(2019. 12. 1 Enactment)
Asia Pacific Journal of Applied Sport Sciences (hereinafter referred to as APJASS) not only evaluated as an international journal representing Asian sports sciences but is also recognized as a representative academic journal related to sports convergence science. In the future, by publishing high-quality academic journals, we must not only contribute to the development of research and convergence research unique to sports science but also fulfill our responsibilities and roles as an international academic journal. The qualitative authority of academic journals depends on the application of objective and strict review guidelines based on research ethics. APJASS intends to apply the submission guidelines in detail along with the researcher's ethics regulations to carry out its responsibilities as a professional journal.
Chapter 1 Regulation of Ethics
Article 1 (General)
1. A research paper should include scientifically valuable conclusions and sufficient evidence that supports them comprehensively.
2. It should be thoroughly reviewed in advance to determine whether the same research and findings have been performed and published before. Research findings should not be arbitrarily included or excluded.
3. It should be written appropriately based on its type as an original paper, note, and review paper.
4. Academic criticism and evaluation of the results of previous research and other researchers are necessary, but personal criticism is not allowed.
5. Authors must fulfill their responsibilities as a researcher to avoid problems of double submission, multiple publication, partial publication, or plagiarism.
6. When the above-mentioned problems occur or when misconduct is discovered, a separate investigation committee (research ethics committee) is deployed to resolve the issue.
Article 2 (Research Team)
1. A researcher who has made an important contribution to the research and will share responsibility and credit for the results must be a co-author.
2. Co-authorship must be agreed upon by all co-authors. It is desirable to list the names of the co-authors in the research contribution section of the manuscript.
3. When publishing a part of a dissertation in an organized manner, the student and the advisor should ideally be co-authors.
4. The author’s affiliation at the time the research should be stated. However, if the affiliation changes at the time of submission, this fact may be appropriately indicated in the footnote.
5. Authors may present an acknowledgment to those who provided administrative and technical support outside of academia while conducting the research.
Article 3 (Research Method)
1. The research method should be described in detail such that other researchers with similar knowledge and experience in the related field can replicate the method for their work.
2. Arbitrary creation or manipulation of research data must not occur.
3. The source of the cited literature should be clearly presented. In particular, while citing secondary data, it should be presented in an appropriate format.
Article 4 (Research Subject)
1. If the subject of the study is a human being, the researcher must ensure that the identity of the subject is not revealed and that the subject or their guardian is specifically informed of the purpose, method, content, expected benefits, inherent risk, etc. of the study. Obtained written consent should be specified.
2. The researcher must inform the subject or guardian in advance about their right to refuse or withdraw from participation in the study at any time and guarantee such right.
3. If the subject of the study is an animal, the measures taken to reduce their pain and discomfort should be described. The responsibility of the researcher for the welfare of the experimented animal should not be overlooked.
4. In the review process, if necessary, the researcher may be requested to submit a consent form for subjects and the data related to subject selection.
Article 5 (Review Procedure)
1. The researcher must accept the opinions of the reviewers with a favorable attitude and do their best to reflect them in the paper.
2. If the researcher does not agree with the opinions of the reviewers or editors, they may file an objection detailing the grounds and reasons; emotional opinions must be avoided.
3. Researchers should be mindful not to cause problems with copyright and intellectual property rights that may arise from the publication of a paper. In principle, the copyright is owned by the society; exceptions apply in the case of article republication in an electronic journal article, etc.
Chapter 2 Review Guidelines
Article 6 (General)
1. The reviewers should conduct the review fairly and conscientiously with a positive attitude and fully understand and accept that the process may require a lot of time and effort.
2. The reviewers should be tolerant of manuscripts that support their views and arguments and not be overly critical of their own research or research that contradicts their views.
3. Unpublished manuscripts must be protected from being stolen under any circumstance. The reviewers must not cite the manuscript submitted before publication or use it to conduct their own research.
Article 7 (Review Procedure)
1. The reviewers cannot discuss the paper with the author, and the author must not know who the reviewers are.
2. If it is determined that a fair review is not possible due to personal acquaintance or other personal circumstances, the manuscript must be returned to the editor-in-chief immediately along with the reason.
