Preamble
The Korean Tribology Society (hereinafter, “Society”) is a scientific association established for the purpose of promoting general technological progress relating to lubrication and tribology and the development of related industries, as well as mutual friendship and solidarity among members. It is a hub of industrial and scientific cooperation dedicated to studying all academic branches associated with lubrication technology and production, as well as tribology of the machinery industry.
The present research ethics code (hereinafter, “the Code”) specifies the principles and standards to which the members of our scientific Society (hereinafter, “Members”) should abide by in the course of performing the described roles. Members have a duty to contribute to national development as well as their own development through sincere research activities, and shall endeavor to maintain their dignity as experts in the course of research. Members are also expected to recognize mutually the value of research and share the results thereof through abiding by the research ethics during their activities as scientific researchers and authors.
All Members of the Society, including authors, reviewers, and editorial members, should abide by the following Code in the process of paper review and publication. The policy on research and publication ethics not written in detail in this Code will be subject to the Directive of the Ministry of Education "Guidelines for Securing Research Ethics" and the “International Standards on Publication Ethics for editors and authors (http://publicationethics.org/international-standards-editors-and-authors).

Chapter 1. Ethics Code Related to Research

Section 1: Ethics Code for authors (Researcher's Role and Responsibilities)
Regarding the following details, all authors may share a partial responsibility, or in special cases, certain authors who prepared the paper, made the achievement and analysis, etc. on research of importance directly may be held responsible for the entire paper.

Article 1: Ethics for research performance
In the process of research performance, authors should abide by universal human rights, life ethics, protection of the environment.

Article 2: Responsibility for research results
Given that the results provided through research are important as to have profound effect on follow-up research performance, authors must never distort the research contents and results in the paper submitted. Distortion entirely includes fabrication, intentional selection, etc. of research results; if necessary, the authors should be able to demonstrate all the procedures of research performance and derivation of results.

Article 3: Plagiarism
Authors shall not present any part of the research not carried out by them or arguments of others in their papers or articles as if they were their own. Referring to others’ research results by properly attributing the work to the author is permitted, but passing a part of them off as one’s own research results or opinions constitutes plagiarism. Further, authors should not duplicate and submit the results of similar research contents (self-plagiarism).

Article 4: Duplicate or overlapping publication of research achievement
Authors shall not duplicate or perform overlapping publication of their research achievement that is to be submitted/submitted/to be published/already published at home or abroad as if it were a new, different one. If already presented in academic conferences or symposiums that do not require a copyright transfer, the contents can be used for another submission after having the sources cited and being referenced.

Article 5: Copyright and ownership
Authors, when citing other publications that have copyright, must receive legal approval for use. Further, in cases of research content submission that requires the approval of related researchers, the authors should receive approval prior to paper submission so as to prevent dispute owing to publication.

Article 6: Authorship
(1) Researchers are responsible for, as authors of the research that is carried out or contributed to by their own efforts, and shall receive recognition for the accomplishment. Authors must satisfy all of the following items.
① Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
② Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
③ Final approval of the version to be published; AND
④ 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
(2) Any researcher who made important contributions to the research should be named co-author, and they should be recognized in exact proportion as possible to the contribution made to the research. When selecting the authors of the paper, the representative author (corresponding or main author) should receive the consent of all authors. The order of authors should accurately reflect the degree of contribution to the study, regardless of their relative status. Simply being in a higher position does not justify being named an author or a first author. On the contrary, despite contributing to research or writing (translation), not being recorded as a co-author or collaborator can not be justified either. As a rule, administrative support, financial support, academic counsel/opinions should be identified in acknowledgements.
(3) The authors’ names should be written using real names. If necessary, they may provide the ORCID registration number and describe the role of each author in the research and writing. In addition, the author's affiliation and position (author information) should be accurately identified to enhance the credibility of the research.

Article 7: Citation and reference
When citing a publicly accessible study material, in exception to information known universally, all sources should be given completely, and the information obtained through private contacts should be quoted after obtaining the agreement of the provider of the information.

Article 8: Revision of the paper
In the revision process, the authors should do their best to accept and reflect as much as possible the opinions of editorial members and reviewers presented in the course of the review process of the paper; in case of disagreement with the opinions, the authors must communicate the grounds and reasons in a clear and detailed manner to the editorial board. Further, if an error in research results was found after the submission, the authors are obliged to revise the paper or withdraw it if necessary.

