About

Perspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santé (PISTES, Interdisciplinary perspectives on work and health) is a scientific interdisciplinary journal. It is published in French with English abstracts, online access is free. PISTES addresses social and human aspects of work and their links to the health of persons and organizations. PISTES is especially interested in research approaches focusing on ‘real work’ and innovative perspectives on work and health. It is also committed to the transfer of knowledge on a variety of topics linked to work and health.

Editorial policy and ethics

1. Editorial line

Perspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santé (PISTES) is a scientific journal focusing on the social and human aspects of work from the perspective of human health and safety. The title could be translated as follows : Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Work and Health. PISTES is particularly interested in innovative themes on work and health. It publishes research results from empirical and theoretical work as well as interdisciplinary thematic issues that can contribute scientifically to the debate on issues that link work and health. Since its creation in 1999, the journal has been published in electronic format with free access and disseminates texts in French in order to promote exchanges between researchers and practitioners from the French-speaking world. In order to make the published work more widely known, each article is accompanied by a summary in English and Spanish and, in some cases, a complete translation of the article into English.

PISTES publishes unpublished documents twice a year : in May and November. The topics covered concern : workplaces, their determinants and their consequences on health (work conditions and organization, prevention, professional reintegration, etc.) ; work, its transformations and the major problems associated with it (ageing workforce, precarization, new technologies, etc.) ; the methodological approaches used in research on work and health, whether qualitative or quantitative. Although the journal is open to all disciplines interested in documenting the links between health and work with a view to prevention, rehabilitation and/or well-being at work, the majority of its collaborators come from the following fields : work ergonomics/psychology, sociology/anthropology, work organization/management and training/education.

2. Scope and main guidelines of the journal

The Journal PISTES is characterized by these overarching principles :

• Interdisciplinary : a great variety of disciplines allows of dialogue within a wide spectrum of social sciences and humanities, notably ergonomics, sociology, anthropology, psychology, industrial relations, economy, statistics, management sciences, philosophy, demographics and physiology.

• Based on a rigorous scientific requirement : which informs the exacting selection of articles.

• Open to the concerns of society, workers and enterprises : PISTES is a scientific journal dedicated to the social and human aspects of work from the vantage point of the health of persons and the well-functioning of organizations. It is interested particularly in innovative approaches to work and health, within a perspective of the development of people and improvement of business performance.

• Publishes original and innovative content : the Journal PISTES publishes only original articles.

• Principally francophone : to promote a dissemination of scientific work in French.

• Multilingual : to give to a wider readership access to scientific scholarship, the journal offers, for each article, abstracts in English and Spanish along with keywords in English, and in most cases Spanish. Certain articles are available in their entirety in French and in English.

• Solely in electronic form : the Journal PISTES has moved from its original home site – occupied since 1999 – to the Revues.org platform, a move which has allowed for an ever-increasing readership. PISTES is now one of the most consulted among the more than 400 journals already on this platform. Moreover, from being read essentially by francophone countries, it has garnered a readership in the Ukraine, Russia, China and Germany, all of which helps to solidify the dissemination of scientific work in French.

• Nothing but free access : because we think knowledge is a common good.

3. Scientific contributions published in the journal

Due to the complexity of the themes covered, the journal accepts various types of scientific contributions, providing the authors properly justify their conclusions. While all types of approaches that produce research results are admissible ― including literature reviews and summaries ― it is PISTES’ mandate to heighten the visibility of the following work :

• case studies ;

• intervention or action research aiming to change work situations and to evaluate its effects ;

• documents with methodological or theoretical reflections on professional and research practice ;

• articles on work experiences based principally on workers’ commentary.

4. Selection and peer review process

The selection process takes place as follows :

1) Selection, assessment, and peer review process for submitted material

2) Peer review

3) Peer review evaluation criteria

4) Rigour in the selection process of themes, editorial experts in charge of the thematic issues, and articles

4.1. Selection, assessment, and peer review process for submitted material

The selection, assessment, and peer review process is presented to ensure the credibility and enhance the appeal of the Journal PISTES (Perspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santé). It displays a concern for fairness, rigour, and transparency which motivates all its collaborators.

The average time between submission and publication is 40 weeks

Each article submitted is the responsibility of one member of the editorial board or of the international scientific committee. This person undertakes to have it evaluated by two peers who are experts in the field and who work anonymously.

The Journal PISTES shall avoid all conflict of interest between authors, reviewers, and editorial board members and members of the international scientific committee.

