Ethics in Publishing

The Membrane Society of Korea serves the membrane profession and society by periodically publishing the Membrane Journal. Therefore, it contributes to the development and distribution of membrane technology for membrane related industry, educational institution, research institution, local government and administration. These guidelines derive from the Institute’s definition of the scope of the journal and from the editor's recognition of standards of quality for scientific and engineering works and their presentations.

2014. 6. 20 establishment, 2017. 4. 19 Amendment,
2019. 1. 21 Amendment, 2019. 12. 12 Amendment,
2020. 3. 13. Amendment.

Ⅰ. Ethical Guidelines for Authors

1. Authors are obligated to present an accurate and complete account of the research, avoiding deception in data and derivations.

2. Authors should not submit manuscripts describing the same research to more than one journal, unless it has been rejected or withdrawn from the other journal, and, if requested, should inform the editor of related manuscripts under consideration or in press elsewhere.

3. Authors should clearly identify any unusual concerns about the chemicals, equipment or procedures used in an investigation, and the search should not be against the universal ethics of human.

4. Authors should identify the source of all information offered or quoted, except for what is common knowledge, by means of the format of the journal.

5. Co-authors, who have contributed significantly in conducting the investigation related to the manuscript, should share responsibility and accountability for the results. Other contributions should be indicated in an acknowledgment section. The corresponding author of the manuscript should obtain the assent for publication from all co-authors appropriately before submitting the manuscript.

6. “Illegitimate Authorship” refers to listing the names of people who did not contribute as an expression of gratitude or privilege and to leave out the names of those who took part.
(1) Contributors’s contributions should be specified such as “Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work”, “Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content”, “Final approval of the version to be published.”, “Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.” Those whose contributions do not justify authorship may be acknowledged under a single heading such as clinical investigators, or participating investigators.
(2) Authors should be listed in their order of importance. The order of authorship on the byline should be a joint decision of the co-authors.

7. Authors should reveal to the editor and to the office of the Membrane Journal any potential and relevant conflict of interest and financial matter that might arise through publication of the results contained in the authors’ manuscript. Authors should ensure that no contractual obligations or proprietary considerations affect publication of their manuscript in the journal.

8. When revising manuscript, authors should provide an itemized letter answering all the comments made and describing all changes made in response, or the reason why no change should be made. Authors should answer one by one indicating clearly where and what changes have been made to the manuscript in response to the comments. Authors should make sure to incorporate the essence of their response to the reviewers into the revised manuscript for the benefit of all readers.

9. Authors should ensure correct use of the terms sex (when reporting biological factors) and gender (identity, psychosocial or cultural factors), and, unles inapropriate, report the sex and/or gender of study participants, the sex of animals or cels, and describe the methods used to determine sex and gender. If the study was done involving an ex-clusive population, for example in only one sex, authors should justify why, except in obvious cases (e.g., prostate cancer). Authors should define how they determined race or ethnicity and justify their relevance.

Ⅱ. Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

1. Reviewers should give unbiased consideration to manuscripts offered for review and with reasonable speed. They should judge objectively the quality of the manuscript and the supporting information.

2. Reviewers should respect the intellectual independence of the authors. If they feel inadequately qualified to make an informed judgment, they should return the manuscript to the editor promptly.

3. Reviewers should return the manuscript promptly without review if they feel that the manuscript is closely related to their work in progress or published, which thus could cause the appearance of a conflict of interest or bias.

4. Reviewers should treat a manuscript sent for review as a confidential document. Reviewers should not broadcast or use unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations in a manuscript under consideration, except with the consent of the author(s). .

5. Reviewers should explain and support their judgments specifically, with relevant citations where concerns relate to a previously published paper or any manuscript submitted currently to another journal, so that editors and authors may understand them..

6. Reviewers should submit their reports with the minimum of delay and within the specified time, or inform the Editor immediately if this is not feasible.

7. The qualifications of the reviewers are an executive instructor and a senior researcher in research institute above and others shall have the same qualification as the ones above.

Ⅲ. Ethical Guidelines for Editors

1. Editors should give unbiased consideration to all manuscripts offered for publication with reasonable speed. They may take into account relationships of manuscripts under consideration to other manuscripts published or under consideration.

2. Responsibility for acceptance or rejection, or other action related to the status of the manuscript under consideration rests with the editor.

3. Doing their duty, editors normally are required to seek advice from reviewers who are regarded as experts in the similar specific fields as the manuscript under consideration. They may decide to reject the manuscripts without external review if the manuscripts are deemed clearly inappropriate for the journal.

4. Editors and their staffs should not reveal any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone except for reviewers and authors.

5. Editors should not utilize unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations in a manuscript under consideration in their own research except with the consent of the authors.

6. Editors should facilitate publication of a correction if they are presented with convincing evidence that the published material is incorrect.

7. Editors should not take part in any practice that gives rise to any conflict of interest or the reasonable appearance of one.

8. Editors may avoid inviting certain reviewers by request of authors; however, the decision will be left to editor’s discretion.

9. (Notification of sanction) The board of directors may announce the finalized measures for saction in homepage of journal of the society. If necessary, the board of directors may notify the organization that the person under investigation beblongs to of such finalize measures of sanction.