The Balzac Review (8 Numbers)
The Balzac Review aims to open new critical perspectives in Balzac studies. As an annual, bilingual review, it provides a resolutely international approach.
OBJECTIVES AND FIELDS
The Balzac Review / Revue Balzac seeks to open new critical perspectives in Balzac studies. Each issue comprises a thematic dossier, a section reserved for spontaneous proposals and two permanent sections: “Research in Balzac Studies” and “Archives.” Published annually in both French and English, in print and online, the Review maintains a resolutely international profile.
ETHICAL CODE
The Review respects the ethical norms adopted by the publisher: https://classiques-garnier.com/normes-ethiques.html. These norms conform to the internationally accepted guidelines for scholarly research and publication (COPE).
Ethical Standards and Integrity: Editorial Ethical Rules and Good Practices
Each and every actor in the editorial chain, whether it is the editor-in-chief, a peer reviewer, an author, or a member of the editorial staff, should adhere to the ethical standards defined in this charter and should be committed to enforcing them, from the submission of a work to its publication.
I. DEFINITION OF EXPECTED ETHICAL PRACTICES
1. Responsibilities of editors-in-chief
We expect editors-in-chief to be objective and fair when carrying out their duties. The selection criteria for works must therefore be applied without discrimination based on authors’ gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnicity, or geographical location.
We also expect works that were funded by grants or that were part of a special issue to be selected with the same rigor as other works, in order to guarantee a principle of selection based on academic merit alone.
We expect publication directors to undertake to always explicitly specify in their publication the conditions under which the contributions of a collective work or a journal were made when these publications result from a conference, a congress, a seminar or any other scientific meeting.
We expect editors-in-chief to apply and abide by appropriate procedures in the event of complaints about the quality or ethics of a work. Doing so will entail giving the author concerned the opportunity to respond to any complaint made against his or her work and examining all complaints made, regardless of the date on which the text was approved. It is advisable to keep all documents dealing with such complaints, particularly email exchanges.
2. Responsibilities of peer reviewers
The role of peer reviewers is to contribute to the decision-making process and to help improve the quality of the document submitted for review by examining the manuscript objectively.
Peer reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of any information provided by the editor-in-chief or the author. Peer reviewers must therefore not retain any copies of the manuscript submitted for review.
Peer reviewers must alert the editor-in-chief and the editorial staff of any submitted or published content that they believe to be the product of plagiarism or intellectual dishonesty.
Peer reviewers must also be aware of any potential conflict of interest that may exist between themselves and the authors whose work they are to review. If such a situation arises, it is the responsibility of the peer reviewer to report it to the editor-in-chief and to relinquish the task of reviewing the author’s work.
3. Responsibilities of authors
Contributing authors have a responsibility to guarantee the originality and the intellectual integrity of their work. They must therefore provide assurance that their publication has not already been published, whether on the internet or by another publisher, and that it is not the reproduction, modified by rewriting, shortening, summing-up, paraphrasing, developing, reorganising of content, etc. of a previous work that has already been published. Authors also guarantee that they have not submitted their manuscript to another publisher or journal for review. Authors must also cite the work of their colleagues correctly when reproducing passages of it or when supporting their own reasoning using existing works.
Finally, authors are required to notify the editor-in-chief or the editorial staff if they identify a significant error in their publication and to work with the editor-in-chief and the editorial staff to publish an erratum, an addendum, a correction notice, or to retract the publication if this is necessary.
4. Responsibilities of editorial staff
Classiques Garnier must ensure that good practices are maintained in accordance with the standards detailed in this charter. Editorial staff must provide assurance that they subscribe to the principles set out above.
II. PROCEDURES IN PLACE FOR DEALING WITH UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR
1. Identification of unethical behavior
Misconduct and unethical behavior should be identified and brought to the attention of the editor-in-chief and editorial staff at any time and by anyone. This type of behavior can include, but is not limited to, the examples cited in section one of this charter.
Anyone who informs the editor-in-chief or the editorial staff of such conduct must, however, provide sufficient evidence so as to allow an investigation to be launched. All allegations must be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a decision or conclusion is made.
