연구윤리규정(영문)

 

PREAMBLE

The Korean Society of Vision Science is an academic society with a goal to contribute to the academic development of the vision science field of our country and protection of the national visual function through research and education activities. This research code of ethics (hereinafter referred to as Code of Ethics) stipulates the principles and standards of research ethics that should be observed by the members of this society (hereinafter referred to as Members) to perform these roles.

 

The members should mutually recognize research values and share research results by observing the Code of Ethics in performing academic research and presenting research paper, and this is essential for true academic development in the vision science field. Therefore, the publication of professional journal articles that selects and posts manuscripts including academic research results in the vision science through strict review is one of the most important projects in order to achieve the objective of this academic society.

 

It is required to establish the Code of Ethics not only for authors of manuscripts but also for editors and reviewers of journals to observe in order to contribute to the development of the field of vision science through publication of high quality journals. The contents of the “Research Code of Ethics” established for this purpose have already been observed conventionally, but this can be a chance to reconfirm the level of ethics pursued by the academic society on the preparation, evaluation of manuscripts and editing of the journal for all Members.

 

Chapter 1 Research Related Code of Ethics

Clause 1 Definition of Research Misconduct Scope

Article 1 (Scope of Research Misconduct)

1. Research misconduct (hereinafter referred to as “Misconduct”) means falsification, fabrication, plagiarism and improper assignment of authorship made for the suggestion of a research development project, performance of research development and report and publication of research development results and is as follows:

1) “ “Falsification” is the conduct of creating nonexistent data or research results untruthfully.

2) “Fabrication” is the conduct of manipulating research materials, equipment or process artificially or changing or omitting data arbitrarily to distort research contents or results..

3) “Plagiarism” is the appropriation of others‘ ideas, research contents and results without fair approval or quotation.

4) “Improper assignment of authorship” is the conduct of not allowing authorship without a fair reason to the person who made scientific and technical contributions on research contents or results or of allowing it to a person who did not make them for the reasons of the expression of gratitude or honorable treatment.

5) Conduct of disturbing an investigation of misconduct doubt of oneself or others intentionally or doing harm to an informant

6) Conduct of seriously deviating the scope of common approval in the scientific world

 

2. Beside the misconduct stipulated in Clause 1, any misconduct that is considered to be misconduct requiring the society‘s own investigation or prevention can be included in the contents of Clause 1 of Article 1.

 

Clause 2 Code of Ethics to be Observed by Authors

Article 1 (Plagiarism)

Authors shall not suggest part of research or opinions of others as their own research results or opinions in manuscripts or articles. Even though authors can refer to others‘ research results along with describing the sources of them, when authors suggest part of them as his own research results or opinions, it is considered to be plagiarism.

 

Article 2 (Publication Credit)

1. The author shall take the responsibilities as an author and also credited only for researches actually conducted and contributed by oneself

2. The name of authors (translators) or the order of the author’s names in manuscripts or other publication achievements shall accurately reflect according to the amount of contribution regardless of the comparative status. Becoming an author or being credited as the first author simply by a position cannot be justified. On the other hand, it also cannot be justified not to be recorded as a co-author (translator) or co-researcher if he or she contributes on the researches or the articles (translation). Gratitude for small amount of contributions on the researches or articles (translation) may be appropriately expressed in footnotes, prefaces, thanks, and etc.

 

Article 3 (Overlapping or Duplicated Publications of Research Result)

The author shall not publish (submit) or try to publish a research result of oneself that was previously published regardless of domestic or foreign countries (including the research results scheduled to be published or evaluated by reviewers) as if it is a new research result. When the author publishes in using the presented research result, the information of the publication shall be provided to the editor of the journal to publish the research result and check whether it would be overlapping or duplication of publications.

 

Article 4 (Indication of Citation and Reference)

1. In citing open academic data, it shall be pursued to accurately describe and the source shall be clearly indicated unless the data is not considered as common sense. In evaluating manuscripts or research proposals or for data obtained by personal contact, it may be cited upon agreement by the researcher providing the data.

