activity aimed at promoting and helping        technical-scientific culture spreading, also in order to contribute to  psychological science  impressive technical-scientific heritage protection and enhancement.


LIRPA Journal adopts two evaluation methodologies in compliance with  current  evaluation  rules :

Peer Review

Bibliometric Evaluation


 Peer review evaluation methodology

Scientific research articles and products presented by authors as natural persons or institutions , individually or in combination , are evaluated  with the following methodologies:



The magazine has three GEVs (Groups of Evaluation Experts) whose coordinators and whose members are  structured ordinary, associated professors and researchers   ( also fixed-term contract or national Health Service. non-onerous teaching convention   university professors  can be members, but not coordinators) .



– Anonymous double blind peer evaluation (LIRPA Journal refers to at least 2 evaluations expressed by at least 2 experts, each belonging to a different GEV )  by  filling in an Evaluation Chart,  prepared by LIRPA Journal according to the current rules. In  case of conflicting opinions LIRPA Journal uses a third expert’s  evaluation , belonging to the 3rd GEV, first not involved  in the product evaluation.

-Informed peer review  in case of necessary in-depth evaluation, if  there are the  conditions ,  the GEV (Evaluation Expert Groups)  direct evaluation can also be carried out using bibliometric evaluation based on the number of product quotations , on the number  of  host journal quotations and on  the journal itself impact factors indicators;

All  GEVs common elements:

  • GEV evaluation products final responsibility  with merit classes  award ;
  • choice to use the informed peer review technique for evaluation, which consists in taking into account several evaluation elements  for the final merit classification .


3  Evaluation process

Products  evaluation  was carried out by the GEVs using bibliometry and peer review. Each product is assigned to two GEV members responsible for the related evaluation process.  After  the process will be described separately for each methodology.


LIRPA Journal peer review evaluation methodology

The evaluation of scientific research articles and products presented by authors as natural persons or institutions, individually or in combination, takes place with the following methodologies:

Double-blind peer review (LIRPA Journal refers to three GEVs for peer review)

Informed peer review

Peer review is entrusted to independent external experts, chosen among the GEVs (usually at least two per product), who have been assigned the task of expressing anonymously on the quality of the selected publications, which are also anonymous.

– direct evaluation by a GEV (Evaluation Experts Group)  member chosen, also using bibliometric analysis based on  expected  product quotations potential number  in the following three years after  publication, being the LIRPA Journal a new scientific journal, and on the product hosting magazine impact factors indicators ;

The final quality judgment is expressed on the basis of the following criteria:

  1. a) originality), which means the level at which the product introduces a new way of thinking in relation to research scientific object , and is thus distinguished from the previous approaches to the same object;
  2. b) methodological rigour , which means the level at which the product clearly presents research  objectives and the state of the art in  literature, adopts a methodology appropriate to the research object and shows that the objectives have been achieved;
  3. c) attested or potential impact in the international scientific community of reference, which means the level at which the product has exercised, or is likely to exercise in the future, a theoretical and / or applicative influence on this community also on the basis of its capacity to comply with research international quality standards .

The analysis based on these criteria converges into a synthetic judgment on the research product, divided into five levels:


1 Excellent. Maximum originality  levels  – Maximum methodological rigour levels – Strong impact on  scientific community

2 High: Good originality levels – Good  methodological rigour levels – Significant impact on  scientific community

3 Fair:  Quite Good  originality levels – Quite Good  methodological rigour levels – Appreciable impact on  scientific community

4 Acceptable: Sufficient  originality  levels- Sufficient  methodological rigour  levels- Circumscribed impact on  scientific community

5 Limited: Low level of originality – Poor  methodological rigour level – Very limited impact level on  scientific community



 Bibliometric Evaluation

– already certified according to current rules  for scientific articles and products by authors who have already been quoted  by other  Psychological Sciences sector indexed journals.

– waiting within the next 3 years  after the  publication year  for  other articles and scientific products by  authors not yet mentioned by other indexed sector magazines , being LIRPA Journal a new edition magazine.



– Use of two databases for bibliometric evaluation: product quotations and product hosting journal   quotations.



