RIPCO is a peer-reviewed journal, published 4 times per year.

RIPCO does not charge any publication fee from the authors for the papers to be published  and does not remunerate its editorial board or scientific advisory board members, nor its reviewers.

The submission of articles is only done openly via the manuscript management platform, with the link accessible from any page of the journal's website : ripco.manuscriptmanager.net/Ripco

To ensure a high scientific quality, Ripco relies on two governing bodies: the Editorial Board and Scientific Advisory Board.

The Editorial Board is composed of one director of publications, one editor-in-chief and several associate editors. It provides editorial and copywriting management. It brings its expertise to select articles based on the opinions formulated by the reviewers. As such, it steers the entire evaluation process. More generally, it participates in defining the strategic direction of the review, which it is responsible for putting into practice. It also promotes the journal and guarantees its quality. It works under the joint authority of the editor-in-chief for the editorial part and the director of publication for the logistical and management parts. The publication director legally represents the journal, is typically the president of the publishing house, or is its representative. In case of difficulties or deficiencies the he may then appoint them for a transition period. The editor-in-chief is appointed by the director of publication for a term of three years, renewable (two mandates maximum). Associate editors are appointed under the joint authority of the editor-in-chief and the director of publication for a term of three years, renewable (two mandates maximum), and are not remunerated from the research community, mainly by open call for applications. As this is a scientific journal, members of the Editorial Board and the Scientific Advisory Board are not remunerated. RIPCO tracks and mentions the affiliations of the members of the editorial board, the scientific advisory board on the website of the journal :ripco-online.com/en/editorialTeam.asp. The Scientific Advisory Board decides upon the journal’s main research orientations. 30% of its members are renewed every three years. Ripco website provides the exhaustive list of the Scientific Advisory Board:
ripco-online.com/en/scientificCommittee.asp

All articles submitted to the journal are evaluated following the principle of the double-blind review, through the Manuscript Manager platform. The platform allows the members of the editorial board to manage all the processes and actions related to the blind review of articles and the communication with authors and reviewers. The platform also allows the generation of all statistics related to the manuscript proofreading process. The platform is also accessible to the editor-in-chief by any person or board who wants to evaluate the quality and transparency of the journal and its process. Reviewer quality ratings are collected on this platform as well.

Manuscripts for regular issues: The journal applies three levels of review: an editorial coordinator to handle incoming manuscripts and two levels of editors, the associate editor(s) assisting the editor-in-chief. The evaluation process is broadly structured in the following steps and procedures:

• Automatic notification to the editor and editorial coordinator of a manuscript submission. -
• Anti-plagiarism control.
• Assurances that submissions were not currently under review at another journal are required from the author(s).
• Verification by the editor-in-chief of compliance with the editorial line and editorial instructions. Desk rejects or assigns to an associate editor within three days.
• Substantive analysis of the article proposal by the associate editor. Desk rejects or selection and invitation to at least two blind reviews for evaluation.
• Entry within four weeks by the reviewers of their first evaluation on the platform (entry page by headings: structure of the paper, quality of the literature review, methodology, contributions, etc., comments to the authors, specific comments to the associate editor). When the deadline has passed, reminders are sent automatically.
• Synthesis by the associate editor, personal evaluation of the proposal, drafting of the evaluation report and proposal for decision.
• Decision by the editor (regarding acceptance for publication, request for minor changes, request for major changes, rejection with proposal for resubmission after complete reworking, final rejection).
• Notification of the decision to the authors. The reviewers are also informed of the final decision and can take note of the arguments of the other reviewers, associate editors and the editor-in-chief. The decision can be :
  • Acceptance of the manuscript for publication
  • Conditional Acceptance
  • Rejection
  • Rejection with invitation to resubmit a new version
  • Acceptation with major modifications
  • Acceptation with minor modifications

An author receives a final decision four or five months after submitting his/her manuscript, on average. Exceptions may exist, depending on the topic of the article and the scarcity of experts who can be called upon; depending on the time taken by the reviewers despite the platform's relaunch system and the follow-up of the associated editors and finally according to more structural causes such as pandemics that affect all journals.

Authors have an indicative period of three months to submit a revised version of their paper. The editorial team tries not to exceed two successive requests for major changes so as not to prolong excessively the time needed to make a final decision. Submissions that may require additional editorial and blind reviews are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but are discouraged by the editorial team.

All resubmitted manuscripts go through the same review process again, and previously called upon reviewers give an assessment based on considering the changes suggested in the first round of review.

Manuscripts for special issues: RIPCO encourages researchers in management sciences, or in a related discipline, to pilot thematic issues, provided that the academic quality of the manuscripts meets the academic standards of the journal. Proposals for special numbers are managed via the distribution center. Eligibility conditions, the project presentation guide, and the procedure for the submission and evaluation of proposals are posted on the journal's website. The relevance of the proposal is assessed by the editorial team (editor-in-chief and assisted by all associate editors) and, if necessary, recognized experts who are recruited to evaluate the efficacy of the proposal. If the proposal is accepted, a bilingual (French/English) call for contributions is widely distributed nationally and internationally.

