· Acoms Journal list      · Login    · Publisher Login
eISSN : 2508-7592    pISSN : 1738-2122   
Journal Information  l  e-Submission  l  View-FullText
Journal Information
Journal Information
 · Introduction
 · Editorial Board
 · Author's Guide
 · Editor's & Reviewer's Guide
 · Contact Us
 · Research publication ethics
    
 

1. General rules
 

 

These guidelines stipulate measures to establish research ethics and prevent research misconducts.

These guidelines apply to those who publish in the Jungseok Research Institute(JRI)'s regular journal, Journal of International Logistics and Trade (JILT).

The terms are defined as follows:

 

-

Forgery refers to an act of creating any false data or finding.

 

-

Falsification refers to an act of distorting research facts or findings by fabricating research materials, devices, processes, etc., either artificially or by transforming or deleting data arbitrarily.

 

-

Plagiarism refers to an act of pirating the ideas, research facts, findings, etc., of other people without just permission or citation.

 

-

Unreasonable authorship display refers to an act of disqualifying scientific or technical contributors to research facts or findings for authorship without reasonable reason, or of qualifying scientific or technical non-contributors to research facts or findings for authorship.

 

-

 

Double publication refers to an act of publishing one text in identical or very similar form in two or more academic journals.

2. Ethical regulations for editors
 

Responsibilities of editors:

Editors are responsible for deciding whether to publish submitted papers, and must respect authors' character and independence as scholars.
 

Fairness of paper treatment:

Editors should fairly treat submitted papers only on the basis of qualitative level and submission regulations regardless of authors' gender, age, organization, prejudice, or private relationship.
 

Objectivity of reviewer selection:

Editors should assign reviewers with expertise and fair judgment ability to evaluate submitted papers.

Editors should ensure that papers are evaluated as objectively as possible by avoiding the assignment of reviewers who are friendly or antagonistic to the authors.
 

Non-disclosure of paper review process:

Editors should not disclose any information on the authors or submitted papers to anyone except the reviewers until after the papers are accepted or rejected.

 

3. Ethical regulations for reviewers
 

Sincerity and exactness of paper review:

Reviewers should evaluate the papers assigned to them by the editors for review and inform the results to editors within a specified duration.

If the reviewers consider themselves unqualified for review, they should inform the editors immediately and without hesitation.
 

Objectivity of paper review:

Reviewers should evaluate papers fairly on the basis of personal academic creed and objective standards.

Reviewers should not devalue papers without sufficient ground, or reject them merely for opposing their own views or interpretations.
 

Validity of paper review:

Reviewers should respect the character and independence of authors.

In evaluation sheets, reviewers should specify their judgments, and explain the reasons for supplementation in detail, if necessary.
 

Confidentiality of paper review and prohibition of prior citation:

Reviewers should keep the papers for review confidential.

Except for gaining special advice for evaluation, reviewers should not show papers to others or discuss them with others.

Additionally, reviewers should not cite papers before their publication without the authors' consent.

 

4. Ethical regulations for authors
 

Research misconducts:

Authors should not falsify, forge or pirate papers, or display unreasonable authorship.
 

Double publication:

Authors must not submit studies that are already published, due to be published or under review at other academic journals or books.

This priciple does not apply to papers presented at academic conferences, dissertations, research reports publicly unpublished, etc.

In this case, such presentation or publication should be disclosed to the editors and readers.
 

Citation: 

Disclosed academic materials should be cited precisely and their clear and distinct sources listed.

Any data privately obtained may be cited only after receiving consent from the researcher who offered the information.

The citation or borrowing of any writings or ideas of others must be specified using footnotes.

 

5. Enforcement guidelines for research ethics observance and research misconducts treatment
 

Vow of ethics observance:

Those who submit their papers to the JILT or are entrusted with paper review are considered to have pledged their observance of these guidelines.
 

Report of ethics violation:

If authors or reviwers have violated these research ethics, the JRI should rectify the problems involving processes or results.

If any problem has not been thus rectified or has been proved to be a clear research ethics violation, the case should be referred to the Steering Committee of the JRI.
 

Composition and convocation of the Steering Committe:

The JRI Director should convene a meeting of the Steering Committee within 15 days of any research ethics violation being discovered.

The JRI Director should be the Chairman of the Steering Committee meeting.
 

Request for attendance and materials submission:

The Steering Committee may ask informants and suspects to submit materials and attend its meeting. In this case, suspects are advised to follow any such request because non-acceptance violates research ethics.  

The very non-acceptance violates research ethics.
 

Right protection and confidentiality of informants and suspects:

The identities of informants or suspects should not be disclosed directly or indirectly.

Care should be taken lest suspects' honor or rights should be infringed on until their involvement in any fraud is verified or cleared.
 

Guarantee of objection or defense right:

The Steering Committee should assure both informants and suspects of the rights of opinion statement, objection and defense on an equal basis, and inform both parties of the procedures involved in advance.
 

Judgment and disciplinary punishment:

Research ethics violation should be judged with a majority of the Committee members present and by a vote of two thirds thereof.

Those who are judged to have violated research ethics may be subject to disciplinary actions, such as a warning, review refusal, prohibition of paper submission for a specific period, publication cancellation, etc., which may be notified to other institutions or persons, if necessary.

Those who are judged to have plagiarized or submitted double publication should not be allowed to submit their articles to the JILT for three years.