Giving life to a scientific journal, we wondered what kind of science we wanted to deal with and what language could better fit this purpose. As constructivists, we think the focus should not be on the choice between communicative codes – such as the traditional and abstract scientific one or the phenomenological and the “first person” one – but on the responsible and aware pragmatic use of those codes. This topic becomes especially relevant when we try to discuss the core issues of each scientific journal, the semantic codes of scientific research and professional knowledge. This matter is particularly significant if the journal is grounded on constructivist epistemological assumptions, using different languages that give voice to different points of view.   The researcher’s epistemological and personal belief is considered an important part of the research methodology in many qualitative and grounded-theory publications. In a journal like ours, we believe that, not only is this issue tolerable, but it is also scientifically useful and desirable. From a constructivist point of view, declaring the author’s conflict of semantic and personal interests on the treated topic should be a good practice.   So, what is the basis of the narratives of constructivist research? Recognizing that, as a researcher, one is inevitably a semantic stakeholder. Being aware about it could let us honestly recognize our personal involvement and verify it. In this way we can shift from a pre-emptive and hostile a-priori position, to a more aggressive and propositional hermeneutic space.   The Rivista Italiana di Costruttivismo would like to construe little by little a strong and worthy proposal. It wants to be innovative in terms of scientific quality, originality of content, professional viability, constructivist community active involvement and choice of pragmatic use of semantic code. To produce movement in the scientific community, we would like to promote a collection of humanistic scientific narratives, inviting authors to share not only their professional goals, but also their declaration of intents. We would like to suggest that the authors, from time to time, choose the semantic code (first or third person) which permits them more movement rather than the most “theoretically correct” one.   With these premises, the Rivista Italiana di Costruttivismo can deal with all the elements of constructivism’s range of convenience, from the classic PCP perspective to the more phenomenological research, from “traditional” context to new and creative applications of the theory. This “pragmatic freedom”, grounded on rigour and aggressiveness, is the basis of our Editorial Project.