Research Ethics Regulations 
Nutrition Research and Practice
Enacted in January 28, 2007
Amended on March 12, 2012
Amended on February 26, 2018
Amended on February 26, 2020
Amended on September 20, 2020
Chapter 1. General Provisions
Article 1. Title
These regulations shall be called the Research Ethics Regulations of the “Nutrition Research and Practice” journal.
Article 2. Purpose
The Nutrition Research and Practice (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NRP’) is an official scholarly journal jointly published by the Korean Nutrition Society and the Korean Society of Community Nutrition that seeks to provide the basic academic foundation in nutritional science, promote the practice of reasonable food life among Koreans, and provide academic support for the improvement of the nutritional status of the Korean population by publishing academic research articles in the field of nutritional science encompassing basic research and applied nutrition. The articles include general summaries, commentaries, original research results, reviews and reports. The purpose of these Regulations is to prescribe the principles and standards that researchers, directly and/or indirectly, participating in the aforementioned academic research activities should adhere to.
Chapter 2. Research Ethics Regulations
Article 1. Integrity of Research
Researchers shall adhere to the integrity of research in conducting research and reporting the results.
Article 2. Scope of Research Misconduct
1.
Fabrication: The act of making up nonexistent data or research results and recording or reporting them.
2.
Falsification: The act of distorting research content or results by artificially manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, etc., or arbitrarily changing or omitting data.
3.
Plagiarism: The act of appropriating someone else’s original ideas or creations which are not common knowledge without giving due credit and thus presenting another person’s ideas or work as one’s own creations, as set forth in the subparagraphs below:
①
The act of using all or a part of the content of someone else’s research without giving proper credit to the source.
②
The act of using words or sentence structures from someone else’s work by partially changing or paraphrasing them without giving proper credit to the source.
③
The act of using someone else’s original ideas without giving proper credit to the source.
④
The act of translating and using someone else’s work without giving proper credit to the source.
4.
Inappropriate Authorship Assignment: The act of denying authorship to individuals who have substantively contributed to the research content or results without any reasonable reasons or the act of granting authorship to individuals who have not made a substantial contribution to the research content or results due to reasons such as the expression of gratitude or courtesy, as set forth in the following subparagraphs:
①
The act of awarding authorship to individuals who have not made a substantial contribution to the intellectual content of the work or research results.
②
The act of denying authorship to individuals who have made substantial contributions to the intellectual content of the work or research results.
③
The act of publishing or presenting an advisee student’s thesis or dissertation in a journal or other publications by listing the thesis advisor or the dissertation advisor as the sole author.
5.
Duplicate Submission/Publication: The act of publishing the work with content identical or substantially like that of one’s previously published work without clear reference to the previous publication and gaining unfair benefits, such as receiving a research grant or having it recognized as a separate research achievement. However, a secondary publication is permitted if the paper contains nutritional science content that needs to be published urgently. When a paper with the same content is published in two or more scholarly journals, secondary publication does not constitute research misconduct only if it meets all of the following conditions.
①
The author has received permission for secondary publication from the Editorial Boards of both journals.
②
The secondary publication of the paper and its previous publication in another journal should be clearly specified in the secondary publication.
③
The paper for secondary publication should be published as an abbreviated version if possible, and the author(s) should be identical.
④
The paper for secondary publication should be intended for a different group of readers.
6.
Other acts that deviate seriously from the range of generally tolerated acts in research may constitute research misconduct.
Article 3. Criteria for Authorship
The authorship of papers published in the Journal should conform to the criteria for authorship of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). All individuals listed as authors in papers should meet all four criteria for authorship specified below, and those who do not meet all the aforesaid criteria for authorship should be acknowledged as contributors.
1.
Made substantial contributions to the conceptualization or design of the work or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
2.
Drafted the manuscript about research results or revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content; AND
3.
Approved the final manuscript version to be published before publication; AND
4.
Agreed to take responsibility for all aspects of the work by undertaking to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Article 4. Ethics Guidelines for the Editorial Board and Peer Reviewers
1.
Fairness
The Editorial Board and its members shall bear sole responsibility for determining the acceptance or rejection of a submitted manuscript for publication, shall respect the author’s work and experience in the field of nutritional science, and make no discriminations based on conditions irrelevant to writing papers, such as race, gender, religion, and educational background.
2.
Confidentiality
The Editorial Board and its members shall not disclose the identity of the author of the manuscript to reviewers or third parties.
3.
Selection of Reviewers
The Editors shall refer the evaluation of the submitted manuscript to reviewers who possess expertise in the relevant field and the ability to conduct an objective, fair, and unbiased evaluation of the manuscript.