The Journal PISTES will not assign an evaluation to an author/expert who has submitted an article due to appear in the same issue. The exception to this rule occurs in thematic issues. Given the restrained pool of experts in a thematic field, the journal may find itself having to assign an evaluation to an author who is also submitting a scientific contribution to the same issue at the same time. However, given that the journal is online, there is no need to limit the number of articles ; the authors and reviewers are thus not in competition in this sense. Peer review remains anonymous in every case for both regular issues and thematic issues.

Reviewed articles are treated confidentially by reviewers and members of the editorial board and international scientific committee.

The submitted articles will be assessed for their conformity with the journal’s editorial policy. They may employ a variety of methods and approaches, may broach theoretical and/or methodological questions, and should make a substantial new contribution to theoretical or empirical issues.

At this point, the editor responsible for the article’s assessment process draws up a summary of the evaluations. This is sent to the authors so that they may make corrections and clarify points as directed by the expert reviewers.

All authors are obliged to make the requested changes and correct mistakes. When changes are asked for, the authors have a certain timeline for submitting their modifications. In each case, the authors and reviewers will come to a common understanding of the deadline, based on the nature and quantity of the requested changes.

Finally, the reworked articles are carefully read by the editorial board members, who will reach a decision on the article’s suitability for publication and, more generally speaking, on the content of the issue which will include it. If there are difficulties, it can sometimes happen that the editorial board or the person in charge of the article will ask another expert for advice regarding the decision or in asking for further clarifications from the author. The selection process can take up to 6 to 12 months.

The articles accepted for publication undergo a linguistic revision before being published ; the same is true for abstracts in English and Spanish.

In the case of a refusal, if an author appeals a decision, the editorial board will suggest changes to be made before the article is re-submitted. The new version will be treated as a new article and follow the selection process from the beginning.

The journal consents to furnish a response to every submission. The editorial board shall always be willing to publish clarifications, corrections, retractions, and apologies when needed.

At each step of the selection process, the editors and reviewers shall be careful to identify any case of misconduct.

In the case of misconduct, the editorial board deals with the different cases by following the appropriate COPE recommendations presented in the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

4.2. Peer review

The journal requires potential reviewers to have scientific expertise or significant work experience in a relevant field. They must have recently conducted research and/or work and have acquired recognized expertise by their peers.

The reviewers are selected by the editor or the designated member of the editorial board in charge of finding two reviewers for each article. They can find reviewers from the reviewer data base or through a board member’s recommendation.

All types of contributions are subjected to an exacting peer review.

All scientific contributions listed below receive an individual, anonymous assessment by at least two expert reviewers in the field.

A double-blind peer review by expert reviewers is in effect for the following articles :

• case studies ;

• intervention or action research aiming to change work situations and to evaluate the effects ;

• methodological or theoretical reflections on professional and research practice ;

• articles on work experiences based primarily on workers’ commentary.

A peer review is done by one or more members of the editorial board for the selection of those contributions which are not submitted to double blind peer reviews, namely book reviews. The review is done transparently, not anonymously. The Statement guidelines must also be followed in these cases.

4.3 Peer review evaluation criterias

All the submitted scientific papers ― presented in keeping with the instructions for authors (https://journals.openedition.org/pistes/6121) ― will be anonymously evaluated by at least two experts. Once the evaluation is completed, a summary of all the key elements of the evaluation will be produced. This summary will be sent to the authors.

The following guidelines are presented to the reviewers to direct and structure their evaluations.

The theme, its relevance, the theoretical framework, originality, and context

Clear research question and statement of the problem

Well-defined objectives

Extensive, up-to-date literature review

Identification of the article’s contribution to the advancement of knowledge

Presentation of the theoretical framework (where necessary)

Appropriate concept definitions (where necessary)

Methodology

Rigour and relevance, choice of method (qualitative or quantitative) consistent with the research questions

References

Sample (criteria, number of cases, subject characteristics, etc.)

Data collection : tools used, conditions, context, and length of the study, etc.

Analysis techniques and procedures, validity criteria

Ethics

The main text

Presentation of the results in relation to the research questions

Clear presentation of data (including responses and participants)

Clear and suitable visual support : tables, figures, quotations, etc.

Discussion

Summary and analysis of the results

Discussion of the results and literature review

Contribution to the advancement of knowledge, presentation of new hypotheses

Extent and limits of the contribution, transfer possibilities

Conclusion, perspectives, future research, and practical implications

Summary of the study and its contribution

Main message

Unanswered questions, future research avenues

General structure and writing quality

Coherent organization of the text

Suitable title

Suitable abstract

Well-constructed and well-identified tables

Clear, well-written French with good spelling and punctuation and appropriate terms

1. Guide for Authors

The Guide for Authors and the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement (PEMS) support combined efforts by authors, editors, and reviewers to produce a responsible research publication.

