Ethical Guideline

Ethical Guideline of the Korean Society of Vision Science

Enacted January 1, 2007
Revised January 1, 2010
Revised January 1, 2019
Revised February 13, 2020

Chapter 1 General

Article 1 (Purpose) The purposes of this regulation are to establish the research ethics to be complied at the time of performance of academic research and submission and presentation of research paper by a member of the Korean Society of Vision Science (the "Society"), prevent any dishonest research conduct in advance, and present a standard that can verify the existence of any dishonest research conduct in a fair manner.

Article 2 (Duty and Responsibility) The Society shall emphasize the compliance with research ethics that are required in the process of performance of academic research by announcing this Regulation to its members and researchers and examiners shall comply with this Regulation.

Article 3 (Applicable Subject Matters) This Regulation shall cover all Society members who submit papers to the Korean Journal of Vision Science or make presentations in academic conferences and all researchers and various documents that are directly or indirectly related to R&D activities included in their writings and papers.

Article 4 (Applicable Scope) All papers that are submitted and presented through the Society shall comply with this Regulation unless there are special provisions applicable in other statutes related thereto.

Article 5 (Definitions of Terms) Terms used in this regulation are defined as follows;
1. "Dishonest Research Conduct" refers to an act seriously out of range generally accepted by the academic circle such as forgery, falsification or plagiarism of contents or falsified marking of the author(s) irrespective of original purpose of the research by intention or by serious mistake in the course of proposing, conducting, or reporting research.
2. "Forgery" refers to an act of untruthfully fabricating, recording or reporting original research materials, research data, research results, etc. which do not actually exist.
3. "Falsification" refers to an act of distorting research contents or results by arbitrarily manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, etc. or by discretionally modifying or deleting original research materials or research data.
4. "Plagiarism" refers to an act of inducing the third party to wrongly perceive one as the true author of a creative work by using the original ideas or creations of others which are not general knowledge without indicating the proper source in such a way as described in the followings;
1) Using all or part of the research contents of others without indicating their sources
2) Using others’ works in partially modified words and sentence structures without indicating their sources
3) Using others’ works in translated form without indicating their sources
5. "Unreasonable indication of authors" refers to the act of granting the qualification of author for such reasons as expression of gratitude or respectful treatment in relation to research contents or results as follows;
1) Granting a person the qualification of author even though the person has not made any contribution to the research contents or results
2) Not granting a person the qualification of author without justifiable reasons even though the person have made contributions to the research contents or results (not properly recognizing the contribution of a graduate or a post-doc student)
3) Publishing a student’s thesis a in a journal in the name of the advising professor alone
4) The person who have made contribution to the research but is not qualified for the author shall be included in the "acknowledgments" as a contributor
5) Papers written by family members (parents and children or couples) and the family member concerned retains master’s degree and higher on the research topic shall make an exception (for the case)
6. "Unreasonable publication" refers to an act of overlapping publication by a researcher of a work which is identical or substantially similar to his/her previous research findings without providing legitimate reasons.
7. "Obstruction of investigation" refers to an act of intentionally interrupting the investigation on a person’s or someone else’s misbehavior or misconduct, or to an act of inflicting harm on the informer.
8. Authorship
Authors are considered individuals who have made substantial intellectual contributions to published research, and continue to have a significant impact on their academic, social, and financial impacts.
The criteria for authorship of the Society are as follows and all four criteria must be met. In case none of these is applicable to a person, the person is called a "contributor".
1) One who planned the research, contributed to research design or collected, analyzed or interpreted research data.
2) One involved in drafting of a work (thesis) or in making important points of the work
3) Final authorizer of the paper to be published
4) One who investigates and settles matters about accuracy or overall contents of the thesis and takes responsibility of the thesis

Article 6 (Author’s Real Name System)Author’s ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) and authors’ contributions to the research, their affiliations and position shall be recorded.