4.
Roles of Reviewers
When they conduct peer reviews, reviewers shall adhere to the predetermined timeline of peer review, faithfully evaluate the manuscript, and provide detailed and specific comments when writing the review report.
5.
Responsibilities of Reviewers
If a reviewer believes that he or she is not suitable for the peer review of a particular manuscript, he or she shall immediately notify the Editorial Board of the same. In addition, if reviewers suspect any research misconduct during the peer review process, they shall immediately report it to the Editorial Board.
6.
Objectivity of Peer Review
Peer reviewers should review the manuscript fairly based on objective standards regardless of their personal academic beliefs or personal relationships with the author(s). They shall not recommend the rejection of a manuscript without specifying valid grounds for such a decision or recommend the rejection of a manuscript because the content of the manuscript is not in agreement with their viewpoint or interpretations. In addition, they shall not claim to have evaluated the manuscript without perusing it carefully.
Article 5. Specification of Publication Achievements
1.
The author should get recognition only for the achievements of the research that he/she has conducted himself/herself or has substantially contributed to and shall take responsibility for such research.
2.
The order of authors (including translators) of papers or other publications should fairly reflect the level of contribution to the research regardless of the relative positions of the authors. An individual cannot be listed as the coauthor, first author, or corresponding author simply because he/she holds a position of responsibility or seniority in an institution. The act of not granting authorship to individuals who have made substantial contributions to the research cannot be justified, either. Minor contributions to the research should be appropriately acknowledged either in a footnote, an introductory statement, the acknowledgments section, etc.
Article 6. Guide for Citation and Referencing
1.
When authors cite academic works, they should attempt to cite the information accurately and provide the proper citation of the sources. Unpublished data or personal communications may be cited only with the permission of the person(s) being cited.
2.
If the author quotes or refers to someone else’s work, proper footnote or endnote citation of the source should be provided, and the research results of previously published works should be clearly distinguished from the author’s original opinion or interpretation.
Chapter 3. Implementation of the Research Ethics Regulations
Article 1. The members of the Korean Nutrition Society and the Korean Society of Community Nutrition Society (hereinafter individually referred to as “Society” and collectively as “the Societies”) and persons involved in the academic research activities of each Society shall be deemed to have pledged to comply with the Research Ethics Regulations immediately after they become effective.
Article 2. Organization of the Research Ethics Committee
1.
The special Research Ethics Committee (hereinafter referred to as the ‘REC’) shall be organized to deliberate and make decisions on matters concerning research ethics.
2.
The REC shall include at least five members of each Society, and the members of the REC shall be appointed by the President of each Society upon the recommendation of the Board of Directors of each Society.
3.
The meetings of the REC shall be convened by the Chairperson of the REC when the President of either Society or the Chairperson of the REC deems it necessary to convene such meetings.
4.
The meetings of the REC shall be held with the attendance of a majority of the members, and decisions shall be taken with the consent of a majority of the members present and voting. The Chairperson shall be recognized as a committee member present at a meeting, but he/she shall not have the right to vote.
5.
If the person examined by the REC is a member of the REC, one of the delegates of the Societies shall be appointed as a temporary member of the REC by the Chairperson.
6.
The REC members shall keep confidential all matters related to deliberation by the REC.
Article 3. Authority of the Research Ethics Committee
The REC shall conduct thorough and exhaustive investigations of alleged violations of the research ethics regulations by gathering all available information and evidential materials on the allegations of misconduct from the complainant, the accused, witnesses, references, and related data. If an allegation is found to be substantiated and the alleged misconduct is determined to constitute a violation of the research ethics regulations pursuant to the investigation by the REC, the REC may recommend appropriate disciplinary action to the Chairperson.
Article 4. Matters Subject to the Deliberation of the Research Ethics Committee
The REC shall deliberate and take decisions on the matters set forth in the following subparagraphs:
1.
Matters concerning allegations of research misconduct regarding papers, abstracts, reports, or research proposals related to each Society (violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Research Ethics Regulations)
2.
Matters concerning education on research ethics.
3.
Matters concerning research ethics in which the principal investigator or the project manager of a research project related to either of the Societies is involved.
4.
Matters concerning the amendment of the Research Ethics Regulations and other matters on research ethics that may be suggested by the Chairperson.
Article 5. The Investigation and Deliberation Procedure of the Research Ethics Committee
The REC shall proceed with the investigation of and deliberation on a suspected case of misconduct as provided in the following subparagraphs:
1.
