1. Objectives of the Statement

The Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement (PEMS) support combined efforts by authors, editors, and reviewers to produce a responsible research publication. All authors must know and keep in mind the Editorial policy and the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

The Statement serves to ensure the credibility and extend the appeal of the Journal PISTES (Perspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santé). It displays the concern for fairness, rigour and transparency which motivates all its collaborators. The Statement is designed to guide the writing and facilitate the reading of scientific contributions. The contributions will effectively become standardized and rendered into a coherent whole in the process of selection, in turn facilitating their reading.

2. Malpractice Statement

2.1 Difference between the types of contribution governed by the Statement and other contributions

Following the Statement guidelines is a requirement for all types of contributions subjected to an exacting peer review.

These consist of the following :

• case studies ;

• intervention or action research aimed at modifying a given worksite and then evaluating the effects ;

• methodological and/or theoretical reflection papers concerned with professional practice

• and the practice of research ;

• articles on the lived experience of workers in the workplace, based primarily on their discourse.

For the selection of contributions not submitted to peer review, namely book reviews, the guidelines are offered for reference purposes only. The selection process in these cases in no way precludes the use of an adapted guide or quite other model of evaluation.

2.2 Scope and main guidelines

The Journal PISTES is characterized by the overarching principles of the Editorial Policy.

2.3 Article selection process

The selection process is set out below :

1) Process of selection and assessment of quality of the scientific contributions with respect to scientific norms and to advancement of knowledge in the domain ;

2) Account of the rigour involved in the choice of themes and of those responsible for thematic issues of the Journal.

NOTE : All scientific contributions submitted receive an assessment by at least two peers, given anonymously. For full transparency, the precise evaluative criteria used by the expert evaluators are to be found in Section 5 : Article Evaluation Criteria.

Process of selection and assessment of the articles submitted

Each article submitted is the responsibility of one member of the Editorial Board or of the International Scientific Committee, who undertakes to have it evaluated by two peers, experts in the field, functioning anonymously.

Any evaluator who understands him/herself to be unqualified to evaluate a manuscript is obliged to let the Editorial Board know and to recuse him/herself.

The submitted articles will be assessed on their conformity with the Journal’s editorial policy. They may employ a variety of methods and approaches, may broach theoretical and/or methodological questions, and should bring a substantial new contribution on the theoretical or empirical front.

At this point, the editor responsible for the article’s assessment process makes a synthesis of the evaluations. This is sent to the authors so that they may make corrections/modifications or lend precision as directed by the expert evaluators.

The journal undertakes to furnish a response to every submission.

Where modifications are asked for, the authors have a certain timeline for submitting their amendments. In each case, the authors and evaluators will come to a common understanding of the deadline, based on the nature and quantity of the alterations demanded.

In the case of a refusal, the Editorial Board may suggest some desired modifications to be made before a fresh submission of the article.

Finally, the reworked articles are perused by the Editorial Board members, who will pronounce on the receivability of the article for publication and, more generally speaking, on the content of the issue which will include it. If there are difficulties, it can sometimes happen that the Editorial Board or the one taking charge of the article asks advice of another expert to help in the decision or even to require further precisions on the part of the author. The selection process can take up to 6 to 12 months.

The articles accepted for publication undergo a linguistic revision before they appear ; the same is true for abstracts in English and in Spanish.

The Journal PISTES undertakes not to assign evaluation to an author who has submitted an article due to appear in the same issue. The exception will be thematic issues. Given the restrained pool of experts in a thematic field, the Journal may find itself having to assign evaluation to an author submitting a scientific contribution at the same time to the same issue. But given that the Journal is online, no consideration of limit to the number of articles applies ; the authors and the evaluators are thus not in competition in this sense. Peer review remains anonymous in every case : both regular issues and thematic issues.

The Journal PISTES shall avoid all conflict of interest between authors, evaluators, and Editorial Board members or members of the Scientific Committee or the Steering Committee.

