Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilLa revueThe Boards

The Boards

Head of publication: Omar Fertat

Editor in chief: Pierre Katuszewski

The Boards

Editorial Board

  • Pauline Beaucé, Université Bordeaux Montaigne

  • Yamma Chaldi, Abdelkader Université Bordeaux Montaigne

  • Jean-Yves Coquelin, Université Bordeaux Montaigne

  • Sandrine Dubouilh, Université Bordeaux Montaigne

  • Marie Duret, Université Bordeaux Montaigne

  • Omar Fertat, Université Bordeaux Montaigne

  • Pierre Katuszewki, Université Bordeaux Montaigne

  • Pascale Lartigau, Université Bordeaux Montaigne

  • Gaël Le Chevalier, Université Bordeaux Montaigne

  • Maëline Le Lay, CNRS/LAM Bordeaux

  • Éléonore Martin, Université Bordeaux Montaigne

  • Caroline Saugier, Université Caen-Basse Normandie

Scientific and Reading Board

  • Khalid Amine, Faculty of Humanities, Tetouan (Maroc)

  • Abdellah Bounfour, INALCO, Paris

  • José Bau Diyabanza, Kinshasa-Kimbanseke (R.D. Congo)

  • Pierre Fandio, Université de Buea, (Cameroun)

  • Sélom Gbanou, University of Calgary (Canada)

  • Mechtild Gilzmer, Université technique de Berlin (Allemagne)

  • Zohra Makach, Faculté des Sciences Humaines d’Agadir (Maroc)

  • Martine Mathieu-Job, Université Bordeaux Montaigne

  • Charles Mazouer, Université Bordeaux Montaigne

  • Musanji Ngalasso-Mwatha, Université Bordeaux Montaigne

  • Ghada Nichi, Université de Tunis (Tunisie)

  • Jean-Marie Pradier, MSH Paris Nord

  • Abdelhai Sadiq, Université Cadi Ayyad, Marrakech (Maroc)

  • Joubert Satyre, Université de Guelf (Canada)

The roles of the committees

The review is organised around the director of the publication and two committees (scientific committee and a scientific and reading committee) who are backed by the editorial team (see figure 1) who in turn depend on the directors of the publication.

The director of the publication is responsible for the smooth running of the review and he or she coordinates the different sections, both scientific and editorial. The director represents the review and has a right to veto any initiative which might compromise the functioning or the ethical code of the review.

The editorial committee is in charge of the review’s scientific policy, along with the editor in chief and the editorial secretary (who is also a member of the committee because of his or her technical and editorial skills). A third of the committee members are renewed every five years in order to maintain unity and continuity while still developing and energising the editorial and scientific policies of Horizons/Théâtre. The reading committee operates in the same way. Through the editor in chief and the editorial secretary the editorial committee therefore manages the overview of project manuscripts submitted to the review. It also coordinates calls for papers and calls for coordinators. This committee is also responsible for ensuring the correct functioning of the evaluation follow up and respect for details, as much for authors as for the review itself. The review defines a period of 8 – 12 months as a reasonable period for the publication of a document.

The scientific and reading committee is made up of people who are recognised in their disciplinary field and whose own publication record is both solid and abundant, making them reference figures in their chosen areas. The committee is the guarantor of the review’s scientific quality. The members of the scientific committee are called on to appraise a minimum of two manuscripts per year.

The review also calls on outside experts in those cases where the texts proposed are outside the skills area of committee members, or else in the case of disagreement in evaluation verdicts.

The editorial team is made up of researcher – teachers, researchers, teachers or professionals involved in the development of the review and under the guidance of the editor in chief the team is responsible for the editorial evaluation of manuscripts and connected items (accounts, reviews, pedagogical files, editorials ….)

Manuscript selection procedure

Each article is made anonymous then evaluated at least 3 times, by two external reviewers, by the probable coordinator(s) of the number as well as by one member of the editorial team. The articles are then sent, either by the review or the coordinator, to two evaluators on review committees or to external experts (according to their speciality, their disciplinary field or the language). A summary of the reports is sent to the principal author of the article that has been evaluated. According to whether the evaluators (not including the editorial team) accept or refuse the article, once the authors have corrected the article it goes back to the first evaluators and a member of the editorial committee and/or the coordinator of the number.

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search