Research and Publication Ethics

Mar. 23. 2023

Oct. 21. 2024

 

 

The purpose of these regulations is to establish fundamental principles and guidelines on the roles and responsibilities essential for ensuring research ethics for researchers conducting studies under the Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine Technology (hereinafter referred to as “the Society”) and to stipulate measures to prevent research misconduct.

 

These regulations apply to all members of the Society and authors submitting papers to Nuclear Medicine Technology (hereinafter referred to as “the Journal”).

 

Unless otherwise specified by other laws or regulations concerning research ethics and integrity in specific research fields, these regulations shall apply.

 

 

 

① Members shall conduct all research activities (including research proposals, execution, reporting and presentation of research findings, and research review and evaluation) with honesty and integrity.

② The content and significance of the research shall be described objectively and accurately, and research shall not be arbitrarily altered by deletion or addition.

③ All research activities shall be conducted without bias or prejudice.

 

① All research information shall be clearly and accurately recorded, processed, and preserved to allow for proper interpretation and verification.

② Members shall use appropriate experimental designs and statistical methods and disclose them when necessary.

 

Researchers shall conduct their studies autonomously based on academic freedom while adhering to the following principles:

1. Respecting the dignity and fair treatment of research subjects.

2. Protecting of research subjects’ personal information and privacy.

3. Conducting research with honesty and transparency based on factual evidence.

4. Upholding academic integrity when contributing professional knowledge to society.

5. Publishing new academic findings to contribute to the advancement of scholarship.

6. Acknowledging and respecting the achievements of previous researchers by properly citing sources when using their works.

7. Ensuring that research outcomes are not influenced by the interests of funding institutions and disclosing any relevant conflicts of interest.

8. Clearly stating the researcher’s affiliation and position (author information) when publishing research results to enhance research credibility.

9. Actively participating in ongoing research ethics education.

 

Members shall ensure that the publication and utilization of research findings align with academic integrity. In particular, research results shall not be distorted or exaggerated for the purpose of enhancing external reputation or securing research funding.

 

Members shall strive to enhance social benefits through research and ensure that their work aligns with public interest standards. They must also recognize the potential societal impact of their research and fulfill their responsibilities as professionals.

 

Members shall respect intellectual property rights, such as patents and copyrights, and comply with all research-related laws and regulations.

 

 

 

Researchers engaging in collaborative research shall clearly define their roles and relationships and fulfill their corresponding responsibilities.

 

The corresponding author or principal investigator holds overall responsibility for the research data and authorship attribution and is also accountable for supervising the research of co-authors.

 

① The corresponding author or principal investigator must be someone who can assume full responsibility for the research findings an d validation.

② The corresponding author is responsible for justifying the order of authorship and the inclusion

③ The principal investigator must consider the potential risks associated with the misuse of research findings and take necessary measures to minimize such risks during the research process.

④ If the submitted manuscript involves human subjects, the principal investigator must adhere to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki (https://www.wma.net). Additionally, the researcher must indicate whether the study has received approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and whether patient consent has been obtained. For animal experiments, approval must be obtained from the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC).

 

Papers published in this academic journal must fully comply with the guidelines recommended by the Gender Innovation Policy (http://gister.re.kr). Authors must accurately distinguish between sex and gender in their research descriptions. Furthermore, studies must include both male and female subjects and conduct comparative analyses of the results. If a study focuses on a single sex, a scientifically valid justification must be provided.

 

①. Authorship shall be determined based on academic and technical contributions to the research content or results. Examples of such contributions include:

1. Conception and design of the research

2. Data collection and interpretation

3. Drafting the manuscript

4. Approval of the final version of the manuscript

②. Individuals who have not made academic or technical contributions to the research shall not be included as authors for reasons of gratitude or honorary recognition. However, contributions such as data collection, data entry, or translation into another language may be acknowledged in the acknowledgments section.

 

The order of authors shall be determined fairly through mutual agreement among all authors, reflecting their respective contributions to the research.

 

As a general rule, the affiliation of authors in a paper shall correspond to the institution they were affiliated with at the time of conducting the research and writing the manuscript. However, in fields where different conventions are commonly accepted, such conventions may be followed.