2. To cite or other persons’ writing or borrow (refer to) the ideas, the citation and reference shall be specified in the footnote (endnote), indicating which the results of preceding studies are and which is the part of the author’s original thoughtㆍopinionㆍanalysis is to the readers.

 

Article 5 (Modification of Manuscripts)

In the process of evaluating the manuscript, the author shall try to reflect the opinions of editors and reviewers as much as possible on the manuscript; if the author does not agree with the opinions, it shall be notified to the (board of) editors in writing the detail basis and reason.

 

Clause 3 Code of Ethics for the editors

Article 1 The editors shall take all of the responsibilities of deciding whether to publish the submitted manuscripts and respect the author’s personality and the independence as a scholar.

 

Article 2 The editors shall fairly treat the submitted manuscripts to be published based only on the quality of the manuscripts and according to the provision of submission regardless of gender, age, and affiliated organization of the author as well as any prejudice or private relationship.

 

Article 3 The editors shall request the evaluation of the submitted manuscripts to reviewers with professional knowledge and fair decision ability in the relevant field. In requesting the evaluation, the reviewers having too intimate or hostile acquaintance with the author shall be prevented for objective evaluation as much as possible. But, if the evaluation to the same manuscript shows considerable differences between the reviewers, it may be consulted by the third specialist in the relevant field.

 

Article 4 The editors shall not disclose any information of the author or the contents of the manuscripts until the submitted manuscripts are decided to be published.

 

Clause 4 Code of Ethics for the Reviews

Article 1 The reviewers shall faithfully evaluate the requested manuscripts by the editors within the period according to the code of evaluation and notify the result of evaluation to the (board of) editors. If the reviewer considers oneself as one of the well-qualified reviewers to evaluate the contents of the manuscripts, it shall be notified immediately to the (board of) editors.

 

Article 2 The reviewers shall fairly evaluate the manuscripts according to the objective standard regardless of the personal academic belief or the intimate relationship with the author. The manuscripts shall not be dropped out of insufficient basis or due to contradictions with the reviewer’s perspectives of analyses or shall not be evaluated in rough reading.

 

Article 3 The reviewers shall respect the author’s personality and independence as a professional intellectual. The reviewer shall indicate the decision of oneself in the statement of opinion and explain the necessary part for supplementation with reasons. The expression shall be courteous and soft as much as possible, but the reviewer shall be careful not to degrade the author and use insulting expressions.

 

Article 4 The reviewer shall keep a secret of the manuscripts in evaluation. Unless the reviewer particularly asks an advice to evaluate the manuscripts, the contents of the manuscripts shall not be showed to or discussed with the other persons. Also, the contents of the manuscripts shall not be cited without agreement of the author before publishing the journals containing the manuscripts.

 

Chapter 2 Enforcement Guidelines of the Code of Ethics

Article 1 (Pledge for the Code of Ethics)

New member of this academic society shall pledge to comply with this Code of Ethics. The existing member is considered as to pledge to comply with this Code of Ethics on the effective date of the Code of Ethics.

 

Article 2 (Misconduct of Responsible Agent)

1. When the members of this academic society recognize the occurrence of the misconduct or the relevant information, this academic society shall take the responsibility of verification.

2. In recognizing the occurrence of the misconduct or being submitted the information regarding to the misconduct, the relevant content shall be transferred to this academic society for the self-investigation.

 

Article 3 (Prescription of Verifying the Misconduct)

1. Even if the misconduct that was occurred before full five years from the submission date of the information is reported, it is principle not to handle it.

2. Even if the misconduct was occurred before 5 years but when the examinee directly re-cites the result and uses it for planning of the succeeding researches and applying research funds, performing researches, reporting and presenting the research results within 5 years or it causes or there is concerned danger in public welfare or safety, it shall be handled.

 

Article 4 (Principal of Verifying the Misconduct)

1. The responsibilities to verify the misconduct shall be taken on the investigation committee of this academic society. But, if the examinee damages the data requested by the investigation committee or rejects to submit it, the responsibilities to prove the veracity in the contents of the requested data shall be taken to the examinee.

