Members :
– Flora (FR) – EHESS
– Eliane (FR) – CPGE A/L
– Thomas (FR) – Columbia University
– Théo (FR) – Leiden Universiteit
– Eliane (FR) – Sorbonne Université
– Edgar (FR) – SciencesPo Paris
– Elisabeth (FR) – Sorbonne Université
– Nathanaële (FR) – Sorbonne Université
– Oscar (FR) – HU
– Julie (FR) – Paris Cité Université
– Ouliana (FR) – Kedge Bordeaux
– Jules (FR) – ENS Ulm
– Julius (EN) – Oxford University
– Charlotte (EN) – Kings’s College London
– Nathalia (EN) – Kings’s College London
– Adriana (EN) – UCL
– Lilly (EN) – UCL
– Jamie (EN) – Edinburgh University
– Anna (EN) – New York University
– Jane-Emily (EN) – Yale University
– Margaret (EN) – Yale University

Editorial committee :
– Oscar (FR) – éditeur en chef
– Flora (FR) – sous-éditeur en chef
– Jamie (EN) – sous-éditeur en chef
– Lilly (EN) – sous-éditeur en chef

1) Plurality — we write for a shared space of appearance where different voices show themselves to one another (men, not Man) and can be judged; this is our public realm.

2) Truthfulness, not mere sincerity — our claims answer to factual truth and public testing; confession never replaces truth.

3) Judgment (enlarged mentality) — each text considers other standpoints and accepts critique, revision, and correction as part of appearing among others.

4) Common world — we add something durable among us (analysis, critique, poem, essay) rather than private self-expression alone.

5) Power vs. violence — we refuse degradation, incitement, and silencing; genuine power arises from acting in concert, not from destroying the space where we appear.

6) Action with responsibility — our politics, criticism, and theory proceed from action among plural others; advocacy that abolishes plurality has no place here.

7) No deception — no plagiarism, fabrication, or disinformation; tools remain subordinate to the author’s judgment and are disclosed.

8) Independence from creed — we impose no moral or religious dogma; our limits guard persons and the public world: no lies, no degradation, no denial of plurality.

9) Natality — we welcome beginnings: new forms and ideas that initiate processes in the public realm and bind us to their consequences together.

The Silumé Review defines itself as a space of plurality, creativity, and shared responsibility. Every public contribution commits the common world we build together. This regulation seeks to preserve that space from any violation of human dignity or of the democratic principles on which our Review is founded. It ensures that every significant decision is taken only after a presentation of the facts, collective debate, and a vote consistent with the majorities required.

Article 1 — Anyone participating as a writer or as a member of the editorial team adheres to a Pledge grounded in the refusal of all forms of racism, sexism, hatred, authoritarian ideology, or attacks on democratic values. Any serious violation of the Pledge may lead to permanent exclusion and the immediate withdrawal of the works published, following the deliberative procedure described in Articles 9 and 10.

Article 2 — Each internal member contributes on a monthly basis by: — producing at least one exclusive article; — actively participating in the organisational tasks of the Review according to their assigned role. Commitments are automatically suspended during exam or competitive-exam periods. In the event of non-fulfilment, the committee examines the circumstances, deliberates, and decides on proportionate corrective measures.

Article 3 — Submissions must comply with the following formats: — Critique, Dialogue, Interview: 600–2,600 words (flexible in exceptional cases); — Fiction: 100–3,600 words (flexible in exceptional cases). Writing style remains entirely free to preserve literary creativity. Texts are written in English and/or French and translated by designated members. Breaches are deliberated by the committee, which applies fair measures following discussion.

Article 4 — Every writer submits their text before the 17th of the month, indicating NAME and CATEGORY, in Word or PDF format, to a member of the committee.

Article 5 — Each editor performs their tasks in accordance with the organisation established by the Editor-in-Chief no later than the 17th of the month. All assigned tasks must be completed at least two days before the end of the month to allow publication under proper conditions.

Article 6 — Any member may refer a proposal to the editorial committee concerning: A) developments of the Review (website, categories, committee, editorial norms); B) a decision relating to the acceptance or rejection of an article or a member. A referral must be publicly endorsed by 6/10 of the internal members. The committee then deliberates and decides whether to accept the proposal; it must subsequently organise a debate followed by a vote on the member’s proposal.

Article 7 — If the referral concerns a violation of the Pledge and involves an exclusion, the committee submits the decision to a vote of all internal members. The decision is validated if 8/10 of the members vote in favour, following a debate clearly presenting the grounds.

Article 8 — The committee may: — amend submitted works; — accept or reject articles and applications; — advise authors and institutional bodies; — call for a head-count vote at any moment in the event of disagreement with the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief remains solely responsible for publication on the website, in accordance with the decisions of the editorial committee.

Article 9 — In the event of a breach of rules other than the Pledge: Committee meeting within 15 days Presentation of the facts and internal debate Proposal of a sanction Vote requiring a two-thirds majority for adoption If the two-thirds threshold is not reached, a new proposal is deliberated until agreement is obtained.

Article 10 — When a committee member becomes aware of a violation of the Pledge: Meeting within 3 days Presentation and discussion of the facts Vote requiring 5/10 to initiate the sanction provided for in Article 1 The committee may extend the vote to all internal members. If 6/10 approve the decision, it becomes final and without appeal.