Publication Ethics Regulations

Publication Ethics Regulations

Chapter 1: Regulations for Authors

Article 1 (Basic Responsibilities of Authors)

1. 1. Authors are responsible for the content, research process, and results of the papers they write.
2. 2. Authors must comply with the regulations related to the Journal of Computer Education (hereinafter referred to as "the Journal").

Article 2 (Ensuring Objectivity, Validity, and Transparency of the Paper)

1. 1. Researchers must analyze research results conducted with sufficient academic basis and care to produce papers that ensure objectivity, validity, and reproducibility.
2. 2. Researchers must transparently disclose any potential conflicts of interest, research processes, and all assistance received during the paper preparation that may influence the interpretation of research results.

Article 3 (First Publication of Original Content)

1. 1. Authors must confirm that the paper submitted is new and original and has not been published in any media in any language.
   • ※ For theses, conference papers, and research grant-supported papers, submission regulations and research ethics regulations should be reviewed.
2. 2. When publishing multiple papers based on the same research data, the sources of the related papers must be disclosed so that readers are aware of this fact.

Article 4 (Ensuring Research Ethics)

1. 1. Research results must be reported honestly and accurately.
2. 2. All expressions used in the paper must be written by the author directly. The paper should comply with copyright laws and publishing practices. Materials protected by copyright should be used only after obtaining permission and approval from the copyright holder.
3. 3. Individuals who have made sufficient contributions to research design, execution, and paper preparation must be included in the author list.
4. 4. For papers involving human subjects or animal experiments, necessary approvals, permissions, and registration details must be specified in the paper, and the paper must be written in a manner that maximizes the protection of research subjects.
5. 5. Conflicts of interest must be reported to the Journal's Editorial Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") in the following cases:
   1. ① Financial Conflicts of Interest: If the researcher wishes to submit a paper related to a company or organization from which they may gain financial benefit, or if the editor wishes to publish a paper related to a company or organization’s interests.
   2. ② Personal Conflicts of Interest: If the submitter has specific relationships with the journal’s president, editor-in-chief, or major officials (e.g., familial relationships, mentorship, etc.), or if the reviewer identifies a personal conflict of interest while reviewing the paper.
   3. ③ Academic Conflicts of Interest: If the researcher’s religious, philosophical, or academic beliefs could bias the conduct, reporting, or evaluation of the research.
   4. ④ Clinical Conflicts of Interest: If the paper includes results from research that ignored the safety of research subjects and the general public for the benefit of a company.
6. 6. For issues not addressed above, research ethics regulations should be followed.

Chapter 2: Regulations for the Editorial Board and Reviewers

Article 5 (Basic Responsibilities of the Editorial Board)

1. 1. The Editorial Board is responsible for all matters related to the publication of the Journal and must establish procedures and regulations to ensure and continuously improve the quality and ethical standards of the academic papers published.
2. 2. The Editorial Board must value freedom of expression and ensure editorial independence by excluding all secondary demands that might impact academic and ethical aspects.
3. 3. The Editorial Board must establish, operate, and maintain a transparent, efficient, and fair review system.
4. 4. The Editorial Board must define conflicts of interest arising during the editorial and publishing processes and establish a system to manage them appropriately.
5. 5. The Editorial Board and reviewers must not disclose any information obtained during the editorial or review process to third parties.

Article 6 (Ensuring the Academic Value and Publication Ethics of Papers)

1. 1. The Editorial Board must ensure that all papers published in the Journal adhere to publication ethics and contribute significantly to the advancement of the field by establishing appropriate procedures and regulations.
2. 2. The Editorial Board must ensure that research plans and executions are conducted rigorously, results are obtained through rational methods, and analysis and interpretation of results are presented in a valid manner by improving relevant regulations and systems.
3. 3. The Editorial Board must clearly inform authors that they must follow all domestic regulations and international guidelines related to planning, conducting, and presenting research. Only research results performed in accordance with such regulations and guidelines should be published.
4. 4. The Editorial Board must clearly define misconduct such as falsification, manipulation, plagiarism, and redundant publication in submission and ethics regulations and specify what actions will follow if such issues arise.

Article 7 (Responsibilities of Editorial Board Members)

1. 1. The primary responsibility of an editorial board member is to operate a fair and efficient review process.
2. 2. The final decision on paper publication rests with the editorial board member. The member must assess whether the paper's topic is suitable for the Journal, whether it contains original content that significantly contributes to the field, and whether the research methods and interpretations are valid.
3. 3. Editorial board members should ensure that the review process is as fair as possible, exclude biases, and clearly communicate the process to both authors and reviewers.
4. 4. If a paper is deemed unsuitable for the Journal after review, editorial board members can immediately reject the manuscript or suggest submission to a more appropriate journal after the suitability review by the Editorial Board. This helps shorten the review period and reduces the burden on reviewers.
5. 5. Editorial board members should deliver constructive and helpful feedback to authors.

