Reporting Research Misconduct
Anyone may report. It is enough that the report concerns a manuscript submitted to, or an article published in, Review on Nuclear Energy Strategy and Policy. You need no account and no connection with the journal. (Research Ethics Regulations, Article 7-2)
Nothing about the identity of a person who reports is disclosed, and no detriment of any kind follows from having made a report. That holds even where the investigation finds no misconduct. (Research Ethics Regulations, Article 7-2(3) and 7-2(4)) You may also ask to be told how the matter is proceeding, and the Committee must answer. (Article 7-2(5))
The journal gives effect to this by holding identifying information separately from the case file, where only the chair of the Committee can reach it — not the other members of the Committee, not the Editor-in-Chief, not the editorial secretary. That is how the journal works, rather than something the regulations themselves prescribe.
How to report
Addressed toChair, Research Ethics Committee
nspjournal@snu.ac.kr · Tel. +82-2-880-7231
Review on Nuclear Energy Strategy and Policy Editorial Board, Room 411, Building 36, Seoul National University, 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea
A report may be made orally, in writing, by telephone or by electronic mail. Mail addressed to the editorial office is passed to the chair unopened where it is marked for the Research Ethics Committee. Writing in English is sufficient; you need not write in Korean.Review on Nuclear Energy Strategy and Policy Editorial Board, Room 411, Building 36, Seoul National University, 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea
The online formKorean only
The journal also has an online form, but it is in Korean, which is the working language of the editorial office. It carries no weight that electronic mail does not — a report sent to the address above is received in exactly the same way and runs to the same time limits.
What a report should contain
Say which passage corresponds to what. An investigation cannot be opened on a general suspicion alone, and where the Committee decides not to open one it must give the person who reported the reason. A report that names a person without any supporting ground is not investigated.
| Item | What to give |
|---|---|
| The article | Title, authors, and the volume and number in which it appears, so far as you know them. A DOI or a link is enough. |
| The conduct | Which of the kinds set out below, and where in the article it occurs — a section, a page, a figure or a table. |
| The evidence | The earlier work, dataset or source relied on, and a comparison from which the specific misconduct can be seen. A side-by-side table is the most useful form. |
| Your name | Optional. See Reporting anonymously below for what changes if you leave it out. |
What may be reported
| Subject | Scope |
|---|---|
| A manuscript under review | A manuscript submitted to this journal, whether or not it is later published. |
| A published article | An article carried in any issue of this journal. |
| An author | Conduct of an author in connection with a manuscript or an article. |
| A reviewer or an editor | Breach of confidentiality, use of a manuscript under review, or failure to declare a ground for recusal. |
The kinds of conduct are those defined in the Research Ethics Regulations, Article 3-2(1).
| Conduct | Definition |
|---|---|
| Fabrication | Making up data or results that do not exist, and recording or reporting them. |
| Falsification | Manipulating research materials, equipment or processes, or altering or omitting data, so that the research is not accurately represented. |
| Plagiarism | Using another person's ideas, processes, results or words without giving credit. |
| Improper authorship | Withholding authorship from a person who contributed, or granting it to a person who did not, whether out of gratitude or otherwise. |
| Redundant publication | Publishing again, as new, work that has already been published, without disclosure. |
| Manipulation of the review process | Suggesting a reviewer who does not exist, or acting through an account opened in the name of another person. |
| Other conduct | Conduct that seriously departs from the practices commonly accepted in the research community. |
Reporting anonymously
Giving your nameheld separately · chair only
You are told how the matter is proceeding and what is decided. Your identity is not disclosed, and no detriment follows from having reported. This protection does not extend to a person who reports something knowing it to be false: such a person is outside the protection given by Article 7-2(3) and 7-2(4). (Research Ethics Regulations, Article 7-2(6))
Reporting anonymouslyaccepted
An anonymous report is accepted, but two things become impossible: the Committee cannot come back to you where the report is not sufficient, and it has no way of telling you the outcome. An anonymous report must therefore carry enough evidence on its face for an investigation to be opened.
What happens after you report
| Step | What happens | By when | Basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | The report is received. Where it is not specific enough, the chair may ask for further material; once that is supplied the report is treated as duly made. | At once | Research Ethics, Art. 7-2(2) |
| 2 | The investigation is opened. | Within 30 days of receipt | Research Ethics, Art. 8(5) |
| 3 | Where the Committee decides not to open one, it tells the person who reported, and gives the reason. | On the decision | Research Ethics, Art. 7-2(5) |
| 4 | Written questions are put to every author of the article and each is required to answer. The Committee weighs the answers, the objections and the replies. | — | Research Ethics, Art. 8(1) and 8(2) |
| 5 | A finding is made and notified to the person who reported and to the person investigated. Where it cannot be made in time, the chair notifies both of them of the reason and extends the period. | Within 6 months of opening | Research Ethics, Art. 8(5) and 8(4) |
| 6 | Either of them may appeal against the finding. | Within 30 days of notification | Research Ethics, Art. 8-2(1) |
| 7 | The appeal is dealt with and the outcome is notified in writing. | Within 60 days of the appeal | Research Ethics, Art. 8-2(2) |
Sanctions are carried out once the period for appeal has passed or the appeal has been dealt with (Article 9(2)); where an article is retracted the full text is not deleted and a retraction notice is attached to it (Article 9(3)). Every record from the receipt of the report to the disposal of any appeal is kept for at least five years (Article 10-3(1)). There is no limitation period — an investigation is not refused merely because the conduct occurred long ago. (Article 10-2)
Where a reviewer suspects research misconduct and says so in the review report, the Editor-in-Chief's notification of that fact is treated as a report under this procedure and carries the same protection. (Peer Review Regulations, Article 2-3(2))