Regulations on Research Ethics&Editorial Code of Ethics

Regulations on Research Ethics&Editorial Code of Ethics of the Korean Environmental Sciences Society
(Enacted November 20, 2008 / Revised March 15. 2024)

Regulations on Research Ethics

Article 1 (Title)

This regulation shall be referred to as the ‘Research Ethics Regulations of the Korean Environmental Science Society.’

Article 2 (Purpose)

The purpose of this regulation is for the Research Ethics Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee”) to deliberate on the research misconduct of the members of the Korean Environmental Science Society (hereinafter referred to as the “Society”).

Article 3 (Definition of Research Misconduct)

Research misconduct is considered to occur when the following happens in the process of research, academic presentation, or publication.

1. 1. Forgery: The act of falsely creating and publishing non-existent data, research results, etc.
2. 2. Tampering: The act of seriously distorting the content or results of research by artificially manipulating, altering, or deleting data or research results.
3. 3. Plagiarism: The act of stealing other people’s ideas, writings, research contents (process, results, records), etc., without proper authorization or citation.
4. 4. Duplicate submission and publication: Failure to notify the publishing journal of a new submission of one’s published paper to another journal or the submission or publication of one’s published paper without notifying the publishing journal of a new publication of one’s published paper.
5. 5. Reasonable allocation of authorship: Failure to grant authorship to a person who has made academic contributions or contributions to the research content or results without a legitimate reason or granting authorship to a person who has not made academic contributions or contributions for reasons such as gratitude or honor.
6. 6. Other acts that seriously harm research integrity.

Article 4 (Deliberation Procedures)

The committee shall deliberate on matters related to the research ethics of its members according to the following procedures:

1. ① Complaint of research ethics violation: If there is a complaint of research misconduct, the chairperson shall collect relevant data and check their credibility.
2. ② Convene the committee: If the credibility of the complaint is confirmed, the chairperson shall present it to the committee as an agenda item.
3. ③ Preliminary investigation
   1. 1. No more than three committee members, including the chairperson, shall conduct a preliminary investigation within 30 days to determine whether a research ethics violation has occurred.
   2. 2. If the preliminary investigation decides not to conduct the main investigation, the informant shall be notified in writing of the specific reasons within 10 days of the date of the decision.
4. ④ Main Investigation
   1. 1. If the committee determines that there is a violation of research ethics, it shall deliberate and decide through the main investigation within 60 days. For the purpose of investigation, the committee may receive advice from relevant departments within the Society, and if necessary, a special committee for investigation composed of experts inside and outside the Society may be formed.
   2. 2. The Committee shall give the respondent an opportunity to express opinions in accordance with the provisions of Article 7, Paragraph 1, and shall give the respondent an opportunity to object and defend before finalizing the results of the investigation. If the party does not respond, it shall be deemed that there is no objection.
5. ⑤ Establishment of the Committee and Voting: The Committee shall be established by a majority of the members present and shall vote by a simple majority of the members present.
6. ⑥ Notification to the Board of Directors: The Chairperson shall notify the Board of Directors of the committee’s deliberations.

Article 5 (Board of Directors’ Decision and Notification)

The Board of Directors shall decide on disciplinary action based on the committee’s deliberations and notify the individual, and may notify external organizations or the complainant if necessary.

Article 6 (Record and Publication)

The contents of the investigation must be recorded and stored, and the results must be publicized.

Article 7 (Disciplinary Measures)

1. ① Disciplinary measures may be taken against a person who violates the research ethics regulations in accordance with Article 28, Chapter 8 of the Articles of Incorporation of the Society, and the results may be submitted to the Board of Directors for disciplinary action.
2. ② Types of Discipline
   1. 1. Deletion from the list of journal articles
   2. 2. Prohibition of future paper submission (at least 3 years)
   3. 3. Notice on the homepage
   4. 4. Notify the Korea Research Foundation of the details of the case
   5. 5. Dismissal from office
   6. 6. Revocation of membership
   7. 7. Other disciplinary measures decided by the committee
3. ③ The committee shall manage records of research misconduct and continuously check the implementation of sanctions.

Article 8 (Appeals)

1. 1. A person determined to be guilty of research misconduct may appeal in writing within one month from the date of notification.
2. 2. The committee may deliberate on the validity of the appeal and reconsider the decision.

Article 9 (Identity Protection)

1. 1. The identity of the person who filed a research misconduct complaint shall not be disclosed to the outside world.
2. 2. The identity of the investigator shall not be disclosed to the outside world before the final judgment of research misconduct is made.

Article 10 (Research Ethics Education)

The Society shall provide online research ethics education to its members and conduct offline research ethics education at the annual general meeting.