3. The review must be completed within the specified period. If the review cannot be completed within the period due to an unavoidable reason, the editor-in-chief must be notified immediately.
4. It should be noted that a delay in the review may cause damage to the author.
Article 8 (Preparation of Review Comments)
1. Review opinions such as revision instructions should be written in a respectful manner (tone and expression). Consideration should be given to not cause emotional misunderstanding due to the review comments' presentation. Furthermore, it should be ensured that the review findings are not posited as a condition for publication.
2. When writing review opinions, the content that must be amended and the content that is desirable to be amended should be indicated separately.
3. If it is judged that the publication is not possible, sufficient and specific information detailing the reason must be provided. It should be taken into account that unnecessary disputes may arise due to the review comments lacking detailed explanations.
4. The final decision on whether or not to publish a work is made by combining the opinions of two different reviewers. Therefore, the opinions of one reviewer may not be reflected precisely in the outcome.
5. It should be noted that the reviewers must be able to fulfill their responsibilities related to the review opinions.
Article 9 (Conflict of Interest Statement)
The author should notify the editor of any potential conflict of interest that could affect the author’s interpretation of the data. Examples of potential conflicts of interest are the company's financial support or relationship with the company, political pressure from interest groups, and academically relevant issues. In particular, all sources of funding applicable to the study should be explicitly disclosed.
Article 10 (Check for Duplicates and Plagiarism)
Before proceeding with the review, the manuscript must first be thoroughly checked for duplicate publication, partial publication, or plagiarism to determine whether all or part of the work has already been published in this or other journals.
Article 11 (Title)
The title of the paper should be expressed concisely and specifically using a minimum number of words while implying the overall content of the paper. Excessive technical terms should be avoided as much as possible, and subtitles should not be used.
Article 12 (Abstract)
The purpose of the study' should be stated clearly. The main elements (quantitative and qualitative) of the applied method must be included in the research method. The findings should be presented succinctly in accordance with the research question or questions, and conclusions drawn from the findings should be stated clearly. In the abstract, paragraph composition should not be done, and errors in tense and grammatical expression should be checked. A structured abstract of 250 words or less (excluding the title and author name) should be prepared. The sections of the abstract (Purpose, Method, Result, and Conclusion) are not presented as separate paragraphs. Up to five keywords that capture the content of the manuscript are presented after the abstract, and in principle, the keywords must be listed in MeSH (www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/Mbrowser.html).
Article 13 (Introduction)
It is most important to raise an original and intriguing question in the study, and the background information related to the research and the purpose of the research should be stated clearly. Researchers have the tendency to list only the most recent related research trends, but the academic and empirical development process of the research question should be concisely described as necessary. Textbooks and general descriptions should be completely excluded, and bibliographic citations should preferably be based on primary sources. If the cited data is secondary data, it should be properly presented in the citation format for this data type.
Article 14 (Research Method)
The research method should be described in sufficient detail such that an interested reader can achieve the same research results when conducting research using the described method. The methods of observation or selection of study subjects should be described in detail. Appropriate research procedures should be presented according to the type of research, and in the case of using a tool in a thesis, a clear rationale for the characteristics (reliability, validity) of the tool should be presented. From a professional standpoint, the validity of the applied statistical analysis method and procedure must be assessed.
Article 15 (Result)
Only the results that can demonstrate whether the research question or hypothesis is true or false should be presented systematically. In the case of qualitative research, only the results obtained while conducting one’s own research are described. In quantitative studies, which apply statistical analysis methods, only basic and essential analysis results are summarized. Tables and figures that are not directly related to the research question are not included. The research findings should be objective and not presented in the way the researcher intends or anticipates. The meaning of statistical terms, abbreviations, and symbols should be stated clearly, and the use of abbreviations should be kept to a minimum.
