AiCARR journal

Francis Allard (France)
Filippo Busato (Italy)

Bjarne Olesen (Denmark)

Karel Kabele (Czech Republic)
Valentina Serra (Turin - Italy)

Ciro Aprea (Italy)
William Bahnfleth (USA)
Marco Beccali (Italy)
Umberto Berardi (Italy)
Anna Bogdan (Poland)
Alberto Cavallini (Italy)
Iolanda Colda (Romania)
Stefano Corgnati (Italy)
Annunziata D'Orazio (Italy)
Filippo de' Rossi (Italy)
Livio de Santoli (Italy)
Marco Dell'Isola (Italy)
Giorgio Ficco (Italy)
Marco Filippi (Italy)
Manuel C. Gameiro da Silva (Portugal)
Cesare M. Joppolo (Italy)
Dimitri Kaliakatsos (Italy)
Essam Khalil (Egypt)
Jarek Kurnitski (Latvia)
Renato M. Lazzarin (Italy)
Catalin Lungu (Romania)
Anna Magrini (Italy)
Zoltán Magyar (Hungary) 
Rita M.A. Mastrullo (Italy)
Livio Mazzarella (Italy)
Arsen Melikov (Denmark)
Gino Moncalda Lo Giudice (Italy)
Boris Palella (Italy)
Federico Pedranzini (Italy)
Fabio Polonara (Italy)
Piercarlo Romagnoni (Italy)
Francesco Ruggiero (Italy)
Luigi Schibuola (Italy)
Giovanni Semprini (Italy)
Jorn Toftum (Denmark)
Timothy Wentz (USA)
Claudio Zilio (Italy)


Giorgio Albonetti

Management Board
Filippo Busato
Paolo Cervio
Luca Piterà
Erika Seghetti

Editorial Board
Carmine Casale
Paolo Cervio
Luigi Gazzi
Pino Miolli
Marco Noro
Luca Alberto Piterà
Gabriele Raffaellini
Valentina Serra 
Luigi Schibuola
Claudio Zilio

Publishing Editor
Erika Seghetti 


Aziende Grafiche Printing Srl
Peschiera Borromeo (MI)

Quine Srl - LSWR GROUP
Via G. Spadolini, 7
20141 Milano - Italy
Ph. 0039 (0)2-49756990
Fax 0039 (0)2-70057190

Peer review policies

Peer Review
All articles undergo a double-blind peer-review process that guarantees the quality of all the contributions.
Peer review is critical to maintaining the standards of the publication.
The acceptance criteria are based on originality, relevance, and scientific relevance. Manuscripts are rapidly, strictly and fairly peer reviewed by our Board of Reviewing Editors and other members of the international community. Reviewers follow the principle of objectivity and the absence of conflict of interest. The reviewed articles are treated confidentially before their publication.

Peer Review process
AiCARR Journal applies a double-blind improved transparent, fair and constructive review process in which both the authors' and the reviewers' identities, gender and affiliations are concealed. Research is judged fairly, keeping bias out of the equation.
Each manuscript will be thoroughly evaluated by at least two expert referees beyond our editors. Authors may be requested to modify the text based on the comments of reviewers, to which they should respond point by point. We are committed to publishing papers as quickly as possible, while maintaining scientific excellence and rigor. Final articles are published online ahead of issue publication.
Statements made in the manuscripts are under the responsibility of the author and not of the editor. Articles reflect author's opinion and it may not reflect the position of editors.
The author submits the paper to the journal via our online submission system Editorial Manager (EM provided by Aries Systems Corporation).



Editorial Office (EO) /Editor in Chief (EIC)


Author submits paper


EO executes Technical Check


If the paper meets the established standards, the EO assign the paper to the EIC


The EIC sends invitations to individuals he/she believes would be appropriate reviewers. Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline. In case of refusal, the EIC seeks other potential reviewers. There are generally two reviewers for each article


The reviewers first of all express an overall opinion on the paper, with a recommendation to accept, revise or reject it


If the opinion is favorable to publication, the reviewers may suggest a review (flagged as either major or minor). Reviewers are required to fill in a form where they indicate some suggestions to both the Publisher and the Author


The EI considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, he/she may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision


The EO sends a decision notification through the editorial process platform to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. If the paper was sent back forrevision, the EIC evaluates the new version of the article, checking if the author has inserted the changes suggested by the reviewers. In some cases, the EIC may decide to send the new version of the article to the reviewers for a final check


If the new version of the article is accepted, the EO prepares it for publication