The Asia Pacific Journal of Applied Sport Sciences (hereinafter referred to as APJASS) is not only evaluated as an international journal representing sports sciences in Asia, but is also recognized as a leading academic journal in the field of sport convergence science. Through the publication of high-quality scholarly research, APJASS aims not only to contribute to the advancement of sports science and sport-specific convergence research, but also to fulfill its responsibilities and role as an international academic journal.

The qualitative credibility and academic authority of a scholarly journal depend on the consistent application of objective and rigorous peer-review standards grounded in research ethics. Accordingly, APJASS is committed to implementing detailed submission guidelines in conjunction with established research ethics regulations, thereby upholding its responsibilities as a professional and ethically governed academic journal.

Chapter 1 Regulation of Ethics

Article 1 (General Research Ethics)

1. A research manuscript shall present scientifically meaningful conclusions supported by sufficient and comprehensive empirical or theoretical evidence.

2. Prior to submission, authors shall conduct a thorough review to determine whether similar research questions, methods, or findings have already been conducted or published. Research findings shall not be arbitrarily included or excluded.

3. Manuscripts shall be prepared in accordance with their designated category, such as original research articles, research notes, or review papers.

4. Scholarly criticism and evaluation of prior studies and the work of other researchers are permitted and encouraged; however, personal criticism or disparagement is strictly prohibited.

5. Authors shall fulfill their responsibilities as researchers by avoiding unethical practices, including duplicate submission, redundant or multiple publication, salami publication, and plagiarism.

6. In cases where the above issues arise or research misconduct is suspected or identified, a separate investigation committee (Research Ethics Committee) shall be convened to review and resolve the matter.

Article 2 (Research Team and Authorship)

1. Individuals who have made substantial intellectual contributions to the research and who share responsibility and credit for the results shall be listed as co-authors.

2. Authorship and the order of authors shall be agreed upon by all co-authors prior to submission. It is recommended that each author’s contribution be clearly described in the manuscript’s Author Contributions section.

3. When a dissertation or thesis is published in whole or in part as a journal article, the student and the academic advisor are, in principle, expected to be listed as co-authors.

4. Authors shall state their institutional affiliations as of the time the research was conducted. If an author’s affiliation has changed by the time of submission, the change may be appropriately indicated in a footnote.

5. Individuals who provided administrative, technical, or other non-academic support to the research may be acknowledged in the Acknowledgments section, provided they do not meet the criteria for authorship.

Article 3 (Gender Innovation and Equity in Research)

1. All research published in the Asia Pacific Journal of Applied Sport Sciences (APJASS) shall comply with the Society’s Research Ethics Regulations and the principles of gender innovation and equity in research, as aligned with international standards and relevant policy frameworks (e.g., Gendered Innovations and GISTER).

2. Authors shall clearly distinguish between sex, which refers to biological characteristics, and gender, which refers to social, cultural, and psychological attributes, and shall use these terms accurately and consistently throughout the manuscript.

3. Manuscripts shall explicitly report the sex and/or gender of human research participants, as well as the sex of animals, tissues, or cells used in the study. Authors shall also describe the methods by which sex and gender were determined.

4. When research is conducted on a single sex or gender, authors shall provide a clear and scientifically justified rationale within the manuscript, except in cases where such limitation is self-evident based on the nature of the research.

5. When race or ethnicity is included as a research variable, authors shall describe the method used to determine race or ethnicity and provide a clear justification for its relevance and necessity to the research objectives.

6. Failure to appropriately address sex, gender, or diversity considerations without reasonable justification may be regarded as a violation of these Research Ethics Regulations and may affect editorial decisions.

Article 4 (Research Methods and Data Integrity)

1. Research methods shall be described in sufficient detail to enable other researchers with comparable expertise in the relevant field to replicate the study.

2. Fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate manipulation of research data is strictly prohibited.

3. Sources of all cited literature shall be clearly and accurately indicated. In particular, the use of secondary data shall be appropriately identified and cited in accordance with established academic standards.

Article 5 (Research Subjects)

1. When human participants are involved in a study, researchers shall ensure that participants’ identities are fully protected. Participants or their legal guardians shall be clearly and specifically informed of the purpose, methods, procedures, expected benefits, and potential risks of the study. Written informed consent must be obtained and appropriately documented.

2. Researchers shall inform participants or their legal guardians in advance of their right to refuse participation or to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty, and such rights shall be fully guaranteed.

3. When animals are used as research subjects, researchers shall clearly describe the measures taken to minimize pain and discomfort. The researcher’s responsibility for the welfare and ethical treatment of experimental animals shall not be overlooked.

4. During the review process, researchers may be requested, when necessary, to submit documentation related to informed consent and data concerning participant selection.

Article 6 (Peer Review Procedure)

1. Authors shall accept reviewers’ comments and recommendations in a constructive and professional manner and shall make their best efforts to reflect them appropriately in the manuscript.

2. If authors disagree with the opinions of reviewers or editors, they may submit a reasoned objection clearly explaining the grounds for disagreement. Emotional, personal, or inappropriate expressions shall be avoided.

3. Authors shall ensure that the publication of their manuscript does not infringe upon copyright or intellectual property rights. In principle, copyright shall be held by the academic society; however, exceptions may apply in cases such as republication in electronic journal formats or other circumstances specified by the journal.

Article 7 (Objections and Appeals)

1. Submission of an Objection

If an author disagrees with the outcome of the peer review, the author may submit a written objection stating clear and specific grounds for the appeal to the Editorial Committee via email within five (5) days of receiving the review decision.

2. Convening of the Editorial Committee

Upon receipt of an objection, the Editor-in-Chief shall convene a temporary meeting of the Editorial Committee within ten (10) days and place the objection on the official agenda. The Editorial Committee shall conduct a comprehensive review of the contested manuscript, the original reviewers’ reports, and the author’s statement of objection.

3. Decision and Notification

Within seven (7) days following the completion of the review, the Editorial Committee shall notify the author in writing of its decision. One of the following resolutions shall be adopted:

(1) Dismissal of the Objection: If the objection is deemed unfounded or lacking sufficient justification, it shall be dismissed by decision of the Editorial Committee.

(2) Referral for Reconsideration by the Original Review Committee: If part of the objection is determined to be valid, the manuscript shall be referred back to the original Review Committee for reconsideration, with oversight and participation by the Editorial Committee.

(3) Re-examination by a New Review Committee: If the objection is deemed substantially valid, a new Review Committee shall be appointed to conduct a re-examination of the manuscript. In such cases, the Editor-in-Chief shall serve as Chair of the Review Committee.

Article 8 (Filing and Handling of Research Ethics Complaints)

1. Submission of a Complaint

If allegations of research ethics violations (e.g., plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, etc.) are raised, an informant may file a formal complaint with the Editorial Committee via email, accompanied by relevant supporting evidence. In principle, complaints must be submitted under the complainant’s real name. Anonymous complaints shall be considered only when they are supported by clear and objective evidence.

2. Receipt and Preliminary Review

Upon receipt of a complaint, the Editor-in-Chief shall conduct a preliminary review within ten (10) days to determine whether sufficient grounds exist to warrant a formal investigation. Only complaints deemed to have an adequate factual basis shall be placed on the official agenda for further review. Complaints that are purely inquiries or lack objective evidence may be dismissed at the preliminary review stage.

3. Establishment of the Complaint Investigation Committee

If a formal investigation is deemed necessary following the preliminary review, the Editor-in-Chief shall establish a Complaint Investigation Committee within ten (10) days. The Committee shall consist of up to five (5) members, including Editorial Board members and external experts. However, if the matter is deemed more appropriately reviewed by the Research Ethics Committee, the Editorial Committee may refer the complaint to the Research Ethics Committee for deliberation.

