Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilLa revueEthical standards

Ethical standards

The Francophone journal on health and territories (hereinafter referred to as RFST) is a peer-reviewed scientific journal. As such, the journal is firmly committed to respecting the highest ethical standards of publication and to ensuring the transparency of the selection and publication process of research articles. The journal ensures the integrity of the construction and dissemination of scientific knowledge, following the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) - https://publicationethics.org/.

All parties involved - authors, editorial board and reviewers - commit themselves to respect them at every stage of the editorial process.

In the fight against plagiarism, the editorial secretariat uses the Magister tool by compilatio.net provided by the University of Angers (France). The standards apply to all contributors to the journal.

The editorial board

The Editorial Board ensures compliance with internationally recognized ethical standards for scientific publishing. It implements all possible measures against any bad publishing practices.

It reports on its activity to the editorial comittee (Comité éditorial) and is supervised in terms of content and scientific ethics by the scientific committee.

The editorial board is responsible for deciding whether an article should be rejected or accepted for publication on the basis of a double-blind evaluation procedure (see article evaluation)

The Editorial Board, through the Editor-in-Chief, makes a final decision (positive or negative) based on the authors' consideration of the remarks, suggestions and comments that the reviewers have brought to their attention. When the reviewers have requested major changes, the Editorial Board again seeks their advice on the revised version of the manuscript.

  • The Editorial Board ensures that all material submitted to the journal remains confidential throughout the review process. No information about a submitted paper is provided to anyone (other than the authors, reviewers, editors, and members of the editorial board).
  • The editorial board commits to a 12-week delay between the submission of an article and its peer review.
  • The editorial board ensures that the anonymity of the reviewers is preserved.
  • The editorial board ensures that there are no conflicts of interest with respect to articles and authors during the editorial process.
  • The Editorial Board reviews all submitted articles fairly and independently of external support. In particular, articles submitted for special issues or varia are evaluated in the same way, i.e. on their academic merit and without any influence..
  • The choice of reviewers is impartial
  • The Editorial Board carries out its functions in a balanced, objective and fair manner: submitted manuscripts are evaluated for their intellectual content without discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, religious or political convictions, and the origin of the authors whatever their origin may be.

Any deviation from ethical standards must be reported directly to the editorial board, which undertakes to react as quickly as possible to misconduct and plagiarism (corrections, retractions and apologies) in order to preserve the integrity of the contributors and institutions concerned.

Regardless of the date of publication, the Editorial Board investigates any allegations of error or misconduct, giving all parties involved the opportunity to speak. Documentation associated with complaints is retained.

The Editorial Board is prepared to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies if necessary.

The Authors

There is no charge for publication of articles in the RFST. Authors are therefore not charged at any stage in the process of publishing an article.

Authors confirm that the submitted paper is not being reviewed or accepted for publication elsewhere.

Authors confirm that the content of the article is original. Where some of the content has been submitted or published elsewhere, the authors cite these sources and provide the editorial board with a copy of these texts.

Authors acknowledge and cite content reproduced from other sources.

The authors sign a non-exclusive and permanent charter of transfer of rights by which they undertake, in particular, to obtain permission to reproduce any content from other sources.

The authors and co-authors guarantee that they have all actively participated in the elaboration of the content of the article.

The authors confirm that they have all approved the submitted version of the manuscript.

Authors are responsible for maintaining the data associated with the submitted manuscript. They must provide access to this data upon reasonable request of the editorial board or reviewers.

Authors undertake to respond to the requests of the editorial board in the peer-review process within a reasonable period of time.

Authors must respond to inquiries if errors or misconduct is suspected, and undertake to correct, retract, and apologize if they are found guilty of unethical behaviour (such as plagiarism or use of fraudulent data).

Authors promptly inform the editorial board if a significant error is found in their paper (such as a miscalculation or experimental error). They must then cooperate with the editorial board to publish a corrective notice or withdraw the paper when deemed necessary.

Authors ensure that all studies involving human or animal subjects comply with national, local, and institutional laws and requirements. Where appropriate, they document that approval has been sought and obtained.

Authors must obtain express permission from human subjects and respect their privacy.

Authors must declare any potential conflict of interest at any stage of the publication process.

Rewiewers

Manuscripts submitted to the journal are double-blinded: the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers, just as the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors. Each article is evaluated by at least two reviewers. If the reviewers' evaluation differs, then an additional opinion is issued by the editorial committee and acts as a referee. If necessary, the scientific committee can be consulted.

The reviewers contribute to the evaluation and decision-making process. Their aim is to help the editorial board to make editorial decisions. They also strive to support the authors in improving the quality of the articles.

When a selected reviewer does not feel qualified to evaluate a manuscript or when he or she realizes that it cannot be reviewed in a timely manner, he or she must inform the editorial board and withdraw from the evaluation and review process.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts objectively and impartially. Proofreaders must clearly express their point of view and support it with appropriate arguments. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate.

They agree not to divulge any information about the article outside of the editorial team and the peer review process. All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential. Reviewers must not retain any copies of the article under review.

Reviewers agree to promote the high quality of published articles.

Reviewers should identify, if known, relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors.

Reviewers should inform the editorial team, if known, of any published or submitted content that is substantially similar to the content under review.

Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative or other) with respect to articles and authors.

Actions in case of bad practices

Unethical behaviour may be brought to the attention of the editorial team at any time and by anyone.

Sufficient evidence must be provided for an investigation to be initiated.

The Editorial Board and the Editorial Comittee may be seized and asked to open an investigation at any time. The editorial board is bound by confidentiality until the outcome of the investigation has been confirmed.

All parties involved in an alleged misconduct must be informed of the steps in the investigation and the possible consequences.

All parties must be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.

Where misconduct is found, the following options may be considered:

  • a) informing the parties in case of misunderstanding or misunderstanding of the ethical charter and publication rules;
  • b) sending an official letter detailing the infraction and warning the author of future abusive practices;
  • c) formally withdrawing an article from the journal with an appropriate apology to the persons or institutions concerned;
  • d) embargo on any new manuscript submitted by the author for a defined period of time;
  • e) reporting the problem to the author's employer for further investigation and action;
  • f) informing a body with authority to deal with the complaint.

These different options may be combined depending on the seriousness of the situation.

A notice of withdrawal must clearly identify a withdrawn article (including title and authors) and indicate who is withdrawing the article. Withdrawal notices always state the reasons for the withdrawal, making an effort to distinguish between honest error (e.g., miscalculation) and misconduct (e.g., plagiarism or fabrication of fraudulent data).

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search