Approved August 27, 2007
1st revision June 23, 2008
2nd revision March 22, 2016
3nd revision September 9, 2017
This Regulations for Publication Ethics (the "Regulations for Ethics") defines ethics to be followed by the authors, editors and reviewers of the paper in the submission and review process of articles in relation to the publication of the "Journal of Radiation Protection and Research", the official journal of the Korean Association for Radiation Protection (KARP), the Japan Health Physics Society (JHPS), and the Australasian Radiation Protection Society (ARPS).
Chapter 1 Research Ethics
Section 1 Author Ethics
Article 1 (Plagiarism)
The authors do not present others’ ideas, information and research results without quotation or authorization in their papers or writings. An overlap of not only the results but also other parts (e.g., methods and discussion) with existing literature (by the authors or by others) can become a concern from the viewpoint of copyright protection.
Article 2 (Publish Achievement)
- 1. The authors are responsible to only the results and contents related scientific and technical contributions to the study, and also get recognized achievements.
- 2. The order of the authors of the paper or other published work shall reflect accurately depending on the degree contributed to the study, regardless of the relative position. It cannot be justified to be a co-author or first author due to any social position. On the other hand, it also cannot be justified not to be a co-author or co-workers despite contribution to the research or writing. The small contribution to the study and writing (translation) is appreciated by the proper footnotes, foreword, acknowledgement, etc.
Article 3 (Originality and Duplicate Publication)
All submitted manuscripts should be original and should not be considered by other scientific journals for publication at the same time. No part of the accepted manuscript should be duplicated in any other scientific journal without the permission of the Editorial Board. If duplicate publication related to the papers of this journal is detected, the authors will be announced in the journal and their institutes will be informed, and there will also be penalties for the authors.
Article 4 (Citation and Reference)
- 1. When citing published articles, authors strive to accurately describe them, and must clearly disclose their sources unless the data belonging to common sense. In the case of data obtained through personal contact, it can be cited only after the consent of the information provided by the researchers.
- 2. If authors cite (refer) the writings of others, or borrow an idea, authors must disclose quotation or reference in footnotes (ending). These denote the results of previous studies and ensure that the reader to know which is authors' creative interpretation.
Article 5 (Modification)
Authors endeavor to reflect in the paper as possible the views of the editorial board comments presented in the review process of the paper. If the author does not agree with these opinions, they should inform the editorial board writing the grounds and reasons in detail.
Section 2 The Regulations for Ethics of Editorial Board
The editorial board is responsible for determining whether to publish the submitted papers. The editorial board must respect the independence of scholar and personality as an author.
The editorial board treat the submitted papers based on the quality and submission regulations, irrelevant to the authors' gender, age, institution, as well as any prejudice or personal acquaintance.
The Editorial Board should commission an evaluation of papers submitted to the reviewers with expertise and fair judgment in their field. It is required that the reviewing process is kept as objective as possible by avoiding too intimate or hostile reviewers. It is important not to disclose the authors’ information to reviewers. If there is significantly difference between reviewers, it is good to request the third reviewer to review the papers.
The editorial board should not disclose the contents of the paper to anyone other than the paper reviewers until the publication of submitted papers to be determined.
Section 3 The Regulations for Ethics of Reviewers
The Reviewers conscientiously evaluate the papers within a period prescribed by the regulations and must notify the results of the evaluation to the editorial board. If they are determined not to be the right person to evaluate the papers, they shall inform the editorial board without any delay.
Reviewers should evaluate the papers fairly by objective criteria, without the personal friendship or personal academic beliefs. Reviewers should not drop the paper without the well-founded or with conflict of reviewers’ perspective or interpretation.
The reviewers shall respect the personality and independence of a professional intellectuals. The audit opinion should be revealing their judgments on paper. The part that needs to be complemented is also explained in detail with the reasons.
The Reviewers must keep secret for the reviewing paper. Unless specifically advised to obtain a paper evaluation, showing the paper to another person and discussing it with others is not permitted. In addition, the contents of the paper should not be disclosed at any case, prior to publication.
Chapter 2 The Regulations for Ethics, Enforcement Guidelines
Article 14 (Violation Report)
If members catch the other members of the problem, they should try to allow members to be aware that if a violation of the regulation for Ethics is happened. However, if the problem is not fixed immediately or obvious ethics violations are revealed, it is reported to the board of directors. The board of directors accordingly may constitute an ethics committee.
