Research and Publishing Code of Ethics
The Korean Association of Buddhist Studies (KABS) was founded to promote advances in academic research on Buddhism. To pursue this goal, we focus on the following three aims: First, we endeavor to conduct research on Buddhism at the same level of rigor as research in other academic fields. Second, we carry out academic activities with an open attitude. Third, we strive to achieve mutual development through close cooperation with other research groups. Accordingly, we require members of the KABS to comply with the following ethical guidelines in order to promote academic research and to solidify ethical practices in research and publication.
Chapter 1 General Provisions
Article 1 (Purpose) The purpose of the following guidelines is to delineate the principles of research and publication ethics to be followed in the course of academic activities specified in Article 4 of the bylaws of the Korean Association of Buddhist Studies (hereinafter "the Association") and to provide transparent enforcement standards.
Article 2 (Function) The following ethical guidelines serve as a framework for members of the Association to recognize the value of intellectual property rights in their activities during plenary sessions and external events; to avoid infringement of intellectual property rights or personal rights; to engage in pure, creative research activities under the protection of the Association; to refrain from dishonest research practices; and to improve personal and ethical behavior in research activities.
Chapter 2 Ethical Guidelines
Article 3 (Ethics for Authors)
1. When submitting a manuscript to the journal, the author must comply with the instructions for authors described in the “Peer Review Guidelines” and “Publication Policies.”
2. Research misconduct (fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and duplicate submission) is defined as follows. “Fabrication” refers to the practice of making up data or research results that do not exist. “Falsification” is the act of manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes or arbitrarily changing or omitting data, which leads to distortion of research content or results. “Plagiarism” is defined as the appropriation of other researchers’ works protected by intellectual property laws, concepts or ideas, hypotheses, theories, or results without proper permission or attribution. “Duplicate submission” refers to the simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to two or more academic journals.
3. Research misconduct (self-plagiarism and duplicate publication) is defined and categorized as follows. “Self-plagiarism” refers to reusing portions of one’s own previous published work without acknowledging the original source. It can occur 1) when some parts of one's own works are recycled without proper citations and 2) when some portions of one’s previous publications are used verbatim. “Duplicate publication” is defined as publication of a paper that is identical to an article already published in another journal. It can occur in cases 1) where two papers contain the same title or content or 2) where the content is the same and only the title is different between two papers.
4. The following acts shall also be considered research misconduct and prohibited: 1) using a position of power to force junior researchers or students to ghostwrite a paper and 2) trading authorship of a manuscript in exchange for money.
5. All authors should take full responsibility for the content of their published work.
6. When joint research is published, the order of authorship should accurately reflect the degree of responsibility and contribution of the collaborating authors. One must not take credit as the lead author simply based on his or her position in the academic hierarchy. Therefore, the lead author and corresponding author must be determined in accordance with their roles and responsibilities in the research. However, if all authors have the same level of responsibilities and equivalent roles, their names can be presented in the order of the alphabet.
Article 4 (Ethics for Editors)
1. Editors should comply with the instructions for editorial board members prescribed in the “Peer Review Guidelines” and “Publication Policies” of the Association.
2. Editorial board members collectively take full responsibility for decisions on manuscript processing, review requests, and acceptance or rejection of a paper.
3. After confirming that a manuscript has been received, the editors should strive to prevent disputes over fairness among authors, reviewers, and members of the Association by strictly applying the following criteria in each stage of requesting reviews and integrating peer review reports.
4. Editors must keep information pertaining to the manuscript (e.g., author information and content) confidential and make an objective evaluation based solely on the quality of the research reported.
5. Editors should request reviewers with impartial expertise in the relevant field to review a submitted manuscript. If necessary, a reviewer can be appointed by recommendation of the editorial board.
6. Until a publication decision is made, editors must not disclose the content of a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the reviewers, and they should not disclose information on the authors even to the reviewers.
7. The editor must not assign an author of a submitted manuscript as a reviewer and should also exclude researchers with the same affiliation as any of the authors from the role of reviewers.
8. If research misconduct is found in the editorial process, the editorial board should immediately bring it to the attention of the Ethics Committee of the Association.
Article 5 (Ethics for Reviewers)
1. Reviewers should evaluate a submitted paper fairly and sincerely, in accordance with the prescribed review criteria, and then send evaluation reports to the editorial board. In the event that a reviewer feels it inappropriate or difficult to review a particular paper due to a relationship with the author(s), this information should be promptly communicated to the editorial board.
