Journal Policies on Ethical Publication Practices 

 The following policy statement aggregates and extends the relevant sections of the IHSS-SHSS Ruless, Procedures, and Guidelines to correspond to the core practices of the Committee on Publication Ethice (COPE).

1. Author Qualifications

1a. The editorial board will consider any allegation of authorial or reviewer misconduct.

1b. Misconduct at any point in a paper under offer to this journal that involves serious violation of scholarly ethics such as, but not limited
       to, fake or falsified data, plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and/or improper indication of a paper’s author(s), will be referred to the journal’s
       Ethics Committee for adjudication (see Section 6 below).

1c. “Fake” data falsely represents research results or refers to non-existent data.

1d. “Falsification” refers to behavior that distorts the contents or results of research, whether one’s own or others’, by manipulating the
       research material, equipment, or process, or by deteriorating or deleting selected data.

1e. “Plagiarism” refers to behavior that uses the ideas, content, results, or other unique elements of others’ research without proper
       citation and without the addition of new interpretation and presentation.

1f. “Self-plagiarism” refers to behavior that reuses a substantial part of material previously offered by an author (or one of two or more co-
       authors) and accepted for any academic journal or other publication, whether exactly as previously printed or after minor modification,
       without proper citation or reference and express permission from copyright holders. (Note: when previous publication is specified,
       even with proper citation, reference, and permission, a submission to this learned journal will be rejected for consideration.)

1g. “Improper indication of the paper’s author(s)” refers to behavior that that does not correlate actual authorship with the names of
       authors as submitted to this learned journal, and that does not correlate with the creators of the research process, results, and
       analysis (see Section 2 below for more detail)

1h. The journal will protect to the greatest extent possible the identity of any individual alleging misconduct on the part of authors or

1i. The journal may use software and/or other tools to ascertain the validity of any allegation.

1j. The editor(s)-in-chief are willing to collaborate with comparable figures at other journals to compare suspect submissions.

2. Authorship and Contributorship

2a. Authorship credit is a statement of having contributed substantially to the conception and design of the research underlying the
       research; of having significant input to and control of the drafting and editing of the attendant manuscript; and of having approved the
       final document prior to submission and to publication.

2b. Authorship credit does not include other elements of any research project that may lead to creation of the submission text such as
       procuring funding, collecting data, or supervising a research group. In such cases authorial acknowledgement should be made in a
       separate note where appropriate.

2c. Order of multiple authors is at the discretion of the submitters, but the first named author must be willing to serve as contact author
       for communicating with the editorial board and/or readers, and shall be so designated on the title page of the submission if published.

3. Complaints and Appeals

3a. The journal welcomes and will respectfully consider and, as appropriate, act on any complaints against the journal, its editors and
       publisher, and any actions that may reflect on its goals and values.

3b. In the case of rejected manuscripts, the author(s) may appeal to the editor(s)-in-chief or publisher for reconsideration if they believe
       that either the peer reviewing or editorial decision-making processes were at fault.

3c. Any suggestions for additions or revisions to these “Journal Policies on Ethical Publication Practices” that are in keeping with current
       best practices in scholarly publication will be seriously and promptly considered.

4. Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interests

4a. Any author must disclose a possible special financial, institutional, or other interest in the topic and findings of a submission.

4b. Peer reviewers are expected to note any possible conflicts of interest with a submission’s author(s) or with its contents.

4c. If an editor has reason to suspect an undisclosed conflict of interest on the part of an author or peer reviewer, or if an author or peer
       reviewer suspects such a conflict on the part of the other party or of anyone involved in the journal’s editorial processes, either a
       written document shall be obtained explaining why no such conflict occurs or, for authors, a statement will be attached to any
       published version explaining the interest and, for peer reviewers, their evaluation will not be considered and a substitute reviewer will
       be selected. In cases in which the undisclosed interest casts doubt on the fairness and validity of the research, the complaint must be
       forwarded to the journal’s Ethics Committee (see Section 6).

4d. No individual involved in the editing or publishing o the journal can play any role in the peer-reviewing or publication decisions regarding
       the possible publication of a piece on which they are listed as an author.

5. Data and Responsibility

5a. Fabricated data (“fake” or “falsified” – see the definitions in Section 1) are grounds for rejection of a submission or withdrawal of a
       published article and for communication with the research governing authorities of the author’s academic institution and/or other
       regulatory bodies. If an editor or peer reviewer suspects fabrication, a formal investigation must be initiated.

5b. In the case of a satisfactory explanation prior to publication, the editor(s)-in-chief must apologize to the author(s) and inform the peer
       reviewers involved of the circumstances.

