«They say things are happening at the border, but nobody knows which border» (Mark Strand)
1. There may be multiple reasons based on which a new Review aims at presenting itself as «open». First of all, one must consider the «immediacy» embedded in the publishing technique which is adopted; by virtue of such technique the Journal – which is hereby introduced – is disconnected from the traditional models in accordance with which scientific reviews are structured. The scope of the Journal, indeed, is to offer a medium for a seamless participation in a debate; such medium, in particular, shall be such to contribute to the very comprehension of the phenomenology being investigated, avoiding modalities commonly embraced by «periodic» reviews, while, conversely, hosting contributions characterized by their peculiar brevity, thus fostering – obviously not hindering – the depth of the analysis. In such respect, the standing of the Editors and the Advisory Board provides adequate assurance in relation to the literary contents which the Review will offer.
Publications stand out for their scientific approach. Such approach, in particular, derives from the interdisciplinary method on which recent studies in the fields of interest of the Review are grounded. The clear identification of the premises of a research, as well as the coherence in developing arguments therefrom – carefully analyzed by referees in their review process – shall ensure the thoroughness of the contributions and the quality of the research outputs, which shall be focused on the «comprehension», and, first of all, the «query».
2. Management, banks and finance represent the core of the analysis conducted by the Review. More specifically, the Journal will consider the various aspects characterizing such areas of interest, which will be evaluated in light of the evolution of regulation and having regard also to the actual development in the market. The scope of the Journal is therefore to design a context in which the in-depth analysis of the criticalities connected to the ‘global change’ scenario, caused by the recent financial crisis, is also supported by reconstructive theories representing a fruitful combination of different legal studies. As a result, the Review tends to overcome the diversity of the original approach pursued by such different legal studies, blending the respective prospective angles into one unitary vision of what accelerates or limits growth processes, which constitutes an unavoidable precondition for a society to affirm itself as freer and more egalitarian. In light of the above, the positive consequence of being a «common space» open to scholars coming from diverse backgrounds (law, economics) is evident: a space in which «diverse knowledge systems» may meet and establish forms of mutual interaction capable of fully understanding the rationale of the transformations of a ‘mature capitalism’ (as the one we have come to know) and the post-industrial era.
The forward of the Journal reproduces, almost like an epigraph, a verse by Mark Strand, noted American poet, which addresses the relationship between «thought» and «borders». This serves as an invitation to a thought of the ‘border’, as well as a though ‘beyond the borders’ (the former to mark the limits, the latter to embrace all the cultures).
London, February 2015