The peer review submits  an author ‘s work or ideas to the scrutiny of one or more experts in the same field. Each of these experts provides its own evaluation (usually method evaluations or search for valid tests), including suggestions for possible improvement to an editor or another intermediary (typically, most evaluations are also communicated to the  author himself/herself ). Evaluations usually include explicit recommendations on the text of the manuscript or proposal, often chosen among options offered by the newspaper or publisher. Most of these recommendations are among the following:

  • work is accepted without reservations;
  • work is accepted, provided that the author improves it under certain aspects;
  • the work is rejected, but a revision and a re-proposal are encouraged;
  • work is rejected without any further possibility.

In this process  experts’ opinion is only advisory and the publisher does not assume any formal obligation to accept the conclusions. Furthermore, in scientific publications, the experts do not work in groups, they do not communicate with each other and normally they are not aware of  other experts’ identities. Normally there is no need for experts to express a consensual judgment, unlike other areas, such as the court jury.

In case experts’ opinions  diverge consistently on the quality of a work analysed,  LIRPA Journal observes this convention. The two or three selected reviewers report to the editor their article evaluation , along with suggestions to improve it. The editor then reports the set of comments to the author (some comments may have been reported to the editor as confidential), meanwhile relying on them, he decides whether or not to publish the manuscript. When an editor receives very positive and very negative comments on the same manuscript, he solicits one or more additional reviews to break the uncertainty.

Another strategy in the absence of a clear agreement is that of inviting the author to reply to the reviewers’ criticisms and allowing  a convincing refutation to dissolve the uncertainty. If an editor does not feel confident in assessing the persuasiveness of a refutation, he can solicit an answer from the judge who brought the original critique. In rare cases, an editor will transmit communications between the author and the reviewers, allowing in practice to discuss a point. Even in these cases, however, editors do not allow reviewers to consult  with each other, and the explicit purpose of the process is not to reach consensus or convince someone to change their opinion. However, some medical journals (usually following the open access model) have published on the Internet the story before   each article publication, from the original candidacy to the reviewers ‘reports, to the authors’ comments, to the revised manuscripts. After reviewing and resolving any potential  problem item, there are three possible outcomes for the article. The two most simple are the direct refusal and the unconditional acceptance. In many cases  authors are given a chance to review the work, with or without specific recommendations or requests from the reviewers.


Review styles

The peer review can be carried out rigorously without being excessively restrictive. For example, in the case of an institution that has a lot of funds to donate, or a magazine with a few high-profile jobs to choose from, it might not make sense to be too selective. Conversely, when funds or publication space are limited, peer review can be used to select a small number of proposals or manuscripts.

The decision about what is “good enough” depends entirely on the magazine editor or organizer . In other cases, the choice of the rigour to be applied will be up to the auditors, with a general guide by the relative GEV person in charge  . Where method errors are reported in  research study presented before  verification or reliability of any evidence presented in support of the thesis, the evident errors are identified and the authors receive both corrections and suggestions.

In order to preserve  peer review process integrity, the candidate authors are not informed about who has received their work; they do not even know their work responsible editor identity  .  LIRPA Journal operates with “blind” or “double-blind” review procedures,  authors’ identities  are hidden to reviewers, to prevent this knowledge from becoming prejudicial  to their review. In such cases, however, the associated editor, responsible for the text, knows the author’s identity . In  double-blind revision, any reference that can identify them as authors is removed from the work.


Auditors’ appointment  

Auditors’ recruitment  is carried out on the basis of  their publications established skills and the parallel availability of them  who are not paid and still take away the time needed for their main research and / or work or if a scholar is among those who hope to submit their work  to the publication of this teaching activities within their respective research institutions. A good result of the review process, and therefore a careful  reviewers selection , is in fact in the  editor’s interest  to give credit to the magazine itself. Therefore  editors have a particular interest in recruiting scholars after reviewing   their published  editor in the future,. To the recruiter benefit  many of the potential reviewers are therefore authors and / or readers who are aware that an efficient and reliable publication system requires an expert review service.

Usually  reviewers are not chosen among the author’s  colleagues, relatives or friends .  Auditors are expected to inform the publisher of any conflicts of interest that may arise. Magazines or individual editors often invite  a manuscript  author to nominate people who they consider qualified to judge their work. Authors are sometimes also invited to nominate natural candidates who should be “disqualified”. In this case he may be required to provide a justification (typically expressed in terms of a conflict of interest).


Peer Reviewer Evaluation Chart

Product Title:

⇓ Download the evaluation form