Ethical guide for reviewers

This guide was inspired by Wiley’s best practice guidelines on publishing ethics and uses the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which aims to provide guidance in the reflection on publication ethics and practical resources to educate and support members of the scientific community.

"La Revue LEeE" adheres to values of integrity and caring, which it would like to see appear throughout the publication process. Peer review plays an important role in ensuring the scientific integrity of publications. The process is essentially based on trust, which is why it is necessary for the actors in the process to behave in an ethical and responsible manner. The purpose of the guide proposed below is to provide guidance to reviewers in order to provide feedback on manuscripts in accordance with the ethical principles of "La Revue LEeE".

Detailed Guide

 

• Reviewers respond to the request for feedback as soon as possible and request an extension of the deadline if they need it.
• Reviewers agree to conduct peer review only if the manuscript or aspects of the manuscript fall within their area of expertise. If they only feel competent in certain aspects, reviewers clearly indicate what these aspects are.
• Review is only accepted by reviewers if they know that they will be able to complete the review within the time frame.
• Reviewers are required to report any material that may affect their objectivity and authenticity. Reviewers are expected to waive peer review in the event of a conflict of interest if they recognize the author of the manuscript (for example, if the reviewer has recently worked with the author), (e.g., if the author and the expert work in the same institution and are in a competitive situation, or if the expert and the author have close or conflicting interpersonal relationships, the expert has a financial interest in publishing the manuscript).
• Reviewers undertake to decline feedback if they plan to submit or prepare a contribution that is too similar to the article they are asked to review.
• In case of refusal, reviewers suggest to the editors the names of colleagues who could do the review.
  
  

 

• Reviewers undertake to ensure the confidentiality of the manuscript, not to communicate information relating to the manuscript to third parties, not to reuse ideas from the manuscript in their own work, and not to cite the manuscript in their own contributions (articles or conferences) before the article is published in the journal.
• Reviewers immediately notify the editors if they discover a conflict of interest that was not apparent at the time of acceptance to provide the review.
• Reviewers undertake to respect the time allotted for the peer review or request a deadline from the editors.
• Reviewers are required not to delegate the peer review work to peers.
• If reviewers wish to involve colleagues in the peer review process, they are required to seek permission from the editors. Based on the involvement of third parties in the feedback, a decision will be made, in discussion with the editors, as to the person's place in the collaborative peer review process and the publication of their name on the published article.
• The peer review process of "La Revue LEeE" is intended to be formative. Reviewers are aware of this and are committed to providing constructive and objective feedback aimed at accepting a quality text after a single round of peer review.
• Reviewers are committed to using respectful language and caring for authors.
• In the event that the reviewer is able to identify information about the authors (e.g., origin, affiliation, academic title, political opinions, or gender), they undertake that their feedback will not be influenced by these elements.
• Reviewers are committed to play a role in identifying and reporting ethical issues related to research: plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, non-reporting bias, double publication, undeclared conflict of interest.
  
  

 

• Reviewers are required to follow the instructions of the journal on the form and type of feedback expected from them.
• Reviewers pledge not to make personal comments or false accusations.
• Reviewers are encouraged to make specific and specific criticisms, and to provide appropriate references (e.g., if they say "this has already been done before") to help authors respond.
• Reviewers remember that this is the authors' manuscript, and that they should not try to rewrite it in their own style. Suggestions to improve the clarity of the text, however, are important.
• Reviewers clarify what additional research work is essential to support the assertions made in the manuscript, and what research work is just suggested to reinforce or complete the assertion.
• Reviewers are committed not to make negative comments or unjustified criticisms of authors cited in the manuscript.
• Reviewers should only suggest references to their own work for valid academic reasons, and not for reasons of increasing their own visibility.
  
  

 

• Reviewers continue to respect the confidentiality of the manuscript and feedback in the event of double blind peer review.
• Reviewers respond quickly if they are contacted by the editors with questions related to their feedback.
• Reviewers are expected to contact the editors if relevant information that would affect their feedback comes to mind even after completing the peer review process.

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, including generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, etc.), raises important ethical concerns regarding confidentiality, intellectual integrity, and responsibility.

Reviewers are expected to adhere to the following principles:

• Peer review is fundamentally a human activity that involves intellectual responsibility. Reviewers must not, under any circumstances, delegate this task to an AI tool, whether for evaluating the manuscript or drafting comments.
• In the case of double-blind review, reviewers must not submit the manuscript, or any substantial part of it, to an AI tool, even for purposes such as summarization or rephrasing. Most AI tools process content via external servers, which constitutes a breach of the confidentiality required in a double-blind peer review process.

Any inappropriate use of AI tools during the review process, especially if it compromises the confidentiality of the manuscript or the quality of the review, may result in exclusion from the peer review process and, where applicable, further ethical consequences.