The European Journal of Korean Studies (the Journal) is committed to following best practices on ethical matters, including plagiarism. To this end, the following duties outlined for editors, authors, and reviewers are based on the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors.


  1. Publication Decisions: Based on the review reports provided by peer reviewers, the editors can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript.
  2. Review of Manuscripts: The editors must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated for originality and cogency of argument. After this the manuscript is sent to at least two reviewers for double-blind peer review. Each reviewer will provide comments and a recommendation to accept, reject, or modify the manuscript. The review period will normally be within 60 days.
  3. Fair Play: The editors must ensure that each manuscript received by the Journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors.
  4. Confidentiality: The editors must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors and the identity of the peer reviewers are kept confidential.
  5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The editors of the Journal will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his or her own research without written consent of the author.


  1. Reporting Standards: Authors should present an accurate account of their scholarship and original research as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Manuscripts will follow the submission guidelines of the journal.
  2. Originality: Upon submission the Editors require authors to affirm that the manuscript’s contents are original.
  3. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications: Authors should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. It is also expected that the author will not publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing same research or that based on essentially similar data in more than one journal. Upon submission the Editors require authors to affirm that their article has neither been published elsewhere in any language fully or partly, nor is currently under review for publication elsewhere.
  4. Acknowledgement of Sources: Authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in research work.
  5. Authorship of the Paper: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made significant contribution must be listed as co-authors. Authors also ensure that all the authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript and their inclusion of names as co-authors.
  6. Data Access and Retention: Authors should be prepared to provide raw data related to their manuscript if requested for editorial review and must retain such data.
  7. Disclosure of Financial Support: Sources of financial support for research and writing, if any, must be clearly disclosed.
  8. Fundamental Errors in Published Works: If at any point of time, the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, then the error or inaccuracy must be reported to the editor immediately.


  1. Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information.
  2. Conflict of Interest: If the reviewer is able to identify the author of the manuscript and determines that the integrity of the double-blind review process is therefore compromised, the reviewer must inform the editor of this situation and decline the invitation to serve as a reviewer.
  3. Acknowledgement of Sources: Manuscript reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. Any kind of similarity or overlap between the manuscripts under consideration or with any other published paper of which reviewer has personal knowledge must be immediately brought to the editors’ notice.
  4. Standards of Objectivity: Review of submitted manuscripts must be done objectively and the reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  5. Promptness: In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete review of manuscript within stipulated time then this information must be communicated to the editor, so that the manuscript can be sent to another reviewer.