All authors must know and keep in mind the Editorial policy and the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

Guidelines for the submission of articles and manuscript preparation and format are to be found on the Instructions for authors webpage.

1.1 Fees or charges for authors

No fees or charges are required for manuscript processing and/or publishing materials.

Publication fees : none.

Submission fees : none.

1.2 Review policy

Authors are obliged, for all materials submitted, to participate in a peer review process and to follow publication conventions.

All authors are obliged to make the requested changes and correct mistakes. When changes are asked for, the authors have a certain timeline for submitting their modifications. In each case, the authors and reviewers will come to a common understanding of the deadline, based on the nature and quantity of the requested changes.

1.3 Copyright, access, and licensing

The intellectual property and copyright on the original content of all scientific contributions shall remain with the authors. The authors grant, in exchange for publication in the Journal PISTES, exclusive licensing of the first publication, giving the Journal the right to produce and disseminate the contributions, whether collectively with other articles or individually, and in all media forms known or to come.

In confirming the open access publication of their articles, all authors agree to the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

1.4 Data Access and Retention

Authors may be asked to provide the research data on which their paper is based for editorial review and/or to comply with the open data requirements of the Journal. Research data refers to the results of observations or experimentation that validate research findings. Authors should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable. Authors and researchers are asked to anonymize confidential data and personal information so that they may be accessed.

When submitting, authors are encouraged to join a data statement to their article. In the statement, they can identify the data they used in the article and indicate its availability, for example in a data repository. Authors should be prepared to maintain research data for a reasonable number of years after publication.

1.5 Archiving

Authors are allowed to self-archive articles published in OpenEdition Journals in institutional or thematic repositories recognized in their areas.

2. Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement (PEMS)

The Guide for Authors and PEMS support combined efforts by the authors, members of the editorial board and scientific committee, and reviewers to produce a responsible research publication.

2.1 Responsible research publication : authors’ responsibilities

The research being reported in articles must be conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and must comply with all relevant legislation, notably the Code de la propriété intellectuelle (document of French law no. 92-597 : intellectual property code).

Authors must be aware of and refrain from engaging in scientific misconduct and by breaching publishing ethics

Hereafter is a list of best ethical practices and common types of misconduct as found is COPE’s Responsible Research Publication : International Standards for Authors.

Authors should present their results clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation. The authors shall guarantee the originality of their material as defined in the Code de la propriété intellectuelle.

Authors should strive to describe their methods clearly and unambiguously so that their findings can be confirmed by others.

Authors should provide appropriate authorship and acknowledgement. Authors must refrain from deliberately misrepresenting a scientist’s relationship with published work. All authors must have significantly contributed to the research. Contributors who have made less substantial contributions to the research or to the publication can be acknowledged, but should not be identified as authors.

Authors must tell the Journal when they have a direct or indirect conflict of interest with editors or members of the Editorial board or International scientific committee.

All authors must submit a list of references and financial support if so requested by the editorial board. All sources of research funding, including direct and indirect financial support, should be disclosed.

No significant part of the article shall have been previously published either as an article or as a chapter, or be under consideration for publication elsewhere.

If the authors intend to reproduce their article in other publications or for any other purpose and by any means, they must obtain the written authorization of the editorial board.

Authors shall refrain from engaging in ’salami publication,’ meaning the segmentation of research that would turn one meaningful paper into several different papers.

Authors are obliged, for all materials submitted, to participate in a peer review process and to follow publication conventions.

For further information please consult COPE’s guidelines : Responsible Research Publication : International Standards for Authors, https://publicationethics.org/files/International %20standards_authors_for %20website_11_Nov_2011.pdf

2.2 Responsible research publication : editors’ responsibilities

2.2.1 Publication decision

This journal employs a double-blind review process. All contributions will be initially assessed by the editor. The editor is solely and independently responsible for selecting, processing, and deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal meet the editorial goals and could thus be published. Each paper considered suitable is sent to two independent peer reviewers who are experts in their field and able to assess the specific qualities of the work. The editor is responsible for the final decision regarding whether or not the paper is accepted or rejected.

The decision to publish a paper will always be measured in accordance to its importance to researchers, practitioners, and potential readers. Editors should make unbiased decisions independent from commercial considerations.

The editor’s decisions and actions are constrained by ethical and legal requirements such as its own PEMS and the Code de la propriété intellectuellegoverning copyright infringement and plagiarism.

