Ethical guidelines and regulations

 

Preamble

These ethical regulations are aimed to protect research integrity by setting forth the ethics-related matters regarding the findings that will be published in the “Journal of D-Culture Archives”

 

Definition of terms

1. Research frauds refer to forgeries, falsifications, plagiarisms, dual publications, improper inclusion or exclusion of authors, and so on, as seen in the proposals, performances, result reports, presentations, etc. of the research. Their details are as follows:

① Forgery: Refers to the act of forging non-existent data or findings.

 

② Falsification: Refers to the act of distorting research contents or results by fabricating, transforming, deleting or adding the data willfully.

 

③ Plagiarism: Refers to the act of representing others’ work as his or her own. Included is the cases of self-plagiarism of using identical ideas or data in subsequent publications without mentioning a quotation or reference.

 

④ Dual publications: Refers to publishing identical research contents in different academic journals twice or more.

 

⑤ Improper inclusion or exclusion of authors: Refers to not qualifying, without reasonable reason, a person who has contributed to research contents or results in scientific or technical terms for authorship, or to qualifying a person who has not contributed to them in scientific or technical terms for authorship.

 

⑥ Act of disturbing investigation into suspicion of committing fraudulent acts, or injuring the informant.

 

⑦ Act of proposing, forcing or threatening another person to commit fraudulent acts.

 

⑧ Other acts that seriously out of line with the scope normally acceptable in academic research.

2. “The informant” refers to a person who recognizes and reports to the Society any research fraud.

3. “The examinee” refers to a person who is under investigation for research fraud according to the report of an informant or the cognizance of the Society, or a person who has been found during an investigation to have potentially participated in research frauds. A reference or witness during examination shall not be called an examinee.

4. “Examination” refers to a procedure to determine whether the Society needs to examine the suspicion of research fraud officially, and to verify whether the suspicion of research fraud is true or not.

5. “Judgment” refers to a procedure of making decision based on evaluation of evidences and informing the decision to an informant and/or examinee.

 

Act 1(Chapter 1). Ethical requirements for the research

Ethical requirements for authors

1. (Authors′ responsibility) Each author shall precisely provide and be responsible for only the results of the research he or she has actually carried out. The corresponding author shall represent all authors at data accuracy, evaluating exact contribution of each author, certifying approval of all authors for the submitted draft and answering for all correspondences and questions.

2. (Management of data and findings) Data shall be collected and recorded in reliable, valid and appropriate ways, kept for a certain period of time to be available if necessary.

3. (Sequence of authors) Authors′ order shall be arranged in turn according to the extent of their contribution to research under mutual consent.

4. (Prohibition of dual publications) No author may attempt the dual publication of authors′ study including to be planned to publish or be examining. When wanting to publish authors′ study using one already published in other academic journal, authors shall offer the information on the previous publication to the editors of Journal of D-Culture Archives and shall follow the editors′ judgment of whether the act is double publication or not.

5. (Prohibition of plagiarism) Plagiarism of any kind is strictly prohibited.

6. (Authors′ revision of paper) Authors shall accommodate opinions of editors and reviewers as much as possible. When dissenting from the opinions, author shall offer the bases and reasons to editors and reviewers in detail.

 

Ethical requirements for editors

1. (Editors′ responsibility and duty) Editors shall be responsible for deciding whether to publish a contributed paper, ensure the truthfulness and fairness of judgment, and respect authors′ integrity and independence as a scholar.

2. (Fairness of selecting reviewers) Editors shall entrust the judgment of the paper to objective and fair reviewers with expertise in the field. Reviewers with conflicts with or interest in authors shall be excluded.

3. (Confidentiality) Contents and authorship of all submitted papers will be kept from public access until the final decision will be made. In addition, identity of the editors and reviewers will not be released during or after the evaluation of a given papers.

