Journal Policies on Ethical Publication Practices
The following policy statement aggregates and extends the relevant sections of the IHSS-SHSS Ruless, Procedures, and Guidelines to correspond to the core
practices of the Committee on Publication Ethice (COPE).
|1. Author Qualifications
1a. The editorial board will consider any allegation of authorial or reviewer misconduct.
1b. Misconduct at any point in a paper under offer to this journal that involves serious violation of scholarly ethics such as, but not limited to, fake or
falsified data, plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and/or improper indication of a paper’s author(s), will be referred to the journal’s Ethics Committee for
adjudication (see Section 6 below).
1c. “Fake” data falsely represents research results or refers to non-existent data.
1d. “Falsification” refers to behavior that distorts the contents or results of research, whether one’s own or others’, by manipulating the research material,
equipment, or process, or by deteriorating or deleting selected data.
1e. “Plagiarism” refers to behavior that uses the ideas, content, results, or other unique elements of others’ research without proper citation and without the
addition of new interpretation and presentation.
1f. “Self-plagiarism” refers to behavior that reuses a substantial part of material previously offered by an author (or one of two or more co-authors) and
accepted for any academic journal or other publication, whether exactly as previously printed or after minor modification, without proper citation or
reference and express permission from copyright holders. (Note: when previous publication is specified, even with proper citation, reference, and
permission, a submission to this learned journal will be rejected for consideration.)
1g. “Improper indication of the paper’s author(s)” refers to behavior that that does not correlate actual authorship with the names of authors as submitted
to this learned journal, and that does not correlate with the creators of the research process, results, and analysis (see Section 2 below for more detail)
1h. The journal will protect to the greatest extent possible the identity of any individual alleging misconduct on the part of authors or reviewers.
1i. The journal may use software and/or other tools to ascertain the validity of any allegation.
1j. The editor(s)-in-chief are willing to collaborate with comparable figures at other journals to compare suspect submissions.
|2. Authorship and Contributorship
|2a. Authorship credit is a statement of having contributed substantially to the conception and design of the research underlying the research; of having
significant input to and control of the drafting and editing of the attendant manuscript; and of having approved the final document prior to submission and to publication.
2b. Authorship credit does not include other elements of any research project that may lead to creation of the submission text such as procuring funding, collecting data,
or supervising a research group. In such cases authorial acknowledgement should be made in a separate note where appropriate.
2c. Order of multiple authors is at the discretion of the submitters, but the first named author must be willing to serve as contact author for communicating with the editorial
board and/or readers, and shall be so designated on the title page of the submission if published.
|3. Complaints and Appeals
3a. The journal welcomes and will respectfully consider and, as appropriate, act on any complaints against the journal, its editors and publisher, and any
actions that may reflect on its goals and values.
3b. In the case of rejected manuscripts, the author(s) may appeal to the editor(s)-in-chief or publisher for reconsideration if they believe that either the peer
reviewing or editorial decision-making processes were at fault.
3c. Any suggestions for additions or revisions to these “Journal Policies on Ethical Publication Practices” that are in keeping with current best practices in
scholarly publication will be seriously and promptly considered.
|4. Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interests
4a. Any author must disclose a possible special financial, institutional, or other interest in the topic and findings of a submission.
4b. Peer reviewers are expected to note any possible conflicts of interest with a submission’s author(s) or with its contents.
4c. If an editor has reason to suspect an undisclosed conflict of interest on the part of an author or peer reviewer, or if an author or peer reviewer suspects
such a conflict on the part of the other party or of anyone involved in the journal’s editorial processes, either a written document shall be obtained
explaining why no such conflict occurs or, for authors, a statement will be attached to any published version explaining the interest and, for peer
reviewers, their evaluation will not be considered and a substitute reviewer will be selected. In cases in which the undisclosed interest casts doubt on the
fairness and validity of the research, the complaint must be forwarded to the journal’s Ethics Committee (see Section 6).
4d. No individual involved in the editing or publishing o the journal can play any role in the peer-reviewing or publication decisions regarding the possible
publication of a piece on which they are listed as an author.
|5. Data and Responsibility
5a. Fabricated data (“fake” or “falsified” – see the definitions in Section 1) are grounds for rejection of a submission or withdrawal of a published article and
for communication with the research governing authorities of the author’s academic institution and/or other regulatory bodies. If an editor or peer
reviewer suspects fabrication, a formal investigation must be initiated.
5b. In the case of a satisfactory explanation prior to publication, the editor(s)-in-chief must apologize to the author(s) and inform the peer reviewers involved
of the circumstances.
|6. Ethical Oversight
6a. Ethical publication practices should be a concern for all editors and contributors, but special responsibility rests with the Director of the Institute of
Humanities and Social Sciences (IHSS) at Honam University, the editor(s)-in-chief of this journal, and members of the journal’s Ethics Committee.
