The Society of Fashion & Textile Industry defines research ethics rules and standards that should be followed during research activities and educational activities, as follows, as such activities are conducted to contribute to continuous academic investigation and maintenance of relationships between members, and social benefits and development of the fashion and textile industry through related research. For the policies on this research ethics not stated in this instruction, "Guidelines on Good Publication(http://ww.publicationethics.org.uk/guidelines)" can be applied.
Article 1 Researchers' Ethics
Clause 1 (Academic freedom and research attitude) Members of The Society of Fashion & Textile Industry have basic rights for freedom of academics and adopt the following attitudes as members of SFTI.
1. Shall not discriminate against the academic accomplishments of a group that is different in terms of ideas, positions, gender, race, nationality, religion, age, disability, sexual preference, etc.
2. Recognizes academic diversity such as academic fields and diversity in research methods.
3. Respects the character and rights of other members and does not damage the honor or dignity of other members.
4. Considers the human rights and safety of subjects foremost when conducting research on people.
5. Not only understands latest information and pursues academic development through continuous research, but also focuses on creative research activities to cultivate expert knowledge.
6. Is open to criticisms of one's own research and is willing to revise errors if persuasive evidence is presented.
7. Shall not conduct actions that largely break away from the range generally permitted in academia.
Clause 2 (Plagiarism and falsifications) Members may state the source of another researcher's ideas or study results and use several references, but must not conduct plagiarism by stating another researcher's study results as if they are the author's own, without appropriate verification or quotes. In addition, authors shall not artificially alter things such as the research process, equipment or material, or randomly change or delete data to distort or falsify the research contents or results.
Clause 3 (Repetitive publication) Authors shall not attempt to submit or publish research that has been published elsewhere, whether in Korea or internationally (including studies that have been accepted for publication or are being reviewed elsewhere), as if they are new studies. If an author is thinking of publishing a study that has been published elsewhere without any changes, the author should provide the Editor of the journal with information on the already published article and check whether a submission of the article would be a repetitive publication.
Clause 4 (Published results) The following are recognized as authors' results.
1. Authors can only be held responsible as the author of studies they have actually conducted or contributed to, and such studies are recognized as results of the author.
2. Author(s) and order of authors of a study or other published results should accurately reflect how much each author has contributed to the study regardless of comparative professional position, and being stated as an author or the 1st author simply because of a certain position cannot be justified.
3. Not being recorded as a co-author (translator) or co-researcher when one has contributed to the study or writing (translation) cannot be justified either, and small contributions to the study or writing (translation) shall be marked appropriately through footnotes, a preface or words of thanks.
4. The authorship should be satisfied with all the following 4 requirements.
If not, the authorship is not to be given and participants are considered as contributors.
(1) Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;
(2) Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content;
(3) Final approval of the version to be published; and
(4) Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work.
Clause 5 (Quotations and references)
1. Efforts should be made for accurate documentation when quoting from open academic material, and the source must be revealed for material that is not general knowledge. Evaluation of a study or study plan, or material that has been obtained through personal contact can only be quoted upon agreement of the researcher that provides the information.
2. Footnotes must be used to mark whether the information is a quote or a reference if words are quoted or ideas are referenced from another person's work. Through such markings, the reader should be able to tell what is the result of preceding studies and what is the independent claim of the study at hand.
Clause 6 (Revisions) The author should accept the opinions of the reviewers and editors that surface in the reviewing process as much as possible and make efforts to reflect them in the article.
Clause 7 (Conflict of interest) The Journal requires a full disclosure of all potential conflicts of interest. At the end of the manuscript, under subheading “Conflict of Interest Statement,” all authors must disclose any financial, personal, or their relationships with other people or organizations within three years of commencement of the study that may influence the article submitted. Examples of conflicts include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants. If no conflicts of interest are identified, then the authors should state, “The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.” Investigators should disclose potential conflicts to participants in clinical trials and other studies, and state their action in the manuscript.
Clause 8 (Journal policies on data sharing and reproducibility) To clarify the accuracy and reproducibility of the results, raw data or analysis data shall be provided by the authors after the acceptance of the manuscript. If the data are publicly available, the relevant URL site or sources should be disclosed. Any inquiries regarding data deposition and data sharing should be directed to the editorial office.
Clause 9 (Journal's options for post-publication discussions and corrections) Post-publication discussions and corrections are possible when an author identifies a significant error or inaccuracy in his or her own published study. The author is obliged to write a letter to the journal editor, notify the editor of any errors, and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
Article 2 Editing Committee Ethics Regulations
Clause 10 (Responsibility) The Editing Committee is responsible for the decision on whether or not a manuscript is published, and shall respect the character, academic beliefs and independence of authors.
Clause 11 (Fair handling) The Editing Committee shall handle articles submitted for publication fairly, based solely on the qualitative standard and submission regulations, regardless of prejudices or personal relationships.
Clause 12 (Fair appointment of reviewers) The Editing Committee must appoint reviewers who are judged to have expert knowledge and the ability to fairly judge the submitted article. Reviewers who are too close to or too hostile against the researcher are avoided to aid objective review. If there is a big difference between the reviews of one article, advice can be sought from a third party expert.