2. Inquiry
The initial decision must be made by the editor-in-chief, who must consult the editorial staff. Evidence against the accused party must be collected with the greatest discretion, so as to avoid any allegations spreading beyond those who need to know about them.
3. Minor offenses
In the case of misconduct deemed to be minor, the issue should be handled without the need for a full inquiry. In any case, authors should be given the opportunity to respond to any accusations made against them.
4. Serious offenses
Serious misconduct may require employers (university president or board of directors, research unit director, and so forth) of the author to be informed. The editor-in-chief and the editorial staff must decide whether or not it is appropriate to include the employers in the inquiry.
ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE
The Balzac Review / Revue Balzac has an Editor-in-Chief, a Scientific Committee and an Editorial Board. The Editor-in-Chief assumes responsibility for the scholarly content of published articles; additionally, he oversees the organization and planning of the different issues and convenes, at least once a year, a meeting to assess the current state of the Review and to set future objectives. The Scientific Committee is charged with guaranteeing the prestige of the Review. The task of the Editorial Board is to define editorial policies, the Review’s scholarly orientation, the choice of articles to publish and the selection of external reviewers for each article under consideration.
Editor-in-Chief
Francesco Spandri (Roma Tre University)
Scientific Committee
Mariolina Bertini (University of Parma)
Peter Brooks (Yale University)
Francesco Fiorentino (University of Bari)
Pierre Glaudes (Sorbonne University)
Takao Kashiwagi (Osaka University)
Nicole Mozet (University Paris Cité)
Nathalie Preiss (University of Reims)
Thomas Pavel (University of Chicago)
Editorial Board
Göran Blix (Princeton University)
Éric Bordas (École normale supérieure de Lyon)
Andrea Del Lungo (Sorbonne University)
Aude Déruelle (University of Orléans)
Jacques-David Ebguy (University Paris Cité)
Andrea Goulet (University of Pennsylvania)
Takayuki Kamada (Shinshu University)
Boris Lyon-Caen (Sorbonne University)
Francesco Spandri (Roma Tre University)
Paolo Tortonese (Sorbonne Nouvelle University)
Andrew Watts (University of Birmingham)
Jennifer Yee (Oxford University)
Editorial Staff
Veronic Algeri, Vincent Bierce (Coordinator), Jenny Birk, Caroline Grubbs, Richard Riddick, Laélia Véron
EVALUATION PROCESS
The Review only publishes new and original work. It refuses to publish articles or excerpts of articles that have already appeared or are slated to appear in other publications. Authors must be able to guarantee that their work is not in violation of copyright and is not, to any extent, plagiarized. All articles submitted to the Review are evaluated through a double-blind review process. The reviewers are chosen according to their area of expertise. In the event of significant divergence between the two experts, the Editorial Board reserves the right to request a third evaluation.
LIST OF BLIND PEER REVIEWERS
2024
Bierce, Vincent (IHRIM, École normale supérieure de Lyon)
Bui, Véronique (Université Le Havre Normandie)
Couleau, Christèle (Université Sorbonne Paris Nord)
Derainne, Lucien (Université de Strasbourg)
Diethelm, Marie-Bénédicte (CELLF, Sorbonne Université)
Guiney, Martin (Kenyon College)
Herschberg, Anne Pierrot (ITEM)
Lascar, Alex (Université Paris Est Créteil)
Lawson, Sophie (Université de Lorraine)
Lyon-Caen, Boris (Sorbonne Université)
Mas, Marion (Université Lyon 1)
Massonaud, Dominique (Université de Haute-Alsace)
Mortimer, Armin Kotin (University of Illinois)
Murphy, Steve (Université de Haute-Bretagne Rennes-II)
Péraud, Alexandre (Université Bordeaux Montaigne)
Stupazzoni, Marco (Studi francesi, Turin)
Tortonese, Paolo (Université Sorbonne Nouvelle)
Wetlaufer, Alexandra K. (The University of Texas at Austin)
2023
Barel-Moisan, Claire (CNRS)
Bell, David (Duke University)
Caretti, Samantha (Université de Caen-Normandie)
Diethelm, Marie-Bénédicte (CELLF, Sorbonne Université)
Evans, David (University of St Andrews)
Goulet, Andrea (University of Pennsylvania)
Griffiths, Kate (Cardiff University)
Hardwick, Louise (University of Birmingham)
Kamada, Takayuki (Université de Shinshu)
Kelly, Dorothy (Boston University)
Lee, Scott (University of Prince Edward Island)
Moran, Claire (Queen’s University Belfast)
