The Code of Ethics and Good Practices summarizes the responsibilities of each of the actors in the editorial process: authors, publishers, referees in order to produce a responsible and transparent scientific publication.
The editorial board guarantees the scientific quality of the journal, by complying with the rules of good practice below.
The review follows a strict, single-blind peer review process for all submissions, including those that compose thematic issues.
A manuscript may be rejected without an evaluation report if it is considered outside the scope of the journal.
The Editor-in-Chief is ultimately responsible for the selection and processing of articles submitted to the journal. He assesses their relevance according to pre-established criteria.
Submissions are automatically associated with editors who, after an initial review based on the editorial line, appoint one or more rapporteurs.
The authors do not know the names of the editors.
Based on the evaluation reports received, the editor takes the final decision (refusal, acceptance of the manuscript in the submitted version, acceptance with minor or major modifications).
The editorial committee, composed of the permanent secretaries of the Academy of Sciences, decides to publish an article.
Manuscripts are evaluated solely on their intellectual or scientific content, without distinction as to origin, gender, sexual orientation, religious convictions, nationality, academic affiliation or political philosophy of the authors. Decisions must be made impartially and independently of commercial considerations.
The process of evaluating the manuscripts received will be conducted in complete confidentiality. No information on a manuscript or relating to correspondence about a manuscript is disclosed to anyone other than the author(s), potential evaluators and the editor.
Members of the editorial and editorial boards, as well as reviewers, must withdraw from the selection process in the event of a conflict of interest concerning one or more authors or the content of a manuscript to be reviewed.
The review will avoid any conflict of interest between authors, reviewers and members of the editorial and editorial board.
Data in submitted manuscripts will not be used prior to publication in the research work of an editorial board member without the express written consent of the author.
Readers should be able to be informed of the potential source of funding for the research presented in the journal. The editorial board also undertakes to respond to complaints filed by readers against the magazine.
Articles are selected on the academic interest they represent for readers and not on the commercial or political gain they can bring. The editorial committee also ensures the magazine's independence.
Evaluators are selected for their intellectual and scientific expertise. They are responsible for evaluating manuscripts on their content alone, without distinction as to race, sex, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, nationality, academic affiliation or political philosophy of the authors.
The opinions given by the evaluators must be objective.
Appraisers are required to report articles of their knowledge that are similar to the article submitted to the journal.
Evaluators should report any significant publications related to the article that have not yet been cited.
In addition to the scientific quality of the article, evaluators must also assess its linguistic quality. A deficient linguistic quality may justify a rejection decision.
Appraisers must recuse themselves in the event of a conflict of interest with one of the authors or with the content of the manuscript to be appraised. In addition, any appraiser who knows that he or she is not qualified to appraise a manuscript or that he or she cannot do so within a reasonable time is required to notify the editorial board and recuse himself or herself.
Manuscripts received for evaluation are treated as confidential documents. No information on a manuscript submitted to the journal is disclosed to any other person.
Authors must guarantee the originality of their article and not publish any text that is similar in any way to counterfeiting as defined by the Intellectual Property Code. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour in scientific publication and are therefore unacceptable.
All manuscripts submitted to the Comptes rendus Geoscience are screened for plagiarism by the Similarity Check system from Crossref, wich compares submissions to a large database of academic content, and alerts editors to any possible issues.
Authors undertake 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 undertake not to submit their articles to several journals at the same time.
Any citations (or use of works by other authors) must be identified as such and accompanied by appropriate references, presented according to the format usually used by the journal.
See the information on the presentation of manuscripts (instructions for authors).
If the author wishes to use information that he or she has obtained in private (conversation, correspondence), he or she should do everything possible to obtain the authorization of the persons who are the source of the information.
The list of authors should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the design, conduct or interpretation of the study presented in the text submitted for review or writing.
All authors must be mentioned.
The corresponding author should ensure that only appropriate co-authors are included in the list of authors, and that all co-authors, after having seen and approved the final version of their text, agree to submit this article for publication.
The corresponding author must ensure that the e-mail addresses of all co-authors are valid, otherwise the article cannot be processed.
The authors undertake not to exceed, in the articles submitted, the rules of scientific debate and not to make defamatory statements that could be interpreted as damage to the reputation of a third person.
Authors must declare any potential conflict of interest, professional or financial. All sources of non-public funding from which the research presented in the submitted text originates must be explicitly mentioned.
Any author who discovers, after publication, a material error or inaccuracy in his or her own work, is required to inform the journal's editorial board without delay and to cooperate with the board to publish an erratum or even to withdraw his or her article. If the journal's editorial board learns, through a third party, that an article already published contains a significant error, it must inform the author. The latter must then request the withdrawal of his article, correct it or provide the elements likely to justify its validity.
The editorial committee seeks to identify and prevent any unethical publication behaviour. It undertakes to examine any complaint lodged against the review, in accordance with the procedure described below. The author must always be able to answer the questions raised.
A complaint alleging an unethical publication practice may be filed at any time by any person with the editorial board.
The person filing the complaint must provide the elements justifying it. Any complaint is taken into account by the committee, regardless of the date of publication of the article concerned.