6b. Adjudication of issues arising from suspected ethical misconduct as described above, including any other behavior that may raise ethical concerns even if
not specifically enumerated, will be carried out by a specially created Ethics Committee to be composed of nine members. The chair shall be the director
of the IHSS at Honam University; other members shall be appointed on the recommendation of any officer of the IHSS. Deliberations require the
presence of a majority of committee members. Decisions require the approval of two thirds (2/3) of the members present. In cases that the chair
determines, after informal discussion with committee members, involve only trivial infractions or issues, the chair may choose not to convene a meeting
but instead submit the issue for written deliberation and dispensation by committee members. The ethics committee can select a smaller investigation
committee from among its members to closely examine all relevant material. Either the full ethics committee or the investigation committee can request
any informant regarding putative illegal behavior, the author(s) under examination, and any witnesses or others offering testimony for additional data. If
such a request is made, the author(s) must comply.
6c. The ethics committee shall deliberate and adjudicate based on the evidence presented, including objections raised and defense(s) offered, and then
notify the author(s) and informant, if any, of the results. If a final adjudication of the results of the investigation does not emerge from a consensus
among committee members, it will be decided by a formal vote requiring the presence of a majority of registered committee members and the
approval of at least two thirds (2/3) of committee members present. If the author(s) or informant protests against the committee’s adjudication of the
results of the investigation, either party can request re-deliberation by the ethics committee by submitting the relevant reason within ten (10) days from
the date when they were notified of the result. Review of the propriety of the reason for requesting re-deliberation and a decision on whether to
proceed with it will be made through informal polling of committee members within ten (10) days of receiving the explanation and appeal. If they
decide that a re-deliberation is merited, they shall convoke the same investigation committee again, create a new investigation committee, and
otherwise recommence investigation and deliberations within ten (10) days.
6d. The ethics committee can recommend and impose, through the executive role of the chair/director and the editor(s)-in-chief, disciplinary measures as
deemed appropriate, from Notice (informing author/s of the determination and formally requesting better attention to the infraction in future
scholarship) to Warning (in addition to the Notice actions, withdrawing the paper from inclusion in the journal) to Reprimand (in addition to the Notice
and Warning actions, communicating a formal statement explaining why the paper has been withdrawn, with a presumption of heightened scrutiny of
any future submissions).
6e. In the case of plagiarism, the director of the Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences at Honam University shall, after taking one of the disciplinary
measures outlined in 6d above, deliver an official letter of apology to the author(s) of the work that has been plagiarized.
6f. The ethics committee shall next notify the Korea Research Foundation of its determination that the relevant work involved illegal behavior as specified. If
one or more authors is not Korean and therefore not subject to oversight by the Korea Research Foundation, the committee should notify any academic
or other research institution with which affiliation is claimed.
6g. Even without formal calling and finding of the ethics committee, the editor(s)-in-chief may at their discretion communicate with universities or other
research institutions with which author(s) may be affiliated to discuss suspicious actions that are better explored by institutions with more resources and
responsibility for the individuals involved.
|7. Intellectual Property
7a. Copyright and republishing rights shall remain with the author(s) unless a submission has been solicited as part of a special issue, in which case control
of rights passes to the issue editor who solicited it.
7b. Multiple simultaneous submissions to journals are forbidden, but because authors retain copyright, they may withdraw a submission from consideration
at any point prior to an issue’s official publication date and digital uploading.
7c. Prior publication in whole or in part of a submission in a journal, online or printed, or book precludes publication in this journal, but this prohibition
does not extend to conference proceedings distributed exclusively, or at least primarily, to attendees or to postings of unpublished papers on internet
research sites such as Academia.edu or ResearchGate.net.
|8. Journal Management
8a. The publisher of the journal is the non-profit Institute of the Humanities and Social Sciences (IHSS) at Honam University. The director of IHSS is
appointed by the president of Honam University. Among other responsibilities the director oversees the direction and ethical responsibilities of the
journal, including serving as chair of its Ethics Committee (see Section 6), but is not directly involved in editorial decisions.
8b. Editorial control of the journal rests with one or more editor(s)-in-chief, with the number varying by circumstances.
8c. Members of the IHSS resident at Honam University can be called on to serve as members of journal committees, including the Ethics Committee.
