Inscrivez- vous au sommaire électronique
Recevez à chaque sortie d'exercer, le sommaire de la revue.
Principles of Transparency and Best Practice for exercer Based on COPE (Committee On Publication Ethics) recommandations
1. Peer review process: exercer is a peer reviewed journal. First step of submission process is the editorial secretariat which ensures the conformitiy of the form of the manuscript. exercer’s editorial staff then selects the peer reviewers. Reviewers are not part of the exercer’s editorial staff. They are chosen for their expertise in the field of the manuscript and their abilities to advise the authors. They ensure compliance with the recommendations to the authors and the improvement of the quality of the articles with kindness and pedagogy. The journal’s peer review process is described on the website of the exercer’s website: https://www.exercer.fr.
2. Governing Body: exercer is the francophone journal of general practice. Its governance is provided by general practitioners academic and expert in their discipline. The functions and contact details of the different members of the publication team are available on the exercer's website: https://www.exercer.fr.
3. Editorial team/contact information: The full names and affiliations of the editors staff are available on the journal’s Web site.
4. Author fees: There are no fees or charges that are required for manuscript processing and/or publishing materials in exercer.
5. Copyright: Manuscripts intended to be published are the property of exercer which holds the copyright. Copyright and licensing information are available on exercer website: https://www.exercer.fr. in HTML and can be downloaded (PDFs).
6. Process for identification of and dealing with allegations of research misconduct: In the event that a publisher or editor are made aware of any allegation of research misconduct relating to a published article in their journal - the publisher or editor shall follow exercer guidelines in dealing with allegations. The publishing and editorial teams of the journal exercer are committed in a process of vigilance regarding possible research articles that do not meet the recommendations of ethic recommandations and best practice. Every step from submission to publication is an opportunity to be vigilant about possible plagiarism, citation manipulation and data falsification/fabrication, among others. In the event that exercer’s publisher or editors are made aware of any allegation of research misconduct relating to a published article, they undertake to follow the recommendations (based on COPE’s guidelines) on the site: https://www.exercer.fr.
7. Ownership and management: exercer is the property of CNGE. Productions whose registered office is located at 3 rue Parmentier 93100 Montreuil-sous-Bois. This company (EURL) is represented by its co-managers, Mrs Corinne Perdrix and Mr Cyrille Vartanian.
8. Web site: The various documents related to the ethic recommandations of exercer are available on the site: respective responsibilities of editor, reviewers, authors, publisher and society publication, editor.
9. Name of journal: The title of the journal and its subtitle, exercer The Francophone journal of general practice, are unique. The term "francophone" means that the editorial team includes French-speaking members in its editorial committee outside France.
10. exercer is commited to declare potential conflicts of interests of the editors, authors and reviewers.
11. Access: For subscribers, exercer is sent monthly, ten months a year to the address chosen by the subscriber. Access to the website is subject to a user account with password. The subscription allows unlimited access to all articles. The subscription is strictly personal and the access codes can not be communicated to other persons under threat of prosecution.
12. Revenue sources: Revenue sources of exercer mainly depend on subscriptions. Advertising campaigns are regularly organized by CNGE Productions to encourage subscriptions of general practitioners and residents. Only institutional support, and organizational support are allowed in exercer. Support must be linked to the promotion of primary care for the health of patients.
13. Advertising: The managers of CNGE Productions and the director of the publication of exercer decide on the ads accepted in exercer.
14. Publishing schedule: exercer is published every month around the 20th except on July and August.
15. Archiving: All the articles published since January 2008 have been saved on the website of the journal: https://www.exercer.fr.
16. Direct marketing: Direct solicitation of manuscripts is possible. These manuscripts will not result in remuneration and must relate to primary care.
Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers Based on COPE (Committee On Publication Ethics) recommandations
Ethical guidelines for reviewing
The reviewers have to agree only to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner. The reviewers have to respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are published by exercer. The reviewers have to use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others. The reviewers have to declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from exercer if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest. The reviewers have to allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations. The reviewing have to objective and constructive, reviewers have to refrain from being hostile or in inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments. The reviewers have to acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavour. The reviewers have to provide exercer with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise. The reviewers have to recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct.
Expectations during the peer-review process
Peer reviewers are asked to accept reviewing only if they are certain to respond in the mutually agreed time-frame, and / or to promptly notify exercer if they require additional, negociated time. Peer reviewers are asked to refuse reviewing if they can not review during the time allowed without intentional delay. Peer reviewers are asked to declare if they do not have the subject expertise required to carry out the review or if they are able to assess only part of the manuscript, outlining clearly the areas for which they have the relevant expertise. Working at the same institution as any of the authors (or will be joining that institution or are applying for a job there); are or have been recent (e.g. within the past 3 years) mentors, mentees, close collaborators or joint grant holders; having a close personal relationship with any of the authors constitutes a professional conflict of interest.
