Expected theoretical contribution: Myths and realities

To open Volume 38, I would like to share my observations from the first part of my mandate on a critical issue: the theoretical contribution. Indeed, too many articles are either rejected or in a risky situation on the grounds of insufficient contribution. Therefore, in this editorial, I feel it is essential to clarify and demystify the journal’s expectations on that matter. The objective is to help authors self-assess their contribution at the early stages of their research project. Furthermore, in the editorial of volume 37 (Bertrandias, 2022), I mentioned the ongoing changes conveyed by the open science movement. More especially, I stressed that RAM should certainly progress on transparency and reproducibility issues. As a first measure, and from now on, authors will be encouraged to share their data. Data sharing can be limited to the editorial team (the editor and, if applicable, the associate editor in charge of their article) and the reviewers. However, in line with the open science principles, a broader sharing with everyone interested in the data is desirable. In the second part, I will explain why a journal such as RAM should promote open data and I will make a nonexhaustive list of the expected positive effects, particularly for the authors themselves. The perspective of sharing can especially encourage authors to better think about their contribution.