Clause 13 (Confidentiality) The Editing Committee must not reveal the author or article information to anyone other than the reviewer until a decision to publish the submitted article has been confirmed; furthermore, the article information must not be used without written consent from the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must remain confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Clause 14 (Conflict of interest) Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. consult a co-editor, associate editor, or other members of the editorial board) instead of reviewing and considering manuscripts that present conflicts to their interests. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If required, other appropriate actions should be implemented, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.
Clause 15 (Complaints regarding review processes or decisions) Complaints regarding review decisions or processes will be managed by the editor-in-chief(s) and/or the editor who the paper. The complaints are investigated based on the complaint-managing processes presented by the COPE (https://publicationethics.org/appeals). The complainant will receive appropriate feedback.
Article 3 Reviewers' Ethics Regulations
Clause 16 (Sincere review) Reviewers must sincerely review the submission according to the submission regulations within the set period of time and report the review results to the Editing Committee. If a reviewer thinks that he or she is not the right person to conduct the review, the reviewer shall notify the Editing Committee immediately.
Clause 17 (Fair review) Reviewers must review submissions fairly, according to objective standards, regardless of personal academic beliefs or personal relationships with the author. A reviewer cannot fail an article without providing sufficient evidence, or because an article has a different viewpoint or interpretation from that of the reviewer, and must not review a submission while failing to read it properly. The examiner shall not examine the Plaintiff who has a conflict of interest.
Clause 18 (Respect for the author) Reviewers must respect the character and independence of authors as experts of a certain field. The reviewer's comments should reveal the opinions of the reviewers on the submission, and explain reasons for areas that the reviewer finds needs supplementation. Reviewer shall use polite and soft expressions as much as possible, and refrain from using expressions that belittle or insult the author.
Clause 19 (Confidentiality) Reviewers shall ensure confidentiality of articles reviewed. Unless seeking special advice for evaluation of the submission, reviewers should refrain from showing the submission to another person or discussing the contents of the article with another person. Contents from the submission also cannot be quoted before publication of the article in the journal without consent from the author. Information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
Article 4 Ethics Committee
Clause 20 (Structure and decisions)
1. The Ethics Committee consists of at least 5 members, and a president of the committee is appointed based on recommendations from the Operating Committee.
2. The Ethics Committee shall have 1 elected committee chairman.
3. The Ethics Committee makes decisions based on a 2/3 agreement of the registered committee members.
Clause 21 (Authority)
1. The Ethics Committee shall research reported cases of violation of the Ethics Regulations, referencing the reporter, the subject, witnesses, other related persons and evidence, and report the results to the president. 2. If a violation is judged to be true the chairman of the Ethics Committee may suggest an appropriate measure of restraint.
Clause 22 (Investigation and deliberation) Members reported for violation of the Ethics Regulations have a duty to cooperate with the investigations of the Ethics Committee. Failure to cooperate in the investigation itself is a violation of the Ethics Regulations.
Clause 23 (Guaranteed opportunity to speak) The Ethics Committee must give the member reported of violating the Ethics Regulations sufficient opportunity to speak for himself or herself.
Clause 24 (Confidentiality) The Ethics Committee must not reveal the identity of the member at hand until a final decision is made on violation of the Ethics Regulations by the Ethics Committee.
Clause 25 (Process and contents of restraint)
1. If a report or suggestion of restraint is made to the Ethics Committee regarding a member, the president must call the Operating Committee, and the Operating Committee makes a decision on whether or not restraints will be set and if so, what the restraints will be and how they will be followed up.
2. If the Operating Committee makes a decision to set restraints on a member who has violated the Ethics Regulations, the following restraints shall be applied according to the weight of the act of violation.
A. If the study has not been published in the journal or presented at a conference yet, the study will not be authorized for publication or presentation.
B. If the study has been published in the journal or presented at a conference, retroactive nullification of journal publication or conference presentation in that year.
C. Banned from publishing an article in the journal or presenting or participating in a debate at a conference hosted by the society for the next 3 years.
3. If the Operating Committee decides on a restraint in the case of Clause 2 Item B, the fact shall be notified to an official research articles management organization and other appropriate methods shall be used to make an external announcement.
4. If the Operating Committee decides not to take restraining measures, the decision must be notified to the Ethics Committee, reporter and subject immediately.
5. If the Operating Committee decides to implement a restraint on the member according to Clause 2, then a disciplinary action (i.e., warning, suspension of membership, forfeiture of membership) shall be performed if the violation is serious, and a disciplinary action may be proposed at the general meeting. Once a disciplinary action is proposed, it will be conducted based on the disciplinary action process follows the rules of the society.
Clause 26 ( Journal's policy on ethical oversight) The editorial board of FTRJ meticulously examines all submitted manuscripts to determine whether they abide by the ethical guidelines of the Committee of Publication Ethics (http://publicationethics.org). When the Journal identifies suspected cases of research and publication misconduct such as a redundant (duplicate) publication, plagiarism, fabricated data, changes in authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, ethical problems regarding the submitted manuscript, a reviewer who has appropriated an author’s idea or data, complaints against editors, and other issues, a resolving process will be conducted based on the flowchart provided by the COPE (http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts). The editorial board of the FTRJ will discuss the suspected cases and reach a decision. The FTRJ will not hesitate to publish errata, corrigenda, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when necessitated.