Publication charter of Alternatives Rurales
1. General Principles
Alternatives Rurales is a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It adheres to the principles and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (see the committee’s website).
This charter aims to define the ethical rules governing the editorial process, the responsibilities of authors, reviewers, and editors, as well as the procedures applicable in cases of publication ethics breaches.
2. Organization of the Review Process
When an article is submitted to the journal, the editors conduct an initial screening to decide whether it should enter the preparation process. They provide a response to the authors within a maximum of two weeks. Then, if necessary, they support the authors in improving the scientific quality, clarity, and relevance of the manuscript with respect to the journal’s objectives.
When the article is ready for formal review, it is sent to two reviewers:
- The review process is conducted under a “double-blind” system: reviewers do not know the authors’ identities and vice versa.
- Reviewers must report any potential conflict of interest (personal, professional, institutional, or financial) and withdraw if such a situation exists.
- Reviews must be based on objective scientific criteria, well argued, and formulated in a respectful and constructive manner.
3. Responsibilities of Authors
Authors commit to:
- Submitting original work free from plagiarism, data falsification, or fabrication.
- Not submitting the same manuscript simultaneously to another journal. Concurrent submission of the same manuscript to multiple journals constitutes unethical publication behavior; if such a situation is discovered, the submission to Alternatives Rurales will be automatically withdrawn.
- Explicitly specifying the contributions of each co-author, who must approve the final version of the manuscript.
As part of the evaluation process, authors must respond clearly and thoroughly to each comment made by the reviewers. This response, organized point by point in a separate document, must show how the comments were addressed in the revised version of the manuscript or, where applicable, scientifically justify the choices maintained. Compliance with this step conditions the continuation of the editorial process.
4. Use of Artificial Intelligence
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools must be transparent:
- Authors who use AI to produce claims within the manuscript (whether in results, literature review, etc.) must explain how it was used in the methods section.
- If the use is limited to linguistic or syntactic editing, it does not need to be mentioned.
- Authors remain fully responsible for the scientific content and for any errors, omissions, or biases that may result from the use of such tools.
5. Research Ethics
When research involves human or animal participants, authors must:
- Indicate the authorizations obtained and specify that all applicable ethical standards have been respected (informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, etc.).
- Comply with national and international regulations related to research ethics.
In cases of suspected ethical misconduct—plagiarism, data manipulation, or non-compliant research practices—the journal will apply COPE procedures and recommendations to investigate and, if necessary, publish corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern.
6. Policy on Preprints and Prior Publications
Authors must declare whether the manuscript, or any part of it, has previously been circulated as a preprint, as well as any earlier versions such as conference proceedings or internal reports. The journal accepts the publication of preprints, but the existence of these prior versions must be transparently disclosed.
7. Responsibilities of Editors
Editors commit to ensuring impartial evaluation of manuscripts, based solely on their scientific quality, and to guaranteeing confidentiality. They refrain from using unpublished data or results for their own work, declare and manage conflicts of interest by recusing themselves when necessary, and ensure consistent application of this charter and adherence to COPE principles.
8. Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers must strictly respect the confidentiality of the evaluation process and provide objective, well-argued, and respectful reviews. They must declare any conflict of interest and refrain from using data or ideas from the manuscript for personal purposes. They must also respect the deadlines set by the journal to ensure the smooth functioning of the editorial process.
Reviewers are expected to submit their review within six weeks — a timeframe that may be extended if reviewers provide justification for their unavailability.
9.Intellectual Property
Content published in Alternatives Rurales is available under the Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivatives 4.0 France License. Authors retain the intellectual property rights to their published articles.
10. Data Access
Authors are encouraged to make publicly accessible, on an open-access website, the data used in their analysis (ensuring anonymization where necessary). However, this data sharing is not mandatory.
The journal nevertheless reserves the right to request authors, at any point during the evaluation process or after publication, to provide the data used in their work for scientific verification or ethical examination.
Unjustified refusal to provide these data may result in suspension of the editorial process or, where applicable, retraction of the article.
11. No Publication Fees
The publication of an article in Alternatives Rurales is not subject to any payment. Alternatives Rurales remains a free and open-access journal, committed to promoting the sharing of knowledge.
12. Corrections and Retractions
When errors are identified after an article is published, they must be reported to the editors-in-chief. The online manuscript will be corrected, with a note indicating the correction where appropriate.
Authors may request the retraction of their article.
13. Handling Complaints and Publication Ethics
A report concerning unethical publication practices may be submitted at any time, by anyone, to the journal’s editorial committee. The complainant must provide evidence supporting the report. The editorial committee will make a decision regarding the claim.
The editorial committee is also responsible for deciding on any ethical issues arising during or after the article submission process.
The journal does not systematically provide a space for responses or discussion regarding published articles. However, it is possible to submit a response or commentary article, which will be considered as a full-fledged article.
