Publication Ethics

Commitment to COPE

Lessons Learned has committed to COPE's Guidelines and aims to adhere to COPE's Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

Editorial decisions are solely based on scholarly merit and are not affected by the origins of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the authors.

Complaints and appeals

Lessons Learned follows the COPE flowcharts for any complaints and appeals. For complaints and appeals, please contact the managing editor: stefan.odenbach@tu-dresden.de. If you have any complaints about the editorial team, please contact the Diamond OA-team at PUBLIA – SLUB Open Publishing (diamondoa@slub-dresden.de).

Lessons Learned only considers complaints that are based on objective criteria. Please first contact the corresponding author and attempt to resolve the issue directly. If that proves unsuccessful, submit your complaint to Lessons Learned. Only complaints made directly to Lessons Learned will be considered.

Complaint Process

To submit a complaint, please follow these steps:

Address an email to Lessons Learned's managing editor, with a detailed letter explaining the complaint.
The letter should include the following information:
1. The article, including title, authors and DOI.
2. A clear explanation of the complaint, including its academic or scientific validity, ethical or legal background and any adverse consequences anticipated.
3. Details of any previous contact with the author or authors of the article.
4. A statement declaring whether the complainant has any conflicts of interest, and if so, a description of those conflicts.
if you wish, you can include information about yourself (title, current affiliation and position, other proof of expertise)
Please also provide an annotated PDF of the article, with the passages of concern clearly marked and the reasons for those concerns.

Only complaints about scientific/academic validity, ethics, or legal aspects of a work or its review will be considered. Complaints with personal criticisms, inappropriate or derogative language, or under false or misleading identity will not be considered.

Complaints are sent to the managing editor, who decide if further investigation is needed. If so the authors are informed of the complaint and an Expression of Concern may be published. For legal or ethical concerns, Lessons Learned will seek advice from legal counsel or follows COPE guidelines.

Outcomes

If the complaint is upheld, the investigation may result in:

No further action (if complaint is deemed unsubstantiated)
Publication of a corrigendum (if errors are found), if authors do not comply, editors may correct or retract the publication
Addressing author bias. This may be handled through e.g. retraction or an invited commentary, whereby handling editor and reviewers are not associated with the original publication
An Expression of Concern until a final decision is reached. This may include contacting institutions concerned
Retraction (if necessary). Lessons Learned follows COPE guidelines for retraction and will publish a retraction notice

Investigation and Communication

Investigations may take time, and Lessons Learned is not obligated to provide updates until a decision is reached. Lessons Learned reserves the right to cease communication with complainants who are not cordial.

Appeals

Authors who have had a submission rejected can submit a formal appeal in writing to Lessons Learned. To initiate the appeal process, authors must email stefan.odenbac@tu-dresden.de with the word "appeal" in the subject line. The appeal should include a detailed explanation of the reasons for the appeal and a point-by-point response to the reviewers' and/or Academic Editor's comments. Please note that decisions on appeals are final and binding and the appeal process may take longer than the original submission process due to the journal's priority on new submissions.

Allegations and handling of research misconduct

There are two separate situations to consider: intentional scientific misconduct (such as fabricating data, data manipulating or plagiarism) and honest mistakes. Mistakes can occur due to carelessness or oversights, and are not considered a form of misconduct. In cases where misconduct is suspected or confirmed, Lessons Learned will adhere to the COPE flowcharts. If it is determined that misconduct has occurred, we will take steps to correct the scientific record.

Please find further information on post-publication corrections in the appropriate section.

If you wish to report suspected misconduct of research, publication and / or review, please contact the managing editor: stefan.odenbach@tu-dresden.de

If you wish to report suspected misconduct of the editorial board, please contact the Diamond OA-team of SLUB Dresden: diamondoa@slub-dresden.de

Lessons Learned conducts thorough investigations into any concerns raised about its publications, regardless of when they were published or who raised the issue. If necessary, we take corrective action to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record, which may involve issuing a corrigendum, retraction, removal or expression of concern. We prioritize transparency in scientific communication, but also protect the confidentiality of individuals who report publication ethics or research integrity concerns. Any information or materials collected during ethics case discussions are treated as confidential, but we may share relevant details with others involved in the case, such as editors, reviewers, or authors' institutions, in accordance with COPE guidelines. We follow COPE flowcharts if institutions or other journals need to be contacted. We follow the COPE flowcharts with regard to responses to whistleblowers.