Rigour in the selection process of themes, editorial experts in charge of the thematic issues, and articles

Honouring the complexity of the themes covered, those scientific contributions accepted will be of diverse kinds and their authors will need to justify their conclusions.

Several themes explored result from themed symposia or thematic elements in international scientific conferences. The Journal ensures thereby that its theme issues are current, cutting edge, and endorsed by such reliable entities as the scientific committees responsible for the programming of such conferences.

For every thematic issue, a brace of invited editors is engaged, mostly from among the organizers of the scientific conference event in question. They, then, oversee all the usual aspects of bringing out an issue : identification of potential authors, deadline for receipt of articles, handling of the articles and their evaluation. Theme issues are subject to the same rigorous assessment procedure as regular issues.

The Editorial Board is deeply involved in supporting the work of the invited editors. It approves, for instance, the choice of evaluators, possibly helping identify them, a not insignificant challenge for a thematic issue when the specificity of the subject matter or the collaboration of many writers in the field limits the available pool. The invited editors have international recognition for their scientific output in the domain of the issue’s theme.

2.4 Article evaluation criteria

The following is a list of various criteria taken into account by the peer reviewers.

1. Introduction : theme, relevance, theoretical framework, originality, context

Evaluation Criteria :

• Clear research question, clear problematic

• Well-defined objectives

• Thorough and up-to-date review of the literature

• Allows of locating the contribution the article will make to the advancement of knowledge

• Introduces the theoretical framework (if relevant)

• Adequate definition of terms (if relevant)

2. Methodological approach

Evaluation Criteria :

• Rigour and relevance, choice of method befitting the research question (qualitative/quantitative)

• Sampling : criteria, number of cases, characteristics of the subjects

• Collection of data : tools, conditions/context of the study, duration of inquiry or observation

• Analytical procedures and techniques, validity criteria

3. The main text

Evaluation Criteria :

Results

• Presentation of the results with a clear bearing on the research question

• Clarity of presentation, including number of actors and respondents and type of analysis used

• Visual aids, tables as necessary (quantitative), citations (qualitative)

Discussion

• Synthesis of the results with respect to the research question

• Discussion of the results with respect to the scientific literature

• Contribution to the advancement of knowledge, new hypotheses

• Extent and limits, possibility of application elsewhere

2.5 Copyright, content originality, plagiarism and reproduction

The intellectual property and copyright on the original content of all scientific contributions shall remain with the authors. The authors grant, in exchange for publication in the Journal PISTES, exclusive licence of first publication giving the Journal the right to produce and disseminate the contributions, whether collectively with other articles or individually, and in all media forms known or to come.

The authors shall guarantee the originality of their material and publish no text that would appear to contravene, in any way, the definition of this as given in the Code de la propriété intellectuelle (intellectual property code).

Plagiarism and false or intentionally misleading declarations constitute behaviour at odds with the ethics of scientific publication ; they are unacceptable.

No significant part of the article shall have been previously published either as an article or as a chapter, or be under consideration for publication elsewhere.

Reproduction of extracts of publications is possible provided that the authors cite their source and have obtained explicit permission of the rights holders, which permission shall not be unduly withheld. Reference must be given to the title of the article, the journal, the author(s), date and place of publication. The Journal reserves the right to apply reproduction rights.

2.6 Access, licensing, and archiving

Articles are published in open access. There are no associated subscriptions or pay-per-view fees.

All the journal’s content is archived in several copies by OpenEdition, a publisher of online, free-access books and journals. In the event PISTES is no longer published, OpenEdition maintains free access and will continue to make all archives available online.

2.7 Multiple, redundant, simultaneous or repeat publications

The authors shall refrain from submitting an article already published elsewhere, or a new article founded entirely on work already published.

Likewise, the authors shall not make multiple submissions.

