Ethics Guideline

Ethics Policy of Korean Society of Food Culture

Initiated : 2007.11. 8
Revised : 2008. 4. 4
2014. 2. 1
2015. 4.27
2016. 7. 8


Article 1 (Purpose) The purpose of this policy is to suggest the members of Korean Society of Food Culture (hereinafter referred to as society) the principles and standards related to the roles and responsibilities required to secure ethicality enhancement, prevention of research and publication misconduct, and research and publication ethics for academic research and publication ethics securement. 

Article 2 (Applied target) This policy is intended for the member of this society in principle and also can be applied to the people submitting the contents published in all of the periodicals of the society (journal, conference materials, etc.).  


Chapter 1 Prevention of Misconducts in Research and Publication


Article 3 (Range of the misconduct) The misconducts stipulated by this policy refer to counterfeiting, falsification, plagiarism, duplicating publication, improper authorship, etc.; the manuscripts with the following misconducts will not be published.  
1. Counterfeiting: Acts falsely making the non-existing data, research results, etc. and recording or reporting these
2. Falsification: Acts artificially manipulating the research data, equipment, procedures, etc. or distorting the research contents or result by intentionally modifying or deleting the research result
3. Plagiarism: Acts stealing others’ idea, contents, results, etc. without the proper approval or citation
4. Duplicating publication: Acts presenting and publishing the research contents already published by themselves with the completely same or almost same contents to the other journal more than two times without any announcement
5. Improper authorship: Acts not assigning the authorship to the person who makes the scientific/technical contribution or involvement about the research contents or results without any valid reason or assigning the authorship to the person who does not make any scientific/technical contribution or involvement with the reason of the expression of the appreciation or respect treatment. 
6. Acts intentionally interrupting the investigation about their own or others’ misconduct suspicion or doing the informant harm
7. Acts seriously out of the range generally accepted in the science and technology area

Article 4 (Definition of the terminologies) 1. The “informant” refers to the person who recognizes the misconduct and reports the related evidence to this society (or the board). 2. The “examinee” refers to the person who becomes an investigation target of the misconduct by the report or the recognition of the board or the person assumed to participate in the misconduct during the investigation performance procedures. 3. The “preliminary investigation” refers to the prior procedure to decide if the misconduct reported or recognized is needed to be formally investigated. 4. The “main investigation” refers to the procedure to investigate if the suspicion of the misconduct is true or not.       

Article 5 (Responsibilities and obligations of a reviewer) The manuscript reviewer needs to fairly review in objective standard according to the academic conscience. The responsibilities and obligations of the review are as follows:

  1. The reviewer decides if a manuscript submitted is accepted or not, respects the personality and independence of an author, and does not discriminate the author with the matters not related to the manuscript such as sex, age, affiliation, educational background, religion, nationality, etc.
  2. The reasonable basis about the denial of the manuscript reviewed needs to be clarified; it is necessary to be reviewed in objective standard without interests; when filling out the review result form, it is necessary to concretely write the matters pointed out.
  3. The reviewer needs to keep confidentiality of the manuscript and cannot use or disclose the information, argument, interpretation, etc. included in the unpublished manuscript under the review without the consent of the author.     
  4. When the reviewer finds out the misconduct and improper act of the manuscript author during the reviewing procedure, it is necessary to report it to the ethics committee.

Article 6 (Organization and function of the ethics committee) The society organizes the ethics committee to verify the misconduct and truth based on this policy; the establishment and decision of the meeting are as follows:

  1. Organization: The ethics committee consists of more than five people among the society members; the chair is the president; the committee members are appointed by the president with the recommendation of the executive committee; the term of office of the committee members is two years, and it is possible to serve consecutive terms. 
  2. Meeting: The ethics committee is valid with a majority attendance and decides by a majority vote of attending members. The chair has a voting right and treats as a rejection in case of a tie.
  3. Function: The committee deliberates and decides each of the following Numbers:
    1) Matters about receiving and treating the misconduct report
    2) Matters about starting the main investigation and judging, approving, and re-deliberating the investigation result
    3) Matters about protecting the informant and the examinee
    4) Matters about managing the investigation result of research truth and taking a follow-up action
    5) Various matters about other committee operations

Article 7 (Reporting the misconduct and receiving that report) The informant can report the misconduct in written form or by email; the related evidences must be submitted in written form; the report by the real name is required in principle.