Article 11 (Amendment of Regulations)

Amendments to these Regulations shall be made in accordance with the procedure for amending the Regulations of the Society.

Editorial Code of Ethics

Article 1 (Editorial Ethics)

1. 1. Editors shall treat articles submitted for publication in the journal fairly, regardless of the race, gender, age, institutional affiliation, religious beliefs, origin, etc., of the authors, and without any preconceived notions or personal relationships, solely based on the quality of the article and the rules for submission.
2. 2. Editors must not disclose information about the articles submitted to anyone other than the author, editor-in-chief, editorial board members, reviewers, or other persons involved in the editorial process.
3. 3. Unpublished material from a submitted article should not be used in the editor’s own research without the author’s consent. Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and should not be used for personal gain.
4. 4. Editors should refer the submitted articles to reviewers with expertise in the field and the ability to make impartial judgments. When requesting reviewers, they should try to avoid reviewers who are familiar with or hostile to the author to ensure an objective evaluation. However, reviewers affiliated with the same institution as the author shall be excluded from the review.
5. 5. If an incorrect conclusion is found after publication, the editor shall correct the error and make the possible corrections for publication. Errors may be corrected by the person who discovered them or by the author of the manuscript.
6. 6. The editor should consider the smooth progress of the review process so that the article can be published within a reasonable time frame.
7. 7. The authors may request the editor to review the manuscript to exclude certain reviewers. If the field of the manuscript does not match the review area of a particular reviewer, the author may request that the reviewer be excluded.
8. 8. Editors will perform plagiarism checks on submissions using KCI similarity checks.

Article 2 (Authorship Ethics)

1. 1. The Committee shall determine the authorship of a submitted article only if all four of the following items are met. The author ①Has made substantial contributions to the conception or organization of the research or has participated in the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data necessary for the research; ②Has written the article for important content or revised it critically; ③Has participated in the final approval of the version to be published; and ④Has taken responsibility for all aspects of the research process to ensure that the accuracy of all aspects of the research is properly investigated and resolved.
2. 2. Authors must clearly disclose any conflicts of interest (financial, personal, academic, etc.) when submitting an article. In addition, editorial board members and reviewers should clearly disclose any conflicts of interest with authors and be excluded from the review process.
3. 3. The scope of related parties is defined as minors (those under the age of 19) or family members (spouse, children, etc.); when submitting a paper involving related parties, the authors must clearly disclose the facts and submit relevant documents to prove them. In addition, if research misconduct by a related party coauthor is found, the suspicion will be strictly investigated and the related organization that benefited from the paper will be notified of the research misconduct.
4. 4. In principle, it is not possible to change the authorship of the original submission; however, in special cases, the editorial board may decide after discussion. (However, if the author submits explanatory materials only during the review process) Moreover, if the author requests, the article can be retracted and resubmitted only during the review process.
5. 5. Anyone who intends to conduct human subject research in accordance with the Act on Bioethics and Safety for Human Subjects Research must be reviewed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) before starting the research. The Editorial Board may require the submission of documentation to verify IRB approval or exemption from review, as necessary.
6. 6. Articles involving human subjects should be described correctly, distinguishing between sex and gender in the gender description; if both males and females are included in the study, the results should be analyzed under the same conditions and compared. If the research involves cells or animals, the source, authentication, and biological characteristics of the cell lines or animals should be described. The research should include both sexes equally and describe the results of sex differences. In addition, if humans, animals, or cells are studied as a single sex, a justification must be provided.
7. 7. Authors are required to submit a research ethics statement to confirm compliance with research ethics regulations.

Article 3 (Reviewer Ethics)

1. 1. Reviewers shall accurately and sincerely evaluate the submissions requested by the Editorial Board of the Society within the period stipulated by the review regulations and notify the Editorial Board of the evaluation results. If the content of the article to be reviewed differs from that of his/her major field, he/she shall immediately notify the editorial board.
2. 2. Reviewers should evaluate the submission fairly based on objective criteria. Reviewers should not judge an article as unacceptable for publication without revealing the objective basis or because it conflicts with the reviewer’s own viewpoint or interpretation, nor should they evaluate the article without reading it properly.
3. 3. In the review comments, the reviewer should specify the results of the evaluation of the paper, as well as the reasons for the parts that need to be improved. Use polite and gentle language whenever possible and do not demean or insult the author.
4. 4. Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the paper under review. It is not advisable to show the submitted paper to others or discuss its contents with others unless you are specifically seeking advice for evaluating the paper. You should not quote from the paper without the authors’ consent before it is published in the journal in which it appears.