Article 16 (Discussion)
Discussion should interpret the meaning of the facts obtained from the results and explain the reasons for the achievement of those results based on related theories or prior research. If a result is consistent with related theories or previous studies or is contradictory, it must be explained. It is not advisable to present vague or illogical arguments to interpret unexpected results. Problems and limitations of the research can also be addressed, and the data derived from the results should not be repeatedly explained.
Article 17 (Conclusion)
The most common mistake in the conclusion section is the repetition of explanations by presenting the figures obtained from the research results. In this section, the causal relationship between variables must be stated within the scope of a given research (experimental) method (design). Causal conclusions in non-experimental, quasi-experimental, investigational, and observational studies should be stated very carefully based on theoretical grounds, non-false relationships, temporal context, and degree of association. Conclusions should be stated in relation to the study's goal (problem), but no claims about untested hypotheses should be made.
Article 18 (References)
The works cited in the text should be only cited in the reference list. References included must conform to the various notation formats of the submission regulations. In particular, when citing secondary data, the source must be accurately presented. References should be meticulously organized because they are crucial indicators of research fidelity and credibility. The American Psychological Association's latest Publication Manual is followed when writing other references not listed in the APJASS' submission regulations
Chapter 3 Organization and Operation of Research Ethics Committee
Article 19 (Organization)
The committee is organized and operated in accordance with Article 32 of the Asian Society for Sports Convergence Sciences (ASCS).
1. The committee is composed of 5–10 members, including one chairman appointed by the president of the society.
2. The committee consists of a chairperson and working-level members, and the editor-in-chief, senior vice president, and general secretary of the society are ex officio members.
3. Members are appointed by the chairperson, and the term of office of the members is two years, but they can be reappointed.
Article 20 (Meeting)
The committee meets in accordance with the following conditions:
1. The president convenes the meeting and becomes the chairperson.
2. The meeting is decided by the attendance of a majority of the enrolled members and the consent of at least two-thirds of the members present.
3. In principle, the meeting is confidential.
4. When necessary, the committee may invite related persons to listen to their opinions.
5. For the research subject to review, the member cannot participate in the review related to the research.
6. If necessary for deliberation, the chairperson may request the research director to submit or report data.
7. Members must maintain confidentiality on matters related to deliberation.
Article 21 (Function)
The committee deliberates and decides on the following matters:
1. Matters concerning the establishment and operation of research ethics-related systems
2. Ethical validity of submitted paper (falsification, plagiarism, etc.)
3. Whether or not research is permitted and its scope (laboratory safety rules, rules for compliance with human or animal experiments, etc.)
4. Fair author identification and merit distribution
5. Whether appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects (research participants)
6. Safety of subjects (research participants), protection of personal information, and compensation for damage
7. Reporting and receiving fraudulent acts
8. Matters concerning the initiation of the reported investigation and approval of the investigation findings
9. Measures to protect the informant and restore the reputation of the person under investigation
10. Conflicts of Interest
11. Exclusion, refusal, and evasion during review and publication
12. Other matters requested by the chairperson.
Chapter 4 Guidelines for the Enforcement of Ethics Regulations
Article 22 (Oath of Research Ethics Regulations)
New members of the society must pledge to follow these ethics guidelines. Existing members are considered to have pledged to comply with these regulations when they go into effect.
Article 23 (Report and Receipt of Violation of Research Ethics Regulations)
When a member notices that another member has violated an ethics regulation, they may attempt to rectify the situation by reminding the violating member of the ethical regulations. If the problem is not resolved or if the ethical regulations are clearly violated, the committee can be notified. In principle, reports must be made under their real name and can be made in writing or online via e-mail. The title of the thesis, the nature of the misconduct, and evidence must all be included in the report.
Article 24 (Rights of Research Ethics Committee)
The committee may request the whistleblower, examinee, witness, or referee to appear for a statement or submit evidence for the reporting of the violation of ethical regulations, and the person concerned must comply. Failure to cooperate with investigations is a violation of the ethical regulations in and of itself. If the committee conducts an extensive investigation and finds that the violation of the ethics regulations is true, it may recommend appropriate disciplinary actions against the violator to the president of the society.
