RULE 1: PARTICIPATION, GUIDELINES, AND LIMITATIONS
Plenary presentations |
Plenary sessions will be dedicated to the specific areas of the conference: ethics and professional development in central and eastern European countries.
Even if the majority of the plenary speeches will be invited speeches, proposals of plenary presentations can be sent to the organizers, no later than 1st of October 2016.
A plenary speaker is expected to be at least PhD/ECR and have at least 4 H-factor in Google Scholars.
A plenary presentation should be sole authored.
A proposal for plenary speaking should contain the following: Title of the paper; Full affiliation and contact; Keywords; The conference theme in which the paper should be included; Abstract (max 250 words): Research Problem, Methodology, Originality, Conclusion; Biodata (short professional description)
Workshops are associated events organized by research or educational institutions in one particular area of the conference. A Workshop should be constituted from at least 1 chair (who can also be speaker) and 5 participants. Workshops are open to large debates on chosen topic, starting from the presented papers. We encourage auditors to participate to discussions, even they are not registered with papers. The participation as auditor will be certified with certificate of participation.
A workshop proposal will contain the following: Workshop Title; Main Organizer Institution; Co-organizers; Chair (The chairs for accepted proposals will be included in the organizing team and will be exempted from fee participation; only one chair per session will benefit of exemption of fee participation for one paper presented); Overview; Topics; Period; Registered participants (at least 5 participants – full name, affiliations and contacts, proposals of presentations titles & abstracts – 250 words abstract limit)
Symposia are carefully-constructed, themed sessions of interrelating papers. Each symposium should consist of a Chair (who can also be panel speaker) and between 3- 4 panel speakers, one of which must be PhD/ECR (early career researchers).
Symposium should be as discursive as possible. The introduction and presentation portion of the event is to last for 40-45 minutes. Each speaker will have 10-12 minutes for their respective oral presentations, followed by 40-45 minutes of questions and discussion from the audience.
There must be an overarching theme between all of the papers submitted which corresponds with the Congress themes. The Chair is expected to liaise closely with all speakers before the event and to ensure coordination of content and focus of the symposium. The chair must ensure that all papers accepted in symposia will converge to one specific topic. For example, a specific research results could presented of different members of research team.
A symposium proposal will contain the following: Title of symposium; Topics; Methodology; Symposium Description of the Research Problem; Originality; Conclusion and Link between different papers i.e. overarching theme.
Each paper featuring in the symposium should also be included with an abstract of 150 words.
Presentations consist of individual presentations which will be grouped under one of the conference themes. These will take place during parallel sessions. Presentations must relate to one the conference themes. Speakers must focus on an original contribution to knowledge that is both significant and rigorous. 10 minutes per presenter with 4 minutes discussion each.
An oral presentation submission should contain the following information in the abstract & registration template: Title of the paper; Authorship (+ full affiliations and contacts); Keywords; The conference theme in which the paper should be included; Abstract (max 250 words – Research Problem, Methodology, Originality, Conclusion); Biodata (short professional description of each author mentioned in the authorship); the presenter author’s name (in case of multiple authorship)
The following points should be taken into consideration when preparing an oral presentation:
- Ensure that you are present in the room at least 10 minutes before the oral session starts within the section you belong;
- The available equipment will be: PC and Projector;
- The programs used for presentation will be: PowerPoint or Adobe Acrobat (PDF).
Guidelines for PLENARY, ORAL, SYMPOSIUM presentations|
Ensure that you are present in the room at least 10 minutes before the oral session starts within the section you belong;
Please note: You must provide your presentation for preloading. Please submit your presentation (in English, copy-edited and proofread) via email no later than 1st of November to firstname.lastname@example.org
If for any reason, you are unable to submit your presentation in advance of the Conference, then you can preload your presentation to a laptop via registration desk area when you arrive at the Conference, you must preload this at least two hours before you are due to present. If you are presenting during one of the morning sessions, please upload your presentation the day before.
NB: If there are movie clips included in your presentation you must bring the original movie files as well as the PowerPoint file, otherwise your movie clips will not run.
If you wish to use the IAB PowerPoint template slides, these can be accessed for download at DOWNLOAD page. Please note that slides must be in 16×9 ratio.
AV Equipment supplied
- Projection system and screen
- Lectern and lectern microphone for rooms that require this
- The programs used for presentation will be: PowerPoint or Adobe Acrobat (PDF).