The guest editor(s) of special issues directs the review process, selects reviewers preferably from among the members of the journal's scientific committee and database, and makes decisions about publication in the issue. One of the associate editors must work in conjunction with the editors of the special issue and checks the quality of the evaluations on the platform. The evaluation process for special issue manuscripts is the same as for regular issues and the editor-in-chief makes the final decision based on the recommendations of the reviewers and guest editor. If the guest editor is the author or co-author of a manuscript for his or her special issue, the editor-in-chief designates an associate editor to manage the review process for that manuscript.

The journal does everything possible to ensure impartiality in decision-making at several levels:

At the editorial board level, its members must have no conflict of interest with an author or guest editor or with the content of a manuscript/special issue proposals and have to recuse themselves in case of. To avoid any conflict of interest inside the editorial team, during their mandate, editors do not submit to RIPCO manuscripts to which they are authors or co-authors.

At review process level, the associate editors must not present any conflicts of interest with the authors. They select reviewers who do not present any conflicts of interest with the authors or with the content of a manuscript. Authors must submit a blind version of their manuscript which is then sent to the reviewers. During the entire review process, authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. If the reviewer is able to identify even one of the authors of the manuscript, s/he is requested to report this to the editorial team who selects another reviewer in his place. In the case of special issues, the review process for manuscripts submitted by guest editors is handled by one of the journal's permanent associate editors.

At the decision process level, the editorial board selects the articles in an impartial manner. Manuscript are evaluated on two main criteria : their intellectual and scientific content and the compliance with the journal's editorial line without distinctions based on the author’s ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, nationality, university affiliation, or political views. It particularly pays attention to articles that contribute to the scientific debate. Any article offering relevant criticism of an article published in the journal can be submitted. Authors have a right of reply to criticism of their article(s).

It may be important to demonstrate that our board and editorial team is representative of diverse backgrounds. This is extremely relevant now. My publisher mandates it.

Manuscript are treated confidentially prior to their publication. No information about a manuscript or its authors submitted to a journal may be disclosed to anyone other than the author, editor-in-chief, associate editor in charge to handle the review process and potential reviewers.

Digital articles published in RIPCO are available through CAIRN and CAIRN international under paywall.

• French version : Click here
• English version : Click here

Before the final publication, all authors received a digital version of their article before publication and after copy-editing (post-print version). After the publication, all authors receive a free printed copy of the journal issue featuring their article. Hardcopy version are available with a subscription: Click here

RIPCO tries to make sure that each co-author of a manuscript has contributed sufficiently to the manuscript submitted to be listed on the byline of the published manuscript. Specifically, authors are asked to order and place of listing co-authors at the start of submission process. Authors should be listed according to their level of involvement and/or contribution to the research process proposed for publication. The corresponding author must provide for each contributor their email address, affiliation(s) and a short bio of about 150 words. The associate editors in charge to handle manuscripts must verify the accuracy of the information provided by the authors. All RIPCO decisions are sent to all co-authors, so they can intervene through the different versions of their contribution.

RIPCO publishes original articles from the disciplines of management science and the humanities, in general, provided that they provide contributions to the organizational behavior field.  RIPCO prohibits submitting the same research in more than one journal, including in another language.  The journal also accepts discussion and scholarly debate articles, considering these necessary for advancing knowledge. However, these are reviewed by the editorial board rather than through the normal reviewer system. Regardless of the type of article submitted, to increase the likelihood of publication, it must provide important and new findings and adequate details are provided. RIPCO asks authors to clearly highlight the originality of their manuscripts.

RIPCO considers tampering, data fabrication, and plagiarism as the most serious breaches of integrity. To prevent and detect such behaviours, manuscripts received are systematically applied to an anti-plagiarism software. In this context, RIPCO invite contributors to check similarities prior to submitting their work. The authors are requested to proscribe any practice that does not comply with scientific ethics. Verification of the respect of the journal's criteria regarding plagiarism, is an important part of this three-level review process applied by RIPCO. In the case of special issues, the guest editor ensures that ethics of contributors regarding plagiarism and the parallel submission of their article to other journals. Concretely, prior to any blind review, all manuscripts are submitted to an anti-plagiarism software. All manuscripts with a worrying level of plagiarism are either rejected or sent back with the report to the authors for corrections.

Before submitting their article, authors must provide evidence that they have the right to use content of which they are not the creators. In particular, in the case of reproduction of tables, drawings, and passages of texts of more than 250 words, authors are expected to have written permission from the copyright owners to reproduce these elements. In all cases, the authors must cite/quote the source from which these tables, drawings, quotes, etc., according to APA standards. Authors should provide a list of references and use citations based on APA norms. They should obtain and indicate authorization/copyright when needed.

