Peer review process

Articles submitted to the journal are validated by the editor-in-chief, who checks that the subject is within the scope of the journal. Reviewing is then carried out by a single blind peer: the identity of the author(s) is known, but not that of the reviewer. In very rare cases, the reviewer's anonymity may be lifted, with his or her agreement, to enable interaction between the reviewer and the author. The reviewer is chosen for his or her recognized competence in the subject, without any conflict of interest.

During the evaluation process, various scientific and technical aspects are assessed: Originality of the subject (technical/technological innovation or improvement of an existing method or model transfer, etc.), Interest for the community, relevance, logic and methodological rigor, compliance with regulations (if necessary), validation and operationality of the approach/method/model.

The evaluator is asked to return the report within one month.

The report is then submitted to the principal author, who must take it into account and produce a new version of the article. The evaluator is again asked to validate this version. This process is iterative until the reviewer validates a final version.

The author then validates the article's layout before putting it online.

The author and the evaluator are informed of this on-line publication. The author is responsible for informing any co-authors and, if necessary, his or her business groups (unit, team, networks, etc.).

The evaluation process takes approximately 4 to 6 months from the date of receipt.