Peer reviewers should not agree to review a manuscript just to get a look at it. Peer reviewers have to decline to review if they have been involved with any of the work in the manuscript or its reporting. Peer reviewers have to decline to review if asked to review a manuscript that is very similar to one they have in preparation or under consideration at another journal. Peer reviewers have to decline to review if they are enable to comply with the peer-review model used by exercer (review policies) Peer reviewers have to decline to review if they feel unable to provide a fair and unbiased review. Reviewers ensure review afresh any manuscript they have previously reviewed for another journal as it may have changed between the two submissions and the journals’ criteria for evaluation and acceptance may be different.
During the review
Peer reviewers have to notify the journal immediately and seek advice if they discover either a conflicting interest that wasn’t apparent when they agreed to the review or anything that might prevent them providing a fair and unbiased review Peer reviewers have to refrain from looking at the manuscript and associated material while awaiting instructions from exercer on issues that might cause the request to review to be rescinded.
Peer reviewers read the manuscript, ancillary material (e.g. reviewer instructions, required ethics and policy statements, supplemental data files) and exercer’s instructions thoroughly, getting back to exercer if anything is not clear and requesting any missing or incomplete items they need to carry out a full review Peer reviewers have to notify the journal as soon as possible if they do not have the expertise to assess all aspects of the manuscript; they shouldn’t wait until submitting their review as this will unduly delay the review process. Peer reviewers should not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript, including junior researchers they are mentoring, without first obtaining permission from exercer; the names of any individuals who have helped them with the review should be included with the returned review so that they are associated with the manuscript in exercer’s records and can also receive due credit for their efforts Peer reviewers have to keep all manuscript and review details confidential. Peer reviewers have to contact exercer if circumstances arise that will prevent them from submitting a timely review, providing an accurate estimate of the time they will need to do a review (negociated with exercer). At any time under the circumstances, exercer may rescind a review. exercer is a double or triple-blind review. Peer reviewers have to, if they suspect the identity of the
author(s) notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest. Peer reviewers have to notify exercer immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless exercer asks for further information or advice.
Peer reviewers should not intentionally prolong the review process, either by delaying the submission of their review or by requesting unnecessary additional information from exercer or author. Peer reviewers have to ensure their review is based on the merits of the work and not influenced, either positively or negatively, by any personal, financial, or other conflicting considerations or by intellectual biases. Peer reviewers should not contact the authors directly without the permission of the journal.
When preparing the report
exercer expects from peer reviewers a subject knowledge, good judgement, and an honest and fair assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the work and the manuscript. Peer reviewers have to follow exercer’s instructions on the specifc feedback that is required of them and, unless there are good reasons not to, the way this should be organized. Peer reviewers have to be objective and constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. Peer reviewers should not make derogatory personal comments or unfounded accusations. Peer reviewers have to be specifc in their criticisms, and provide evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements to help editors in their evaluation and decision and in fairness to the authors. Peer reviewers have to remember it is the authors’ paper and not attempt to rewrite it in their own preferred style if it is basically sound and clear; suggestions for changes that improve clarity are, however, important. Peer reviewers have to be aware of the sensitivities surrounding language issues that are due to the authors writing in french when it is not their own. Peer reviewers have to make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work. Peer reviewers should not prepare their report in such a way or include comments that suggest the review has been done by another person. Peer reviewers should not prepare their report in a way that reflects badly or unfairly on another person. Peer reviewers should not make unfair negative comments or include unjustified criticisms of any competitors’ work that is mentioned in the manuscript. The report is communicated to the authors. exercer keeps the right to remove comments considered derogatory or non-constructive. If peer reviewers express the wish for a confidential comments to exercer (not to the author’s) this
comment should not contain denigration or false accusation, done in the knowledge that the authors will not see these comments. Peer reviewers should not suggest that authors include quotations to the reviewer’s (or their associates’) work merely to increase the reviewer’s (or their associates’) quotations counts or to enhance the visibility of their or their associates’ work; suggestions must be based on valid academic or technological reasons. exercer do not allow peer reviewers to sign their report. Anonymity of reviewing is the rule. If the reviewer makes a request to remove his anonymity in order to improve the quality of the manuscript, decision come from exercer. If exercer (editors) may decide to provide themselves a review, they undertake to be transparent, fair and to respect the ethical guide.
