1-1. These Guidelines for Research and Publication Ethics outline the ethical responsibilities of authors, reviewers, editors, readers, members of the English Language and Literature Association of Korea (ELLAK), and members of the Research Ethics Committee. The purpose of these guidelines is to prevent research and publication misconduct and to provide fair, transparent, and standardized procedures for addressing ethical concerns.

1-2. These guidelines apply to all members of ELLAK, as well as any authors, reviewers, and editors involved in the submission, review, editing, and publication of manuscripts for JELL.

2-1. Authors must submit original research that has not been published elsewhere and is not currently under review by another journal or publisher. Authors are responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of all material included in their manuscript, as well as for ensuring all citations are appropriate.

2-2. Authors must observe JELL’s Research and Publication Ethics, Submission Guidelines, and manuscript formatting requirements. By submitting a manuscript to JELL, authors acknowledge that they have read these policies and agree to abide by them.

3-1. Plagiarism is strictly prohibited. Authors must not use the words, ideas, arguments, data, images, translations, or unique expressions of others without proper attribution. Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to, direct plagiarism, mosaic plagiarism, improper paraphrasing, self-plagiarism, redundant publication, data fabrication or falsification, citation manipulation, and any other act that misrepresents the originality or integrity of the submitted manuscript.

3-2. All manuscripts may be screened for plagiarism or text overlap before or during the review process. If misconduct is identified before publication, the manuscript may be rejected, the author may be asked for an explanation, or the case may be referred to the Research Ethics Committee. If misconduct is discovered after publication, JELL may issue a correction, an expression of concern, a retraction, or other appropriate notice.

4-1. Authors must not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal or publisher at the same time. Furthermore, authors should not submit or publish work that substantially overlaps with previously published research without proper citation, disclosure, and justification.

4-2. If a submitted manuscript is based on a thesis, conference paper, working paper, or any previously distributed material, the author must clearly disclose this upon submission and explain how the current manuscript significantly differs from the earlier version.

4-3. If duplicate submission or publication is confirmed, the manuscript may be rejected. If the article has already been published, JELL may issue a correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction, depending on the severity of the case.

5-1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made substantial intellectual contributions to the conception, design, research, analysis, interpretation, or writing of the manuscript. All authors must approve the final version of the manuscript and agree to take responsibility for its contents.

5-2. Co-authors may be asked to specify their individual contributions upon submission. Individuals who contributed to the study but do not meet the criteria for authorship should be acknowledged, with their consent, in the Acknowledgments section.

5-3. Guest, gift, or ghost authorship is strictly prohibited. Any changes to authorship after submission—including adding or removing authors or reordering names—must be approved by all authors and explained to the Editorial Board in writing.

5-4. AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors. Authors bear full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and proper citation of all submitted materials, including any text, translations, images, data, or references generated or assisted by AI. See Item 8 below.

6-1. Authors must include a Data Availability Statement explaining whether their research data, materials, and other supplementary information are accessible and, if so, how they can be obtained. If no data or materials are available, or if data sharing is not applicable to the study, this must also be clearly stated.

6-2. Where applicable, authors must include a Generative AI Disclosure stating whether AI or AI-assisted technologies were used during the manuscript's preparation. Regarding AI, see Item 8.

6-3. Authors must disclose all sources of financial support for the research, writing, editing, translation, and publication processes. Where applicable, the funding agencies supporting the research and publication process should be explicitly acknowledged.

7.1. Research involving human participants, personally identifiable information, sensitive information, surveys, interviews, oral histories, classroom materials or data, experiments, observation, online community data, or other materials that may constitute human subjects research must comply with applicable laws and with the research ethics and IRB regulations of the author’s affiliated institution.

7.2. Where IRB review is required, authors must obtain IRB approval or confirmation of exemption from their affiliated institution or another relevant institution before conducting the research. Where applicable, authors must state in the manuscript the name of the approving institution, approval number, approval date, or exemption status.

8-1. Authors must properly acknowledge all sources, materials, permissions, institutional support, and other forms of assistance that contributed to the research.

8-2. Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any financial, institutional, personal, professional, or intellectual conflicts of interest that could be perceived to influence the research, interpretation, review, or publication of the manuscript.