Chapter 2 Research Ethics and Publication Ethics

Article 7 (Research Ethics) ① The "Research Ethics" refers to the ethics related to honesty/veracity of research in the research performance and it generally covers the Publication Ethics. It also covers matters relating to forgery, falsification, and plagiarism, matters relating to bioethics and consent letters, and matters relating to analysis, expression of materials and conflict of interest (COI). When submitting a paper, the author is required to prove that there is no financial relationship (such as financial support from or possession of stocks of a specific institution, organization or corporation) and private matters such as concurrent office, and in case any violation occurs related to matters mentioned above after publication of the thesis, the author shall notify the parties and organizations concerned and take action in accordance with the research ethics regulations of the association.
 ② Researcher shall ensure that there is no violation of Research Ethics in all of his/her created works that he/she submitted.
③ Where a subject matter of research is human (including questionnaire surveys), it shall obtain an approval of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the research institute.
Ensure correct use of the terms sex (when reporting biological factors) and gender (identity, psychosocial or cultural factors), and, report the sex and/or gender of study participants. If the study was done involving an exclusive population, for example in only one sex, authors should justify why, except in obvious cases and should define how they determined race or ethnicity and justify their relevance. Where a subject matter of research is animal, it needs to be specified in the manuscript that the experiment process does not breach the NIH Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals or equivalent own provisions and it shall comply with the Society's Research Ethics Regulations; provided, however, for any research with a subject matter covering human, it shall be exempted from the IRB review if the research only uses measuring or observatory equipment that involves simple touch / contact of human without bringing about any physical changes.

Article 8 (Publication Ethics) ① The "Publication Ethics" refers to the ethics related to publication honesty/veracity of research output and the ethics related to authorship status, relationship of interests involved, overlapping publication, and processes of examination/review and edit.
② The Editor Board may request for the details of degrees of contributions to the research by the listed authors where there is a suspicion about unreasonable indication of authors for papers or a report about dishonesty.
③ If there are any special private interests involved including financial support that affected the relevant research, the researcher shall disclose the details thereof.
④ Researcher shall not, regardless of Korea or overseas, publish (submit) or attempt to publish his/her research work that was previously published (including any research work that is scheduled to be published or under review) as a new research work. In case of intending to publish by using a research work that was already presented, he/she shall provide information about the previous publication to an editor of the academic journal that he/she intends to publish and confirm whether it falls under overlapping publication.
⑤ In case of citing a disclosed academic material, he/she shall try to state it precisely, and he/she clearly specify the source unless it is a material belonging to common sense. In case of materials that were obtained in the course of review of paper or research plan or personal contact, they may be cited only after obtaining a consent of the researcher that provided such information.
⑥ In case of citing other person's writing or borrowing (referring to) other person's idea, he/she shall reveal the fact of citation and reference through a footnote (endnote), and readers must be able to know through such indication which part is a result of preceding research and which part is his/her creative thought / argument / interpretation.
⑦ Authors shall try to accept the opinions of editors and reviewers presented during the process of review of paper to the extent possible; where they do not agree with such opinions, they shall specify the grounds and reasons and notify the editors (committee).

