Ethics Standards for Submission and Peer Review of Manuscripts

Board approval December 5, 2014
Section 1 General rules(Purpose)
Article 1 The manuscript to be submitted should be in accordance with the ethics standards of theJapan Society of Naval Architects and Ocean Engineers, as it stipulates what should becomplied with during the submission and peer review of manuscripts.

Section 2 Responsibilities of authors(Manuscript submission requirements)
Article 2 The manuscript to be submitted must meet the conditions set out in the submission standardsand ensure a standard that contributes to the progress and development of naval architecture andocean engineering. Submitting a manuscript for commercial purposes is inappropriate.

(Prohibition of double submission)
Article 3 Manuscripts with essentially the same content must not be submitted to multiple journals
that require original manuscripts. An original manuscript is a full-length refereed article
published by an academic society or the like. Submission includes all processes fromacceptance to the publication of the manuscript.

(Coauthors)
Article 4 The authorship is attributed only to and limited to the person(s) who has/have made anessential contribution to the completion of the manuscript. Inclusion of person(s) who has/haveno contribution as coauthor(s) out of courtesy is not permitted. Moreover, all authors must
consent to publishing the manuscript. Even a deceased person can be included as an author
under these conditions (The condition of consent is not essential in such a case).

(Providing enough information)
Article 5 In the manuscript, the author(s) must clarify previous research behind the study, theinformation necessary to reproduce, verify, and evaluate the results of the study, and mustdescribe the argumentation process. Moreover, sufficient review must be conducted for otherpublications, and the source must be indicated in citations.

(Notes on citing others’ work)
Article 6

The author(s) must exercise due diligence regarding existing copyrights when citing others’

work. The author(s) will be solely responsible should the content of the study infringe thecopyrights attributed to others.
2 Requirements stipulated in Article 32 of the Copyright Act must be complied with when citing
others’ published work.
3 Information obtained privately through conversations, letters, and discussions by third parties,must not be cited and the contents must not be published without permission of the parties
concerned.
4 Undisclosed intellectual properties of entities such as companies must not be used withoutauthorization.

(Notes on critical citations of others’ work)
Article 7 Citing and critically describing others’ work on sound academic grounds is permissible;
however, any unsubstantiated criticism or slander/libel is unacceptable.

(Prohibition of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism)
Article 8 The submitted manuscript must not contain any fabricated or falsified information.
Moreover, information such as data must not be plagiarized from other publications. Fabricationrefers to deliberate production of data that is not based on facts. Falsification refers to deliberate
rewriting of data without any substantiation. Plagiarism refers to unpermitted use of data andknowledge of others’ as if it is one’s own.

(Use of others’ unpublished data)
Article 9 Unpublished results, data, and ideas must not be cited without approval from the holder oradministrator of the relevant copyrights because such an action would result in plagiarism by
implicitly indicating them to be the author's original work.

(Protection of human rights of subjects/participants of surveys)
Article 10 In the research preceding the preparation of the manuscript, the author(s) must not violate
the human rights of subjects in investigations such as surveys. Moreover, in experimental
studies, life, health, privacy, and dignity of the participants must be protected. Specifically,manuscripts describing data on experiments related to life and living organisms must include
statements indicating compliance with the norms and standards set forth in laws and principles,such as in the ethical principles regarding human experimentation developed for the medicalcommunity [Declaration of Helsinki] (see note), and related ethics, standards and criteria oflaws and regulations of Japan. For example, such compliance can be described using statements
like “The ethics committee of the affiliated organization or the animal experimentationcommittee approved the study.”(Note) Declaration of Helsinki is a set of ethical principles regarding human experimentation
developed for the medical community by the World Medical Association (WMA) in 1964. TheJapanese translated version is available from the Japan Medical Association (JMA).

Section 3 Responsibilities of reviewers(Awareness of the role of reviewers)
Article 11 The reviewer has a critical role in judging whether to publish a manuscript and should beaware of such important responsibility as well as conduct peer review fairly and promptly inaccordance with the manuscript peer review guidelines.

(Declining peer review)
Article 12 Accepting peer review request is a responsibility that a member must fulfill. However, if
the reviewer considers oneself not appropriate for exercising fair judgment or if it is judged thatthe review cannot be completed within the specified deadline, then the reviewer must
immediately inform the peer review committee and decline the request. Moreover, if thereviewer has any personal conflict of interest regarding the author(s) or the subject manuscript,
then the reviewer must not conduct the review and immediately decline the request.

(Ensuring objectivity in peer review)
Article 13 The peer review must be conducted objectively and ethically based on perspectives such asusefulness, originality, and reliability related to the development of naval architecture and oceanengineering. The reviewer must refrain from any judgment that is not objective and logical,
driven by personal thoughts or likes, or dislikes associated with the author(s) or the subject
manuscript.

(Considerations for the author(s))
Article 14 In peer review, enough respect should be paid to the personality and intellectual
independence of the author(s), and any statement or personal criticism that may appear
disrespectful to them must be avoided.

(Confidentiality)
Article 15 Reviewers must neither divulge to others that they have accepted a peer review request northe content in part or entirety of the manuscript being reviewed.

(Prohibition of use by reviewers for their own sake)
Article 16 The reviewers must not use the content of the manuscript for their own sake until themanuscript is published.

(Reporting to peer review committee)
Article 17 In case of suspicion regarding the manuscript content being a duplicate submission,
fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized, thereby being in violation of ethics standards, the reviewer

must immediately notify the peer review committee.

(Reporting peer review results)
Article 18 The reviewer must logically describe the judgment so that the peer review committee
members and the author(s) can understand it clearly. Especially, clear and appropriate
explanation is necessary for negative judgment.

Section 4 Responsibilities of peer review committee(Fair management of peer review committee)
Article 19 The peer review committee must maintain the standard of the journal through compliancewith the ethics standards and execution of fair and prompt review of submitted manuscripts.
2The peer review committee must review the submitted manuscripts and judge their values,
without any bias about race, religion, ethnicity, gender, age, nationality, occupation, affiliation,and political beliefs.

3

The peer review committee, taking responsibility, makes the decision regarding the acceptanceor non-acceptance based on the report by the reviewer.

4 Peer review committee members must not review manuscripts, when they themselves areauthor(s) or coauthor(s).
5

For already published manuscripts, when presented with objective evidence about errors incontent, conclusion, and references in the manuscript, the peer review committee must notify
the author(s), and after obtaining written responses, must implement appropriate measures suchas publication of corrigendum.

(Reviewer selection)
Article 20 The peer review committee must select the reviewers fairly. Moreover, persons withconflict of interest in the target manuscript must not be selected.

(Confidentiality)
Article 21 The peer review committee members must not divulge matters about the peer review toothers, except when receiving expert advice. When such advice is received, attributes such as
names of the advisers must be reported to the peer review committee.

(Objection)
Article 22 When the author of a manuscript that has been rejected for publication reports
dissatisfaction with the review results, the peer review committee must promptly investigate thevalidity of the objection.

(Response to reports of dishonesty in manuscripts)
Article 23 When the reviewer reports suspicions about double submission, slander/libel related tocitations, and other violations of ethics standards such as fabrication, falsification, andplagiarism, the peer review committee must promptly take appropriate actions such as notifying
the technical ethics committee.

Supplementary provisions(1) This standard shall come into effect on December 2014.