Editorial ethical rules and good practices

Each and every actor in the editorial chain, whether it is the editor-in-chief, a peer reviewer, an author, or a member of the editorial staff, should adhere to the ethical standards defined in this charter and should be committed to enforcing them, from the submission of a work to its publication.

I Definition of expected ethical practices

1. Responsibilities of editors-in-chief

We expect editors-in-chief to be objective and fair when carrying out their duties. The selection criteria for works must therefore be applied without discrimination based on authors’ gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnicity, or geographical location.

We also expect works that were funded by grants or that were part of a special issue to be selected with the same rigor as other works, in order to guarantee a principle of selection based on academic merit alone.

We expect publication directors to undertake to always explicitly specify in their publication the conditions under which the contributions of a collective work or a journal were made when these publications result from a conference, a congress, a seminar or any other scientific meeting.

We expect editors-in-chief to apply and abide by appropriate procedures in the event of complaints about the quality or ethics of a work. Doing so will entail giving the author concerned the opportunity to respond to any complaint made against his or her work and examining all complaints made, regardless of the date on which the text was approved. It is advisable to keep all documents dealing with such complaints, particularly email exchanges.

2. Responsibilities of peer reviewers

The role of peer reviewers is to contribute to the decision-making process and to help improve the quality of the document submitted for review by examining the manuscript objectively.

Peer reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of any information provided by the editor-in-chief or the author. Peer reviewers must therefore not retain any copies of the manuscript submitted for review.

Peer reviewers must alert the editor-in-chief and the editorial staff of any submitted or published content that they believe to be the product of plagiarism or intellectual dishonesty.

Peer reviewers must also be aware of any potential conflict of interest that may exist between themselves and the authors whose work they are to review. If such a situation arises, it is the responsibility of the peer reviewer to report it to the editor-in-chief and to relinquish the task of reviewing the author’s work.

3. Responsibilities of authors

Contributing authors have a responsibility to guarantee the originality and the intellectual integrity of their work. They must therefore provide assurance that their publication has not already been published, whether on the internet or by another publisher, and that they have not submitted their manuscript to another publisher or journal for review. Authors must also cite the work of their colleagues correctly when reproducing passages of it or when supporting their own reasoning using existing works.

Finally, authors are required to notify the editor-in-chief or the editorial staff if they identify a significant error in their publication and to work with the editor-in-chief and the editorial staff to publish an erratum, an addendum, a correction notice, or to retract the publication if this is necessary.

4. Responsibilities of editorial staff

Classiques Garnier must ensure that good practices are maintained in accordance with the standards detailed in this charter. Editorial staff must provide assurance that they subscribe to the principles set out above.

II Procedures in place for dealing with unethical behavior

1. Identification of unethical behavior

Misconduct and unethical behavior should be identified and brought to the attention of the editor-in-chief and editorial staff at any time and by anyone. This type of behavior can include, but is not limited to, the examples cited in section one of this charter.

Anyone who informs the editor-in-chief or the editorial staff of such conduct must, however, provide sufficient evidence so as to allow an investigation to be launched. All allegations must be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a decision or conclusion is made.

2. Inquiry

The initial decision must be made by the editor-in-chief, who must consult the editorial staff. Evidence against the accused party must be collected with the greatest discretion, so as to avoid any allegations spreading beyond those who need to know about them.

3. Minor offenses

In the case of misconduct deemed to be minor, the issue should be handled without the need for a full inquiry. In any case, authors should be given the opportunity to respond to any accusations made against them.

4. Serious offenses

Serious misconduct may require employers (university president or board of directors, research unit director, and so forth) of the author to be informed. The editor-in-chief and the editorial staff must decide whether or not it is appropriate to include the employers in the inquiry.