Chapter 3 Reviewer Ethics

Article 9 (Reviewer Ethics) ① Reviewers include both editors and peer reviewers.
② Reviewers shall recognize researchers' independence as professional / expert intellectuals.
③ Reviewers shall faithfully review the papers requested by the editors (committee) of academic journal within the period set forth by the review regulation and notify the outcome of review to the editors (committee). If he/she believes that he/she is not a right person to review the details of paper, he/she shall notify such fact to the editors (committee) without delay.
④ Reviewers shall keep confidentiality of papers that are subject matters of review. Unless requesting for a special advice for the review of paper, it is not desirable to show the paper to other persons or discuss the details of paper with other persons. Moreover, he/she shall not cite the details of paper until the publication of journal that contains the paper without the author's consent.
⑤ Where any of editors or peer reviewers is involved in any relationship of interests with a paper that may affect the review of paper (financial relationship, personal relationship, and intellectual interest in research competition), he/she shall not participate in such review decision.
⑥ Editors shall request for reviews of submitted papers to reviewers with expert knowledge in the relevant sectors and capacity to render fair decisions.
⑦ Where a reviewer's corruptive conduct is found, the editors committee chairperson may convene an editors committee meeting and render a decision such as caution, warning, exclusion from review and editing work or prohibition of submission to the relevant journal for a certain period, etc. depending on each case.
⑧ Editors shall bear all responsibilities of determination of whether to publish the submitted papers and they shall respect the authors' personality and independence as academics.
⑨ Editors shall fairly treat the papers submitted for publication in the journal based only on the papers' quality levels and the submission regulation regardless of the authors' gender, age, and affiliated organization as well as certain preconception or personal relationship.
⑩ Editors shall request for reviews of submitted papers to reviewers with expert knowledge in the relevant sectors and capacity to render fair decisions. In case of requesting for review, they shall try to ensure that an objective review takes place to the extent possible by avoiding reviewers with excessive friendly relationships or excessive hostility in relation to the authors; provided, however, where there is a significant difference between the reviewers for the review of same paper, he/she may receive a consultation of a third expert in the relevant sector.
⑪ Editors shall not disclose the details of paper or matters relating to the authors to any person other than the reviewers until the moment of decision of publication of submitted paper.

Chapter 4 Establishment and Operation of Research Ethics Truthfulness Committee

Article 10 (Composition of Research Ethics Truthfulness Committee) ① There shall be the Research Ethics Committee (the "Committee") in the Society for the purposes of examination of dishonest research conduct under Article 5 of the Regulation and resolution of sanctions.
② The Committee shall be consisted of 1 of chairmans and 5 to 10 members and the President shall appoint the members.
③ The Research Ethics Committee shall be consisted of experts in the relevant research sector and outside persons not belonging to the relevant society and shall include the followings:
- At least 50% of experts in the relevant research sector
- At least 20% of outside persons not belonging to the relevant society
④ The President shall appoint the chairperson amongst the members.
⑤ The term of chairperson and members shall be 2 years and they may be reappointed for consecutive terms.

Article 11 (Functions of Committee) The Committee shall examine and resolve each of the following matters related to the Research Ethics of Society members.
1. Matters relating to the establishment of Research Ethics and Truthfulness
2. Matters relating to the receipt of report of dishonest research conduct and the determination of investigation subject matters
3. Matters relating to the protection and confidentiality of whistleblower
4. Matters relating to the verification of violation of dishonest research truthfulness conduct, handling of verification outcome, and follow-up measures
5. Matters relating to the measures for restoration of reputation of investigated person
6. Other matters presented by the Committee chairperson for discussion

Article 12 (Operation of Committee)　① The Committee chairperson shall convene the Committee's meeting and shall become the chairperson.
② The Committee shall be convened in each of the following cases.
1. Where 1/3 or more of registered members of the Committee request for such meeting
2. Where the chairperson finds that such meeting is necessary
③ The Committee shall be validly established by the attendance of a majority of registered members and its resolution shall be passed by consenting votes of 2/3 or more of attending members; provided, however, the chairperson's attendance shall be counted for the purpose of determination of valid establishment of Committee but he/she shall not be conferred with a voting right.
④ Any members participating in the research, which is a subject matter of the Committee's examination, shall not participate in the examination related to such research.
⑤ Where the Committee finds it necessary, it may require the related parties to attend and hear their opinions.
⑥ As a matter of principle, the meetings shall be confidential.
⑦ The members shall keep confidentiality of various matters relating to the examination.
⑧ Where the chairperson finds that the agenda of examination is minor, it may be substituted by a written examination.

