Preamble

Ethics & Malpractice Statement

The Revue d'Histoire Théorique (RHT) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scientific integrity and editorial ethics at every stage of the publication process. This Statement defines the ethical obligations of all stakeholders: authors, reviewers, and editorial board members.

RHT adheres to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and applies its guidelines in cases of confirmed or suspected ethical misconduct.

Authors' duties

Originality and plagiarism

Authors warrant that their submission is original and unpublished work. Any use of others' work or wording must be explicitly and adequately cited. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes a serious ethical violation.

Forms of plagiarism constituting a violation

•Verbatim copying of published texts without citation or quotation marks
•Paraphrasing a source text without reference to the original author
•Uncited translation of a text published in another language
•Self-plagiarism: submitting work already published in whole or in part without declaration
•Misappropriation of data, figures or tables without permission or citation

Multiple and simultaneous submissions

A manuscript submitted to RHT may not be simultaneously submitted to another journal. Authors commit to not submitting work already published, in whole or in part, in another outlet, except in the case of a formally declared and editorially approved republication.

Authorship and contributions

Authorship must reflect genuine, substantial contribution to the work: conception or design of the research, data collection or analysis, drafting or critical revision of the manuscript. Honorary mention, courtesy, or institutional pressure do not constitute legitimate grounds for authorship attribution. Any change to the author list after submission must be explicitly justified and approved by the editor-in-chief.

Conflicts of interest

Authors must disclose any conflict of interest that may influence the results or interpretation of their research. Conflicts of interest include, in particular: research funding, ties with organisations whose interests may be affected by the findings, and personal relationships with other stakeholders.

Data accuracy

Authors warrant the accuracy of all data presented. Any significant error or inaccuracy discovered after publication must be promptly reported to the editorial office for correction or retraction, depending on the severity of the case.

Reviewers' duties

Contribution to editorial decisions

Reviewers contribute to editorial decisions by providing expert, objective, and documented analysis of submitted manuscripts. Their recommendations must be based exclusively on scientific criteria: methodological rigour, originality, relevance, and quality of argumentation.

Timeliness

Any reviewer who accepts an evaluation assignment commits to submitting their report within the agreed deadline. If this is not possible, they must inform the editorial office immediately to allow the designation of a replacement.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Reviewers may neither disclose them, discuss them with third parties, nor use them for personal benefit prior to publication. This confidentiality commitment applies during and after the review process.

Conflicts of interest

Reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest and recuse themselves if it may affect the objectivity of their judgement. Conflicts of interest include, in particular: recent co-authorship, direct institutional ties, close personal relationships, and any financial interest related to the article's subject matter.

Objectivity and impartiality

Reviewers must refrain from any ad hominem judgement. Criticism must address the work, not the author. Any bias based on national, institutional, gender, or ideological grounds is prohibited and constitutes an ethical breach.

Editorial board duties

Merit-based decisions

Editorial decisions are based exclusively on the scientific merit of submissions, their relevance to the field of historionomy, and their compliance with the journal's standards. The national, institutional, ethnic, gender background or personal convictions of the author are in no way taken into account.

Confidentiality

The editorial board guarantees the confidentiality of submissions under review. No information relating to a submitted manuscript — its existence, content, or status — may be disclosed to any third party other than the author and the designated reviewers.

Editorial conflicts of interest

No member of the editorial board may be involved in the handling of a manuscript of which they are author or co-author, or with whose author they have a conflict of interest. In such cases, handling of the manuscript is assigned to another editorial board member with no connection to the parties involved.

Integrity of the published record

The editorial board commits to investigating all allegations of ethical misconduct — whether concerning a submission under review or a published article — rigorously and without delay. In cases of serious doubt regarding the integrity of a published article, the board may publish an Expression of Concern, issue a correction, or, in cases of confirmed misconduct, retract the article.

Corrections and retractions

Correction and retraction policy

Corrections

A correction (erratum or corrigendum) is published when a minor error affects a published article without invalidating its main conclusions. The correction is clearly dated, identified, and linked to the original article.

Retractions

A retraction is issued when serious misconduct affects the overall reliability of the article. Grounds for retraction include, in particular: confirmed plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data, major errors invalidating the conclusions, undisclosed duplicate publication.

Retraction procedure

1.Receipt of a formal allegation or internal detection
2.Preliminary investigation by the editor-in-chief (deadline: 15 working days)
3.If serious misconduct suspected: notification to the author and request for explanation
4.Collegial decision by the editorial board (withdrawal, correction, or Expression of Concern)
5.Publication of the retraction notice — linked to the original article — with date and grounds
6.The retracted article remains accessible with the RETRACTED notice clearly visible

Expression of Concern

In cases of serious but unconfirmed doubt regarding the integrity of a published article, the editorial board may publish an Expression of Concern pending the outcome of the investigation. This notice is linked to the article concerned and updated or removed upon conclusion of the investigation.

Reporting misconduct

Any author, reviewer, reader, or third party who is aware of actual or suspected ethical misconduct involving RHT is encouraged to report it to the editorial office. Reports are handled confidentially. No retaliatory action will be taken against any person who in good faith reports an ethical breach.

Ethics contact:

leo@cadravox.fr

RHT follows COPE procedures for the investigation and resolution of cases of ethical misconduct. publicationethics.org

Reference framework

Reference	Description
COPE	Committee on Publication Ethics — Core Practices (publicationethics.org)
DOAJ	Directory of Open Access Journals — Best Practice Guidelines
ICMJE	International Committee of Medical Journal Editors — Recommendations (adapted for SSH)
Singapore Statement	Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (2010)

Revue d'Histoire Théorique — Ethics & Malpractice Statement v1.0 · Conforme COPE · DOAJ · ERIH+ · Singapore Statement on Research Integrity