4. Investigation Period and Resolution

The Complaint Investigation Committee shall complete its investigation and reach a final decision within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the complaint, following fact-finding procedures and opportunities for explanation by the relevant parties (including authors and reviewers, where applicable). The outcome of the investigation shall be formally notified in writing to the complainant and all relevant parties. When deemed necessary, the results may also be announced on the official website of the journal.

5. Decision Criteria and Disciplinary Measures

Depending on the severity and substantiation of the complaint, one or more of the following actions may be taken:

(1) Dismissal: If the complaint is determined to be unsubstantiated or based on a misunderstanding, it shall be dismissed.

(2) Corrective or Cautionary Measures: If minor violations of research ethics are confirmed, the author shall receive a formal warning and be advised to take corrective actions to prevent recurrence.

(3) Retraction and Public Notice: If plagiarism or serious ethical misconduct is confirmed, the manuscript shall be retracted and a formal notice shall be published in the journal. In addition, the author may be subject to severe disciplinary action, including a three-year suspension of membership and cancellation of publication eligibility.

(4) Notification to the Author’s Institution: Where necessary, the results of the investigation may be formally reported to the author’s affiliated institution.

6. Confidentiality

The identities of both the complainant and the respondent shall be strictly protected. All investigation and decision-making processes shall be conducted confidentially. Information related to the complaint shall not be disclosed to external parties, even after the investigation has been concluded.

7. Handling of Repetitive or Redundant Complaints

(1) Complaints submitted repeatedly concerning the same manuscript and based on the same grounds may be rejected or dismissed by decision of the Editorial Committee or the Complaint Investigation Committee.

(2) If a complaint is repeatedly filed regarding an issue that has already been resolved, and no new evidence or grounds are presented, the Editorial Committee may dismiss the complaint without further investigation.

Chapter 2 Review Guidelines

Article 9 (General Responsibilities of Reviewers)

1. Reviewers shall conduct manuscript reviews fairly, objectively, and conscientiously, maintaining a professional and constructive attitude while recognizing that the review process may require substantial time and effort.

2. Reviewers shall evaluate manuscripts based on scholarly merit and shall not show bias in favor of or against research that aligns with or contradicts their own views or prior work.

3. Unpublished manuscripts shall be treated as confidential documents. Under no circumstances shall reviewers use, disclose, or appropriate any part of a submitted manuscript for personal research or citation prior to publication.

Article 10 (Peer Review Procedure)

1. Reviewers shall not communicate directly with authors, and authors shall not be informed of the identities of reviewers.

2. If a reviewer determines that a fair and impartial review is not possible due to personal relationships or other conflicts, the manuscript shall be returned immediately to the Editor-in-Chief with a clear explanation.

3. Reviews shall be completed within the designated review period. If unavoidable circumstances prevent timely completion, the reviewer shall notify the Editor-in-Chief without delay.

4. Reviewers shall recognize that delays in the review process may adversely affect authors.

Article 11 (Preparation of Review Comments)

1. Review comments, including requests for revision, shall be written in a respectful and professional tone. Care shall be taken to avoid language or expressions that may cause emotional misunderstanding. Review comments shall not be presented as conditions for publication.

2. Mandatory revisions and recommended revisions shall be clearly distinguished.

3. When publication is not recommended, reviewers shall provide sufficient and specific reasons to support their judgment. Lack of clarity in review comments may result in unnecessary disputes and shall be avoided.

4. The final publication decision shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of reports from at least two independent reviewers. Accordingly, the opinion of a single reviewer may not be fully reflected in the final decision.

5. Reviewers shall be accountable for the accuracy, fairness, and integrity of their review comments.

Article 12 (Conflict of Interest Statement)

Authors shall disclose to the Editor any potential conflicts of interest that may influence the interpretation of data or the presentation of results. Potential conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to, financial support from commercial entities, employment or consultancy relationships, political or organizational pressures, and other academically relevant interests. All sources of funding related to the study shall be explicitly disclosed.