 

 

 

① Research misconduct refers to the following acts committed in the proposal, execution, reporting, or publication of research projects:

1. Fabrication – Creating, recording, or reporting nonexistent research data, materials, or results.

2. Falsification – Manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or arbitrarily modifying or deleting research data to distort research content or results.

3. Plagiarism – Using another person’s original ideas or creative works without proper citation, thereby misleading others into believing them to be one’s own. Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to:

(a) Using all or part of another person’s research content without citing the source.

(b) Modifying the wording or sentence structure of another person’s work without proper citation.

(c) Using another person’s original ideas without proper attribution.

(d) Translating and utilizing another person’s work without citing the source.

4. ‘Unjust authorship attribution’ refers to assigning authorship without valid justification to individuals who have not contributed to the research content or results, or granting authorship for reasons such as expressing gratitude or showing courtesy.

(a) Granting authorship to someone who has not contributed to the research content or results.                                        

(b) Failing to grant authorship to someone who has made a significant contribution to the research content or results.

5. Unfair duplicate publication refers to the act of a researcher publishing a work that is identical or substantially similar to their previous research results without proper citation, thereby obtaining undue benefits, such as research funding or recognition for separate research achievements.

6. Interfering with the investigation of research misconduct – Deliberately hindering the investigation of one’s own or another person’s misconduct or causing harm to the whistleblower.

7. Any act that seriously deviates from commonly accepted practices within a given academic field.

② ‘whistleblower’ refers to a person who notifies the relevant academic society or research support institution of misconduct they have observed, providing relevant facts or evidence.

③ ‘respondent’ refers to a person who becomes the subject of an investigation into misconduct based on a whistleblower’s report or the awareness of an academic society or research support institution, or a person presumed to have been involved in the misconduct during the investigation process. This does not include individuals who are witnesses or references in the investigation.

④ ‘Preliminary investigation’ refers to the procedure for determining whether a formal investigation into suspected misconduct should be conducted.

⑤ ‘Formal investigation’ refers to the procedure for verifying the existence of misconduct.

⑥ ‘Determination’ refers to the procedure of confirming the investigation results and notifying both the whistleblower and the respondent in writing.

 

① Authors may cite portions of others’ works in their own, using methods such as introduction, reference, or commentary, either in the original text or as a translation.

② Authors must ensure the accuracy of citations and the reference list. Authors should verify all citation elements (author name, journal volume/issue, page numbers, publication year, etc.) directly from the original source rather than relying on secondary sources. If this is unavoidable, the secondary citation must be clearly indicated.

③ Authors must cite works appropriately and in good faith, ensuring that cited sources are clearly distinguishable from the author’s original contributions.

④ In principle, authors should cite published works. If unpublished academic materials are obtained through peer review, research proposals, or private communication, authors must obtain the original researcher’s consent before citing them.

⑤ When incorporating theories or ideas previously published by others into their own work, authors must properly attribute the source.

⑥ When borrowing heavily from one source, authors should clearly distinguish between their own ideas and those taken from referenced sources, ensuring that readers can easily identify them.

⑦ Authors must include all significant published works that have substantially influenced the research direction or could help readers better understand the study, except in cases where it is theoretically or empirically evident that the researcher is already aware of them.

⑧ When reviewing prior research, authors should avoid citing journal articles in the reference list while actually referring to abstracts or using early versions of conference papers when the final published version is available.

 

① When using someone else’s ideas or factual information, the source must be acknowledged. However, this does not apply to widely known information or material that readers are expected to be familiar with.

② If there is uncertainty regarding whether a concept or fact is considered general knowledge, a citation should be included.

 

① “Idea plagiarism” refers to the act of using another person’s idea (such as an explanation, theory, conclusion, hypothesis, or metaphor) in whole or in part, either exactly as it is or with only superficial modifications, without acknowledging the original creator’s contribution.

② Authors have an ethical obligation to credit the source of ideas, typically through footnotes or citations.

③ Authors must not plagiarize ideas learned from reviewing others’ research proposals or manuscript submissions through peer review, without proper acknowledgment and citation of the source.

