Asian Journal of atmospheric environment
Asian Journal of atmospheric environment Asian Journal of atmospheric environment
Asian Journal of atmospheric environment
  Aims and Scope Type of Manuscripts Best Practices Contact Information  
  Editor-in-Cheif Associate Editors Editorial Advisory Board  

Code of Research Ethics of the Asian Journal of Atmospheric Environment (AJAE)
(Enacted in March 2020)

Article 1 (Title)

The code of research ethics of the Asian Journal of Atmospheric Environment (AJAE).

 

Article 2 (Aim)

The purpose of this code is to expedite the publication process of AJAE; to prevent scientific misconduct such as falsification, fabrication, plagiarism, and dual submission; and to ensure reasonable reviewer assignment by the research ethics committee in the publication process.

 

Article 3 (Organization of Research Ethics Committee)

The committee consists of approximately nine members, including three editors in chief and six editorial board members, who are recommended by each editor in chief. One of the editors in chief shall be appointed as chairperson. The term of committee members shall be followed by the rule of each association.

 

Article 4 (Scope of Research Misconduct)

The research misconducts (hereinafter “misconducts”) referred to in this regulation are the fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and misrepresentation of authorship, as well as other actions defined as follows, that are committed during the proposal, performance, result report, and presentation of a research project.

1. Fabrication: The creation of false data or nonexistent research results

2. Falsification: The distortion of research information or results by manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes or by arbitrarily changing or deleting data

3. Plagiarism: The fraudulent use of other people’s ideas, research content, results, etc., without appropriate approval or citation

4. Duplicate publication: An academic act of using an academic work that is identical or substantially similar to the researcher셲 previous findings, without the permission of the copyright holders or journal editors who published the previous findings or without the appropriate citations for another journal or work

5. Misrepresentation of authorship: The failure to grant authorship, without any justifiable reason, to persons who made scientific or technical contributions to the content or results of the research or granting authorship, as a gesture of gratitude or courtesy, to persons without any scientific or technical contribution

6. Willfully interfering with an investigation regarding a person’s own or another person’s alleged misconduct or causing harm to an informant

7. Acts that seriously deviate from the scope commonly accepted in the field of science and technology.

 

Article 5 (Procedure of Investigation)

The research ethics committee can proceed toward a judgment of an allegedly fraudulent article by following the sub-codes shown below.

1. Formal proposal: Once a fraudulent article is reported, the director of the research ethics committee confirms the total evidence concerning scientific misconduct by collecting materials; this is for the purpose of determining guilt.

2. Convocation of a committee: The director of the research ethics committee lays a bill before the research ethics committee after finding proof of misconduct.

3. Preliminary investigation of the research ethics committee: the research ethics committee accepts laying of the bill within 30 days after the preliminary investigation.

4. Main investigation of the research ethics committee: the research ethics committee judges the laying of the bill within 60 days after the main investigation. For judgment, the committee can request the consultation of a professional from the Asian Association for Atmospheric Environment or entrust an external professional. During the main investigation, the research ethics committee should allow a plea of innocence by the author(s) of the allegedly fraudulent article.

5. Decision: the research ethics committee makes a decision, by majority, and includes documents provided by committee members.

6. Report to the board of directors: The director of the board reports the final judgment of the main investigation of the research ethics committee to the board of directors and establishes a plan for dealing with the fraudulent article.

 

Article 6 (Documentation and Proclamation)

Investigation must be performed fairly by the committee and should be documented. Findings of the inquiry should be announced to AJAE in the proper way.

 

Article 7 (Vote and Notification by the Board of Directors)

The board of directors can vote to sanction based on the findings of the committee inquiry, and must notify external organizations or individuals of the sanction decision if needed.

 

Article 8 (A Formal Objection)

1. Any researcher found guilty of scientific misconduct will be offered a right to provide a defense, argue against the allegation and to raise an objection in writing to the sanction of the committee within 30 days after the notice.

2. The committee can review the validity of the objection and confirm or correct the sanction.

 

Article 9 (Identity Protection)
1. The identity of the informer(s) alleging scientific misconduct should not be made public.

2. The identity of individual(s) responsible for the alleged scientific misconduct should not be made public before the final decision.

 

Article 10 (Code Revision)
Revision of this code should comply with the procedures of the code revision made by the Asian Association for Atmospheric Environment.

 

(Supplementary Provision)

This code is enacted after legislative day.