Article 13 (Screening for Duplicate Publication and Plagiarism)

Prior to peer review, all submitted manuscripts shall undergo a thorough screening process to detect duplicate publication, redundant or partial publication, and plagiarism, in order to determine whether any portion of the manuscript has been previously published in this or other journals.

Article 14 (Title)

The title of the manuscript shall be concise, specific, and informative, accurately reflecting the overall content of the study while using the minimum number of words necessary. Excessive technical terminology shall be avoided, and the use of subtitles is discouraged.

Article 15 (Abstract)

The abstract shall clearly state the purpose of the study. The principal elements of the research method, including both quantitative and qualitative components where applicable, shall be briefly described. The main findings shall be presented succinctly in accordance with the research question(s), and the conclusions drawn from the findings shall be clearly articulated.

The abstract shall be written as a single, continuous paragraph without subheadings, and careful attention shall be paid to tense consistency and grammatical accuracy. A structured abstract of no more than 250 words (excluding the title and author information) shall be provided.

Up to five (5) keywords that accurately represent the content of the manuscript shall be listed after the abstract. In principle, keywords shall be selected from MeSH (Medical Subject Headings; https://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh).

Article 16 (Introduction)

The introduction shall present an original and compelling research question and clearly articulate the background and purpose of the study. While recent research trends are important, authors shall also concisely describe the theoretical and empirical development of the research question where relevant.

Textbook-style explanations and overly general descriptions shall be excluded. References should primarily be based on primary sources. When secondary data are cited, they shall be clearly identified and properly referenced according to appropriate citation standards.

Article 17 (Research Methods)

The research methods shall be described in sufficient detail to allow an informed reader to replicate the study and achieve comparable results. The procedures for participant selection or observation shall be clearly explained.

Research procedures shall be appropriately aligned with the study design. When research instruments are used, their characteristics—including reliability and validity—shall be clearly justified. From a scholarly perspective, the appropriateness and validity of the statistical analysis methods and procedures shall be critically assessed.

Article 18 (Results)

The Results section shall present only those findings that directly address the research questions or hypotheses in a systematic and objective manner.

In qualitative studies, only findings derived from the author’s own data collection and analysis shall be reported. In quantitative studies, only essential and fundamental statistical results shall be summarized. Tables and figures not directly relevant to the research questions shall be excluded.

Results shall be reported objectively and not framed to reflect the researcher’s expectations or intentions. Statistical terms, abbreviations, and symbols shall be clearly defined, and the use of abbreviations shall be minimized.

Article 19 (Discussion)

The Discussion section shall interpret the meaning and implications of the results and explain the findings in relation to relevant theories and prior research. When results are consistent with or contradict existing theories or previous studies, such relationships shall be explicitly discussed.

Speculative, vague, or illogical interpretations of unexpected results shall be avoided. Study limitations and methodological issues may be addressed, but results shall not be redundantly restated.

Article 20 (Conclusion)

The Conclusion section shall not merely repeat numerical results or statistical findings. Instead, it shall clearly articulate the relationships among variables within the scope of the research design and methodology.

Causal inferences in non-experimental, quasi-experimental, correlational, or observational studies shall be stated with caution and supported by theoretical justification, temporal ordering, and the strength of associations. Conclusions shall be aligned with the study’s objectives, and claims regarding untested hypotheses shall not be made.

Article 21 (References)

All works cited in the text shall be included in the reference list, and only cited works shall appear therein. References shall be prepared in strict accordance with the citation and formatting requirements specified in the APJASS submission guidelines. In particular, when secondary data are cited, the original source shall be accurately and transparently identified.

References shall be meticulously prepared, as they constitute a critical indicator of the integrity, reliability, and scholarly credibility of the research. For reference types not explicitly specified in the APJASS submission guidelines, authors shall follow the most recent edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA).

