Code of Ethics for East Asian Economic review
Enacted on December 9, 2008
Completely revised on June 1, 2016
Chapter 1 General Provisions
Article 1 (Purpose)
The purpose of this Code of Ethics (hereinafter, “the Code”) is to provide ethical
standards with respect to the publication of the East Asian Economic Review (“EAER”),
a quarterly of the Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (“KIEP”).
Article 2 (Scope of Application)
The Code applies to all actions related to paper submission to the EAER, in addition to
editing and review of papers submitted.
Article 3 (Enforcement of Ethics)
(1) Authors, reviewers, and editorial board members are to agree to abide by the Code.
(2) As the Code enters into force, it is automatically assumed that the Authors, reviewers,
and editorial board members have agreed to Article (1).
Chapter 2 Definitions
Article 4 (Purpose)
This Chapter stipulates definitions and ethical issues pertaining to EAER publication.
Cases of and contrary to ethical conduct can happen at any stage of publication; the
definitions for each case are as follows:
① “Research ethics” refers to ethical issues in the conduct of research and, by extension,
in the regulation of research, the procedures and process of ethical review as well as
broader ethical issues related to research such as scientific integrity and the end uses of
② “Publication ethics” refers to ethical issues in reviewing research, in reporting
③ “Fabrication” refers to the recording or reporting of spurious, false data or research
④ “Falsification” refers to the manipulation of the research process or the arbitrary
alteration or omission of data which lead to the distortion of the contents or the results of
⑤ “Plagiarism” refers to the unauthorized use of others’ idea, logic, specific terms, data,
and analysis as one’s own original work, either intentionally or unintentionally, without
any indication of the sources.
⑥ “duplicate or redundant publication” refers to the practice of authors’ use of their
previously published works in whole or in part without proper citation as though they
were new, or in a manner that goes beyond the conventionally accepted level.
⑦ “Authorship” refers to recognizing those who made substantial contributions to the
research and to publications, and took formal responsibility for submitted and published
work as authors.
⑧ “Conflict of Interest” refers to those factors that might influence the conception,
conduct, analysis, and reporting of the research. These might include relevant financial
interests, academic competitiveness or personal, political, or religious interests.
⑨ “Withdrawal” refers to authors’ voluntary cancellation of their submission when they
discover an error(or errors) in submitted manuscripts before its publication.
⑩ “Retraction” refers to a mechanism for correcting the literature and alerting readers to
publications that contain such seriously flawed or erroneous data or to cases of research
Chapter 3 Writing, Editing, and Peer-review
Part 1 For Authors
Article 5 (Originality)
① The manuscript being submitted should be written in accordance with the Guidelines
for Manuscript Preparation provided by the EAER Editorial Board and should comply
with all relevant regulations.
② The manuscript being submitted should have been prepared in an ethical and
responsible manner without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation,
③ Author(s) should adhere to publication requirements that demand submitted manuscripts
be original and has not been published elsewhere in any language.
Article 6 (Authorship)
① Authorship should be given to those who made substantial contributions to the research
and to publications and Author(s) should take collective responsibility for submitted and published work.
② Author(s) should ensure that only those who meet Authorship criteria are rewarded
with Authorship and there are no guest, gift, and ghost Authorship.
③ The Authorship of submitted work should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions
to the work and all authors should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for
specific parts of the work.
Article 7 (Conflict of Interest)
① Author(s) should disclose funding sources and relevant conflicts of interest, if any. It should
include both financial and non-financial interests and relationships such as direct and indirect
financial support, supply of equipment or materials, and other support.
② Funders and sponsors should not able to veto publication of research that do not favor their position.
Author(s) should not enter into agreements that permit sponsors to veto or control the publication of the research.
Article 8 (Revision)
① Author(s) should revise their manuscripts in accordance with the publication
regulations of the EAER Editorial Board and submit a revision report reflective of
② Author(s) should alert the editorial board promptly if they discover an error in any
submitted, accepted or published work. Author(s) should cooperate with the editorial
board in issuing corrections or retractions when required.
Article 9 (Respect for the Editorial Board)
Author(s) shall respect the opinions of reviewers and the decisions made by the Editorial
Part 2 For the Editorial Board
Article 10 (Duty and Responsibility)
① The Editorial Board should take responsibility for everything they publish, and the
most important part of the responsibility to make fair and unbiased decisions for
publication shall be the upholding of principles of editorial independence and integrity.
② The Editorial Board should have policies and procedures in place to ensure the
quality of the material they publish, to maintain the integrity of the published record and to
prevent and investigate misconduct related to research and publication.
Article 11 (Conflict of Interest)
① The Editorial Board (members) shall provide fair treatment in reviewing submitted
manuscripts, on the basis of their quality and the EAER publication regulations only,
without regard to prejudice against or personal connection to the author(s).
② The Editorial Board (members) should not be involved in decisions about papers in
which they have a conflict of interest, such as the same affiliations, a personal or
financial relationship with the author(s).
Article 12 (Fair Request for Peer-review)
① The Editorial Board should select and make a request for peer review to a candidate
with expertise in the field of interest and capacity for fair judgment.
② The Editorial Board should avoid selecting reviewers with conflicts of interest. The
Editorial Board should ask peer reviewers to inform them about any such conflict of
interest at the earliest opportunity.
③ If there is a sharp contrast among the peer review results of different reviewers, the
Editorial Board may make an additional request for a review to a third expert in the
Article 13 (Confidentiality)
① The Editorial Board should protect the confidentiality of authors’ identities in the
material before it is published and should not give any indication of a paper’s status with
the journal to anyone other than the author(s).
② The Editorial Board should not share the authors' identities with reviewers and also
should not disclose their names when making a request or sending out manuscripts for
③ The Editorial Board should protect the reviewers’ identities and should not disclose
their names when sending reviewers’ report to author(s).