Further, the Journal reserves to itself the right to publish in-house publications, and scientific contributions already published and still relevant. For example, some scientific contributions already published have again been published through an agreement between the Journal PISTES and the Portuguese Journal Laboreal. The already published articles were translated and freshly published in the partnering journal.

The complete reproduction of journal articles in other publications or for any other purpose and by any means requires the written authorization of the Editor.

2.8 Conflict of interest

Members of the Editorial Board and evaluators shall recuse themselves in the case of any conflict of interest over an author or authors, or over the content of a manuscript for evaluation.

The Journal PISTES shall avoid all conflict of interest between authors, evaluators, and Editorial Board members or members of the Scientific Committee or the Steering Committee.

PISTES has taken as its model the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Network’s list of situations in which editors and reviewers should withdraw from making decisions.

• There is a direct-reporting relationship between an author and a reviewer.

• There is recent, significant professional collaboration between reviewers and authors.

• An editor or reviewer is a collaborator on the project that is being submitted.

• The editor or reviewer has a financial interest in a company or competing company with a financial interest in the submission.

• The editor or reviewer believes that he or she cannot be objective, whether for personal reasons or due to a financial interest not otherwise covered in the policy.

Source : JAMA Network. How Should Journals Handle the Conflict of Interest of Their Editors ? https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2623618

2.9 Policy of confidentiality

The names of authors, evaluators and collaborators along with the names of their organizations or institutional affiliations, which the Journal may gather in the course of its operations, shall remain confidential and shall not be used for any commercial or public ends beyond the signature of the articles published. However, this information may sometimes be required by governmental grant-giving bodies. The anonymity of the peer review selection shall be maintained when transmitting this information. A list of the names of authors, evaluators and collaborators and the names of their organizations or institutional affiliations shall be sent with no overt links between those named.

The Journal may use these lists for its own purposes of soliciting articles, collaborations or other contributions, notably by the occasional electronic mailing. In the same way it will flag forthcoming issues. Anyone wishing not to receive these emails may simply ask to be removed from the list.

2.10 Inclusive Writing

PISTES journal values diversity and inclusivity in research and scientific communication and believes that representation is an integral part of the process leading to greater equality. The editorial committee recognizes the importance of inclusive and gender-sensitive writing as linguistic approaches aimed at promoting gender equality and reflecting the plurality of gender identities. In this spirit, all forms of inclusive, epicene, neutral, and/or gender-sensitive writing are accepted, as long as the chosen style is consistent throughout the text. This includes the use of the midpoint, double midpoint, parentheses with or without the plural, and other forms of inclusive writing. Authors are encouraged to use these approaches respectfully and conscientiously, considering current linguistic recommendations.

Upon acceptance of the text, authors must include a note for the linguistic editor to explain their choice of inclusive writing. This information is primarily intended to facilitate the linguistic editing process during the final stage of publication.

When evaluating manuscripts, we will not distinguish between different forms of inclusive and gender-sensitive writing. The acceptance or rejection of a manuscript will depend on the quality of the research, methodology, and academic contribution, regardless of the chosen linguistic approach.

Here are some guides to assist with your inclusive writing:

• UQAM Resources: https://harcelement.uqam.ca/guide-de-communication-et-decriture-inclusive/

• Mots-Clés Inclusive Writing Manual: https://chairedspg.uqam.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Mots-Cléfs-Manueldécritureinclusive.pdf

2.11 AI-Assisted Writing

PISTES journal is dedicated to promoting research in occupational health and recognizes the growing importance of artificial intelligence (AI) in research work. However, to ensure transparency, scientific quality, and ethical research, certain standards are in place at PISTES journal regarding the use of AI.

Declaring the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

In accordance with our Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement, any use must be formally acknowledged by including a "Declaration of AI Usage" section at the end of the manuscript, specifying the affected sections, AI queries, and tools. It goes without saying that using AI-generated text as one’s own constitutes an academic violation. Therefore, we reserve the right to conduct various checks in case of doubt.

