Ethical Guideline of the Academic Writing
Enacted in April 2008, revised in December 2010
Clause 1. General Rules
Article 1. (Purpose)
This guideline aims at setting the rules that the author, editorial staff, and reviewer must abide regarding publications in accordance with the institute ethical committee’s operating rules, Article 11.
Clause 2. Ethical rules for the author
Article 2. (Ban on Plagiarism)
The author must not use research or opinion from others as it is not his/her own. The author can refer others’ research results if he/she clearly states the originality. However, it is a plagiarism if the author suggests others’ research results indicating that it is his/her own idea.
Article 3. Publication achievement
1. The author is responsible for the research that he/she actually performs or contributes and only those researches are recognized as his/her achievement.
2. The author of paper or other publication achievement and the order of authors must correctly reflect the degree of contributions regardless of the relative position. It can not be justifiable that a certain position made him/her the author or recognizes him/her as a first author. Meanwhile, even though an author contributed to the research or paper translation, he/she cannot be a joint writer or joint researcher. If there is someone who made a small contribution to the research or writing (translation), it should be appreciated appropriately via footnote, preface and acknowledgements.
Article 4. (Double printing or publication of the research)
The author must not try to publish research results that are already published nationally and internationally (Including to-be-published or under the review) as it is a new research. In case of trying to publish a paper by using already published research results, the author must provide the information to the editor of the academic journal before publication and must check whether it is duplicated or a double publication.
Article 5. (Quotation and Reference)
1. If the author cites opened academic materials, he/she must specify it clearly and unless the material is classified as a common sense, the originality must be stated. In case of the materials from paper review, research plan or from personal contact, the materials can be cited only after getting an approval from the researcher who provides the information.
2. In case of citing others’ writings or using (referring) others’ ideas, the author must clearly state whether it is cited or referred via footnote (endnote). Through these notifications the author must let the reader know which one is the result of pre-research and which one is the author's creative thought or interpretation.
Article 6. (Modify the paper)
The author should try to accept opinions from editors and reviewers during the reviewing process and to reflect it on the manuscript as much as possible; and if the author can not agree with the reviewers’ and editors’ opinions, he/she should notify the ground and reason why he/she could not agree with them to the editorial committee.
Clause 3 Ethical rule that the editorial members should abide
The editorial members have all responsibilities that can decide whether the submitted paper will be published or not; and must respect the personality of the author and independency as a scholar.
The editorial members must treat all manuscripts equally under the submission policy and quality of a paper regardless of not only gender, age and affiliations but also any perceptions or personal relationships.
The editorial members should ask for the review of the submitted paper to the reviewer who has professional knowledge on the area of the paper and a capability of fair judgment. When asking for a review, the editorial members must avoid a reviewer who is too close to the author or too hostile so that objective review can be made. However, if the evaluation between the reviewers is significantly different on a same paper, the third expert on the relevant area may give a consultation.
The editorial members must not unveil the contents of the paper other than the reviewers until the publication of the submitted paper is decided.
Clause 4 Ethical rule that the reviewers should abide
The reviewer must diligently review the paper that the chairman of the editorial committee asked for within the designated period and notify the results to the Editor-in-Chief. If the reviewer does not consider him/herself as the right person to review the contents of the paper, he/she must notify it to the Editor-in-Chief without hesitation.
The reviewer must fairly review the paper in his/her objective standards regardless of personal academic belie for personal relationships with the author. The reviewer must not drop the paper without proper and solid ground or for its contraction with the reviewer's opinion or interpretation; the reviewer must evaluate the paper only after reading it thoroughly.
The reviewer must respect the personality and independency of the author as a professional intellect. There viewer should state his/her opinion on the paper on the written opinion and if there is something that needs to be complemented, the reviewer should reason why it should be supplemented with detailed explanation. There viewer should use polite and soft expressions and avoid of using belittle and insulting expressions.
The reviewer must keep the paper under the review secret. Unless the reviewer needs special advice fore valuating the paper, it is not desirable to show or discuss the paper with others. In addition, the reviewer must not cite the contents of the paper before the journal gets published without the author's agreement