Individuals who raise concerns to Lessons Learned, inquire about issues, or are involved in publication ethics cases are expected to adhere to the Standards for Professional Conduct.

Additionally to the above the publisher PUBLIA – SLUB Open Publishing reserves the right to retract any publication that is found to contain unethical research. It is the publisher’s priority to uphold the integrity of scholarly publishing and to protect the academic community. PUBLIA – SLUB Open Publishing follows COPE guidelines.

Conflicts of interest / Competing interests

A conflict of interest can be anything potentially impacting, or that could be perceived as impacting, the work's neutrality or the objectivity of its assessment. This includes the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to a journal.

All authors, reviewers, and members of Lessons Learned's editorial board are obligated to disclose any existing or potential conflicts of interest when submitting a manuscript or when taking on an editorial or review role. A conflict of interest statement should be included by the authors in the final publication version of the article.

If authors fail to disclose valid competing interests, their manuscript may be rejected from publication. If an undisclosed competing interest is discovered after publication, our journal will respond appropriately in accordance with the guidelines established by COPE. This may include a public notification to the community.

The presence of competing interests does not automatically disqualify research from publication or prevent individuals from participating in the editorial or review process. Nevertheless, all competing interests must be declared. Providing a clear and detailed explanation of potential issues, regardless of whether they have had an impact or not, enables informed assessments of the research and its peer review.

What should be disclosed?

Authors

Authors need to disclose any potential conflict of interest during the submission process. If authors are unsure about disclosing potential conflicts of interest or have failed to do so during the submission process, they can reach out to Lessons Learned's managing editor at Stefan.odenbach@tu-dresden.de and provide the necessary details as soon as possible.

Potential conflicts of interest for authors are:

You or your institution have received a form of financial compensation or benefits from a third party in relation to the submitted research at any point, including during the planning, execution, or writing of the work.

You have or had financial connections with entities that could be seen to potentially influence the content or outcome of your research.

You have patents, copyrights, or related intellectual property rights, whether pending, granted, licensed, or generating royalties that are directly or indirectly related to the research presented in the manuscript.

You have other relationships or activities that could be viewed as potentially influencing or appearing to influence the content of the submitted work?

For commercial funding, it is essential to disclose the role of the funder. We suggest including one of the following statements:

This research was supported by [FUNDER NAME], who contributed to the study in the following way: [DESCRIPTION OF INVOLVEMENT].
This research was funded by [FUNDER NAME]. We confirm that the funder had no involvement in the study's design, methodology, data collection, data analysis, interpretation of results, manuscript preparation, or publication decision.

Funding disclosure: All information regarding funding sources and their impact on the study must be fully disclosed in the manuscript's funding section, which should include grant numbers if applicable.

Reviewers and editors

Lessons Learned's handling editors and reviewers will be required to evaluate the following potential conflicts of interest prior to accepting any editorial or review assignment:

Are there any personal relationships between the authors or between the reviewer and the handling editor, including friendships, family ties, relationships or other close personal connections?
Have you had any collaborations with any of the authors within the past five years, including mentorships, advising or student roles?
Are you affiliated with, employed by, or hold an advisory position with an organization that has an interest in the outcome of the research?
Are you currently a member of a committee, department, or organization that has a direct or indirect connection with any of the authors?
Are you currently engaged in academic competition with any of the authors or have you been in the past?
Are there any potential conflicts of interest related to intellectual property, including patents or trademarks owned by you, the authors, or your respective affiliations?
Do you have any financial interests (including funding, goods, or services received or expected) or business relations with organizations involved in this research or the preparation of the manuscript?
Do you have any financial interests or competing interests (including funding, goods, or services received or expected) or business relations that might influence your ability to conduct an objective review of the manuscript?
Are there any potential conflicts arising from differing ideologies, beliefs, or activism (e.g. political or religious) that could impact your ability to review the manuscript objectively?

Lessons Learned follows the COPE guidelines for Editorial board participation.

Editorial Actions and Decisions

Lessons Learned's editors must consider any potential conflicts of interest while reviewing submissions and ensure that any relevant ones are disclosed in the published article.

If Lessons Learned's editors become aware of any competing interest that could in their judgement potentially introduce bias or give rise to a perception of bias, they will refrain from publishing commissioned or non-research articles.

Furthermore, Lessons Learned's editors exclude reviewers from the review process if they deem their competing interests could compromise their objectivity.

For more information, see Code of Conduct for Editorial Board Members.

