Enacted November 20, 2008
Revised March 15, 2024
This regulation shall be referred to as the ‘Research Ethics Regulations of the Korean Environmental Science Society.’
The purpose of this regulation is for the Research Ethics Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee”) to deliberate on the research misconduct of the members of the Korean Environmental Science Society (hereinafter referred to as the “Society”).
Research misconduct is considered to occur when the following happens in the process of research, academic presentation, or publication.
The committee shall deliberate on matters related to the research ethics of its members according to the following procedures:
The Board of Directors shall decide on disciplinary action based on the committee’s deliberations and notify the individual, and may notify external organizations or the complainant if necessary.
The contents of the investigation must be recorded and stored, and the results must be publicized.
The Society shall provide online research ethics education to its members and conduct offline research ethics education at the annual general meeting.
Amendments to these Regulations shall be made in accordance with the procedure for amending the Regulations of the Society.
1. Editors shall treat articles submitted for publication in the journal fairly, regardless of the race, gender, age, institutional affiliation, religious beliefs, origin, etc., of the authors, and without any preconceived notions or personal relationships, solely based on the quality of the article and the rules for submission.
2. Editors must not disclose information about the articles submitted to anyone other than the author, editor-in-chief, editorial board members, reviewers, or other persons involved in the editorial process.
3. Unpublished material from a submitted article should not be used in the editor’s own research without the author’s consent. Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and should not be used for personal gain.
4. Editors should refer the submitted articles to reviewers with expertise in the field and the ability to make impartial judgments. When requesting reviewers, they should try to avoid reviewers who are familiar with or hostile to the author to ensure an objective evaluation. However, reviewers affiliated with the same institution as the author shall be excluded from the review.
5. If an incorrect conclusion is found after publication, the editor shall correct the error and make the possible corrections for publication. Errors may be corrected by the person who discovered them or by the author of the manuscript.
6. The editor should consider the smooth progress of the review process so that the article can be published within a reasonable time frame.
7. The authors may request the editor to review the manuscript to exclude certain reviewers. If the field of the manuscript does not match the review area of a particular reviewer, the author may request that the reviewer be excluded.
8. Editors will perform plagiarism checks on submissions using KCI similarity checks.
1. The Committee shall determine the authorship of a submitted article only if all four of the following items are met. The author ① Has made substantial contributions to the conception or organization of the research or has participated in the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data necessary for the research; ② Has written the article for important content or revised it critically; ③ Has participated in the final approval of the version to be published; and ④ Has taken responsibility for all aspects of the research process to ensure that the accuracy of all aspects of the research is properly investigated and resolved.
2. Authors must clearly disclose any conflicts of interest (financial, personal, academic, etc.) when submitting an article. In addition, editorial board members and reviewers should clearly disclose any conflicts of interest with authors and be excluded from the review process.
3. The scope of related parties is defined as minors (those under the age of 19) or family members (spouse, children, etc.); when submitting a paper involving related parties, the authors must clearly disclose the facts and submit relevant documents to prove them. In addition, if research misconduct by a related party coauthor is found, the suspicion will be strictly investigated and the related organization that benefited from the paper will be notified of the research misconduct.
4. In principle, it is not possible to change the authorship of the original submission; however, in special cases, the editorial board may decide after discussion. (However, if the author submits explanatory materials only during the review process) Moreover, if the author requests, the article can be retracted and resubmitted only during the review process.
5. Anyone who intends to conduct human subject research in accordance with the Act on Bioethics and Safety for Human Subjects Research must be reviewed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) before starting the research. The Editorial Board may require the submission of documentation to verify IRB approval or exemption from review, as necessary.
6. Articles involving human subjects should be described correctly, distinguishing between sex and gender in the gender description; if both males and females are included in the study, the results should be analyzed under the same conditions and compared. If the research involves cells or animals, the source, authentication, and biological characteristics of the cell lines or animals should be described. The research should include both sexes equally and describe the results of sex differences. In addition, if humans, animals, or cells are studied as a single sex, a justification must be provided.
7. Authors are required to submit a research ethics statement to confirm compliance with research ethics regulations.
1. Reviewers shall accurately and sincerely evaluate the submissions requested by the Editorial Board of the Society within the period stipulated by the review regulations and notify the Editorial Board of the evaluation results. If the content of the article to be reviewed differs from that of his/her major field, he/she shall immediately notify the editorial board.
2. Reviewers should evaluate the submission fairly based on objective criteria. Reviewers should not judge an article as unacceptable for publication without revealing the objective basis or because it conflicts with the reviewer’s own viewpoint or interpretation, nor should they evaluate the article without reading it properly.
3. In the review comments, the reviewer should specify the results of the evaluation of the paper, as well as the reasons for the parts that need to be improved. Use polite and gentle language whenever possible and do not demean or insult the author.
4. Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the paper under review. It is not advisable to show the submitted paper to others or discuss its contents with others unless you are specifically seeking advice for evaluating the paper. You should not quote from the paper without the authors’ consent before it is published in the journal in which it appears.