Manuscripts submitted to this journal are classified as research paper, review paper, technical note, discussion, and replies, opinion, perspective related to water and wastewater engineering. Manuscripts must not have been published in other collections of papers or other magazines. They must satisfy the following requirements:

2.1 Research Papers
Research papers should present highly significant findings including novel experimental methods, important results, and significant discoveries in field of water and wastewater science and technology.

2.2 Review Papers
Review papers should present a comprehensive critical review on an important topic in water and wastewater science and technology.

2.3 Technical Note
Technical note gives a concise description of new technique and application related to water and wastewater science and technology.

2.4 Discussion and Replies
If you want to supplement research methods and research results of the paper previously published in this journal, or to present different data or opinions to existing research, it can be submitted in a form of discussion. The authors of existing research should write replies to newly submitted papers. Discussion should be submitted within 6 months since the publication. Discussion & replies should be published together in principle. Adoption and management of discussion are under the responsibility of the editorial board.

2.5 Opinion
Opinion should present critical perspectives on academic or industrial issues in the field of water and wastewater science and technology.

2.6 Perspective
Perspective should present original insights and outlooks on trends and developments in field of water and wastewater science and technology.

Article 1(Purpose)
The purpose of this Research Ethics Regulations(hereinafter, code of ethics) is to establish research ethics by setting the standards for research misconduct and disciplinary action for the Korean Society of Water & Wastewater (hereinafter, KSWW) papers, papers published in the academic journal, and research results conducted within the academic society.

Article 2(Code of Ethics Pledge)
New members of this meeting must pledge to abide by this Code of Ethics. Current members are considered to have pledged to comply with the code of ethics when it becomes effective. 1) The author of a paper does not present research that he has not conducted as if it was his or her own research. When citing published academic data, the source must be clearly identified. In addition, authors should follow the following qualification criteria. - Substantial contribution to the conception of the study or the design of the research, or data acquisition, data analysis, and interpretation of data
- Writing a paper on research results or critical correction for important academic parts
- Final approval of the first submission or proofreading
- Agreement of taking responsibility for all aspects of the research and ensure that problems related to the accuracy or truthfulness of the research are properly investigated and clarified 2) In deciding whether to publish a submitted paper, the editorial staff strives to make an objective evaluation of the submitted paper for publication in a journal solely based on the quality of the paper and submission rules, regardless of any prejudices or personal acquaintances.
3) The reviewers faithfully evaluate papers requested by the journal's editorial board within the period set by the review regulations and notify the editorial board of the results. If it is judged that oneself is not the right person to evaluate the content of the paper, he/she will notify the editorial committee without a delay.
4) The reviewers must keep the confidentiality of the contents of the paper. In addition, paper contents must not be cited without consent of the author before the journal in which the paper is published and released.
Article 3(Conflicts of interest) 1) Conflicts of interest A conflict of interest means a case that may negatively affect fair professional judgment or research performance due to any of the following reasons: 1. Financial conflicts of interest: In case there is s financial benefit to researchers who are related to research
2. Interpersonal conflicts of interest: In case there is personal acquaintances, influence of affiliated institutions, or personal conflicts or research competitions caused by personal relationships
3. Intellectual conflicts of interest: In case there is a religious belief, worldview, moral belief, or theoretical conviction about a particular type of research arises.
4. Conflict of interest due to role conflict: When the role as a member of the affiliated institution, such as education, volunteer work, or outside activities, collides with research activities
5. Other conflicts of interest: In case there are other causes similar to subparagraphs 1 to 4 2) Management of Conflicts of Interest 1. If a conflict of interest arises or is likely to arise with the researcher in relation to the research plan, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, publication, use of results, the integrity of the research, the safety of the research subjects, and social trust in academic research can be impaired. Therefore, researchers must manage conflicts of interest as stipulated in each of the following subparagraphs: ① Researchers must try their best to ensure transparency and accountability by disclosing any potential conflicts of interest related to research and to prevent any negative impact on research.
② When submitting a paper or presenting research results, the researcher must specify the reasons for possible conflicts of interest, and if necessary, notify the research subjects of this.
③ If the degree of a conflict of interest is serious and there is a possibility of a negative impact on the research process, the researcher should stop the research. Or, if the research should be continued, it is necessary to request a group of independent experts of this conflicts of interest to monitor the research integrity. The corresponding author must take appropriate measures, such as excluding the person from a specific research stage, so that the fairness of the research is not compromised by a each co-author with a conflict of interest.
Article 4(Research Ethics Committee) 1) A temporary research ethics committee (hereinafter referred to as the ethics committee) may be operated when necessary to deliberate and decide on matters stipulated in this regulation.
2) A total of seven members of the ethics committee, including the chairperson, are recommended by the editorial committee and appointed by the president of the society. However, the author and the principal researcher of the paper subject to the deliberation agenda cannot become members.
3) The chairperson of the ethics committee is elected from the members. The chairperson chairs the ethics committee. However, the organization and operation of the Ethics Committee must observe confidentiality in principle.
Article 5(Authority of Research Ethics Committee) 1) The Ethics Committee conducts a wide range of investigations on cases reported as violations of the Code of Ethics through a whistleblower, a person under investigation, witnesses, a testifier, and evidences. If violation of the Code of Ethics is confirmed, appropriate sanctions can be suggested to the president of the academic society.
2) If there is a suggestion for disciplinary action by the Ethics Committee, the president of the academic society convenes the board of directors and decides whether to take disciplinary action and details of the disciplinary action. Members who are judged to have violated the Code of Ethics can be subject to disciplinary actions such as warning, restriction on paper submission, and suspension or deprivation of membership.
Article 6(Subjects of Research Misconduct)
Research misconduct applies to papers submitted to, and published in, journals and academic papers. The research results performed by the research service commissioned by the academic society are also applied in accordance with the paper.

