Ocula.it is a peer-reviewed scientific journal inspired by the code of ethics for publications developed by COPE Committee on publication ethics: Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Authors, editors, coordinators, and reviewers are required to be familiar with and to uphold the principles outlined in the various sections and pages of the COPE website.
Ocula adopts the system of scientific evaluation of the articles submitted, known internationally as peer-reviewing. Each text is assigned in reading to two anonymous reviewers (double blind peer-review).
Ocula's Editorial Management and Editorial Board are responsible for the final decision on the publication of the proposed articles.


Duties of Editorial Management and Board

Correctness
Editorial Management and Editorial Board evaluate the articles proposed for publication with regard to their content without discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic origin, citizenship, political orientation of the authors, or their academic affiliation.

Confidentiality
The editors and other staff members of the Journal undertake not to disclose information relating to the proposed articles, except to the author, the editors and the publisher.

Conflict of interest and transparency
Coordinators and Editors undertake not to use the contents of an article proposed for publication in their research without the written consent of the author.
The contributions submitted for publication by members of the Editorial Board or Coordinators undergo the same anonymous and objective evaluation procedure.


Reviewer’s duties

Peer-review is a procedure that helps editors make informed decisions about proposed articles and allows authors to improve their contributions.
If reviewers consider that they are not competent with regard to the subjects dealt with in the article or that they know that they cannot carry out the reading in due time, they must promptly inform the Ocula coordinators and/or the editors of the specific number.
Each text is assigned for reading under the obligation of strict confidentiality. Therefore, this text must not become the subject of discussion with other people without the express authorisation of the Ocula editors. Documents received for revision must be treated as confidential. They must not be shown or discussed with anyone not previously authorized by the Management.

Objectivity
The peer review must be conducted objectively. Any personal consideration regarding the author is inappropriate. Reviewers are required to give adequate reasons for their judgments.

Text suggestion
Reviewers undertake to indicate precisely the bibliographical details of works they consider fundamental and neglected by the author. They must also inform the editors of any similarities or overlapping of the contribution sent to them for reading with other works known to them.

Conflict of interest and disclosure
Any information and indication obtained by the reviewers during the peer review is to be considered absolutely confidential and cannot be used for personal purposes. Reviewers are required not to assess those articles for which there is a conflict of interest due to previous collaborative or competitive relationships with the authors and/or their institutions.


Duties of the Authors

Data access and storage
If the editors consider it appropriate, the authors of the articles should also make the sources and/or data on which the research was based available so that they can be retained for a reasonable period of time after publication and, where appropriate, be made accessible to others for verification.

Originality
Authors are required to declare that they have composed an original work in all its parts and have cited all the texts used.

Multiple, repetitive and/or competing publications
The proposed texts must not have been published as copyrighted material in other journals. Texts under review by the journal must not be submitted simultaneously to other journals for publication.

Indication of sources
Authors must always provide the correct indication of the sources and contributions mentioned in the article.

Paternity of the work
Authorship of the work should be correctly attributed and all those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, organization, implementation and reworking of the research that is the basis of the article should be indicated as co-authors. If other people have significantly participated in certain phases of the research, their contribution should be explicitly acknowledged. In the case of multiple contributions, authors who send their texts to the journal are required to declare that they have correctly indicated the names of all other co-authors, that they have obtained their approval of the final version of the article and that they grant their consent to publication in Ocula.

Conflict of interest and disclosure
All authors are required to explicitly state that there are no conflicts of interest that could have affected the results achieved or the proposed interpretations. Authors must also indicate the possible funding bodies of the research and/or project from which the article originates.

