Research and Publication Ethics
Research published in Food Eng. Prog. must follow institutional, national, and international guidelines. For policies on research and publication ethics that are not stated in these instructions, the "Guidelines on Good Publication Practice (http://publicationethics.org/international-standards-editors-and-authors)" can be applied.
Authorship
An author is defined as one who has made a significant contribution to the overall design and execution of the experiments; therefore, Food Eng. Prog. deems all authors responsible for the entire paper. Assistants should be listed as authors, but may be recognized in the Acknowledgements section.
Originality and Duplicate Publication
All submitted manuscripts should be original and should not be submitted to other scientific journals for consideration while under Food Eng. Prog. review. No part of the accepted manuscript should be duplicated in other scientific journals without the permission of the Editorial Board. If duplicate publication related to the papers of this journal is detected, the authors will be announced in this journal, their institutes will be informed, and they will be penalized.
Research ethics policy
(Established on 1st of April, 2007)
The purpose of this research ethical policy is to present the basic principles and directions for the roles and responsibilities necessary to prevent research misconduct and secure research ethics by specifying the research ethics that members of the society should observe when publishing research papers.
This policy seeks to promote desirable academic development by providing all members with the opportunity to reaffirm the ethical standards pursued in the preparation and evaluation of research papers and the editing of journal.
Section 1 Authors' Ethical Rules
Article 1 (Subject of Application)
This regulation covers articles published in the journal published by the Society and must comply with these regulations unless otherwise specified in other laws and regulations.
Article 2 (Author of Research Achievement)
A researcher is recognized as an author only for the research he / she has actually done or contributed, and is responsible for its contents.
1. The authors should accurately reflect the degree of contribution to research.
2. If your contribution to research or writing is low, mark your opinion in the footnotes, preface, or acknowledge section, rather than as an author.
Article 3 (Citation and References)
1. When citing published academic materials, try to describe them accurately and, unless it belongs to common sense, must be clearly stated.
2. Information obtained by personal contact shall be quoted after the consent of the information provider.
Article 4 (Modification of Manuscript)
The author should endeavor to reflect the opinions of the editors and reviewers presented in the evaluation process of the manuscript as much as possible and to reflect them in the manuscript.
Article 5 (Scope of Research Misconduct)
Research misconduct (hereinafter referred to as "misconduct") provided in this regulation is defined as constituting any of the following:
1. " Fabrication " refers to the act of making false data or research results that do not exist.
2. " Falsification " refers to the artificial manipulation of research materials, equipment, processes, etc., or arbitrary transformation or deletion of data resulting in distorted research or research result.
3. "Plagiarism" refers to the act of stealing ideas, research contents and results of others without proper approval or quotation.
4. "Improper authorship " means an author is scientifically and technically unqualified to be an author of the relevant work, or an author has not contributed meaningfully to the work.
5. Intentional interfere with the investigation of allegations of misconduct by a person or someone else, or to give harm to the informant
6. Acts that are seriously out of the range normally accepted in science and technology
Section 2: Ethics Regulations for the Editor
Article 6
The editor is responsible for deciding whether or not to submit the manuscript, and shall respect the autonomy of the author and his independence as a scholar.
Article 7
The editor should not treat the manuscript submitted for publication in a journal on the basis of the authors' gender, age, affiliation, as well as any prejudice or personal relationship, based on the level of the manuscript and the manuscript submission.
Article 8
The editor shall endeavor to make the evaluation of the submitted manuscript to the reviewer who has the expert knowledge and fair judgment ability in the relevant field and to make objective evaluation.
Article 9
The editor shall not disclose to the person other than the reviewer the details of the author or the contents of the manuscript until the publication of the manuscript is decided.
Section 3 Ethics Regulations for the Reviewer
Article 10
The reviewers shall evaluate the papers to be examined in good faith and fairness and notify the editor of the results. If you feel that you are not the right person to evaluate the content of the article, you should notify the editor without delay.
Article 11
The reviewers shall fairly evaluate the manuscript to the objective criterion, regardless of personal academic conviction or personal relationship with the author. The manuscript should not be rejected without specifying sufficient grounds, or the manuscript should not be rejected because it is inconsistent with the viewpoint or interpretation of the authors, and the manuscript should not be evaluated without properly reading the manuscript.