8-3. Reviewers and editors must decline involvement when a conflict may compromise, or appear to compromise, the fairness of the review or editorial decision.

9-1. Researchers must clearly understand that generative AI is not a substitute for their own original thinking or academic judgment. Any use of AI must remain distinct from the researcher's independent and creative academic contributions.

9-2. Presenting AI-generated content as one’s own original research or submitting it as-is may be considered research misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, fabrication, or falsification). We strongly recommend using generative AI only as a supplementary tool, such as for checking grammar, formatting, or conducting simple searches.

9-3. If a researcher uses generative AI, the Editorial Board may request a record of its usage, and the researcher is required to provide it. This record may be taken into account during the review process, and the board may use this information to request revisions or reject the manuscript.

9-4. If using generative AI is essential to the research—such as in digital humanities projects—researchers must document the process by citing chat logs or providing direct web links in their in-text citations or works cited. Please follow this format:

- Developer. Model Name. Version. Web Link. Date Accessed. Gen AI.

(Example: OpenAI. ChatGPT. GPT-4o. https://chat.openai.com/chat/xxxxx. May 10, 2025. Gen AI.)

9-5. If generative AI was used for tasks like searching, brainstorming, or generating ideas where individual citations aren't feasible, please disclose this in the acknowledgments section. Use of AI should be limited to supportive tasks—including translation, grammar/formatting corrections, and simple searches—and the author holds full responsibility for the final output.

9-6. The researcher assumes full responsibility for any issues arising from the use of generative AI, including potential plagiarism or copyright infringement. Be aware that generative AI can produce inaccurate or fictional information; the responsibility for verifying and evaluating such content lies entirely with the researcher. When citing sources, the researcher is responsible for confirming the existence of the original source material and properly documenting it.

10-1. The Editorial Board is responsible for ensuring the fairness, confidentiality, and integrity of the editorial and peer-review process. Editorial decisions should be based on academic merit, originality, relevance to the journal’s scope and aims, the quality of the arguments and evidence, and adherence to ethical standards and submission guidelines.

10-2. The Editorial Board must protect the anonymity of both authors and reviewers throughout the double-blind review process. Furthermore, board members must not use any unpublished materials, ideas, or information obtained during the editorial process for their own research or personal gain.

11-1. JELL utilizes a double-blind peer-review system, where neither the authors nor the external reviewers are aware of each other’s identities.

11-2. All submissions undergo an initial editorial screening. Manuscripts are evaluated based on their alignment with the journal’s aims and scope, compliance with submission requirements, ethical guidelines, and formatting standards, as well as their suitability for external review. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be returned to the author for revision or rejected without undergoing external review.

11-3. Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are typically sent to three external reviewers appointed by the Editorial Board. The board decides whether to proceed with external review following this preliminary assessment.

11-4. Review outcomes are categorized as "Accept," "Accept with Minor Revisions," "Major Revisions Required (Re-review)," or "Reject." Reviewers are expected to provide constructive feedback to help authors improve their work. Manuscripts marked for "Major Revisions" are not considered for the current issue. Once resubmitted, these manuscripts undergo a separate re-review process and may be considered for a future issue.

11-5. The Editorial Board holds the final authority on decisions regarding acceptance, revision, rejection, and publication. These decisions are based on a comprehensive assessment of the initial screening, external review reports, the quality of revisions, journal standards, and available space in upcoming issues.

11-6. The review process may take longer depending on submission volume, reviewer availability, the need for additional evaluations, and the extent of required revisions. Authors should be aware that high submission volumes may lead to delays in both review and publication timelines.

11-7. Acceptance of a manuscript does not guarantee publication in the immediately following issue. Depending on editorial schedules, production requirements, and space constraints, accepted papers may be scheduled for a subsequent issue.

12-1. Authors are expected to respond promptly and thoroughly to reasonable requests from the Editorial Board, editors, and reviewers during the review and revision process.

12-2. When a manuscript is returned for revision, authors must submit the revised version by the deadline specified by the Editorial Board. If additional time is needed for valid, specific reasons, authors may request an extension before the deadline expires.