Post-Publication Corrections
Authors are required to promptly report any significant errors they identify in their already published work. The responsibility for implementing such corrections lies with the editors of the thematic issues or with the Flux publications coordinator.
Furthermore, the post-publication correction process may be initiated when errors or ethical concerns are reported by authors, readers, third-party stakeholders, or identified through screening software. Reports are reviewed by the Editorial Management and may require further consultation or investigation, involving the Editorial Board and, if necessary, the Scientific Committee. Decisions are made in accordance with the guidelines established by COPE.
Once an article is corrected, a correction notice indicating the date of revision is published on the article’s metadata page. The PDF file is also updated to highlight the corrections made, including the date on which they were implemented.


Anti-plagiarism measures

All articles submitted to Ocula undergo thorough review to detect any improper use of other texts, including through the use of anti-plagiarism software. In cases where plagiarism is identified, actions are taken in accordance with the guidelines established by COPE.
Upon notification by readers or third parties, the Editorial Management and Board initiate a verification procedure. If the report is confirmed, the author of the article is presented with the evidence resulting from the comparison with the potentially plagiarized sources and asked to provide an explanation. Furthermore, the author of the original, plagiarized work is informed, as well as the editor-in-chief of the journal and/or the series in which it was published.
The article found to contain plagiarized content is retracted in accordance with the procedures outlined below.


Retraction

The retraction of a published article is a measure adopted by the Editorial Management and Board in order to maintain the integrity and accuracy of scientific publications. Retractions are required in specific cases where the findings or conclusions of an article are deemed unreliable or substantially compromised. Decisions are made in accordance with the COPE guidelines.
The main reasons for retraction include, but are not limited to:

• Unreliability of results or sources, whether due to honest error or fraudulent conduct;


• Publication of an article already published elsewhere without proper referencing, permission, or justification;


• In cases of plagiarism;


• In cases involving defamation, copyright infringement, or serious violation of privacy.

When an article is retracted, a retraction notice outlining the reasons is published on the page containing the article’s metadata, along with a link to the PDF file of the article. The PDF file is removed, while the article’s metadata remains in the Ocula database and continues to appear in indexes.


Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Ocula acknowledges the significance of technological innovation and is aware of both the opportunities and the risks it poses for the publishing sector. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and machine learning tools do not meet the criteria for authorship and therefore cannot be recognized as authors of an article.
AI is a rapidly evolving technological field, as is the ethical regulation surrounding its applications. We therefore refer to the COPE Ethical Guidelines, offering here only some general recommendations for authors, editors, and reviewers.

Authors
If authors have employed AI tools in the development of any part of a manuscript, such use must be described transparently and in detail. The description should include the name of the tool, its purpose, the date of use, and the specific prompts or queries used. It must also be stated whether, and how, the AI-generated content was reviewed and verified. The use of AI for “AI-assisted copy editing” only (i.e., enhancements to readability, style, grammar, spelling, punctuation, or tone) does not require disclosure.
AI may be used as a support tool, not as a substitute for the writing process. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy of all content and must ensure that statements, citations, and analyses are consistent with their own expertise and research. The use of AI must comply with data protection laws and respect privacy and confidentiality.

AI-Generated Images
The use of AI-generated images is generally not permitted for publication due to legal and copyright concerns. Exceptions may be made for images sourced from agencies under contractual agreement, images directly relevant to a specific article on AI, or images produced by tools based on verifiable scientific data. All exceptions must be clearly labeled as AI-generated. The use of non-generative AI tools to manipulate or enhance existing images must be disclosed in the caption.

Use of AI in Editorial Processes
Editors of special issues and the Coordinator are not permitted to upload manuscripts (or parts thereof, including figures and tables) into generative AI tools. This restriction is due to concerns regarding the confidentiality of the peer review process, privacy, copyright, and the potential misuse of unpublished data for AI training.

Use of AI in Peer Review
Reviewers are not permitted to upload manuscripts or any part thereof into generative AI tools. This restriction arises from concerns over the confidentiality of the peer review process, the privacy of both authors and reviewers, copyright issues, and the potential use of confidential data for AI training. Reviewers are personally responsible for the content of their review reports, and the use of generative AI to produce such reports is not permitted.