Article 12
The reviewers shall respect the independence of the author as an expert. In the evaluation opinion, you should make your own judgment about the paper and explain the reason why you think that you need supplement. Use courteous and gentle expressions, and avoid expressing reproaches or insults.
Article 13
The reviewers shall keep the secrets of the papers to be examined. It is not advisable to show the paper to another person or to discuss it with others, unless you are seeking advice specifically for the evaluation of the manuscript. Also, do not cite the contents of a manuscript before it is published.
Article 14
The reviewers shall notify the editor of the facts of the manuscripts which have already been published in other journals, duplicate examination or other problems.
Section 4 Verification Procedures and Criteria for Research Truthfulness
Article 15 (Report of Misconduct)
When a member becomes aware of the misconduct of another member, he / she shall report it to the president of the society.
Article 16 (Responsibility for Verifying Truthfulness)
When there is a report on the occurrence of misconduct, the responsibility for the verification is in the Research Ethics Committee (hereinafter referred to as "the Committee").
Article 17 (Verification of Integrity)
In the case of misconduct committed two years before the date of receipt of the report, it shall not be treated even if it is received. Even if the fraud is committed two years ago, if there is a risk of public welfare or safety, it should be handled.
Article 18 (Principle of Verification of Truthfulness)
The committee is responsible for proving the fact of misconduct. Provided, however, that the Respondent has the burden of proving the authenticity of the content which is considered to be contained in the request if the Respondent has intentionally damaged or refused to submit the data required by the Committee. The Committee shall ensure that the rights and opportunities of opinions, objections and arguments are equally guaranteed to the informer and the Respondent and shall inform the relevant procedures in advance.
Article 19 (Verification Procedure for Truthfulness)
Verification procedure for misconduct shall proceed to the stage of preliminary investigation, main investigation and judgment.
Article 20 (Preliminary Investigation)
1. A preliminary investigation is a procedure for determining whether there is a need to investigate allegations of misconduct and should be initiated within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notification. The preliminary investigation is conducted by the president of the society and the editor-in-chief.
2. If the preliminary survey results are necessary to conduct this survey, the main investigation shall be conducted pursuant to the provisions of Article 21.
3. If the preliminary investigation decides not to conduct the survey, a specific reason shall be notified in writing to the informant within 10 days from the decision date.
4. If an informant disagrees with the results of the preliminary investigation, he / she may appeal to the president of the society within 30 days from the date of receiving the notification.
Article 21 (The Main Investigation)
1. The main investigation is a procedure to prove the fact of misconduct, and shall be organized in accordance with the provisions of Article 23.
2. The Committee shall give the informant and the Respondent the opportunity to express opinions in accordance with Article 18, Paragraph 2, and give them the opportunity to appeal and dispute before finalizing the findings of the main investigation.
3. If the Respondent does not comply, he / she shall be deemed to have no objection.
4. The objection or argument of the informant and the Respondent and the result of the treatment should be included in the report of the investigation.
Article 22 (Judgement)
1. A determination is a procedure for confirming the result of the present investigation and notifying it to the informant and the investigator in writing.
2. All investigative schedules from the commencement of the survey to the determination shall be completed within 6 months. However, if it is judged that it is difficult to conduct the investigation within this period, the reason for such investigation may be notified to the board and the investigation period may be extended.
3. If the informant or the Respondent disagrees with the judgement, he / she may file an appeal with the Committee within 30 days from the date of receiving the notice, and the Committee shall conduct a re-examination if the appeal is reasonable and reasonable.
Article 23 (Principle of Composition of Committee)
1. The Committee shall consist of one chairman and five or more committee members.
2. The chairperson of the Committee shall be appointed by the president of the society.
3. The members of the Committee shall be appointed by the chairperson for a period of time at the request of the chairperson as a specialist in the field of deliberation among the members. However, the author and research director of the manuscript subject to deliberation can not be members.
Article 24 (Authority of the Committee)
1. In the course of the investigation, the Committee may require attendance of a statement from the informant, the Respondent, the witness and the reference person.
2. The Committee may require the subject to submit materials.
3. The Committee may propose appropriate sanctions to the board of directors of the persons involved in the misconduct determined to be true.
Article 25 (Records of Investigations and Disclosure of Information)
The Committee shall keep all records of the investigation process in the form of voice, video or document for at least 5 years.
