Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilLa revueEthics and responsabilities

Ethics and responsabilities

I. Ethical statement

In order to ensure the integrity of the construction and dissemination of scientific research, the journal Éducation & Didactique applies the ethical rules set out in this declaration. We commit the members of our committees, authors and reviewers to respect them.

This document is based on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity developed by the All European Academies (ALLEA), the opinions of the CNRS Ethics Committee (Comets), the documents produced by the Committee for Open Science, and the charters of other journals. We invite you to pay attention to copyright.

The Éducation & Didactique team wishes to emphasise that authors or contributors alone bear full responsibility for the ideas expressed in their writings.

Finally, it is up to the authors to pay for any copyright (illustrations, quotations, etc.) linked to their production. Before publishing their work in Éducation & Didactique, authors must obtain permission to reproduce the illustrations or works cited from the organisations concerned and must cite, in due form, the extracts of works present in their articles or productions, which must in no way be assimilated to “copy-pasting” or to any form of plagiarism.

1. Obligations of the Editorial Board

Art. 1.1. Neutrality

The intellectual content of the submitted manuscripts is evaluated without regard to their origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, ethnic origin, political philosophy of the authors.

Art. 1.2. Confidentiality

This information is kept for an average of 6 to 12 months by the journal’s committee.

All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. They are not circulated without the permission of the editorial board. The editorial board and staff do not disclose any information about the submitted manuscript except to the author, reviewers and potential reviewers.

Art. 1.3. Protection of authors’ rights and conflicts of interest

Unpublished data contained in submitted manuscripts are not used by editorial staff or reviewers in their own research without the explicit consent of the author.

Art. 1.4. Decision to publish

The editorial board of the journal Éducation & Didactique decides in fine on the publication of submitted articles. The editorial board is guided by the editorial policy of the journal, taking into account legal obligations concerning defamation, copyright and plagiarism. The editorial board may share the decision with the reviewers. In the event of an appeal against the decision of the editorial board, the board may invite new reviewers.

Art. 1.5. Decisions and requests after publication

After publication, requests for corrections or even withdrawal of an article for reasons of non-compliance with research ethics may be addressed to the journal’s editorial board at any time. These requests are examined on the basis of the factual elements provided. If the committee considers the request admissible, the author’s point of view is sought. The decision to request a correction from the author, or the choice to withdraw the article, rests with the editorial board.

2. Obligations of reviewers

Art. 2.1. Contribution to editorial decisions

Based on a precise and well-founded evaluation formulated in the manuscript evaluation form, the reviewers assist the editorial board in making decisions and may also assist the author in improving the quality of the manuscript.

Art. 2.2. Deadlines

By accepting to carry out the evaluation, the reviewers declare that they have the required skills and undertake to communicate their evaluation within the agreed deadline.

An invited reviewer, if he/she does not feel sufficiently competent to evaluate the research presented in the manuscript, or if he/she is unable to provide his/her report in time, must inform the editorial board without delay, in order to give the board time to contact other reviewers.

Art. 2.3. Standards of objectivity, civility and respect

The editorial board ensures that evaluations aim at objectivity and impartiality. Articles are evaluated on their content alone, regardless of ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief or political opinion. Nationality, institutional affiliation or professional status can only be considered as evaluation criteria insofar as this information has scientific relevance.

The reviewer is asked to produce a rigorous, but benevolent evaluation. Rigorous evaluation, in the sense that the criticisms made are referred to the content of the text on the one hand, and to the standards of demanding research on the other. A benevolent evaluation, in the sense that the work and the person of the author are respected whatever the observations made. In the case of an acceptance with reservations, the formulation of these reservations must lead the author to a significant improvement of the text. In the case of a rejection, the criticisms must be able to nourish the author’s epistemological and methodological reflection in the perspective of his future work. Personal remarks and criticisms directed at the author or offensive comments on the content of the text are not admissible. The reviewer’s opinion must be clear, well-argued and respectful of the author.

Art. 2.4. Indication of sources

The reviewer must identify publications not cited by the author. Any such indication must be accompanied by an appropriate comment. The reviewer should draw the attention of the editorial board to any similarities or overlaps between the manuscript and previously published data.