If AI was used in the production of data, analysis, or knowledge

Researchers using AI models must provide detailed information about the training data, hyperparameters, model architecture, and evaluation methods. Any biases that may be introduced by such methodologies must be discussed.

Source codes should be made available whenever possible to allow for the reproducibility of the research.

Any use of AI must adhere to the highest ethical standards. Researchers must ensure that the data used respects the principles of confidentiality and informed consent.

If AI was used in the writing of the submitted manuscript

AI cannot be used to write the manuscript or to co-author a significant portion of the manuscript. It cannot be considered an author.

Accepted uses of AI in the journal include:

1. A tool to reduce word count

2. A proofreading tool

3. A translation tool

4. A tool that assisted in the planning of the writing (e.g., generating outlines).

Any use of AI must be detailed in an appropriate section of the manuscript.

If AI is a bibliographic source

We invite you to cite the AI used according to current best practices.

3. Publication Ethics

3.1 Responsible research publication : authors’ responsibilities

The research being reported in articles must be conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and must comply with all relevant legislation, notably the Code de la propriété intellectuelle (document of French law no. 92-597 : intellectual property code).

Authors must be aware of and refrain from engaging in scientific misconduct and by breaching publishing ethics

Hereafter is a list of best ethical practices and common types of misconduct as found is COPE’s Responsible Research Publication : International Standards for Authors.

Authors should present their results clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation. The authors shall guarantee the originality of their material as defined in the Code de la propriété intellectuelle.

Authors should strive to describe their methods clearly and unambiguously so that their findings can be confirmed by others.

Authors should provide appropriate authorship and acknowledgement. Authors must refrain from deliberately misrepresenting a scientist’s relationship with published work. All authors must have significantly contributed to the research. Contributors who have made less substantial contributions to the research or to the publication can be acknowledged, but should not be identified as authors.

Authors must tell the Journal when they have a direct or indirect conflict of interest with editors or members of the Editorial board or International scientific committee.

All authors must submit a list of references and financial support if so requested by the editorial board. All sources of research funding, including direct and indirect financial support, should be disclosed.

No significant part of the article shall have been previously published either as an article or as a chapter, or be under consideration for publication elsewhere.

If the authors intend to reproduce their article in other publications or for any other purpose and by any means, they must obtain the written authorization of the editorial board.

Authors shall refrain from engaging in ’salami publication,’ meaning the segmentation of research that would turn one meaningful paper into several different papers.

Authors are obliged, for all materials submitted, to participate in a peer review process and to follow publication conventions.

For further information please consult COPE’s guidelines : Responsible Research Publication : International Standards for Authors, https://publicationethics.org/files/International %20standards_authors_for %20website_11_Nov_2011.pdf

3.2 Responsible research publication : editors’ responsibilities

3.2.1 Publication decision

This journal employs a double-blind review process. All contributions will be initially assessed by the editor. The editor is solely and independently responsible for selecting, processing, and deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal meet the editorial goals and could thus be published. Each paper considered suitable is sent to two independent peer reviewers who are experts in their field and able to assess the specific qualities of the work. The editor is responsible for the final decision regarding whether or not the paper is accepted or rejected.

The decision to publish a paper will always be measured in accordance to its importance to researchers, practitioners, and potential readers. Editors should make unbiased decisions independent from commercial considerations.

The editor’s decisions and actions are constrained by ethical and legal requirements such as its own PEMS and the Code de la propriété intellectuelle governing copyright infringement and plagiarism.

Editors who make final decisions about manuscripts should withdraw from editorial decisions if they have conflicts of interest or relationships that pose potential problems concerning articles under consideration. The responsibility of the final decision regarding publication will be attributed to an editor who does not have any conflicts of interest.

3.2.2 Peer review

Each article submitted is the responsibility of one member of the editorial board or of the international scientific committee, who undertakes to have it evaluated by two peers who are experts in the field and who evaluate it anonymously.

