A. Ethical Obligations of Editors

1. An editor should unbiasedly treat all submitted manuscripts with reasonable speed for the author(s) and must not judge them according to the gender, race, religion, seniority, and affiliation of the author(s) or the personal acquaintance with the author(s). An editor should respect the intellectual independence of the author(s).
2. An editor takes full responsibility for accepting or rejecting a manuscript. Manuscripts submitted for publication may be rejected without external review if considered by the editor to be unsuitable for the journal based on their failure in fitting the journal scope, providing the appropriate contents, writing properly in English, or following the ethical guidelines. The responsible duty of an editor is to find reviewers who are chosen following their expertise to seek advice for judging the reliability and quality of the manuscripts submitted for publication. An editor must communicate with the author(s) openly and transparently.
3. The editor should not deliver or discuss any information about a manuscript submitted for publication to anyone other than the author(s) and the reviewer(s) until the editor has decided the manuscript. After making the decision of a manuscript for publication, the editor (including the editor’s office members) may disclose the information on the manuscript, including the title and the names of the authors, with the permission of the author(s). The editor and the editor’s office members may disclose the information of a manuscript to the editors of other KCS journals when the manuscript was rejected due to ethical violations.
4. Another editor of the journal or an editorial advisory board member should take responsibility for accepting or rejecting any manuscripts that include or acknowledge an editor. In addition, an editor should delegate the manuscripts submitted by collaborators, colleagues at the same institution, or recent graduates within at least 5 years to another editor or an editorial advisory board member of the journal. The editorial consideration of such manuscripts is not appropriate because they contain a serious conflict of interest.
5. Author(s) may request that the editor does not choose certain reviewers for consideration of the manuscript; however, the editor may use one or more of these reviewers, if the editor thinks that their comments are critical for judging the accuracy and quality of the manuscript or that the submitted manuscript contains opposite conclusions based on results and observations from the previous work of the reviewer(s).
6. Unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript under consideration for publication must not be used for an editor’s research. When a manuscript is related to an editor’s past or current research that can lead to a conflict of interest potentially, the editor must arrange for another editor of the journal or an editorial advisory board member to take editorial responsibility for the manuscript.
7. If an editor shows the evidence that conclusions or substances of a report published in the editor’ journal are erroneous, the editor should facilitate the publication of a report (usually called “correction”), written by the author(s) (in general, corresponding author(s)), that should describe the errors and possibly correct them with additional experiments or explanations.

B. Ethical Obligations of Authors

1. An author should comply with the ethical guidelines described below.
2. Authorship. Authorship indicates researchers’ contributions, with responsibility, to the work reported in a manuscript.
   
   (a) Author(s) are expected to contribute substantially to designing the work, collecting and analyzing data with interpretation, developing new methods or software for the work, or writing the manuscript. Author(s) should approve the submitted or revised versions and agree with the contributions and responsibility of the author(s) for the accuracy and integrity of any part of the work. The primary affiliation for an author should be the institution where the majority of the work was carried out by the author. The current affiliation of an author may also be stated if the author has subsequently moved.
   
   (b) The corresponding author is responsible for (i) the agreement and approval of all authors to be listed and to submit a manuscript to the journal; (ii) all communication between the journal and all co-authors before and after publication; (iii) the submission of a competing financial or interests' statement and a signed ‘license to publish’ on behalf of all authors of the paper; (iv) the identification of any materials in the manuscript that have been previously published elsewhere and submission of the written permission from the author(s) of the prior work or publishers for the re-use of such materials; (v) after acceptance, the accuracy of all contents in the proof, including the names of authors, affiliations, and contact addresses; (vi) after publication, any queries about the published work.
   
   Any changes to the author list after submission [i.e., change in the order of the authors or the deletion or addition of the author(s)] must be approved by all authors and be informed to the editor or the editor’s office members.
   
   (c) Consortia authorship: If a consortium is listed as a collective of authors, all members of the consortium are considered the authors and must be listed in the published article. If some members of the consortium do not agree to the author’s responsibilities, the members will be listed separately.
   
   (d) The deceased, who met the criteria as an author, should be included with a footnote statement reporting the date of death.
   
