Publication Ethics Statement |

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement |

LUMEN Journals follows to International Guidelines in the field - the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. This publication ethics and publication malpractice statement comes to resume the LUMEN journals’ editorial policies, ethics policies, but also the authors guidelines and publishing policies.  

Responsibilities of Editors

Respect for Fairness and editorial independence

LUMEN editors evaluate submitted manuscripts based on their academic merit (importance, authenticity, research validity, clarity) and its relevance to the journal’s focus and scope, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political views or affiliation. The Editor-in-Chief is authorizing the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content. The journal itself take decisions on editing and publishing, no other agencies outside of can decide the journal’s activities.

Respect for Confidentiality

No information about a submitted manuscript will be disclosed by any editors and editorial staff to other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Editors and members of editorial board will make no use of unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript. Exception should make when they obtain the authors’ explicit written consent in using such information.

Decisions on publication

The editors of the journal ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication will be peer-review subjected by at least two experts in the field as reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief is sole responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published; this decision is grounded on the authenticity of the paper, its novelty and significance for the researchers and readers, the reviewers’ feedback, and aspects related to copyright infringement and plagiarism and other legal matters.

Co-working in investigations of possible research misconduct

Editors, together with the academic community, will take necessary measures when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper. No matter the time of publication, if an unethical publishing behavior will be discovered years after publication, we will take action. LUMEN editors use and follow the COPE guidelines, especially the Flowcharts when dealing with cases of suspicions of research misconduct. COPE flowcharts offer a step-by-step process, for practical use, on handling different aspects of publication ethics issues.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Value added to editorial decisions

After texts are analyzed to see if they match the disciplinary and thematic orientation of the publication's editorial quality standards of LUMEN publications, manuscripts are sent to two reviewers selected from the Board of Reviewers of LUMEN Publishing House, whose scientific activity and expertise corresponds most with the proposed manuscript. After texts are analyzed from the scientific point of view, reviewers communicate their decision and the observations/requirements (if any) as a condition of publication.

Reviewers should be experts in their fields and should be able to provide an objective assessment of the manuscript they evaluate. The reviewers must have a rich expertise and experience to be chosen as a referent, certified through publications, conferences, grants, etc.

Acting Prompt

Any invited peer reviewer who considers unqualified to review a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be rather impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review. Based on its decline, the editor will proceed to contact alternative reviewers.

Respecting Confidentiality

The manuscripts received for review are subject of confidentiality, being considered confidential documents and must be treated as such; the reviewers should not discuss these documents with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief. This statement applies also to invited peer reviewers who declined the review invitation.

Evaluating with objectivity

Any evaluation should be conducted objectively. There are expected clear observations with supporting arguments, in order for the authors to be able to use any feedback for improving their manuscript.

Acknowledgement of used sources

Peer reviewers are invited to identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. There must be a direct connection between the ideas and the sources used to support the argumentation, but not appropriately quoted in the references chapter or text. The similarity with other online sources must be notified by the reviewer to the editor in charge, if the peer reviewer identifies such issue.

Responsibilities of Authors

Integrity and transparency in reporting data

After submitting an original manuscript, the authors could be asked to provide the editors with many information on the data gathering or any other report that grounded the research submitted for evaluation. The authors should provide the editors with all the required information that the editorial team could use in order to finish the evaluation and give the final decision.  This action goes to support a transparency in publication, making sure there will not be published fraudulent works.

Originality check and plagiarism

Authors should submit only entirely original works. Where the authors used the work and/or words of other authors, they must ensure that they appropriately cited the source. LUMEN expresses zero tolerance to plagiarism, but we accepted at most 10% similarity with other sources, which are due to specific denominations, internationally accepted nomenclatures, and/or expression that are common knowledge in the field.  The articles that were proven to have plagiarism elements will automatically be rejected from publication. If the article exceeds the accepted quota of similarity, but it is not proved to be plagiarized, the editor could send the article back to the authors, to motivate the identified similarities, and eventually to correct possible negligence.

