Is my paper ready - Form
Revue Internationale de Psychosociologie et de Gestion des Comportements Organisationnels (RIPCO)
RIPCO's 5th Research Day, June 6, 2024: Exploring workplace well-being and malaise in the AI-driven era at Paris, La Défense. SUBMIT
Subscribe to our emails
Is my manuscript ready for submission?
Before submitting your manuscript, we invite you to check that it is ready by completing a quick questionnaire. This step is absolutely not mandatory in the submission process. Rather, we have designed it as an aid to the completion of your research project. The answers being self-declared, the score that you will obtain does not prejudge the answer which will be finally given to you by the editorial team of the journal. It has no contractual value. Your answers are neither recorded nor communicated to the journal editors or reviewers who will assess your work.
Instructions: answer all the questions by checking the left button if you think you have achieved what is required, the middle button if you have not thought about performing the action in question and the right button if the item does not apply to your manuscript.
   It is done
   Remains to be done
   Not Applicable
1 My article proposal is in line with RIPCO's editorial line
2 I have studied the articles of the last three issues
3 I have consulted and respected the expected presentation standards on the RIPCO website
4 My general title is no longer than twelve words, which will allow my work to be well referenced in databases if it is accepted
5 My abstract presents the interest of the subject, my theoretical background, my methodology (if any), the main results obtained, the managerial and theoretical implications of my findings
6 I have framed the reader's thinking by explicitly stating the problematic so that he does not get lost on a path that is not mine
7 I formulated a clear promise to the reader
8 I justified practically or theoretically the interest of my work by stating a grey area or an enigma (it is not because this point has never been studied that it is interesting)
9 I did not try to "oversell" my research question
10 I revised my introduction once the rest of the article was written
11 I made sure that my last part keeps the promise I made in the introduction
12 I presented my key findings in the introduction
13 I wrote my introduction in a way that is understandable even to a reader who is not a specialist in my subject.
14 I only developed the conceptual elements essential to my research question
15 I instrumentalised my readings for the benefit of my demonstration and did not redo a management manual
16 I have justified my theoretical anchoring
17 I have precisely defined all the key concepts of the title of my proposal
18 I considered each concept as a character in a novel and I have defined its character and its relationship to the others
19 I articulated (positioned) the essential contributions of the authors
20 I kept my "punch line" to avoid digressions (no unnecessary components)
21 I logically justified each hypothesis one by one and not as a whole
22 I positioned myself in complementarity with the other authors without criticizing them head-on
23 I mentioned the pioneer authors without forgetting the recent ones (and vice versa)
24 I showed how my research framework is adapted to the research question that I exposed in the introduction
25 I have explained and justified my general approach, a fortiori if it is original
26 I have described in detail how my data was collected
27 I have justified the choice of my sample (quantitative) or my case (s) (qualitative)
28 I have justified the measurement scales of my concepts (quantitative) or presented my coding grid (qualitative)
29 I have outlined my data processing plan
30 I did not tell about my wanderings (unless it helps to understand the process)
31 I precisely described the context of the case (s) I studied (qualitative research)
32 I justified each of my statements using verbatim (qualitative), quantified results (quantitative), or a discursive argument (theoretical article)
33 I respected the order of presentation of my hypotheses
34 I have entered and titled all my tables and / or my graphs
35 I explained how to understand my tables and charts
36 I have accompanied with comments all the figures that I presented (quantitative) or all my qualitative results
37 I have not introduced any variables that are not included in my state of the art
38 I have explicitly said if my assumptions should be rejected or can be kept
39 My discussion can be read directly following my introduction (I answered my research question)
40 My discussion is at least as long as the presentation of my results
41 I started my discussion with a reminder of my research question and my essential discovery
42 I presented my essential contribution to literature and considered its consequences
43 I considered the managerial implications of my discoveries
44 The limitations of my work that I have outlined do not fundamentally challenge my findings
45 I suggested original avenues of research
46 I did not over-interpret my results
47 I made transitions between my parts, my sections, and my paragraphs
48 I did not hesitate to recall my research question
49 I limited as much as possible the sentences comprising more than one subordinate clause
50 I avoided synonyms of key concepts in my research
51 I had my abstract and introduction proofread by at least one colleague before submitting my work to the journal
52 I have proofread my work to remove dross
53 I adopted an impersonal style (except for certain epistemologies)
54 I did not use more than one footnote. It is only devoted to copyright and / or acknowledgments
55 I did not refer to the rest of the article (e.g. "Cf. below")
56 I did not reason by innuendo and did not use exclamation points outside of verbatim (qualitative)
57 All the authors I have cited in my paper are referenced in my bibliography and all the references in my bibliography are used in my paper
58 I have brought my bibliography up to standard
59 In my development, I have not given the same credit to the conclusions taken from an article published in a renowned scientific journal and those drawn from a conference paper.
60 I know that if a proofreader misunderstood something, it's because I misspoke it
61 I realized that my work could be criticized by the evaluators
62 I am ready to revise my manuscript in a dispassionate fashion as a problem-solving exercise
63 I know I wouldn't be discouraged if my proposal is refused
Readers   Guest editors   Authors   Reviewers   Useful links  

Most cited papers
Most recent papers
Just released
To be published soon
Issues in progress


Previous Guest Editors
Conditions of eligibility
Application guides
How to submit a proposal
Assessment procedure
Charter of deontology


Submit a manuscript
Author instructions
Call for papers
Search RIPCO papers
Rights and Permissions
Most cited RIPCO authors
Most productive authors


Log in as reviewer
Charter of deontology


Editions ESKA
CAIRN Int Abstracts
CAIRN Int Full-Texts
Google Scholar

  Publisher : Editions ESKA, 12 rue du quatre Septembre, 75002 Paris •  Publishing Director : Serge Kebabtchieff, email:, tél. : +33142865566 •  Editor in Chef : Silvester IVANAJ, ICN Business School – Campus Artem, 86 rue du Sergent Blandan, CS 70148, 54003 Nancy Cedex, email :, tél. : +33354502552 / +336 1123 8037  • Editorial secretary : Nathalie Tomachevsky  •  Marketing and Communication : Audrey Bisserier, email : • Responsible for printing : Marise Urbano, email :, tél. : +33142865565 • Periodicity : 4 issues per year • ISSN : 2262-8401 / e-ISSN : 2430-3275  
  © 2021 • Editions ESKA • All rights reserved