2. The investigation committee shall guarantee rights and opportunities of stating opinion, making objection, and arguing evenly for the informant and examinee; and the relevant procedures shall be notified in advance.

3. The president shall pursue to guarantee and maintain the independence and fairness without unreasonable pressure or disturbance.

 

Article 5 (Right of Investigation Committee for Code of Ethics)

The investigation committee for Code of Ethics (hereinafter referred to as ‘Investigation Committee’) shall perform wide investigation for the reported matter with regard to violation of the Code of Ethics with the informant, examinee, witness, reference witness, evidences, and etc. and then appropriate sanctions may be suggested to the president when the violation of the Code of Ethics is proven as a truth.

1. The Investigation Committee may request appearance of the informant, examinee, witness, and reference witness for statement of opinion, and the examinee shall follow the request.

2. The Investigation Committee may request the examinee to submit the material and limit access to the laboratory, seize.keep the relevant research data of the persons in relation to the misconduct to preserve the evidence upon approval of the president.

3. The Investigation Committee may suggest the president the appropriate sanctions of the persons in relation to the misconduct that is proven as truth.

 

Article 6 (Organization Principal of Investigation Committee)

1. It is principle to organize the Investigation Committee with more than 5 but less than 10 members. The members are appointed by recommendation of the president and approval of the council among the members in relevant field. But in consideration of the scale and scope of the misconduct and the current status of the academic society, other type of verification organization may be established and operated.

2. The verification organization based on the condition under the provision of 6(1) shall include a professional in the relevant research field and outsiders not belonging to the relevant academic society as followings:

1) Over 50% of the professionals in the relevant research field

2) Over 20% of outsiders not belonging to the relevant academic society

3. The academic society shall notify the informant the name list of the investigators appointed according to the provision of 6(1) before start the investigation; and when the informant makes a reasonable objection to avoid one of the investigators, it shall be accepted.

 

Article 7 (Modification of the Code of Ethics)

The modification procedure of the Code of Ethics shall comply with the revision procedure of this academic society’s codes. When the Code of Ethics is modified, the members who have pledged the existing code are considered to comply with the revised code without additional pledge.

 

Chapter 3 Procedure of Handling the Suspicion of the Misconduct

Article 1 (Reporting Violation of the Code of Ethics)

When a member recognizes another member’s violation of the Code of Ethics, the member shall try to fix the problem by awakening the member with the Code of Ethics. But if the problem is not fixed or the violation of the Code of Ethics is obviously discovered, it may be reported to the ethics council of the academic society. The ethics council shall not disclose the identity of the member reporting the problem to the academic society.

 

Article 2 (Investigation and Deliberation of Investigation Committee)

The member who is reported to violate the Code of Ethics shall cooperate with the investigation performed by the Investigation Committee. If the member does not cooperate with this investigation, it means violating the Code of Ethics.

 

Article 3(Verification Procedure of the Misconduct)

1. The verification of the Misconduct shall be processed in order of preliminary investigation, main investigation, and decision.

2. If any procedure is necessary to be added besides the verification procedure in the provision of the 3(1), it may be included in the investigation.

 

Article 4 (Preliminary Investigation)

1. The preliminary investigation is the procedure to determine whether to perform the investigation for the suspicion of the misconduct, and it shall be begun within 30 days after the submission date of report. The organization form of preliminary investigation may be autonomically decided by the academic society.

2. When the examinee fully accepts the fact of misconduct according to the result of the preliminary investigation, it may be decided without the procedure of main investigation; and when possibilities of serious damages to the evidence are considered, accordingly measure may be taken to preserve the evidence upon approval of the president even before organizing the Investigation Committee.

3. If the main investigation is determined not to be performed according to the procedure of preliminary investigation, the detail reason shall be notified to the informant in written document within ten days after the date of determination. But, the case of the anonymous information is excepted.

4. When the informant does not agree with the result of the preliminary investigation, the informant may make an objection to the academic society within 30 days after receiving the notification.

 

Article 5 (Main Investigation)

1. The main investigation is the procedure verifying whether the misconduct is true or not, and the Investigation Committee shall be organized according to the code of the academic society.