 

Ethical requirements for reviewers

1. (Reviewers′ responsibility and duty) Reviewers shall carefully evaluate the paper which editors have entrusted and inform review results to the editors within a period specified by the editors. If a reviewer considers oneself to be unqualified for evaluation, the reviewer shall inform editors immediately.

2. (Fairness of a review) Each reviewer shall evaluate objectively and fairly the quality of papers, the theory and interpretation of research through strict standards. Reviewers shall not reject any paper without a sufficient bases.

3. (Unethical act of reviewers)

① Reviewers shall respect the integrity and independence of authors and not use any expression that can be deemed insulting.

 

② Reviewers may not entrust reviewing to any third party including members of their institute or graduate students.

 

③ Reviewers may not keep and utilize any part of the paper for personal uses.

4. (Confidentiality) The review process will remain a secret. The reviewer may not use or disclose the contents of the paper without consent of the authors prior to publication. The reviewer shall not release the names of the editor and oneself to authors or to a third party.

 

Act 2. Enforcement of ethical regulations

1. (Oath of code of ethics) All member of Journal of D-Culture Archives shall make the oath of code of ethics when becoming the member.

2. (Report of ethical violation and protection for the informant)

① Any member shall warn another member against ethical violation if realizes another′s ethical violation. But anyone can report violations to the Ethics Committee in case of an ethical violation not being corrected or being disclosed obviously. The Ethics Committee may not disclose the identity of the member, the informant.

 

② The informant can require information that the Ethics Committee have got during the investigation. The Ethics Committee shall meet the requirement.

3. (Formation of the Ethics Committee) The Ethics Committee shall include the journal editors, and the chairman shall be recommended by the head of research center and confirmed by the Board of Directors. The committee members other than the journal editors shall be appointed by the Society president upon recommendation of the chairman.

4. (Authority of the Ethics Committee) The Ethics Committee shall carefully examine the case of ethical violation by all means deemed necessary and recommend Society president to take appropriate disciplinary.

5. (Investigation deliberation of the Ethics Committee) Any member who has been reported for violating ethical regulations shall cooperate with the investigation by the Ethics Committee. The non-cooperation on the investigation may be considered to be admission of the ethical violation.

6. (Guaranteeing the opportunity for explanation) Any member reported for ethical violations shall be given the opportunities to defend oneself.

7. (Protection of the secret about the member for investigation) The Ethics Committee may not disclose the identity of any member in question of the violation of ethical regulations until a final decision is made by the Society.

8. (Disciplinary procedure) When recommended to take disciplinary measures by the Ethics Committee, Society president shall make a decision on the disciplinary details which is to be approved by the Board of Directors.

9. (Treatment of research fraud) The outcome of ethics investigations on research fraud shall be reported to the Society general meeting, and the records involved shall be maintained at the Society for five years from the time when the disciplinary procedure has been completed. If the research fraud turns out to be true, it shall be announced to the Society and the exact measures to be taken, which may include some or all of the actions listed below, shall be determined by the Board of Directors.

① Notifying the researcher and one′s institute under investigation of the Society′s official conclusion and demanding appropriate disciplinary measures.

 

② Announcing the official conclusion of the investigation in the first subsequent issue of Journal of D-Culture Archives.

 

③ Announcing cancellation or revision of the article deemed to contain ethical violations or research frauds.

 

④ Notifying research frauds and disciplinary measures to a research institution supporting the research.

 

⑤ Suspension or disqualification of Society membership for an appropriate duration.

 

⑥ Prohibition of the article contribution to Journal of D-Culture Archives for a specified period.

 

⑦ Report to funding institutions or legal authorities if necessary.

 

⑧ Other measures judged to be necessary by the Society.

10. (rehabilitation) If it is confirmed that no research fraud was committed, the Committee shall take appropriate measures to restore the honor of the researcher who has been accused of ethical violations.

11. (Amendment of ethical regulations) The revision of ethical regulations shall follow the rules amendment procedures of the Society. If ethical regulations are revised, each member shall be considered to have pledged to obey new regulations without further individual confirmation.