Multiple, duplicate, redundant or concurrent submission/publication

Where a manuscript describes essentially the same research it should not be published in more than one journal or primary publication. In these regards, authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been published in another journal, as we consider that submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical and unacceptable publishing behaviour. LUMEN agrees to the secondary publication, in special cases, where the second publication comes with improvements or additional content of novelty. This second publication must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document, with the condition for the primary reference to be cited in the secondary publication.

Authorship of the manuscript/ Contributorship

LUMEN adheres to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations related to authorship.  ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the following 4 criteria: 1) Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND 2) Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND 3) Final approval of the version to be published; AND 4) Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved (ICMJE: Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors, 2022). These authorship criteria are intended to reserve the status of authorship for those who deserve credit and can take responsibility for the work. In the group of authors, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work, in order to being accountable for the parts of the work he/she has done. Also, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

At the earliest stage possible, authors should disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. Prior submission, author will be asked to certify that: 1) All forms of financial support, including pharmaceutical company support (if the case), are acknowledged in the author’s contribution; 2) Any commercial or financial involvements that might present an appearance of a conflict of interest related to the contribution are disclosed in a covering letter accompanying the contribution and all such potential conflicts of interest will be discussed with the Editor as to whether disclosure of this information with the published contribution is to be made in the journal; 3). That the author/s have not signed an agreement with any sponsor of the research reported in the contribution that prevents them from publishing both positive and negative results or that forbids you from publishing this research without the prior approval of the sponsor; 4) That they have checked the manuscript submission guidelines to see whether the journal requires a Declaration of Conflicting Interests and have complied with the requirements specified where such a policy exists.

Acknowledgement of sources

All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an Acknowledgements section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged are included above. When submitting the manuscript, author must supply any personal acknowledgements separately to the main text to facilitate anonymous peer review. Third party submissions - Where an individual who is not listed as an author submits a manuscript on behalf of the author(s), a statement must be included in the Based on previous editorial experience, where appropriate, LUMEN reserves the right to deny consideration to manuscripts submitted by a third party rather than by the authors themselves.

Hazards and human or animal subjects

If the research involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript. Furthermore, if the research involved the use of animals or human participants, the authors should ensure that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them. The manuscript should contain a statement in accordance with the context. In direct situation of research on human subjects, authors should also include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human participants. In case of minor human subjects involved in the research, the authors must provide the editors with the consent of the caregivers of the minor subjects.

Peer review process

LUMEN accepts papers for publication only based on a previous peer review process, in which authors are actively involved, by responding on the reviewers’ feedback on their manuscript. The full cooperation and responsiveness of the authors in relationship with the editors is mandatory. In case of requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval, patient consents and copyright permissions the authors should act promptly and provide the editor with the information requested. When "revisions required" decision is sent to the authors, they should respond to the reviewers’ comments in a clear manner, point by point, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.

Responsibilities of the Publisher

Ethical evaluation and identification of, and dealing with allegations of research misconduct

LUMEN is member of PILA and some journals are individual member of COPE. LUMEN Publishing fully adheres to the ethical standards of Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE), even for the journals that are not yet members. Ethical evaluation follows two directions, namely Editorial Ethics and Research Ethics. Regarding Editorial Ethics, these are analyzed suspicions of plagiarism and the improper award of authorship (including authors who contributed to the text or research and the exclusion of authors who have contributed). They also track potential conflicts of interest that occurred after publication by LUMEN, the rights to reproduce images, text or republication rights fragments where appropriate. The aim is to avoid the request for double financing when the manuscript published through public financing. Each journal where ethical misconduct was identified and submitted for an analysis keeps a record for such issues, and a selection of cases which can be useful for better understanding the ethical and editorial decision to be made by reviewers, authors, editors, were listed on a dedicated page.  In case of any suspicion of research misconduct a peer process is initiated by LUMEN for performing inquiries and investigations of possible research misconduct; This process goes deeply into the specific questioned research and the research record, in order to verify that the research respects the principle of integrity, confidentiality, fairness and respect for human dignity - especially where the research involves human subjects.

Open access to journal content

The publisher is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility to all its readers using an open access system.