Evaluation process
About
Any article published by the journal was selected at the end of the process described below, whose guiding principles are independence, impartiality, transparency and confidentiality.
Selection steps
1. Validation of the manuscript
The manuscript is first reviewed by the editorial team to checks to see if it meets the standards of the article submission protocol. The manuscript is then subject to an initial assessment by the Editor in Chief, who determines whether the article meets the basic scientific criteria of the journal.
2. Peer review
An anonymous version of the manuscript is evaluated by a minimum of 2 researchers selected expressly by the Editor in Chief according to their competence and their specialization.
Each evaluator must complete an evaluation form, which contains specific questions to guide their thinking and analysis. The evaluator is thus invited to consider the relevance of the article for the journal (and for the thematic dossier, if applicable), to evaluate the scientific qualities and the originality of the text, to judge the quality of writing and style, to suggest possible modifications or corrections and, finally, to make their final recommendation. The evaluator can also annotate the manuscript.
A minimum period of 3 weeks is granted to the evaluator to allow them to make a careful reading, to conduct the necessary research to verify the arguments defended and to issue a well-considered opinion. A minimum of 2 favorable opinions is required for the article to be selected for publication.
The article can be accepted without modification, accepted subject to (minor or major) modifications or refused. The decision is up to the Editor in Chief, who informs the author by sending them an evaluation report where the comments of the evaluators are transcribed in full (preserving their anonymity).
3. Editorial verification
The author whose article is accepted has a period of between 30 and 90 days to revise their manuscript with regard to the evaluation report.
The second version of the article is evaluated by a member of the Editorial Board, who can accept it as is or request additional modifications—in which case the third version of the manuscript is evaluated by the Editor in Chief, who determines if the changes made are satisfactory.
The manuscript then enters the editorial chain.