 

“Text plagiarism” refers to the act of copying parts of another person’s text without acknowledging the author.

 

“Mosaic plagiarism” refers to the act of rearranging parts of another person’s text, adding or inserting words, or replacing words with synonyms, while failing to acknowledge the original author and source.

 

① If the main content of a previously published paper is the same, even if the later published paper uses a text with a slightly different perspective or includes a slightly different analysis of the same data, it is considered duplicate publication.

② When conducting duplicate publication for a different group of readers who cannot recognize the previously published paper, the editors of both journals must agree on the duplicate publication. The author must inform the readers of both journals that the same paper has been published in another journal. This also applies when a paper published in one language is translated and published in another journal in a different language.

③ It is prohibited to submit the same paper to multiple journals simultaneously. The principle is that after a manuscript is rejected by one journal, it can then be submitted to another journal.

 

① When a paper is published in this journal, the copyright is typically transferred to the publisher of this journal. Therefore, authors should be aware of the potential risk of copyright infringement when publishing or reusing the paper in another form.

② Duplicate publication poses a risk of copyright infringement and should be handled with caution.

③ When extensively citing text from sources protected by copyright, authors must use proper quotation marks or be cautious, even if the text has been paraphrased, as copyright infringement may still occur.

 

Reviewers must not use specific information learned during the peer review process for their own research, either directly or indirectly, without the consent of the original author.

 

The following actions may be considered ethically inappropriate research practices:

1. Falsely stating or reporting research achievements and results.

2. Presenting research at conferences or seminars without appropriately disclosing the fact of joint research.

3. Making statements that damage reputation or engage in personal attacks during the peer review process.

4. Requesting a third party to review a paper that has been assigned to the reviewer.

5. Reviewing or evaluating a paper without reading it.

6. Conducting research that could harm human life, health, or violate human rights.

 

The following actions are considered inappropriate writing practices:

1. Inappropriate citation of sources.

2. Distortion of reference materials.

3. Relying on abstracts or similar sources when citing published papers.

4. Citing sources of works that have not been read or understood.

5. Focusing heavily on one source while only partially acknowledging the source.

6. Recycling text.

7. Splitting research results that should have been published as a single paper into multiple papers with the intent to inflate research achievements.

 

① References should only include works that are directly relevant to the content of the paper. References to works that are questionable in relevance, with the intention of manipulating journal or paper citation indices or increasing the likelihood of paper acceptance, must not be intentionally included.

② Authors must not selectively include only those references that favor their own data or theory. It is also an ethical responsibility to cite works that may contradict the author’s perspective.

 

① Research misconduct involving special relationship co-authors (hereinafter referred to as “special relationship persons”) refers to the omission or improper listing of minors (under the age of 19) or family members (spouse, children, or blood relatives within the fourth degree) as co-authors while deriving public or private benefits (such as college admission, employment, or promotion) from the paper. Any paper involving a special relationship person must clearly demonstrate their substantial contribution to the research and manuscript preparation.

② To prevent research misconduct involving special relationship co-authors, authors must provide relevant personal information through the “Author Information Disclosure” form when submitting a manuscript.

 

 

 

① A conflict of interest refers to situations where any of the following factors may negatively affect fair professional judgment or the conduct of research:

1. Financial conflict of interest: Occurs when the researcher’s financial gain related to the research leads to a conflict.

2. Interpersonal conflict of interest: Arises from personal relationships, such as friendships, influences from affiliated institutions, or personal conflicts or research competition.

3. Intellectual conflict of interest: Occurs due to religious beliefs, worldviews, moral convictions, or theoretical certainties regarding specific types or fields of research.

4. Role conflict: Arises when roles related to teaching, service, or external activities within the affiliated institution conflict with research activities.

② If a conflict of interest arises during the proposal, conduct, reporting, or peer review of research, the researcher or reviewer has an obligation to manage or eliminate any potential influence of personal interests.

1. Protection of whistleblowers

2. Disclosure of conflicts of interest

3. Efficient monitoring system

4. Fair treatment of co-authors

5. Fair management of research funds

 

 

 

A Research Ethics Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee”) shall be established to review and investigate all matters related to the research ethics of the members of this society.

