Ethical Guidelines

Korean Music Education Society (KMES) stipulates the Code of Ethics to be adhered to by the members in regular academic presentations, including the submission, review, and publication of the academic journal. The purpose of this Code of Ethics is to encourage KMES members to comply with research ethics.

Chapter I. Research Code of Ethics

Article 1 The Code of Ethics for Authors

Section 1 Plagiarism

"Plagiarism" is the act of stealing other people's ideas, research contents, or results without proper approval or without citation remarks. There are two main types of plagiarism as follows.

First, the original author's idea, logic, unique term, data, analysis system, etc. are used without disclosing the original source.

Second, the multiple texts or ideas of others' writings or papers are transferred without quotation indications.

Section 2 Forgery

"Forgery" is an act of making nonexistent data or research results.

Section 3 Modification

“Modification” is an act of distorting the research content or results by artificially manipulating research materials and processes, or by arbitrarily modifying or deleting data.

Section 4 Duplicate Publication

Authors should not duplicate results in this journal or other journals. If you wish to publish using published research, you must provide the information about the previous publication after obtaining permission from the Editorial Board. However, papers presented at academic conferences do not apply to this regulation.

Section 5 Indication of Contribution

Authors have responsibility and authority for the intellectually contributing parts of the research, and the author or co-authors (including order) should accurately mark their contribution. “Inappropriate authorship” refers to a paper that does not grant the authorship of paper without justifiable reason to the person who actually contributed to the research content or results, or grant the authorship to the person who actually have not contributed.

Section 6 Citation and Reference

When quoting published academic material, authors should accurately describe it, and must clearly identify its source unless it belongs to common sense. When quoting other people's writings or borrowing (referring) ideas, authors must disclose them. The readers should know which part is the result of previous research and which part is the author’s own original thinking, claim, and interpretation through these citation and/or reference indications.

Section 7 Revision of Paper

Authors should endeavor to reflect the opinions of the editors and reviewers presented in the review process as much as possible, and if they disagree with these comments, write down the reasons in detail and inform the Editorial Board.

Section 8 Procedure of Verification of Ethics

Authors should verify the papers’ originality using a Korean academic index (KCI) or inspecting by similarity check powered by iThenticate (https://www.crossref.org/services/similarity-check/ a plagiarism-screening tool) etc., and submit a 'Plagiarism Verification Confirmation Report' for the paper that has been determined to be 'Available for Publication'.

Section 9 Compliance with the Regulations of the Institutional Review Board (IRB)

Authors must submit in compliance with Regulations of the Institutional Review Board (IRB). (www.bioethics.go.kr)

① articipations in research should be decided by participants’ free will and consent forms must be obtained from research participants.

② If the participants is not an adult, the consent form must be obtained from a parent, legal guardian, or legal representative, and this fact must be documented.

Article 2. The Code of Ethics for Editors

Section 1.  The editors are responsible for selecting the reviewers and deciding whether to publish the papers. They must respect the authors independence.

Section 2. The  editors should treat papers submitted for publication fairly, regardless of the author's gender, age, organization, and any prejudice or personal acquaintance, based solely on the quality of the paper and the rules of submission.

Section 3.  The editors should recommend the reviewers who have the expertise and fair reviewing abilities for the submitted papers. If the reviews of the same paper differs significantly between reviewers, third-party reviewer in the field may be requested.

Section 5.  The editors should not disclose the content of the paper or the authorship until the publication of the paper is decided.

Article 3. Code of Ethics for Reviewers

Section 1.  The reviewers must faithfully review the papers requested by the Editorial Board within the period determined by the review regulations and notify the Board of the reviewing results. If (s)he is thought not eligible to review the paper, (s)he must notify the Board immediately.

Section 2.  The reviewers must review the paper fairly according to the given criteria, regardless of their personal beliefs or personal relationship with the author. The publication of the paper should not be denied without sufficient reasons, or because of the reviewer’s own bias or subjective viewpoint. The reviewers must read the paper carefully in order to notify the result.

Section 3.  The reviewers must respect the author’s independence as a person and a scholar. (S)he must state the opinions in writing, and must explain the reasons in detail in areas where corrections and supplementations are necessary. (S)he must use polite and gentle expressions as much as possible, and avoid derogatory or offensive expressions.

Section 4. The reviewers must keep the confidentiality of the papers to be reviewed. It is not advisable to show or discuss the paper to others, unless specifically seeking advice for the paper. In addition, the contents of the article should not be cited without the author's consent before the paper iis published.

Chapter II. Guidelines for the Implementation of the Code of Ethics

Section 1. Goals

This Code of Ethics enhances the research ethics of KMES members by informing general information and preventing research misconduct.

Section 2. Compliance to the Code of Ethics

All members of the Korean Music Education Society must comply with this Code of Ethics. When submitting a paper to <Korean Journal of Research in Music Education>, all members of KMES pledge to follow any sanctions of Research Ethics Board by signing the Research Ethics Pledge.

Section 3. Report of Violation

When a member recognizes that other member has violated the Code of Ethics, the member should endeavor to correct the problem by reminding the other member of the Code. If the problem is not corrected or an apparent violation of the Code of Ethics is revealed, it can be reported to the Research Ethics Board. The Board should not disclose the identity of the member who reported the matter.

Section 4. Research Ethics Board Members

If there is a situation related to violation of research regulations, The Research Ethics Board serves to deliberate. The Research Ethics Board is composed of less than six people, mainly from advisors, former and current editor-in-chief and staff members.

Section 5. Authority and Responsibility of the Research Ethics Board

The Research Ethics Board conducts a wide-ranging investigation through reporters, respondents, witnesses, reference persons, and evidence, etc. on matters reported as violations of the Code of Ethics. If the violation of the Code is found, appropriate sanctions can be suggested to the President.