Article 8 (When Misconduct is Suspected During Review)

1. 1. If research misconduct or redundant publication is suspected during the review process, the reviewer must report the issue to the Editorial Board for internal examination.
2. 2. The results of the investigation should be communicated to the authors and reviewers.

Article 9 (Responsibilities of Reviewers)

1. 1. Reviewers should only accept reviews if they have sufficient expertise to review the content of the paper fairly. If the reviewer lacks expertise, has been involved in the research, or has conducted similar research recently, they should return the paper without delay and explain the reason.
   1. ① Avoid reviewing if lacking expertise, having been involved in the research, or conducting similar research recently.
   2. ② If unable to review the entire manuscript, only review specific aspects and indicate this in the comments.
2. 2. Accepted reviews must be completed within the given time frame and submitted on time.
3. 3. Reviews should be conducted impartially without considering extraneous factors such as the author’s origin, nationality, religious or political beliefs, or gender.
   1. ① If a conflict of interest arises, follow the journal’s regulations and inform the Editorial Board if no guidelines are available.
   2. ② Disclose any personal, financial, academic, professional, political, or religious conflicts of interest related to the review.
4. 4. Confidentiality must be maintained regarding the content and process of the review. Reviewers must secure information obtained during the review and not use it for personal purposes.
5. 5. Reviewers should immediately report any significant mistakes, misconduct, inconsistencies, errors, or possible plagiarism or redundant publication to the Editorial Board.

Article 10 (Review Comments)

1. 1. Assess and describe whether the paper matches the Journal’s scope, its scientific significance, whether the methods and interpretations are scientifically and logically coherent, and whether the content is consistent and understandable.
2. 2. Review comments should be structured by item, highlighting both strengths and weaknesses to assist the editorial board in making balanced decisions.
3. 3. Critiques should clearly identify issues and provide specific suggestions for resolution.
   1. ① Identify any illogical or biased parts and suggest ways to clarify or improve the paper. Offer methods to validate or confirm the paper's claims if possible.
   2. ② When criticizing, provide references and evidence for the critique. If the paper is not suitable for publication, explain the reasons and suggest improvements within feasible limits.
4. 4. Review comments should be objective and fair. Ensure that the review is free from conflicts of interest related to the paper or author. If conflicts are suspected, specify the reasons and either refuse the review or consult the Editorial Board.

Chapter 3: Follow-Up Actions on Published Papers

Article 11 (Corrections)

The Editorial Board must issue a correction notice to rectify errors in the following situations:

1. ① Discovery of editorial mistakes.
2. ② Minor errors in calculations or experimental processes that do not affect the overall validity of the paper.
3. ③ Corrections to the author list, such as missing authors who should be included.
4. ④ Instances where some parts of the paper are found to be plagiarized.

Article 12 (Editorial Board Notices)

1. 1. If serious issues arise with published papers that cast doubt on their validity but a definitive conclusion has not yet been reached, the Editorial Board should explain the issue to readers and express concerns to minimize potential adverse effects.
2. 2. The Editorial Board should publish “Notice from the Editorial Board” as quickly as possible to minimize the impact of erroneous papers. The notice should be uploaded to the online database immediately and included in the next print issue of the Journal.
3. 3. Notices should specifically and clearly identify the problematic paper and the issue at hand.

Article 13 (Paper Retraction)

1. 1. The Editorial Board must retract a published paper in the following situations:
   1. ① If the paper’s results are invalid due to misconduct such as falsification or manipulation, confirmed plagiarism, or unethical research practices.
   2. ② If results that were published in another medium without prior explicit disclosure or approval are recognized as duplicate submissions, the reason must be specified, and the paper that was published second must be withdrawn. The first of the duplicate submissions should remain included if its validity is not questioned; however, it should be noted in the form of a “Notice from the Editorial Board” that the same content has been subsequently published in another journal.
2. 2. The retraction notice must clearly state the entity retracting the paper and the reasons for retraction.
3. 3. The retraction should be communicated as follows:
   1. ① Upload the retraction notice to the Journal’s website immediately after the decision.
   2. ② Ensure the retraction is done as soon as possible to minimize harm to other researchers who might base their work on the erroneous publication.
4. 4. Retractions must be clearly indicated as such in published paper databases.
5. 5. Authors, either individually or collectively, can request paper retraction from the Editorial Board, specifying the reasons clearly. If only some authors request retraction, the reasons must be precisely stated.
6. 6. The Editorial Board decides on the retraction.