3. Other contributions need to be indicated in a footnote, “Author Contribution” or “Acknowledgments”.
4. An author should report accurate data, sufficient details, and references to reproduce the data presented in a report by a professional.
5. A manuscript submitted for publication should contain comprehensive conclusions that are supported scientifically.
6. An author should economically and wisely use journal space that is a resource created at a high cost.
7. Upon request, an author should accurately describe materials that were already open to the public and provide data, methods, and samples of unusual materials unavailable elsewhere to other researchers with a proper material transfer agreement to restrict the use of the materials and protect the legitimate interests of the author.
8. Citation. An author should cite the publications that have been related to the reported studies and those that can provide the present research for research history, justification, and, if any, reports opposed to the author’s results and claims to the readers for understanding the submitted manuscript. For the materials used in the work, an author should also cite appropriate sources if those materials were supplied by nonauthors.
9. Quotation. Author(s) should identify the source of all information indicated in a manuscript submitted for publication. Information or materials from private settings, including correspondence, conversation, or discussion, cannot be reported in the author’s manuscript without explicit consent or permission from the persons who originated them. In addition, information obtained under confidential conditions such as reviewing manuscripts or funding applications should be treated similarly.
10. Hazards and human or animal subjects. Any hazards in chemicals, equipment, or procedures used for the work should be clearly indicated in a manuscript submitted for publication. An author should inform the editor of the knowledge, materials, or methods, presented in a manuscript, that could pose a threat to public health and safety, the environment, crops, plants, animals, or materiel. Rules and ethical guidelines of the KCS journals provide mandatory standards of practice in experimental studies performed using biological samples obtained from animals or human subjects. An author must confirm that all experiments were conducted following relevant guidelines and regulations. Studies submitted for publication must present the evidence that the described experimental activities have undergone the local institutional review for assessment of the safety and use for studying animals or human subjects. In the case of human subjects, an author must also provide a statement that the samples for studies were obtained through the informed consent of the donors or in place of that evidence by the authority of the institutional board that licensed the use of such materials. An author must report the identification or case number of the institution's approval as well as the name of the licensing committee with a statement at the section of “Materials and Methods” in a manuscript submitted for publication. Additionally, in that section, an author must describe sex and other characteristics of animals that may affect the author’s data and interpretation. Reviewers may be requested to comment on any studies employing biological samples in which concerns arise.
11. Fragmentation. Fragmentation of the research reports should be avoided. Fragmentation consumes journal space. Reports on similar or relevant studies published in the same journal or other journals give the readers clear literature search and information.
12. It is improper for an author to simultaneously submit manuscripts that illustrate the same research to more than one journal for publication. In general, submitting a manuscript expanding on a previously published but brief preliminary account of the same work is permissible. At the time of submission, however, the manuscript must contain important results that were not included in earlier communications or letters, and the preliminary communication should be cited in the manuscript.
13. When a manuscript is submitted, an author should inform the editor of related manuscripts that are under editorial consideration or in press with descriptions on the relationships of those manuscripts to the submitted manuscript. Such manuscripts should be available to the editor.
14. A study may justify criticism of the studies that were obtained by other researchers. Such criticism, if appropriate, can be presented in the paper. Direct personal criticism of other scientists, however, is not tolerated under any circumstances.
15. All authors must declare (i) any significant financial interest in corporate or commercial entities associated with the subject of the manuscript; (ii) any relationship existing within the past three years with entities that have a financial or other interest in the claims and results described in the submitted manuscript.
16. Image standards. Images that include in a manuscript should be free from any manipulation. A clear description on production of any images should be provided when the manuscript is submitted.
17. Plagiarism and duplicate publication. Plagiarism is not acceptable in the KCS journals. Author(s) should not engage in plagiarism (exactly or almost exactly copying of the contents and the data from other studies). Self-plagiarism that is also known as “duplicate publication” (close replication of the authors’ previously published contents or data without a clear indication of the sources) is completely unacceptable. The appearance of two or fewer same sentences from the paper(s) previously published by the author(s) in the submitted manuscript may not be a duplicate publication. Materials that are included exactly from the authors’ previously published reports must be presented with marks. It is unacceptable for an author to use exactly or almost exactly the author’s work and report the author’s previously published data and methodologies as new ones with no acknowledgment.