Reviewed articles are treated confidentially by editorial board members, members of the international scientific committee, and reviewers.

3.2.3 Identifying and preventing misconduct

In no case shall a journal and members of the editorial board and international scientific committee encourage misconduct of any kind or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.

Members of the editorial board and international scientific committee shall try to prevent misconduct by informing authors and reviewers about the ethical conduct required of them.

Members of the editorial board, scientific committee, and reviewers are asked to be aware of all types of misconduct in order to identify papers where research misconduct of any kind has or seems to have occurred and deal with the allegations accordingly.

3.2.4 Guidelines in case of retraction or corrections

a. Editors’ responsibilities

In case of misconduct, the journal editor is responsible for resolving the issue. He or she can work in conjunction with the other co-editor, members of the editorial board and scientific committee, peer reviewers, and experts in the field.

b. Documentation

The issue will be documented accordingly

All factual questions should be documented : who, what, when, where, why.

All relevant documents should be kept, in particular the article(s) concerned.

c. Due process for authors

The journal editor shall contact the author or publication involved, either the author submitting to PISTES or another publication or author. The author is thus given the opportunity to respond to or comment on the complaint, allegation, or dispute.

d. Appropriate corrections

In the event that misconduct has or seems to have occurred, or in the case of needed corrections, the editorial board deals with the different cases by following the appropriate COPE recommendations. Great care will be taken to distinguish cases of honest human error from deliberate intent to defraud.

COPE states that :

• Journal editors should consider retracting a publication if they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g., data fabrication) or honest error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error). Retraction is also appropriate in cases of redundant publication, plagiarism, and unethical research.

• Journal editors should consider issuing an expression of concern if : 1) they have reason to believe that there has been research or publication misconduct by the authors but have insufficient evidence, 2) there is evidence that the findings are unreliable but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case, 3) they believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair, impartial or conclusive, 4) or an investigation is underway but a judgement will not be available for a considerable time.

• Journal editors should consider issuing a correction if a small portion of an otherwise reliable article proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error), or the author / contributor list is incorrect (i.e., a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included).

Source : COPE Retraction Guidelines, https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf

To summarize, the editorial board will consider retracting a publication in case of misconduct, issuing an expression of concern in case of inconclusive proof of misconduct ; or issuing a request for the correction of a misleading segment.

PISTES has taken as its model the best ethical practices as found in COPE’s Responsible Research Publication : International Standards for Editors, https://publicationethics.org/files/International %20standard_editors_for %20website_11_Nov_2011.pdf.

3.2.5 Data access and retention

Where appropriate, editors encourage authors to share the data that supports research publications. Research data refers to the results of observations or experimentation that validate research findings. Editors encourage authors to state the availability of their data in a data statement attached to the submitted article. With the data statement, authors can be transparent about the data they used in the article.

3.3 Responsible research publication : reviewers’ responsibilities

All reviewers must know and keep in mind the Editorial policy and Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

The journal requires potential reviewers to have scientific expertise or significant work experience in a relevant field. They must have recently conducted research and/or work and have acquired recognized expertise by their peers. Potential reviewers should provide personal and professional information which is accurate and which gives a fair representation of their expertise.

All reviewers must likewise withdraw if they know they are unqualified to evaluate a manuscript, if they feel their evaluation of the material will not be objective, or if they understand themselves to be in a conflict of interest.

Reviewed articles are treated confidentially by reviewers and members of the editorial board and international scientific committee.

Reviewers should point out relevant published work which has not yet been cited in the reviewed material. If necessary, the editor may issue a correction request to this effect.

Reviewers are asked to identify papers where research misconduct has or seems to have occurred and inform the editorial board, which will deal with each case accordingly.

PISTES has taken as its model the best ethical practices as found in COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, https://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_Guidelines_For_Peer_Reviewers_2.pdf.