Ethics charter of the journal Gestion et Management Public
- Ethical rules applicable to the editorial and steering committee and to the reviewers of the journal Gestion et Management Public (GMP)
Scientific quality of the journal
The Editorial and Steering Committee is responsible for all content published in the journal and seeks to constantly improve its scientific quality. It regularly renews its board of reviewers and its scientific council, as well as its own renewal, with a view to ensuring professional rigor. The term of office of the Co-Editors is three years, renewable once (maximum two terms per Co-Editor). It is important to mention the affiliations of the members of the editorial and orientation committee, the international assembly of evaluators and the scientific council on the journal’s website.
Freedom of expression and scientific debate
The editorial and steering committee selects articles with a concern for impartiality. It pays particular attention to articles that contribute to scientific debate. Any article presenting a relevant criticism of an article published in the journal may be proposed for publication. Moreover, any author can propose a response to a criticism of his or her article in the journal.
Relations with the readers
Any sources of funding for the research presented in the journal are mentioned where appropriate. The editorial and steering committee is also committed to responding to complaints made by readers against the journal.
Relations with authors
Articles are selected solely on their intellectual or scientific content, without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, nationalitý, academic affiliation, or political philosophy of the authors. The editorial and policy committee takes into account in its decisions the legal requirements for defamation, copyright infringement or plagiarism. The procedure for submitting an article to the journal is specified in a document posted on the journal’s website and updated regularly. Any financial charges for publishing an article must be explicitly mentioned in this document.
Relations with the reviewers
The missions of the reviewers are specified in a document published on the journal’s website and updated regularly. The editorial and steering committee guarantees the anonymity of reviewers.
Behavior contrary to the ethics of publication
The Editorial and Policy Committee seeks to identify and prevent unethical publication behavior. It is committed to investigating complaints against the journal in accordance with the procedure outlined below. The author is responsible for the alleged violation. The editorial and steering committee is always willing to publish corrections, apologies, explanations, if necessary.
Procedure in case of unethical publishing behavior
A complaint about unethical publication practices may be made at any time by anyone to the Editorial and Policy Committee of the journal. The person lodging the complaint must provide the elements justifying his/her complaint. All complaints will be taken seriously by the Editorial and Policy Committee and processed to conclusion. All complaints will be handled regardless of the date of publication of the article concerned. Records of the handling of the complaint will be retained by the Editorial and Policy Committee. The following steps may be taken in the event of a complaint to the journal:
- Interview with the author, in the case of a misunderstanding of the ethical charter and the rules of publication of the journal
- Sending a letter to the author, detailing the infraction and having the value of a warning
- A letter is sent to the author’s employer
- Publication of an editorial informing the readership
- Withdrawal of the article from the journal and from the indexing databases, and information to the readership
- Embargo any new articles by that author for a specified period of time
- Refer to an outside organization or body with authority to deal with the complaint
Review Process
With the exception of any book reviews, which are reviewed by the reviewer (and discussed with the editorial and policy committee members), all articles submitted to the journal are double-blind: the author does not know the identity of the reviewers, and the reviewers do not know the identity of the author. There are at least two reviewers for each article.
In case of doubt or differences of opinion between the reviewers, additional opinions may be requested by the editorial and steering committee. Articles that are contrary to the editorial line of the journal may be rejected by the Editorial and Steering Committee without an evaluation report (desk reject). Based on the reviewers’ reports, the Editorial and Policy Committee makes one of four decisions:
- Acceptance of the text, as submitted to the journal
- Acceptance subject to major changes
- Acceptance subject to minor changes
- Rejection
In the latter case, the Editorial and Steering Committee will make a final decision, either positive or negative, depending on whether the author has taken into account the suggestions and comments made by the reviewers. Any text accepted, from the first submission, or after modification by the author, will be the subject of editorial work carried out in consultation with the author. In any case, the editorial and orientation committee takes into account, in its decisions, the legal requirements concerning defamation, copyright infringement or plagiarism.
Assignments of Reviewers
Reviewers are selected for their intellectual and scientific expertise. They are responsible for evaluating manuscripts solely on their content, without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, nationality, academic affiliation or political philosophy. Reviewers’ opinions must be objective. Reviewers are required to report all articles that have a similarity to the article submitted to the journal. Reviewers should report any significant publications related to the article that have not yet been cited.
Conflict of interest
Members of the editorial and steering committees and reviewers must recuse themselves if they have a conflict of interest with one of the authors or with the content of the manuscript being reviewed. In addition, any reviewer who knows that he or she is not qualified to review a manuscript, or who knows that he or she cannot review a manuscript in a timely manner, is required to notify the Editorial and Policy Committee and to recuse him or herself.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential. No information about a manuscript submitted to the journal is disclosed to anyone other than the author(s), potential reviewers, and possibly the publisher. Reviewers agree not to retain or copy a manuscript received for review.
Use of data
Data presented in submitted articles must not be used in the research work of any member of the editorial and policy committee or reviewer without the express written consent of the author.
2. Ethical rules applicable to academic authors of the journal Gestion et Management Public (GMP)
Originality and plagiarism
Authors must guarantee the originalitý of their article and not publish any text that would amount, in any form, to counterfeiting as defined by the Intellectual Property Code. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute behavior contrary to the ethics of scientific publication; they are therefore unacceptable.
Multiple, redundant or simultaneous publications
Authors agree not to submit an article that has been previously published in another journal or a new article that is based exclusively on work already published elsewhere. Similarly, authors agree not to submit their article to several journals at the same time.
References
All citations (or use of other authors’ work) must be identified as such and accompanied by the appropriate references, presented in the format usually used by the journal. 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.
Acknowledgement of Authors
The list of authors should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, conduct, or interpretation of the study presented in the text submitted to the journal or in the writing of that text. All authors should be listed, with their affiliation, in alphabetical order or according to their degree of involvement in the conduct of this study or writing of this text. The author who is in contact with the journal must ensure that only appropriate co-authors are included in the list of authors, and that all co-authors, after seeing and approving the final version of their paper, agree to submit this article for publication.
Defamatory statements
Authors agree not to exceed the rules of scientific debate in the articles submitted and not to make defamatory statements that could be construed as an attack on the reputation of a third party.
Conflict of interest
Authors must declare any potential conflict of interest, professional or financial. All sources of non-public funding for the research presented in the submission must be explicitly stated.
Erratum
Any author who discovers, after publication, a significant error or inaccuracy in his or her own work must inform the journal’s editorial and policy committee without delay and cooperate with the committee in issuing an erratum or withdrawing the article.
Access to data
Upon request from the editorial and policy committee, authors may be asked to provide raw data related to their research. If the article is based on clinical cases involving real-life situations, the author undertakes to respect the anonymity of the persons referred to, or to obtain their explicit agreement.
Digital publication
Authors agree, when submitting their article, to authorize its distribution in digital format – notably via the cairn.info and EBSCO platforms as well as on the journal’s website. It is strongly recommended to authors to make their article available on HAL.