2. Reviewers should evaluate submitted papers based on valid academic grounds and in accordance with their scholarly conscience. They should not recommend “rejection” based primarily on theoretical or ideological convictions without sufficient supporting evidence, perform a perfunctory review without going through the entire paper, or make disparaging remarks regarding the author(s), all of which undermine scholarly dignity and can lead to a stern warning or punitive measure.
3. Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of all information that they learn about authors during the review process, fully respect authors and avoid personal criticism when writing the evaluation report, and provide constructive and scholarly comments to help authors improve their manuscript.
4. Reviewers must not disclose or use the content of a paper under review for personal purposes or apply insights derived from the paper in their own research. The goal of the peer review process at the Association is to strengthen academic standards while maintaining an independent, confidential review process. Thus, no personal interests should be allowed to interfere with the review process before a paper is published in the journal.
Chapter 3 Enforcement of Ethical Guidelines
Article 6 (Ethical Guideline Pledge) New members of the Association shall pledge to comply with the ethical guidelines. Existing members shall be deemed to have pledged to abide by the ethical guidelines as soon as they take effect. The ethical guidelines have been enacted pursuant to the bylaws of the Association and shall come into effect and force upon passage.
Article 7 (Composition of the Ethics Committee) The Ethics Committee shall be composed of at least five members. The chairman of the association, vice-chairman, research director, and editor-in-chief shall be appointed as ex officio members. The other members shall be commissioned by the chairman and vice-chairman upon recommendation of the board of directors every quarter.
Article 8 (Functions of the Ethics Committee)
1. The Ethics Committee shall receive, investigate, deliberate upon, and resolve reports of ethical violations within six months of receiving the request for deliberation. Its decisions shall be immediately notified to the related persons (the informant and the examinee) and reported at the next general meeting of the Association.
2. The chairman of the Ethics Committee shall organize a meeting of the Ethics Committee without delay upon receiving a violation report.
3. The Ethics Committee chairman shall appoint two ethics committee members for a preliminary investigation, and the investigation should be completed within two months. The results of the investigation shall be reported to the Ethics Committee chairman.
4. When deliberating upon a violation report, the committee should obtain sufficient data to verify the facts while maintaining confidentiality. Identifiable information of the related party shall not be disclosed under any circumstances until the final resolution is made.
Article 9 (Reporting Violations of Ethical Guidelines)
1. If a member of the Association observes that another member has violated the ethical guidelines, he or she may make a report to the Ethics Committee with specific information regarding the alleged violation. However, the informant must take care not to create a tense, uncomfortable atmosphere in the Association stemming from personal prejudice or preconception. If an accusation made by an informant turns out to be false, corresponding penalties may be imposed.
2. Editors or reviewers must also report violations of ethical guidelines found during the editorial process in the manner described above.
3. If an ethical violation is found even after publication, corresponding measures shall be taken.
Article 10 (Investigation and Deliberation)
1. A member who has been reported for a suspected violation of the ethical rules of the Association must actively cooperate with the Ethics Committee's investigation. Failure to cooperate is also considered an ethical violation.
2. The publication of a paper under investigation shall be postponed until a determination is made by the Ethics Committee regarding whether an ethical violation occurred. The final decision on publication shall be made before the next publication date of the journal.
3. Taking retributive steps against an informant is also considered a violation of ethical guidelines.
Article 11 (Opportunity to Comment) A member who has been reported for violating ethical guidelines shall be given sufficient opportunity to respond to the allegation. In principle, the respondent’s comment on the allegation should be submitted in writing, but the respondent is entitled to an open discussion.
Article 12 (Process and Types of Disciplinary Actions) If the Ethics Committee decides upon a disciplinary action, its decision must be reported immediately to the Chairman of the Association. Upon receiving a report from the Ethics Committee on the resolution to carry out a disciplinary action, the chairman shall convene the permanent board of directors to finalize the decision regarding the disciplinary action. Possible disciplinary actions include, but are not limited to, warnings, restrictions on paper submission, removal of executive member titles, and suspension of membership. The publication of submitted papers may be suspended or cancelled, and other organizations or individuals may be notified about these steps.
If a violation of ethical guidelines is discovered after publication, the ethical committee may post a clarification and an apology to the readers on the KJBS website.
Article 13 (Revision of Ethical Guidelines) Any revision of the ethical guidelines shall be undertaken in accordance with the regulations governing the revision of the Association’s bylaws.
Article 14 (Other) All matters not specified in the above guidelines shall be addressed according to customary practice.
The ethical guidelines shall enter into force on November 8, 2008 according to a resolution of the general meeting pursuant to Article 11 of the bylaws of the Association.
_Revised on February 10, 2019
_Revised on December 20, 2019 (regarding the affiliation and position of researchers)
_Revised on March 16, 2020 (regarding editors’ participation in the evaluation process)