Editors who make final decisions about manuscripts should withdraw from editorial decisions if they have conflicts of interest or relationships that pose potential problems concerning articles under consideration. The responsibility of the final decision regarding publication will be attributed to an editor who does not have any conflicts of interest.

2.2.2 Conflict of interest

The chief editor, members of the editorial board and scientific committee, and reviewers shall withdraw in any case of conflict of interest concerning an author or authors, or the content of a manuscript to be evaluated.

The Journal PISTES will avoid all conflict of interest between authors, reviewers, and members of the editorial board and international scientific committee.

2.2.3 Peer review

Each article submitted is the responsibility of one member of the editorial board or of the international scientific committee, who undertakes to have it evaluated by two peers who are experts in the field and who evaluate it anonymously.

Reviewed articles are treated confidentially by editorial board members, members of the international scientific committee, and reviewers.

2.2.4 Identifying and preventing misconduct

In no case shall a journal and members of the editorial board and international scientific committee encourage misconduct of any kind or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.

Members of the editorial board and international scientific committee shall try to prevent misconduct by informing authors and reviewers about the ethical conduct required of them.

Members of the editorial board, scientific committee, and reviewers are asked to be aware of all types of misconduct in order to identify papers where research misconduct of any kind has or seems to have occurred and deal with the allegations accordingly.

2.2.5 Guidelines in case of retraction or corrections

a. Editors’ responsibilities

In case of misconduct, the journal editor is responsible for resolving the issue. He or she can work in conjunction with the other co-editor, members of the editorial board and scientific committee, peer reviewers, and experts in the field.

b. Documentation

The issue will be documented accordingly

All factual questions should be documented : who, what, when, where, why.

All relevant documents should be kept, in particular the article(s) concerned.

c. Due process for authors

The journal editor shall contact the author or publication involved, either the author submitting to PISTES or another publication or author. The author is thus given the opportunity to respond to or comment on the complaint, allegation, or dispute.

d. Appropriate corrections

In the event that misconduct has or seems to have occurred, or in the case of needed corrections, the editorial board deals with the different cases by following the appropriate COPE recommendations. Great care will be taken to distinguish cases of honest human error from deliberate intent to defraud.

COPE states that :

• Journal editors should consider retracting a publication if they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g., data fabrication) or honest error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error). Retraction is also appropriate in cases of redundant publication, plagiarism, and unethical research.

• Journal editors should consider issuing an expression of concern if : 1) they have reason to believe that there has been research or publication misconduct by the authors but have insufficient evidence, 2) there is evidence that the findings are unreliable but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case, 3) they believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair, impartial or conclusive, 4) or an investigation is underway but a judgement will not be available for a considerable time.

• Journal editors should consider issuing a correction if a small portion of an otherwise reliable article proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error), or the author / contributor list is incorrect (i.e., a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included).

Source : COPE Retraction Guidelines, https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf

To summarize, the editorial board will consider retracting a publication in case of misconduct, issuing an expression of concern in case of inconclusive proof of misconduct ; or issuing a request for the correction of a misleading segment.

PISTES has taken as its model the best ethical practices as found in COPE’s Responsible Research Publication : International Standards for Editors, https://publicationethics.org/files/International %20standard_editors_for %20website_11_Nov_2011.pdf.

2.2.6 Data access and retention

Where appropriate, editors encourage authors to share the data that supports research publications. Research data refers to the results of observations or experimentation that validate research findings. Editors encourage authors to state the availability of their data in a data statement attached to the submitted article. With the data statement, authors can be transparent about the data they used in the article.

2.3 Responsible research publication : reviewers’ responsibilities

All reviewers must know and keep in mind the Editorial policy and Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

The journal requires potential reviewers to have scientific expertise or significant work experience in a relevant field. They must have recently conducted research and/or work and have acquired recognized expertise by their peers. Potential reviewers should provide personal and professional information which is accurate and which gives a fair representation of their expertise.

All reviewers must likewise withdraw if they know they are unqualified to evaluate a manuscript, if they feel their evaluation of the material will not be objective, or if they understand themselves to be in a conflict of interest.

Reviewed articles are treated confidentially by reviewers and members of the editorial board and international scientific committee.

Reviewers should point out relevant published work which has not yet been cited in the reviewed material. If necessary, the editor may issue a correction request to this effect.

Reviewers are asked to identify papers where research misconduct has or seems to have occurred and inform the editorial board, which will deal with each case accordingly.

PISTES has taken as its model the best ethical practices as found in COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, https://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_Guidelines_For_Peer_Reviewers_2.pdf.