Expectations post review
Peer reviewers have to continue to keep details of the manuscript and its review confidential. Peere reviewers have to respond promptly if contacted by a journal about matters related to their review of a manuscript and provide the information required. Peer reviewers have to contact exercer if anything relevant comes to light after they have submitted their review that might affect their original feedback and recommendations. Peer reviewers have to try to accommodate requests from exercer to review revisions (second reviewing) or resubmissions of manuscripts they have already reviewed. Peer reviewers have to read the reviews from the other reviewers, provided by exercer, to improve their own understanding of the topic or the decision reached.
Editor’s have to act in a balanced, objective and fair way while carrying out their expected duties, without discrimination on grounds of gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnic or geographical origin of the authors. Editors have to handle submissions for special issues in the same way as other submissions, so that articles are considered and accepted solely on their academic merit and without personal or commercial influence.
Editors have to adopt and follow reasonable procedures in the event of complaints of an ethical or conflict matter, in accordance with the policies and procedures of exercer. Editor’s have to give authors a reasonable opportunity to answer any complaints. All complaints have to investigated no matter when the original publication is approved. Documentation associated with any such complaints have to be retained.
Reviewers have to contribute to the decision-making process, and to assist in improving the quality of the published paper by reviewing the manuscript objectively, in a timely manner. Reviewers have to maintain the confidentiality of any information supplied by the editor or author. To not retain or copy the manuscript. Reviewers have to alert the editor to any published or submitted content that is substantially similar to that under review. Reviewers have to be aware of any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative or other relationships between the reviewer and author) and to alert the editor to these, if necessary withdrawing their services for that manuscript.
Authors have to maintain accurate records of data associated with their submitted manuscript, and to supply or provide access to these data, on reasonable request. Where appropriate and where allowed by employer, funding body and others who might have an interest, to deposit data in a suitable repository or storage location, for sharing and further use by others. Authors have to assert that all the work in the submitted manuscript is original, that the manuscript as submitted is not under consideration or accepted for publication elsewhere. Where portions of the content overlap with published or submitted content, to acknowledge and quote those sources. Additionally, to provide exercer with a copy of any submitted manuscript that might contain overlapping or closely related content. Authors have to and to acknowledge and cite content reproduced from other sources. Authors have to obtain permission to reproduce any content from other sources.
Authors have to ensure that any study involving human or animal subjects conform to french laws and to CPP (committee for protection of personn) and confirm that approval has been sought and obtained where appropriate. Authors have to obtain express permission from human subjects and respect their privacy (CNIL recommandations). Authors have to declare any potential conflicts of interest and follow the guidline of exercer. The authors undertake to inform the review as soon as possible if a significant error in their publication is identified. The authors undertake to cooperate with the editors and publishers to publish an erratum, an addendum, a corrective or even a withdrawal of the article if necessary.
CNGE productions responsibilities
CNGE productions ensure that they subscribe to the principles outlined above, and to promote the ethics recommandations of the exercer.
Procedures for dealing with unethical behaviour
Identification of unethical behaviour or non-compliance to ethical recommandations. Misconduct and unethical behaviour may be identified and brought to the attention of the exercer and publisher at any time, by anyone. Misconduct and unethical behaviour may include, but need not be limited to, examples as outlined above. And exercer is committed to answer any questions regarding a possible ethical breach. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.
An initial decision should be taken by the editor or publisher, who should consult each other or seek advice from each other, if appropriate. exercer has to gather evidence, while avoiding spreading any allegation beyond those who need to know.
Minor misconduct might be dealt with without the need to consult more widely (between authors and exercer). In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to answer and has to answer any allegation.
Serious misconduct might require that the employers of the accused be notified. exercer’s editor, in consultation with exercer’s publisher, should make the decision whether or not to involve the employers, either by examining the available evidence themselves or by further consultation with a limited number of experts. Outcomes (in increasing order of severity; may be applied separately or in conjunction) exercer have to Inform the author or reviewer where there appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.
exercer may write a letter to the author or reviewer covering the misconduct and as a warning to future behaviour. exercer may publish of a formal notice or an editorial detailing the misconduct. exercer may write a formal letter to the head of the author’s or reviewer’s department or funding agency. exercer may withdraw (formal retraction) of a publication from the journal, in conjunction with informing the head of the author or reviewer’s department, Abstracting & Indexing services and the readership of the publication. exercer may impose a formal embargo on contributions from an individual for a defined period. exercer may report the case and outcome to a professional organisation or higher authority for further investigation and action.