Research Ethics

Research Misconduct

Taking all forms of research misconduct seriously, Mobility Humanities will take appropriate action in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org/guidance). The Journal will immediately reject manuscripts found to involve any of the following ethical violations.

Violations of research ethics include, but are not limited to:

  • Affiliation misrepresentation
  • Data fabrication and falsification
  • Plagiarism
  • Self-plagiarism (text recycling)
  • Simultaneous submissions to multiple journals
  • Duplicate publication
  • Redundant or overlapping publications
  • Selective reporting of data or results
  • Misleading reporting of research findings
  • Improper author contribution or attribution
  • Gift authorship
  • Ghost authorship
  • Citation manipulation
  • Undeclared or falsified financial support for publication
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest
  • Undisclosed use of generative AI tools in manuscript preparation
  • Image manipulation

Plagiarism Policy

  • Mobility Humanities does not tolerate plagiarism or the submission of fraudulent data. All submitted manuscripts are screened for plagiarism using the Copy Killer system to detect overlapping or substantially similar text.
  • In cases where plagiarism is detected, the Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to reject the manuscript, retract a published article if necessary, and prohibit the author(s) from submitting to the journal.

Research Participant Ethics

Research involving human participants, interviews, fieldwork, or other ethically sensitive materials must comply with relevant ethical guidelines and applicable legal requirements.

Authors must confirm that their research was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of their institution and, where applicable, that approval was obtained from the relevant institutional review board (IRB) or equivalent ethics committee. To this end, authors must include a statement addressing ethical oversight and informed consent by selecting the most applicable option from the following:

  1. Where IRB or ethics committee approval was obtained: “This study received ethical approval from [Name of Institution/Committee] (Approval No. [XXX], Date: [DD Month YYYY]). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection.”
  2. Where IRB or ethics committee review was conducted but the study was determined to be exempt: “This study was reviewed by [Name of Institution/Committee] and determined to be exempt from full ethical review under [applicable regulation or institutional policy, e.g., 45 CFR 46]. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection.”
  3. Where the research does not fall within the regulatory definition of human subjects research (e.g., oral history, archival interview, or similar humanities-based inquiry not intended to produce generalisable knowledge): “This study does not constitute human subjects research as defined by [applicable national or institutional regulation] and was therefore not subject to IRB review. Participants were nevertheless informed of the purpose of the research and provided their consent to participate and to have their contributions included in this publication.”

In interview-based research, the names of interview subjects must be pseudonymised unless explicit written consent has been obtained. Authors must include a statement in the body or footnotes confirming that pseudonyms have been used. When a pseudonymous interview is directly quoted in the text, authors must add a footnote identifying the source as a personal interview and providing the method of communication (e.g., in-person, phone) and the year or approximate period in which the interview took place. A specific date is not required if providing one risks identifying the interviewee.

When research methods involve potential risks to the privacy or safety of participants—including, but not limited to, interviews conducted in hazardous, sensitive, or politically vulnerable contexts—authors must describe the specific protective measures taken in the body or footnotes.

Pseudonymisation of Research Participants

To protect the privacy and dignity of research participants, Mobility Humanities requires that all interview-based manuscripts use pseudonyms when referring to interviewees, unless participants have provided explicit written consent to be identified by their real names.

  • Mandatory pseudonymisation: All interview participants must be identified using pseudonyms. Real names must not appear in the manuscript unless written informed consent for identification has been obtained.
  • Disclosure statement: Authors must include a statement in the manuscript body or in a footnote explicitly indicating that the names of interview participants are pseudonyms. The statement should appear at the first mention of any participant name, or in the research methodology section.
  • Suggested disclosure language: “All names of interview participants used in this article are pseudonyms to protect the confidentiality of participants.” (or equivalent phrasing)
  • Exception: Where participants have expressly requested to be identified by their real names, and written informed consent has been obtained, the manuscript must include a statement confirming this, e.g., “All participants identified by their real names have provided explicit written informed consent for participation in the research and for the publication of identifiable data.”

Privacy and Safety of Research Participants

Mobility Humanities recognises that certain research methods—such as interviews conducted in moving vehicles, public spaces, or other potentially hazardous environments—may raise concerns about participant privacy and physical safety. Authors are responsible for proactively addressing these concerns and documenting protective measures in their manuscripts.

