Authorship

The Editors of the Exercise Science (ES) journal from the Korean Society of Exercise Physiology (KSEP) expect each author to have 1) made an important contribution to the conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data in the study; 2) drafted or revised the manuscript critically for intellectual content; and 3) approved the final version of the submitted manuscript. Those who meet all three criteria should be included as authors. Those who do not meet all three criteria should not be included as authors. The Editors also expect each author to 1) take responsibility for at least one component of the work; 2) have access to the raw data and figure files for his/her component of the work; 3) be able to identify who is responsible for each other component; and 4) be confident in their co-authors' ability and integrity. One author, usually the corresponding author, must be thoroughly familiar with the original data for the entire study and be responsible for the integrity of the entire work. If the paper, or part of the paper, is found to be faulty or fraudulent, all co-authors may share responsibility.

The Mandatory Submission Form should be signed by each author. In cases in which obtaining a signature from each author would delay publication, the corresponding author’s signature is sufficient provided that the corresponding author understands that he or she signs on behalf of the other authors who have not signed the form. An author’s name can be removed only at his/her request, but all co-authors must sign a change of authorship agreement for any change in authorship (additions, removals, or change of order) to be made.

This policy is adapted from the Authorship and Contributorship section of the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts.

Conflict of Interest

Authors are required at the time of submission to disclose any perceived or potential conflict of interest, financial or otherwise (e.g., consultancies, stock ownership, equity interests, patent-licensing arrangements, lack of access to data, or lack of control of the decision to publish, or any other potential conflict) in the Conflict of Interest Disclosure section of the Web-based manuscript submission system. Likewise, authors invited to write Editorial Focus articles must disclose whether there is a perceived or potential conflict of interest with any of the authors of the featured article, such as an ongoing, working collaboration, a co-authored publication in the last three years, or a trainee-mentor relationship in the past five years. Failure to report actual or perceived conflicts of interest prior to peer review may result in publication delays or rejection of the manuscript.

The Mandatory Submission Form should be signed by each author. In cases in which obtaining a signature from each author would delay publication, the corresponding author’s signature is sufficient provided that the corresponding author understands that he or she signs on behalf of the other authors who have not signed the form. An author’s name can be removed only at his/her request, but all co-authors must sign a change of authorship agreement for any change in authorship (additions, removals, or change of order) to be made.

This policy is adapted from the Authorship and Contributorship section of the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts.

Editor and Reviewer Conflict of Interest

Editors and Reviewers should avoid making decisions on papers for which they may have a potential conflict of interest, financial or otherwise. Reviewers who are collaborating with the author, or who are working on very similar research, should recuse themselves from reviewing a paper for which they have a conflict. An Editor in Chief should have a Consulting Editor or Associate Editor to make a decision on a paper for which he or she has a conflict. When an Editor in Chief submits a paper to his or her journal, the paper is automatically assigned to the Deputy Editor, a Consulting Editor, or an Associate Editor, who will handle all aspects of the peer review of the paper. Such reviews are handled in the web-based peer review system in such a way that the author (i.e., the Editor in Chief) will not have access.

Participants Confidentiality and Consent to Publication

Manuscripts reporting human studies must contain statements indicating that informed, written consent has been obtained (unless waived by the IRB/ethics committee committee) and that studies have been performed according to the Declaration of Helsinki. If individuals might be identified from a publication (eg, from images), the authors must obtain explicit written consent from the individual. All case reports must include a statement of release or other written form of approval from the patient or patients indicating that they approve publication of the details of their case.

Human and Animal Right

The research woks carried out must be all carried out within an appropriate ethical framework. If any suspicious work has taken place within an unethical framework, Exerc Sci editors will reject the manuscript, and/or contact the author(s)’ ethics committee. There might be some rare occasions, when the editor may have serious concerns about the ethics of a study and the manuscript may be rejected on ethical grounds, even if an approval from an ethics committee has been obtained.

In research involving human subjects, data, and material must have been performed with accord to the Declaration of Helsinki. The study must also have been approved ad supported by an appropriate ethics/bioethics committee. For author reporting new tools or procedures in clinical setting rather than using the already approved ones, they must provide appropriate justification as to why the new tool or procedure is superior to meet patient’s clinical needs. Authors must have obtained approval form ethics committee approval and have informed and signed consent from the subjects for any experimental use of a novel procedure or tool where a clear clinical benefit based on clinical need was not apparent before treatment.

