Research & Publication Ethics
This 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).
1. 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.
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.
The authors are responsible to only the results and contents related scientific and technical contributions to the study, and also get recognized achievements. Authorship credit should be based on: (1) substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; (2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; (3) final approval of the version to be published; and (4) agreeing to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that the questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. Authors should meet these 4 conditions. If the number of authors is equal to or greater than 2, there should be a list of each author's role in the submitted paper.
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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Statement of Informed Consent and IRB 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.
7. Citation and Reference
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.
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.
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.
For the policies on research and publication ethics not stated in this Instructions 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, all submitted manuscripts are inspected by Similarity Check powered by iThenticate (https://www.crossref.org/services/similarity-check/), a plagiarism-screening tool.
And cases of research and publication misconduct are handled with the flow chart of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
■ Editorial Board Members
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.