Policies

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. This journal does not charge Article Processing Charges (APC's).

Peer Review Process

Relief follows a thorough, double-blind, peer review procedure, by external reviewers for all its research articles. Publications of a commentary or opinion nature, as well as articles on invitation, may not be sent for external peer review but will include extensive editorial review and revisions.

Each contribution is first reviewed and broadly discussed by the editors. If it meets the general conditions of the journal, the article is then sent to two specialists for peer review. On the basis of the reviewers' responses, the editorial board then decides whether the contribution will be accepted, should be revised or will be rejected. The anonymity of authors and reviewers will be monitored with the utmost care. 

  1. The editor-in-chief is responsible for the scientific quality of the journal and its objectives. The editorial board exists of at least three members including the editor-in-chief. Reviewers will be appointed by the editorial board and will be experts in the research areas of Relief.
  2. Articles submitted to Relief will be received by the editorial assistant. He will send the author a return receipt. Afterwards, he will send the article to the other members of the editorial board.
  3. The editors decide whether the contents and the quality of the article fall within the general scope of Relief. If not, the article will be rejected if the editors consider it not likely to be improved.
  4. If the article is deemed admissible, it will enter the peer review process.
  5. The editors choose two independent reviewers who are not affiliated with the same institution as the author of otherwise might have a conflict of interest. Then the editorial assistant sends out the article, always anonymously, and a review form.
  6. Reviewers will write a report according to the agreed criteria and send their report to the editor-in-chief within four weeks.
  7. The review reports will be considered by the editorial board; it is the editorial board that ultimately decides whether the article is publishable or non-publishable, or needs improvements.
  8. The editor-in-chief notifies the author of the editorial decision and, in case of refusal or revision, transmits the reviewers’ comments. If necessary, the editor-in-chief can consult with the author to make the required corrections.
  9. In case of revisions the author has the opportunity to submit the revised article again to Relief. The editor-in-chief sends the revised article to the editors (for minor corrections) or to the reviewers (in case of major corrections).
  10. For this second revision cycle, editors, or reviewers will pass judgment within two weeks after receipt of the article.
  11. The editorial board ultimately decides if the article will be accepted or rejected. This second cycle must be completed within a month after receiving the revised article.
  12. In total, the first and the second revision should not take more than ten weeks.
  13. If the author does not agree with the review procedure, he or she may at any time withdraw his or her article and submit it to another journal.
  14. After the review process, the article enters the revision phase and finally enters the editorial phase. The editorial board retains the right to make minor corrections to the text once the article is accepted.

Research Integrity

Relief - Revue électronique de littérature française is committed to upholding the highest standards of quality and integrity in the publication of its articles. The editors will take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication, among others. In no case shall this journal or its editors encourage such misconduct, or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place. Authors are required to ensure that the submission has not been previously published, that permission has been obtained for the use of copyrighted material and that they do not infringe on the rights of third parties.

Relief  adheres to the best practices in the ethics of scholarly publishing stated in the COPE’s (Committee on Publication Ethics) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for all parties involved: Authors, Reviewers, and the Publisher. The Editorial Board of Relief  undertakes to publish all corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies as soon as possible if and when they are required.

Handling Violations of Research Integrity

In the event of suspected violations of research integrity – including plagiarism, self-plagiarism, data manipulation or fabrication, unauthorised use of protected materials, or multiple publication without prior disclosure – the editorial board follows the procedures recommended by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), including the decision-making flowcharts available on the COPE website.

Any report of suspected misconduct, whether from a reviewer, a reader, or a third party, is examined seriously by the editor-in-chief. If the suspicion is substantiated, the editorial board contacts the author concerned to allow them to respond before any decision is taken. Depending on the severity of the established facts, the following measures may be taken: rejection of the contribution prior to publication, publication of an erratum, publication of a formal retraction accompanied by an explanation accessible to readers, or notification of the author’s home institution.

Any retraction is clearly identified as such in the journal’s archives, so that readers and indexing databases may take note of it.

Supervising Research Integrity

Relief ensures that published works comply with the ethical standards applicable in the relevant disciplines. Authors are required to flag, at the time of submission, any issue likely to raise ethical concerns, particularly when their research involves personal data, human interviews or testimonies, private archives, or sensitive materials.

The editorial board reserves the right to request clarification regarding the conditions under which such materials were collected and used, and to refuse publication if the applicable ethical standards have not been met. In cases of doubt, the editorial board may consult the recommendations of COPE or seek the opinion of an external expert.

Generative Artificial Intelligence

Relief holds that research in French and Francophone literature rests on critical thinking, personal interpretation, and the intellectual responsibility of the author. By submitting an article to Relief, authors certify that the contribution is entirely their own work and that they have not used any generative artificial intelligence tool to write any part of the analytical or argumentative content of their article.

The use of AI tools for strictly auxiliary purposes (grammar checking, formatting, occasional translation assistance) may be permitted, provided it is explicitly declared in an unnumbered note at the beginning of the article at the time of submission, specifying the tool used and the nature of its use.

Reviewers undertake not to submit manuscripts entrusted to them to any generative AI tool, whether for the purpose of producing a summary or drafting their review report. Any failure to comply with this rule disqualifies the reviewer for the current assignment and for future assignments with Relief.

Any undisclosed use of generative AI in a submission, if established before or after publication, will be treated as a violation of research integrity and will result in the definitive rejection of the contribution and the exclusion of the author from future submissions to Relief.

Conflict of Interest

In order to guarantee a reliable, transparent, and impartial publication process, Relief asks all parties involved in the editorial process – authors, reviewers, and members of the editorial board – to declare any interest liable to compromise the objectivity of their judgment or to create a conflict of interest, whether of a financial, institutional, personal, or scientific nature.

Reviewers invited to assess a submission are required to notify the editor-in-chief immediately of any potential conflict of interest – including any professional, institutional, or personal relationship with the author – and to decline the assignment if such a conflict is confirmed. Reviewers are in no case affiliated with the same institution as the author being evaluated.

Members of the editorial board who find themselves in a conflict-of-interest situation with regard to a submitted contribution must recuse themselves and transfer the editorial decision to another member of the committee. No member of the editorial board may evaluate or decide on the publication of an article of which they are a co-author, or with regard to which they have any connection liable to compromise the impartiality of their judgment.

Archiving and Repository Policy

To ensure permanency of all publications, this journal utilises Portico to create permanent archives for the purposes of preservation and restoration.

Relief fully supports and encourages author self-archiving of all content. This journal is registered with SHERPA/RoMEO to ensure that the license terms and self-archiving policy of the journal is clear.

Advertisement Policy

Relief does not contain any advertisements. 

ORCID iD

Authors are encouraged to use their ORCID iD when submitting their manuscript.

Website Images

This website contains several free of use images and materials. Every effort has been made to trace rights holders, but if any have been inadvertently overlooked, the publishers would be pleased to make the necessary arrangements at the first opportunity.