12-3. If an author fails to respond to requests from the Editorial Board on two or more occasions without a valid reason, or fails to submit the revised manuscript by the specified deadline, the board may consider the manuscript withdrawn or the author's interest in publication abandoned, and may terminate the process.

13-1. Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts fairly, objectively, and constructively, while maintaining strict confidentiality. Evaluations should be based solely on academic merit; a recommendation to reject a manuscript should never be based on personal disagreement with the author’s views.

13-2. If a reviewer recommends revisions or rejection, they must provide clear, specific reasons for their decision. Review comments should be professional and must never contain discriminatory, biased, or inappropriate language.

13-3. Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, review reports, or any related confidential materials to generative AI tools or any other external platforms. Furthermore, reviewers are prohibited from using any unpublished data obtained during the review process for their own research or personal gain.

14-1. JELL is committed to promoting gender equality, diversity, and non-discrimination throughout the editorial, review, and publication processes. Editorial decisions are based on academic quality, originality, alignment with the journal’s scope, and the strength of the arguments and evidence. Decisions are made without regard to gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, disability, age, institutional affiliation, academic status, or political views.

14-2. Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to use respectful, inclusive, and non-discriminatory language. All manuscripts and review comments must avoid language that reinforces gender bias, stereotypes, or discriminatory assumptions.

15-1. JELL is an open-access journal. All articles are freely available online immediately upon publication. They may be used, distributed, reproduced, or linked to, provided the original work is properly cited and the terms of the applicable Creative Commons license are met. Authors grant ELLAK the right of first publication and a non-exclusive license to distribute, archive, reproduce, and make the article publicly available online.

15-2. Unless otherwise noted, articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) license. Any commercial use or use beyond the scope of this license requires prior written permission from ELLAK.

16-1. JELL is dedicated to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. If errors or ethical issues are identified post-publication, the journal may issue a correction, an expression of concern, a retraction, or other editorial notices, depending on the nature and severity of the issue.

16-2. Corrections may be issued if an error does not invalidate the study's core findings but requires clarification. An expression of concern may be issued if there is credible, yet inconclusive, evidence of misconduct or major error, or if an investigation is underway. Retractions occur when a paper contains fundamental errors, plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, severe ethical breaches, or other issues that compromise the integrity of the publication.

16-3. Authors who discover significant errors, omissions, or ethical issues in their own published work must notify the editorial board immediately and cooperate fully in the process of issuing a correction, expression of concern, or retraction. A notice of retraction will be linked to the original article and will clearly state the reason for the retraction. Retracted articles will generally remain in the journal’s archives with a clear note of retraction, unless removal is required for legal reasons, privacy, safety, or to prevent significant harm.

17-1. Authors, reviewers, readers, and other involved parties may file a formal complaint or appeal regarding editorial decisions, the peer review process, publication ethics, conflicts of interest, corrections, or post-publication issues. All complaints and appeals must be submitted in writing to the Editorial Board or the Research Ethics Committee, accompanied by relevant evidence and documentation.

17-2. Once a complaint or appeal is received, it will be referred to the Research Ethics Committee. Appeals concerning editorial decisions will only be considered if the author can provide evidence of procedural errors, factual misunderstandings, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or significant misjudgments that influenced the decision.

18-1. The Research Ethics Committee is responsible for investigating allegations of research or publication misconduct, including plagiarism, duplicate submissions, redundant publication, authorship disputes, undisclosed conflicts of interest, improper use of AI, misconduct during the peer review process, or other violations of publication ethics.

18-2. Research misconduct refers to actions that compromise the integrity and originality of research, encompassing its conduct, the use of data and sources, the presentation of results, citations, and authorship. Research ethics and publication ethics are closely interrelated concepts in this context. Violations of research ethics include plagiarism, the misappropriation of data and sources, the improper handling of references, and the fabrication, falsification, manipulation, misrepresentation of research results, or inappropriate attribution of authorship. Conversely, breaches of publication ethics encompass issues such as redundant submission and publication, as well as the failure to disclose the use of generative AI.

18-3. The Committee consists of at least five members. Among them, one will serve as the Chairperson and one as the Secretary. The Chairperson represents the Committee and presides over meetings, while the Secretary manages the Committee’s administrative operations.