Article 13 (Power and Responsibility of Committee) ① The Committee chairperson shall, if necessary for examination, may request for attendance and submission of materials to the whistleblower, investigated person, witness, and person for reference, and the investigated person must comply thereto.
② The Committee may request for submissions of materials to the investigated person. For the purpose of preservation of evidentiary materials, it may confiscate and store, etc. the relevant research materials about the related persons of dishonest conduct after obtaining an approval of the head of relevant research institute.  
③ Where the investigated person refuses to attend or submit materials without a justifiable ground, he/she may be presumed to have acknowledged / accepted the allegation.
④ For the purpose of prevention of destruction, damaging, concealment or falsification, etc. of research record or evidence, the Committee may take a corresponding measure thereto.
⑤ The Committee members shall keep confidentiality of various matters relating to the examination.
⑥ The Committee may request for explanatory materials from the relevant parties.
⑦ The Committee's decision shall be effective from the moment of such decision.

Chapter 5 Verification and Handling of Dishonest Research Conduct

Article 14 (Reporting and Receipt of Dishonest Research Conduct) ① The whistleblower may file a report by all available methods such as verbal, writing, phone call, and e-mail, etc.
② As a matter of principle, such report shall be filed under his/her real name; provided, however, in inevitable circumstances, an anonymous reporting is also possible.
③ The whistleblower shall submit the details such as the name of research task or paper and detailed dishonest conduct, etc. as well as relevant supporting materials.
④ The Society shall not reject the reports under Articles 13(1) and (2) without a justifiable ground; however, where the explanatory materials under Article 13(3) is significantly weak, the Society may reject such report.
⑤ The scope of Dishonest Research Conduct is subject to separate Dishonest Research Conduct Management Practices.

Article 15 (Protection of Rights of Whistleblower) ① The Research Ethics Committee shall protect the whistleblower so that he/she does not receive any disadvantages of status due to the reason of reporting the dishonest research conduct.
② Matters relating to the whistleblower's identity shall not be a subject matter of information disclosure.
③ The whistleblower may request the Committee to be informed about the process and schedule, etc. following the reporting of dishonest research conduct and the Society shall faithfully comply thereto.  
④ A person who made a report while knowing that the details of report is false shall not be included in the subject matters of protection.

Article 16 (Protection of Rights of Investigated Person) ① Each of the following persons shall be an investigated person.
1. A person that became a subject matter of investigation of dishonest research conduct due to a whistleblower's report
2. A person that became a subject matter of investigation under the Research and Ethics Committee's recognition / awareness
3. A person that became a subject matter of investigation based on an assumption of participation in the dishonest research conduct during the investigation process
② The Research Ethics Committee shall take cautions so that the investigated person's honor or rights are not infringed in the course of verification and handling of dishonest research conduct.
③ An allegation of dishonest research conduct shall not be disclosed externally until the final decision of sanction; provided, however, it may be disclosed pursuant to the Committee's resolution where there is a reasonable need for disclosure such as where there is a material breach of statute or relevant rules, where there occurred or is a concern of occurrence of material risk to public welfare or safety, or where there is otherwise a need for measures by expert institutions or government authority, etc.
④ The investigated person may request the Committee to be informed about the process and schedule, etc. of dishonest research conduct and the Committee shall faithfully comply thereto.
⑤ The investigated person shall be deemed as not in violation of the Research Ethics Regulation until there is a decision about the relevant agenda.

