Authorship and contributorship policies 

Gérer & Comprendre publishes original article proposals that have not been evaluated or published by another journal, and authorizes the submission by the same author of several works in parallel, subject to the aforementioned condition.

Any use of generative AI for any part of the article shall be explicitly mentioned and justified within the article.

Under the “double-blind” rule, each article is assigned to at least two reviewers, who may or may not be members of the editorial board. The editorial board calls on external assessors when the analysis of an article requires skills not available within the editorial board, and makes sure these reviewers are not in any knowledge of the authorship. The reviewers present their conclusions to the editorial board and the other members of the board may add comments. Several possibilities arise:

• A consensus emerges for publication, in which case the article is accepted. The members of the editorial board then learn the authors’ names.
• A consensus emerges to request a second version: the reviewers’ comments are anonymously forwarded to the authors for this purpose, and the second version is again submitted to the editorial board.
• A consensus emerges for rejection; this is communicated to the authors, along with the reasons for rejection and sometimes a suggestion for publication in another, more appropriate journal.

In the absence of consensus, a third reviewer is requested for re-examination at the next editorial board meeting, which serves as a referee.

Once accepted, the article is included in an issue to be published in print (200 copies) and online (open access). Distribution is also ensured by subscription to the Cairn.info platform. There is no charge to the author for publication.

Procedures for handling complaints and appeals 

All complaints and appeals are made anonymous and transmitted to the editorial board, which can decide to assign the reviewing of the article to a third external reviewer, who will help make the final decision on the article. All reviews are transmitted – also anonymously – to the author(s). 

Disagreements may need to be made public, either because they advance knowledge, or because the board’s differences are irreconcilable. The article is then published with the report of the reviewer who disagrees, and the author is given the right of reply. These debates help to gradually refine the journal’s editorial line and strengthen its identity.

Handling of allegations of research misconduct 

In the case of an article that was accepted and allegations of research misconduct from the author are made by fellow researchers, the board will inquire for a contestation letter setting out the points of misconduct, which will be transmitted to the author(s) for their response. If consensus cannot be reached between the interested parties, the board will suggest amending the online version of the article with a mention of the dispute and its factual elements as exposed by both parties, in a footnote on the article title page. 

Conflicts of interest policies 

When a board member finds themself in a position where they figure out the authorship, they recuse themself from reviewing the article. And when a board member submits an article to the journal as an author, he or she does not attend the board meetings handling the reviewing of their article so as to respect the double-blind rule.

Only when an article is accepted do the board members get informed of the authorship.

Data sharing and reproducibility 

Reproduction in whole or in part is possible subject to the journal’s agreement and mention of the original publication. No fee is ever required.

Ethical oversight mechanisms 

The criteria for selecting a work are made without discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnic or geographical origin of the authors.

The editorial staff mentions the conditions under which the contributions to a collective work or journal were produced when these publications originate from a conference, congress, seminar, or any other scientific meeting.

Regarding peer-reviewers: Their role is to contribute to the decision-making process and help improve the quality of the document submitted for review by objectively examining the manuscript.  They undertake to maintain the confidentiality of any information provided by the editor or the author.

Peer-reviewers undertake to alert the board and the editor of any submitted or published content that is suspected of plagiarism or academic dishonesty.

Peer-reviewers must also be aware of any potential conflict of interest that may exist between themselves and the author whose work they are reviewing. If such a situation becomes apparent, it is the reviewer’s responsibility to inform the board and decline to review the author’s work.

Intellectual property policies 

The journal is protected by copyright and is the sole property of Annales des Mines.

Post-publication discussion options

When an article is accepted and published in an issue, it may spark a written statement from a board member or a fellow researcher. The board will review it and transmit to the author for a response. Whether the author agrees with the statement or not, or decides to write a response or not, the board may decide to publish this statement in a subsequent issue and to place it after the article in the online version of the issue, to further discussion.

Policies on corrections and retractions 

Corrections and/or retractions inquiries can be made to the editorial staff that will pass it along to the board. If the board agrees with the inquiry, the editorial staff will process to have the online version of the article amended, and will have a printed note showing the change inserted in the remaining stock of printed copies.

Procedures to ensure the integrity of scholarly literature, including handling plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication 

As mentioned in the ethical oversight mechanisms part above, this is addressed by peer reviewers; members of the editorial board may also contribute to avoid any unethical scientific behavior when the peer reviewers present their conclusions.