Intellectual property & Research integrity

Plagiarism involves the use of someone else's ideas, including small parts, without giving proper credit. To ensure originality and integrity, Lessons Learned uses Crossref Similarity Check, powered by iThenticate, to screen a randomised selection of submitted manuscripts for textual overlap. Any manuscripts found to contain plagiarism are not considered for publication. Should plagiarism be discovered following the publication of an article, Lessons Learned will take appropriate action, which may involve publishing a correction or retracting the paper. For further guidance on plagiarism and exceptions, see below.

We retain the right to contact the authors' affiliated institutions if authors fail to adhere to good research and publication practices.

Plagiarism and duplication

Submitted manuscripts to Lessons Learned undergo rigorous checks for plagiarism and duplication, and only unique and original content is published. All submissions only contain content that has not been published previously. Lessons Learned follows the COPE guidelines and expects that to maintain academic integrity, direct quotes from other sources must be clearly identified using quotation marks and accompanied by accurate citations. This condition also applies to an author's own previously published work.

Lessons Learned will not consider manuscripts for publication that have already been published, are currently under review in a scientific journal, book, or other similar medium.

Redundant publication (or 'salami' publications)

Lessons Learned views the submission or publication of multiple articles based on the same research as unethical and will follow COPE Guidelines in such cases.

Lessons Learned views it unethical to submit or publish significantly similar articles built on the same research.

When submitting a manuscript, authors are required to disclose whether they have any related works currently under consideration or previously published. If any related materials exist, authors must provide a copy to accompany their submission and detail its connection to their work. During the review process, editors and reviewers will assess any related content, report any overlaps or similarities to the journal, and flag any duplicate submissions or publications if found.

If related content is found to have significant similarities or if duplicate submissions are discovered, the manuscript will be rejected. If duplicate content is identified after publication, Lessons Learned will take corrective measures according to the extent of overlap. The journal may publish a correction or retract the article as necessary.

Fabrication and falsification

Lessons Learned considers both the intentional creation (fabrication) of false data or images and the deliberate misrepresentation or manipulation (falsification) of data as scientific misconduct. In cases where concerns arise, we ask the authors to provide the original data. If the data is unavailable or not given in a timely manner, Lessons Learned may take editorial action based on the information we have at our disposal.

Paper mills

Lessons Learned does not accept manuscripts that are written on behalf of authors by commercial entities, commonly referred to as 'paper mills' or 'fake-paper factories.' We will proactively reject such manuscripts before the peer review process, as they do not meet our publication policies.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools

Consistent with the COPE position statement on Authorship and AI tools, Lessons Learned adheres to the principle that AI tools, such as language generators like ChatGPT, cannot be listed as authors of a paper. These tools lack the capacity to accept accountability for the published work, making it impossible for them to comply with authorship requirements, such as declaring competing interests or agreeing to the license agreement.

Post-publication discussions and corrections

Post-publication discussions

Lessons Learned allows post-publication discussion through letters to the editor / a commentary and follows COPE flowcharts in handling these. If they are found to be constructive and useful to the community, they will be peer-reviewed and revised. The original authors are asked for a response or reply, which again will be peer reviewed and revised and, if accepted, both will be published and indexed in bibliographic databases.

Corrections

In certain instances, corrections may be necessary to maintain the integrity of published scientific research. Lessons Learned recognizes the following methods to correct the scientific record:

Corrigendum: Minor technical errors can be corrected with the new version of the same article without notification. Otherwise a corrigendum will be issued when a minor error is found in an otherwise reliable publication, typically due to an honest mistake. This type of correction may also be used when the author list is incorrect.

Retraction: Lessons Learned adheres to the retraction guidelines set by COPE. When issuing a retraction, Lessons Learned will provide a detailed note explaining the reasons for the removal.

Removal: Manuscripts can be withdrawn before publication. However, once published, articles cannot be "unpublished." In exceptional cases, such as legal action, Lessons Learned may remove the full text and add a statement on the article's landing page.

Expression of Concern: In cases where editors have well-founded concerns that potentially misleading information may be contained in an article, they may consider issuing an Expression of Concern. However, this should only be done after conducting an inquiry that failed to resolve the issues and when clear indications suggest that the concerns are legitimate. It's essential to note that an Expression of Concern can harm a researcher's reputation just as a retraction can, and in most cases, it's recommended to publish a retraction only after an independent investigation reaches a definitive conclusion.