 

The Committee shall review and decide on the following matters:

1. Establishment and operation of systems related to research ethics integrity.

2. Measures for preventing research misconduct within the society.

3. Reception and handling of reports on misconduct.

4. Initiation of investigations into research misconduct and approval of investigation results.

5. Measures for protecting whistleblowers and restoring the reputation of respondents.

6. Handling and follow-up actions regarding research integrity verification results.

7. Any other matters referred by the chairperson.

 

① The Committee shall consist of one Research Ethics Committee    Chairperson (hereinafter referred to as the “Chairperson”), one Secretary, and five members.

② The Chairperson shall be appointed by the President of the society, and the Secretary and members shall be appointed by the Chairperson.

③ The term of office for the Chairperson and members shall be 3 years.

④ The Chairperson shall represent the Committee and oversee its operations.

⑤ The Secretary shall assist the Chairperson in planning and carrying out the Committee’s work.

⑥ The Committee shall be guaranteed independence in exercising its authority within the scope of its duties.

 

① The Chairperson shall represent the Committee, convene, and preside over meetings.                                                           

② The Committee shall have one Secretary, who shall be designated by the Chairperson.                                                              

③ If the chairperson determines that it is necessary to specifically investigate suspected research ethics violations, a subcommittee may be formed. The subcommittee shall consist of up to three editorial board members and must not overlap with the research ethics committee members.

 

① The committee shall be convened when deemed necessary by the chairperson or upon the request of a majority of its members, as well as when a research ethics violation case is submitted. In cases where a research ethics violation is reported, the committee must review and make a decision within 60 days from the date of submission.

② Meetings shall generally be closed to the public, but in necessary cases, individuals who are not members may be allowed to attend and provide their opinions.

 

The Committee shall be opened with the attendance of a majority of the members, and decisions shall be made with the approval of more than half of the attending members.

 

If deemed necessary, the Committee may invite relevant individuals to attend and hear their opinions.

 

① The Committee may request the attendance and submission of materials from the whistleblower, the respondent, and witnesses during the investigation of research misconduct and violations of research ethics.

② Under no circumstances should the identity of the whistleblower or witness regarding research misconduct and violations of research ethics be disclosed. The reputation or rights of the respondent must not be violated until the investigation of research misconduct and violations of research ethics is complete.

③ The Committee must maintain confidentiality regarding all matters related to the deliberations.

④ The committee may impose disciplinary actions against research misconduct and research ethics violators, including a warning, cancellation of manuscript submission to the journal, retraction of published papers, a three-year ban on manuscript submission, removal of the paper from the journal’s publication list, public disclosure of the research ethics violation on the society’s website, and reporting the details of the violation to the National Research Foundation of Korea.                                 ⑤ Once the committee reaches a final decision on a research ethics violation, it must promptly notify both the whistleblower and the respondent. If either party disagrees with the committee’s decision, they may request a reconsideration within one week of receiving the notification, but only once. However, the chairperson may reject the request for reconsideration if it is determined that there are no additional factors that could impact the final decision beyond the already established facts.

 

 

 

When research misconduct is recognized or reported regarding a paper submitted to the journal, the responsibility to prove the allegations lies with the research leader. Additionally, to prevent research misconduct and establish research ethics, including post-publication management of papers, this society sets the verification period for research authenticity as indefinite.

 

① When the Chairperson requests the research leader to submit verification materials regarding research misconduct related to a paper submitted to the society’s journal, the research leader must submit the verification materials to the Editor-in-Chief.

② The research leader may request a hearing opportunity from the Editor-in-Chief.

③ The Chairperson may request the society’s committee to review the submitted materials, opinions, and investigative data.

 

① The whistleblower may report to the Chairperson verbally, in writing, by phone, email, or any other means, with the principle that reports are made under their real name. However, if the whistleblower wishes to remain anonymous, they must submit a written or emailed report including the paper title or specific details of the misconduct along with evidence.

② Whistleblowers who knew or should have known that the reported content was false are not included in the protection.

