Enacted: January 01, 2008
Revised: August 23, 2021
Revised: February 22, 2022

Article 1 (Objective)

The objective of this policy is to establish research ethics for authors and contributors submitting their research papers for publication in STRESS.

Article 2 (Subjects and Scope)

This research ethics policy applies to those who have submitted research papers for publication in this journal.

Article 3 (Research Misconduct)

• 1. Researchers must abide by research ethics in the process of planning and conducting research and must not engage in research misconduct.
• 2. The types and definitions of research misconduct are:
  • 1) “Forgery” refers to falsely creating, recording, or reporting non-existent research data or results.
  • 2) “Falsification” refers to distorting research contents or results either by artificially manipulating research materials, equipment, and processes, or by arbitrarily modifying or deleting research materials or research data.
  • 3) “Plagiarism” refers to using someone else’s original ideas or creations as one’s own without acknowledging the source.
    • a. Using all or part of the research contents of others without acknowledging the source.
    • b. Omitting the source while using the words and sentence structure of someone else’s work.
    • c. Omitting the source while using other people’s original ideas.
    • d. Omitting the source while translating and using the work of others.
  • 4) “Unfair authorship” refers to failing to grant authorship to a person who has contributed authorship or contributed to the research contents or results without justifiable reasons, or granting authorship to a person who has not contributed authorship or contributed to the research contents or results for reasons of gratitude or courtesy.
  • 5) “Unfair duplicate publication” refers to a researcher who publishes work that is identical or substantially similar to their previous research results without acknowledging the source, and who then receives research funds or profits as though it was new research.
  • 6) “Interfering with an investigation into research misconduct” refers to intentionally interfering with the investigation of one’s own or others’ misconduct or harming the informant.
  • 7) Other conduct recognized as research misconduct by the Ethics Committee.

Article 4 (Authorship)

• 1. Responsibilities and Obligations
  • 1) The corresponding author takes the overall responsibility for the research data and author information, and is responsible for the supervision of the research conducted by coresearchers.
  • 2) When submitting papers, authors must acknowledge their authorship, agree to the author order, and be aware of their responsibilities.
  • 3) Authors must disclose both financial and personal interests related to their research.
  • 4) Authors must accurately disclose the researcher’s affiliation and position (author information) to enhance the credibility of the research.
  • 5) Research subjects have the right to privacy, and their personal information should not be disclosed unless required. The publication must exclude any identifiable information, such their name, initials, medical record number, photograph, and family lineage. However, if the disclosure of the subject’s personal information is essential as scientific information, it must be explained to the subject or the subject’s legal representative before publication, and written consent must be obtained. Subsequently, it is necessary to clarify that the personal information of the subject may be disclosed not only through publications, but also through the Internet.
• 2. Author criteria
  • 1) Authorship should meet the following four criteria.
    • ① Substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work, or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work
    • ② Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content;
    • ③ Final approval of the version to be published
    • 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
  • 2) The order of authors should be determined fairly and according to their contribution to the research, through agreement between all authors.
  • 3) Researchers with author qualifications should not be excluded from the list of authors without their consent.
  • 4) Persons who have not contributed academically or technically to the research content or results should not be included as authors for reasons of gratitude or courtesy.

Article 5 (Research Ethics Committee)

• 1. A Research Ethics Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee”) is established within the Society to deliberate on research ethics matters.
• 2. The Committee shall comprise no more than 15 members, including the publishing editor-in-chief and editors.
• 3. The editor-in-chief is the chairperson, and the associate editors and secretary are elected by the Committee.
• 4. The chairperson and members have a two-year term of office, but they can be reappointed.

Article 6 (Committee Operation)

• 1. The Committee shall be convened at the request of the chairperson or at least one quarter of the members.
• 2. The Committee is established with the attendance of the majority of its members, and resolutions are made with the consent of the majority of those present.
• 3. A member who is involved in research subject to the Committee’s deliberation, cannot participate in the deliberation related to this research.
• 4. The Committee must ensure confidentiality in all matters related to their deliberation.