A person accused of a suspected violation of the research ethics regulations (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Respondent’) should fully cooperate in the investigation conducted by the Research Ethics Committee. If the Respondent does not cooperate fully, this noncooperation shall constitute a violation of the Research Ethics Regulations.
2.
Opportunity to be Heard: The Respondent should be given ample opportunities to respond to the allegation and state/ defend his/her case.
3.
The identity of the claimant of the alleged research misconduct (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Complainant’) shall be kept confidential, and the Complainant should report suspected research misconduct by using his/her real name in principle
4.
Confidentiality of the Respondent: The identity of the Respondent shall not be exposed to third parties or the public until the investigation and deliberations are completed and the final conclusion is that the allegation of misconduct has been proven to be correct. However, exceptions may be made when the alleged case of misconduct may pose a serious threat to public welfare or safety or against the law.
5.
Caution should be taken not to unreasonably inflict damage upon the reputation of the Respondent or infringe upon his/ her rights.
6.
The investigation and deliberation procedures of the REC are as follows:
1)
The Chairperson of the REC shall conduct the preliminary inquiry into the alleged case of research misconduct within a week from the date of receipt of an allegation of research misconduct to determine whether it is necessary to convene the investigation panel to conduct a formal investigation. If the Chairperson deems it unnecessary to convene the investigation panel, he/she shall report the case to all the committee members to seek their agreement. In addition, the Complainant should be notified of this decision in writing or by e-mail in the form of an official communication.
2)
If it is decided to convene the investigation panel, the Respondent shall be notified of the same within one week after the decision in writing or by e-mail in the form of official communication, and the Respondent shall be given an opportunity to respond to the allegation and state/defend his/her case until the investigation panel is convened. The Respondent’s material to disprove the allegation may be received in the form of a written document or e-mail.
3)
If the material or evidence from the Respondent to disprove the allegation is received, the investigation panel shall be convened to investigate and deliberate over the case. (If the Respondent does not send any material to refute the allegation, it shall be considered to indicate that he/she has no objection.) The period of the investigation and deliberation of an alleged case of misconduct should not exceed two months.
4)
When the results of the investigation and deliberation by the investigation panel are determined, the Complainant and the Respondent should be informed of the results in writing and by e-mail in the form of an official document.
5)
If either the complainant or the respondent is dissatisfied with the conclusion of the investigation, he/she may file an objection within two weeks from the date of notification of the conclusion, and if the objection has been properly substantiated and is considered valid, a reinvestigation of the case shall be conducted.
6)
If there is a sponsor of the research related to the case of misconduct, the final conclusion about the case of misconduct shall be reported in writing to the sponsoring organization within 10 days of such a conclusion being arrived at. In case of misconduct related to publication, all the details of the misconduct shall be reported to the related institutions. In addition, the results of the investigation and the final conclusion of the case of misconduct shall be posted on the website of each Society and be announced to all the members in order to prevent recurrences of similar misconduct in the future.
7)
The results of the investigation and deliberation shall be kept in the form of electronic document files and printed material for at least five years from the conclusion date.
Article 6. Disposal of Misconduct in Research
If a suspected case of misconduct is confirmed as an actual violation of research ethics through the investigation and deliberation of the REC, Board meetings of the Societies shall be convened together by the President of each Society to make a final decision on whether to take disciplinary action and what type of disciplinary action to impose. Disciplinary measures specified in the following subparagraphs shall be imposed upon the accused researcher. However, appropriate disciplinary measures shall be determined by the REC through careful deliberation taking into consideration the level of seriousness of the misconduct.
1.
A warning letter is sent to the person who has committed the misconduct in research.
2.
The researcher who committed the misconduct shall be prohibited from submissions to the journal published by each Society. (The period of such prohibition will be determined based on the seriousness of the misconduct through the deliberations of the REC. The researcher shall be prohibited from submissions to the journals published by the Societies for a period of at least three years.)
3.
If the confirmed case of misconduct is related to the publication of the paper in the journals published by the Societies, the relevant organizations shall be notified of the misconduct, and the following regulation prescribed in the ‘Guidelines for Authors’ of the ‘Nutrition Research and Practice’ shall be applied: ‘For the policies on the research and publication ethics not stated in these guidelines, “Good Publication Practice Guidelines for Medical Journals (http:// kamje.or.kr/publishing_ethics.html)” or “International standards for editors and authors (http://publicationethics.org/international-standardseditors-and-authors)” can be applied.’ In addition, if the confirmed misconduct is a case of duplicate publication, the other society that published the paper shall be notified of this misconduct, and shall be requested to take steps to cancel the publication of the paper and take other disciplinary measures as may be necessary.
