I. Ethical Rules Applicable to Editorial Boards and Reviewers of M@n@gement

Journal Quality

The editorial board of M@n@gement seeks to ensure the scientific quality of the journal, in particular by complying with the rules of good practice set out below. More specifically, it focuses on ensuring regular turnover in the composition of its editorial board as well as in its own membership, with a view to ensuring professional rigor. Therefore 40% minimum of the editorial team is renewed at each new mandate. Each mandate lasts up to three years and can be renewed only once (two mandates maximum). Thirty percent of the scientific committee, which gives the journal’s main research orientations, is renewed every three years.

Ethical standards for publication exist to ensure high-quality scientific publications, public trust in scientific findings, and that people receive credit for their ideas. M@n@gement complies with the guidelines and best practices set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

M@n@gement is strongly committed to knowledge as a global public good that is inclusive for researchers across the world. Consistent with this commitment, we encourage editors, authors and reviewers to adopt epistemically just citational practices by being attentive to racialized, gendered, or imperialist hierarchies of knowledge production. This involves (but is not limited to) considering whose works authors cite or do not cite thus reproducing some hierarchies while invisibilizing other forms of knowledge. 

Review Process

With the exception of invited contributions of the Unplugged section, which are evaluated by the review editor in charge of the Unplugged section (and discussed with the editor(s) in chief), articles submitted to the journal are evaluated following the principle of the double-blind review. 

The process is the following. The co-editors in chief conduct a first screening of the papers to assess fit with the aims and scope and the standards of the journal (“desk reject”) and proceed to an anti-plagiarism check. Articles that would be contrary to the journal’s editorial policy, do not match the publication standards of M@n@gement or have low chances of being accepted by our reviewers may be directly rejected by the editorial board.

Then the paper is assigned to a co-editor in chief or a senior editor (based on their expertise) in charge of the manuscript who sends it to reviewers, taking into account any potential conflict of interest. The author does not know the identity of the reviewers and in return, the reviewers do not know the identity of the author. There are on average three reviewers for each article. Reviewing guidelines are available on our website. The handling editor also conducts an independent assessment at each stage. In case of important divergence or of doubt, an additional external assessment may be solicited. 

Based on the reviewers’ reports and her or his own assessment, the co-chief editor or associate editor takes one of the following decisions within a reasonable period of time (approximately 3 months) following receipt of the manuscript:

1. Acceptance of the manuscript as submitted to the journal
2. Rejection (“Reject”)
3. Rejection with invitation to resubmit an entirely new version of the manuscript (“Reject and Resubmit”)
4. Acceptance subject to major modifications (“Major Revise and Resubmit”)
5. Acceptance subject to minor modifications (“Minor Revise and Resubmit”)
6. Conditional acceptance

In the latter case (6), the co-chief editor or associate editor will make a final decision based on whether or not the author adopted the suggestions and comments provided by the reviewers.

Any manuscript, that is accepted either when first submitted or following modifications by the author, is subject to editing conducted in collaboration with the author.

Any manuscript that is accepted for publication in M@n@gement and that is not written in English should be translated in English so that the English or both versions (the original version and the English version) can be published in the same issue of the journal. Papers must be professionally copyedited at the costs of authors. 

When reaching a decision, the editorial board considers legal requirements in terms of defamation, copyright violation, and plagiarism.

Conflict of Interest

M@n@gement has a strict policy regarding conflicts of interests. Editorial board members and reviewers must recuse themselves if there is a conflict of interest with an author or with the content of the manuscript to be reviewed. A potential conflicting interest might arise from relationships, allegiances or hostilities to particular groups, organizations or interests, which may influence excessively one’s judgments or actions.

Furthermore, reviewers who know that they are not qualified to review a manuscript or that they will be unable to do so within a reasonable period of time are required to inform the editorial board of this fact and to recuse themselves.

Editors do not submit to M@n@gement during their mandate. 

Impartiality

Manuscripts are evaluated on their intellectual and scientific content without distinctions based on the author’s ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, nationality, university affiliation, or political views.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review are treated confidentially. No information about a manuscript submitted to a journal may be disclosed to anyone other than the author, potential reviewers, and in some cases the publisher.

Privacy statement

The data presented in the submitted articles may not be used prior to publication in the research of an editorial board member or reviewer without the author’s express written consent.

 

 II. Ethical Rules Applicable to Authors

 Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must vouch safe for the originality of their article and may not publish any work that might in any way whatsoever constitute infringement as defined by the Intellectual Property Code. This includes self-plagiarism. False or deliberately inaccurate statements constitute behavior contrary to the ethics of scientific publication and are therefore unacceptable.

Multiple, Redundant, and Simultaneous Publications

Authors undertake not to submit work previously published in another journal or an original article based mainly or exclusively on work already published elsewhere. Authors also undertake not to submit manuscripts to multiple journals simultaneously.

References

Any citation (or use of other authors’ work) must be identified as such and be accompanied by appropriate references presented in accordance with the journal’s procedures (cf. makeasubmission). If authors wish to refer to information obtained privately (conversation, correspondence), they should do everything possible to obtain authorization to do so from those identified as the source of this information.

As detailed earlier, M@n@gement is strongly committed to knowledge as a global public good that is inclusive for researchers across the world. Consistent with this commitment, we encourage authors to adopt epistemically just citational practices by being attentive to racialized, gendered, or imperialist hierarchies of knowledge production. This involves (but is not limited to) considering whose works authors cite or do not cite thus reproducing some hierarchies while invisibilizing other forms of knowledge. 

Authorship

The list of co-authors must be limited to those who made a significant contribution to the conception, conduct, or interpretation of the research presented in the manuscript submitted to the journal or to the drafting of that manuscript. All authors along with their affiliation should be listed in alphabetical order or according to their level of involvement in conducting the research or drafting the document. The corresponding author must ensure that only the appropriate co-authors are listed and that all co-authors agreed to the manuscript being submitted for publication after having seen and approved the final version of their contribution.

Defamatory Language

Authors undertake not to violate the rules of scientific debate in the articles they submit or make defamatory statements that might be interpreted as impugning the reputation of a third party.

Conflict of Interest

Authors must declare any potential, professional, or financial conflict of interest. All sources of non-public funding used in the research presented in the submission must be explicitly named.

Errata

Authors who discover a major error or inaccuracy in their work after publication are required to report this promptly to the journal’s editorial board and to cooperate with it in publishing an erratum or if necessary announce the withdrawal of the article. Should the editorial board or the publisher of the journal learn from a third party that an article already published contains a major error, it must inform the author accordingly. The author must then request that the article be withdrawn or amended or provide information demonstrating that the passage in question is not erroneous.

Access to Research Data

At the request of the editorial board, authors may be invited to provide the data relating to their research. To the extent possible, authors should undertake to allow public access to their data and to retain these for a reasonable period of time following publication. 

Paper and Digital Publication

When submitting an article, authors undertake to authorize its distribution in both hardcopy and digital formats, particularly on the cairn.info platform, unless express notification by them to the contrary. Authors are also expected to make their papers available on HAL.