Reviewing

PEER REVIEWING CRITICAL EXAMINATION:

Any proposed manuscript is submitted to the opinion of at least two independent reviewers, not part of the editorial board, and recognized for their expertise in the field. Submissions are double blind reviewed: the author is not known to the reporters and the reporters do not know the author.

Exception: the publisher and director of the journal is also the president of the RDPLF; as such, it publishes results from the database. His name is then known by definition of the rewievers and vice versa; however, it retains the obligation to submit its articles to the reading committee and to take account of any comments they may make. All other articles are double-blind evaluated.

Evaluation step 1: The articles submitted are received by one of the two editors: they decide if the article corresponds to the aims and scope of the journal. Otherwise, it is rejected outright without being submitted to the reviewers. If the article is in the aims of the journal, it is submitted to PlagScan plagiarism detector (see Ethics menu) then to two independent reviewers recognized for their expertise in the field.

 Evaluation stage 2: The reveiwers are chosen according to their expertise in the field of the text they have to analyze.

The reviewers are independent of the editorial board

Rapporteurs should report any conflicts of interest that could potentially distort their judgment.

They must highlight any parts of the text for which they do not feel competent.

They must consider the articles submitted to them as strictly confidential, must not keep them for themselves and must destroy them at the end of their evaluation.

Reviewers must return their remarks within a maximum of 15 days

Each reviewer must ask himself these questions:

    Is the text original?
    Is the text consistent with the goals of the journal?
    Does it bring interesting information to the readers of the magazine?
    Is the text well written?
    Are the conclusions in agreement with the results and the discussion?
    Do the figures and tables provide useful information to the text and complementary?
    Are the methods used by the author adapted; are potential biases discussed?
    They must verify that the bibliography is correctly numbered and that all articles in the bibliography are noted in the text with the correct number.
    Can the legends of figures and tables help to understand them without referring to the text
    When tables contain totals or percentages, they should, as far as possible, verify that there are no errors.

    The summary and the main text must be analyzed; the abstract must not contain information that is absent from the main text and is a faithful summary of it. Any difference between the summary and the main text must be reported.

Reviewers should write their opinion on the whole text and if necessary propose corrections or improvements

Their opinion is sent to the editorial board of the journal using the form at their disposal, to which is added a free text part divided into two sections, one confidential for the publisher, the other for the authors.

Criticism and remarks to the author should be courteous and constructive, and should help the author to improve his / her text.

If the rewievers have requested corrections, they are sent to the authors who must, within 8 days, reply to the publisher to say if they agree to do so: otherwise their submission is definitely rejected. If the authors agree to submit their submission, it must be sent to the reading committee within a maximum of 30 days.

Authors may be unable to respond to certain requests from reviewers: they must then send a documented letter explaining why they can not follow the rewierver’s opinion

Evaluation step 3:

If the authors have respected the deadlines, made any corrections requested by the rewevers and they have accepted the article, the latter is definitively accepted and published in the following issue of the BDD: the deadline can then be from 15 days to 3 months according to the date of final acceptance. If the authors have not been able to respond to certain requests from the rewievers, the advice is asked to  the editorial committee which then decides whether or not to publish the article. If it is not accepted, a justification is given to the authors.