If you suspect a Lessons Learned article or submission contains errors, unethical research, or other issues related to its integrity, please contact Lessons Learned's managing editor directly through email Stefan.odenbach@tu-dresden.de and cc the SLUB Diamond OA-team (diamondoa@slub-dresden.de). To bring concerns to our attention, please provide the article's citation, DOI, and a clear explanation of the issue, along with any potential conflicts of interest you may have with the authors, funders, or sponsors. Lessons Learned will investigate concerns raised about our submissions or publications, independent of the study's age and source.

If necessary, Lessons Learned will issue a corrigendum, expression of concern, or retraction to clarify the scientific record. In cases where follow-up may be delayed or prolonged, Lessons Learned may post a temporary notice on the article to inform readers about the issues raised.

Confidentiality and transparency

While Lessons Learned values transparency, Lessons Learned also respects the confidentiality of individuals who raise concerns about publication ethics or research integrity. We will consider information and materials shared during ethics case discussions confidential, but may share relevant details with those involved in the case, such as editors, reviewers, or affected institutions, in accordance with COPE guidelines.

Those who raise concerns about Lessons Learned publications, who participate in publication ethics cases involving Lessons Learned or inquire about concerns raised to Lessons Learned must adhere to our Standards for Professional Conduct policy.

Name change policy

We understand that authors may change their name for various reasons, such as gender transition, marriage, divorce, or a change in religion. To accommodate these changes, we support authors who wish to update their previously published works. We will, upon request, update the author's name in the article and corresponding metadata, and republish the document. This can be done either silently (i.e. without a correction notice and information to co-authors) or with public notification, depending on the author's preference. Additionally, we will re-submit the updated metadata (and/or full text) to abstracting and indexing services. However, please note that we cannot influence whether third parties will implement these changes, and we also cannot update in-text citations and references.

If you have changed your name, please provide official documentation to verify the change. Acceptable documents include:

A marriage certificate or certified extract from the marriage register
A divorce decree (with confirmation of name change, if applicable)
An official certificate of name change issued by a German civil registry office (Standesamt)

A digital copy of the relevant document is sufficient; you do not need to submit the original. The document must clearly show both your previous and current name. If necessary, a translation may be requested.

For queries, correction requests and other information, please contact the managing editor (Stefan.odenbach@tu-dresden.de).

Standards for Professional Conduct

Lessons Learned promotes transparent scientific communications and ethical behaviour. We ask that all interactions with Lessons Learned employees, editors, and authors be polite, respectful, and in line with high professional standards.

The Standards for Professional Conduct outline Lessons Learned's expectations for communications, including those via emails, calls, comments, or social media, towards Lessons Learned staff and/or contributors.

Lessons Learned does not tolerate any form of harassment, including derogatory, offensive, or threatening language and behaviour. Lessons Learned does not tolerate frequent inquiries contesting editorial decisions, persistent resubmissions or complaints after an appeal denial, or excessive inquiries about issues being investigated.

In cases where these standards are not met, Lessons Learned may take actions such as providing feedback, stopping engagement, altering a submission's editor or reviewers, declining a manuscript, modifying an individual's editorial board status, involving their institution/employer, or discussing the issue with COPE representatives.

If you encounter non-compliant interactions or communications in relation to your Lessons Learned's work, please contact the managing editor.

Code of Conduct for Editorial Board Members

Lessons Learned's Editorial Board members follow Lessons Learned’s policies on research integrity and publication ethics, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines, and Lessons Learned's journal policies.

As Editorial Board member with Lessons Learned, you commit to the following:

Maintaining the Highest Standards of Research Ethics and Integrity

As a member of the Editorial Board of Lessons Learned, it is essential to uphold the highest standards of research ethics and integrity. This includes:

Adhering to the principles of the scientific community and modelling them in your work
Notifying the journal if any of your work is under investigation at an institution or journal
Avoiding conflicts of interest and recusing yourself from manuscripts where necessary

Selfless Editing and Peer Review

As an Editorial Board member, it is crucial to facilitate a fair and unbiased review process. This includes:

Avoiding self-interest and advancing your own work
Not using knowledge of competing work to influence your editorial judgment or timing
Not requesting or alluding to the citation of your own, your co-workers’ or the reviewers' work during peer review
Alerting the managing editor of excessive or irrelevant citations request by reviewers of their own or your work
Recusing yourself from manuscripts where you have a conflict of interest (see Competing Interests).