Section 2: Ethics Code for editorial members

Article 1: Editorial members should assume full responsibility for the decision on the publication of submitted papers and respect the authors’ personality and scholarly independence.

Article 2: Editorial members should perform an unbiased review of the submitted papers on the basis of the submission guidelines.

Article 3: Editorial members should make efforts to ensure an objective evaluation of papers by commissioning it to reviewers who are equipped with subject matter-specific expert knowledge and the ability to judge impartially.

Article 4: Editorial members should respect the review results of the reviewers and, with a consistent standard, decide whether the paper should be published.

Article 5: Editorial members are not allowed to reveal information on the authors, contents of the paper, related information, etc., to anyone except the reviewers before the completion of the selection process of the submitted paper.

Article 6: Editorial members are obliged to monitor unethical behaviors in the content and review process of the submitted papers and, if there is a recognition, petition, or report of such behaviors, report to the editor-in-chief so that proper measures can be taken.

Section 3: Ethics Code for reviewers

Article 1: Reviewers should perform a conscientious and unbiased evaluation of the assigned manuscript with consistent evaluation standards within the designated time frame and then communicate the results to the editorial board. If reviewers feel that they are inadequate to evaluate the assigned manuscript, or that they are judged to have an interest in them, they should notify the editorial manager or the editorial board without delay.

Article 2: Reviewers should respect the authors’ personality and independence as professional, learned persons and express their evaluation-related opinions in as polite and friendly a manner as possible. Deprecating and offensive expressions toward authors should be avoided.

Article 3: Reviewers should maintain confidentiality of the assigned manuscript. They shall not be allowed to disclose or quote the contents of the paper without the authors’ permission until the academic journal containing the paper has been published.

Article 4: When it is judged that contents already presented in other academic journals/conferences at home or abroad or that similar contents (Contents pertinent to Article 3 on plagiarism in the ethics code for authors) have been included without citation in the paper being reviewed, reviewers are obliged to communicate this to editorial members without fail.

Section 4. Conflict of Interest (COI) Adjustment and Regulation

Article 1: Definition of Conflict of Interest (COI)

Conflict of interest (hereinafter, “COI”) means a case in which any reason for any of the following cases can have a negative effect on the fair professional judgment or conduct of research.
① Financial COI: This includes cases where the financial interests of the researchers involved in the research cause conflicts.
② Human relational COI: This includes conflicts caused by personal relationships or influences of affiliated institutions, such as personal conflicts or research competition.
③ Intellectual COI: This includes cases of religious beliefs, worldviews, moral convictions, or theoretical convictions of a particular type or field of research.
④ COI from role conflicts: This includes cases where a role as a member of an organization, such as in education, service, or external activity, causes conflict with a research activity.
⑤ Other COI: This includes other cases caused by the reasons falling under items 1 through 4.

Article 2: Management of COI

(1) In the case of research where COIs arise or are likely to occur in relation to the entire process of research and development, such as research planning, data collection, experimentation, analysis, interpretation, publication, and utilization of results, the researcher should manage COIs on his or her own initiative to maintain the fairness of the research and prevent damage to social trust in academic research.
① Do not conduct research that is against social public interest in principle.
② Pay full attention to the process of research, and in principle, do not conduct studies that have a negative impact on the authenticity of research and human security, or that have potential COI against social responsibility.
③ If there is a realistic or potential possibility that COI occurs, make all efforts to ensure transparency and accountability, and do your best so as not to affect research negatively.
④ The researcher should take appropriate measures, such as exclusion from a specific research stage, so that the fairness of the research is not impaired because of the collaborator who has COI.
.
(2) If the degree of COI is serious and there is a possibility of a negative impact on the research, the researcher should suspend the research without any delay. If it is difficult to discontinue research, it should be supervised by an independent expert group, focusing on the fairness of the research.