- Wifi – IF THIS IS REQUIRED, PLEASE LET US KNOW ASAP
You have for:
- Plenary: 15 minutes for your presentation and 5 minutes for questions and answers directly after your presentation.
- Oral & Symposium: 10 minutes for your presentation and 5 minutes for questions and answers directly after your presentation.
A volunteer will be standing at the back of the room and will indicate to you by holding up cards, when you have 5 minutes remaining, 2 minutes remaining and when your time is up.
Each session has a dedicated chair/moderator who has been instructed to ensure that strict timings are observed. Once all speakers have presented in the session, the Chair/moderator will take questions from the floor, open to all speakers and to facilitate wider discussion. 30 minutes have been allocated for this wider debate. The conference is running on a very strict time schedule so it is vital that you keep to your allocated time and respect the contributions of everyone on your panel and from the audience. Please endeavour to arrive at your allocated room 10 minutes in advance of the session, where possible, to allow final arrangements to be made. Your chair/moderator has been advised to make contact with you either pre-conference or at the conference itself ahead of your session.
Poster presentation |
All posters will be displayed for the duration of the conference. Moreover, there will be dedicated poster sessions for each theme built into the conference programme. Please consult the conference program in order to see the times that posters can be viewed and the dedicated times for each theme. Please note: the dedicated sessions are your opportunity to discuss your work in depth and to answer any questions delegates may have. You are therefore expected to stand beside your poster for the duration of your dedicated session(s). The theme you are categorised by is the theme under which you submitted your paper. All dedicated sessions are approximately 30 minutes long.
The poster must be sent to organizers at least 15 days before the beginning of the Conference, or could be designed and printed by LUMEN team, starting from a maximum 600 word text of your paper (+ 300DPI images) and an additional 20 € fee for designing and printing the poster will be applied. A poster presentation proposal should contain the following information in the abstract document: Title of the paper; Authorship (+ full affiliations and contacts); Keywords; The conference theme in which the paper should be included; Abstract (max 250 words – Research Problem, Methodology, Originality, Conclusion); Biodata (short professional description of each author mentioned in the authorship); The presenting author name (in case of multiple authorship)
Guidelines for POSTER presentation
Poster sessions will provide an opportunity for the authors to display the results and conclusions of the presented paper. The poster will be displayed throughout the posters session for your panel.
The poster must be structured so that it answers the following questions about the structure of the paper:
- What is the research topic?
- Why was this aspect researched?
- How the research was conducted (subjects, methods)?
- What are the results of the research (results, discussions)?
You are asked to follow these guidelines when submitting your poster:
- Poster Dimensions: All posters should be Portrait, A1-sized (594mm x 841mm) and have text a minimum of font size 24.
- Posters should be clear and easy to read. Type size should be sufficiently large to allow people to read from 2-3 metres. (Minimum of 1 cm high for text and 2.5 cm high for titles). DO NOT REDUCE TEXT SIZE IN ORDER TO FIT MORE INFORMATION ONTO THE POSTER.
- Design the poster to convey a CLEAR MESSAGE. If this is not obvious to the reader after reading the introduction, the message is NOT CLEAR and the reader will move on to an alternative poster.
- Avoid overload – too much information seriously detracts from the overall impact.
- The SIMPLE use of colour can enhance a presentation; remember, too that an image can be far more effective than a body of text.
- If appropriate, consider the use of a suitable photograph, but do not include as a background to the poster.
- Keep Logos to a minimum and discrete.
- Proof read the poster, and get others to do so as well.
All posters will be displayed for the duration of the conference. Moreover, there will be dedicated poster sessions for each theme built into the conference programme. Please note: the dedicated sessions are your opportunity to discuss your work in depth and to answer any questions delegates may have. You are therefore expected to stand beside your poster for the duration of your dedicated session(s). The theme you are categorised by is the theme under which you submitted your paper. All dedicated sessions are approximately 30 minutes long.
Virtual presentation |
A virtual presentation will last between 10 and 15 minutes, via Skype. Our skype ID is edituralumen . We strongly recommend that you present the paper in maximum 10 minutes, to allow 5 minutes for eventual questions of the audience.
