• 연구윤리
• /
• 제1권1호
• /
• pp.23-28
• /
• 2020

Purpose: Focusing on Supreme Court precedents, we intend to establish criteria for judging research misconduct. Research design, data and methodology: In addition, I would like to propose the criteria for judging research misconduct by the KODISA, which applies the court's standards well in practice, and guidelines for preventing research misconduct. Research design, data and methodology: After classifying the case of research misconduct into six cases, the court's judgment and practical application will be reviewed. Results: First, research misconduct that has passed the disciplinary prescription can be punished. This is because the state of illegality continues to this day. Second, even if there were no punishment regulations at the time of research misconduct, it can be retroactively punished with the current punishment regulations. This is because research ethics is a universal and common standard and does not change. Third, if there is a fact that infringes on intellectual property rights, it is presumed unwritten intentions. Therefore, the act of taking and using the work of another person without permission or proper citation procedure, even if it is unintentional and for the public interest, is a research misconduct. Fourth, if there is an inappropriate citation notation, the intention of research misconduct is presumed. It is the judgment of the court that even if a quotation is marked, if it is incomplete, it is recognized as plagiarism. Fifth, if the author uses the work of another person without proper source indication, it is plagiarism even if the other person who owns the copyright agrees to it. The understanding or consent of some parties does not justify research misconduct in violation of public trust. Sixth, it is a research misconduct to create a new work without citations for one's previous work. In addition, even if there is a citation, if the subsequent writing is not original, it is a research misconduct. Conclusions: Academia should clarify the scope of research misconduct by referring to the Research Ethics Regulations of KODISA, and deal with research results that lack the value as creative works similar to those of research misconduct.

• 영재교육연구
• /
• 제25권4호
• /
• pp.565-580
• /
• 2015

이 연구에서는 R&E 등을 통해 연구 수행과정을 경험하고 있는 영재 고등학교에 재학 중인 과학 영재 267명을 대상으로, 이들이 연구윤리를 잘 준수하고 있는지, 또 연구윤리를 잘 알고 있는지의 여부와 연구윤리를 학습하고 싶은지, 만약 그렇다면 어떤 내용을 배우고 싶은지를 설문을 통하여 알아보았다. 그 결과, 과학영재는 위조, 변조, 표절, 부당한 논문저자표시, 연구부정행위의 묵인 항목에 대하여 45.31%가 경험이 있다고 응답하였으나, 과학자의 연구윤리에 대해서는 90% 내외의 학생이 제시된 항목에 대해 자기표절을 제외하고 모두 문제가 있는 행위라고 응답하였다. 즉 이들은 연구부정행위에 대해 알고 있음에도 불구하고 절반 가까운 학생이 연구윤리를 위반한 경험이 있음을 알 수 있다. 하지만 연구윤리를 배우고 싶다고 응답한 학생은 28.83%뿐이었고, 이들은 좀 더 실질적이고 구체적인 준수방법을 알고 싶다고 응답하였다. 따라서 과학영재들이 책임감 있는 연구수행을 할 수 있도록 하려면, 영재교육연구자들은 이러한 과학영재들의 목소리를 반영하여 연구윤리교육방안을 마련하여야 할 것이다.

• Applied Microscopy
• /
• 제46권2호
• /
• pp.67-70
• /
• 2016

Research ethics are mainly of two fields; research integrity and publication ethics. Research misconducts can occur at both areas. Examples of the research integrity violations are falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism; and those of the publication ethics violations are duplicate publication including self-plagiarism, and improper authorship. In this paper, concepts of research misconducts defined in Research Misconduct-related Rules of The Korean Society of Microscopy are explained and discussed.

• Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
• /
• 제35권
• /
• pp.45.1-45.3
• /
• 2023

• 한국체육학회지인문사회과학편
• /
• 제55권4호
• /
• pp.227-240
• /
• 2016

연구 부정행위는 체육학 연구에서 지속돼야 할 연구주제이지만 연구 부정행위의 복잡한 매커니즘과 연구 진실성을 확보하기 위한 방안에 관한 연구는 미진한 실정이다. 이에 본 연구는 체육학에서의 연구부정행위의 발생원인 및 해결방안을 학계 구성원의 관점에서 살펴보는데 목적을 두었다. 이를 위해서 근거이론 방법의 적용을 통해 13명의 학자 및 대학원생들에 집단인터뷰(focus group interview), 개인인터뷰(follow-up one-on-one interview), 서술적 설문조사(qualitative questionnaire)를 통하여 수집하였다. 연구결과 연구부정행위는 사회구조적(socio-political), 사회문화적(socio-cultural), 개인적(personal) 맥락에서 발생하는 것으로 인식되었으며, 해결 방안은 첫째, 위로부터의 변화(Top-down approach), 둘째, 아래로부터의 변화(Bottom-up approach), 셋째, 지속적인 교육 및 점검(Continuous education)의 변화가 제시되었다. 본 연구 결과를 통해 제시된 경험적 지식이 체육학을 연구하는 개인 연구자의 연구윤리 의식 제고에 활용되고, 대학의 교육 및 학계 차원의 향후 노력들에 기초자료로 사용되어지기를 기대한다.

