All parties involved in the review are required to adhere to the elements contained in this charter.

The journal adheres to the codes of conduct and guidelines for best practices for editors-in-chief and requires its members to follow the ethical guidelines for peer reviewers developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The commitments below draw inspiration from the recommendations of this committee and incorporate them. The journal adopts the charter adopted by openEdition.

1. Commitments of the Journal and the Ethical Rules Applicable to It

Scientific Quality of the Journal

The editorial committee is responsible for all content published in the journal and seeks to continuously improve its scientific quality. It works on the regular renewal of its review board and scientific committee, as well as its own renewal, with a focus on professional rigor. It ensures the affiliation of the members of the editorial board, the international review board, and the scientific committee is mentioned on the journal’s website.

Freedom of Expression and Scientific Debate

The editorial committee selects articles with impartiality, paying particular attention to articles that contribute to scientific debate. Any article presenting a relevant critique of a previously published article in the journal may be proposed for publication. Furthermore, any author can submit a response to a critique published in the journal regarding their article.

Political or Commercial Interests

Articles are selected based on their academic relevance to readers, rather than their commercial or political gain. The editorial committee also ensures the independence of the journal from its publisher.

Conflict of Interest

Members of the editorial committee and reviewers must recuse themselves in case of a conflict of interest with any of the authors or the content of the manuscript being evaluated. Moreover, any reviewer who knows they are not qualified to evaluate a manuscript or cannot do so within reasonable deadlines is obligated to notify the editorial committee and recuse themselves.

Impartiality

Each article submission is considered impartially, and its merits are judged without discrimination based on gender, religion, sexual orientation, nationality, ethnic origin, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the authors.

Unethical Publishing Behavior

The editorial committee strives to identify and prevent any unethical publishing behavior. It commits to conducting an investigation in case of a complaint filed against the journal, following the procedure described below. The author is responsible for the alleged violation. The editorial committee is always willing to publish corrections, apologies, or explanations if deemed necessary.

Procedure for Unethical Publishing Behavior

A complaint alleging unethical publishing behavior can be filed at any time by anyone with the editorial committee of the journal. The complainant must provide supporting evidence for their complaint. Every complaint is taken seriously by the editorial committee and is processed until a conclusion is reached. Regardless of the publication date of the concerned article, all complaints will be considered. Documents related to the handling of the complaint will be retained by the editorial committee. The following measures may be implemented in case of complaints against the journal:

• Interview with the author, in case of a misunderstanding of the ethical charter and publication rules of the journals.

• Sending a letter to the author, detailing the violation and serving as a warning.

• Sending a letter to the author’s employing organization.

• Publishing an editorial to inform the readership.

• Retraction of the article from the journal, as well as from indexing databases, with notification to the readership.

• Embargo on any new article by the author for a specified period.

• Referring the matter to an external organization or authority to address the complaint.

Evaluation Process

Efforts are made to process submitted manuscripts efficiently and quickly. Any proposal submitted for publication is analyzed using plagiarism detection software. If it reveals borrowings that do not comply with citation rules, the proposal is rejected. A proposal that does not conform to the scope of the journal or goes against its editorial policy may be rejected by the editorial committee without undergoing blind peer review. Except for the two previous cases and book reviews, all article proposals submitted to the journal are anonymized and evaluated by at least two external reviewers. After deliberation by the editorial committee and management, based on the evaluation reports, an article proposal may be accepted, accepted with revisions (major or minor), or rejected.

• In case of acceptance with revisions, the management and editorial committee make a final decision based on the author’s consideration of the reviewers’ suggestions and comments.

• In case of rejection of their proposal, authors receive a motivated opinion. However, they may request a second review. After examination and the opinion of the editorial committee and/or management, the contribution may undergo a final double-blind evaluation.

Confidentiality and Data Use

The peer-review process is strictly confidential. Information or correspondence regarding a manuscript is not shared with anyone outside of this process.

No unpublished information, argument, or interpretation contained in a contribution is used or disclosed before the publication of the article without the consent of the authors.

Editorial Processing

Any accepted text (from the initial submission or after modification) undergoes editorial work in consultation with the author.

Erratum

If the journal learns that an article it has published contains a significant error, it informs the authors, who must promptly either provide their corrections or provide evidence of the accuracy of the concerned article.

2. Commitment of Experts and Ethical Rules Applicable to Them

The members of the editorial committee and the reviewers must recuse themselves in case of conflicts of interest with any of the authors or with the content of the manuscript under review. Additionally, any reviewer who knows they are not qualified to evaluate a manuscript or cannot do so within a reasonable timeframe is obligated to inform the editorial committee and recuse themselves.

Confidentiality and Data Use

The peer review process is strictly confidential. Information or correspondence regarding a manuscript is not shared with anyone outside of this process. No unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a contribution are used or disclosed before the publication of the article without the authors' consent.

Impartiality

The quality of the article proposal is judged objectively while respecting the intellectual independence of the authors. Reviewers express their views and arguments clearly; ad hominem criticism is prohibited.

Multiple or Redundant Publications

Experts inform the journal's management of any substantial similarity between the manuscript under current evaluation and any document published or simultaneously submitted to another journal that they are aware of.

References

Experts inform the journal's management of the use of other authors' work without proper attribution.

3.Author Commitments and Ethical Rules Applicable to Them

Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must ensure the originality of their article and not publish any text that would resemble, in any form, plagiarism as defined by the Intellectual Property Code. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior in scientific publishing and are therefore unacceptable.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors declare to the journal's management any potential conflict of interest, whether professional, financial, or otherwise, that could be interpreted as having influenced their work. Additionally, they mention all sources of research funding presented in the contribution.

Authorship Attribution

The corresponding author ensures that only authors and all authors who made a significant contribution to the conception, development, and interpretation of the study are listed as co-authors. They also ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the document and have decided to submit it for publication. Acknowledgments may be used to mention certain contributors who have provided substantial assistance to the published work.

Defamatory Statements

Authors guarantee that their article proposal does not contain defamatory, fraudulent, or knowingly inaccurate statements.

Multiple or Redundant Publications

Authors guarantee that their article proposal has not been previously published and that it does not rely in whole or in part on previously published works (except for notes and book reviews). They do not submit their contribution to multiple journals simultaneously.

References

Authors guarantee that they appropriately cite all publications they have used in their work.

Editorial Treatment Authors authorize the journal's editorial team to make any necessary adjustments to their article and collaborate with them when adjustments are proposed for approval.

Erratum

If they discover a significant error or inaccuracy after the publication of their article, authors promptly inform the journal and cooperate with it to retract or correct the relevant article. If contacted by the journal after the publication of their article due to the discovery of a significant error, they promptly provide either corrections or evidence of the accuracy of the original article.

Printed and Digital Publication

Authors authorize the dissemination of their article in printed and digital formats, including on the portal of Algerian scientific journals ASJP and on the Aleph journal website.