Skip Navigation
Skip to contents



Code of ethics

Page Path
HOME > Policy > Code of ethics

Enacted      December 1, 2019
Amended    April 14, 2023       

Chapter 1. Overall Rules

Article 1. Purpose
The purpose of this regulation is to ensure that all articles submitted and published in GEO DATA, a journal published by the GeoAI Data Society (hereinafter referred to as the “Society”), maintain high ethical standards that do not infringe on human dignity and values or damage the common interests of society, establish research ethics, and contribute to healthy academic and social development by fairly and systematically verifying ethics in the event of acts that violate research ethics.

Article 2. Application Area

  • 1. The code applies to papers submitted to and published in GEO DATA and to all activities leading to the publication of papers.
  • 2. The code also applies to all academic activities, including conferences, symposiums, workshops, and forums, etc. published and held by the Society.
  • 3. The code applies to all authors, reviewers, editorial board (hereinafter referred to as “EB”), and hands-onworkers in the office related with the above academic activities.
  • 4. Other items not set forth above may comply with this article, each level of regulations of the Ministry of Education and its annex institutions.

Article 3. Scope of Misconduct
Acts that violate research ethics (hereinafter referred to as ‘misconduct’) are defined as forging, falsification, plagiarism, self-plagiarism, false indication of the author of the paper, duplicate publication, and all activities leading up to the publication of papers and academic activities, and are as follows:

  • 1. ‘Forging’ is the act of creating false data or non-existent research results.
  • 2. ‘Falsification’ is the act of perverting research content or results by artificially modifying research ingredients, equipment or processes, or arbitrarily modifying and deleting data.
  • 3. ‘Plagiarism’ is the act of appropriating others’ ideas, research contents or results without proper approval or quotation. The following two forms of plagiarism are the most common forms of plagiarism.
    • - Arbitrarily utilizing the original author’s ideas, logic, unique terminology, data, or analytical framework without attribution.
    • - Paraphrasing a significant number of phrases and ideas from another person’s work or paper without attribution or quotation marks.
  • 4. ‘Self-plagiarism’ is the reuse of substantial portions of a copyrighted article in the same language that has already been published by the author in another journal, either verbatim or with minor changes, without explicit citation or reference.
  • 5. ‘False indication of the author of the paper’ is the act of not granting the qualification as an author of the paper without a reasonable cause to a person who contributed scientifically or technically on a research content or result, or granting qualification of an author of the paper to a person who did not contribute scientifically or technically to express gratitude or show respect.
  • 6. ‘Duplicate publication’ refers to the intentional or unintentional publication of all or part of an article in two or more journals (including general periodicals) with similar research objectives, methods, research materials, and research conclusions.
  • 7. Activity of intentionally interfering investigation on the doubts of one’s own or other’s misconduct, or disturbing the informant.
  • 8. Activity that seriously deviates from the scope commonly accepted in the science and technology sector.
  • 9. Activity other than the misconduct set forth above that needs to be independently investigated or prevented by the editorial office of the Society.

Chapter 2. Authorship

Article 4. Honesty of Author

  • 1. The researcher shall be honest in research carried out by an individual. Here, honesty refers to honesty in overall research processes including derivation of ideas, designing experiments, analyses of experiments and results, research funds, publishing research results, and fair compensation to research participants.
  • 2. The researcher shall consider as forging, falsification, plagiarism, self-plagiarism, false indication of the author of the paper, duplicate publication during research as serious criminal activities, and endeavor to prevent these misconducts.
  • 3. The author shall announce and properly respond in case of contradiction or the possibility of contradiction of benefits of one’s own and others or other institutions.
  • 4. Researchers shall report any suspected cases of misconduct under this Article to the Secretariat in an appropriate manner.

Article 5. Compliance of Author

  • 1. During the research implementation process of the submitted paper, the author shall respect human rights, comply with life ethics, and obtain universality such as environment protection.
  • 2. In the submitted paper, the author shall accurately illustrate the research content and its importance without perverting the research result.
  • 3. The submitted paper shall comprehensively include an academically valuable result and its basis of argument. If the paper asserts for a conclusion similar to an already announced paper, it should be academically valuable for a new basis of argument.
  • 4. If citing a public academic data, its source must be clearly stated. For data obtained from an undisclosed paper, research plan or personal contact, it should be cited after consent from the researcher who provided the information.
  • 5. Using the whole or part of another researcher’s research result without citing the reference corresponds to plagiarism and is not allowed.
  • 6. The activity of duplicate publication by an author in the journal issued by the society where the paper is already published or planning to publish in other academic journals is considered misconduct and not allowed. Submitting content already presented in academic conferences or seminars by rewriting in a paper according to the academic journal standard is generally accepted, but it must additionally have an important research result for the relevant presentation.
  • 7. All researchers who made important contributions to research implementation shall become co-authors, and the representative author of the paper must have consents from all co-authors. For outside academic support such as administrative and financial support, provision of research data or simple academic advice shall be indicated in the ‘Acknowledgement’ for its content.
  • 8. Indicating a person who did not make academic contribution to research or falls short of contribution based on causes outside academics is unethical conduct that defames the dignity of academics.
  • 9. In relation to copyrights, if approval of a person in charge is needed, the author must be granted approval before submission of the paper, and confirm that there will be no dispute of contract or ownership that may be affected by the publication of said paper.