Chapter 4: Similarity Check

Article 14 (Similarity Check)

1. 1. Authors and the Editorial Board use similarity check programs to prevent and avoid plagiarism and ensure copyright protection.
2. 2. The recommended threshold for similarity in plagiarism checks is 15% or lower based on KCI literature similarity check standards.
3. 3. For papers involving literature reviews and acknowledgments (e.g., theses, conference papers, reports), decisions are made through Editorial Board meetings.

Chapter 5: Supplementary Provisions

Article 15 (Operational Regulations)

1. 1. Additional details necessary for operations are handled in accordance with the international norms for ethical research publishing as outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), UK (National Research Foundation of Korea, 2019).

Supplementary Provisions

Article 1 (Effective Date)

These regulations come into effect on August 8, 2024.

논문 출판윤리

제 정 2020. 12. 01.

제 1 장 저자를 위한 논문 작성과 투고 규정

제1조(저자의 기본 책무)

1. 1. 저자는 자신이 쓴 논문의 내용, 수행한 연구 과정 및 결과에 대해 책임을 져야 한다.
2. 2. 저자는 학술지의 심사, 편집, 출판 규정을 따라야 한다.

제2조(논문의 객관성과 타당성, 투명성 확보)

1. 1. 연구자는 충분한 학술적 근거를 바탕으로 주의 깊게 수행된 연구 결과를 합리적으로 분석하여 객관성, 타당성, 재현성이 확보된 형태의 논문을 작성해야 한다.
2. 2. 연구 결과 해석에 영향을 미칠 가능성이 있는 연구자의 이해관계, 연구 수행 과정, 논문 작성 과정에서 도움을 받은 모든 사항 등을 연구자는 투명하게 밝혀야 한다.

제3조(독창적인 내용에 대한 최초의 발표)

1. 1. 저자는 자신이 제출한 논문이 새롭고 독창적이며, 어떤 언어로도 여타의 매체에서 발표된 적이 없었음을 확인해야 한다.
   • ※ 학위논문, 학술대회 발표논문 및 연구비 지원 논문의 경우에는 투고 규정 및 연구윤리 규정을 확인해야 한다.
2. 2. 동일한 연구 자료를 바탕으로 서로 다른 복수 논문을 출간하는 경우 관련된 논문들의 출처를 밝혀 이러한 사실을 독자들이 알 수 있도록 해야 한다.

제4조(연구윤리의 확보)

1. 1. 연구 결과를 정직하게 사실대로 보고해야 한다.
2. 2. 논문에서 사용한 표현은 모두 저자가 직접 작성한 것이어야 한다. 또, 저작권법과 출판 관행을 따라 논문을 작성해야 한다. 현재, 저작권의 보호를 받고 있는 자료는 저작권자의 허락과 승인을 얻은 후 사용하도록 한다.
3. 3. 연구 설계 및 수행, 연구 논문의 작성에 기여하여 충분히 저자 자격이 있다고 판단되는 사람은 모두 저자 목록에 등재해야 한다.
4. 4. 인간을 대상으로 한 연구 논문이나 동물 실험이 포함된 연구 논문의 경우 이에 필요한 승인, 허가, 등록 상황을 논문에 명시하는 한편, 연구 대상을 최대한 보호하는 방식으로 논문을 작성해야 한다.
5. 5. 다음과 같은 이행상충에 해당하는 경우 편집위원회에 보고해야한다.
   1. ① 재정적 이해상충 : 연구자가 재정적 이익을 얻는 기업 및 사회단체와 관련이 있는 논문을 투고하고자 하는 경우, 연구자가 논문을 발표함으로써 기업 및 사회단체로부터 재정적 이익을 얻을 수 있는 경우, 편집자가 기업 및 사회단체의 이익과 관련이 있는 특정 논문을 발행하고자 하는 경우 등
   2. ② 인적 이해상충 : 투고자가 학회장, 편집장 및 주요 간부와 특정한 이해관계에 있는 경우 (예:「연구윤리확보를 위한 지침」 제22조에서 규정하는 친인척 관계에 있거나 있었던 경우, 사제 관계 등), 심사자가 투고 원고를 심사하는 중 심사자 본인과 인적 이해상충 관계에 해당함을 인지할 경우 등
   3. ③ 학문적 이해상충 : 연구자가 가지고 있는 종교적, 철학적, 학문적 신념 등이 연구의 수행, 보고, 평가 등에 편향적으로 영향을 미치는 경우 등
   4. ④ 임상적 이해상충 : 논문작성 과정에서 기업의 이익을 위해 연구 대상자 및 일반인의 안전을 무시하고 연구를 수행한 결과가 포함되는 경우 등