8d. Members of the journal’s international board of editors can be called upon to solicit submissions and to serve as peer reviewers where appropriate.
|9. Peer Review Process
9a. The editor(s)-in-chief or editorial board review submissions based on a publicly available checklist of standards and may reject a submission prior to
sending it out to peer reviewers if they determine that the submission has been previously published, whether in its entirety or in significant portions;
that it has been commercially supported without direct acknowledgement and a statement of authorial independence; that the manuscript lacks original
research and/or analysis; or that the manuscript size or style is inconsistent with journal standards.
9b. At that point an editor selects two peer reviewers based on background and areas of expertise.
9c. A submitting author or co-author cannot be a reviewer of his or her own submission.
9d. If a submitting author or co-author is a member of the editorial board of the journal, he or she is barred from participation in the selection of reviewers
or any other aspect of the review process.
9e. The journal adheres to a double-blind review policy in which neither the author(s) nor the reviewers have been informed of the name(s) of the other
party in the author/peer review process, although it is understood that among scholars in the same field and with the increasing presence of working
papers on the internet, it is often possible to deduce such identities.
9f. Because of the journal’s double-blind policy, editors must mediate all interactions among reviewers and authors.
9g. Reviewers evaluate submissions based on the significance and suitability of the subject and clarity of the research purpose; the quality and uniqueness of
the research and its linkage with significant ongoing issues; the soundness of the research
methodology and construction of the argument; the logical strictness of the research analysis; the significance of the contribution by the submission’s
research findings; and observance of the journal’s regulations
9h. A reviewer should make a decision on a submission within 14 days of receiving it.
9i. There are four possible decisions on a submission. The reviewer must choose one of the following options: Acceptance as Submitted (the
submission can be published as it stands, except for such minor adjustments as may be flagged by the editorial board); Acceptance with Minor
Revisions (the submission is deemed ready for publication except for relatively minor changes to be specified in writing by the reviewer on a point-by-
point basis, and addressed by the author(s) in a similar point-by-point fashion in documentation attached to the revision); Reconsideration after Major
Revision (the reviewer feels that major changes in argumentation, organization, and/or presentation would be required before publication, the nature
and extent of which must be specified with clear examples); or Rejection (the reviewer argues that for reasons of inadequacy in relevance, originality,
use of evidence, argumentation, organization, and/or presentation, the submission should not be published without radical reconceptualization and
thorough rewriting by the author(s) such as would amount to a completely different article).
9j. If both reviewers are in agreement as to one of the four possible outcomes as outlined above, their judgment is final.
9k. If one reviewer suggests acceptance as submitted and the other argues for acceptance with minor revisions, the editorial board will review the second
reviewer’s suggested revisions and determine, based on the validity of the criticism, whether to publish as submitted or to publish after the concerns of
the reviewer voting for acceptance with minor revisions are addressed by the author(s).
9l. If one reviewer suggests acceptance as submitted and the other argues for reconsideration after major revisions, the editorial board will review the
second reviewer’s critique and determine, based on the validity and extent of the concerns raised, whether to ask the author(s) for relatively minor
revisions that could be accomplished in time for publication in the forthcoming issue, or for a major reconceptualization and rewriting to be published in
a future issue.
9m. If one reviewer votes for acceptance with minor revisions and the other argues for reconsideration after major revisions, the editorial board will closely
examine the two critiques to determine whether, in its view, the revisions envisioned by either or both reviewers are valid and are in actuality minor or
major. In the case of a determination that only minor changes are needed, the submission would be treated as if both reviewers had voted for
“acceptance with minor revisions.” In the case of a determination that major changes are required, the submission would be treated as if both reviewers
had voted for “reconsideration after major revisions.”
9n. If one reviewer votes for rejection and the other selects any of other three options, the editorial board will closely examine the case made by the first
reviewer. If in their judgment the reviewer has made a strong case based on a serious reading of the submission and backed up by persuasive evidence
regarding the text’s inadequacies, the submission must be rejected, no matter what the other reviewer has argued. However, if the editorial board finds
any room for doubt as to whether rejection is justifiable, the editors must in this instance give the submission to a third peer reviewer if publication is
still desired by the author(s). If the third reviewer opts for rejection, that must be the final decision. If the third reviewer chooses one of the other three
options, the “rejection” vote will be ignored and the decision on publication will be based on the reports of the other two reviewers in accordance with
the criteria outlined above.
|10. Post-publication Discussions and Corrections
10a. The journal encourages post-publication discussion and debate on its articles. Signed contributions reacting to a published article will be published in
future issues or on the journal’s website, as deemed appropriate.
10b. If authors desire to correct, revise, or retract a published article, they may do so for the web-based version. They should contact the editor(s)-in-chief,
who will make the changes. While the date of the original publication and of the revision or retraction would be published, no record would be kept of
the original pre-revision, pre-retraction text.