JKSAS Journal of the Korean Society for
Aeronautical and Space Sciences

> Journal Policies > Journal Ethics

Journal Ethics

Ethics Regulations on Paper of KSAS

Article 1. Purpose
The purpose of this Code is to maintain the high quality of scholarly papers of The Korean Society for Aeronautical and Space Sciences (hereinafter KSAS) and contribute to the development of the academic community by presenting fundamental ethical principles and directions that must be followed by the members of the KSAS when they carry out research activities. A member of The Korean Society for Aeronautical and Space Sciences must comply with this code. A member whose conduct is considered to be in breach of the provisions of the Code will be asked to account to the KSAS for their actions.

Article 2. Ethics regulations for authors
Authors shall adhere to the following ethics regulations when writing and submitting papers, as well as shall take a pledge on the Paper website to submit papers.
Authorship credit should be based on 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, and/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) agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. Every author should meet all of these four conditions. After the initial submission of a manuscript, any changes whatsoever in authorship (adding author(s), deleting author(s), or re-arranging the order of authors) must be explained by a letter to the editor from the authors concerned. This letter must be signed by all authors of the paper.
- Corresponding author and first author: If there are multiple corresponding authors (or multiple first authors) for one article, send detail information to the editorial office.
- Correction of authorship after publication: JKSAS does not correct authorship after publication unless a mistake has been made by the editorial staff. Authorship may be changed before publication but after submission when an authorship correction is requested by all of the authors involved with the manuscript.
  1. An author will endeavor to carry out research on the topics that reflect significant academic scholarship, as well as pursue universal values, such as respect for human rights, compliance with bioethics, and environmental protection.
  2. An author will describe the research process and results of the paper to be submitted: completely, concisely, and accurately and must not plagiarize or inappropriately use the findings of another researcher셲 data.
  3. When using published academic materials that are closely related to the contents of their papers, authors must explicitly cite the sources of the materials by including them in the reference. That is, if your sources are very important to your ideas, you should mention the author and work in a sentence that introduces your citation. If, however, you are only citing the source to make a minor point, you may consider using parenthetical references, footnotes, or endnotes.
  4. When an author quotes non-public information obtained through personal contacts, they must receive the consent of the researchers who first provided that information.
  5. The KSAS does not permit an author to submit a paper that was submitted, published, or are scheduled to be submitted to another journal. The KSAS considers this serious misconduct and the appropriate sanctions will be taken against any member guilty of this offense.
  6. All the researchers who made a significant contribution in the course of carrying out the study must be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author or lead authors will be responsible for all the aspects related to the paper.
  7. Regarding non-academic support, including administrative and financial support, or acknowledgement of scholarly help, it is advisable that the relevant information be included in the paper.
  8. Prior to the submission of papers, authors must, if necessary, obtain approval from the appropriate authorities related to intellectual property rights such as copyright, and must bear the sole responsibility for any ensuing disputes of that nature, which are related to the paper.
  9. If errors are found in a submitted paper, authors must correct or delete them, or withdraw the paper.
  10. 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.

Article 3. Ethics Rules for Reviewers
  1. Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method.
  2. Any chosen reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
  3. Reviewers must respect, with high professional ethical standards, an author and specifically state honest, unbiased comments about a paper, advice about any revision, encouragement or praise, etc.
  4. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
  5. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should not review a paper based on any personal belief or an assumption that is not thoroughly verified. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  6. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement about an observation, derivation, or argument that had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor셲 attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
  7. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer셲 own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not be used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Article 4. Ethics Rules for Editorial Board Members
The members of the editorial board (head of the editorial board, editing executive directors, and editorial board members) must perform a review and judgment on a submitted paper in accordance with the following ethical rules.
  1. The members of the editorial board will fairly and objectively make a judgment on a paper being reviewed, according to set regulations, without prejudice related to gender, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, race, disability, membership in an organization, or a personal relationship with an author, etc.
  2. The members of the editorial board will decide whether a submitted paper is to be published or whether it needs to be reviewed again under a consistent professional standard, based on the examination results of a submitted paper by the reviewers.
  3. The members of the editorial board must not disclose or misappropriate any information gained during a review process and treat all information gained in such activity as privileged and confidential.
  4. Editorial responsibility for any manuscript authored by an editor should be delegated to a co-editor or a member of editorial board. Also editors should ask a co-editor or a member of the editorial board from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.
  5. If an erroneous conclusion is found after publication, the editor should facilitate publication of an appropriate report pointing out the error and, it possible, correcting it. The report may be written by the person who discovered the error or by an original author.
  6. An editor should consider manuscripts submitted for publication with all reasonable speed.
  7. An author may request that the editor does not use certain reviewers in consideration of a manuscript. This must be the case, for example, when a manuscript seriously disagrees with the previous work of a potential reviewer.

