Ethics Regulation

Article 1 (Purpose)

These rules are the code of ethics that all researchers in relation to “Revista Asiática de Estudios Iberoamericanos” published by SNUILAS must abide and aim to provide basic principles and guidelines with regard to the responsibilities and duties of contributors by defining unethical research activity, proposing applicable types and clarifying ethical duties that contributors must follow.

Article 2 (Scope of Application)

These rules apply to activities in relation to publication of all research output through “Revista Asiática de Estudios Iberoamericanos.”

Article 3 (Execution Guideline)

All researchers submitting to “Revista Asiática de Estudios Iberoamericanos” must abide by the rules of ethics. The act of submitting and publishing research output in “Revista Asiática de Estudios Iberoamericanos” presumes no unethical research activity that violates the rules.

Article 4 (Scope of Unethical Research Activity)

Unethical research activity in “Revista Asiática de Estudios Iberoamericanos” refers to fabrication, falsification, plagiarism and duplicate publication as well as inappropriate identification of authorship that occurs at each of the following levels including proposal and execution of research, reporting and presentation of research output and review and evaluation of research.

1. “Fabrication” refers to the act of falsely creating non-existent data or research results.
2. “Falsification” refers to the act of distorting research content or results by purposefully manipulating material, equipment and process of research or purposefully modifying or deleting data.
3. “Plagiarism” refers to the act of copying other’s idea, research content or result without proper authorization or citation. Also, it refers to all acts of purposefully using other’s intellectual property without clearly specifying the source regardless of the intention of the contributor.
4. “Duplicate publication” refers to the act of submitting or publishing one’s own research previously published in either domestic or overseas outlets (includes forthcoming article or research in review) as new research output. However, in the case of publishing a part of one’s doctoral dissertation, identifying the source exempts from being classified as “duplicate publication.”
5. “Inappropriate identification of authorship” refers to the act of granting authorship to a person who did not academically contribute to the content or result of research without a justifiable reason, granting authorship to a person without academic contribution, or unfairly deciding or identifying the first author and coauthors in terms of contribution to research.
6. Besides, the acts of proposing or forcing aforementioned inappropriate acts to others, interfering investigation of unethical research activity, harming the whistleblower, damaging reputation or personally attacking above and beyond the extent usually allowed in review or evaluation process are all classified as unethical research activity.

Article 5 (Reporting of Unethical Activity)

Unethical research activity can be reported in the following manner.

1. Anyone can report unethical research activity to SNUILAS using any possible means including, but not limited to, conservation, writing, telephone, mail or electronic mail and reporting on the Institute’s webpage as well as through a deputy.
2. Reporting must be made in one’s real name. However, in the case of being able to specifically present content and proof of an unethical behavior, anonymous reporting can be made.

Article 6 (Composition of Ethics Evaluation Board)

In relation to unethical research activity for article and related research published in “Revista Asiática de Estudios Iberoamericanos,” the editor can decide on unethical research activity after forming Ethics Evaluation Board. Ethics Evaluation Board is not a permanent body and is composed of five members receiving a majority vote from present editorial board members at the recommendation of the editor in the case of violation of research ethics. In case of difficulty in convening editorial board members for forming Ethics Evaluation Board, the editor may individually contact editorial board members via email for a vote and such data should remain intact until the next editorial board meeting.

Article 7 (Duties of Ethics Evaluation Board)

Ethics Evaluation Board establishes/manages policies related to research ethics in the following ways, and evaluates and votes on unethical research activity reported to SNUILAS.

1. Ethics Evaluation Board is endowed with authority and responsibility of independently investigating reporter, victim and evidence in relation to reported incidence of unethical research activity. Once violation of rules of ethics is confirmed after careful investigation of the case, appropriate restrictions are proposed in relation to the researcher and paper.
2. Ethics Evaluation Board should conduct the investigation fairly and objectively, respect the character of a person under investigation and not reveal the identity of the person under investigation during the period of investigation.
3. Ethics Evaluation Board should initiate ‘main investigation” after going through the step of “preliminary investigation” for determining whether an official investigation is necessary in order to decide on the necessity of proceeding a full investigation into unethical activity. After the result of investigation is confirmed, the investigation is concluded after reporting the result of investigation to reporter and person under investigation in writing.

Article 8 (Preliminary Investigation of Unethical Research Activity)

Ethics Evaluation Board conducts preliminary investigation for the following items in relation to unethical research activity reported to SNUILAS.

1. Preliminary investigation should begin no later than 15 days from the date of reporting. Board members conducting the preliminary investigation should investigate whether the content of reporting qualifies as unethical activity and whether main investigation is needed, and report back to Ethics Evaluation Board within 30 days of the beginning of the investigation.
2. Ethics Evaluation Board should determine whether main investigation will be conducted based on the findings of preliminary investigation within 10 days. In case of not proceeding to main investigation, reasoning should be specified.

Article 9 (Main Investigation of Unethical Research Activity)

Ethics Evaluation Board should conduct main investigation based on the findings of preliminary investigation.

1. Ethics Evaluation Board should begin investigation within 30 days of the decision to proceed to main investigation.
2. Main investigation should be completed within 60 days of the beginning of the investigation including final decision.
3. Ethics Evaluation Board should determine unethical research activity based on the findings of main investigation and immediately notify the outcome to the person under investigation in writing.

Article 10 (Restrictions on Unethical Research Activity)

In case of unethical research activity, editorial board members of “Revista Asiática de Estudios Iberoamericanos” may subject the contributor to the following restrictions depending on the gravity of the matter.

1. Contributor may not submit work to “Revista Asiática de Estudios Iberoamericanos” for a minimum of 3 years from the date of notification of unethical activity.
2. Articles found guilty of resulting from unethical research activity shall be deleted from the list of articles and digital archive of “Revista Asiática de Estudios Iberoamericanos.”
3. The act of plagiarism shall be publicly announced in the webpage of SNUILAS and in the following volume of “Revista Asiática de Estudios Iberoamericanos.”
4. Details of the act of plagiarism shall be reported to the home institution of the contributor and National Research Foundation.

Supplementary Provision (Enacted 2008.2.28)

1. These rules are effective from the date of proclamation.
2. The amendment is effective from January 1, 2012.
3. Items not specified in the amendment are to be decided after discussion within Research Ethics Evaluation Board.