Chapter 3. Roles and Responsibilities of Members of Committee

Article 6. Compliance of Editorial Board

  • 1. The EB shall fairly and objectively execute the revision process of the paper according to the set regulation without prejudice on the author’s gender, age, race, affiliated institution or personal acquaintanceship with the author.
  • 2. The EB shall determine whether to reconsider or publish the paper based on the consistent standard of the review results for the submitted paper.
  • 3. If it is determined that due to the lack of EB’s knowledge in the research area of the submitted paper, there may be difficulty in judging the result, the EB may be advised by a person with professional knowledge in the relevant area.
  • 4. The EB shall not disclose or make use of the information acquired in the review process to others. Before the publication in the journal, it is not even allowed to cite the content of the relevant paper without the consent of the author.
  • 5. The EB has the responsibility to monitor any unethical activity of the author and reviewers, and when ethically inadequate behavior is discovered; the EB shall investigate and give proper sanction as required by immediately reporting to the Editor-in-Chief (hereinafter referred to as “EiC”).
  • 6. If the submitted paper has direct interest with the EB, it should be reported to the EiC so that the relevant paper can be examined by another EB.
  • 7. In case of reasons that prevent the EB to promptly process the duty, it is advised to report to the editorial office of the Society or the EiC.
  • 8. In case of discovering any unethical activity from a submitted paper or reviewing process, or in case of deprecation on unethical activities, the EB shall determine the importance of the case, and organize an Investigation Committee with EB in the relevant area if needed. The EB determines the level of sanction to the relevant person based on the report by the Investigation Committee, and if the already published paper is related, the publication of the relevant paper may be retracted and cancelled.

Article 7. Compliance of Reviewers

  • 1. The reviewer shall fairly and objectively perform reviewing duty for examining the paper according to the set regulation without the prejudice on the author’s gender, age, race, affiliated institution or personal acquaintanceship with the author. Personal academic beliefs that have not been completed, verified or under judgment based on assumption must be eliminated.
  • 2. The reviewer, in order to assure the secrecy of reviewing the paper, must not disclose or make use of information acquired in the process of reviewing to others. Before the publication of the paper, it is not allowed to even cite the content of the relevant paper without the consent of the author.
  • 3. The reviewer must respect the personality of the author as a professional. The reviewer shall endeavor to write the objective reviewer’s opinion in an academically modest way by eliminating personal and subjective evaluations and offensive expressions. The reviewer shall state in detail the review comments and basis for the comments of the paper under review.
  • 4. It is prohibited to request for additional information or explanation to the author for the reviewer’s personal purpose.
  • 5. If the similar content to the paper disclosed in other academic journals has been included in the paper without citation, the EB should be notified in detail.
  • 6. If the reviewer is in direct interest with the requested paper or it is determined that the reviewer’s own professional area is not suitable for examining the submitted paper, the reviewer should immediately notify the EB in charge so that other reviewers may be appointed. Also, in case of a reason for not being able to finish the review within the deadline, it needs to be notified to the EB.

Chapter 4. Verification Process and Standard

Article 8. Ethics Committee

  • 1. In case of breach of ethics and suspected cases during academic activities, the Society may organize an Ethics Committee to investigate the truth.
  • 2. Organization and Duties of Committee
    • ① The Committee shall be composed of one chairman, one vice-chairman and members.
    • ② The EiC in charge of the Editorial Committee shall be the chairman, and vice-chairman shall be selected from the Editorial Committee.
    • ③ The members shall be appointed by the EiC in consideration of their areas of specialization.
    • ④ The chairman, vice-chairman and members shall take office for 1 year and can be reelected.

Article 9. Function of Ethics Committee

  • The Ethics Committee shall act in the following manners:
  • 1. Prevent and discourage research misconduct.
  • 2. Deliberate and vote on research misconduct.
  • 3. Determine sanctions for wrongdoers and report the result to the board of directors.
  • 4. Improve and enhance other research ethics.

