Journal of Pharmacopuncture Ethical Approval

• Article 1. Research Ethics Rules for Authors

  Section.1.1. No Copying, Forging and Falsification

  (1)	Authors should not falsely claim that they have conducted research when they have not. Other researchers' academic achievements can be used for reference, including the original sources. Presenting other researchers' research as your own constitutes plagiarism.
  (2)	Faking research data, manipulating research procedures, changing and deleting arbitrarily are banned as there could affect the research outcomes.

  Section.1.2. Publication Contribution

  (1)	Authors are recognized for their own research and assume responsibility for the contents of their papers.
  (2)	Authors and papers should be listed based on their contributions to the research. Being in certain positions cannot be counted as co-authors, first authors, or corresponding authors. Not recognizing any contributions in any forms is not justified. When the levels of contributions are not big, gratitude comes in the form of a footnote or a preface.

  Section.1.3. Previous Publication or Duplicate Submission

  • The Editor assumes that all authors listed in a manuscript have agreed with the following policy of Journal of Pharmacopuncture and are responsible for the whole content on submission of manuscripts. Authors should not submit articles previously published or in press or under review. Submitting the same papers to other similar journals is not allowed. Using parts of previously published papers for publication requires consents from the publishers.
  • If a new author is added or an author is deleted after the submission, the corresponding author is responsible to ensure that the authors concerned are aware of and agree with the changes. Journal of Pharmacopuncture has no responsibility for such changes.

  Section.1.4. Citation and Reference

  (1)	Use of academic data should be clearly stated, and its sources should be disclosed in the paper unless it is shared knowledge. Information obtained through personal discussion can be used with consent from the provider of the information.
  (2)	When using other people's papers for reference or opinion, the details can be written in a footnote, indicating which part of the research is cited from other people's papers and showing the authors' own ideas, arguments and interpretations.

  Section.1.5. Authorship

  • Authorship credit should be based on 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, and/or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article 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 that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. Every author should meet all of these four conditions. After the initial submission of a manuscript, any changes whatsoever in authorship (adding author(s), deleting author(s), or re-arranging the order of authors) must be explained by a letter to the editor from the authors concerned. This letter must be signed by all authors of the paper. Copyright assignment must also be completed by every author.

  (1)	Corresponding author and first author: Journal of Pharmacopuncture does not allow multiple corresponding authors for one article. Only one author should correspond with the editorial office and readers for one article. Journal of Pharmacopuncture does accept notice of equal contribution for the first author when the study was clearly performed by co-first authors.
  (2)	Correction of authorship after publication: Journal of Pharmacopuncture does not correct authorship after publication unless a mistake has been made by the editorial staff. Authorship may be changed before publication but after submission when an authorship correction is requested by all of the authors involved with the manuscript.

  Section.1.6. Human Rights in Experiments

  • For research on humans, the study protocol must be reviewed and approved by the appropriate Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB approval number should be provided (e.g. Approval No. 2019013). In addition, informed consent must be obtained from all subjects at the time they are enrolled. Editorial Board and Reviewer is able to reject manuscripts for concerning of ethical or human welfare.

  Section.1.7. Animal Rights in Experiments

  • For animal experimentation, the procedures used and the care of animals should be approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) of one of the authors' institution(s), and the approval number should be provided (e.g. Approval No. 2019011). Additionaly, pathogens involving research requiring a high degree of biosafety should pass the review of a relevant committee (e.g., an Institutional Biosafety Committee). Editorial Board and Reviewer is able to reject manuscripts for concerning of ethical or human welfare.
• Article.2. Research Ethics Rules for Editorial Board Members

  Section.2.1. Roles

  • The Editorial Board members assume the responsibility for deciding whether to publish submitted papers. They need to respect the authors' individualities.

  Section.2.2. No Bias

  • All submissions should be treated equally and evaluated fairly based on the quality of the manuscripts and by the rules. No special treatment is given for authors' gender, age, affiliation, or personal connection.

  Section.2.3. Review

  • The Editorial Board members should commission reviewers who are well knowledgeable in their areas with good judgment. Persons with personal ties to the authors should not be recommended as reviewers. Reviewers who are hostile towards authors should not be considered as reviewers. When review results are significantly different from reviewer to reviewer, the Editorial Board can seek advice from outside experts with deep knowledge of the field for a final decision.

  Section.2.4. Confidentiality Disclosure

  • Until the final decision of acceptance is made, no information about the authors or the manuscript can be released.

  Section.2.5. Duty for Report

  • If any complaints are made about the review of a manuscript to the Editorial Board, it should be reported to the Ethics Board immediately.
• Article.3. Research Ethics Rules for Reviewers

  Section.3.1. Review Period and Decline of Review

  • Reviewers are required to evaluate papers commissioned by the Editorial Board within a certain period of time set for review. They need to inform the Editorial Board of the review results. If the reviewer thinks he or she will not be able to serve as a reviewer for some reasons, he or she should notify the Editorial Board of his or her inability to do the review.

  Section.3.2. No bias

  • Reviewers are required to review manuscripts fairly and objectively. They also should not allow any personal beliefs or personal ties to disrupt the review process. Rejecting manuscripts because they are against personal beliefs or interpretations without properly presenting sensible reasons is not acceptable. Reviewing without thoroughly reading the manuscripts is also not acceptable.

  Section.3.3. Notification

  • Reviewers should notify the Editorial Board when they find that papers they are reviewing have been published in other journals or are under review. Also, any problems concerning the papers should be addressed to the Editorial Board.

  Section.3.4. Making Reviewers' Comments

  • Reviewers should respect the authors' individualities. While expressing opinions on manuscripts in an evaluation form, the reviewers need to explain why the paper needs corrections. Reviewers' comments should be expressed positively. Belittling or insulting authors is not allowed.

  Section.3.5. Confidentiality Disclosure

  • Information on assigned papers should be kept confidential by reviewers. Showing the papers to or consulting with someone else is not desirable unless the reviewers are seeking advice for review. Citing any passages in whole or part from the manuscript before publication is not allowed.
• Article.4. Standards of Ethics and Guidelines
  • It is committed to adhering to the standards and guidelines set out by the COPE. The following are useful links for authors, reviewers and editors (COPE, COPE Flow Charts, International Standards for Editors and Authors).
  • COPE https://publicationethics.org/
  • COPE Flow Charts https://publicationethics.org/guidance/
  • Flowcharts International Standards for Editors and Authors
    https://publicationethics.org/resources/resources-andfurtherreading/international-standards-editors-and-authors