Code of Research Ethics of the JGRS
I. General Provision1. Title
This rule is titled the “Code of Research Ethics of the Journal of Greco-Roman Studies (JGRS).”2. Purpose
This rule aims to establish the ethical conditions and practical details for the edition of JGRS, pre-screening papers and journal publication.
II. Code of Ethics for Contributors3. Prohibition of Research Misconduct
Contributors should not engage in research misconduct, such as plagiarism, unauthorized authorship, forgery, or tampering.
- 1) It is plagiarism to present part of others' claims, research methods, and results as their own. It is also an act of deviating from research ethics to present their own claims, research methods, and results presented in their previous publications without revealing the sources, as if they were new.
- 2) It is unauthorized authorship to grant authorship qualification to a person who has not contributed, or not to grant authorship qualification to a person who has contributed to the research methods or results without a good reason.
- 3) Making false research data or results that do not exist is forgery. Manipulating or arbitrarily altering or deleting research data or results is tampering.
- 1) The manuscripts submitted should not have been published in other journals or books, or be scheduled to be published or under consideration.
- 2) If the manuscript has been presented in a conference or is a development from previous publications, the author must state the fact in the manuscript.
- 1) Citations from published scholarly material must be accurate. In general, the source should be specified unless it belongs to common sense.
- 2) Data obtained through personal contact should be cited only after obtaining the consent of the researcher who provided the information.
- 3) If the violation of Section 1 or Section 2 above is recognized by the contributor on his/her own or by other persons’ notice, the contributor should correct the problem.
- 1) In case of violation of Article 3 or Article 4, or violation of Article 5 (3), the Editorial Board may refuse publication without individual examination.
- 2) In case Section 1 above occurs, the Editorial Board should notify the contributor of the fact and the grounds within 10 days.
- 3) The contributor may file an objection with the Editorial Board within 15 days of receipt of the notice.
- 4) The Editorial Board should process the appeal of the contributor within 15 days and notify the contributor of the result in writing.
III. Code of Ethics for Reviewers7. Integrity of Evaluation
- 1) The reviewers should evaluate the manuscript in good faith in accordance with the evaluation rules within the given period and notify the Editorial Board of the results.
- 2) If the prospect reviewer finds that he/she is not the right person to evaluate the manuscript, he/she should inform the Editorial Board immediately.
- 3) The reviewers should respect the author’s personality as an independent researcher. The reviewers should explain the comments in the evaluation in detail, and should not denigrate or insult the author.
The reviewers should evaluate the manuscript on objective criteria, regardless of personal affinity with the contributor. The reviewers should not evaluate the manuscript negatively merely because it is in conflict with the perspective or interpretation of the reviewer.9. Confidentiality during the Review Process
- 1) The reviewers should not show the manuscript to others, and should not discuss the contents of the manuscript with others unless specific advice is needed to evaluate the manuscript.
- 2) The reviewers should not plagiarize the contents of the evaluated manuscript and should not cite the contents of the manuscript without the author's consent before the journal is published.
IV. Code of Ethics for the Members of the Editorial Board10. Fairness of the Editing Process
- 1) The editorial board should refer the evaluation of the manuscripts to the reviewers who have expertise and fairness in judgment in the relevant field. The board should avoid referring to reviewers who are overly friendly or overly hostile to the author, to make sure that the evaluation is as fair as possible.
- 2) The editorial board should treat the contributor fairly on the basis of evaluation rules, regardless of the sex, the age, the institution of the contributor, and the personal affinity.
The editorial board should not disclose the personal information of the reviewers of any manuscript and should not disclose the personal information of the author or the contents of the articles to anyone other than the reviewers before the decision is made for the publication.
V. Rescreening12. Rescreening
The Board has the authority of rescreening the published papers through JGRS.13. Cases of Rescreening
The editorial board should rescreen an article if it is suspected to have violated Article 3: Prohibition of Research Misconduct or Article 4: Prohibition of Double Publication, after examining the evidence provided by the members of the Society or a third party.14. Reception of Rescreening Request
- 1) The process of rescreening begins after an informer proposes the request form and the Board receives it.
- 2) In the above case, the request form must be sealed and designated “Request of Rescreening” on the envelope, which does not show the name of the informer in principle.
The related envelope must be opened by the Editor in Chief or by his designated editor.16. Qualification of Rescreening Request
The request must specify the details of suspected violation of Article 3: Prohibition of Research Misconduct or Article 4: Prohibition of Double Publication,.
VI. Process of Rescreening17. Meeting of the Editorial Board for Rescreening
The Editor in Chief convenes the Editorial Board in order to make resolutions about the designation of judges and the related issues.18. Deliverance of Written Questionnaire
The Editor in Chief delivers the written questionnaire to the related author in order to ask of explanation, when the Board decides the possibility of plagiarism or double publishing.19. Response of the Related Author
The related author should submit the response letter to the Editor in Chief in 30 days after the related author receives the questionnaire. After the term, if the response does not arrive to the Editor in Chief, it is recognized that the author admit the doubt.
VII. After-treatment20. Confirmation of Rescreening in Editorial Board
The Editor in Chief convenes the Board in 15 days after receiving the response letter on the confirmation of rescreening.21. Notification of the Resolution
The Editor in Chief notices the resolutions both to the informer and to the author in 10 days.22. Sanctions Against the Plagiarism and Double Publishing
The Board executes the following sanctions in the case of confirmation,
- 1) The President publishes the conviction and the sanctions on the homepage of this society and in the next issue of the journal.
- 2) The related paper is to be erased on the online edition and also from the Korean Citation Index.
- 3) The related author has no qualification of submission to JGRS for five years.
VIII. Protection of the Informer23. Hiding of Identification
The Editorial Board should hide the identification of the related informer or the related requestor of rescreening at all.24. Restriction against Violator(s) of Article 16.
The violator(s) has no qualification of submission to JGRS for five years.
IX. Treatment of Objection25. Related Author
1) Anyone who has objection against the resolution of Editorial Board is permitted to appeal to the President of this society.26. Council of Research Ethics
The President composes and convenes the Council of Research Ethics according to the decision of the Executive Board.27. Appointment of Chairman and Members of the Council
The President appoints the chairman and members of the Council, in which the editor(s) cannot participate.28. Process
- 1) The Editor in Chief delivers all materials relating to the resolution of plagiarism and double publishing.
- 2) The process of decision follows the chapters VI and VII.
It is not permitted for the related persons to protest against the decision of the Council.
X. Complements30. Amendment of This Rule
- 1) The Editor in Chief or three and more editors move the amendment of this rule.
- 2) This rule is to be modified with the assent of two thirds and more of the editors and is to be authorized by the approval of the Executive Council.
In the cases not defined in this rule, the treatment follows the common usages.
This Code of Research Ethics shall be effective from October 1, 2017 Revision on October 1, 2017
- 1. Chapter II is revised.
- 2. Chapters III and IV are added.
- 3. The following chapters and articles are numbered up.
Revision on January 1, 2014.
- Article 4 is deleted. The following articles are numbered down.
Enactment on October 1, 2008