Article 25 (Investigation and Deliberation by Research Ethics Committee)
In principle, the committee must complete the investigation, from the start of the investigation till judgment, within 60 days. However, the investigation period may be extended if necessary. The committee confirms the contents and results of the final report and notifies the informant and the person under investigation. If agreement on the investigation's contents and results cannot be reached, a decision is made with the attendance of more than half of the enrolled members and the consent of more than two-thirds of the members present. The following items must be included in the final investigation report.
1. Details of the report
2. Research projects under investigation, as well as allegations of misconduct
3. Whether the allegation against the person under investigation is true
4. Relevant evidence and witnesses
5. Contents of objections or pleadings filed by the informant and the investigated person to the investigation and processing results
6. Suggestions for disciplinary actions
Article 26 (Protection of the rights of the informant and the person under investigation and strict confidentiality)
Under no circumstances should the informant's identity be revealed to the public, and the informant's name should not be included in the investigation result report unless absolutely necessary. The committee must ensure that the informant is not subjected to undue pressure or disadvantage in their position as a result of reporting the misconduct. Until the verification of whether the research ethics regulations were violated, other members must be careful not to infringe on the honor or rights of the member under investigation. Moreover, if they are found innocent, attempts must be made to restore the honor of the person under investigation. All matters related to the investigation, deliberation, and resolution shall be kept confidential, and if there is a reasonable need for disclosure, it may be disclosed through the committee's resolution.
Article 27 (Guarantee of Right of Objection and Argument)
The committee shall guarantee equal rights and opportunities to the whistleblower and the person under investigation to express opinions, raise objections, and plead against the judgment. They shall be informed in advance of the relevant procedures.
Article 28 (Procedures and Contents of Discipline)
The committee convenes a meeting to determine the final judgment on misconduct and the contents of the disciplinary action and then prepares the final investigation report. The members who are found to have violated the rules of research ethics may be warned by the society's president, and disciplinary actions such as the prohibition of publishing papers in the journal, suspension or disqualification of membership, etc. may be suggested. Following a review of the final report, the president convenes a reward and punishment committee to determine whether or not a disciplinary action must be meted out and determine its details. For research articles subject to disciplinary action, the list and contents of the thesis will be removed from the academic journal, and steps will be taken to remove the article from the Korean Citation Index (KCI) of the Korea Research Foundation.
Article 29 (Regulations for Exclusion, Rejection, and Avoidance)
1. A member of the committee is excluded from the investigation procedure if they have a direct interest in the case under investigation.
2. When there are objective reasons that make it difficult for committee members to conduct a fair investigation, the respondent may file a challenge request, and the committee must make a decision without delay.
3. If there are reasons that make it difficult for a particular member to conduct a fair investigation, the case may be avoided, and the committee must make a decision at the earliest.
4. If three or more members are excluded, challenged, or avoided in accordance with the preceding paragraph, the president of the society may appoint a temporary ethics committee member within the limit of the existing number of members.
Article 30 (Handling of Violations of Research Ethics)
If a violation of research ethics related to the academic society is reported, the committee must appropriately investigate and handle the allegation.
Investigations into violations of research ethics must be kept confidential and must not be against the interests of the society.
A person suspected of violating research ethics has the right to raise a counterargument to the committee's investigation results, and the committee must appropriately guarantee this.
The results of the investigation into violations of research ethics must be reported to the president, and the records are kept by the society for three years from the time the processing is completed.
If necessary, the committee may have a person suspected of violating research ethics appear to protect himself or herself and provide an opportunity to raise a counterargument.
If a violation of research ethics is confirmed as a result of the investigation, this will be announced, and the following measures will be taken:
① Papers that violate research ethics will not be accepted for publication in academic journals. In the case of published papers, they are deleted from the journal's paper list, and the society notifies members and related academic institutions of this fact.
② Authors of papers that violate research ethics will be prohibited from submitting future papers to academic journals for at least three years.
Article 31 (Revision of Research Ethics Regulations)
The revision procedure of the research ethics regulations follows that of the rules of this society.
1. This regulation shall come into effect from the date of promulgation on December 1, 2019.