18-4. If a committee member has a conflict of interest regarding a case under review, they must recuse themselves from the proceedings. A substitute member may be appointed if necessary.

19-1. The Chair of the Research Ethics Committee may convene a meeting when deemed necessary or upon the necessary of four or more Committee members. The Committee shall review the nature of the case and the materials submitted and determine whether to initiate a formal review. The Committee shall conduct the review without undue delay but may adjust the review period in consideration of the complexity of the case, the need to obtain relevant materials, the parties’ opportunity to respond, external expert advice, and other necessary procedures.

19-2. A meeting is considered valid with a majority of the committee members in attendance, and decisions are made by a majority vote of those present.

19-3. Committee proceedings are confidential. Allegations of research or publication misconduct must be submitted in writing and be well-substantiated. The Committee reserves the right not to proceed with an investigation if a report is anonymous, lacks sufficient evidence, is repetitive, appears malicious, is irrelevant to the journal’s publishing process, or otherwise fails to provide adequate grounds for an ethics review.

19-4. If an allegation is accepted for review, the Committee will determine whether to handle the matter internally, request further information, or seek advice from external experts. If necessary, the Committee may request explanations or supporting evidence from authors, reviewers, editors, affiliated institutions, or other relevant parties.

19-5. Authors under review will be given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations. The identity of the author and the details of the case will remain confidential until the Committee reaches a final decision, unless disclosure is required by law, institutional policy, or the necessity of a fair investigation. The Committee will maintain detailed written records of the review process and its final determination.

20-1. Authors must not present their previously published work as if it were entirely new. However, reusing, revising, translating, or building upon one’s own previous work is acceptable, provided that the original source is properly cited and disclosed, and the new work includes substantial revisions, expansions, or a fresh interpretation. This includes, but is not limited to, theses, conference papers, working papers, translations or revised versions of prior studies, and research conducted as part of an ongoing project.

20-2. When there is overlap with an author's previous work, the case will be judged based on its specific context. The committee will evaluate the degree and nature of the overlap, the status and format of the prior publication, the extent of the revisions or expansions, whether proper attribution was made, and whether readers, reviewers, or editors were likely to be misled regarding the originality or novelty of the research.

20-3. Minor overlaps in wording, the reuse of necessary technical terminology, the repetition of methodology, or the restatement of background information do not, in and of themselves, constitute research misconduct.

21-1. When the Committee completes its review of a case involving research misconduct, it shall report the result to the President of ELLAK. This report shall be based on the Committee’s independent review and decision and shall serve the purpose of carrying out necessary administrative follow-up procedures within the Association.

21-2. The report should include a description of the allegation or ethical concern, the Committee’s review process, the grounds and evidence for the decision, the author’s explanation, if any, and any recommended measures, if applicable.

22-1. If misconduct is confirmed, the committee will recommend appropriate actions based on the nature and scope of the violation, as well as the severity of its impact on the academic record. These measures may include a formal caution or warning, an expression of concern, a correction or retraction, notification to relevant institutions, a temporary ban on submissions to JELL, the suspension or revocation of ELLAK membership, or any other measures the committee deems appropriate.

22-2. The review and decisions of the Research Ethics Committee shall be conducted independently. When the Committee reaches a decision, the Chair shall notify the parties concerned, the President of ELLAK, and the Editor-in-Chief, and ensure that appropriate follow-up procedures are carried out. The Secretariat shall provide necessary administrative support, and any separate approval or implementation procedures required by the Association’s Constitution or relevant regulations shall apply.

23-1. Revisions to these guidelines shall follow ELLAK's established procedures. Amended regulations apply to all ELLAK members, as well as JELL authors, reviewers, and editors, starting from the specified effective date, without requiring additional signatures. In principle, these apply to manuscripts submitted after the effective date. However, matters concerning the integrity of the academic record—such as research misconduct, publication ethics violations, corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions—may also apply to papers published prior to the effective date.

23-2. These Research and Publication Ethics Guidelines are based on the original regulations established on November 30, 2007, and subsequently revised on April 20, 2020.

23-3. This current version was revised on August 31, 2026, and takes effect on September 1, 2026.