Article 7 (Committee Duties)

The Committee shall perform the following duties:

• 1. Raise the ethical awareness of researchers
• 2. Deliberate and handle ethical violations related to academic activities, including research and the publication of research
• 3. Initiate the revision of the Code of Ethics
• 4. Perform other duties assigned to the Committee

Article 8 (Deliberation on research misconduct)

• 1. The informant reporting alleged research misconduct must notify the Editorial Board in writing or by e-mail, and the relevant evidence must also be submitted in writing. Real name reporting is required.
• 2. The Editorial Board shall protect the informant’s identity, and the informant’s name shall not be disclosed for their protection unless required.
• 3. The informant who reports alleged misconduct even though they knew or could have known that the content of the report was false, is not included in the scope of this protection, and, depending on the case, the relevant fact may be reported to the relevant institution.
• 4. The author’s institution is primarily responsible for verifying the research misconduct, but the Society must actively cooperate with the research misconduct investigation of the affiliated institution.

Article 9 (Deliberation Process)

• 1. The Committee shall convene within 30 days from the date of receipt of a written report regarding ethical misconduct, to discuss the deliberation process.
• 2. During the deliberation process, the Committee may request a statement from the informant, the person under investigation, the witnesses, and the referee.
• 3. If required during deliberation, the Committee may request the research director or manager to submit or report data.
• 4. The Committee may seek opinions from external specialized agencies if deemed necessary.

Article 10 (Follow-up Actions for Research Misconduct)

• 1. If the author’s research misconduct is substantiated, the paper will be withdrawn.
• 2. The Society may take the following actions, according to the degree of research misconduct:
  • 1) Caution: Notify all authors of the paper regarding the misconduct and advise them to take precautions when drafting future papers.
  • 2) Warning: Inform all authors of the paper regarding the facts of the misconduct. Withdraw all previously published papers, and caution all authors to take precautions when drafting future papers.
  • 3) Censure: Notify all authors of the paper regarding the misconduct, withdraw previously published papers, and post them on the Society’s website bulletin board for one month. In addition, all papers by unethical authors that are currently under review at this Society, and all papers awaiting publication, will be cancelled. The primary author of the paper may not submit a paper to this Society for 3 years.
  • 4) Strict censure: Notify the head of the institution and all the authors of the paper regarding the misconduct in an official letter, withdraw all previously published papers, and post them on the Society’s website for one month. In addition, all papers by unethical authors that are currently under review at this Society, and all papers awaiting publication, will be cancelled. All authors of the paper may not submit a paper to this Society for 3 years.
• 3. When the research misconduct of a co-author with a related party is confirmed, the related person’s research misconduct will be reported to the related institution (e.g., schools, regarding entrance examinations and admissions, or researchrelated institutions).

Article 11 (Deliberation Result Process)

• 1. The Committee records shall be kept, confirmed, and signed by the chairperson.
• 2. The chairperson shall report the results of the deliberation to the president of the Society.
• 3. The president of the Society shall notify the informant and the examinee of the results of the deliberation in writing. An exception shall be made in the case of an anonymous report.
• 4. The Committee shall notify the relevant institution of the results of the review regarding those involved in ethical violations and suggest appropriate sanctions.
• 5. The person under investigation may request a retrial within 30 days from the date of being notified of the results of the review in writing. It is possible to request a retrial only if new evidence is attached. In the case of reconsideration, the deliberation procedure will be repeated.
• 6. If there is reasonable evidence for the request for reexamination pursuant to Article 11 (5), the chairperson shall convene a Committee and respond appropriately, such as discussing the reexamination procedure.

Supplementary Provision

This policy shall take effect on January 1, 2008.

Supplementary Provision

This policy shall take effect on August 23, 2021.

Supplementary Provision

This policy shall take effect on February 22, 2022.