Roney, Kristina (Washington and Lee University)
Szypula, Ewa (Nottingham University)
Tilby, Michael (Selwyn College, Cambridge)
Watts, Andrew (University of Birmingham)
Wilson, Steven (Queen’s University Belfast)
2022
Bierce, Vincent (IHRIM, École normale supérieure de Lyon)
Bordas, Éric (École normale supérieure de Lyon)
Déruelle, Aude (Université d’Orléans)
Diethelm, Marie-Bénédicte (CELLF, Sorbonne Université)
Duffy, Larry (University of Kent)
Ebguy, Jacques-David (Université Paris Cité)
Fiorentino, Francesco (Università di Bari)
Lyon-Caen, Boris (Sorbonne Université)
Massol, Chantal (Université Grenoble Alpes)
O’Neil-Henry, Anne (Georgetown University, Washington)
Oppici, Patrizia (Università di Macerata)
Pasco, Allan H. (University of Kansas)
Plas, Élisabeth (Université Sorbonne Nouvelle)
Reverzy, Éléonore (Université Sorbonne Nouvelle)
Samuels, Maurice (Yale University)
Smaniotto, Ada (Université Paris Nanterre)
Stupazzoni, Marco (Studi francesi, Turin)
Tortonese, Paolo (Université Sorbonne Nouvelle)
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AUTHORS
Articles (in English or in French)—which cannot have been previously published—must be accompanied by:
1) an abstract in French, of a maximum of 500 characters (including spaces);
2) five keywords.
Calls for papers for special reports are published on websites that specialize in literature (Fabula, Société des études romantiques et dix-neuviémistes, Calenda, Nineteenth-Century Studies Association, Society for French Studies, etc.).
Unsolicited proposals should be sent to the following email address:
thebalzacreview@gmail.com.
The Balzac Review / Revue Balzac
Department of Political Science
Roma Tre University
Via Gabriello Chiabrera, 199
I - 00145 Rome
thebalzacreview@gmail.com
The Balzac Review / Revue Balzac seeks to open new critical perspectives in Balzac studies. Each issue comprises a thematic dossier, a section reserved for spontaneous proposals and two permanent sections: “Research in Balzac Studies” and “Archives.” Published annually in both French and English, in print and online, the Review maintains a resolutely international profile.
ETHICAL CODE
The Review respects the ethical norms adopted by the publisher: https://classiques-garnier.com/normes-ethiques.html. These norms conform to the internationally accepted guidelines for scholarly research and publication (COPE).
Ethical Standards and Integrity: Editorial Ethical Rules and Good Practices
Each and every actor in the editorial chain, whether it is the editor-in-chief, a peer reviewer, an author, or a member of the editorial staff, should adhere to the ethical standards defined in this charter and should be committed to enforcing them, from the submission of a work to its publication.
I. DEFINITION OF EXPECTED ETHICAL PRACTICES
1. Responsibilities of editors-in-chief
We expect editors-in-chief to be objective and fair when carrying out their duties. The selection criteria for works must therefore be applied without discrimination based on authors’ gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnicity, or geographical location.
We also expect works that were funded by grants or that were part of a special issue to be selected with the same rigor as other works, in order to guarantee a principle of selection based on academic merit alone.
We expect publication directors to undertake to always explicitly specify in their publication the conditions under which the contributions of a collective work or a journal were made when these publications result from a conference, a congress, a seminar or any other scientific meeting.
We expect editors-in-chief to apply and abide by appropriate procedures in the event of complaints about the quality or ethics of a work. Doing so will entail giving the author concerned the opportunity to respond to any complaint made against his or her work and examining all complaints made, regardless of the date on which the text was approved. It is advisable to keep all documents dealing with such complaints, particularly email exchanges.
2. Responsibilities of peer reviewers
The role of peer reviewers is to contribute to the decision-making process and to help improve the quality of the document submitted for review by examining the manuscript objectively.
Peer reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of any information provided by the editor-in-chief or the author. Peer reviewers must therefore not retain any copies of the manuscript submitted for review.
