Code of Ethics for East Asian Economic Review

Enacted on December 9, 2008

Completely revised on June 1, 2016

Chapter 1 General Provisions

Article 1 (Purpose)

The purpose of this Code of Ethics (hereinafter, “the Code”) is to provide ethical standards with respect to the publication of the East Asian Economic Review (“EAER”), a quarterly of the Korea Institute for International Economic Policy ("KIEP").

Article 2 (Scope of Application)

The Code applies to all actions related to paper submission to the EAER, in addition to editing and review of papers submitted.

Article 3 (Enforcement of Ethics)

① Authors, reviewers, and editorial board members are to agree to abide by the Code.
② As the Code enters into force, it is automatically assumed that the Authors, reviewers, and editorial board members have agreed to Article ¹⁾.

¹⁾ Our publication ethics and publication malpractice statement[Code of Ethics for East Asian Economic Review (『EAER』)] is mainly based on the "Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editor"(Committee on Publication Ethics, 7th March 2011), "Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers"(Committee on Publication Ethics, March 2011) and Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (Committee on Publication Ethics, March 2013).

Chapter 2 Definitions

Article 4 (Purpose)

This Chapter stipulates definitions and ethical issues pertaining to EAER publication. Cases of and contrary to ethical conduct can happen at any stage of publication; the definitions for each case are as follows:

① "Research ethics" refers to ethical issues in the conduct of research and, by extension, in the regulation of research, the procedures and process of ethical review as well as broader ethical issues related to research such as scientific integrity and the end uses of research.
② "Publication ethics" refers to ethical issues in reviewing research, in reporting research results
③ “Fabrication” refers to the recording or reporting of spurious, false data or research results;
④ “Falsification” refers to the manipulation of the research process or the arbitrary alteration or omission of data which lead to the distortion of the contents or the results of the research.
⑤ “Plagiarism” refers to the unauthorized use of others’ idea, logic, specific terms, data, and analysis as one’s own original work, either intentionally or unintentionally, without any indication of the sources.
⑥ “duplicate or redundant publication” refers to the practice of authors’ use of their previously published works in whole or in part without proper citation as though they were new, or in a manner that goes beyond the conventionally accepted level.
⑦ “Authorship” refers to recognizing those who made substantial contributions to the research and to publications, and took formal responsibility for submitted and published work as authors.
⑧ “Conflict of Interest” refers to those factors that might influence the conception, conduct, analysis, and reporting of the research. These might include relevant financial interests, academic competitiveness or personal, political, or religious interests.
⑨ “Withdrawal” refers to authors' voluntary cancellation of their submission when they discover an error(or errors) in submitted manuscripts before its publication.
⑩ “Retraction” refers to a mechanism for correcting the literature and alerting readers to publications that contain such seriously flawed or erroneous data or to cases of research misconduct.

Chapter 3 Writing, Editing, and Peer-review

Part 1 For Authors

Article 5 (Originality)

① The manuscript being submitted should be written in accordance with the Guidelines for Manuscript Preparation provided by the EAER Editorial Board and should comply with all relevant regulations.
② The manuscript being submitted should have been prepared in an ethical and responsible manner without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation, etc.
③ Author(s) should adhere to publication requirements that demand submitted manuscripts be original and has not been published elsewhere in any language.

Article 6 (Authorship)

① Authorship should be given to those who made substantial contributions to the research and to publications and Author(s) should take collective responsibility for submitted and published work.
② Author(s) should ensure that only those who meet Authorship criteria are rewarded with Authorship and there are no guest, gift, and ghost Authorship.²⁾
③ The Authorship of submitted work should accurately reflect individuals' contributions to the work and all authors should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific parts of the work.

Article 7 (Conflict of Interest)

① Author(s) should disclose funding sources and relevant conflicts of interest, if any. It should include both financial and non-financial interests and relationships such as direct and indirect financial support, supply of equipment or materials, and other support.
② Funders and sponsors should not able to veto publication of research that do not favor their position. Author(s) should not enter into agreements that permit sponsors to veto or control the publication of the research.

Article 8 (Revision)

① Author(s) should revise their manuscripts in accordance with the publication regulations of the EAER Editorial Board and submit a revision report reflective of reviewers’ opinions.
② Author(s) should alert the editorial board promptly if they discover an error in any submitted, accepted or published work. Author(s) should cooperate with the editorial board in issuing corrections or retractions when required.

Article 9 (Respect for the Editorial Board)

Author(s) shall respect the opinions of reviewers and the decisions made by the Editorial Board.

²⁾ Guest Authors are those who do not meet accepted Authorship criteria but are listed because of their seniority, reputation or supposed influence. Gift Authors are those who do not meet accepted Authorship criteria but are listed as a personal favour or in return for payment. Ghost Authors are those who meet Authorship criteria but are not listed.

Part 2 For the Editorial Board

Article 10 (Duty and Responsibility)

① The Editorial Board should take responsibility for everything they publish, and the most important part of the responsibility to make fair and unbiased decisions for publication shall be the upholding of principles of editorial independence and integrity.
② The Editorial Board should have policies and procedures in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish, to maintain the integrity of the published record and to prevent and investigate misconduct related to research and publication.

Article 11 (Conflict of Interest)

① The Editorial Board (members) shall provide fair treatment in reviewing submitted manuscripts, on the basis of their quality and the EAER publication regulations only, without regard to prejudice against or personal connection to the author(s).
② The Editorial Board (members) should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest, such as the same affiliations, a personal or financial relationship with the author(s).