Article 15 (The Ethics Committee)
The Ethics Committee is composed of at least five members. The committee members are appointed by the president on the recommendation of the board of directors.
Article 16 (The Authority of the Ethics Committee)
The Ethics Committee will conduct a broad investigation by the informer, informant, witnesses, and evidence of reference materials with respect to the matters reported violations of ethics rules. Then, if it is determined by the fact that violated ethics rules, the committee may recommend appropriate sanctions to the president.
Article 17 (The Investigation and Deliberations of the Ethics Committee)
Members reporting ethical violations should cooperate with the investigation of the ethics committee. It is a violation of ethics rules by itself that they do not cooperate with this investigation.
Article 18 (Guarantees the Rights of Objection and Defense)
Members with ethical violation and whistleblowers, witnesses and testifiers should be guaranteed equal rights and opportunities for appeal, statement of opinion and the defense. They should be given ample opportunity to call the relevant procedures in advance.
Article 19 (Rights Protection and Confidentiality for Respondents)
The ethics committee should not disclose the identity of the members on the outside, either directly or indirectly before the final disciplinary decision. In addition, it should be careful not to infringe honor and rights of the informant, and shall strive for rehabilitation of the informant turns out to be irrelevant to the misconduct.
Article 20 (Disciplinary Procedures and Content)
If the Ethics Committee proposes disciplinary punishment, the president shall convene the board of directors and finally determine whether or not disciplinary punishment and disciplinary content. For the determination of members violated ethics rules, warnings, membership suspension or membership deprivation is taken as a disciplinary action, and the Committee may inform the action to other organizations or individuals.
Article 21 (Scope of Research Misconduct)
Research misconduct contains the items of this regulation Chapter 1, Section 1 Article 1 up to Article 4. And research misconduct means a serious act outside the range that is normally acceptable in science and technology and a behavior with suggestion or force or intimidation to carry out the misconduct. The Ethics Committee can investigate whether the information is more appropriate in this research misconduct.
Article 22 (Right of Informant)
Informants are persons informed to the society about the fact or the evidence of the misconduct, and details on the identity of the caller is not subject to disclosure. Society should protect the informants from such as disciplinary penalties including disadvantage of position, discrimination of working conditions or undue pressure due to informing the misconduct. However, the information which is known or could be known that is false, the informant who report it is not included in the protection.
Chapter 3 Conflict of Interest, Human and Animal Rights, and Informed Consent for publications
Article 23 (Conflict of Interest Statement)
The corresponding author must inform the editor of any potential conflicts of interest that could influence the authors’ interpretation of the data. Examples of potential conflicts of interest are financial support from or connections to companies, political pressure from interest groups, and academically related issues. In particular, all sources of funding applicable to the study should be explicitly stated.
Article 24 (Statement of Human and Animal Right)
Clinical research should be done in accordance of the Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects, outlined in the Helsinki Declaration of 1975 (revised 2008), available from: http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/. Clinical studies that do not meet the Helsinki Declaration will not be considered for publication. Human subjects should not be identifiable, such that patients' names, initials, hospital numbers, dates of birth, or other protected healthcare information should not be disclosed. For animal subjects, research should be performed based on the National or Institutional Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, and the ethical treatment of all experimental animals should be maintained.
Article 25 (Statement of Informed Consent and Institutional Review Board Approval)
Copies of written informed consent documents should be kept for studies on human subjects. For clinical studies of human subjects, a certificate, agreement, or approval by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the author’s institution is required. If necessary, the editor or reviewers may request copies of these documents to resolve questions about IRB approval and study conduct.
Article 26 (Other)
The regulation which this provision did not contain in a timely manner with regard to research publication ethics complies with the international standards (http://publicationethics.org/international-standards-editors-and-authors) of the editors and authors. Education course can be conducted for ethics compliance and prevention of misconduct. To avoid a plagiarism of the articles submitted in JRPR, Journal of Radiation Protection and Research deposits all published content in CrossCheck. To find out more about CrossCheck, visit http://www.crossref.org/crosscheck/index.html. And cases of research and publication misconduct are handled with the flow chart of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).