Research Misconduct

If the editors suspect research misconduct in a submitted manuscript, the article in question will be held until the matter is resolved. The editors will contact authors and any appropriate third party to ascertain whether the grounds for investigation are justified. If serious research misconduct is discovered, the editors may contact the authors’ institutions. If research misconduct is suspected after a paper is accepted and published, the matter will be investigated according to Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Potential cases of serious research misconduct will be referred to the ES Ethics Committee for evaluation and recommendations for action. The final determination of action will be made by the Editor-in-Chief.
Depending upon the seriousness of the misconduct, the paper may be retracted and the authors’ institution may be notified. In any case of serious research misconduct, all authors of such an article may be banned from future publication in ES for a specified period of time or indefinitely.
ES utilizes the Korea Citation Index (KCI) and Copy Killer system to screen papers for evidence of plagiarism. This includes plagiarism of the works of others, redundant publication, and self-plagiarism. If a submitted paper shows similarities to other papers by the authors, the authors may be asked to modify it or the paper may be rejected. If a submission is plagiarized from the work of others, that submission will be rejected and further sanctions may be instituted as described above. Manipulation or enhancement of any images contained in a manuscript, whether electronic or otherwise, should bedeclared in the legend to the image. Undeclared image manipulation shall be considered as a form of author misconduct.

Plagiarism, Falsification, and Fabrication

Manuscripts should not include plagiarized, fabricated, or falsified content. Taking material from another’s work and submitting it as one’s own is considered plagiarism. Making up or altering information to agree with one’s conclusion, including altering data, is considered to be fabrication or falsification.

Duplicate Publication

The ES journal accepts only papers that are original work, no part of which has been published elsewhere except as brief abstracts. Taking material (including tables, figures, and data; or extended text passages) from the authors’ own prior publications is considered duplicate publication or self-plagiarism and is not permitted. *Exceptions to the policy on duplicate publication include:

• Repetition of control experiments using animal models may violate IACUC(Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee) requirements, for use of the minimum number of animals needed to accomplish the science. As such, reuse of control data in animal studies may not be considered duplicate publication when the methodology and conditions are identical. However, repetition of control experiments is scientifically warranted when the methodology and/or conditions have changed, even to a minimal degree (e.g. operator variability, seasonal variability, diurnal variability; day to day variability, genetic drift, as well as other factors).
• Republishing data to make a direct, illustrative comparison with new findings may be allowed when the purpose of republication is not simply to expand or reinforce a line of argument but to allow for an explicit comparison that would be much harder for the reader to make otherwise. The amount of reuse should represent a small fraction of the total information presented in the paper.

Prior Publication

Material published or posted online by the author before submission, including but not limited to the following categories is considered prior publication: 1) articles or parts of articles, published in any publication, whether in digital or print format; 2) articles, book chapters, and long abstracts containing original data in figures and tables, especially in proceedings publications; 3) posters containing original data disseminated beyond meeting attendees.

Doctoral dissertations that are made freely available via either institutional repositories or by third parties on behalf of the institution are not considered prior publication.

Editors’ and Reviewers’ Duty of Confidentiality to Authors

The editors and reviewers of ES treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents, which means they will not divulge information about a manuscript to anyone without the authors’ permission nor use knowledge of its contents for their own benefit. During the process of manuscript review, the following people may have access to manuscripts:

• Editors and editorial staff
• External peer reviewers

Selecting a Good Editor

Editors play a key role on our journals: they put their reputation and name to the journal, they help publishers steer the strategic direction of the journal and they oversee the journal's peer-review process. So, one of the biggest responsibilities of a publisher is to invest the time and effort necessary to appoint the right editors.

Before we start the recruitment process for an editor, we think through what we want to achieve: "What is best for the ES journal, and what is best for the community that journal serves?"

The Role of the Editor

Peer reviewers may make a recommendation about an article, but it is the editor who has the ultimate responsibility to make a final decision on whether to accept or reject an article for publication in a journal.

An editor does not have to be the leading scientist in the field, though many are, and in every case, he or she will have an impressive academic career. Even more important, a great editor is characterized by excellent communication skills, a clear vision and commitment to the field, the ability to work in a team, and visibility and respect in the community. Great editors are also independent thinkers who are not afraid of making difficult decisions.

Journals — and journal editors — reflect their communities

The needs and wants of any scientific discipline are likely to change over time, and the journal needs to anticipate and adapt to those changing requirements. Sometimes that means changes are required in the editorial and publishing team to reflect new subject orientation or expertise.

Changing editors

While editors normally serve for a set term, some may step down mid-term for their own understandable personal and professional reasons. When an editor decides to move on, he or she will often help the publisher in succession planning. In other cases, it is the publisher's responsibility to ask an editor to step down in the interests of the journal, sometimes in consultation with members of the journal community. This may happen for a variety of reasons, but it is always difficult. Editors rightly feel great personal responsibility for the journal and have a strong connection to it. But in some cases, they are no longer able to carry out the role, for a wide range of reasons.

Difficult decisions like these are an essential part of the publisher's responsibility for the proper running of a journal and in the best interest of authors. There are many points of decision making like this in the course of managing a journal that is successful in contributing to its community. In each instance, we have found that open and honest discussion and feedback are essential and generally produce a common understanding and outcome that is in the best interest of authors, the journal, and the community.