2.4 Copyright, content originality, plagiarism, and reproduction

The intellectual property and copyright on the original content of all scientific contributions shall remain with the authors. The authors grant, in exchange for publication in the Journal PISTES, exclusive licensing of first publication, giving the Journal the right to produce and disseminate the contributions, whether collectively with other articles or individually, and in all media forms known or to come.

The authors shall guarantee the originality of their material and shall not publish any text that would appear to contravene, in any way, the definition of originality as given in the Code de la propriété intellectuelle.

Plagiarism and false or intentionally misleading declarations constitute behaviour that is at odds with the ethics of scientific publication ; as such, they are deemed unacceptable.

No significant part of the article shall have been previously published either as an article or as a chapter, or be under consideration for publication elsewhere.

If the authors intend to reproduce their article in other publications or for any other purpose and by any means, they must obtain the written authorization of the editorial board.

Reproduction of extracts of publications is possible provided that the authors cite their source and have obtained explicit permission from the rights holders, which permission shall not be unduly withheld. Reference must be given to the title of the article, the journal, the author(s), date and place of publication. The Journal reserves the right to apply reproduction rights.

2.5 Access, licensing, and archiving

Articles are published in open access. There are no associated subscriptions or pay-per-view fees.

All PISTES material is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

All the journal’s content is archived in several copies by OpenEdition, a publisher of online, free-access books and journals. In the event PISTES is no longer published, OpenEdition maintains free access and will continue to make all archives available online.

2.6 Multiple, redundant, simultaneous, or repeat publications

The authors shall not submit an article already published elsewhere, or a new article founded entirely on work already published. Likewise, the authors shall not make multiple submissions.

Furthermore, the Journal reserves for itself the right to publish in-house publications and scientific contributions that have already been published and are still relevant. For example, some already published scientific contributions have been republished in an agreement between the Journal PISTES and the Portuguese Journal Laboreal. The already published articles were translated and appeared in the partnering journal.

The complete reproduction of journal articles in other publications or for any other purpose and by any means requires the written authorization of the Editor.

2.7 Conflict of interest

Members of the Editorial board and reviewers shall withdraw in any case of conflict of interest concerning an author or authors, or the content of a manuscript to be evaluated.

The Journal PISTES shall avoid all conflict of interest between authors, reviewers, and members of the editorial board and scientific committee.

PISTES has taken as its model the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Network’s list of situations in which editors and reviewers should withdraw from making decisions.

• There is a direct-reporting relationship between an author and a reviewer.

• There is recent, significant professional collaboration between reviewers and authors.

• An editor or reviewer is a collaborator on the project that is being submitted.

• The editor or reviewer has a financial interest in a company or competing company with a financial interest in the submission.

• The editor or reviewer believes that he or she cannot be objective, whether for personal reasons or due to a financial interest not otherwise covered in the policy.

Source : JAMA Network. How Should Journals Handle the Conflict of Interest of Their Editors ? https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2623618

2.8 Confidentiality policy

The names of authors, reviewers, and collaborators along with the names of their organizations and institutional affiliations, which the Journal may record in the course of its operations, shall remain confidential and shall not be used for any commercial or public ends beyond the signature of the articles published. However, this information may sometimes be required by government grant-giving bodies. The anonymity of the peer review selection shall be maintained when transmitting this information. A list of the names of authors, reviewers, and collaborators and the names of their organizations and institutional affiliations shall be sent with no explicit links between those named.

The Journal may use these lists for its own purposes of soliciting articles, collaboration, or other contributions, notably through occasional e-mails. Similarly, it will flag forthcoming issues. Anyone who wishes to stop receiving these e-mails may simply ask to be removed from the list.

Editorial board

Publishing committee

Gaëtan Bourmaud (Université Paris VIII, France)
Bénédicte Calvet (IRSST. Canada)
Martin Chadoin (UQAM, Canada)
Daniel Coté (IRSST, Canada)
Denys Denis (UQAM. Canada)
Fanny Darbus (Université de Nantes, France)
Jessica Dubé (IRSST, Canada)
Isabelle Feillou (Université Laval, Canada)
Caroline Jolly (IRSST, Canada)
Elise Ledoux (UQAM, Canada)
Isabelle Probst (HESAV, Suisse)
Anne-Renée Gravel (Teluq, Canada)
Marta Santos (Université de Porto, Portugal)
Pascal Simonet (Université de Nantes, France)
Christine Vidal Gomel (Université de Nantes, France)
Simon Viviers (Université Laval, Canada)
Frédéric Yvon (Université de Montréal, Canada)

Publishing secretary

Myriam Bérubé (UdeM, UQAM, Canada)

International scientific committee