Chapter 3. Organization and Operation of the Research Ethics Committee

Article 22 (Composition)

1. The Research Ethics Committee shall be organized and operated in accordance with the regulations of the Asian Society for Sports Convergence Sciences (ASCS).

2. The Committee shall consist of five (5) to ten (10) members, including one Chair appointed by the President of the Society.

3. The Committee shall comprise a Chair and working-level members. The Editor-in-Chief, Senior Vice President, and Secretary General of the Society shall serve as ex officio members.

4. Committee members shall be appointed by the Chair. The term of office shall be two (2) years, and members may be reappointed.

Article 23 (Meetings)

1. The Committee shall convene and operate meetings under the following conditions: Meetings shall be convened by the President, who shall serve as the Chair of the meeting.

2. Decisions shall require the presence of a majority of the total enrolled members and the approval of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the members present.

3. In principle, all meetings and deliberations shall be conducted confidentially.

4. When necessary, the Committee may invite relevant individuals to attend meetings for the purpose of providing opinions or explanations.

5. Any member who is directly involved in or related to the research under review shall be excluded from participation in deliberation and decision-making for that case.

6. When necessary for deliberation, the Chair may request the Research Director to submit relevant materials or provide reports.

7. Committee members shall maintain strict confidentiality regarding all matters discussed during deliberation.

Article 24 (Functions)

1. The Research Ethics Committee shall deliberate on and decide the following matters: Establishment and operation of systems related to research ethics

2. Ethical validity of submitted manuscripts, including issues of fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and other forms of misconduct

3. Determination of whether research may be conducted and the scope thereof, including laboratory safety regulations and compliance with human or animal research standards

4. Fair authorship determination and appropriate allocation of academic credit

5. Verification of whether appropriate informed consent has been obtained from research participants

6. Protection of research participants, including safety, personal data protection, and compensation for potential harm

7. Reporting, receipt, and handling of allegations of research misconduct

8. Initiation of formal investigations and approval of investigation findings

9. Measures to protect informants and to restore the reputation of individuals under investigation where appropriate

10. Review and management of conflicts of interest

11. Matters concerning exclusion, recusal, refusal, and avoidance during review and publication processes

12. Any other matters referred by the Chair

Chapter 4 Guidelines for the Enforcement of Ethics Regulations

Article 25 (Ethics Pledge)

All newly admitted members of the Society shall pledge to comply with these Research Ethics Regulations. Existing members shall be deemed to have pledged compliance with these Regulations upon their entry into force.

Article 26 (Reporting and Receipt of Research Ethics Violations)

When a member becomes aware that another member may have violated these Research Ethics Regulations, the member may first attempt to resolve the matter by drawing the attention of the concerned member to the relevant ethical standards. If the issue is not resolved or if a clear violation of research ethics is suspected, the matter may be formally reported to the Research Ethics Committee.

In principle, reports shall be submitted under the informant’s real name and may be filed in writing or electronically via email. The report shall include the title of the manuscript or research, a description of the alleged misconduct, and supporting evidence.

Article 27 (Authority of the Research Ethics Committee)

The Committee may request the informant, the respondent, witnesses, or referees to appear and provide statements or to submit relevant materials in connection with an alleged ethics violation. All concerned parties shall comply with such requests. Failure to cooperate with an investigation shall itself constitute a violation of these Research Ethics Regulations.

If, following a comprehensive investigation, the Committee determines that a violation has occurred, it may recommend appropriate disciplinary actions against the respondent to the President of the Society.

Article 28 (Investigation and Deliberation)

In principle, the Committee shall complete the investigation—from initiation to final decision—within sixty (60) days. The investigation period may be extended when necessary.

The Committee shall confirm the contents and conclusions of the final investigation report and notify both the informant and the respondent of the results. If consensus cannot be reached regarding the investigation findings, a decision shall be made with the attendance of a majority of the enrolled members and the approval of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the members present.