Article 12 (Fair Request for Peer-review)

① The Editorial Board should select and make a request for peer review to a candidate with expertise in the field of interest and capacity for fair judgment.
② The Editorial Board should avoid selecting reviewers with conflicts of interest. The Editorial Board should ask peer reviewers to inform them about any such conflict of interest at the earliest opportunity.
③ If there is a sharp contrast among the peer review results of different reviewers, the Editorial Board may make an additional request for a review to a third expert in the related field.

Article 13 (Confidentiality)

① The Editorial Board should protect the confidentiality of authors' identities in the material before it is published and should not give any indication of a paper’s status with the journal to anyone other than the author(s).
② The Editorial Board should not share the authors' identities with reviewers and also should not disclose their names when making a request or sending out manuscripts for peer-review.
③ The Editorial Board should protect the reviewers' identities and should not disclose their names when sending reviewers' report to author(s).

Article 14 (Respect for Authors)

The Editorial Board shall respect the personality and independence of authors as an intellectual with expertise and should not pressure authors to add citations from the EAER for the implied purpose of increasing citation rates and, by extension, journal impact factor.

Part 3 For Reviewers

Article 15 (Peer-review in Good Faith)

Reviewers should review a manuscript commissioned by the Editorial Board in good faith and submit the review results to the Board within the proposed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension. If reviewers consider themselves not qualified enough to review the manuscript, they are to notify the Board immediately.

Article 16 (Conflict of Interest)

① Reviewers should declare any potentially conflicting or competing interests (which may, for example, be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious), and should decline to review if they feel unable to provide a fair and unbiased review.
② Reviewers should not intentionally prolong the peer-review process for competitive advantage, either by delaying the submission of their review or by requesting unnecessary additional information from the journal or author.

Article 17 (Fair Review)

① Reviewers should be objective and constructive in their reviews and provide a fair review report on a manuscript regardless of their personal academic views. They should also provide adequate grounds for the review results through meticulous examination.
② Reviewers should provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript and provide evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements, and should be specific in their criticisms.

Article 18 (Respect for Authors)

Reviewers should respect the personality and independence of authors as an intellectual with expertise. Reviewers shall present their opinions on paper and explain proper grounds for revision if necessary.

Article 19 (Confidentiality)

① Reviewers should be required to maintain confidentiality with respect to papers for peer review. Unless seeking advice critical to conducting a fair review with approval of the Editorial Board, they should not allow others to have access to the paper concerned. And they should not release the paper to the public before its publication by the EAER.
② Reviewers should not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript and should keep all manuscript and review details confidential, without any inappropriate use of confidential material.

Chapter 4 Ethics Committee

Article 20 (Reporting Violations)

① If there is any violation of this Code with respect to publication of the EAER, anyone may inform the EAER Editorial Board about such violations.
② The Editor-in-Chief should not reveal any personal information of persons reporting violations and take necessary measures to protect the confidentiality of the informant. Along with the Editor-in-Chief, the Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP), the publisher of the EAER, should protect the informant from negative consequences or possible external pressures.

Article 21 (Composition and Resolution of the Ethics Committee)

① In response to reports of violations of the Code under Article 20(1), the Editor-in-Chief should form an independent Ethics Committee which consists of five or more members with expertise as recommended by the Editorial Board.
② President of the Ethics Committee shall be appointed by the Editor-in-Chief.
③ The resolution of the Ethics Committee shall require the consent of 2/3 of all registered members.

Article 22 (Duties and Authority of the Ethics Committee)

① The Ethics Committee is obligated to investigate the stated violations of the Code, while the party subject to the investigation must prove his or her compliance with the Code.
② The Ethics Committee may request the person(s) reporting violations to submit necessary documents to verify the violations and demand that the suspected party submit pertinent statements or materials for explanation.
③ The Ethics Committee should conclude its investigation and concomitant deliberations within 60 days of the date of its establishment.
④ The Ethics Committee should take down the minutes of the committee. Minutes shall be kept of all meetings and circulated to the members of the Committee, and be reported to the Editor-in-Chief when needed during investigation.
⑤ The Ethics Committee should submit a report to the Editor-in-Chief within 10 days after the conclusion of the investigation and deliberations on the violation under Article 22³⁾ above. If it is determined that there is an actual violation of the Code, the Committee should recommend proper disciplinary measures.

Article 23 (Guarantee of Vindication)

The Ethics Committee should provide the suspected person or party sufficient opportunity to explain herself/himself.

Article 24 (Freedom from Suspicion)

If the Ethics Committee determines that a person suspected of violation of the Code is cleared of suspicion, it is the responsibility of the Ethics Committee to prepare active and subsequent remedial measures for the suspected person’s reputation, and to recommend them to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief should accept and implement the recommended measures immediately.

Article 25 (Confidentiality)

The members of the Ethics Committee and any person who participates in the investigation or deliberations for violations of the Code shall be obliged not to divulge any confidential or personal information that they have acquired during the work of the Committee.

³⁾ For further guidance on disciplinary measures against Code violations, the EAER Editorial Board would refer to COPE flowcharts (http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts).

Chapter 5 Disciplinary Measures against Code Violation

Article 26 (Disciplinary Measures)³⁾

If it is determined by Ethics Committee that there is an actual violation of the Code, disciplinary measures by levels of violations should be taken as follows:

① Issuance of an expression of concern or Issuance of a correction
② Notification on the Code violation case to the author’s institution and sponsor
③ Announcement on the Code violation case on the EAER and KIEP webpage
④ Formal removal of the infringing manuscript
⑤ Prohibition against all of the authors for any new submissions to EAER, either individually or in combination with other authors of the infringing manuscript, as well as in combination with any other authors
⑥ Notification on the Code violation case in any relevant indexing and bibliographic database