Article 8 (Protection of the informant and the examinee) The ethics committee takes an action to protect the right and personality of the informant and the examinee as follows:

  1. The ethics committee has an obligation to protect the informant and the examinee to prevent them to have any disadvantages or any improper pressures or harms due to the report of the misconduct and investigation; it is necessary to establish the measures for this.
  2. The informants can request the ethics committee to inform them the investigation procedures, schedules, etc. conducted after reporting the misconduct; the ethics committee needs to sincerely respond for this.
  3. The ethics committee needs to equally assure the right and opportunity of opinion statement, formal objection, and argument to the informant and the examinee and inform them the related procedures in advance.
  4. The ethics committee must not disclose the identification of the corresponding member to the outside until the final decision about the violation of the ethics policy is made by the society to avoid the invasions of their honor or right.

Article 9 (Preliminary investigation) 1. The preliminary investigation is the procedure to decide if the suspicion of the misconduct needs to be investigated or not; it should be started within 30 days after receiving the report; the committee consists of less than three editorial staff members including the editor.
2. When the examinee admits all of the misconduct in the preliminary investigation result, the judgment can be made without going through the main investigation procedure.
3. When it is decided in the preliminary investigation that the main investigation will not be performed, it is necessary to notify the concrete reason about this to the informant in written form within 14 days from the decision date.
4. The informant can make a formal objection to the society president within 30 days after receiving the notification if the informant denies the preliminary investigation result.

Article 10 (Main investigation) 1. The main investigation refers to the procedures to verify if the misconduct is true or not and needs to be conducted by organizing the ethics committee according to the policy of Article 6.
2. The ethics committee needs to provide the informant and the examinee with the opportunity to state their opinions according to the policy of Article 8, Section 3 and give them the opportunity for formal objection and argument before confirming the main investigation result. If the party concerned does not respond this, it will be regarded as no objection.

Article 11 (Judgment) The judgment is the procedure confirming the main investigation result and notifying this to the informant and the examinee in a document.

  1. The member decided to violate the ethics policy will receive the discipline including warning, restriction of the submission, suspension of the member qualification for two years, deprivation, etc.; this measures can be notified to the affiliated institution of the examinee or publicly announced in the journal.
  2. The principle notifies the final deliberation decision of the executive board to the informant and the examinee in written form. If the informant or the examinee protests against a judgment, they can make a formal objection in written form within 30 days after receiving the notification; the ethics committee examines this and can re-investigate if necessary.
  3. The research result of the member whose discipline is decided will be removed from the journal or conference materials, internet website, etc.

Article 12 (Investigation Report) When having conducted preliminary and main investigations, the Ethics Committee shall submit an investigation report to the Standing Board of Directors no loner than 30 (thirty) days after the completion of each investigation. The report shall include the following items:

  1. Details of information;
  2. Investigation results;
  3. Investigation results;
  4. Grounds for main investigation and judgment (restricted to preliminary investigation);
  5. Roles of examinee and authenticity of research misconduct (restricted to main investigation);
  6. Relevant evidences and list of witnesses, testifiers, and other participants in counseling (restricted to main investigation);
  7. Statements of informant and examinee;  
  8. Results from action request based on investigation results (restricted to main investigation).

Article 13 (Follow-up Actions by Investigation Results) The Board of Directors shall take the following measures after reviewing the investigation details and results on the basis of the regulations under Article 11, Section 2.
1. The Association's President shall convene a meeting of the Board of Directors within 2 (two) months, review the investigation report of the Ethics Committee, and finally arrange the matters involved.
2. If the investigation report is considered to have problems in reasonableness and validity, the Standing Board of Directors may ask the Ethics Committee to supplement the report.
3. The Ethics Committee shall record the process of investigation in the form of sound, image, or document, etc., and store the record for 5 (five) years or longer.
4. Once judged to be subjected to any disciplinary action, the study in question shall be deleted from the corresponding journal, academic conference report, homepage, etc.


Chapter 2 Bioethics


Article 14 (Human-targeted Research) The human-targeted research, as stipulated in the Act on Life Ethics and Safety, refers to that performed by interactions, such as physical intervention, communication, and personal contact, or that using the information available for personal identification. The human-targeted research shall observe the following principles: 

1. Based on the Helsinki Declaration, the research shall not be conducted in a way that undermines human dignity and values, and preferentially take the rights and welfare of subjects or their patrons into consideration.

