For reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions

Submissions are systematically reviewed by peers responsible for assessing quality against the journal's expectations and making possible suggestions for improvement. By agreeing to evaluate a submission, the reviewer confirms that he or she is a specialist in the subject matter. If he does not feel qualified to carry out this task, he should decline the invitation of the editorial committee and, if possible, suggest other experts.

Confidentiality

Any submission is treated as a confidential document. Reviewers must under no circumstances disclose the content (subject, text, data or images) or their expert report. Information from the assessment is confidential and should not be used for personal gain.

Conflict of interest

Reviewers must report any potential conflict of interest to the editorial board at all stages of the evaluation process.

Objectivity and impartiality

Reviewers undertake to review submissions solely on their content and to demonstrate objectivity and impartiality. They must clearly argue their points of view and provide the editorial committee with relevant information to help it in its decision-making. The author's personal criticism is inappropriate.

Only scientific reasons should motivate a reviewer to suggest that an author include new citations in the article. Reviewers should be alert to potential ethical issues in the submission and should bring them to the attention of the editorial board.

Generative AI and AI tools

ARIMA monitors the evolution of AI technologies, particularly generative AI and AI-based assistants, and will refine its ethical code based on future developments in AI. As a general rule, reviewers must surround themselves with all the guarantees linked to confidentiality. Uploading a submitted paper, even partially, into an AI tool, and in particular a generative AI tool, could violate the confidentiality of the paper's content, and therefore create copyright issues. This also concerns evaluation reports since they could contain confidential information about the paper and/or the authors. The evaluation of a paper is a scientific activity that involves responsibilities that can only be assigned to humans. Reviewers are the only ones who take responsibility for their evaluation reports.

Procedure for handling allegations of plagiarism

Any denunciation of unethical publication practices, accompanied by elements justifying it, can be sent at any time, by anyone, to the editorial committee. Any evidence of plagiarism will be communicated to the authors of the article, and they will be required to respond, in consultation with the editorial team and possible peers. In the worst case this could lead to the retraction of the article from the journal and/or an embargo on any article submission from the authors for a specific period. Plagiarism can concern either the form or the substance, or even both. Databases are used to search for
possible forms of plagiarism in all submitted papers.

Documents uploaded in Open Repositories are time-stamped, which guarantees the paternity rights of the research work, protects them from plagiarism or is a defence against potential patent applications by thord parties.