• Journal of Research and Publication Ethics
• /
• v.1 no.1
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Gifted/Talented Education
• /
• v.25 no.4
• /
• pp.565-580
• /
• 2015

We investigated gifted students' scientific integrity, perception of scientific misconduct and needs for research ethics education. For this study, 267 science academy students who have participated in R&E program responded to questionnaire of those three parts. The major findings are as follows: First, 45.31% of gifted students answered that they had one or more experiences in five categories; fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, unfair authorship, and connivance of scientific misconduct. Second, almost 90% of gifted students responded that statements of questions are scientific misconduct except the self plagiarism. Third, 28.83% of gifted students needed to study research ethics and all of them were 1st graders. Fourth, they wanted to know specifically the limit of apt citation, writing skills of research notes, specific examples of scientific misconduct, and concrete acting method for scientific integrity, etc. In order to get gifted students to conduct their research responsibly, educators have to consider and reflect the voice of gifted students.

• Applied Microscopy
• /
• v.46 no.2
• /
• 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
• /
• v.35
• /
• pp.45.1-45.3
• /
• 2023

• 한국체육학회지인문사회과학편
• /
• v.55 no.4
• /
• pp.227-240
• /
• 2016

Research misconduct has been a strong societal concern in sport and leisure studies. However, little is known about the complex mechanisms and ways of promoting research integrity. This study aimed at exploring the ways in which research integrity in sport and leisure studies could be established from the perspectives of academia. Employing a grounded theory approach, 13 academics and graduate students were invited to the study. Data were collected primarily through focus group and one-on-one follow-up interviews. Perceived negative factors contributing to research misconduct within socio-political/socio-environmental, socio-cultural, and personal contexts were identified. Three approaches, (a) top-down approach, (b) bottom-up approach, and (c) continuous education, as well as subsequent practical strategies were also suggested for the enhancement of research integrity within the field. This paper provided empirical knowledge regarding barriers to and opportunities for improving research integrity in sport and leisure studies.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.105
• /
• pp.95-126
• /
• 2008

We are all too aware of the ravages of scientific misconduct in the Korean academic community. Plagiarism and fabricated research have become an important issue after many figures such scientist Hwang Woo-suk, former Education Minister Kim Beong-joon and former Korea University President Lee Phil-sang were involved in research ethics scandals. Recent case of falsified data is the instance of Seoul University investigator Hwnag Woo-suk admittted full responsibility for the fabrication and use of false data in a paper published in 2005. Another important lessons learned by Hwang case were that the need of international accepted standards about research misconduct, the matter of authorship, proper allocation of credit, respect for human subjects in scientific research and conflict of interests. And Education Minister Kim Byong-joon have drawn the attention of the general public to the issue of self-plagiarism. Important lessons learned by Kim case were that the need of clear criteria on what is considered plagiarism and historical application. Most recently, Korea University president Lee Phil-sang plagiarized his pupils' academic work. Important lessons learned by Lee case were that the need of after penalty about research misconduct, research mentoring, and desirable whistleblowing. And I suggested three major lessons learned by synthesized review. The fist is the need of public system and institution, the second is the role of media, and the third is the need and direction of research ethics education. The government, universities and research centers are aware of the matters and lessons learned about reseach ethics of Hwang, Kim and Lee cases. And they suggest to set up education programs, guidelines and institutional measures for research ethics.

• Journal of Research and Publication Ethics
• /
• v.3 no.1
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Research and Publication Ethics
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Research and Publication Ethics
• /
• v.1 no.2
• /
• 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.

• Science & Technology Policy
• /
• v.16 no.1 s.157
• /
• 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.