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) represents a suite of solutions that are rich in both promise and inquiry for science. In its current state of development, its usage must be framed to preserve the integrity and reliability of research.

Fundamental Principles

Transparency

The editor, the editorial committee, and peer reviewers must be explicitly informed of the use of generative artificial intelligence by authors submitting papers to RIPCO. This usage may pertain to all stages of the research process, from the initial topic discovery to the final proofreading, including all intermediate phases. If applicable, authors should include a statement at the end of their text titled "Declaration of Generative Artificial Intelligence Usage in Research Development." As suggested by APA, this should minimally include the following statement: "During the preparation of this manuscript submitted to RIPCO for evaluation, the author(s) utilized [NAME OF TOOL/SERVICE] for [REASON]. Following the use of this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and amended the content as necessary and assume(s) full responsibility for the content of the publication."

Automatically generated content must be transparently and accurately identified by the authors. Such borrowings should be brief, akin to traditional author citations, and enclosed in quotation marks within the text. Artificial intelligence should not be listed among the authors of the submitted manuscript. The algorithm that generated content should be cited in the text as an author, similar to a traditional human reference (e.g., OpenAI, 2024). It should also be listed in the bibliography in the following format: OpenAI. (2024). Prompt: Write me a charter aimed at promoting responsible and ethical use of generative artificial intelligence in scientific journals. ChatGPT-4 (accessed on 01/01/2024). [URL] The author is the publisher of the generative artificial intelligence solution. The date corresponds to the year of the version used. The prompt is the question asked, which should be quoted verbatim. This is followed by the general name of the generative artificial intelligence along with its version number, the date of inquiry, and the consulted URL. It is advisable to use the version number in the format provided by the publisher. The date of inquiry is essential since generative artificial intelligence is constantly learning, and the likelihood of receiving different responses at different times is high.

Authors are encouraged to upload the entire dialogue held with the artificial intelligence solution – questions and responses – in addition to the manuscript on the RIPCO electronic platform.

The "Methods" section of the document submitted to RIPCO describes, as applicable, the tools, algorithms, their usage, and the data employed. Except for an article solely aimed at proposing a new method, it is strictly prohibited to rely on fictional data—whether quantitative or qualitative—generated by artificial intelligence or any computer solution to produce research results. When statistical treatments are conducted for demonstration purposes, they are performed using specifically dedicated software, not artificial intelligence solutions. The names of these tools should be mentioned in the methods section. Similarly, these solutions should not be used for the complete drafting of the submitted manuscript. They are instead recommended for enhancing its readability, namely style, syntax, spelling, and translation.

Scientific Rigor

The use of generative artificial intelligence must not, under any circumstances, compromise scientific integrity. However, it can contribute to ensuring the quality of research, notably its reliability and validity. To this end, these technologies must be employed under the supervision and control of a human. Authors, for this purpose, must verify the results of their queries. They should critically evaluate the content generated automatically, particularly monitoring the relevance, precision, and validity of the responses to prevent the publication of misleading, erroneous, fraudulent, or inaccurate knowledge. The authors ultimately remain responsible.

Respect for Research Ethics

Authors are obliged to adhere to the ethical and deontological principles governing scientific research. They must comply with copyright and intellectual property rights when using generative artificial intelligence. If they succumb to the temptation of "second-hand readings" through these technologies—a practice strongly discouraged by the RIPCO editorial committee—the accuracy of all automatically generated academic references must be verified by them before the first submission. Some versions of artificial intelligence may indeed fabricate fictitious references entirely. The reading of the primary source should be prioritized over the interpretation made by the algorithm, particularly in the production of summaries, reading notes, or syntheses of work. In this logic, RIPCO rejects the inclusion of summary or comparative tables generated by artificial intelligence in literature reviews.

Data and Privacy Protection

The exploitation of the potential offered by artificial intelligence must necessarily comply with confidentiality and data protection standards. Regardless of its use, the security and anonymity of sensitive or personal information are guaranteed by the authors of the submission addressed to RIPCO. Informed consent from all research participants remains essential.

Any breach of the principles outlined above is equated with plagiarism. It leads to disciplinary measures that may include publication withdrawal, revision of the evaluation process, or other appropriate actions.

Any allegation of research misconduct should be reported to the editor-in-chief by email. Authors can retract or correct articles after publication by sending an email to the editor-in-chief. If needed, the editor and publisher can publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies.

When submitting an article, the authors agree to authorize its distribution both in paper version by ESKA editions and in digital form on the CAIRN platform and the international CAIRN platform. Authors are also authorized to make their postprint manuscript available on an open archive, while respecting the duration of the legal embargo.

Each author receive from CAIRN a link in order to download and share off-prints of their article, in French or/and in English if published on Cairn international.