Article 14 (Respect for Authors)
The Editorial Board shall respect the personality and independence of authors as an
intellectual with expertise and should not pressure authors to add citations from the
EAER for the implied purpose of increasing citation rates and, by extension, journal
Part 3 For Reviewers
Article 15 (Peer-review in Good Faith)
Reviewers should review a manuscript commissioned by the Editorial Board in good
faith and submit the review results to the Board within the proposed time-frame, informing
the journal promptly if they require an extension. If reviewers consider themselves not qualified
enough to review the manuscript, they are to notify the Board immediately.
Article 16 (Conflict of Interest)
① Reviewers should declare any potentially conflicting or competing interests (which
may, for example, be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious),
and should decline to review if they feel unable to provide a fair and unbiased review.
② Reviewers should not intentionally prolong the peer-review process for competitive
advantage, either by delaying the submission of their review or by requesting unnecessary
additional information from the journal or author.
Article 17 (Fair Review)
① Reviewers should be objective and constructive in their reviews and provide a fair
review report on a manuscript regardless of their personal academic views.
They should also provide adequate grounds for the review results through meticulous examination.
② Reviewers should provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their
manuscript and provide evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general
statements, and should be specific in their criticisms.
Article 18 (Respect for Authors)
Reviewers should respect the personality and independence of authors as an intellectual
with expertise. Reviewers shall present their opinions on paper and explain proper
grounds for revision if necessary.
Article 19 (Confidentiality)
① Reviewers should be required to maintain confidentiality with respect to papers for
peer review. Unless seeking advice critical to conducting a fair review with approval of
the Editorial Board, they should not allow others to have access to the paper concerned.
And they should not release the paper to the public before its publication by the EAER.
② Reviewers should not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript and should
keep all manuscript and review details confidential, without any inappropriate use of
Chapter 4 Ethics Committee
Article 20 (Reporting Violations)
① If there is any violation of this Code with respect to publication of the EAER, anyone may
inform the EAER Editorial Board about such violations.
② The Editor-in-Chief should not reveal any personal information of persons reporting
violations and take necessary measures to protect the confidentiality of the informant.
Along with the Editor-in-Chief, the Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP),
the publisher of the EAER, should protect the informant from negative consequences or
possible external pressures.
Article 21 (Composition and Resolution of the Ethics Committee)
① In response to reports of violations of the Code under Article 20(1), the Editorin-
Chief should form an independent Ethics Committee which consists of five or more
members with expertise as recommended by the Editorial Board.
② President of the Ethics Committee shall be appointed by the Editor-in-Chief.
③ The resolution of the Ethics Committee shall require the consent of 2/3 of all registered
Article 22 (Duties and Authority of the Ethics Committee)
① The Ethics Committee is obligated to investigate the stated violations of the Code,
while the party subject to the investigation must prove his or her compliance with the
② The Ethics Committee may request the person(s) reporting violations to submit
necessary documents to verify the violations and demand that the suspected party submit
pertinent statements or materials for explanation.
③ The Ethics Committee should conclude its investigation and concomitant deliberations
within 60 days of the date of its establishment.
④ The Ethics Committee should take down the minutes of the committee. Minutes shall
be kept of all meetings and circulated to the members of the Committee, and be reported
to the Editor-in-Chief when needed during investigation.
⑤ The Ethics Committee should submit a report to the Editor-in-Chief within 10 days
after the conclusion of the investigation and deliberations on the violation under Article
22(3) above. If it is determined that there is an actual violation of the Code, the
Committee should recommend proper disciplinary measures.
Article 23 (Guarantee of Vindication)
The Ethics Committee should provide the suspected person or party sufficient
opportunity to explain herself/himself.
Article 24 (Freedom from Suspicion)
If the Ethics Committee determines that a person suspected of violation of the Code is
cleared of suspicion, it is the responsibility of the Ethics Committee to prepare active and
subsequent remedial measures for the suspected person’s reputation, and to recommend
them to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief should accept and implement the
recommended measures immediately.
Article 25 (Confidentiality)
The members of the Ethics Committee and any person who participates in the
investigation or deliberations for violations of the Code shall be obliged not to divulge
any confidential or personal information that they have acquired during the work of the
Chapter 5 Disciplinary Measures against Code Violation
Article 26 (Disciplinary Measures)
If it is determined by Ethics Committee that there is an actual violation of the Code,
disciplinary measures by levels of violations should be taken as follows:
① Issuance of an expression of concern or Issuance of a correction
② Notification on the Code violation case to the author’s institution and sponsor
③ Announcement on the Code violation case on the EAER and KIEP webpage
④ Formal removal of the infringing manuscript
⑤ Prohibition against all of the authors for any new submissions to EAER, either
individually or in combination with other authors of the infringing manuscript, as well as
in combination with any other authors
⑥ Notification on the Code violation case in any relevant indexing and bibliographic
Chapter 6 Complementary Provision
Article 27 (Revision)
① This Code shall be revised by the resolution of the EAER Editorial Board
② In the event of the Code revision, a Board member who previously agreed to the
existing Code of Ethics is considered to have agreed to the amendments of the Code.
Addenda (Amended on December 2014)
This Code shall enter into force on the date of its promulgation.
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (March 2011). Code of Conduct and
Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Retrieved from http://publicationethics.
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (March 2011). Code of Conduct for Journal
Publishers. Retrieved from http://publicationethics.org/files/Code%20of%20conduct%
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (March 2013). Ethical Guidelines for Peer
Reviewers. Retrieved from http://publicationethics.org/files/Peer%20review%20gui
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (November 2012). Flowchart. Retrieved from
Ethical Publication Checklist for Authors
*Please confirm the checklist before authors sign for the EAER paper submission form