2. Investigation Committee shall provide opportunities of stating opinions to the informant and the examinee and give the opportunities of making objection and arguing before deciding the result of the main investigation. If the person directly concerned with the affair does not respond, it may be regarded as not to make an objection.

3. The objections and arguments of the informant and the examinee and the results shall be included in the report of the investigation results.

 

Article 6 (Decision)

1. After determining the investigation results, the procedure of decision means to notify the results in written document to the informant and the examinee.

2. From beginning the preliminary investigation to the procedure of decision, the investigation schedule should be completed within 6 months. But, if the investigation

is considered not to be completed in the period, the reason can be notified to the research supporting organization by the academic society to extend the investigation period.

3. When the informant or the examinee does not agree with the decision, they may make an objection to the research supporting organization within 30 days after receiving the notification.

 

Article 7 (Record of the Investigation and Disclosure of Information)

1. The investigation organization shall keep all of the records through the procedures of investigation in forms of voice, video, or written document at least 5 years.

2. The report of investigation result and the name of the investigators may be disclosed after completion of decision.

3. Regarding the name list of the investigator, witness, reference witness, persons participating in consultation, and etc., it may not be disclosed if it gives disbenefit to the person concerned.

 

Article 8 (Report of the Investigation Results)

1. The results and the contents of the preliminary and main investigations performed by Investigation Committee shall be individually reported to the council within ten days after completing the preliminary investigation and decision.

2. The report of the preliminary and main investigation results shall contain as follows:

1) Content of the information

2) The fact of misconduct targeted to investigate

3) Name list of the investigators in the Investigation Committee (only for the case of main investigation)

4) Determination of the main investigation and the basis (only for the case of preliminary investigation)

5) Role of the examinee in the relevant research and the determination of the fact of the misconduct (only for the case of main investigation)

6) Relevant evidence and witness (only for the case of main investigation)

7) Objections or arguments and the results of the informant and the examinee (only for the case of main investigation)

3. The academic society shall report to the research supporting organization regarding the occurrence of followings through the procedure of investigation:

1) In case of serious violation against laws or relevant regulations

2) In case of obviously serious concern with the public welfare or safety

3) In case of demands of other necessary actions aroused by the research supporting organization or governmental authority.

 

Article 9 (Procedure and Content of the Disciplinary Action)

When the Investigation Committee suggests disciplinary actions, the president calls a meeting of council to finally decide whether to take the disciplinary actions or the kinds of disciplinary actions. They may warn or take the disciplinary actions of suspending or depriving the status of the membership for the member determined to violate the Code of Ethics; and the measures can be notified to other organizations or individuals.

 

Article 10 (Secret Protection for the Target of Investigation)

The ethics members shall not disclose the identities of the relevant members to the outside until the disciplinary action is finally decided by the academic society for violating the Code of Ethics.

 

Article 11 (Guaranteed Opportunity of Vindication)

To the member reported for violation of the Code of Ethics, the opportunities of vindication shall be sufficiently provided.

 

Clause 4 Countermeasures of Follow-up Management for Misconduct in Research

Article 1 (Plagiarism and Overlapping Publication of the Published Manuscripts)

1. If a manuscript published in this journal is decided as plagiarism or a re-published manuscript that was published in other journals (including journals besides listed candidates), it shall be taken measured as followings:

1) Countermeasures of the Academic Society

- Removed from the list of the manuscripts in journals

- Prohibited to submit manuscripts in future (minimally more than 3 years)

- Announced to the website of the academic society

- Notified the relevant details to Korea Research Foundation

 

Addendum

Article 1 (Date of Enforcement) This code shall be enforced on January 1, 2007 through resolution of the council

Article 2 If not stipulated in this code, it shall be complied with ordinary practices.

 

Addendum

Article 1 (Date of Enforcement) This code shall be enforced on January 1, 2010 through resolution of the council

Article 2 If not stipulated in this code, it shall be complied with ordinary practices.



 

Copyright © The Korean Society of Vision Science, All rights reserved
주소 : 서울시 서대문구 독립문로 28.   이메일 : koptics@koptometry.net   홈페이지 관리자 Tel : 061-330-3554