EDITORIAL STEPS
- Complete submissions must be preceded by expressions of interest as detailed in the submission guide
- The editor(s) discuss(es) the draft submission with the author(s); this might involve a wealth of suggestions and clarifications.
- Considering this preliminary discussion, the authors improve the initial work and send it to the editor for iterative revision.
- It is the author’s responsibility to include accurate, complete and properly formatted citations. The provided instructions detail inline formats, formats for references and notes, media formats and several other procedures.
- The piece is prepared with links allowing for straightforward navigation, and direct access to external references. The provided instructions explain this in detail.
- The editor(s) sends the work for peer-review. The editor assesses reviews, proposed enhancements and revisions. The process involves active discussions and as many rounds of feedback as necessary.
- Technical preparation for online publication.
- Proofreading.
TIMELINE
- Expressions of interest: March 21st; notification of preliminary acceptance: April 21st
- Full submissions: July 1st
- Preliminary discussions between editor(s) and author(s): July 1st – 30th
- Iterative improvements: July 30th – September 7th
- Reference verification: September 7th – 21st
- Preparation for straightforward online navigation: September 21st – October 7th
- Peer reviews and iterative improvements: October 7th – November 30th
- Technical preparation for online publication: November 30th – December 15th
- Proofreading: December 15th – 22nd
- Publication: December 26th
REVIEW GUIDELINES
The reviewers may recommend “acceptance”, “acceptance if revised to address the reviewers’ concerns” or “no acceptance”. In any case, they are asked to provide constructive critiques and detailed suggestions for improvement.
The reviewers are free to compose their texts as they see fit, while considering the following questions:
-
- How does the submission address the mission of this journal?
- Is the title adequate and appealing? Is it as short as possible, and clearly understandable to any reader?
- Does the abstract summarise how the work contributes to the advancement of knowledge – theoretical, practical or both?
- Is the information well structured?
- Is the writing clear to any reader?
- Is the research subject well framed?
- Is the argument well supported with bibliographic references and media? Are these appropriate and sufficient?
- Can the submission be further enhanced with video, audio, code, links or demonstrations?
- Are credits and copyrights displayed appropriately?
- Are captions sufficiently descriptive?
- Do citations, references and notes follow the provided instructions? Do all include appropriate links?
PEER-REVIEW POLICY AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The submissions are reviewed by the editorial board, which may include internal reviewers from the advisory board as well as external experts.
Reviewers recommended by the author may be included. Yet, they cannot pertain to the author’s family, belong to the same institution, or be their current collaborators. The editor must be notified immediately when there is a conflict of interest.
There are multiple revision rounds, involving an intense collaboration between Once a work is adequately prepared, the editor creates credentials for the reviewers to access the publication privately, and provides review guidelines. The editor-author collaboration proceeds as each review motivates new revision rounds
The author’s identity is always disclosed to the reviewer. The reviewers are free to reveal their identity to the author at any time, or keep anonymity. In any case, the authors discuss reviews and revisions with the editor rather than directly with reviewers. Once the journal is published they are credited in association with the work they contributed for (unless explicitly undesired): in the page called PUBLICATIONS (which includes editorial notes, abstracts and keywords) as well as in the page called TEAM (which includes everyone contributing to assuring the journal’s integrity and growth.
PERSISTENT IDENTIFIERS: ISSN & DOI
ISSN
The journal has an ISSN (International Standard Serial Number): 2975-9943.
DOI
- Each published contribution has its own DOI (Digital Object Identifier), which is provided in the corresponding URL.
Volume 1 includes:
- https://doi.org/10.60543/liveinterfacesjournal.v1i1.9136
- https://doi.org/10.60543/liveinterfacesjournal.v1i1.9147
- https://doi.org/10.60543/liveinterfacesjournal.v1i1.9143
- https://doi.org/10.60543/liveinterfacesjournal.v1i1.9144
Volume 2 includes:
- https://doi.org/10.60543/NB59-B207
- https://doi.org/10.60543/C7EE-C969
- https://doi.org/10.60543/MY8Q-S871
Volume 3 includes:
- https://doi.org/10.60543/liveinterfacesjournal.v3i1.10949
- https://doi.org/10.60543/liveinterfacesjournal.v3i1.10950
- https://doi.org/10.60543/liveinterfacesjournal.v3i1.10951
ETHICS
OPEN ACCESS POLICY
The Live Interfaces journal adopts an Open Access (OA) policy. Accordingly, it allows for the free, unrestricted, and immediate online access to scholarly research. The goal is to increase the visibility, reuse, and impact of research by removing financial, legal, or technical barriers to access.
LICENSING
The contributions to this journal are published under a Creative Commons licence, which enables re-users to copy and distribute the material in any medium or format in unadapted form only, for non-commercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator.
ARCHIVE POLICY
Beyond regular URL backups, the journal keeps an independent copy of all contents to assure their preservation. This means that, in addition to digital platform-dependent backups – currently WordPress – the contents of each contribution are equally stored in the form of text files and media files (images, audio, video), along with author metadata records. This archive depends on the authors following the indications described STEP 3 from the submission guide. The archiving process can happen after the publishing process.
MALPRACTICE STATEMENT
Once submitted to the journal’s digital platform, all works are screened for originality (plagiarism, self-plagiarism, redundant publication). Complaints and appeals regarding plagiarism, should be sent to the editor-in-chief, who will ask the authors to provide an explanation. They will then be discussed by the members of the board and/or external examiners, who may recommend specific corrections or full. Based on this process, the editor may suspend the publication temporarily or definitively, and inform the author accordingly.
HOSTS
PARTNERS
PROMOTER
SUPPORT
PROMOTER
SUPPORT