In case you cannot be online for Skype presentation, you need to send us a PowerPoint presentation of the paper you want to introduce to the audience. This is a mandatory requirement as we fully rely on technology within this session (Internet connection, in our case).
Virtual presentation is only available for participants affiliated to other institutions than Romanian.
A virtual presentation proposal should contain the following information in the abstract document: Title of the paper; Authorship (+ full affiliations and contacts); Keywords; The conference theme in which the paper should be included; Abstract (max 250 words – Research Problem, Methodology, Originality, Conclusion); Biodata (short professional description of each author mentioned in the authorship); the presenter author’s name (in case of multiple authorship)
Guidelines for VIRTUAL presentation
The virtual presentation requires:
Contact: you must provide a skype ID. Our skype ID is edituralumen.
In order to do that and for any other information you require, please use the following
address email@example.com. Also, as a virtual participant, you MUST be online 10 minutes before your actual presentation, in order to check the internet connection and to make necessary changes (volume, light, speed etc.).
Time: a virtual presentation will last between 10 and 15 minutes. We strongly recommend that you present the paper in maximum 10 minutes, to allow 5 minutes for eventual questions of the audience.
Paper: also, you need to send us a PowerPoint presentation of the paper you want to introduce to the audience. This is a mandatory requirement as we fully rely on technology within this session (Internet connection, in our case).
Important! The deadline for submitting PowerPoint presentations is 15 days before the Conference.
As alternative: in case you do not want/ or cannot attend a presentation through Skype, you can also send us (to the email address mentioned above) an MP4 presentation that will be run by our staff. The participants for the virtual presentation will be contacted by e-mail, in case of questions regarding the work presented;
*Virtual Presentations will be accepted case by case, in extraordinary situations; only proposals outside Central and Eastern European Countries will be accepted for evaluation for virtual presentation.
Participants that submit papers whose presentation will be virtual (video format), accept by their submission, that accepted paper will be uploaded automatically on Lumen YouTube Channels, Lumen socialization networks and the Conference website. In case of disagreement with those rules, papers are removed from virtual presentation list and authors are invited to resubmit the paper within other manner of presentation.
Four-Session/One-Paper Rule: A conference participant may appear on the program in no more than 4 (four) sessions and may present only one paper on a session during the conference. There can be no exceptions to this rule. Please Note: If you submit an Individual Paper proposal, it constitutes your one paper presentation. Being a workshop speaker does not count as a “paper” presentation.
Definition of “Participant”: “Participants” are the session (oral, poster, virtual sessions) chair, session paper presenter; workshop, symposia, plenary chairs and speakers.
Definition of “Organizer”: An organizer is the person who submits the symposium or workshop proposals. You may organize as many symposia or workshops as you wish.
Special Consideration: Special consideration will be given to sessions/symposia/workshops reporting on recent field or archival research, especially those that include presentations by junior faculty and/or graduate students at the PhD research stage.
Disciplinary Diversity: Symposia/workshops that have more than one disciplinary representation are strongly encouraged.
Institutional Diversity: A symposium/workshop should not be made up of participants from only one institution. The presenters on a symposium/workshop must be from at least two different institutions.
Gender Diversity: Gender diversity on symposia/workshops is strongly encouraged.
Student Participation: As a rule of thumb, graduate student participants generally should be at the PhD research stage in their programs, and panels composed primarily of graduate students should include at least one member who has completed their terminal degree. A proposal made up only of graduate students will most likely be rejected. Undergraduate papers are not accepted.
RULE 2: REGISTRATION
All participants on sessions/symposium/workshops must register by the deadline and pay the registration fee. Failure to register will lead to the participant’s name being removed from the Index of Participants in the convention program.
RULE 3: CANCELLATION
If a scheduled session/symposium/workshop participant is unable to participate in the convention, he or she must notify the session organizer AND the Organizing Team Coordinator for LUMEN Conferences. Failure to register or notify LUMEN of cancellation may lead to exclusion from future conventions.
RULE 4: PAYMENTS
No payments will be made in advance, before the confirming of the acceptance to participation / publication, by LUMEN Conference Organizers
Payments made by the Proponent (abstract/workshop/symposium or full papers proposals) before the confirmation of acceptance from the organizers’ part (as it is or with requests for modification) will be considered overpayments and in case of rejection of the proposal by LUMEN, the reimbursement of these payments to the payer will not be possible.