Peer reviewers must alert the editor-in-chief and the editorial staff of any submitted or published content that they believe to be the product of plagiarism or intellectual dishonesty.
Peer reviewers must also be aware of any potential conflict of interest that may exist between themselves and the authors whose work they are to review. If such a situation arises, it is the responsibility of the peer reviewer to report it to the editor-in-chief and to relinquish the task of reviewing the author’s work.
3. Responsibilities of authors
Contributing authors have a responsibility to guarantee the originality and the intellectual integrity of their work. They must therefore provide assurance that their publication has not already been published, whether on the internet or by another publisher, and that it is not the reproduction, modified by rewriting, shortening, summing-up, paraphrasing, developing, reorganising of content, etc. of a previous work that has already been published. Authors also guarantee that they have not submitted their manuscript to another publisher or journal for review. Authors must also cite the work of their colleagues correctly when reproducing passages of it or when supporting their own reasoning using existing works.
Finally, authors are required to notify the editor-in-chief or the editorial staff if they identify a significant error in their publication and to work with the editor-in-chief and the editorial staff to publish an erratum, an addendum, a correction notice, or to retract the publication if this is necessary.
4. Responsibilities of editorial staff
Classiques Garnier must ensure that good practices are maintained in accordance with the standards detailed in this charter. Editorial staff must provide assurance that they subscribe to the principles set out above.
II. PROCEDURES IN PLACE FOR DEALING WITH UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR
1. Identification of unethical behavior
Misconduct and unethical behavior should be identified and brought to the attention of the editor-in-chief and editorial staff at any time and by anyone. This type of behavior can include, but is not limited to, the examples cited in section one of this charter.
Anyone who informs the editor-in-chief or the editorial staff of such conduct must, however, provide sufficient evidence so as to allow an investigation to be launched. All allegations must be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a decision or conclusion is made.
2. Inquiry
The initial decision must be made by the editor-in-chief, who must consult the editorial staff. Evidence against the accused party must be collected with the greatest discretion, so as to avoid any allegations spreading beyond those who need to know about them.
3. Minor offenses
In the case of misconduct deemed to be minor, the issue should be handled without the need for a full inquiry. In any case, authors should be given the opportunity to respond to any accusations made against them.
4. Serious offenses
Serious misconduct may require employers (university president or board of directors, research unit director, and so forth) of the author to be informed. The editor-in-chief and the editorial staff must decide whether or not it is appropriate to include the employers in the inquiry.
ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE
The Balzac Review / Revue Balzac has an Editor-in-Chief, a Scientific Committee and an Editorial Board. The Editor-in-Chief assumes responsibility for the scholarly content of published articles; additionally, he oversees the organization and planning of the different issues and convenes, at least once a year, a meeting to assess the current state of the Review and to set future objectives. The Scientific Committee is charged with guaranteeing the prestige of the Review. The task of the Editorial Board is to define editorial policies, the Review’s scholarly orientation, the choice of articles to publish and the selection of external reviewers for each article under consideration.
Editor-in-Chief
Francesco Spandri (Roma Tre University)
Scientific Committee
Mariolina Bertini (University of Parma)
Peter Brooks (Yale University)
Francesco Fiorentino (University of Bari)
Pierre Glaudes (Sorbonne University)
Takao Kashiwagi (Osaka University)
Nicole Mozet (University Paris Cité)
Nathalie Preiss (University of Reims)
Thomas Pavel (University of Chicago)
Editorial Board
Göran Blix (Princeton University)
Éric Bordas (École normale supérieure de Lyon)
Andrea Del Lungo (Sorbonne University)
Aude Déruelle (University of Orléans)
Jacques-David Ebguy (University Paris Cité)
Andrea Goulet (University of Pennsylvania)
Takayuki Kamada (Shinshu University)
Boris Lyon-Caen (Sorbonne University)
Francesco Spandri (Roma Tre University)
Paolo Tortonese (Sorbonne Nouvelle University)
Andrew Watts (University of Birmingham)
Jennifer Yee (Oxford University)
Editorial Staff
Veronic Algeri, Vincent Bierce (Coordinator), Jenny Birk, Caroline Grubbs, Richard Riddick, Laélia Véron
EVALUATION PROCESS
The Review only publishes new and original work. It refuses to publish articles or excerpts of articles that have already appeared or are slated to appear in other publications. Authors must be able to guarantee that their work is not in violation of copyright and is not, to any extent, plagiarized. All articles submitted to the Review are evaluated through a double-blind review process. The reviewers are chosen according to their area of expertise. In the event of significant divergence between the two experts, the Editorial Board reserves the right to request a third evaluation.