• 철학연구
• /
• 제105권
• /
• pp.95-126
• /
• 2008

최근 한국 사회는 학문 공동체에서의 연구위반 사례에 대해 잘 알게 되었다. 날조와 표절 등 연구윤리의 스캔들과 연관된 황우석 교수, 전 교육부 장관 김병준, 전 고려대 총장 이필상과 같은 이들에 의해 연구윤리는 중요한 사회적 이슈가 되었다. 먼저 서울대학교 황우석 연구자는 2005년도에 발표된 논문에 데이터의 날조와 변조 활용에 대한 책임을 완전히 시인하였다. 본 논문에서는 황우석 사례를 통해 배운 중요한 교훈으로 데이터의 날조 및 변조의 문제뿐만 아니라 국제적으로 통용될 수 있는 연구윤리 규정의 필요성, 올바른 저자 표시와 공로배분 및 공동 연구자들의 책임감, 인간 인체 대상 실험과 불충분한 보호, 이해갈등이란 연구윤리의 문제 등을 제시하였다. 황우석 사건 이후의 중요한 연구부정 사례로서 김병준 사례가 있다. 김병준 사건의 교훈으로서 표절 자기표절의 기준 문제, 과거 표절 청산과 표절 기준 적용 시점의 문제 등을 제시하였다. 보다 최근의 고려대 이필상 사례는 연구부정행위의 조사 절차와 후속 조치의 문제, 연구지도의 문제, 바람직한 내부고발의 문제 둥을 교훈으로 제시하였다. 이러한 사례들의 개요와 교훈에 대한 결론적 고찰을 통해 다음과 같은 교훈을 제시하였다. 첫째, 연구윤리와 관련된 제도적 정비의 계기 마련이며 둘째, 언론 및 미디어의 역할 제고이다. 셋째, 연구윤리교육의 필요성과 방향성에 대한 모색이다. 정부나 대학 그리고 연구기관이나 학회들은 황우석 사건 및 그 이후의 사례들에서 보이는 여러 연구윤리에 대한 문제점들과 교훈들을 배우고 연구윤리를 위한 교육 프로그램, 가이드라인 그리고 제도적 방책들을 마련해야 할 것이다.

• 연구윤리
• /
• 제3권1호
• /
• pp.17-21
• /
• 2022

Purpose: Research ethics has social implications beyond the issues of personal morality and research integrity. In recent years, research ethics has become a more controversial topic in society. In this study, the concept of the university research ethics curriculum is defined, the current status of the research ethics curriculum is analyzed, and the direction of the university research ethics curriculum development direction is discussed. Research design, data and methodology: The concept of university research ethics education and the current status of research ethics education were examined, and the development direction of the university research ethics curriculum was explored based on the framework . Results: field education to secure university research ethics is still insufficient. In other words, only 12 universities for undergraduate programs and 37 universities for graduate programs included research ethics in their regular curriculum. Conclusions: The occurrence of research misconduct is mainly caused by not recognizing the error or not taking it seriously. In particular, university research misconduct results from a lack of understanding of research ethics, poor research education, a performance-oriented academic climate, and the absence of an institutional system for establishing research ethics.

• 연구윤리
• /
• 제2권1호
• /
• pp.1-6
• /
• 2021

The aims of this study were to examine the causes and types of the most common and serious fraudulent authors among research misconduct, and to examine ways to reduce the mass production of unjust authors. In scientific research, it is universal and efficient to have multiple authors participate. This is because each author group consisting of a team has its own expertise, and most of them participate in research in a complementary way to maximize the research effect. However, the competition for achievements between researchers, the quantitative evaluation system of universities, and the social atmosphere of performance-oriented are tempting researchers to abandon research ethics. In this study, in relation to the research ethics of existing researchers, the contents of research ethics by a few countries such as United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Australia etc. and the situation in Korea was examined as well. In addition, the types and causes of domestic unfair authors in Korea were investigated intensively. In conclusion, in order to no longer produce unfair authors such as compulsory authors, honorary authors, mutually supported authors, and duplicate authors, which researchers unknowingly recognize as co-authors, reinforcement of research ethics education and national organization and system should be supported.

• 연구윤리
• /
• 제1권2호
• /
• pp.7-10
• /
• 2020

Purpose: The experience by a researcher highlighted steps is guided by a specific ethical codes of conduct. The purpose of the current study is to discuss the fabrication and falsification of data as the key ethical misconduct committed by many researchers focus on their causes and impact in the research field. Research design, data and methodology: To obtain suitable textual resource, the current study used content analysis to closely take a look at the fabrication and falsification based on prior research in the realm of publication ethics. As a result, the current authors could collect and understand adequate textual data from appropriate prior resources. Results: The Research misconduct is a common practice in different countries across the world. Based on the findings from this study, data fabrication or falsification have a grievous impact on all the stakeholders of a study. The unethical behavior affects the parties concerned both psychologically and financially. Conclusions: It is, therefore, recommended that researchers should be held accountable. This can be done through different means, including raising awareness of vulnerability to data fabrication and falsification. The government and research institute should also advocate for effective policies guiding research studies across the world.

• 과학기술정책
• /
• 제16권1호통권157호
• /
• pp.64-71
• /
• 2006

Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism (so-called FFP), and other unethical acts damage the trust of public in science and scientists. Scientific communities, governments and research institutions should take the appropriate countermeasures. With the increasing visibility and importance of problem, funding agencies and policy-makers find that they must have a better understanding of this phenomenon, and take steps to prevent it. Science is often said as a borderless activity. In these days, many scientific misconduct cases have been emerging almost simultaneously and worldwide. Thus, the immediate actions should be taken internationally as well as nationally. From these points of view, we, Japan, proposed a new international joint-study at OECD Global Science Forum in February 2006, and the proposal was approved with supports by many countries including Korea. OECD would seek an international perspective to address this worldwide problem, bringing together the representatives of science communities, publishers, funding agencies, and policy makers, and exchanging their experiences.