Article 10. Convocation and Voting of Ethics Committee

  • 1. The Ethics Committee shall be convened by the chairperson as needed, held in attendance of the majority of members, and resolved by over two-thirds of registered members’ agreements.
  • 2. The decision shall be notified to the suspected person (accused) of misconduct, and the explanatory opinion shall be received in writing within 15 days.
  • 3. The Ethics Committee shall review an explanatory opinion from the suspected person of misconduct, and hear an opinion if needed before making the final decision.
  • 4. The decision shall be reported to the board of directors for the final decision.
  • 5. If the chairman deems it necessary, opinions by a person other than external personnel or members can be heard.
  • 6. Presented content by participants and details of the Ethics Committee shall be undisclosed in principle.

Article 11. Reporting Research Misconduct

  • 1. Research misconduct may be reported in writing with related documents attached according to the five W’s and one H. However, even if anonymously reported, if it is clear based on the five W’s and one H, the Committee may review the initiation of investigation.
  • 2. The Editorial Committee shall endeavor not to give any disadvantage, discrimination, unreasonable pressure or damage to the informant for reporting misconduct.
  • 3. The identity of the informant shall not be subject to disclosure, and the best measures shall be taken to prevent identity disclosure.
  • 4. In case the informant wishes to know the investigation schedule and procedure after reporting misconduct, the Society shall respond sincerely.
  • 5. The informant who made the report although it was known or it could be known that the information given is false shall not be subject to protection.

Article 12. Sanctions on Research Misconduct and Follow-up Actions

  • 1. The author whose research misconduct has been confirmed shall be imposed with sanction by selecting from the following considering the severity of the misconduct according to the decision made by the Ethics Committee:
    • ① Cancel publication of relevant research subject to GEO DATA
    • ② Prohibit submission of paper to GEO DATA for five years
    • ③ Prohibit presentation in the Society academic conference for five years
    • ④ If the relevant paper has already been published, notify cancellation of publication in the relevant academic journal, and notify the misconduct to the affiliated institution of the wrongdoer
    • ⑤ Cancel membership to the Society
  • 2. If the informant intentionally made a false report, the sanction equivalent to the research misconduct may be given according to the decision of the Ethics Committee.

Article 13. Protection of Rights of Examinee

  • 1. The examinee refers to a person who has become the subject of investigation for misconduct due to the report or cognition by the Society or related institution, or a person who has become the subject of investigation by suspecting of taking part in misconduct during the investigation process. The examinee shall not include testifiers or witnesses.
  • 2. Ethics Committee shall be careful not to violate the dignity or rights of an examinee during the verification process, and also, until the confirmation of the results, the examinee shall have an equal opportunity for objection or defense, and shall be notified in advance of the related procedure.
  • 3. The suspicion of misconduct shall not be disclosed to the public until the judgment has been confirmed. However, this does not include cases where serious risk may be present to public welfare or social norms.
  • 4. The examinee may request for investigation and processing procedure as well the processing schedule for misconduct to Ethics Committee, and said Ethics Committee shall respond sincerely.

Article 14. Disclosure of Record and Information of Investigation

  • 1. The Ethics Committee shall store the investigation report of the entire investigation process obtained in the form of voice, video or written document for at least 5 years.
  • 2. The report of investigation and list of investigators may be disclosed after judgment has been made.
  • 3. If the list of investigators, witnesses, testifiers, or consultants has the possibility to cause disadvantage to the concerned personnel, it may not be disclosed.

Article 15. Report of Investigation Result

  • 1. The Ethics Committee shall report the confirmation of the examined content to the board of directors of the Society within 6 months of the submission date after completion and judgment of the investigation.
  • 2. The report of the result must include each of the following
    • items:
    • ① Content of information
    • ② Misconduct subject to investigation
    • ③ List of investigators of Investigation Committee
    • ④ The role of the examinee in the relevant research and validity of misconduct
    • ⑤ Related evidence and witnesses
    • ⑥ Objection or defense by informant and examinee, and its processing result
  • 3. Until the final judgment on the research misconduct, it must not be disclosed to the public.

Supplementary Provisions

Article 1. Enforcement Date

  • (Enacted December 1, 2019) This regulation shall come into effect on the date of promulgation.
  • (Amended April 14, 2023) This regulation shall come into effect as amended on April 14, 2023.

Article 2. Transitional Measures

Matters processed under existing regulations prior to the effective date of this Code shall be deemed to be processed under this Code.