Layout
1. The Editorial Committee
2. The coordinator
3. The Evaluator
4. The editorial assistants
5. The Publication Director
6. Submission process
7. Ethical rules applicable to academic authors
- Originality and plagiarism
- Multiple publications, redundant or simultaneous
- References
8. Acknowledgement of authors
9. System of proof
10. Conflicts of interest
11. Summaries and keywords
12. Approval of authors
13. Print and digital publication
14. Academic freedom
15. Confidentiality
16. Erratum
1. The Editorial Board
The Editorial Board is responsible for the publication of the review's content.
It regularly renews its members and the Scientific Committee.
It also ensures that the affiliations of the members of the Editorial Board and the Scientific Committee are listed on the review's website.
The committee's organizational and operational procedures are set out in the Editorial Board's internal rules.
The Editorial Board members may publish an article and/or coordinate an issue once every three years.
-
The Editorial Board's various duties:
a) It is responsible for the design, evaluation and publication of the review;
b) Under the responsibility of its director, it has the authority to make the final decision on the acceptance or rejection of an article;
c) The Editorial Board's assessments are based only on academic criteria, without consideration of gender, nationality, religion or any other discriminatory criterion;
d) The Editorial Board shall ensure that reviewers remain anonymous;
e) It shall also take care to avoid any conflict of interest;
f) It shall draw up a blacklist of those responsible for plagiarism, falsification and any other form of breach of ethical and deontological rules.
2. The coordinator :
a) The coordinator of an issue must present an argument to the Editorial Board for study and validation.
b) Once the arguments have been validated and a call for contributions has been issued, the coordinator will monitor the reviews in close collaboration with the review’s secretariat.
c) The coordinator ensures the anonymity of reviews. He/she will also check for plagiarism, falsification, conflicts of interests and any other ethical issues.
d) In consultation with the Editorial Board, the coordinator proposes the title of the issue, the layout of the articles and the content of the review's sections.
e) The Editorial Board suspends collaboration with the coordinator if he/she fails to meet his/her commitments. The issue will be assigned to another coordinator (discuss this aspect).
f) However, the coordinator may negotiate with the Editorial Board if his or her arguments are rejected, providing well-founded arguments.
3. The reviewer :
The Editorial Board selects external reviewers in line with the theme of the issue. It ensures that reviewers are regularly renewed.
-
The reviewer is required to carry out the review of the article with complete objectivity, in accordance with the terms of the contract binding him to the review's editorial policy.
-
He will ensure the confidentiality of the documents entrusted to him. Furthermore, the reviewer is responsible for dealing with issues such as plagiarism, falsification, conflicts of interest, discrimination and any other matters of a deontological or ethical character.
-
The Editorial Board will suspend collaboration with any reviewer who fails to meet his commitments and deadlines. The article will be assigned to another reviewer.
4. The editorial secretariat
The secretariat is the administrative staff who act as a link between the editorial, reading and scientific committees and the reviewers, in order to ensure the logistics of the reviews (experts, contributors, language correctors, etc.). The secretariat is also responsible for formatting articles in accordance with the review's standards.
5. The publication director
The Director of Crasc is, by law, the publication director of the review. He is responsible for all editorial aspects of a publication. To this end, he signs the printing order.
The publication director is the review's legal representative.
6. Submission process:
Every effort is made to process incoming manuscripts efficiently and in a timely manner.
All proposals submitted for publication are analyzed by plagiarism detection software. If this reveals borrowings that do not comply with the rules of citation, the proposal is rejected. In accordance with the Crasc Code of Ethics and that of the National Committee of Ethics, a report is written and sent to the relevant party.
After the editorial secretariat has received an article, it will be examined for format. Once accepted, it will be submitted to the Reading Committee for a double, anonymous evaluation:
1. An initial evaluation of the article's admissibility.
2. A second evaluation by two experts.
A third evaluation is possible if the two experts do not agree on the acceptance of the article.
If the article is accepted, a summary of the experts' comments is sent to the author so that the article can be reworked for publication.
The article's publication also depends on the review's publication schedule.
If the article is not accepted, a reply will be sent to the author informing him or her of the Reading Committee's decision.
Authors are bound to the review by a contract, signed by both parties. This contract defines the rights to exploit their contributions in print and digital form.
7. Ethical rules applicable to academic authors
- Originality and plagiarism
Authors must guarantee the originality of their article and not publish any text that is similar, in any form whatsoever (in another review, website, research reports, etc.). Fraudulent or deliberately inaccurate declarations are unacceptable and are contrary to the ethics of scientific publication.
- Multiple, redundant or simultaneous publications
Authors commit themselves not to submit an article that has been previously published in another review or a new article based exclusively on work already published elsewhere. Furthermore, authors commit themselves not to submit their article to several reviews at the same time.
- References
Any quotation (or use of other authors' work) must be identified as such and accompanied by the appropriate references, presented in accordance with the format usually adopted by the review. If the author wishes to use information obtained privately (conversation, correspondence), every effort should be made to obtain permission from the source of the information.
8. Listing of authors
The list of authors must be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, realization or interpretation of the study presented in the text submitted to the review or to the writing of this text. All authors must be listed, with their affiliation, in alphabetical order or according to their degree of involvement in the writing of the article. The author who is in contact with the review must ensure that only appropriate co-authors are included in the list of authors, and that all co-authors, having seen and approved the final version of their text, have agreed to submit this article for publication.
9. Rules of procedure for evidence
All argumentation must be based on original sources. These sources (written, oral, material, etc.) must be referenced and verifiable.
10. Conflicts of interest
Conflicts of interest are situations that may be perceived as having an influence on the presentation or publication of a work. All proposals for articles are examined impartially.
Insaniyat is committed to ensuring that it is free of any conflicts of interest. Authors submitting an article must declare any potential conflict of interest that could interfere with the objectivity or integrity of the publication.
They must, where appropriate, indicate the funding for their project and/or the nature of the project (institutional project, grant, etc.).
11. Abstracts and keywords
Insaniyat articles may be published in French, English or Arabic. The original version is published in the printed volume. By default, an abstract of each article is published in the three languages. It must be submitted by the authors, in French, English and Arabic, with five key words, at the same time as the first version of their article. The authors and the editorial team will work together to ensure that they are written in clear, intelligible language that is accessible to a large number of people. The translation of abstracts into the three languages and their verification can be handled by the Editorial Board. Keyword searches will be possible in all three languages on the Open Edition portal.
12. Author approval
Each author approves and signs the text prepared for online publication and authorizes its distribution in accordance with the Creative Commons - Attribution - Noncommercial – Non modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 copyright rules.
13. Print and digital publication
Authors authorize the distribution of their articles in print and digital format, in particular on the Crasc website, the ASJP platform and the Open E-dition Journals portal.
14. Academic freedom
The Editorial Board ensures that academic freedom is respected, in accordance with the regulations in effect.
15. Confidentiality
Manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents. No information about a manuscript submitted to the review will be divulged to anyone other than the author(s), potential reviewers and, possibly, the publisher. Reviewers commit themselves not to transmit a manuscript received for review.
The Editorial Board will not divulge any information concerning a submitted article to anyone other than the author(s) and reviewers.
16. Erratum
If authors or the Editorial Board itself discover a significant error or inaccuracy after the publication of their article, they will promptly inform the review and cooperate with its staff to correct the error in question.
If authors are contacted by the review after the publication of their article following the discovery of a significant error, they must promptly submit either their corrections or evidence of the original article's accuracy.