③ The Committee shall not proceed with further procedures if the reported case falls under any of the following conditions:

1. The respondent or the work is not specified.

2. The report is clearly false or does not constitute research misconduct.

3. The report is anonymous, and no concrete details or evidence of research misconduct are provided.

4. The whistleblower reports only some instances of research misconduct already known to them with the intent to delay, repeat, or prolong the investigation of the same respondent.

 

① A “whistleblower” refers to a person who has become aware of research misconduct and reports the facts or related evidence to the relevant institution.

② The report must be made under the whistleblower’s real name using methods such as verbal communication, in writing, by phone, or email. However, even if the report is anonymous, it may be processed as if it were made under the whistleblower’s real name if it contains evidence such as the paper title, research project title, and specific details of the research misconduct submitted in writing or by email.

③ The society’s President shall protect the whistleblower from facing disadvantages in terms of status or discrimination based on membership conditions for having reported research misconduct.

④ Information regarding the identity of the whistleblower shall not be subject to public disclosure.

⑤ If the whistleblower faces disadvantages or discrimination as mentioned in paragraph 3, or if their identity is revealed against their will, the society shall take responsibility for it.

⑥ The whistleblower may request the institution receiving the report or the investigation agency to inform them about the procedures and schedule following the submission of the research misconduct report, and the society must respond diligently.

 

① A “person under investigation” refers to a person who becomes the subject of an investigation for research misconduct due to a whistleblower’s report or the society’s recognition, or a person who is presumed to have participated in research misconduct during the investigation process. Persons who serve as witnesses or references in the investigation are not included in this definition.

② The committee must be careful to ensure that the reputation and rights of the person under investigation are not violated during the verification process.

③ Allegations of research misconduct must not be disclosed to the public before a judgment is made.

④ The person under investigation may request the committee to inform them about the procedures and schedule regarding the research misconduct investigation, and the society’s President must respond diligently.

 

 

 

① A paper published in a journal may be revised or retracted after review by the Research Ethics Committee due to reasons such as data errors (including errors or omissions in tables, figures, and simple statements, as well as incorrect authorship) and violations of research and publication ethics (such as plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication, copyright infringement, and research misconduct involving special relationships).

② If errors or mistakes in a published article are discovered and confirmed, they must be communicated to readers through methods such as correction articles, retraction and withdrawal notices, expressions of concern by the editor, or announcements. These communications should include the full citation information for the corrected article, an explanation of the error, the correction made (including acknowledgments to those who helped identify the error), and citations of related articles and original works in the reference list.

③ In the case of article retraction or expression of concern, the editor-in-chief must follow the COPE guidelines provided at COPE’s website, and for revisions, must adhere to the ICMJE’s recommendations on corrections, retractions, re-issuance, and version control, available at ICMJE’s website.

④ In the event that research misconduct involving a special relationship is confirmed, a retraction notice will be issued, and all relevant institutions that have benefited (such as schools related to admissions and advancement, research institutions, etc.), as well as the National Research Foundation of Korea, will be notified of the misconduct committed by the involved party.

 

The policy of the journal aims to protect authors, reviewers, editors, and the journal publisher. The handling process for complaints and appeals that do not fall under the following categories will follow the guidelines provided by the Publication Ethics Committee at Publication Ethics website.

1. Subjects of Complaints and Appeals: Authors, reviewers, and readers can submit complaints or appeals in cases of inappropriate competitive behavior, copyright issues, data theft, defamation, and legal matters. Complaints or appeals must include specific data that answers the questions based on the 5 Ws and 1 H (who, when, where, what, how, and why).

2. Responsible Parties for Resolving Complaints and Appeals: The editor and editorial board are responsible for resolving complaints and appeals. If necessary, legal advisors or ethics committee members may participate in decision-making.

3. Outcome of Resolution: The outcome of resolving complaints and appeals will depend on the type and severity of the misconduct, and the resolution process will follow the guidelines of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).

 

 

1. These regulations may be amended after review by the Executive Board of the association.

2. Matters not specified in these regulations will be decided by the Executive Board of the association.