• Journal of Distribution Science
• /
• v.12 no.6
• /
• pp.15-20
• /
• 2014

Purpose - In general, researchers try to abide by the code of research ethics, but many of them are not fully aware of plagiarism, unintentionally committing the research misconduct when they write a research paper. This research aims to introduce researchers a clear and easy guideline at a conference, which helps researchers avoid accidental plagiarism by addressing the issue. This research is expected to contribute building a climate and encouraging creative research among scholars. Research design, data, methodology & Results - Plagiarism is considered a sort of research misconduct along with fabrication and falsification. It is defined as an improper usage of another author's ideas, language, process, or results without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism has nothing to do with examining the truth or accessing value of research data, process, or results. Plagiarism is determined based on whether a research corresponds to widely-used research ethics, containing proper citations. Within academia, plagiarism goes beyond the legal boundary, encompassing any kind of intentional wrongful appropriation of a research, which was created by another researchers. In summary, the definition of plagiarism is to steal other people's creative idea, research model, hypotheses, methods, definition, variables, images, tables and graphs, and use them without reasonable attribution to their true sources. There are various types of plagiarism. Some people assort plagiarism into idea plagiarism, text plagiarism, mosaic plagiarism, and idea distortion. Others view that plagiarism includes uncredited usage of another person's work without appropriate citations, self-plagiarism (using a part of a researcher's own previous research without proper citations), duplicate publication (publishing a researcher's own previous work with a different title), unethical citation (using quoted parts of another person's research without proper citations as if the parts are being cited by the current author). When an author wants to cite a part that was previously drawn from another source the author is supposed to reveal that the part is re-cited. If it is hard to state all the sources the author is allowed to mention the original source only. Today, various disciplines are developing their own measures to address these plagiarism issues, especially duplicate publications, by requiring researchers to clearly reveal true sources when they refer to any other research. Conclusions - Research misconducts including plagiarism have broad and unclear boundaries which allow ambiguous definitions and diverse interpretations. It seems difficult for researchers to have clear understandings of ways to avoid plagiarism and how to cite other's works properly. However, if guidelines are developed to detect and avoid plagiarism considering characteristics of each discipline (For example, social science and natural sciences might be able to have different standards on plagiarism.) and shared among researchers they will likely have a consensus and understanding regarding the issue. Particularly, since duplicate publications has frequently appeared more than plagiarism, academic institutions will need to provide pre-warning and screening in evaluation processes in order to reduce mistakes of researchers and to prevent duplicate publications. What is critical for researchers is to clearly reveal the true sources based on the common citation rules and to only borrow necessary amounts of others' research.

• Journal of Distribution Science
• /
• v.10 no.5
• /
• pp.7-17
• /
• 2012

The recent announcement of the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) to cease journal accreditation operations as of the end of the year 2014 can easily influence the future of many research journals in Korea. Although this plan has not yet been formalized or structured, its facilitation would be the major turning point for the current Korean research and scholarly journals and publications. In addition, the NRF's plan to select and fund top 20 or more research journals over the five year period beginning 2015 suggests that the competition will most likely increase among Korean journals. Each journal would need to develop its unique strategy to improve and strengthen its competitiveness to become or maintain its position as a major research journal in Korea. The association of Korean Distribution of Science (KODISA) and its research journal, Journal of Distribution Science (JDS), has been continuously improving its reputation as a reputable journal in the distribution and related fields since its establishment in 1999. Due to demand, JDS has had to undergo several changes in its publication cycle first from semiannual publication to quarterly, then finally to monthly publications in 2012, and has become one of the major social science journals in Korea. Furthermore, with the redesigning of its webpage with English language in July of 2011, KODISA has made the published journals freely accessible and available to both domestic and foreign researchers, scholars, practitioners, and learners. These changes have resulted in the rapid increase in the bounce rate and the number of journal submissions by foreign scholars, with four research articles having been submitted by foreign scholars just in March of 2012 alone. However, although the changes and outcomes have resulted in a reasonable success so far, the achievement may only become a short-term success without continuously developing, improving, and implementing both effective and efficient strategies through critical, thorough, and frequent examinations and evaluations of both KODISA and JDS. As such, the purpose of this research is to carefully examine both KODISA and JDS to identify problematic factors and to develop appropriate strategies to change or modify those problems for further strengthening and improving their reputation and status. The paper examines and analyzes the past, present, and future of KODISA and JDS and their managerial, operational, and systematic procedures and operations. The narrow scope of research and inefficiencies in promoting the association and the journal and the improvement of impact factors are identified as the notable problems that could hinder JDS from being included in SCOPUS or SSCI in the near future. This type of examination and exploration has not been previously conducted, so the major limitation of this paper can be identified as not meticulously elaborating on the problems nor proving detailed recommendations based on the existing researches. This article asserted that solving the problem of the narrow scope of research would lead to facilitation of resolving other inefficient problems. Inclusion of international academic disciplines to the distribution and their related fields would be the viable initiation of expanding the research area, and this strategy could promote the journal as well as improve its impact factors. The narrow scope of research seems to be a good research topic and merit further exploration as an individual research project, because this kind of research could yield the creation of new understandings or theories.

• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.12
• /
• pp.137-178
• /
• 2005

The anticommunist guerrillas' activities that aretheconcern of this article took place largely in North Korea or behind the enemy-held lines. Verifying their history is accordingly difficult and requires careful attention, but despite their active operations the military as well as the scholarly community have been lax in studying them. The Korean War came to be perceived as a traditional, limited war with regular battles, so that the studies addressed mostly the regular operations, and guerrilla warfare is remembered as an almost 'exclusive property' of the communist invaders; a small wonder that the anticommunist guerrillas have not been studied much and the collection of materials neglected. Therefore, in contrast with the witness accounts concerning regular battles, witness resources were of a small volume about these "patriots without the service numbers." For the above reasons the guerrilla participants and their later-organized fellowships took to the task of leaving records and compiling the histories of their units. They became active preservers of history in order to inform later generations of their works and also to secure deserved benefits from the government, in a world where none recognized their achievements. For instance, 4th Donkey Unit published witness accounts in addition to a unit history, and left video-recordings of guerrilla witnesses before any institute systematized the oral history of the guerrillas. In the case of Kyulsa ("Resolved to Die") Guerrilla Unit, the unit history was 10 times revised and expanded upon for publication, contributing substantially to the recovery of anticommunist guerrilla history which had almost totally lacked documented resources. Now because the guerrilla-related witness accounts were produced through fellowship societies and not individually, it often took the form of 'collective memory.' As a result, though thousands of former guerrillas remain surviving, the scarcity of numerous versions of, or perspectives upon, an event renders difficult an objective approach to the historical truth. Even requests to verify the service of a guerrilla member or to apply for decoration or government benefits for those killed in action, the process is taken care of not at the hands of the first party but the veteran society, so that a variety of opinions are not available for consideration. Moreover, some accounts were taken by American military personnel, and since some historians, unaware of official documents or evaluation of achievements, tended to center the records around their own units and especially to exaggerate the units' performances, they often featured factual errors. Thefollowing is the means to utilize positively the aforementioned type of witness accounts in military history research. It involves the active use of military historical detachments (MHD). As in the examples of those dispatched by the American forces during the Korean War, experts should be dispatched during, and not just after, wartimes. By considering and investigating the differences among various perspectives on the same historical event, even without extra documented resources it is possibleto arrive at theerrors or questionable points of the oral accounts, supplementing the additional accounts. Therefore any time lapses between witness accounts must be kept in consideration. Moreover when the oral accounts come from a group such as participants in the same guerrilla unit or operation, a standardized list of items ought to be put to use. Education in oral history is necessary not just for the training of experts. In America wherethefield sees much activity, it is used not only in college or graduate programs but also in elementary and lifetime educational processes. In comparison in our nation, and especially in historical disciplines, methodological insistence upon documented evidences prevails in the main, and in the fields of nationalist movement or modern history, oral accounts do not receive adequate attention. Like ancient documents and monuments, oral history also needs to be made a regular part of diverse resource materials at our academic institutes for history. Courses in memory and history, such as those in American colleges, are available possibilities.