Article 5. Research Ethics Committee (REC)
To investigate a complaint of misconduct, a Research Ethics Committee (hereinafter, REC) will meet on an ad hoc basis. In addition, the REC must adhere to the following procedure, in investigating a complaint of misconduct and impose penalties against the person who is officially judged to have committed misconduct.
  1. When there is a complaint about misconduct regarding a submitted paper, if necessary, the Head of the Editorial Board will organize a REC, which might consist of editorial board members and experts from the germane disciplines, depending on the significance of a case.
  2. As soon as practicable the REC will make an objective and fair investigation on a case, and provide the person or organization against whom the complaint has been lodged, with an opportunity to give a written response within 30 days. The REC will then submit a final report to the Editorial Board.
  3. Based on the written report by a Research Ethics Committee, the Editorial Board will then send the case to the Board of Directors after determining the level of penalty to be imposed, if any, against the person or organization whom the complaint has been lodged.
  4. The Board of Directors must make a final determination after reviewing the report from the Research Ethics Committee and the decision from the Editorial Board. If an existing paper is part of the misconduct, as determined by the aforestated procedure, then the Board is may retroactively withdraw the publication of a paper, which was deemed to have been part of the adjudicated misconduct.

Article 6. Scope of Research Misconduct
The research misconducts (hereinafter misconducts) referred to in this regulation are the fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and misrepresentation of authorship, as well as other actions defined as follows, that are committed during the proposal, performance, result report, and presentation of a research project.
  1. Fabrication: The creation of false data or nonexistent research results
  2. Falsification: The distortion of research information or results by manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes or by arbitrarily changing or deleting data
  3. Plagiarism: The fraudulent use of other people셲 ideas, research content, results, etc., without appropriate approval or citation
  4. Duplicate publication: An academic act of using an academic work that is identical or substantially similar to the researcher셲 previous findings, without the permission of the copyright holders or journal editors who published the previous findings or without the appropriate citations for another journal or work
  5. Misrepresentation of authorship: The failure to grant authorship, without any justifiable reason, to persons who made scientific or technical contributions to the content or results of the research or granting authorship, as a gesture of gratitude or courtesy, to persons without any scientific or technical contribution
  6. Willfully interfering with an investigation regarding a person셲 own or another person셲 alleged misconduct or causing harm to an informant
  7. Acts that seriously deviate from the scope commonly accepted in the field of science and technology.
Article 7. A Formal Objection
  1. Any researcher found guilty of scientific misconduct will be offered a right to provide a defense, argue against the allegation and to raise an objection in writing to the sanction of the committee within 30 days after the notice.
  2. The committee can review the validity of the objection and confirm or correct the sanction.
Article 8. Identity Protection
  1. The identity of the informer(s) alleging scientific misconduct should not be made public.
  2. The identity of individual(s) responsible for the alleged scientific misconduct should not be made public before the final decision.
Article 9. Others
Any other case that is not included under this Code of Ethics may be determined by related statutes and ethical social norms

Supplementary Provisions

1. This Code of Ethics takes effect starting July 18, 2008.

* Research and Publication ethics: Research published in JKSAS must have followed institutional, national, and international guidelines. For the policies on the research and publication ethics not stated in this instructions, International standards for editors and authors (http://publicationethics.org/international-standards-editors-and-authors) can be applied. Moreover, the very person who did a misconduct is prohibited to submit a paper to and publish a paper in all publications issued by KSAS for three years.