Ethical Peer Review and Confidentiality

Be aware of the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and alert the journal to potentially unethical peer review practices
Maintain confidentiality and not discuss research with outside parties before publication
Alert the journal to potential breaches of confidentiality

Editorial Judgment and Quality

Support high-quality and timely peer review
Dedicate time to active manuscript editing
Respond to invitations, reminders, and staff queries
Notify the managing editor of changes in your availability
Inform the other editors when you will be unavailable
Use best practices when making editorial decisions and selecting or suggesting reviewers

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Be aware of your own bias and how it might affect your work
Be inclusive and encourage others to be as well
Evaluate manuscripts based on their content only. References to affiliation, nationality, religious, political and other positionings as well as gender, age etc. should not influence your evaluation of the manuscript.
Take action to prevent bias toward any individual, group, or region

Values in Action

Treat all individuals with kindness and respect
Report any instances of potential discrimination or harassment
Be mindful of how your editorial actions impact the careers and lives of authors and reviewers

Affiliation

Declare all institutional and commercial affiliations when joining the Editorial Board
Notify the journal staff of any significant changes

Lessons Learned takes seriously any concerns regarding adherence to the Code of Conduct and will discuss potential issues with the editors involved. This may affect their eligibility for Editorial Board membership. If you have a concern, please email the managing editor.

Peer Review

Assessments made by reviewers and editors in their respective comments and decision letters must represent their own opinions and are their responsibility. This includes the submission's compliance with the Lessons Learned's guidelines and policies.

Reviewers must disclose any third-party support they have received including the provider's name. Unpublished submissions should not be shared with anyone other than those officially contributing to peer review. Reviewers must also reference all relevant sources in their comments. Those who participate in peer review are expected to comply with Lessons Learned's policies and reviewer guidelines.

Authors, editors and reviewers are not allowed to interfere with others’ contributions to peer review. Editors and reviewers must not take advantage of the peer review process for personal gain.

All reviewers follow the COPE Guidelines: Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9

Editorial board members must not modify review content. Any concerns about reviewer or decision letter comments should be raised with the Lessons Learned's managing editor.

Reviewers should review only those manuscripts for which they have professional expertise.

Reviewers commit to assess the manuscript based on its content only. References to affiliation, nationality, religious, political and other positionings as well as gender, age etc. should not influence the evaluation of the manuscript. Critique can and should be presented in context of a clear, reasonable, and professional argumentation. Any form of discrediting and personal criticism is not acceptable.

In the case of conflicting expert recommendations, editors decide on the evaluation, obtain further expert opinions if necessary, and propose a solution with which they approach the authors.

Authors may have to make several changes to their manuscript. In doing so, they enter into a dialog with the editorial team and explain how they deal with expert recommendations. They have the scientific freedom to implement the recommendations of the reviewers according to their own assessments.

Once the review process is complete, editors make the decision to accept or reject a manuscript.

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools in peer review

Peer review feedback and decision letters need to accurately reflect the opinions and assessments of the reviewers and editors. AI tools cannot replace human reviewers or editors and cannot serve as reviewers or editors.

If AI tools are used in the peer review process, including for data analysis or language editing, their usage must be disclosed to the authors in the review or decision letter.

Unpublished submissions must be kept strictly confidential, meaning they must not be processed by any third-party. This includes AI-Services which are provided by any third-party. Further, their contents must not be used to train AI, neither locally hosted nor on other systems.

Peer Review process in detail

All submissions undergo an initial review by the Editor-in-Chief to assess their formal suitability for publication, which may include a plagiarism check.

If the manuscript demonstrates sufficient originality and content relevance, it proceeds to a single-anonymized peer review process. Two or more external reviewers are invited to evaluate the manuscript's scientific quality.

The editorial team is mindful of the diverse knowledge cultures within digital and hybrid teaching and takes this into account when selecting reviewers. This approach is intended to prevent the privileging of particular schools of thought or methodologies, thereby ensuring a balanced representation of the field’s varied perspectives.

Reviewers are asked to disclose any potential conflicts of interest transparently, in line with the journal's ethical guidelines. The full text of the reviews is made available to the authors. With mutual consent, reviewers may also receive each other’s reports.

A publication decision is made after a sufficient number of expert reviews have been received. If the assessments diverge significantly, additional reviewers may be consulted, or the Editor-in-Chief may make the final decision.

The average time from submission to publication is approximately 15 weeks.