REC Ethics Casuistry |
Research and Publication Ethics CASES |
August 11, 2020
After the email we received from the first author of an article on July 09, 2020 regarding the change in authorship, the Committee for Ethical Publication of Lumen Publishing House opened an ethical case regarding that article for suspicions of ghost authorship. The case was opened due to the fact that it is sustained that the registration of two authors who have been eliminated after the peer review process was complete and the article accepted for publication was a mistake, but the editorial board of the journal was told about this mistake only after the article received the final publication acceptance and the peer review process was completed. Introducing two new authors, as the first author requested, to replace the two authors who were excluded, is also not entirely substantiated, considering that the motive for this introduction was that thez participated in the review of the article after peer review, but the reviewer only asked for minor changes to be made, which mainly ment two minor translation clarifications, which do not justify adding two new authors during the peer review process, as it was brought to the attention of the editors. Secondly, for the two new authors who were introduced, there is a suspicion of plagiarism for the contribution of the two authors who are eliminated, pending a credible explanation from the authors.
All 8 authors have been asked to give their own explaination regarding this change in authorship and the fact that the first author claims it was a mistake. The case is currentlz under review by the LUMEN Ethics Committee.
We mention that the Postmodern Openings Journal is a COPE member and adheres to the ethical principles of this organization https://publicationethics.org/
The Ethics Committee of LUMEN Publishing House
June 22, 2020
A possibile infringement of publication ethics regarding false authorship was addressed by the Ethics Committee of Lumen Publishing House. After an article was accepted for publication, the authors asked the publisher to exclude an author from the authorship.
Authors were contacted by the editors and asked to explain why the exclusion was necessary. The first author and the author that was to be excluded explained that the excluded author took a minimal part in writing the article (consultation and text editing) and refused to take part in reviewing the article in the peer review stage. The excluded author and the main author provided written explainations and written consent for the exclusion, therefore the case was closed.
We mention that the Postmodern Openings Journal is a COPE member and adheres to the ethical principles of this organization https://publicationethics.org/
The Ethics Committee of LUMEN Publishing House
May 14, 2020
A possibile infringement of publication ethics regarding multiple publication was addressed by the Ethics Committee of Lumen Publishing House. An article was submitted for publication. In the header of the article, the name of a different scientific journal was mentioned.
The author was contacted by the editors of the journal and asked wether the article was submitted to a different journal or published elswhere before submitting it to Postmodern Openings, considering that according to the the submission checklist of the journal, the author declared that the article hasn\t been submitted elswhere or published by another journal. After repeated attempts to contact the author, the author did not reply to these attempts and did not provide any explainations, therefore the article was declined from publication.
We mention that the Postmodern Openings Journal is a COPE member and adheres to the ethical principles of this organization https://publicationethics.org/
The Ethics Committee of LUMEN Publishing House
May 04, 2020
A possibile infringement of publication ethics regarding duplicate content was addressed by the Ethics Committee of Lumen Publishing House. Two articles were submitted for review in two different journals published by Lumen, one of these journals being Postmodern Openings. The authorship was the same, the tiles of the articles were different, but the content of the two articles was mostly similar.
Authors were contacted by the editors of both journals and were asked to provide explainations regarding a possibile ethics infringement (duplicate content). The autors were given ample time to answer, but in a period of two months, none of the authors provided any explaination, therefore both articles were rejected from publication by both journals.
We mention that the Postmodern Openings Journal is a COPE member and adheres to the ethical principles of this organization https://publicationethics.org/
The Ethics Committee of LUMEN Publishing House
September 25th, 2018
To the attention of the ethics committee of LUMEN Publishing House, a complaint was made regarding a possible falsification of citations. The Ethics Committee takes this accusation very seriously and will investigate it in depth.
In essence, the author of the complaint states that some cited works have been quoted in articles published in the journal Postmodern Openings, in works that appear to have nothing to do with the themes of the cited articles. Falsifying citations is a serious charge and we will investigate it properly, starting the investigations on the presumption of innocence.
LUMEN Publishing House considers that the authors are in good faith and this presumption can only be overturned by solid evidence. Both parties were asked to clarify their position on the complaint. At the time the complaint will be resolved, we will make the results known on the Journal's website.
We mention that the Postmodern Openings Journal is a COPE member and adheres to the ethical principles of this organization https://publicationethics.org/
The Ethics Committee of LUMEN Publishing House
RESULTS (October 4th, 2018):
On the case opened on September 25th 2018, The Ethics Committee of LUMEN Publishing House has reached the following decision: we consider the case closed, the allegation being unsustained.
The case can be re-opened at any given time, upon request from any of the parts involved.
No further actions will be taken at this time.
