<https://lumenpublishing.com/publication-policies/#BlogPosting>
<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"PEER REVIEW PROCESS  I. 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 analysed 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 Scientific Publishing House , whose scientific activity and expertise corresponds most with the proposed manuscript.  I.2. SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION  After texts are analysed 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 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 Scientific 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:  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 Scientific 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 programmes that request 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 analysed 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.  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.    LUMEN Scientific 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 Scientific 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:   \tThe avoidance of the risk of plagiarism and respect for intellectual property;  \tRespect for the rights of human subjects in research;  \tThe identification of and dealing with allegations of research misconduct;  \tThe identification of and dealing with manipulations of citations;  \tThe disclosure of any conflicts of interest;  \tWithdrawal 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:   \tAn 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.  \tSubstantial 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.  \tParaphrasinginvolves 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 Scientific Publishing House :   \trequesting of author copies of the reprinting rights for illustrations, graphs, tables etc. subject to copyright;  \tadopting systems for detecting plagiarism (e.g. software, searching for similar titles) in submitted items (either routinely or when suspicions are raised);  \tsupporting authors whose copyright has been breached or who have been the victims of plagiarism;  \tbeing 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 Scientific 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:   \t“Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases.  \tEditors should follow the COPE flowcharts where applicable.  \tEditors 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.  \tEditors 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 &amp; 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 Scientific 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 Scientific 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.  FOR AUTHORS:  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.  FOR EDITORS:  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.  FOR REVIEWERS:  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:   \tPlagiarism and copyright infringement;  \tBreaches of confidentiality in published research;  \tExposure 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:   \tAn author can literally copyanother 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.  \tSubstantial 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.  \tParaphrasinginvolves 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 Scientific 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):   \tScholarship: Contribute significantly to the conception, design, execution, and/or analysis and interpretation of data.  \tAuthorship: Participate in drafting, reviewing, and/or revising the manuscript for intellectual content.  \tApproval: 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:   \tAuthorship: 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.  \tApproval: By providing consent to authorship to the lead author, co-authors are acknowledging that they have reviewed and approved the manuscript.  \tIntegrity: Each co-author is responsible for the content of all appropriate portions of the manuscript, including the integrity of any applicable research.  \tAn individual retains the right to refuse co-authorship of a manuscript if s/he does not satisfy the criteria for authorship.”  FEES |  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."
<https://lumenpublishing.com/publication-policies/>