6. Ethical Oversight

6a. Ethical publication practices should be a concern for all editors and contributors, but special responsibility rests with the Director of the
       Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences (IHSS) at Honam University, the editor(s)-in-chief of this journal, and members of the
       journal’s Ethics Committee.

6b. Adjudication of issues arising from suspected ethical misconduct as described above, including any other behavior that may raise
       ethical concerns even if not specifically enumerated, will be carried out by a specially created Ethics Committee to be composed of nine
       members. The chair shall be the director of the IHSS at Honam University; other members shall be appointed on the recommendation
       of any officer of the IHSS. Deliberations require the presence of a majority of committee members. Decisions require the approval of
       two thirds (2/3) of the members present. In cases that the chair determines, after informal discussion with committee members,
       involve only trivial infractions or issues, the chair may choose not to convene a meeting but instead submit the issue for written
       deliberation and dispensation by committee members. The ethics committee can select a smaller investigation committee from among
       its members to closely examine all relevant material. Either the full ethics committee or the investigation
       committee can request any informant regarding putative illegal behavior, the author(s) under examination, and any witnesses or others
       offering testimony for additional data. If such a request is made, the author(s) must comply.

6c. The ethics committee shall deliberate and adjudicate based on the evidence presented, including objections raised and defense(s)
       offered, and then notify the author(s) and informant, if any, of the results. If a final adjudication of the results of the investigation does
       not emerge from a consensus among committee members, it will be decided by a formal vote requiring the presence of a majority of
       registered committee members and the approval of at least two thirds (2/3) of committee members present. If the author(s) or
       informant protests against the committee’s adjudication of the results of the investigation, either party can request re-deliberation by
       the ethics committee by submitting the relevant reason within ten (10) days from the date when they were notified of the result.
       Review of the propriety of the reason for requesting re-deliberation and a decision on whether to proceed with it will be made through
       informal polling of committee members within ten (10) days of receiving the explanation and appeal. If they decide that a re-
       deliberation is merited, they shall convoke the same investigation committee again, create a new investigation committee, and
       otherwise recommence investigation and deliberations within ten (10) days.

6d. The ethics committee can
       recommend and impose, through the executive role of the chair/director and the editor(s)-in-chief, disciplinary measures as deemed 
       appropriate, from Notice (informing author/s of the determination and formally requesting better attention to the infraction in future
       scholarship) to Warning (in addition to the Notice actions, withdrawing the paper from inclusion in the journal) to Reprimand (in
       addition to the Notice and Warning actions, communicating a formal statement explaining why the paper has been withdrawn, with a
       presumption of heightened scrutiny of any future submissions).

6e. In the case of plagiarism, the director of the Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences at Honam University shall, after taking one of
       the disciplinary measures outlined in 6d above, deliver an official letter of apology to the author(s) of the work that has been

6f. The ethics committee shall next notify the Korea Research Foundation of its determination that the relevant work involved illegal
       behavior as specified. If one or more authors is not Korean and therefore not subject to oversight by the Korea Research Foundation,
       the committee should notify any academic or other research institution with which affiliation is claimed.

6g. Even without formal calling and finding of the ethics committee, the editor(s)-in-chief may at their discretion communicate with
       universities or other research institutions with which author(s) may be affiliated to discuss suspicious actions that are better explored
       by institutions with more resources and responsibility for the individuals involved.

7. Intellectual Property

7a. Copyright and republishing rights shall remain with the author(s) unless a submission has been solicited as part of a special issue, in
       which case control of rights passes to the issue editor who solicited it.

7b. Multiple simultaneous submissions to journals are forbidden, but because authors retain copyright, they may withdraw a submission
       from consideration at any point prior to an issue’s official publication date and digital uploading.

7c. Prior publication in whole or in part of a submission in a journal, online or printed, or book precludes publication in this journal, but this
       prohibition does not extend to conference proceedings distributed exclusively, or at least primarily, to attendees or to postings of
       unpublished papers on internet research sites such as or

8. Journal Management

8a. The publisher of the journal is the non-profit Institute of the Humanities and Social Sciences (IHSS) at Honam University. The director of
       IHSS is appointed by the president of Honam University. Among other responsibilities the director oversees the direction and ethical
       responsibilities of the journal, including serving as chair of its Ethics Committee (see Section 6), but is not directly involved in editorial

8b. Editorial control of the journal rests with one or more editor(s)-in-chief, with the number varying by circumstances.

8c. Members of the IHSS resident at Honam University can be called on to serve as members of journal committees, including the Ethics

8d. Members of the journal’s international board of editors can be called upon to solicit submissions and to serve as peer reviewers where

9. Peer Review Processes

9a. The editor(s)-in-chief or editorial board review submissions based on a publicly available checklist of standards and may reject a
       submission prior to sending it out to peer reviewers if they determine that the submission has been previously published, whether in
       its entirety or in significant portions; that it has been commercially supported without direct acknowledgement and a statement of
       authorial independence; that the manuscript lacks original research and/or analysis; or that the manuscript size or style is inconsistent
       with journal standards.

