Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Main topics of publication:

•    Study of the system: artifact-environment-biota
•    Historical-artistic knowledge of cultural heritage (ie. author, art movement, period of realization, techniques, society and cultural characteristics, socio-economic context, commissioning, financing, interested public)
•    History, diagnosis, restoration, maintenance, conservation, valorization, prevention
•    Document research
•    Book, codex, and manuscript production in its historical context
•    Appropriate methodologies and analytical techniques used for the characterization of historical artifacts and evaluation of the conservation state
•    Environmental monitoring: assessment of atmospheric pollution and correlated degradation of monuments and historical-artistic sites
•    Micro and macroclimatic monitoring in confined areas (ie. museums, libraries, archives, churches, galleries…)
•    Artistic diagnostics
•    Art market and auction houses
•    Experiences in cultural heritage conservation
•    Evaluation of the suitability of products for restoration, conservation, and maintenance of works of art
•    Information science and cultural heritage: data processing and cataloguing methods
•    Virtual re-elaboration and use of historical artifacts and environments
•    Study, valorization and digitalization of archive and library heritage
•    Environmental context and technical-conservative issues related to historic architecture
•    Virtual or traditional conservation, cataloguing and processing of photographs    
•    Various other topics including education, safeguard, education, legislation, economics, social aspects, management, marketing, interdisciplinarity, internationalization, etc.


Section Policies


Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

All articles submitted by Conservation Science in Cultural Heritage will undergo a double blind peer review.
For more information on the peer review process, please read Quality control and Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice.


Publication Frequency

The journal is published once a year.


Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. It releases its articles under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Creative Commons License

This license allows anyone to download, reuse, re-print, modify, distribute and/or copy the contributions. The works must be properly attributed to its author(s). It is not necessary to ask further permissions both to author(s) or journal board.

Authors who publish on this journal maintain the copyrights.

Authors are welcome to post the final draft post-refereeing (postprint) on a personal website, a collaborative wiki, departmental website, social media websites, institutional repository or non-commercial subject-based repositories.

The journal has neither article processing charges nor submission processing fees.


Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice

The following statement is inspired by COPE Code of Conduct (accessible here).

At the present moment, the Journal is under review for membership in COPE.


Duties for the Scientific Editor of the Journal

The Scientific Editor of Conservation Science in Cultural Heritage is responsible for the selection and publication of the articles submitted to the Journal.

The Scientific Editor takes all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material published in Conservation Science in Cultural Heritage.

The Scientific Editor’s decision to accept or reject a paper for publication in the Journal is based on subject relevance and originality, and is guided by the review of suitably Qualified Reviewers.

The Scientific Editor will ensure that appropriate Reviewers are selected for submissions.

The Scientific Editor strives to ensure that peer review at the Journal is fair, unbiased and timely.

A description of the peer review process is published, and Scientific Coordinators are ready to justify any important devia­tion from the described process.


How peer review is organised

The process of peer review must satisfy principles of autonomy, and therefore follow lines of democratic and unpreju­diced evaluation in order to be objective.

In practical terms it is structured as follows:

Firstly, there is the Scientific Editor, with his specific competences and direct obligations, followed by the Vice Scientific Editor; this, in order to balance any demands which might arise regarding possible conflict of interest relating to the Scientific Editor himself.

There then follows a list of Scientific Coordinators, scholars of consolidated personal and scientific rigor, whose cor­responding backgrounds, skills and experience must respond to the different scientific areas covered in the Journal’s aspects of interdisciplinarity and internationalization. It is precisely these pre-established aims and objectives which have been achieved during the period from 2001 – 2012, with the publication of the respective issues, Numbers 1 – 12, of the Journal “Quaderni di Scienza della Conservazione”, which in 2007 was renamed “Conservation Science in Cultural Heritage”.

In this way, it answers to the specific feature of the Journal, described as “historical-technical” and as such, refers to studies and research related to cultural and environmental heritage; fields concerning the various scientific worlds in respect of the holistic value of the cultural heritage. The particular worlds these Scientific Coordinators come from are – technical-experimental, historical-humanistic, ministerial, professional, industrial and political, as evidenced by the composition of the Scientific Board and Advisory Committee of the Journal.


The Scientific Editor evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the Authors.

The Scientific Editor’s decision may be constrained by such legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.

The Scientific Editor provides guidance to Authors that encourage accuracy, completeness and clarity of research report­ing, including technical editing and the use of appropriate guidelines and checklists.

The Scientific Editor has a system to ensure that material submitted to their Journal remains confidential while under re­view. Confidentiality of individual information obtained in the course of research or professional interactions is guaranteed.