Article 17 (Verification Process) ① The Committee shall investigate the existence of dishonest conduct if there is a detailed / concrete report or substantial suspicion.
② The verification shall undergo each of the following procedures 
1. The preliminary investigation is a procedure to determine whether to perform the main investigation in relation to the alleged dishonest research conduct and it shall commence within 30 days from the date of receipt of report
2. Where the investigated person admits all of dishonest research conduct, a decision may be made directly without undergoing the main investigation.
3. Where it is decided in the preliminary investigation not to perform the main investigation, the detailed grounds thereof shall be notified to the whistleblower in writing within 10 days from the date of end of preliminary investigation.
4. The main investigation is a procedure performed to prove whether the dishonest research conduct exists. The Investigation Committee can be separately established, and the Ethics Committee can substitute the Investigation Committee instead.
5. The Investigation Committee or the Ethics Committee shall provide an opportunity of statement of opinion to the whistleblower and investigated person in accordance with the Regulation, and it shall provide an opportunity of objection and defense prior to the confirmation of outcome of main investigation. Where the relevant party fails to comply thereto, he/she shall be deemed as not having such objection.
6. The details of objection or defense of the whistleblower and investigated person and the outcome of handling thereof shall be included in the investigation outcome report.
7. The decision refers to a procedure of confirming / finalizing the investigation outcome and notifying the same to the whistleblower and investigated person in writing without delay.
8. All investigation schedules from the commencement of preliminary investigation to the making of decision shall be completed within 6 months; provided, however, where it is found that the investigation would be difficult to be completed within the said period, the Society may notify the relevant reasons to the research support institute and extend the investigation period.
9. Where the whistleblower or investigated person disagrees and appeals the decision, he/she may file an objection to the Editor Committee within 30 days from the date of receipt of notification. The procedures for composition and re-examination of the Reexamination Committee shall be based on Articles 11 and 12; provided, however, the Reexamination Committee in such case shall be consisted of new members. Where there is no objection of the whistleblower or investigated person to the outcome of decision of the Committee, they shall be deemed as accepting and following the outcome of decision.

Article 18 (Exclusion, Avoidance, and Evasion) ① Any Committee member that has a direct interest with the relevant investigation shall be excluded from the investigation, examination of agenda, and resolution.
② The whistleblower or investigated person may apply for avoidance with the relevant reasons if there is a ground where it is difficult to expect fairness from the Committee member. Where the application of avoidance is accepted by the Committee's resolution, the relevant member shall be excluded from the relevant investigation.  
③ A person with a direct interest in the relevant investigation shall not participate in the relevant agenda's examination, resolution, and investigation.

Article 19 (Report of Investigation Outcome) ① The outcome and details of the Investigation Committee's preliminary investigation and main investigation shall be reported to the Board of Directors within 10 days each from the end of preliminary investigation and decision, respectively.
② The outcome reports of preliminary investigation and main investigation shall include each of the following details.
1. Details of whistleblower's report
2. Alleged dishonest research conduct, which is a subject matter of investigation, and related research task
3. List of investigators of Investigation Committee
4. Role of investigated person in the relevant research and whether the dishonest conduct was actually committed
5. Relevant evidence and witness
6. Details of objection or defense of whistleblower and investigated person and the outcome of handling thereof
7. Other matters required for such report

Article 20 (Measures and Sanctions following Investigation Outcome) ① Where there is a finding of dishonest research conduct, each of the following sanctions may be imposed. 
1. Disapproval of publication of dishonest research paper
2. In case of published paper, delete from the Society's list of papers and announce the fact of cancellation of publication in the Society's website and Journal.
3. Deprivation or suspension of membership qualification/status
4. Prohibition of submission of paper (for least 3 years)
5. Other appropriate measures  
② The announcement shall include the name of author, name of paper, volume in which the paper was published, date of cancellation and grounds of cancellation, etc.
③ The Committee shall determine the length of period of deprivation or suspension depending on the degree of seriousness of dishonest conduct.
④ The Committee may deprive or suspend the membership qualification / status against a person that intentionally or with gross negligence made a report, which is different from the truth, or distributed false facts.

Article 21 (Notification of Outcome) The Committee chairperson may prepare the Committee's decision in writing and notify the same to related parties such as whistleblower and investigated person, etc. without delay.

Article 22 (Follow-Up Measures such as Restoration of Reputation) Where it is confirmed that there was no dishonest research conduct as a result of investigation, the Committee may take an appropriate follow-up measures in an effort to restore the investigated person's reputation.

Article 23 (Storage and Disclosure of Investigation Outcome) ① Any record relating to investigation shall be stored for 5 years from the end of investigation.
② The outcomes following the end of decision shall be reported to the Society's Executive Board of Directors. Any matters relating to personal identity such as list of whistleblower, investigator, witness, person for reference, and person who participated in consultation, etc. may be excluded from the subject matter of disclosure pursuant to the Committee's resolution if there is a possibility of disadvantage for the relevant party/person.