  • Risk assessment and disclosure: Where the research method involves any potential risk to the privacy or physical safety of participants (e.g., interviews conducted while cycling, driving, or in other dynamic or exposed settings), the manuscript must describe the specific measures taken to mitigate those risks.
  • In-text documentation: A clear description of privacy and safety protection measures must be included in the manuscript body or in a footnote. Vague or general statements are insufficient; authors must specify the concrete steps taken.
  • Informed consent: Participants must be fully informed of any risks associated with participation prior to the commencement of the research, in accordance with standard informed consent procedures.
  • Suggested disclosure language: “Interviews were conducted under conditions designed to protect participant safety and privacy. [Specific measures, e.g., stationary rest periods, researcher accompaniment, location anonymisation, etc.] were employed throughout the data collection process.”
  • Ethical committee approval: Where institutional review board (IRB) or ethics committee approval was obtained, the manuscript must state the name of the committee, the approval reference number, and the date of approval.

Data Availability

Mobility Humanities is committed to transparency in research. As a humanities journal, it recognises that research materials such as interview transcripts and corpora may be subject to ethical, legal, or privacy restrictions that prevent public sharing.

Authors are encouraged to include a Data Availability Statement in the Additional Information section, indicating whether and how the materials underlying their work can be accessed. Where research materials are not subject to ethical, legal, or privacy restrictions, authors are encouraged to make them publicly available.

Examples of Data Availability Statements include:

  • The data that support the findings of this study are openly available at [URL/repository].
  • The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to [reason, e.g., privacy restrictions on interview participants].
  • No new data was created or analysed in this study.

Publishers, editors, and reviewers are entitled to request that authors provide the materials underlying their research for editorial review and public access. Authors should retain such materials for a reasonable period following publication. In cases where research materials cannot be made publicly available on ethical or legal grounds, authors should clearly state the reasons and any conditions for access in their Data Availability Statement.

Generative AI

AI tools, including large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, must not be listed as authors. Authorship entails accountability for the work, which AI tools cannot assume.

AI tools must not be cited as sources of information or scholarly content in the Works Cited list. Authors are strongly encouraged to consult and cite original sources directly, as AI tools may produce inaccurate or fabricated references.

If generative AI tools or AI-assisted services are used at any stage of manuscript preparation, authors must disclose such use in the Acknowledgements section, including the name of the tool and a description of how it was used. An example declaration is provided below:

During the preparation of this work, the author(s) used ChatGPT to assist with grammar checking and to improve readability. Following the use of this tool, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as necessary and takes full responsibility for the content of the publication.

If AI-generated images or creative content are incorporated into the manuscript, including in creative or visual essays, authors must disclose this in the Acknowledgements section and identify the tool, version, and prompt used in the figure caption.

All uses of AI must be disclosed to the (guest) editors at the time of submission. Authors retain full responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of their work, including any content produced with AI assistance.

Corrections and Retractions

Corrections

A correction (also referred to as an erratum or corrigendum) is issued when a published article contains a significant error that does not invalidate the reliability of the findings. Corrections are published as promptly as possible and must clearly identify the original article, describe the error, and provide the corrected content. Errors that do not affect the meaning of the text (e.g., minor spelling mistakes) do not warrant a correction notice.

When authors discover a significant error in their own published work, it is their obligation to notify the Associate Editor, Jinhyoung Lee (gespenst@konkuk.ac.kr), and the Mobility Humanities Editorial Office (mobilityhumanities@gmail.com). When a reader discovers a significant error or has another concern regarding published content, they should contact the Associate Editor, Jinhyoung Lee (gespenst@konkuk.ac.kr), or the Mobility Humanities Editorial Office (mobilityhumanities@gmail.com). The editorial team welcomes such notifications as opportunities for improvement and aims to respond promptly and constructively.

Retractions

A retraction is issued when a published article contains errors or misconduct that invalidate its results or conclusions, or when the article constitutes a serious ethical violation. Retractions may be initiated by the authors or by the editors. Grounds for retraction include, but are not limited to:

  • Data fabrication, falsification, or image manipulation
  • Plagiarism or duplicate publication
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest that affected the outcome of the research
  • Compromised or manipulated peer review process
  • Serious errors that cannot be resolved through correction

Retraction notices must:

  • Be linked to the retracted article in all electronic versions
  • Clearly identify the retracted article by title and authors
  • State the reasons for the retraction clearly enough for readers to understand why the article is considered unreliable, distinguishing between honest error and misconduct
  • Specify who is initiating the retraction and, where possible, how the matter came to the journal’s attention. Complainants will be named only with explicit permission.
  • Be freely accessible to all readers
  • Be published as promptly as possible to minimise the circulation of unreliable findings

Partial retraction is generally not recommended. The Editor-in-Chief will determine whether a correction or full retraction is more appropriate.

In cases where misconduct is suspected but not yet confirmed, the Editor-in-Chief may issue an Expression of Concern while an investigation is ongoing.

If redundant publication occurs, the journal that published the work first may issue a notice of redundant publication. Any journal that subsequently publishes the redundant article should retract it and state the reason for retraction.

Retraction notices will follow the COPE Retraction Guidelines: https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction-guidelines-cope.pdf.