PlanHaut de page
The editorial board seeks to ensure the scientific quality of the journal, in particular by complying with the rules of good practice set out below. More specifically, it focuses on ensuring regular turnover in the composition of its board of reviewers and scientific committee as well as in its own membership with a view to ensuring professional rigor.
With the exception of book reviews, which are evaluated by the review editor (and discussed with members of the editorial board), articles submitted to the journal are evaluated as double-blind review: The author does not know the identity of the reviewers and the reviewers do not know the identity of the author. There are at least two (or three) reviewers for each article.
In the event of doubts or diverging evaluations among the reviewers, additional opinions may be sought by the editorial board.
Articles that would be contrary to the journal’s editorial policy may be rejected by the editorial board. In all cases, an evaluation report will be supplied to the author.
Based on the reviewers’ reports, the editorial board takes one of the following three decisions within a reasonable period of time, which should not exceed six months following receipt of the manuscript:
a/ Acceptance of the manuscript as submitted to the journal;
c/ Acceptance subject to modifications.
In the latter case, the editorial board will make a final decision based on whether or not the author adopted the suggestions and comments provided by the reviewers.
Any manuscript that is accepted either when first submitted or following modifications by the author is subject to editing conducted in collaboration with the author. The final version of an article will be mutually agreed for publication.
When reaching a decision, the editorial board considers legal requirements in terms of defamation, copyright violation, and plagiarism.
Editorial board members and reviewers must recuse themselves if there is a conflict of interest with an author or with the content of the manuscript to be reviewed.
Furthermore, reviewers who know that they are not qualified to review a manuscript or that they will be unable to do so within a reasonable period of time are required to inform the editorial board of this fact and to recuse themselves.
Manuscripts are evaluated on their intellectual and scientific content without distinctions based on the author’s ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, nationality, university affiliation, or political views.
Manuscripts received for review are treated confidentially. No information about a manuscript submitted to the journal may be disclosed to anyone other than the author, potential reviewers, and in some cases the publisher.
The data presented in the submitted articles may not be used prior to publication in the research of an editorial board member or reviewer without the author’s express written consent.
Authors must vouchsafe for the originality of their article and may not publish any work that might in any way whatsoever constitute infringement as defined by the Intellectual Property Code. False or deliberately inaccurate statements constitute behaviour contrary to the ethics of scientific publication and are therefore unacceptable.
Authors agree not to submit work previously published in another journal or an original article based exclusively on work already published elsewhere.
Authors also undertake not to submit manuscripts to multiple journals simultaneously.
Any citation (or use of other authors’ work) must be identified as such and be accompanied by appropriate references presented in accordance with the journal’s procedures.
Should authors wish to refer to information obtained privately (conversation, correspondence), they should do everything possible to obtain authorization to do so from those identified as the source of this information.
The list of co-authors must be limited to those who made a significant contribution to the conception, conduct, or interpretation of the research presented in the manuscript submitted to the journal or to the drafting of that manuscript. All authors along with their affiliation should be listed in alphabetical order or according to their level of involvement in conducting the research or drafting the document. The corresponding author must ensure that only the appropriate co-authors are listed and that all co-authors agreed to the manuscript being submitted for publication after having seen and approved the final version of their contribution.
Authors undertake not to violate the rules of scientific debate in the articles they submit or make defamatory statements that might be interpreted as impugning the reputation of a third party.
Authors who discover a major error or inaccuracy in their work after publication are required to report this promptly to the journal’s editorial board and to cooperate with it in publishing an erratum or if necessary announce the withdrawal of the article. Should the editorial board or the publisher of the journal learn from a third party that an article already published contains a major error, it must inform the author accordingly. The author must then request that the article be withdrawn or amended or provide information demonstrating that the passage in question is not erroneous.
When submitting an article, authors undertake to authorize its distribution in both hardcopy and digital formats, particularly on the cairn.info platform, unless express notification by them to the contrary.