Chapter 2. Ethics Code Implementation Guide

Article 1: Type and Definitions of Research Ethics Violations

The violation of research ethics means that a paper published in the journal of the Society meets one of the following.
① Fabrication: Falsification of non-existent data or research results
② Falsification: Manipulation of research materials, equipment, processes, etc., or distortion of data or results by arbitrarily modifying data
③ Plagiarism: The act of letting a third party recognize as if it is his or her own creation by utilizing other's original ideas or creations without proper source indication as shown in the following items.
1) In case all or part of the research of others is used as it is without indicating the source
2) When the word or sentence structure of another person's work is modified in part but the source is not indicated.
3) When the original ideas of others are used but the source is not indicated
4) When the work of another person is translated and used but the source is not indicated
④ Misleading ascription of authorship: Failure to grant authorship to a person who has made scientific or technical contributions without justifiable reason; conversely, granting authorship qualifications to those who have not contributed, for the purpose of showing appreciation or honor, as shown in the following items.
1) When authorship is granted even though there is no contribution to the research contents or results
2) When authorship is not granted to those who contribute to the research contents or results
3) When the academic advisor publishes the student's dissertation in the journal without including the student in the author
⑤ Overlapping publication: Reproducing or duplicating existing research or published materials by other people
⑥ Others: Acts that intentionally interfere with the investigation of suspicions of cheating or cause harm to the informant, and acts that are seriously out of the range normally accepted by the scientific and technological community

Article 2: Report of Violation of the Ethics Code

On realizing that another Member has violated the Ethics Code, a Member shall remind him/her of the Ethics Code and attempt to solve the problem. If the problem cannot be easily solved despite such effort, the Member must report it to the ethics committee (hereinafter, “Committee”).

Article 3: Composition of the Ethics Committee

The Committee shall be composed of five or more persons, taking into consideration the editorial board members including editor-in-chief. Anyone who has a COI relationship with the matter under investigation or whose allegedly impairs the fairness of the investigation should not be included in the Committee. If the investigator is interested in the issue to be investigated, he or she should apply for avoidance.

Article 4: Role and Authority of the Ethics Committee

The Committee may require the submission and presentation of relevant data to the reporter, suspected violator, witness and reference witness during the investigation. The suspected violator must respond in good faith to the investigation.
The Committee shall perform a comprehensive investigation of the following matters regarding the issue reported to have violated the Ethics Code through the reporter, suspected violator, witnesses, reference witnesses, evidentiary materials, etc. and report the results to the Society’s President.
① Matters related to researchers’ ethics and research ethics violations
② COI to authors, expert reviewers, editors, journalists, and publishers found before and after publication

Article 5: Ethics Committee’s Investigation and Deliberation

① The investigation of research misconduct goes through the procedures of "preliminary investigation", "main investigation" and "judgement". The investigation shall be carried out in preliminary and main stages.
② The preliminary investigation is a procedure to decide whether the suspected misconduct should be investigated. It shall commence within 30 days of the receipt of the report or the allegation. If the suspected violator acknowledges all the research misconduct, the judgement can be made immediately after preliminary investigation without main investigation.
③ This investigation is a deliberation procedure to prove the facts of allegations of misconduct.
④ The judgement is a procedure in which the Committee shall confirm the findings and notify the reporter and the suspected violator in the form of documents.
⑤ Members involved shall cooperate in the investigations and other measures carried out by the Committee. The members of the Committee shall observe confidentiality with all matters and contents related to the investigation and deliberation. The Committee shall document the entire process of deliberation, and the decision of deliberation shall be signed by all members and retained for a minimum of five years.
⑥ All investigations from the start of the preliminary investigation to the judgment shall be completed within six months. However, if the investigation is difficult to be conducted within this period, the Committee may notify the reporter and the suspected violator of the reasons and may extend the investigation period.

Article 6: Guarantee of Opportunity to Refute the Allegations

The Member reported to the Committee shall be given ample opportunity to try to clear the allegation(s).

Article 7: Nondisclosure of the Identities of the Related Parties

The Committee shall not be allowed to disclose the identities of the related persons (including the reporter and suspected violator) and any progress notes until the final decision has been made by the Society.

Article 8: Process after Judgement of Violation of Research Ethics

In the event of any violation by the Committee, the President shall convene the Board of Directors to decide on the appropriateness of punishment and the contents of the punitive action. In the event of a violation of the Code of Ethics, follow-up actions in each of the following cases may be taken and the results disclosed.
① Cancellation, invalidation, or amendment of the paper or research result
② Disciplinary measures, such as warnings to members violating this regulation, recommendation of correction, suspension, or deprivation of membership (including prohibition of submission of manuscript)
③ Notification of research ethics violation to the contributor’s organization and publishing institution (in case of duplicate publication)

Article 9: Appeal

If the person subject to the investigation disagrees with the result of preliminary investigation or the judgement, he/she may appeal to the Committee within 30 days from the date of receiving the notification. The Committee shall decide whether to reconsider immediately upon the request for review. If a review is approved by a majority of the Committee members, the investigation procedure should be resumed.

Addendum

These guidelines shall be effective on and from the date of enactment. The amended rules are effective immediately on the day of amendment.