C. Ethical Obligations of Reviewers

1. A scientist has a professional obligation to respect and follow scientific criteria for reviewing the documents related to research.
2. A reviewer should promptly evaluate the manuscript(s) assigned for evaluation. When the reviewer is considered unqualified to judge a submitted manuscript, the reviewer should immediately inform the editor of that. A reviewer should have careful consideration for a conflict of interest when the manuscript assigned for evaluation contains any portions of the reviewer’s published or ongoing work. In that case, the reviewer should immediately return the manuscript without review and inform the editor of the conflict of interest.
3. A reviewer should not evaluate the manuscript(s) that are authored or co-authored by a person who has a connection with the reviewer because such a relationship would provide a bias against the manuscript.
4. A reviewer should review and evaluate the quality of a manuscript and its Supporting Information in an objective manner. A reviewer should not judge a manuscript based on the reviewer’s personal belief or hypothesis in science that is not verified.
5. A reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the author(s). A reviewer must provide an evaluation summary of a manuscript that contains comments, questions, or suggestions on the work, with detailed descriptions. The evaluation report provided by a reviewer should be accurately written and should not include the contents of insulting the author(s). It is forbidden for a reviewer to request an author to further explain the work described in the submitted manuscript or provide supplementary materials for the reviewer’s private purposes.
6. The review of a submitted manuscript can justify criticism by a reviewer. If appropriate, such criticism may be presented in a published paper. In no case, however, a reviewer should include personal criticism of an author in the evaluation report of a manuscript.
7. Confidentiality and anonymity are expected throughout the editorial review process.
   (a) Manuscript confidentiality. A reviewer should keep confidential the manuscripts (including data) assigned for evaluation, the reviewer’s report, and related correspondence. Such documents should be neither disclosed nor discussed with others. If the documents were confidentially shared with the person(s) for obtaining comments based on their expertise, their identities should be informed to the editor.
   (b) Reviewer and review confidentiality. When a reviewer wishes to disclose the reviewer’s identity to the author(s), the reviewer should consult with the assigned editor, and the decision to disclose such information to the author(s) is the editor’s sole decision. A reviewer may reveal that the reviewer has accepted a review invitation for the corresponding KCS journal. Under any circumstances, however, a reviewer should not be identified for a specific manuscript. Furthermore, a reviewer should not disclose the evaluation contents of a submitted manuscript to individuals or organizations. Peer review confidentiality and anonymity are expected to extend beyond acceptance or rejection of a submitted manuscript.
   
8. A reviewer should confirm citations of the studies that are referred to in a manuscript. If the results included in the manuscript are similar to previously published ones, the reviewer should immediately report those results to the editor in detail. Additionally, a reviewer should indicate the failure of the author(s) to cite relevant studies by other scientists in a professional manner. A reviewer should inform the editor of any substantial similarity between a submitted manuscript and any published papers or manuscripts submitted simultaneously to other journals.
9. A reviewer should explain the reviewer’s judgment on a manuscript submitted for publication in a report (if needed, relevant citations should be included) for the editor and the author(s) to understand the reviewer’s comments and statements.
10. A reviewer should inform the editor of any concerns from a submitted manuscript that describes the research containing knowledge, products, or methods that could pose a threat to public health and safety, the environment, crops, plants, animals, or materiel.

D. Ethical Obligations of Scientists Publishing outside the Scientific Literature

1. A scientist who publishes in the general literature should accurately report observations and data with unbiased interpretations in a scientific journal.
2. For persons who may not have professional knowledge and may not understand scientific terminologies, a scientist may use general words and terms with less precision to promote public understanding. For communication with the general public, some loss of accuracy in scientific expression may be acceptable. A scientist, however, should keep the accuracy of public writing, statements, and speaking.
3. It is unacceptable for a scientist to proclaim any discovery to the public without experimental, theoretical or statistical evidence that warrants publication in the scientific literature. An account of experimental studies and data that support a pronouncement to the public should be quickly submitted for publication in a scientific journal.
4. A scientist should be clearly aware that the disclosure of research findings, including data and observations, in the press, databases, or any bulletin boards may be considered by an editor a preliminary communication in the scientific literature.