|Ethics||HOME > Instruction for Authors > Ethics|
Academic Activities and Publication Ethics Regulations
Established on November 22, 2013
Revised on November 17, 2017
Revised on March 16, 2018
Revised on March 10, 2020
1. These regulations shall apply to all academic activities, such as academic journals published by this society, academic conferences, symposiums, workshops, and forums.
2. These regulations shall apply to all authors, examiners, editors, and secretariat practitioners involved in the above academic activities.
3. The scope not specified above may be applied mutatis mutandis with the provisions of this Article and the regulations of each department of the Ministry of Education and its affiliated organizations.
1. 'Forgery' refers to the act of providing false data or research results that do not exist.
2. 'Falsification' refers to the act of distorting research content or results by artificially manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or arbitrarily modifying or deleting data without using empirical processes.
3. 'Plagiarism' refers to the act of stealing the ideas, research content, and results of others without proper approval or quotation.
4. 'Self-plagiarism' refers to the act of using all or part of the content or results of one’s own publications as they are, or with changes in their form, without indicating the source.
5. 'Unjust indications of paper authors' refers to the act of not giving the qualification of paper authors to those who made scientific or technical contributions to the content or results of studies without any valid reason, or of giving the qualification of paper authors to those who did not make any scientific or technical contribution as a token of gratitude or respectful treatment.
6. 'Overlapping contribution' refers to the act of trying to republish content that considerably overlaps one's own already-published work.
7. 'Duplicate publications' refers to the act of publishing the same content in two or more journals simultaneously.
8. Acts of intentionally interfering with an investigation into suspicions of one’s own or others’ misconduct, or harming the informant.
9. Acts that seriously deviate from the range normally accepted in the scientific and technological world.
10. Other acts judged as requiring investigation or prevention by this society in addition to the misconduct specified above.
1. Manuscript's“Authorship” Criteria: all of the items listed below are authors when they aresatisfied and contributors when they are dissatisfied.
2. The corresponding author refers to the author who is responsible for the entire process of submitting the manuscript.
3. Authors must be honest in the studies they conduct. Here, honesty relates to all processes of studies, such as idea derivation, experiment design, experiments, result analysis, support for research funds, publication of research results, and fair compensation for research participants.
4. Researchers should consider plagiarism, fraud, manipulation, forgery, and falsification in research as serious criminal acts, and should do their best to prevent such misconduct from occurring.
5. Authors should disclose and respond appropriately to any conflict or possible conflict between their interests and the interests of others or other institutions.
1. In the course of conducting studies related to the submitted paper, the author should ensure the universality of respect for human rights, the observation of bioethics and environmental protection, and so on.
2. Authors should accurately describe the content and importance of studies in papers submitted, and should not distort the research results.
3. Papers submitted should comprehensively include results that are sufficiently valuable academically and arguments that can support the results. In the case of papers that claim similar conclusions to those already published, the new arguments should have sufficient academic value.
4. When quoting published academic material, the sources must be clearly indicated. Unpublished papers, research plans, or data obtained through personal contacts should be quoted after getting the consent of the researcher who provided the information.
5. The use of all or part of the research results of other researchers without quoting references is not allowed, as this amounts to plagiarism.
6. Duplicate submission of any paper that has been submitted to or published by, or will be submitted to any other academic journal by the author, the journal published by this society is not allowed, as this is misconduct. Meaningfully developing any content already presented in any conference or seminar and presenting the content as a paper in accordance with the regulations of this journal is generally accepted, provided important study results are added to the relevant content presented.
7. All researchers who have made significant contributions in the research process should be co-authors, and the lead author of the paper should obtain consent from all co-authors for inclusion in the list of authors and act in all processes from manuscript submission to publication. The influence of non-academic support, such as administrative or financial support, the provision of research materials, or simple academic advice, shall be indicated through 'postscripts.'