9b. At that point an editor selects two peer reviewers based on background and areas of expertise.

9c. A submitting author or co-author cannot be a reviewer of his or her own submission.

9d. If a submitting author or co-author is a member of the editorial board of the journal, he or she is barred from participation in the
       selection of reviewers or any other aspect of the review process.

9e. The journal adheres to a double-blind review policy in which neither the author(s) nor the reviewers have been informed of the name(s)
       of the other party in the author/peer review process, although it is understood that among scholars in the same field and with the
       increasing presence of working papers on the internet, it is often possible to deduce such identities.

9f. Because of the journal’s double-blind policy, editors must mediate all interactions among reviewers and authors.

9g. Reviewers evaluate submissions based on the significance and suitability of the subject and clarity of the research purpose; the quality
       and uniqueness of the research and its linkage with significant ongoing issues; the soundness of the research methodology and
       construction of the argument; the logical strictness of the research analysis; the significance of the contribution by the submission’s
       research findings; and observance of the journal’s regulations

9h. A reviewer should make a decision on a submission within 14 days of receiving it.

9i. There are four possible decisions on a submission. The reviewer must choose one of the following options: Acceptance as Submitted
      (the submission can be published as it stands, except for such minor adjustments as may be flagged by the editorial board); Acceptance
      with Minor Revisions (the submission is deemed ready for publication except for relatively minor changes to be specified in writing by
      the reviewer on a point-by-point basis, and addressed by the author(s) in a similar point-by-point fashion in documentation attached to
      the revision); Reconsideration after Major Revision (the reviewer feels that major changes in argumentation, organization, and/or
      presentation would be required before publication, the nature and extent of which must be specified with clear examples); or Rejection
      (the reviewer argues that for reasons of inadequacy in relevance, originality, use of evidence, argumentation, organization, and/or
      presentation, the submission should not be published without radical
      reconceptualization and thorough rewriting by the author(s) such
      as would amount to a completely different article).

9j. If both reviewers are in agreement as to one of the four possible outcomes as outlined above, their judgment is final.

9k. If one reviewer suggests acceptance as submitted and the other argues for acceptance with minor revisions, the editorial board will
      review the second reviewer’s suggested revisions and determine, based on the validity of the criticism, whether to publish as submitted
      or to publish after the concerns of the reviewer voting for acceptance with minor revisions are addressed by the author(s).

9l. If one reviewer suggests acceptance as submitted and the other argues for reconsideration after major revisions, the editorial board will
      review the second reviewer’s critique and determine, based on the validity and extent of the concerns raised, whether to ask the
      author(s) for relatively minor revisions that could be accomplished in time for publication in the forthcoming issue, or for a major
      reconceptualization and rewriting to be published in a future issue.

9m. If one reviewer votes for acceptance with minor revisions and the other argues for reconsideration after major revisions, the editorial
      board will closely examine the two critiques to determine whether, in its view, the revisions envisioned by either or both reviewers are
      valid and are in actuality minor or major. In the case of a determination that only minor changes are needed, the submission would be
      treated as if both reviewers had voted for “acceptance with minor revisions.” In the case of a determination that major changes are
      required, the submission would be treated as if both reviewers had voted for “reconsideration after major revisions.”

9n. If one reviewer votes for rejection and the other selects any of other three options, the editorial board will closely examine the case
      made by the first reviewer. If in their judgment the reviewer has made a strong case based on a serious reading of the submission and
      backed up by persuasive evidence regarding the text’s inadequacies, the submission must be rejected, no matter what the other
      reviewer has argued. However, if the editorial board finds any room for doubt as to whether rejection is justifiable, the editors must in
      this instance give the submission to a third peer reviewer if publication is still desired by the author(s). If the third reviewer opts for
      rejection, that must be the final decision. If the third reviewer chooses one of the other three options, the “rejection” vote will be
      ignored and the decision on publication will be based on the reports of the other two reviewers in accordance with the criteria outlined

10. Post-publication Discussions and Corrections

10a. The journal encourages post-publication discussion and debate on its articles. Signed contributions reacting to a published article will
        be published in future issues or on the journal’s website, as deemed appropriate.

10bIf authors desire to correct, revise, or retract a published article, they may do so for the web-based version. They should contact the
        editor(s)-in-chief, who will make the changes. While the date of the original publication and of the revision or retraction would be
        published, no record would be kept of the original pre-revision, pre-retraction text.