LUMEN billing service may be made on behalf of the payer (individual or legal) mentioned on the proof of payment. If the payment is accepted to be performed by a legal entity (university, research institute, company etc.) only on the basis of a pre-invoice issued by the conference organizers in this regard, the request of the pre-invoice is performed at least one week in advance, accompanied by the full details of the payer. In case of payments made by individuals on behalf of institutions, the invoice will be issued on the name of the individual payers, specifying in detail the bill: payment made to a legal person. There are not allowed payments made by individuals on behalf of other individuals, unless this has been previously announced to the conference organizers and billed as such on behalf of the payer.
RULE 5: PUBLICATION – SELECTION, RESEARCH ETHICS & FEES
SELECTION – PEER REVIEW PROCESS|
- Peer Review Process: Standards and Description
I.1. Editorial Evaluation
This is the first stage evaluation, in which the paper proposed for evaluation is assessed from the technical and administrative points of view. The evaluation is made by the editor in charge with the issue following to identify whether the paper is related to the specificity of the journal and if it addresses subjects that are in direct connection with the current issue’s topic. The editor in charge will also assess if the author complies with the editorial requirements, such as the citation system, respecting the journal’s technical parameters from the template available online, or the structure of the article.
Only after the technical requirements are fulfilled by the author will the paper be the subject of the peer review process and its scientific quality evaluated. After texts are analyzed to see if they match the disciplinary and thematic orientation of the publication’s editorial quality standards of LUMEN publications, text or abstracts and significant fragments 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 text.
I.2. Scientific Evaluation
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. The editor in charge transmits the reviewers’ decision to the author and, if the reviewers are agreed on the acceptance for publication but recommend changes of the text, it is sent back to the author to make changes. Once the requested changes are made, the text returns to the two reviewers of LUMEN Publishing House Committee to check the final version of the text and transmit their decision.
The scientific evaluation is completed in at least one of the following ways:
- Double blind peer review
The blind peer review process consists of assigning a blind manuscript (with no identification information of the author/s) to a reviewer whose identity is not known to the author whose paper is subject to evaluation, nor will be known by the author after the evaluation is completed. The correspondence between the reviewers/s and the author/s will be intermediated by the publisher – LUMEN Publishing House.
The results of evaluation can be of the following types: acceptance, acceptance with modifications or rejected. If a reviewer rejects the manuscript but another one accepts it, the manuscript is assessed by a third reviewer, or the editor responsible for the issue, who will accomplish the advocate function and take the final decision. If it is accepted with modifications, corrections will be asked for from the author.
- Reviewers Proposed by Authors
Authors are invited to propose their own specialty referrers when they submit their paper for publication. They can be coordinators of doctoral theses, etc.
The opinions of the authors’ proposed reviewers will be considered, in the event of a disagreement between the two peer reviewers proposed by LUMEN Publishing, or where peer reviewers accept papers with a reserve. Also, this method is used as an additional editorial peer review, in the case of situation that requests it.
I.3. Ethical evaluation and identification of, and dealing with allegations of research misconduct
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. It is followed the avoidance of double funding requests when the volume of publicly-funded appearance.
The second direction aims of evaluation for respecting the ethical rules of scientific research where appropriate:
- the rules of data confidentiality,
- obtaining the agreement of person / persons interviewed or for which you have undertaken research included in the volume,
- in the protection of the interests of natural or legal persons, in order not to violate any image or other rights of nature provided by law.
I.4. Editorial Review of Translations
Editorial reviewers of translation exclusively target the quality of translations in Romanian. An evaluation is undertaken by a specialist, a connoisseur of the language in which the book appeared or a native speaker and the quality of translation is checked.
I.5. LUMEN Submission Platform
In order to improve the quality management system of works and peer reviews, LUMEN Publishing House has implemented, since July 2012, the LUMEN Submission Platform.
The LUMEN Submission Platform is a management system platform of works and peer reviews that facilitates the submission of works by authors and the peer review process conducted by reviewers. The software is flexible and can be used in both work and management across all referents within all projects (book publishing, scientific journals and conferences).
- Copyright and Author Responsibility
Authors assure the publisher, at the moment of signing the contract and sending the final version of the volume, that he/she holds all the copyrights to tables, images etc., including the content in the volume and declares expressly that he/she assumes full responsibility for the existence of the copyright of the entire contents of the proposed publication and all co-authors.
