Naru's Happy Travel

The Research Ethics Guidelines for The Yeats Journal of Korea (Established 1991)



General Provisions


1. Purpose

The Research Ethics Guidelines (Guidelines) for authors, editors, and readers, and for all members, including the Research Ethics Committee, aim to prevent research misconduct and provide a fair standard with which to ascertain the truth when research misconduct occurs.


2. Scope

The Guidelines apply to all the members of the Society and those who submit and review the manuscripts for publication in The Yeats Journal of Korea (Journal).  


3. Applicable Date

The Guidelines take effect from 30 November 2007.  


Chapter 1 The Research Ethics Guidelines


[Articles 1-2] The Guidelines for the submitter
1. Plagiarism
The submitter should not take part or all of others' research without acknowledgments, which is regarded as an act of plagiarism.

All the authors who submit their work to The Yeats Journal of Korea should read and submit his/her Declaration of Ethical Conduct in Research and Publication and affix his/her signature as follows:

Declaration of Ethical Conduct in Research and Publication:

I submit my work to The Yeats Journal of Korea for publication by declaring that I have abided all the codes of research and publication as per the journal’s Guidelines which are effective as from 30 November 2007 while working on my research; I affirm that my work contains honest, fair, and reasonable results of my research. I also affirm that I have not committed any acts that may discredit or damage the credibility of my work. These include, but are not limited to, falsification, distortion of research findings or plagiarism.


2. Research contribution
Only the participant who has contributed to research should be put as an author.

3. Dual publications or re-publications
The submitter should not send one's manuscript to two publishers at the same time for publication; or should not re-publish research if it has already been published elsewhere. If the author wants to revise and publish it as a new article, one should notify the Journal editor of its previous publication information, such as the publisher and editor, so it can be ascertained.

4. Revision
The submitter should revise one's manuscript according to the reviewers' recommendations. If one does not agree, one should justify one's not following the revision(s) recommended by providing one's evidence and reasoning for non-compliance.
[Articles 5-8] Guidelines for the editors

5. The editors should make sure that all the submissions can be reviewed in pursuance of the Guidelines.

6. The editors should not discriminate between gender, age, organization, and submitter's background and only consider the quality of manuscript.

7. The number of editors per manuscript should be more than three so it can be reviewed fairly. If the manuscript cannot be reviewed by any of the editors on the Journal's editorial board, then the manuscript can be reviewed by [an] outside reviewer[s].

8. The editors should not reveal the submitter's name or the contents of the manuscript until it has been accepted for publication.

[Articles 9-11] Guidelines for the reviewers

9. The reviewer should review the submission fairly regardless of one's belief or familiarity with the submitter or should not reject it without enough justification or for reason that it does not agree with the reviewer's point[s] of view.

10. The reviewer should respect the submitter's character and the uniqueness of the submitter's discipline, and if there is a need for revision, one should provide one's opinion in detail.

11. The reviewer should neither reveal nor quote the contents of manuscript one has reviewed without the submitter's permission until it is published. One should not reveal the rejected manuscript, and should report one's reasoning for rejection in detail to the editorial board, who will notify the submitter of the result of reviewing.

Chapter 2 The Research Ethics Regulations


1. Pledge
All members of the Society pledge themselves to observe the Guidelines.

2. Ethics Committee
One of the members on the Ethics Committee (Committee) should be appointed by the Committee members to be the chair and approved of by the Board of Directors of the Society. The number of the Committee is five. If a member submits a manuscript, a new member will be appointed while it is being reviewed.

3. Committee Member's Obligations

(1) The Committee has one chair and one secretary.
(2) The chair will be selected out of the Committee members and the chair will appoint one's secretary.
(3) The chair leads the Committee and the secretary takes care of Committee's affairs.


4. Function of Committee
The Committee manages all that are concerned with the Guidelines, and makes a decision when research misconduct occurs.

5. Committee Meeting

(1) The chair convenes a meeting and becomes the chair.
(2) The meeting is held when asked by the chair or more than three members of Committee.
(3) A meeting is held by more than half of the Committee members, and a decision is made by more than half of the members present.
(4) The meeting's decision process should not be revealed to the public.


6. Request for review

(1) A member of Society or one whose right has been infringed can ask the Committee for a review in writing.
(2) The chair convenes a meeting as soon as possible when such a request is received.


7. Procedure

(1) When a case of research misconduct occurs, whether it will be reviewed by the Committee or referred to outside members can be decided on before it can be reviewed.
(2) The Committee should make a decision on a case after enough discussion. The Committee can ask the submitter of the manuscript under study, the reviewer who has raised the question, and if necessary others for an interview. The one whose manuscript is in doubt should comply with the Committee's summon. The submitter's non-compliance is considered non-observance of the Guidelines.
(3) The Committee should allow the submitter to defend oneself fully.
(4) The Committee should not reveal the submitter's information until a final decision is made.
(5) The Committee should keep the review process in written form and keep it with the submitter's signature put on it.


8. Report of Committee Review Result
The Committee should report the result to the President of the Society. The report should include:

(1) the contents of research misconduct
(2) the process
(3) the basis and proof of the decision
(4) the process of the submitter's justification


9. Disciplinary Measures
When the Committee recommends a disciplinary measure, the President of the Society convenes a meeting and takes a disciplinary measure. The kinds of disciplinary measures are:

(1) Admonition
(2) Suspension or deprivation of one's membership of the Society
(3) Prevention of submission for three years from the date of decision


10. The revision of Guidelines is pursuant to the procedure of revision. When the Guidelines are revised, the revisions will be observed by all the members without additional pledge.


Attachment


The Guidelines take effect as from 30 November 2007.