The final investigation report shall include the following items:

1. Details of the report

2. The research projects under investigation and the specific allegations of misconduct

3. Determination of whether the allegations are substantiated

4. Relevant evidence and witness statements

5. Objections, explanations, or pleadings submitted by the informant and the respondent

6. Recommendations for disciplinary actions

Article 29 (Protection of Rights and Confidentiality)

Under no circumstances shall the identity of the informant be disclosed to the public. The informant’s name shall not be included in the investigation report unless disclosure is unavoidable. The Committee shall ensure that the informant is not subjected to undue pressure, retaliation, or disadvantage as a result of reporting misconduct.

Until a determination regarding a violation has been made, all members shall take care not to infringe upon the dignity, reputation, or rights of the respondent. If the respondent is found not to have committed misconduct, reasonable efforts shall be made to restore their reputation.

All matters related to investigation, deliberation, and resolution shall be kept strictly confidential. Disclosure may occur only when deemed necessary by formal resolution of the Committee.

Article 30 (Right to Objection and Defense)

The Committee shall guarantee equal rights and opportunities for both the informant and the respondent to express opinions, raise objections, and present defenses regarding the investigation and its outcome. All parties shall be informed in advance of the relevant procedures.

Article 31 (Disciplinary Procedures and Measures)

The Committee shall convene a meeting to determine the final judgment on the alleged misconduct and the recommended disciplinary measures and shall prepare a final investigation report.

Members found to have violated these Research Ethics Regulations may receive warnings issued by the President of the Society, and disciplinary measures such as prohibition from publishing in the Society’s journals, suspension or revocation of membership, or other appropriate sanctions may be recommended.

Upon review of the final report, the President shall convene a Rewards and Disciplinary Committee to determine whether disciplinary action shall be imposed and to specify its scope.

For manuscripts subject to disciplinary action, the relevant articles shall be removed from the journal, and appropriate measures shall be taken to remove the publication from the Korean Citation Index (KCI) of the National Research Foundation of Korea.

Article 32 (Exclusion, Challenge, and Recusal)

1. A Committee member shall be excluded from an investigation if the member has a direct interest in the case under review.

2. When objective circumstances exist that make it difficult for a Committee member to conduct a fair investigation, the respondent may file a request for challenge, and the Committee shall decide on the request without delay.

3. When circumstances arise that hinder a Committee member’s impartiality, recusal may be applied, and the Committee shall promptly render a decision.

4. If three (3) or more members are excluded, challenged, or recused under the preceding provisions, the President of the Society may appoint temporary Committee members, not exceeding the original number of members.

Article 33 (Handling of Research Ethics Violations)

When an allegation of research ethics misconduct related to the Society is reported, the Committee shall conduct an appropriate investigation and handle the matter in accordance with these Regulations. All investigations shall be conducted confidentially and in a manner that does not harm the interests of the Society.

A respondent shall have the right to submit counterarguments to the Committee’s findings, and the Committee shall ensure that this right is fully respected.

The results of investigations into research ethics violations shall be reported to the President of the Society, and records shall be retained by the Society for three (3) years following the completion of the case.

If a violation of research ethics is confirmed, the outcome shall be announced and the following measures shall be taken:

1. Manuscripts that violate research ethics shall not be accepted for publication. If already published, they shall be removed from the journal, and the Society shall notify its members and relevant academic institutions.

2. Authors responsible for confirmed violations shall be prohibited from submitting manuscripts to the Society’s journals for a minimum period of three (3) years.

Article 34 (Amendment of the Research Ethics Regulations)

Amendments to these Research Ethics Regulations shall follow the procedures prescribed in the bylaws of the Society.

Supplementary Provision

1. These Regulations shall enter into force as of November 10, 2019.

2. These Regulations were amended on September 5, 2025.