For publication, where necessary, it seeks the advice of the Ethics Committees of LUMEN Publishing House, both in terms of editorial ethics and the ethics of research on human subjects.
III. Selection and Acceptance of Reviewers
LUMEN Publishing reviewers are scientific and cultural personalities, recognized nationally and internationally with a PhD; in special or exceptional circumstances, having the quality of a PhD student.
The reviewers must have a rich expertise and experience to be chosen as a referent, certified through publications, conferences, grants, etc. and have previously worked for LUMEN Publishing and the LUMEN Research Center in Social and Humanistic Sciences.
ETHICS OF PUBLICATION |
LUMEN Publishing House adheres to the COPE principles of transparency and supports the COPE’s principal objects, “promotion, for the public benefit, of ethical standards of conduct in research and ethical standards in the publication of academic journals.” (COPE). LUMEN Publishing House also aims to comply with the Codes of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines (Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers)
In respect of the COPE principles, LUMEN exposes the following statements of ethical practice in publishing; a manuscript publication is made only after the ethical review is completed by one or two different reviewers, who evaluated the work scientifically and must consider at least the following aspects:
- The avoidance of the risk of plagiarism and respect for intellectual property;
- Respect for the rights of human subjects in research;
- The identification of and dealing with allegations of research misconduct;
- The identification of and dealing with manipulations of citations;
- The disclosure of any conflicts of interest;
- Withdrawal from the distribution of publications.
The Research Ethics Committee (REC) and Editorial Ethics Committee of LUMEN Association has written this editorial ethics’ regulation. It is required, where applicable, that an affidavit of the author of informed consent in all research that was conducted with human subjects. Also the opinion of the REC is needed – where applicable.
THE AVOIDANCE OF THE RISK OF PLAGIARISM AND RESPECT FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Plagiarism is the exposing of another person’s thoughts or words as though they were your own, without permission, credit, or acknowledgment, or because of failing to cite the sources properly. Plagiarism can take diverse forms, from literally “copying” to paraphrasing the work of another. In order to judge properly whether an author has plagiarized, we emphasize the following possible situations:
- An author can literally copy another author’s work by copying word for word, in whole or in part, without permission, acknowledgement or citing the original source. This practice can be identified by comparing the original source and the manuscript/work which is suspected of plagiarism.
- Substantial copying implies an author has reproduced a substantial part of the work of another author, without permission, acknowledgement or citation. The term substantial can be understood both in terms of quality and quantity, often being used in the context of intellectual property. Quality refers to the relative value of the copied text in proportion to the work as a whole.
- Paraphrasing involves taking ideas, words or phrases from a source and crafting them into new sentences within the writing. This practice becomes unethical when the author does not properly cite or does not acknowledge the original work/author. This form of plagiarism is the more difficult form to be identified.
LUMEN Publishing has an intensive preoccupation concerning the right of ownership and the avoidance of plagiarism. The main responsibility lies with the authors in publishing contracts expressly stipulating the obligation, including an affidavit that all materials belong to the author and that quotations are made in accordance with the law.
In accordance with the quality assurance principle of COPE, the following practices were developed by LUMEN Publishing House:
- requesting of author copies of the reprinting rights for illustrations, graphs, tables etc. subject to copyright;
- adopting systems for detecting plagiarism (e.g. software, searching for similar titles) in submitted items (either routinely or when suspicions are raised);
- supporting authors whose copyright has been breached or who have been the victims of plagiarism;
- being prepared to work with their publisher to defend authors’ rights and pursue offenders (e.g. by requesting retractions or removal of material from websites), irrespective of whether their journal holds the copyright.
RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF HUMAN SUBJECTS IN RESEARCH
Related to ethical compliance in research on human subjects, LUMEN Publishing House and its publications adheres also to the statements included within the WMA Helsinki Declaration 2013; statements which refer to Research Registration and Publication and Dissemination of Results.