Article 26 (Reporting of Investigation Results)
The Committee shall report the results and contents of this investigation to the board of directors within 10 days after the end of the survey. The results report of this investigation must include the following:
1. Contents of the report
2. Misconduct that was the subject of the investigation
3. List of committee members
4. The role of the Respondent under investigation in the study and the fact of misconduct
5. Related evidence and witnesses
6. The objection or defense of the informant and the Respondent under Article 18, Paragraph 2
7. The following disciplinary counsel for misconduct (multiple terms may be recommended in duplicate)
- Expulsion
- Dissolution and correction of dissertation
- Official apology at the society
- Suspension of membership for a certain period
- Sending reproof letter
Article 27 (Follow-up on the Report of Investigation Results)
The board of directors shall take the following measures after reviewing the results of the investigation and the results reported pursuant to Article 26, Paragraph 1.
1. The president of the society shall convene a board of directors within 3 months and review the report of the Committee and decide the details of the process.
2. If the contents of the report are judged to be problematic in terms of rationality and validity, the board may request the Committee to review or supplement the report. The request of the board of directors shall be made only as documents stating specific reasons.
3. The contents of treatment should be notified to the Respondent.
Article 28 (Protecting the Rights of the Informant)
1. An informant is a person who has informed the Committee of the fact of perceiving a misconduct or related evidence.
2. The informant can report in all possible ways such as oral, written, phone, e-mail, etc. and report it by his / her real name.
3. The Committee shall be liable for any disadvantage such as disciplinary punishment, discrimination in working conditions, unreasonable pressure, and shall take necessary measures to ensure that such measures are taken.
4. The information about the informant is not subject to the disclosure of information, and If the informant receives the disadvantage of Paragraph 3 due to the report, or If the identity is exposed, the committee responsible for the verification of the report together with the affiliate of the informant shall be responsible for it.
5. The informant may require the Commission to inform the procedure and schedule of the investigation after the notification of the misconduct, and the Committee shall respond in good faith.
6. Even if the information was thought to be false or could be found, the informant who reported it is not covered.
Article 29 (Protecting the Rights of the Respondent)
1. The Respondent is a person who was subject to investigation by misconduct or who was considered to have participated in misconduct in the course of conducting the investigation and shall not include the reference person or witness in the course of the investigation.
2. The Committee should be careful not to unfairly infringe the honor or rights of the Respondent during the verification process.
3. The review process for fraud should not be open to the public.
4. The Respondent may require the Committee to inform the Committee about the investigation and processing procedures of the fraud, the processing schedule, etc., and the committee shall comply with it.
Article 30 (Other)
Items not included in this regulation shall be judged according to relevant laws and social norms.
(Supplementary Provisions)
This regulation shall come into effect on February 3, 2009.
Rules of the Research Ethics Committee
(Installation basis)
The Research Ethics Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Committee") of the Korean Society for Food Engineering shall be established to deal with the ethical problems that may arise with the various activities and activities of the society in accordance with Article 13 of Chapter 4 of the society.
(mission)
This Committee discusses ethics issues related to education, research and publishing of the society or its members, and ethical issues arising from business activities.
(Configuration)
The Committee shall consist of one chairperson, and members of the committee including the secretary of general affairs and secretary of scientific affairs. The secretary of general affairs of this society becomes the secretary of the Committee.
(Election)
The chairman is recommended by the board of directors and approved by the council and the general assembly. The members other than the secretary general affairs and secretary of scientific affairs shall be appointed by the president in accordance with the recommendation of the chairperson.
(Term)
The term of the Committee may be two years and may be renewed.
(Obligation)
The Committee shall report the results of its activities to the board of directors, the council and the general assembly.
(Other)
Matters not specified in this regulation shall be decided by the board of directors.
(Addendum)
This regulation shall be effective as of April 1, 2007.
Manuscripts submitted to the Journal are not copyrighted, published, or submitted elsewhere, except in abstract form. Review articles should provide critical surveys of progresses in a specific field of science, engineering, or technology related to wood. For the policies on the research and publication ethics not stated in this instructions, the journal adheres to the ethical guidelines for research and publication described in Guidelines on Good Publication (http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines).