2. In principle, subjects or their patrons shall be fully informed of study objectives, and mental or physical dangers which may occur during the study, and it shall be specified that they have consented to the study voluntarily.

3. Subjects or their patrons shall have their private lives protected, and their personal information kept secret, except when its disclosure is permitted by the person involved or the relevant law.

4. One who wants to perform a human-targeted study is obligated to submit a study plan to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of his/her institution and to obtain approval from the Board, and if necessary, an editor may ask the applicant to submit his/her written consent and IRB's written approval.

5. For other matters, the applicant shall comply with the relevant legislations, including the Act on Life Ethics and Safety.

Article 15 (Animal Testing) The animal testing refers to experiments or their scientific procedures performed on living animals for scientific purposes, such as education, trial, research, and biological medicine production, and requires the observance of the following principles:

  1. Experiments shall be performed in view of both the respect for animal dignity and the promotion of human welfare.
  2. Experiments shall be performed on a necessary minimum number of animals by persons who have knowledge and experience in the ethical treatment and scientific use of animals.
  3. Pain-causing experiments shall be performed on low sensitivity animals, and appropriate veterinary measures to reduce pain or inconvenience, such as the administration of painkillers and anesthetics.
  4. One who wants to perform experiments on animals is obligated to undergo the deliberation of the Animal Testing Ethics Committee of his/her institution and to obtain approval from the Committee.
  5. In principle, it shall be specified that testing procedures have not violated the regulations of the Ethics Committee or the NIH Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.
  6. For other matters, the applicant shall comply with the relevant laws, including the Act on Life Ethics and Safety.

Chapter 3 Ethics in Research and Publication


Article 16 (Author) An author shall comply with the following items:

  1. The author shall make considerable contributions to academic conceptualization and planning, and data collection, analysis and interpretation.
  2. The author shall write a paper, revise its important matters, and finally approve the publication of his/her manuscript.
  3. The corresponding author shall be responsible for the whole process of idea, design, data collection, research, paper writing and publication.
  4. The main or first author shall be a person who has made the greatest contribution to the corresponding study.
  5. In principle, the author's institution shall be that which he/she worked for during research. However, other customs may apply to a field where they are accepted.

Article 17 (Interests) Interests refer to financial or personal relationships in which an author, his/her institution, judges, editors can have inappropriate influences on the writing, screening, and publication of his/her manuscript. All the things that may affect interests shall be excluded from academic judgment, and any interests, which involve editors and judges as well as an author, shall be clarified.

Article 18 (Editors (Editorial Board) and Judges)
1. An editor (the Editorial Board) shall respect the personality of an author, and shall not discriminate him/her on the basis of any condition (gender, age, institution, race, religion, education background, nation etc) which has nothing to do with the paper itself.

2. The editor (the Editorial Board) shall keep secret the information obtained in the process of edition, and shall not use it for the purpose of private profits.

3. The editor (the Editorial Board) shall be based on strict academic standards, objectivity, scientific value, and fairness in the selection of papers for publication

4. The editor (the Editorial Board) shall report about financial or other interests which may affect the editorial judgment of the journal, and shall not get involved in the publication of any paper that affect his/her interests.

5. A judge shall not privately use the information obtained in the process of screening, and shall abolish the materials related to papers after the rejection or completion of screening.

6. The judge shall faithfully meet a screening deadline, and specifically specify points for improvement when drawing up a screening report. If he/she thinks it is impossible to finish screening by the due date or the content of the paper involved does not correspond to his/her expertise, or if the paper affects his/her interests, the judge shall immediately inform the Editorial Board of the fact and turn down the screening of the paper.

7. If he/she has noticed any behavior that violates research ethics, the judge shall immediately inform the Association or editors (the Editorial Board) of the fact.

8. The judge shall comply with the Association regulations on journal edition, contribution, screening and ethics, and the legislations, including the Act on Life Ethics and Safety.

Article 19 (Others) The matters not included in these regulations shall be judged in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations and the social norms.


Supplemental provisions
(Date of enforcement) This policy is effective from July 8, 2016.