“Authors, editors and publishers all have ethical obligations with regard to the publication of the results of research. Authors have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research on human subjects and are accountable for the completeness and accuracy of their reports. They should adhere to accepted guidelines for ethical reporting. Negative and inconclusive as well as positive results should be published or otherwise made publicly available. Sources of funding, institutional affiliations and conflicts of interest should be declared in the publication. Reports of research not in accordance with the principles of this Declaration should not be accepted for publication.” WMA Declaration of Helsinki, 2013, Paragraph 36
In addition, LUMEN Publishing can request the author to provide a copy of the ethical approval from the REC of the institution in which the research was conducted, in order to be assured of the informed consent of the research participant, the right to withdraw from the research and the confidentiality of data on subjects enrolled in the research)
THE IDENTIFICATION OF, AND DEALING WITH ALLEGATIONS OF, RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) defines research misconduct as: “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results”, while Council of Science Editors defines “research misconduct” as ”applying to any action that involves mistreatment of research subjects or purposeful manipulation of the scientific record such that it no longer reflects observed truth.”
Respecting COPE statements, LUMEN Publishing has the duty to act if misconduct is suspected or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to us. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers. We comply to the following:
- “Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases.
- Editors should follow the COPE flowcharts where applicable.
- Editors should first seek a response from those suspected of misconduct. If they are not satisfied with the response, they should ask the relevant employers, or institution, or some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body or national research integrity organization) to investigate.
- Editors should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation into alleged misconduct is conducted; if this does not happen, editors should make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem. This is an onerous but important duty.”
THE IDENTIFICATION OF, AND DEALING WITH, THE MANIPULATION OF CITATIONS
The practice of manipulating citations is often seen as a form of coercion, coming from the editors, publishers or editorial board members who put pressure on the authors, binding them to add citations from the journal, with the purpose of increasing citation rates and the journal’s impact. Also, authors are known to self-cite their previous work and excessive citation may fall under citation manipulation (Publication Integrity & Ethics (PIE).
LUMEN Publishing ensures, through the process of peer review and its reviewers (both editorial and technical review), the quality of the citations used within a scientific manuscript. Reviewers are encouraged to verify the correlation between the sources used in the text and those mentioned within the bibliography chapter. Also, in the case of the identification or suspicion of citation manipulation, the reviewers have the duty to ask for supplementary explanations of the utility of the sources in the text, as in the case of identifying sources that are not necessary, in connection with the topic approached by the author.
TO AVOID CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
LUMEN Publishing House requires that sources of financial support for the work reported within the manuscript are fully acknowledged, and any potential conflicts of interest noted.
LUMEN Publishing House requires a statement about authors’ conflicts of interest for all manuscripts submitted to the journal. Authors are kindly asked to disclose any possible conflict of interest at the end of the manuscript. Any reported conflicts of interest will be published in a highlighted zone as part of the article. If no conflicts of interest are reported, the statement “No conflicts of interest have been declared.” will be included.
Possible conflicts of interest include financial interests relating to issues discussed in the manuscript; for example, patent ownership, stock ownership, consultancies, speakers’ fees.
Manuscript submission by author affiliated at same institution as one of the editors
A manuscript submitted by an author who is affiliated to the same institution as one of the editors will be taken in charge by one of the other editors who is not at that institution. The other editor will select reviewers and make all the decisions on the manuscript.
Manuscript submission by family member of editor or by author whose relationship with editor might create the perception of bias
This type of situation will be also handled by another editor. The other editor will select reviewers and make all decisions on the manuscript. If in doubt, the editors will consult with one another, or will appeal to a third party, as an advocate.
Manuscript submission by an editor
A manuscript submitted by an editor will be processed by one of the other editors who is not affiliated to the same institution as the submitting editor. The other editor will select reviewers and make all the decisions on the manuscript. The peer review process will be handled in such a way that the author does not have access to information or correspondence relating to the submission that is not meant for authors.
Potential conflict of interest for reviewers
Prior to a manuscript being assigned to a reviewer, the reviewer will receive an invitation letter that includes the following paragraph: “If you know or think you know the identity of the author, and if you feel there is any potential conflict of interest in your reviewing this manuscript because of your relationship with the author (e.g. in terms of close friendship or conflict/rivalry) or for any other reason, please DECLARE IT. By accepting this invitation, it is assumed there is no potential conflict of interest.”
WITHDRAWAL FROM DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLICATIONS
After the appearance of a publication for as long as it is in distribution, it can be withdrawn from broadcast at the request of Lumen Publishing ethics’ committee for the following reasons:
- Plagiarism and copyright infringement;
- Breaches of confidentiality in published research;
- Exposure of persons or institutions to libelous and defamatory statements or at the request of the author.