8. Designating those who did not academically contribute to the research or who provided remarkably low degrees of contribution as co-authors for any non-academic reason is an immoral act that disrupts the authority of studies.
9. In cases where the approval of persons concerned is required in relation to, for example, the copyright, the author must obtain approval prior to submitting the paper, and should confirm that no dispute may occur in relation to any contract or ownership that may be affected by the publication of the paper.
1. Editors shall judge papers fairly and objectively in accordance with the determined regulations and without any prejudice in relation to the author's gender, age, race, organization affiliation, or personal acquaintance with the author.
2. Editors shall decide whether the paper should be re-examined or published using consistent criteria based on the results of the examination of the submitted paper by examiners.
3. In cases where editors believe they will have difficulty in judging the results of the examination because of their lack of knowledge of the field covered in the submitted paper, they may consult those that have expertise in the relevant field.
4. Editors should not disclose any information obtained in the process of examination to any third party or misuse the information. The act of citing the content of the relevant paper without the author's consent before the journal is published is also not allowed.
5. Editors have an obligation to monitor any unethical behaviors of the author and the examiner; if any ethically improper conduct is discovered, the editor should report it to the editor-in-chief immediately so that appropriate disciplinary action can be taken, along with an investigation when necessary.
6. If any editor has any direct interest in any submitted paper, the editor should report it to the editor-in-chief so that another editor can take charge of the relevant paper.
7. When any editor has any reason that prevents him/her from quickly handling any work under his/her charge, it is desirable for him/her to report it to the secretariat of this society or the editor-in-chief.
8. In cases where any unethical act is uncovered in any submitted paper or in the process of examination, the editorial committee should judge the importance of the issue when necessary; if any paper already published is related to the issue based on the results of the editorial committee’s resolution, the publication of the paper may be retroactively canceled.
1.Examiners should examine papers fairly and objectively using consistent criteria without any prejudice in relation to the author's gender, age, race, affiliation organization, or personal acquaintance with the author, and should eliminate examinations based on any personal academic beliefs or assumptions that have not been entirely verified.
2. To ensure the confidentiality of the papers being examined, examiners should not disclose the information obtained in the process of examination to any third party or misuse the information. The act of citing the content of the relevant paper without the author's consent before the collected papers are published is also not allowed.
3. Examiners should respect the personality of the author as a professional intellectual. Examiners should endeavor to refrain from personal and subjective evaluations or unpleasant expressions, and shall endeavor to create objective examination opinions in an academically modest manner. Examiners should specify, in detail, their opinions on the paper examined and the content deemed as requiring supplementation, along with the reasons.
4. Asking the author for any additional data or explanation for the examiner's personal purposes is prohibited.
5. If any content similar to the content of any paper already published in any other journal is included in the paper being examined without quotation, this fact should be relayed in detail to the editor.
6. If any examiner has a direct interest in the paper submitted for examination, or judges that his/her major is not suitable for examining the paper, he/she should immediately relay this to the editor so that another examiner can be selected. In addition, if any examiner has any reason that prevents him/her from completing the examination within the time limit, he/she should notify the editor.
1. When any case of violation or a suspicion of violation of ethics in academic activities has occurred, this society may organize an ethics committee (hereinafter referred to as the "committee") to investigate the authenticity of the case.
2. Composition and duties of the committee:
① The committee shall consist of one chairperson and five committee members (two ex officio members and three appointed members).
② The chairperson shall be the senior vice chairperson, the ex officio members shall be the vice chairperson in charge of academic issues and the managing director in charge of journal editing, and appointed members shall be elected by the board and appointed by the president of this society.
③ The tenure of the chairperson and members will be one year from January 1 to December 31, with consecutive appointments allowed.
④ The chairperson shall represent the committee and shall be generally responsible for work related to the ethics of this society.