First, The Research Ethics Board shall be a permanent organization within the Korea Music Education Society.

Second, The Research Ethics Board deliberates, resolves, and deals with the following matters related to research ethics.

① The Research Ethics Board may require reporters, respondents, witnesses and reference persons to attend and submit data in the course of the investigation,

② If the respondent refuses to attend or submit data without reason, it can be assumed that the allegation has been acknowledged.

③ The Research Ethics Board may take necessary process to prevent the loss, damage, concealment, or alteration of research data or results.

④ Sufficient defence opportunities should be given to those who are reported to violate the Code of Ethics.

⑤ The Research Ethics Board shall not be disclose the identity of the person reported to violate the Code of Ethics until the final decision is made.

Section 6. Investigation and Deliberation of the Research Ethics Board

The investigation procedure for the violation is conducted in four stages: preliminary investigation, main investigation, judgment, and final confirmation. In this case, the Research Ethics Board may add other investigation procedures.

First, (the preliminary investigation) The preliminary investigation deliberates and investigates as follows.

① Regardless of the reporting tool, such as oral, written, telephone, and e-mail, if a specific report related to violation is received with the reporter’s real name, a preliminary investigation will be conducted to determine whether or not the main investigation is conducted. Even if an anonymous report is made, if the research title (thesis title), the type and evidence of violation, etc. are received in detail, a preliminary investigation will be conducted.

② The Editorial Board serves as the Preliminary Investigation Committee and must initiate and complete the preliminary investigation within 30 days from the date of receipt of the report. After the completion of the investigation, a preliminary investigation report can be submitted to the president of KMES to decide to convene The Research Ethics Board.

③ The preliminary investigation is conducted as follows.

a. Whether the reporting date is within five years from the publication date of the paper.

b. Whether the contents of the report are insistent with Article 1, Section1 of the “Code of Ethics”.

c. Whether it is necessary to conduct the main investigation based on the report

④ As a result of the preliminary investigation, if it is determined that there is no need to conduct the main investigation, the Board immediately ends the investigation and notifies the result to the reporter and respondent in writing.

⑤ If, as a result of the preliminary investigation, it is considered necessary to conduct the main investigation, the Board shall notify the reporter and the respondent in writing.

⑥ The preliminary investigation report should include the following.

a. Copy of paper to be investigated

b. Reported suspicion of violation

c. Necessity of main investigation

Second, (Main investigation and judgment) The process of deliberation and judgment of the main investigation is as follows.

① The Research Ethics Board serves as the Main Investigation committee and starts within 10 days of notification of the preliminary investigation results, and completes the investigation within 30 days from the start date. If the Main Investigation Committee determines that an investigation cannot be completed within this period, it may ask to extend the period.

② The Investigation Committee may request reporters, respondents, references and witnesses to submit attendance or reference materials.

③ If the reporter or the respondent rejects the request without reason, the Main Investigation Committee may presume that the report is unfounded or that the respondent admits the suspicion.

④ The Main Investigation Committee prepares the final report and submits it to the Research Ethics Board.

⑤ The final report should include the following items.

a. Report content

b. Types of violation and copies of paper to be investigated

c. Preliminary investigation results

d. The role of the respondent in the paper and the presence or absence of violence

e. Related evidence and statements of references and witnesses

f. Statements by the reporter and the respondents, objections and defences, and the opinions of the Main Investigation Committee

g. Judgment

h. List of investigators

⑥ Paragraph ⑤ above, the criteria for “judgment” of this investigation shall be approved by more than 2/3 of the investigators.

Third, (Confirmation) The Research Ethics Board reports the results of the decision to the president. The president convenes the staff meeting to decide and finalize the report of this investigation and notifies the reporter and the respondent of the final result.

Section 7. Defence Opportunities

Members who are reported to have violated the Code of Ethics should be given sufficient opportunities to defend herself or himself. If the respondent disputes the decision of the Research Ethics Board, the Board may be asked to reconsider or supplement. Requests for reconsideration or supplementation of the report are made only in writing that give specific reasons.

Section 8. Protection for the Respondents

The Research Ethics Board members shall not disclose the identity of the member to the outside until the final decision is made for violation of the Code of Ethics.

Section 9. Disciplinary Procedures and Content

If there is a disciplinary recommendation from the Research Ethics Board, the president convenes the staff meeting to finally decide whether or not to discipline. Members who are found to have violated the Code of Ethics may be warned, suspended or deprived of membership, prohibited submission of the paper by the contributor, deletion from the list of journal articles, public apology, notice on the website of the Society, and disciplinary notice. Contributors' violations must be written in document, and the president of the Society approves the decision of the Research Ethics Board immediately after staff meeting approval.

Section 10. Action on Results after Verification

Upon receiving reports from the Research Ethics Board on those who have been determined to be fraudulent, the president of the Society shall notify it through the journal and the website, together with the cancellation of the paper and restrictions on the submission of journals. Upon the recommendation of the Board, the president may notify the relevant institutions in writing of the action.

Section 11. Record Keeping and Disclosure

The Research Ethics Board shall keep all documents and records of the preliminary and main investigations for five years from the time the investigation ends. The result report can be released after verification, but information related to personal identities such as informants, investigators, reference persons, and witnesses will not be disclosed.

Section 12. Amendment to the Code of Ethics

The procedure for revising the Code of Ethics is in accordance with the revision procedure of the Society's rules. If the Code of Ethics is amended, members who pledge to comply with the existing rules are deemed to have pledged to comply with the new rules without additional pledges.

Supplementary Provision
This regulation takes effect on March 1, 2008.

Supplementary Provision
This regulation takes effect on May 7, 2016.

Supplementary Provision
This regulation takes effect on December 1, 2017.