The Scientific Editor has a duty to act if he suspects misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to him. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers.

The Scientific Editor has a system for managing his own conflicts of interest as well as those of the all Editorial Staff and of the Authors.

The Scientific Editor has a process for handling submissions from the components of the all Editorial Staff to ensure un­biased review.


How a paper submitted for publication is evaluated

After a preliminary assessment, based on the established objectives of the historical-technical Journal, “Conserva­tion Science in Cultural Heritage”, in the event of a positive evaluation, the Scientific Editor will send the paper to the Journal Scientific Coordinator responsible for the relevant field the paper covers. It is then sent to two more Reviewers belonging to the same field of competence for “peer review”. In the three days following receipt of the submitted paper, they will determine whether to accept the work or not. If the paper is accepted, over the next 20 days they will proceed to make comments and suggestions, if necessary, to assist the Author in correcting and improving the text. The Author will subsequently revise the paper, which is then sent once more to the Reviewers. They will further review the paper, this will determine its final publication.

On the other hand, once reviewed, the paper may be accepted and not need modifying, based on the positive evalu­ation of the Reviewers, in favour of its final publication.

The following diagram shows the hierarchical pyramid:


The Scientific Editor encourages study and research into peer review and publishing and reassess the Journal’s process in the light of new finding.

The Scientific Editor guarantees that errors, inaccurate or misleading statements are corrected promptly and with due promi­nence.

The Scientific Editor will publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

The Scientific Editor will respond promptly to complaints and will ensure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to take complaints further. Complains and appeals could be sent to salvatore.lorusso@unibo.it

The Scientific Editor ensures that content is published on a timely basis, following the stated frequency.

The Scientific Editor takes all reasonable steps to guarantee that the published material is securely preserved and all articles are published in open access, freely available to anyone. Permanent identifiers as Digital Object Identifier (DOI) guarantee tracking and preservation of articles in the long term.


Duties for Authors

Authors are responsible for the articles they submit: they must assure the originality of their works, being aware of the conse­quences of misconduct.

Authors should always acknowledge their sources and provide relevant citation details for all publications that have influenced their work.

Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication in order to provide access to such data.

Authors are asked to follow the Author’s Guidelines published by the Journal, therefore ensuring accuracy, completeness and clarity of research reporting, including technical editing.


Duties for Reviewers

Reviewers are provided guidance on everything that is expected of them including the need to handle submitted material in confidence.

Reviewers are required to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.

Reviewers are encouraged to comment on the originality of submissions and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism. They will alert the Scientific Editor regarding intellectual property issues and plagiarism and work to handle potential breaches of intellectual property laws and conventions.

Reviewers should help identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the Authors.


The Journal policies will be reviewed periodically, particularly with respect to new recommendations from the COPE.


Quality control

Conservation Science in Cultural Heritage is a historical-technical Journal. 
One of the main objectives of the Journal is to achieve an all-encompassing vision of interdisciplinarity and internationalisation which are essential in today’s society and relevant cultural sectors. In this, the Journal responds to a natural demand for information and professional growth – in as far as possible correct and complete  – on issues related to the cultural heritage sector for which the specific literature is rather limited.
The journal is accessible on line, having been included in these websites of interest to all those looking for information regarding the subject areas mentioned in the main topics of publication:



The journal has officially been requested by EBSCO Publishing (http://www.ebsco.com/) and H.W. Wilson (USA)  
(http://www.ebscohost.com/wilson) - prestigious and listed aggregators involved with scientific products Universities and Research Centers in various countries - to be introduced into the respective platforms.

The journal has received the SPARC (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) “seal” for adopting a CC-BY license (Creative Commons): important certification for open access journals. The second scheme is linked to ISI (Institute for Scientific Information), which assesses journals for their “impact factor”.
In order to ensure a high standard in the scientific content of the Journal with high resolution of text and images in both electronic and hard copy versions, papers will be evaluated by the Reviewers and Linguistic Advisor after submission. Following completion of the review process, papers will then be accepted for publication.


Impact factor

In respect of the main objectives underlined previously, Authors are advised to consult and cite internationally accredited journals with an Impact Factor and/or other bibliometric factors (peer review, open linking, Hirsch factor). A complete list is available on the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) web portal, http://www.isiknowledge.com/JCR.



Indexing and Abstracting

The Journal is indexed in the following databases:

The Journal is indexed also in the following universities library catalogs:


The Journal is currently under review for Scopus.


Archiving Policy

The University of Bologna has an archival arrangement with the National Central Libraries of Florence and Rome within the national project Magazzini Digitali.


Publication Fees

The journal has neither article processing charges nor submission processing fees.