Article 7(Forgery and Falsification)
Forgery and falsification include distorting data, figures, and photos used in research intentionally as follows. 1) Forgery refers to the act of creating false data or research results that do not exist.
2) Falsification refers to the act of distorting research contents or results by artificially manipulating the research process or arbitrarily modifying or deleting data.
Article 8(Plagiarism)
Plagiarism means contents of academic ideas, opinions, presentations, research results which are already published through all written media, such as domestic and foreign journals, thesis presentations, research reports, master's and doctoral dissertations, books, magazines, and the internet are used without acknowledgment of the source. 1) Plagiarism is also applied when the researcher is the same as the author of an already published paper (self-plagiarism).
2) However, it is not considered plagiarism to describe academic knowledge or research results that have been widely used in academia without citations.
Article 9(Simultaneous and Duplicate Submissions) 1) Released papers cannot be submitted to other journals registered at other research foundations, candidate journals, or overseas journals at the same time.
2) Papers published in journals registered at domestic research foundation, candidates for registration, or foreign academic journals cannot be duplicated.
3) Papers published in journals that are not registered or candidates for registration by the national research foundation can be submitted and published only if they have been revised or supplemented to avoid duplication.
Article 10(Reference) 1) When submitting your paper by using, correcting, or supplementing papers or some parts of a paper presented at an academic conference, you must specify the source of the paper used.
2) When submitting your paper by using, correcting, or supplementing research reports or some parts of research reports, you must specify the source of the paper used.
3) When submitting, modifying, or supplementing some parts of a doctoral or master's thesis, the author of the original thesis must be included in the author list.
4) When citing published academic data, due diligence is required to accurately describe it and the source must be clearly identified unless it is a material that belongs to common sense.
Article 11(Determination of Research Misconduct) 1) If there is a report about misconduct within or outside the society or from academy member, the editorial committee collects related data and checks the truth of the report.
2) If the report is confirmed to be true, the editorial board chairperson puts this case as an agenda to the ethics committee and submits the deliberation data.
3) The chairperson of the ethics committee gives the relevant researcher an opportunity to clarify the potential misconduct in writing prior to the deliberation.
4) The Ethics Committee must determine whether a research is a misconduct with the attendance of 2/3 (two-thirds) of the members and the consent of more than half of the members present, and report the result to the president of the society.
5) The president of the society notifies the relevant researcher of the decision of the ethics committee and the reason.
Article 12(Appeal) 1) If the decision or the reason of the ethics committee is unreasonable in the perspective of a researcher who has been judged as having performed a research misconduct, he or she may raise an objection in writing only once within one month from the date of notification.
2) In the ethics committee, the chairperson may review the validity of the objection and reconfirm or re-deliberate the decision. The result will be reported to the president of the society.
3) The president of the society notifies the relevant researcher of the decision of the ethics committee and the reason for the objection.
Article 13(Confidentiality) 1) The identity of the person who reported the research misconduct must not be disclosed to external stakeholders
2) The identity of the researcher must not be disclosed to external stakeholders before it is finally determined as a research misconduct or when it is determined that it is not a research misconduct.