SCREENING FOR PLAGIARISM POLICY
LUMEN Publishing adheres to the international policies against plagiarism. LUMEN Publishing is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc, since 2015 and uses CrossCheck platform for plagiarism detection, including Turnitin.
Before submitting articles to reviewers, those are first checked for plagiarism, by a member of the editorial team.
Plagiarism is the exposing of another person’s thoughts or words as though they were your own, without permission, credit, or acknowledgment, or because of failing to cite the sources properly. Plagiarism can take diverse forms, from literal copying to paraphrasing the work of another. In order to properly judge whether an author has plagiarized, we emphasize the following possible situations:
- An author can literally copy another author’s work- by copying word by word, in whole or in part, without permission, acknowledge or citing the original source. This practice can be identified through comparing the original source and the manuscript/work who is suspected of plagiarism.
- Substantial copying implies for an author to reproduce a substantial part of another author, without permission, acknowledge or citation. The substantial term can be understood both in terms of quality as quantity, being often used in the context of Intellectual property. Quality refers to the relative value of the copied text in proportion to the work as a whole.
- Paraphrasing involves taking ideas, words or phrases from a source and crafting them into new sentences within the writing. This practice becomes unethical when the author does not properly cite or does not acknowledge the original work/author. This form of plagiarism is the more difficult form to be identified.
POLICY FOR AUTHORSHIP
LUMEN Publishing House adheres to the definitions accepted by Washington University, regarding the authorship on scientific and scholarly publications.
According to WU, „Scientific and scholarly publications, defined as articles, abstracts, presentations at professional meetings and grant applications, provide the main vehicle to disseminate findings, thoughts, and analysis to the scientific, academic, and lay communities.(…) For the authors of such work, successful publication improves opportunities for academic funding and promotion while enhancing scientific and scholarly achievement and repute. (…) „
According to WU, authorship can be defined as the individual (s) who has/have made substantial intellectual contributions to a scientific investigation. All authors should meet the following three criteria (all the persons that meet these criteria should be mentioned as author):
- Scholarship: Contribute significantly to the conception, design, execution, and/or analysis and interpretation of data.
- Authorship: Participate in drafting, reviewing, and/or revising the manuscript for intellectual content.
- Approval: Approve the manuscript to be published.
An administrative relationship, acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of a research group alone does not constitute authorship.
Lead Author (First Author)
In the case of publications with multiple authors, one author should assume the role of lead author. Even in different publications, the lead author is different to the first author; in all LUMEN Publishing Journals, the lead author is considered to be the first author and corresponding author. We admit exceptions, based on an all authors’ request, for the corresponding author to be mentioned as being different to the lead author, with special mention, and is placed as the last author. Authors should decide to be equally responsible for the paper; in this case, they are mentioned in alphabetical order, with the acknowledgement that all authors have an equal contribution to the article.
Co-authors – “All co-authors of a publication are responsible for:
- Authorship: By providing consent to authorship to the lead author, co-authors acknowledge that they meet the authorship criteria set above. A co-author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.
- Approval: By providing consent to authorship to the lead author, co-authors are acknowledging that they have reviewed and approved the manuscript.
- Integrity: Each co-author is responsible for the content of all appropriate portions of the manuscript, including the integrity of any applicable research.
- An individual retains the right to refuse co-authorship of a manuscript if s/he does not satisfy the criteria for authorship.”
Following the payment of the publication fee only after acceptance confirmation from LUMEN (as it is or as a result of revision applied after peer-review), the claimed back the publication fee is not accepted, except in case LUMEN is responsible the failure to publish the article.
Statements of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, content similarity with other texts of the author’s own texts or other authors – including coauthors – greater than 10%, will be excluded from publishing without the reimbursement of the payments already made.
If there are disputes between the organizer (LUMEN) and author/authors, the LUMEN Ethics Committee will propose a solution, made known to the author/authors and possibly other persons directly concerned. If this is not accepted by one party, it will seek the opinion of the Ethics Committee of the institution of affiliation of the author/authors involved. If even after this surgery does not clarify the situation will be signaled mediation, calling the services of an authorized mediator.
By registering in LUMEN conferences, I declare that I read, understood and accepted those rules, which I undertake to respect.