Code of conduct

Admissibility of articles and desk reject procedure

The co-chief editors, assisted if necessary by the Reviewing Committee, check that:
- the submission complies with the journal's editorial policy, and more specifically that it falls within the field of management sciences and case studies.
- the anonymity of the manuscript is respected. This implies that the names of the authors should not be given in the manuscript, but also that they should avoid providing elements that would allow them to be identified, for example through abusive self-citations. Authors must also ensure that the properties of the electronic document submitted do not allow the authors to be identified.
- the manuscript is original, i.e. that the proposed article has not already been published in a journal or book, in French or another language. The manuscript must not be submitted in parallel to another journal. Each author must complete and sign an exclusivity form. If there is any suspicion of plagiarism, the manuscript is subjected to anti-plagiarism software.
At this stage, the co-chief editors may ask authors to resubmit the manuscript if necessary. They may also reject the manuscript if it does not conform to the editorial line, or if they consider that the quality of the manuscript is insufficient from an editorial and/or scientific point of view, as part of a ‘Desk reject’ procedure (without an evaluation report).

Evaluation of articles and editorial decision.
If the submission meets the above conditions, the co-chief editors appoint two referees, chosen for their scientific expertise. The evaluation process is ‘double blind’: the reviewers assess the manuscript anonymously, and the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. The editors choose the reviewers in such a way as to avoid conflicts of interest as far as possible. If one of the reviewers believes that there may be a conflict of interest that had not been identified by the Editorial Board, he or she will report it. If the reviewers identify strong similarities with existing articles, they will inform the co-chief Editors. As part of their report, reviewers will indicate any significant publications that should be cited in the article. The reviewers may ask the authors to provide the raw data used for the research.
At the end of each round of revision, the co-chief editors inform the authors of the outcome of the revision process, whether it has been rejected or continued. If necessary, the editors will specify the extent of any changes required. The revised version must be accompanied by a separate document in which the authors indicate that the requested changes have been taken into account. In the event of a discrepancy between the two reports submitted by the reviewers, a third reviewer will be appointed to assist the editors in reaching an editorial decision. The journal will do its utmost to reach an editorial decision within a reasonable timeframe, taking into account the time required for the reviewers to draw up their reports and the time required for the authors to take account of any changes. The reviewers have two months to produce their expert opinion. Depending on the extent of the changes requested, authors are asked to submit their revised versions within one to two months. The editorial team undertakes to respond to any questions or objections raised by the authors. In the case of acceptance, the author, who is in contact with the journal, will provide the names and affiliations of authors who have made a significant contribution to the manuscript. In the case of a paper written by several authors, the order of surnames is defined by the authors. It may, at their discretion, follow alphabetical order or depend on their degree of involvement in the article. Authors are also asked to mention any sources of funding for research published in the journal. Authors who publish articles in the journal are invited to promote their publications, via social networks or other media, to academics, students, professionals and the general public.

Special issues
RCSG regularly publishes special issues. These are selected by the Co-Chief Editors, assisted by the Scientific Committee, on the basis of proposals for calls for contributions. Potential submitters of proposals for special issues are invited to refer to the procedure for special issues. Guest editors are responsible for ensuring that the journal's editorial policy is respected. They work directly with the authors to manage the review process and keep the editors-in-chief regularly informed of progress. Their role is to ensure the scientific qualitý of the special issue, in particular through the double-blind evaluation of the articles. Once the selection has been made, the guest editors forward the selected papers, together with the associated assessments, to the journal's co-chief editors. If the number of papers submitted is too low, the special issue may be cancelled. Final acceptance of papers is subject to the opinion of the journal's co-chief editors. If necessary, the referees of the evaluation committeé may request additional evaluation for one or more articles in order to make their final decisions.
Guest editors are responsible for writing the introductory editorial for the special issue (but may not publish articles in the special issue). This will be proofread by one of the editors-in-chief and/or a member of the Scientific Committee.
Once the special issue has been published, the authors and guest editors will be involved in promoting the publications in the special issue, via social networks or other media, to academics, students, professionals and the general public.

Governance and ethical charter
The RCSG journal is supported by an editorial team comprising an Editorial Committee, a Scientific Committee and an Reviewing Committee. The Scientific Committee is consulted on the direction of the journal and on the choice of special issues. They are also consulted when situations arise that are not provided for in the editorial charter.
The Reviewing Committee guarantees the quality of the evaluation of manuscripts submitted to the journal. It is called upon on the basis of the expertise of its members, for evaluations, or as a disciplinary or thematic referent, for example in the context of the re-evaluation of a manuscript for a special issue.
From an ethical point of view, the RCSG journal complies with the ethical rules common to the various journals distributed by the Cairn platform. The ethical rules applicable to academic journals published on Cairn.info can be consulted online.