Peer-Review Process
The journal publishes five categories of texts: 1) scientific articles; 2) research notes; 3) debates and analyses; 4) interviews; and 5) book reviews.
The journal has two distinct evaluation processes. The first concerns varia or off-theme articles, and the second articles attached to a thematic issue. Both processes are the responsibility of co-director Christian Deblock, in close collaboration with co-director Diane-Gabrielle Tremblay and the issue editors in the case of thematic issues.
-
Articles varia: miscellaneous articles
Many articles are submitted directly to the journal editors from all over the world (around 30 per year).
The two co-editors make an initial assessment of the articles received to determine whether they are acceptable and can go forward for review or not, in which case it's a 'desk reject', because the article doesn't fit in with the journal's themes, because the article isn't of sufficient quality to be reviewed, or because it's a piece of research that hasn't been rewritten sufficiently to make it a scientific article. We also need to make sure that the contributions are original. We often do an online search to make sure. On a few occasions, we have rejected articles that were too close to previously published ones.
This first phase of evaluation is carried out quickly, generally within a week of receiving the articles.
The second phase is the actual evaluation. Members of the editorial board, or even the scientific committee, are sometimes called upon to suggest evaluators, and sometimes to proofread and evaluate articles, especially when external evaluators cannot be found in sufficient numbers or are too slow in making their evaluation. The choice of reviewers and the coordination of the process are the responsibility of the Director. Evaluators are chosen based on their competence and specialization. They are normally professors, sometimes lecturers or senior lecturers, and on some occasions, professionals/experts in the field (civil servants, researchers from outside the university - e.g. CNRS or FNRS) may also be called in. Evaluators have a month, or even a month and a half, to write their report. Each article is submitted to at least two external evaluators (blind process), or even three in the case of major differences. The director is supported by a deputy director, who follows up with the evaluators.
Once the evaluation process has been completed, a summary report is sent by the director to the authors. On behalf of the Editorial Board, the Director presents the decision, the reasons for it, and the main comments and remarks made by the evaluators. The report is accompanied by the main points of the evaluators' reports. Information sent to authors is always anonymous. In difficult cases, the director seeks the opinion of the co-director, or even the editorial board. The electronic comparison of versions enables the nature of corrections and changes made to the text to be verified.
The decision takes the following form: definitive acceptance, acceptance with remarks and minor corrections, acceptance with remarks and major corrections, rejection. There are two categories of articles: scientific articles or research notes (interesting, but not yet finished, or less advanced research).
The author has one month to amend and correct the article. A maximum two-page response to the reviewers is also requested. The new version, together with the summary report and the response to the reviewers, is sent to one of the reviewers for approval. Once this process has been completed, the articles are sent to the editor, and it is up to the authors to check the formatted version of their article. The editor ensures that editorial standards are respected. He also reports to the co-director on acceptances and rejections, and on any problems.
The whole process, from submission to the reviewers to online publication, takes around 6 months, in line with our publication constraints.