Article 1 (Purpose) The purpose of these regulations is to stipulate all matters related to research and publication ethics for papers to be published in the Journal of Korean Maternal and Child Health.

Article 2 (Definition of Terms) The definitions of key terms used in these regulations are as follows:

• 1. Research misconduct refers to forgery, falsification, plagiarism, duplicate publication, and unfair indication of the author in the proposal of research, performance of research, reporting and presentation of research results, etc. The details are as follows:
  • ① Forgery: Creating false data or research results that do not exist.
  • ② Falsification: Distorting the content or results of research by artificially manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, etc. or arbitrarily modifying, deleting, or adding data.
  • ③ Plagiarism: Publishing research that was not conducted by the person himself/herself without specifying the source or citing the reference. In addition, republishing or publishing (part of) one's own previously published or presented paper or writing without specifying citations or references constitutes self-plagiarism, which violates the principle of first disclosure of research results.
  • ④ Duplicate publication: Presenting and publishing completely identical or almost identical research content in different journals more than once.
  • ⑤ Unfair paper author indication: Denying paper authorship without justifiable reason to a person who has made scientific or technical contributions to the research content or results or granting paper authorship to a person who has not contributed scientifically or technologically.
  • ⑥ Intentionally obstructing the investigation into suspicions of misconduct by oneself or others or causing harm to the informant
  • ⑦ Proposing, coercing, or threatening others to commit the above-mentioned misconduct.
  • ⑧ Other acts that seriously deviate from the scope normally accepted in academic research
• 2. “Informant” refers to a person who is aware of research misconduct and reports the fact or related evidence to the Society.
• 3. “Investigated person” refers to a person who has become the subject of investigation for research misconduct based on a report by an informant or the awareness of the society, or a person who has become the subject of investigation because he/she is presumed to have participated in misconduct during the investigation. This does not include references or witnesses during the investigation process.
• 4. “Investigation” refers to the procedure to determine whether there is a need for the Society to officially investigate allegations of research misconduct and to prove whether the allegations of research misconduct are true.
• 5. “Judgment” refers to the process of confirming the official investigation result and notifying it in writing to the informant and the investigated person.

Article 3 (Ethics Regulations that Authors must Observe)

• 1. Regulations on Research Ethics
  • ① Researchers must not engage in acts that violate research ethics, such as forgery, falsification, and plagiarism of papers.
  • ② Research involving humans must reveal whether it complies with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki (http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html). In particular, the purpose of the research and the possibility of mental, physical, and social harm that may occur while participating in the research must be fully explained to the subjects or their guardians. In principle, it must be stated that written consent has been obtained.
  • ③ Research involving animals must describe the treatment performed to reduce the pain and discomfort of the experimental animals. In principle, it must be stated that the experimental process did not violate the ethics committee regulations of the research institution or the standards of the latest edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals published by the U.S. National Health Institute (NIH).
  • ④ In principle, before the start of the research, the research plan must be reviewed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the lead researcher's institution for all kinds of research involving humans and animals, and related details must be described in the paper.
  • ⑤ If necessary, the publication committee may request submission of written consent and ethics committee approval.
• 2. Regulations on publication ethics
  • ① (Author's responsibility) The author accurately writes only the findings of research he/she actually conducted or contributed to, takes responsibility as an author, and is recognized for his/her achievements. The author may refer to other people's research results several times while specifying the source. However, presenting all or part of the research results as if they were his/her own research results or claims constitutes plagiarism. The corresponding author, on behalf of the co-authors, takes responsibility for the accuracy of the data, names listed as authors, approval of the final draft by all authors, and response to all correspondence and questions.
  • ② (Management of data and research results) Data must be collected and recorded in a reliable, valid and appropriate manner and saved for a certain period of time so that it can be checked when necessary.
  • ③ (Order of authors) The order of authors of a paper must be determined under agreement between co-authors and based on the degree of contribution to the research.
  • ④ (Prohibition of duplicate publication) Authors should not attempt duplicate publication of their own research (including research scheduled for publication or under review). If they want to publish using research that has already been published in an scholarly journal, they must provide information about previous publications to the editor of the journal in which they want to publish and receive a determination as to whether there is duplicate publication or double publication.
  • ⑤ (No plagiarism) Authors should not attempt plagiarism.
  • ⑥ (Author's revision of the paper) Authors should accept as much as possible the opinions of the publication committee members and reviewers who evaluated the paper and reflect them in the paper. If they do not agree to their opinions, they should write down the grounds and reasons in detail and present them to the publication committee members (committee).

Article 4 (Ethics Regulations that Publication Committee Members must Observe)

• 1. (Responsibilities and obligations of publication committee members) Publication committee members are responsible for deciding whether to publish the submitted paper, ensures the truth and fairness of the review process, and respects the author's personality and independence as a scholar.
• 2. (Fairness in selection of reviewers) Publication committee members request reviewers with expertise in the relevant field and objective and fair review ability to evaluate submitted papers. When requesting a review, they must ensure an objective evaluation by avoiding reviewers who are too close or hostile to the author.
• 3. (Confidentiality) Publication committee members should not disclose information about the author or the contents of the paper to anyone other than the reviewers until the publication of the submitted paper is determined. In addition, the names of the publication committee members and reviewers should be kept confidential even after publication is decided.