4.
If a researcher participating in a research activity organized by either of the Societies commits research misconduct, he/she will be dismissed from the position of researcher and prohibited from participating in any research activities organized by either of the Societies for a certain period of time. (The period of such prohibition will be determined based on the level of seriousness of the misconduct through the deliberation of the REC. The researcher shall be banned from participating in research activities organized by each Society for a maximum of 5 years.)
5.
Each confirmed case of misconduct shall be posted on the website of each Society and announced to all the members of the Society to prevent the recurrence of similar misconduct.
Article 7. Education on the Research Ethics Regulations
The members of the Societies and those involved in the academic research activities of the Societies shall be provided with prior education on these Research Ethics Regulations so that they can become well acquainted with the regulations before participating in research activities.
Article 8. Any amendments to these Research Ethics Regulations should be made in compliance with the procedure for amendment of the regulations of the Korean Nutrition Society and the Korean Society of Community Nutrition as prescribed by the regulations of each of the Societies.
Chapter 4. The Code of Ethics for Scientists and Engineers
Article 9. The members of the Societies and persons involved in academic research activities of the Societies should comply with the ‘Code of Ethics for Scientists and Engineers’ jointly enacted and promulgated on April 20, 2007, by the Korean Federation of Science and Technology Societies (KOFST), the Korean Academy of Science and Technology (KAST), the National Academy of Engineering of Korea (NAEK), and the Korean National Commission for UNESCO (KNCU) as follows.
1.
Social Responsibilities of Scientists and Engineers Since science and technology have a huge impact on society, scientists and engineers should engage in research and intellectual activities with the realization of their social responsibility as professionals and should recognize that they have the responsibility to ensure that the knowledge and technology generated by their scientific and research activities will contribute to the improvement of the quality of life and welfare of mankind and the preservation of the environment.
2.
Basic Principles of Research Ethics for Scientists and Engineers Scientists and engineers should recognize that honesty, integrity, and accuracy are essential principles for ensuring the reliability of research results and pursue these basic principles in performing all research activities including the proposal, planning, and execution of research and reporting of research results. Specifically, they must avoid research misconduct such as fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and duplicate publication.
3.
The Principle of Universality
Scientists and engineers should not be discriminated against based on race, gender, religion, educational background, etc., and they should have equal rights and duties.
4.
The Maintenance of Dignity as Professionals
Scientists and engineers should maintain their pride and dignity as professionals who contribute to the promotion of human welfare through the creation of new knowledge and the development of technology.
5.
Compliance with Laws and Regulations
Scientists and engineers should faithfully comply with the conditions stipulated by all applicable laws and regulations, regulations specified in this Code of Ethics, and internationally accepted principles and standards.
6.
Respect for Research Subjects
If the subjects of scientific research are humans, researchers should comply with the principles of bioethics by respecting the dignity and rights of the human participants, and adhere to the approved content of Institutional Review Boards. If research subjects are animals, researchers should bear in mind the dignity of life in the use of animals in research and adhere to the regulations as stipulated in the IACUC guidelines. When dealing with the natural environment, scientists and engineers should contribute to the promotion of human welfare by recognizing the importance of conserving biodiversity and protecting the environment.
7.
Recording and Preservation of Research Materials
Scientists and engineers should faithfully record the research data used or generated during research as well as research materials such as samples from the first stage to the final stage of research and preserve them during a specified period.
8.
Authorship and Intellectual Property Rights
Authorship should be granted only to persons who have directly participated in research through the conceptualization, design, or execution of the same, or the analysis or interpretation of research data. When the work of others is cited or referred to during the research, the rights and intellectual property rights of the original authors should be respected by giving proper credit to the sources in published papers. The persons listed as authors in a paper should bear joint responsibility for the paper.
9.
Rights and Obligations to the Society
Scientists and engineers have the right to benefit from publicizing new discoveries or the achievements of research and intellectual activities to the society, and they also have the duty to faithfully respond to the demands of society.
10.
Responses to Conflicts of Interest
Scientists and engineers should declare any conflicts of interest that have occurred or are likely to occur during research and intellectual activities at the outset and give priority to public interests over their personal interests.
11.
The Creation of the Research Environment
Scientists and engineers should actively participate in creating a research environment that guarantees intellectual freedom, fairness, openness, and mutual respect to ensure that responsible research and intellectual activities are conducted.
12.
Implementation of Ethics Education
Persons in charge of research and intellectual activities have a duty to educate stakeholders and concerned persons on ethics so that participants in research and intellectual activities will faithfully put into practice all the regulations enshrined in this Code of Ethics.