Since 2007, articles submitted to the Rivista geografica for publication are subjected to a double-blind peer-review process. All submissions are initially given a preliminary reading by the journal’s Board. If the submission passes this preliminary reading, it is anonymized before being sent to two external reviewers. The text is anonymized not only by removing the author’s name and affiliation, but also by removing other elements that might make it possible to identify the author(s), for example by removing as far as possible citations in the text and in the final bibliography of works by the author(s). The external reviewers may be members of the Scientific Committee, of the Board of referees, or selected by the Editorial Board on an ad-hoc basis. All reviewers are individuals with an established scientific reputation and experience in international publications. The complete list of reviewers is kept by the Editorial Board and published every two years in the Rivista’s website. The anonymous article is sent to each reviewer together with a questionnaire in which the reviewer is asked to give: -an analytical judgement on various aspects of the article; - an overall comment about the article as a whole; - a confidential comment on the article, to be seen only by the Editorial Board; - a judgement on the publication-worthiness of the article in terms of the following five possibilities: a) acceptable for publication as it stands; b) acceptable but only after minor revisions have been made; c) acceptable but with major revisions and with the suggestion that it be resubmitted to the review and reviewed a second time; d) not acceptable but the authors are advised to submit the article to other journals; e) not acceptable. At this point the comment is sent to the author. In the case of b), once the author has implemented the changes requested by one or both reviewers, the paper is sent to the Board who make a judgement as to whether the changes are satisfying. In the case of a negative judgement the Board will ask for further changes to be made. In the case of c), once the author has implemented the changes requested by one or both reviewers, the paper is sent back to the Board who send it on to the reviewer or reviewers who made the judgement, to allow them to judge whether the changes are satisfying. In the case of a negative judgement the reviewer will request further changes until these are considered satisfying. If one of the reviewers judges the work to be a), b) or c) and the other judges it to be d) or e), the paper may be either rejected or sent to a third reviewer (who will not be told of the previous judgements). If their judgement is d) or e) the paper will be rejected. If it is a), b) or c) the paper will be accepted and will follow one of the paths outlined above.