Article 5 (Ethics Regulations that Reviewers must Observe)

• 1. (Responsibilities and obligations of reviewers) Reviewers must faithfully evaluate papers requested by the publication committee member within the period specified in the review regulations and notify the publication committee member of the evaluation results. If the review determines that he/she is not the right person to evaluate the content of the paper, he/she should notify the publication committee member of the fact without delay.
• 2. (Fairness of review) Reviewers should evaluate the paper objectively and fairly by applying strict scientific and research standards regarding the quality of the paper, the experimental nature of the research, theoreticality, and interpretation. Reviewers must not reject a paper without specifying adequate grounds, and must properly understand before evaluating the paper to be reviewed.
• 3. (Unethical behavior of reviewers)
  • ① Reviewers should respect the personality and independence of the author, use polite and gentle expressions, and refrain from using expressions that disparage or insult the author. In the review, reviewers must appropriately explain their judgment about the paper and explain the reasons for any parts where improvement is deemed necessary.
  • ② Reviewers should refrain from asking graduate students or third parties to conduct the review they are responsible for.
  • ③ After review, reviewers should not retain papers subject to review without shredding them.
• 4. (Confidentiality) Reviewers must keep the confidentiality of papers subject to review. They also should not use or disclose the contents of the paper without the consent of the author before the journal in which the paper is published is published. Reviewers should keep the names of the publication committee members and their real names confidential.

Article 6 (Guidelines for Implementing Ethics Regulations)

• 1. (Pledge of Ethics Regulations) When submitting a paper to the Journal of Korean Maternal and Child Health, members should pledge to comply with the ethics regulations.
• 2. (Reporting violations of ethics regulations and protecting informants)
  • ① If a member becomes aware of another member's violation of the ethics regulations, the member should be reminded of the ethics regulations to correct the problem. However, if the problem is not corrected or a clear violation of the ethics regulations is revealed, it can be reported to the ethics committee of the Society. The Ethics Committee must not disclose to the public the identity of the member who reported the problem to the Society.
  • ② The informant may request to be informed of the investigation procedures and schedule to be conducted after reporting an ethics violation, and the Ethics Committee should faithfully comply with this request.
• 3. (Composition of the Ethics Review Committee) The Ethics Review Committee consists of 5 or more people, including 2 ethics committee members and 2 publication committee members, and the ethics committee chairperson concurrently serves as the chairperson. Except for the journal publication committee members, the remaining members are appointed by the chairperson.
• 4. (Authority of the Ethics Review Committee) After conducting a comprehensive investigation into the reported case of violation of the ethics regulations through informants, those to be investigated, witnesses, references, and evidence, the Ethics Review Committee may propose appropriate disciplinary measures to the president if a violation of the ethics regulations is determined to be true.
• 5. (Investigation and deliberation by the Ethics Review Committee) A member reported to have violated the ethics regulations must cooperate with the investigation conducted by the Ethics Review Committee. Failure to cooperate with this investigation itself is a violation of ethics regulations.
• 6. (Guarantee of opportunity for explanation) A member reported to have violated ethics regulations must be given sufficient opportunity to explain.
• 7. (Confidentiality of the person under investigation) Until the Society's final disciplinary decision is made for violation of ethics regulations, the Ethics Review Committee should not disclose the identity of the member to the outside.
• 8. (Disciplinary procedure) If the Ethics Review Committee recommends disciplinary action, the president should convene a board meeting and make the final decision on whether to impose disciplinary action and the details of the disciplinary action.
• 9. (Handling of research misconduct) The results of the investigation into research misconduct should be reported to the general meeting of the Society, and the records should be kept by the Society for 5 years based on the end of handling. If research misconduct is confirmed based on the result of the investigation, it may be announced and the following follow-up measures may be taken, and the decision should be in accordance with the resolution of the Board of Directors.
  • ① Notification of formal correction requests or disciplinary action by the Society to researchers and their affiliated institutions
  • ② Notice of research misconduct in the first issue of the journal published after the misconduct is confirmed.
  • ③ Request for cancellation or modification of recognition of the relevant research findings
  • ④ Notification of misconduct and disciplinary action to the organization supporting research funds for the research
  • ⑤ Suspension or deprivation of membership for an appropriate period of time
  • ⑥ Prohibition of paper submission to the journal for a certain period of time
  • ⑦ Report to legal authorities
  • ⑧ Other measures deemed necessary by the Society
• 10. If it is determined that there was no research misconduct based on the result of the investigation, the committee must take appropriate measures to restore the honor of the investigated person.
• 11. (Revision of ethics regulations) The procedure for revising the ethics regulations should be based on the procedure for revising the bylaws of this Society. If the ethics regulations are revised, members who have pledged to comply with the existing regulations will be deemed to have pledged to comply with the new regulations without any additional pledge.

Article 7 (Miscellaneous) Other matters not specified in these regulations should be in accordance with the guidelines for research and publication ethics (http://kamje.or.kr/publishing_ethics.html) published by the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors.

• (Supplementary Provision) These regulations come into effect from April 16, 2008.
• (Supplementary Provision) These regulations come into effect from July 1, 2016.
• (Supplementary Provision) These regulations come into effect from March 1, 2020.