Authorship
An 'author' is generally considered to be someone who has made substantive intellectual contributions to a published study. According to the ICMJE guidelines (https://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf), authorship credit should be based on:
- 1) Substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, and/or analysis and interpretation of data; AND
- 2) Drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
- 3) Final approval of the version to be published; AND
- 4) Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Authors wishing to make any changes to authorship will be asked to make and submit an official letter to the editor. Please note that changes to authorship cannot be made after acceptance of a manuscript.
Duplicate Publication
Any manuscripts submitted to the Journal must be original and the manuscript, or substantial parts of it, must not be under consideration by any other journals. All manuscripts submitted to the journal are checked for possible plagiarism or duplicate publication by CrossCheck’s plagiarism detection. Any suspected cases of covert duplicate manuscript submission will be handled and the editor may contact the authors’ institution. Before reviewing, all submitted manuscripts are inspected by Similarity Check powered by iThenticate (https://www.crossref.org/services/similarity-check/), a plagiarism-screening tool.
Conflict of Interest
The Journal requires authors to declare all competing interests including financial or non-financial support related to their work. Where authors have no competing interests, the statement should read “The author(s) declare(s) that they have no competing interests”. The editor may ask for further information relating to competing interests.
Statement of Informed Consent and Institutional Review Board Approval
Copies of written informed consents should be kept for studies on human subjects. For the clinical studies with human subjects, there should be a certificate, an agreement, or the approval by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the author's affiliated institution. If necessary, the editor or reviewers may request copies of these documents to resolve questions about IRB approval and study conduct.
Statement of Human and Animal Right
Clinical research should be done in accordance of the Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects, outlined in the Helsinki Declaration of 1975 (revised 2013), available from: https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/. Clinical studies that do not meet the Helsinki Declaration will not be considered for publication. Human subjects should not be identifiable, such that patients’ names, initials, hospital numbers, dates of birth, or other protected healthcare information should not be disclosed. For animal subjects, research should be performed based on the National or Institutional Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, and the ethical treatment of all experimental animals should be maintained.
Care and Use of Animals
Experimental research on vertebrates or any regulated invertebrates must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines, and where available should have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. The manuscript must include a statement of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) compliance that should appear as the first item in the section of materials and methods. If necessary, the editor or reviewers may request an official number of IACUC approval. The Journal maintains the right to reject any manuscripts on the basis of unethical conduct or misconduct of animal studies.
Selection and Description of Participants
Ensure correct use of the terms sex (when reporting biological factors) and gender (identity, psychosocial or cultural factors), and, unless inappropriate, report the sex and/or gender of study participants, the sex of animals or cells, and describe the methods used to determine sex and gender. If the study was done involving an exclusive population, for example in only one sex, authors should justify why, except in obvious cases (e.g., prostate cancer). Authors should define how they determined race or ethnicity and justify their relevance.
Permissions for Reproducing Published Material
The journal cannot give authors legal advice about their rights to use third-party materials. If a manuscript contains any materials such as photos, images, figures, tables, audio files, videos, etc. that the authors do not own, the authors must provide us proof of permission from the owners. If authors do not have owner’s permission, they should remove the materials or replace it with other materials owned by the authors or allowed for use in the submission with such permission. Authors are responsible for the rights they have (if any) to use materials owned by others. Authors should not use materials that they are unclear about the owners or their licenses. If authors are unsure about their rights, they should review the license or contact the publisher to clarify the license terms and make sure they can use the materials. If photos, captures, images, figures, tables, illustrations, audio and video files, or any materials are included in your papers that are not permitted by their owners, the journal reserves the right to remove them whether before or after publication.
Managing Research and Publication Misconduct
When the journal faces suspected cases of research and publication misconduct such as a redundant (duplicate) publication, plagiarism, fabricated data, changes in authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, an ethical problem discovered with the submitted manuscript, a reviewer who has appropriated an author’s idea or data, complaints against editors, and other issues, the resolving process will follow the flowchart provided by COPE (https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts). The Editorial Board will discuss the suspected cases and reach a decision. The journal will not hesitate to publish errata, corrigenda, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.
Editorial Responsibilities
The editorial board of the Journal will continuously monitor research and publication ethics. The editors maintain the following responsibilities: responsibility and authority to reject and accept articles; avoiding any conflict of interest with respect to articles they reject or accept; promoting publication of corrections or retractions when errors are found; and preservation of the anonymity of reviewers.