Peer review process
Paper’s evaluation is performed to at least 1 specialized scientific referent.
- After the review process, the authors will receive a note with possible comments.
- The review process will be communicated to the corresponding author.
- The authors are obligated to make changes to the content of the works, according to the scientific reference requirements.
- The editorial board decides on the acceptance of the works for publication.
- The editor communicate decisions to the authors regarding the following:
- Accept in present form: the paper is accepted without any further changes.
- Accept after minor revisions: the paper is in principle accepted after revision based on the reviewer’s comments.
- Reconsider after major revisions: the acceptance of the manuscript would depend on the revisions. The author needs to provide a point by point response or provide a rebuttal if some of the reviewer’s comments cannot be revised. Authors will be asked to resubmit the revised paper.
- Reject and encourage resubmission: an article where additional experiments are needed to support the conclusions will be rejected and the authors will be encouraged to re-submit the paper once further experiments have been conducted.
- Reject: the article has serious flaws, makes no original contribution, and the paper is rejected with no offer of resubmission to the journal.
Ethical guidelines for journal publication
The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal LSSD is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the
quality of the authors' work and the institutions that support them. Consequently, It is important
to agree on the standards of ethical behavior expected of all parties involved in the act of publication: author, journal editor, reviewers etc.
ARDS Lovrin, as editor of the LSSD journal assumes guardianship duties at all stages of publication and acknowledge our ethical and and of another nature, we also make sure that advertising or other income does not in any way influence editorial decisions. The editorial board and ARDS Lovrin will support communication with other journals and publishers if necessary.
Data access and retention
Authors may be required to provide raw data in the reviewing process and should provide access to such data to the public where possible, it should also retain this data for a reasonable period of time after publication.
Originality and plagiarism
Authors should ensure that they wrote original papers in their entirety, and if authors used data from bibliographic sources, ensure that they were properly cited. Plagiarism takes many forms, from using another work as one's own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another work (without citation), until the results of research conducted by others are claimed. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
The members of the editorial board use an anti-plagiarism software system to check the articles received for publication, called Antiplagiat.ro, a system that is recognized and accepted by the Romanian Ministry of Education.
If an act of plagiarism is detected at any stage - before or after acceptance, an acceptance threshold is used:
- if plagiarism is less than the percentage acceptance threshold of the original submission - The authors are informed of the problem so that in order to avoid rejection of the article, they can either rewrite the parts found as copied or cite the original sources;
- if plagiarism is more than the percentage threshold of acceptance of the initial submission - The article is rejected and the author notified.
Multiple, redundant, or concurrent publishing
An author should not publish articles describing essentially the same research in multiple journals or publications. Submitting the same article to several journals constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. In general, an author should not submit a previously published paper for review in another journal.
Authorship of the work
This quality should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the design, composition, execution or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. If there are other persons who have participated in certain fundamental aspects of the research project, they should be recognised or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that no inadequate co-author is included in the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed with its presentation for publication.
Human or animal hazards and subjects
If the paper involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that pose hazards to their use, the author must clearly present them in the article. If the paper involves the use of animals or humans, the author should ensure that the article contains a statement that all procedures have been carried out in accordance with relevant laws and institutional regulations and that the competent institutions have approved them. The authors should include in the article a statement that the consent of human subjects for the experiments has been obtained. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be respected.
Conflicts of interest
All authors should disclose in their article any financial or other material conflict of interest that could be interpreted to influence the results. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed as soon as possible.
Unpublished material presented in a registered article should not be used in a publisher's own research without the written consent of the author of that article. Information or ideas obtained through peer review shall remain confidential and shall not be used for personal purposes.
Editors should withdraw from reviewing an article where there are conflicts of interest.
Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or mistake in his own published work, authors have the obligation to promptly notify the journal editor and cooperate with him to withdraw or correct the work. If the publisher learns from a third party that a published paper contains a significant error, it is the author's obligation to withdraw or promptly correct the work or to provide the publisher with evidence of the correctness of the original work.
LSSD's team of editors decides which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance for researchers and readers must always lead to such decisions. The Editor may be guided by the editorial policies of the journal and constrained by the legal requirements in force regarding slander, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor can discuss with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
An editor should rate articles for their content without taking into account the race, gender, sexual orientation, belief, ethnicity, citizenship, or political orientation of the authors.
The editor and editorial staff are prohibited from divulging any information about an article except to the author, reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as necessary.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations
A publisher should take reasonable action when ethical complaints have been submitted about a registered article or published work. Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the paper and taking due consideration of the respective complaint or allegations made, but may also include additional communications to relevant research institutions and bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, publication of a correction, withdrawal, or other note, where applicable.
Every reported act of unethical journalistic behavior must be analyzed, even if it is discovered years after publication.
Duties of reviewers
Any selected reviewer who considers that he is not qualified to review the research reported in an article or knows that it will be impossible to carry out the review, should notify the publisher and withdraw from the reviewing process.
Any articles received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be presented or discussed with persons other than those in accordance with the authorization of the publisher.
Revisions should be carried out objectively. The author's personal criticism is inappropriate.
Reviewers should clearly express their views with arguments.
The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.
Papers published in the LSSD journal are published in accordance with the Free Access Policy and are distributed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0):