Art. 2.5. Disclosure of information and conflicts of interest

2.5.1 Double-blind review

Information and ideas obtained through anonymous reviews are confidential and must not be used for the personal benefit of the reviewer.

Reviewers should declare spontaneously any conflict of interest: proximity within the same institution, current or past collaboration, joint publication, professional competition, hierarchical relationship (such as the direction of a university thesis) or personal relationship that may prejudice the quality and independence of the evaluation. Reviewers should not accept the review of manuscripts where this may lead to such a conflict of interest.

If necessary, refer to the COPE definition of conflict of interest.

At the request of either party (author(s) or reviewer(s)), and subject to their agreement and that of the editorial board, a waiver of anonymity can be arranged. In this case, the authors are put in contact with their reviewer(s) (see also Article 3.5).

 2.5.2 Open reviewing

In case of open peer review, a written agreement must be concluded between the parties. The reviewers commit themselves to collaborate in the form of scientific exchanges contributing to the final version of the article. The names of the reviewers (and possibly the publication of their review) will then be communicated at the time of publication with the agreement of the parties concerned.

Art. 2.6. Reporting deviations from scientific ethics

Reviewers report any deviations from scientific ethics that they may observe during reading (plagiarism, manipulation of data, etc.). The observations are received and processed by the editorial board. If they are confirmed, they are then subject to a contradictory debate with the author. Additional data or information may be requested for this purpose. 

3. Obligations of authors

Art. 3.1. Validity of submitted articles

The editorial board checks that the articles submitted correspond to the requirements of the editorial policy as well as those specified in the “Instructions for authors”.

The information contained in the manuscripts submitted for publication should present the results of the authors’ research and an objective discussion of these results and their significance. The underlying data should be presented correctly. Fraudulent and consciously inaccurate information is considered unethical and is not acceptable.

Identification of research conducted by other authors must always be clearly given. Authors must cite publications that have influenced their study.

Art. 3.2. Originality and plagiarism

Authors must ensure that they have written a completely original study, and if they have used works or statements by others, these must be properly cited.

Art. 3.3. Publications multiples

An author must not submit manuscripts representing the same study to more than one journal (or book). Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal is unethical and not acceptable.

The journal Éducation & Didactique accepts articles originally published in French and in English. In the case of a previous publication in another language, authors must give the reference of the first publication and that it is free of the copyright of the original publisher. 

Art. 3.4. Mention of authors

When an article has several authors, the list of co-authors includes those who have made a significant contribution to the research presented. All those who have contributed to the study must be included in the list of authors. If other people were involved in some aspect of the research project, they may be mentioned in the acknowledgements.

The author in contact with the journal ensures that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Similarly, during the review process and up to publication, if significant changes are made to the text, all co-authors must be informed.

Art. 3.5. Disclosure of information and conflicts of interest

All authors must indicate, following their biographical presentation, any conflicts of interest that may affect their publication project. The funding of the research projects that made the study possible must be indicated.

In accordance with Article 2.5, upon the request of either party (author(s) or reviewer(s)), and subject to their acceptance and that of the editorial board, a waiver of anonymity may be arranged. In this case, the authors are put in contact with their reviewer(s).

Art. 3.6. Errors in the publication

If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her publication, he/she is obliged to inform the editor promptly and to consider, in agreement with the editor, the withdrawal of the article or the publication of the information concerning the error.

Art. 3.7. Involvement of authors in evaluations

Authors agree to be among the potential reviewers of articles submitted to the journal.

II. Details of the evaluation procedure

1. Principles

The review is peer-reviewed and double-blind.

The editorial board examines the article proposals received and decides on their entry into the evaluation process. For the selected articles, it solicits a reviewer considered to have specific knowledge of the issue under consideration and a reviewer considered to have more generic knowledge of the field under consideration.

Any assessment rated “D” by one of the assessors will result in the rejection of the article.

2. Procedure

The evaluation phase is structured as follows:


3. The evaluation file

An evaluation file is compiled after each reading and sent to the author and the reviewers.

It includes:

  • A summary produced by the editorial committee;

  • The evaluation sheet of each reviewer including a detailed opinion;

  • The article annotated by each reviewer, whenever possible.

  • Logo Association pour des recherches comparatistes en didactique
  • Logo ESPE de Bretagne
  • OpenEdition Journals
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search