LIST OF BLIND PEER REVIEWERS
2024
Bierce, Vincent (IHRIM, École normale supérieure de Lyon)
Bui, Véronique (Université Le Havre Normandie)
Couleau, Christèle (Université Sorbonne Paris Nord)
Derainne, Lucien (Université de Strasbourg)
Diethelm, Marie-Bénédicte (CELLF, Sorbonne Université)
Guiney, Martin (Kenyon College)
Herschberg, Anne Pierrot (ITEM)
Lascar, Alex (Université Paris Est Créteil)
Lawson, Sophie (Université de Lorraine)
Lyon-Caen, Boris (Sorbonne Université)
Mas, Marion (Université Lyon 1)
Massonaud, Dominique (Université de Haute-Alsace)
Mortimer, Armin Kotin (University of Illinois)
Murphy, Steve (Université de Haute-Bretagne Rennes-II)
Péraud, Alexandre (Université Bordeaux Montaigne)
Stupazzoni, Marco (Studi francesi, Turin)
Tortonese, Paolo (Université Sorbonne Nouvelle)
Wetlaufer, Alexandra K. (The University of Texas at Austin)
2023
Barel-Moisan, Claire (CNRS)
Bell, David (Duke University)
Caretti, Samantha (Université de Caen-Normandie)
Diethelm, Marie-Bénédicte (CELLF, Sorbonne Université)
Evans, David (University of St Andrews)
Goulet, Andrea (University of Pennsylvania)
Griffiths, Kate (Cardiff University)
Hardwick, Louise (University of Birmingham)
Kamada, Takayuki (Université de Shinshu)
Kelly, Dorothy (Boston University)
Lee, Scott (University of Prince Edward Island)
Moran, Claire (Queen’s University Belfast)
Roney, Kristina (Washington and Lee University)
Szypula, Ewa (Nottingham University)
Tilby, Michael (Selwyn College, Cambridge)
Watts, Andrew (University of Birmingham)
Wilson, Steven (Queen’s University Belfast)
2022
Bierce, Vincent (IHRIM, École normale supérieure de Lyon)
Bordas, Éric (École normale supérieure de Lyon)
Déruelle, Aude (Université d’Orléans)
Diethelm, Marie-Bénédicte (CELLF, Sorbonne Université)
Duffy, Larry (University of Kent)
Ebguy, Jacques-David (Université Paris Cité)
Fiorentino, Francesco (Università di Bari)
Lyon-Caen, Boris (Sorbonne Université)
Massol, Chantal (Université Grenoble Alpes)
O’Neil-Henry, Anne (Georgetown University, Washington)
Oppici, Patrizia (Università di Macerata)
Pasco, Allan H. (University of Kansas)
Plas, Élisabeth (Université Sorbonne Nouvelle)
Reverzy, Éléonore (Université Sorbonne Nouvelle)
Samuels, Maurice (Yale University)
Smaniotto, Ada (Université Paris Nanterre)
Stupazzoni, Marco (Studi francesi, Turin)
Tortonese, Paolo (Université Sorbonne Nouvelle)
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AUTHORS
Articles (in English or in French)—which cannot have been previously published—must be accompanied by:
1) an abstract in French, of a maximum of 500 characters (including spaces);
2) five keywords.
Calls for papers for special reports are published on websites that specialize in literature (Fabula, Société des études romantiques et dix-neuviémistes, Calenda, Nineteenth-Century Studies Association, Society for French Studies, etc.).
Unsolicited proposals should be sent to the following email address:
thebalzacreview@gmail.com.
The Balzac Review / Revue Balzac
Department of Political Science
Roma Tre University
Via Gabriello Chiabrera, 199
I - 00145 Rome
thebalzacreview@gmail.com