1. Establish and promote research ethics
2. Prevention of research misconduct
3. Deliberation and resolution regarding research misconduct
4. Determination of sanctions for wrongdoers and reporting to the board
5. Other matters concerning the improvement and promotion of research ethics
1. The committee shall be called by the chairperson when necessary; meetings require the attendance of a majority of the committee members, and shall resolve with a two-thirds majority vote by the committee members.
2. The resolved content shall be notified to the suspected wrongdoer (the accused), and explanations should be received in writing within 15 days.
3. The committee shall review the explaining documents received from the suspected wrongdoer or hear opinions when necessary before the final resolution.
4. The resolved content should be reported to the board for the final decision.
5. When the chairperson judges necessary, opinions of external persons or those who are not committee members may be heard.
6. The participants involved and the content of the meeting shall be kept confidential in principle.
1. The report of research misconduct should be submitted in writing with attached data in accordance with the five W's and one H principle. However, even in the case of anonymous reports, if the five W's and one H principle is clear, the committee may review the commencement of the investigation.
2. This society shall endeavor to ensure that the informant is not subjected to disadvantages, discrimination, unreasonable pressure, or harm due to their involvement.
3. The matters regarding the identity of the informant shall not be subject to disclosure, and the best possible measures should be taken to ensure that their identity is not disclosed.
4. If the informant wishes to know about the investigation procedure and schedule after reporting the misconduct, this society should respond to the request in good faith.
5. Informants who reported false information despite knowing or having the chance to know the information was false shall not be protected.
1. For authors found to have committed research misconduct, one or more of the following sanctions may be imposed depending on the severity of the misconduct, in accordance with the committee's decision. The sanction period shall be determined according to the severity of the misconduct.
① Cancellation of the publication of the relevant presented research outcomes in the publications of this society
② Prohibition of submission of papers to the journal published by this society for up to five years
③ Prohibition of presentations in academic conferences of this society for up to five years
④ If the paper has already been published, the cancellation of the publication shall be announced in the relevant journal and the homepage of this society, and the content of the misconduct shall be notified to the organization to which the wrongdoer is affiliated
⑤ Membership disqualification
2. If the informant intentionally reported false information, the same sanctions as those imposed on a research wrongdoer may be imposed, according to the decision of the committee.
1. Persons under investigation refer to those who came to be investigated due to misconduct by the reporting or recognition of this society or other related organizations, or those who came to be investigated because they have been assumed to be involved in misconduct in the process of conducting the investigation. This does not include persons for reference or witnesses in the investigation process.
2. This society should be careful not to infringe unfairly on the honor or rights of the persons under investigation during the verification process. Until the results are finalized, opportunities for objection and defense should be given equally, and related procedures should be informed in advance.
3. Suspicions of misconduct shall not be disclosed to the outside world until the judgment result is confirmed. However, this does not apply when any serious danger occurs in terms of socially accepted ideas such as public welfare.
4. The persons under investigation may request this society to inform them of the handling procedures and schedule, and this society shall respond to this request in good faith.
1. The committee shall keep investigation result reports, produced by preparing all records in the process of investigation in the form of voice, video, or documents, for at least five years.
2. The investigation result reports and the list of members of the investigation committee can be released when the judgment has been made.
3. The lists of members of the investigation committee, witnesses, persons for reference, and those who participated in the consultation may not be disclosed in cases where disclosure may cause disadvantages to the relevant persons.
1. The committee shall finalize the content of the deliberation after the completion of the investigation and judgment, and report the content to the board before six months passes after the date of receipt.
2. The result report must include the following matters without fail:
① The content of the report
② The misconduct investigated
③ The list of the investigating committee members
④ The role of the person under investigation in the relevant study, and whether the misconduct is proven
⑤ Relevant evidence and names of witnesses
⑥ Content of objections raised by the informant and the person under investigation, or the content of defenses and the results of processing thereof
3. Research misconduct should not be disclosed to the outside world until the results of the investigation into the research misconduct have been finalized.
These regulations shall become effective from November 22, 2013.