Evaluation Procedure
The editorial team comprises the journal's scientific directorship (director and deputy director) and the editorial board. It also includes a review committee made up of specialists who undertake to evaluate the articles submitted to the journal.
The editorial team acts as the liaison between the authors and the reviewers, as well as with the coordinators of the thematic issue. All articles undergo double-blind peer review. In the event of conflicting reviews, a third, anonymous review is requested.
Evaluation of Thematic Issues
The editorial board assigns responsibility for the thematic issue to one or more coordinators, at least one of whom must be external to UGA.
The editorial board approves (i) the call for papers submitted by the coordinators and then (ii) the article proposals received and selected by the coordinators following the publication of this call.
Each article is evaluated by two experts: one external to the editorial and review committees and one internal to the review committee, chosen according to the article's theme.
The coordinators of the thematic issues may, if necessary, provide the editorial board with a list of experts who could be contacted. However, the editorial board alone manages the review process (selection of experts according to the procedures specified above, receipt of review reports, and publication decision based on these reports).
The dossier coordinators undertake to communicate the acceptance or rejection to the authors and to carry out the work of editing the dossier (standardizing, integrating any requests for modification).
Additional Information
The composition of the journal's editorial board is reviewed every four years based on proposals from the editorial committee.
Average time between submission and publication: 4-6 months.
The thematic issue evaluation form includes two sections :
— First section: comments for the journal's editorial board (not sent to the author).
-
Overall opinion on the article (strengths, weaknesses)
-
Publishable article: Yes, as is; Yes, subject to minor revisions; Yes, subject to major revisions; Not publishable
-
How do you assess your competence in relation to this text?
— Second section: comments sent to the author (free-text).
Reviewers may make observations and suggest corrections directly to the article text.



