
CODE OF ETHICS AND BEST PRACTICES

The Code of Ethics and Best Practices supports the combined efforts of authors, publishers, and reviewers to produce responsible scientific publications. 1. Responsible Research Publication: Authors' Responsibilities Research presented in articles must be conducted ethically and responsibly, adhering to all relevant legislation, including the French Intellectual Property Code, established by Law No. 92-597. Authors must be aware of scientific fraud and refrain from committing fraud or violating ethical standards in scientific publishing. The following is a list of ethical best practices and common types of misconduct, inspired by COPE's publication titled "Responsible Research Publication: International Standards for Authors." Authors must present their results clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation. Authors ensure the originality of their material as defined in the Intellectual Property Code. Authors should strive to describe their methods clearly and unambiguously to allow for the confirmation of their conclusions by others. Acknowledgment of copyright and collaborations must be done appropriately. Deliberate misrepresentation of a scientist's relationship with a published work is prohibited. All authors must have made significant contributions to the research. Contributors with less significant contributions may be acknowledged but should not be identified as authors. Authors must inform the journal of any direct or indirect conflicts of interest with editors or members of the editorial or international scientific committee. All authors must submit a list of references and financial support for their research if requested by the editorial committee. All sources of research funding, including direct or indirect financial support, should be disclosed. No substantial part of the article should have been previously published as an article or chapter or be under consideration for publication elsewhere. If authors intend to reproduce their article in other publications or for any other purpose and by any means, they must obtain written permission from the editorial committee. Authors must refrain from segmenting research and thereby transforming a significant article into multiple separate articles. Segmentation is a known fraudulent publication tactic referred to as "salami slicing." Authors are required, for all submitted documents, to participate in a peer-review process and follow publication guidelines. 2. Responsible Research Publication: Editors' Responsibilities 2.1. Publication Decision The journal PERSPECTIVES PHILOSOPHIQUES emphasizes a double-blind peer-review process. All contributions are initially assessed by the editor-in-chief, who is responsible for the selection and processing of submitted articles. The editor-in-chief evaluates their relevance to editorial objectives, value, and potential publication. Each deemed appropriate article is sent to two anonymous independent peer reviewers with expertise in the field. The editor-in-chief makes the final decision regarding article acceptance or rejection. The decision to publish an article is based on its importance to researchers, practitioners, and potential readers. Editors-in-chief should make impartial decisions independent of commercial motives. Editorial decisions and actions are bound by ethical and legal requirements, as stipulated in PERSPECTIVES PHILOSOPHIQUES' Code of Ethics and Best Practices and the Intellectual Property Code governing copyright infringement and plagiarism. Editors making final decisions on manuscripts should recuse themselves from editorial decisions if they have conflicts of interest or relationships that could pose potential problems regarding the articles under consideration. The responsibility for the final publication decision will be assigned to an editor or committee member without conflicts of interest. 2.2. Conflict of Interest Editors-in-chief, members of the editorial and international scientific committees, and reviewers must recuse themselves from the selection process in case of conflicts of interest regarding one or more authors or the content of a manuscript under review. PERSPECTIVES PHILOSOPHIQUES will avoid any conflict of interest between authors, reviewers, and members of the editorial and international scientific committees. 2.3. Peer Review Each submitted article falls under the responsibility of a member of the editorial or international scientific committee, committed to conducting a double-blind review by two anonymous expert peers. Revised articles are treated confidentially by the editorial committee members, members of the international scientific committee, and reviewers. 2.4. Identifying and Preventing Scientific Fraud and Misconduct Under no circumstances should editorial and international scientific committee members encourage any form of misconduct or unethical practices or knowingly allow such misconduct to occur. Members of the editorial and international scientific committees will strive to prevent ethical misconduct by informing authors and reviewers of the ethical conduct expected of them. Members of the editorial and international scientific committees and reviewers are required to be aware of all types of misconduct to identify articles where scientific misconduct has occurred or appears to have occurred and to handle allegations accordingly. 2.5. Guidelines for Retraction or Corrections a. Editors' Responsibilities In cases of actual or perceived misconduct, the journal's editor-in-chief is responsible for resolving the issue. Collaboration may occur with the co-editor, members of the editorial and international scientific committees, peer reviewers, and experts in the field. b. Documentation All factual questions should be documented: who, what, when, where, how, why. All important or relevant documents must be retained, especially the concerned article(s). c. Regular Procedure with Authors The journal's editor must contact the author or the relevant publication, either the author working with PERSPECTIVES PHILOSOPHIQUES or another publication or author. The author is given the opportunity to respond or comment on the complaint, allegation, or dispute. d. Appropriate Corrections The editorial committee addresses various cases following COPE's appropriate recommendations: cases involving actual or perceived misconduct or cases requiring corrections. Care should be taken to distinguish cases of honest human error from cases of intentional fraud. PERSPECTIVES PHILOSOPHIQUES follows the following COPE recommendations: • Editors-in-chief should consider retracting a publication if there is clear evidence that the results are unreliable due to misconduct (e.g., data fabrication) or honest error (e.g., calculation error or experimental error). Retraction is also appropriate in cases of redundant publication, plagiarism, and research contrary to ethics. • Editors-in-chief should consider expressing concerns if: 1) they have reason to believe there has been research or publication misconduct by the authors but do not have sufficient evidence, 2) there is evidence that the conclusions are unreliable, but the authors' institution will not investigate the matter, 3) they believe that an investigation into the alleged publication-related misconduct has not been, or will not be, fair, impartial, or conclusive, 4) or an investigation is underway, but a judgment will not be available for some time. Editors-in-chief should consider publishing a correction request if a small part of an otherwise reliable article proves to be misleading (especially due to honest error) or if the list of authors/contributors is incorrect (i.e., a deserving author has been omitted, or a person who does not meet authorship criteria has been included). Source: COPE Retraction Guidelines, https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf In summary, the editorial committee will consider retracting a publication in case of misconduct, expressing concern in case of inconclusive evidence of misconduct, or issuing a correction request for a misleading segment. PERSPECTIVES PHILOSOPHIQUES has adopted ethical best practices as outlined in COPE's Responsible Research Publication: International Standards for Editors, https://publicationethics.org/files/International%20standard_editors_for%20website_11_Nov_Nov_2011.pdf. 2.6. Data Access and Preservation Where applicable, editors encourage authors to share data supporting research publications. Research data refers to the results of observations or experiments validating research findings. Editors encourage authors to indicate the availability of their data in a data statement.
https://perspectivesphilosophiques.net/deontologie.html
perspectivesphilosophiques.net
CC-MAIN-2024-26
16373
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:IC2QOXJ352DJS6PMEYC2T73EZQLCD3PW
<urn:uuid:acaf106e-59c9-4f60-b8ca-8c60d4befb6a>
2024-06-16T22:12:23Z
91.216.107.205
text/html
sha1:G2M4AJRVQN47HDLFN7NOUBTHM5LJUCQC
<urn:uuid:05abe464-065e-4c7a-8da2-2f9c4a3e629e>
https://perspectivesphilosophiques.net/deontologie.html
response
<urn:uuid:d696aef8-f1db-466b-b0c2-6612a4d2bbc9>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-26
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for June 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-115
software: Apache Nutch 1.20 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/