• Journal of Research and Publication Ethics
• /
• v.1 no.1
• /
• pp.1-9
• /
• 2020

Purpose: The main purpose of this study is to identify the cause and problem of one plagiarism and suggest a solution. Research design, data and methodology: Based on the Center for Research Ethics Information, this study analyzed the total of 17 cases from October 3, 2017 to June 16, 2020. Results: As seen in the case of this study, the Supreme Court's verdict on plagiarism requires clear sources, whether it is plagiarism or self-plagiarism, and the criterion for plagiarism is the time of writing the work, and the final judgment will be conducted by the court. Evidence-based sources indicate that the researcher or professor provides a lot of anticipation to the academic development and readers who read it. In addition, it is necessary to revise and submit the thesis judge's point of view in the thesis for doctoral dissertation within the proper and reasonable scope. The implications are also very large. Lastly, the reason for dismissal of a doctoral dissertation plagiarized at the time of recruitment is recognized Research ethics should be institutionalized in educational institutions or research institutions. Conclusions: Research ethics education should be strengthened in universities and research institutes. Research ethics is a code of ethics that must be ruled by everyone who explores.

• Journal of Research and Publication Ethics
• /
• v.1 no.2
• /
• pp.1-5
• /
• 2020

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to identify the most common misconducts in publication ethics, to demonstrate KODISA journals' management of the misconducts, and to share the findings with future and potential authors of Journal of Research and Publication Ethics (JRPE). Research design, data and methodology: This is an analytical study that explores and examines research and publication ethics and misconducts. Results: Based on literature review, major publication misconducts that many academic journals had to contend with over the years encompass unethical authorship, including ghost, guest, and gift authorships, data falsification and fabrication, plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, submission and publication fraud (multiple submission and publication), and potential conflicts of interest. Conclusions: KODISA and its journals have strived and done great work in making the journals transparent and in combatting the issues associated with plagiarism, including self-plagiarism. However, it seems there is no mechanism to detect or deter unethical authorship, conflicts of interest, and fabrication and falsification misconducts. The inception of JRPE signifies how KODISA and its journals continuously view research and publication ethics as their foremost important factor in maintaining and improving the academic journals. The future research and scholastic manuscripts of JRPE could provide necessary and updated information about research and publication ethics, practices, and misconducts.

• Development and Reproduction
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.71-76
• /
• 2011

Due to its role in maintaining the health of scientific societies, research ethics (or integrity) is notably receiving attention by academia, governments and even individuals who are not engaged in scientific researches. In this paper, I will introduce some valuable papers dealt with plagiarism as a representative research misconduct. In general, researcher's results that will soon be published must meet the crucial scientific criteria: originality, accuracy, reproducibility, precision and research ethics. The definition of plagiarism is "appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit." Compared to fabrication and falcification, plagiarism is often considered as a minor misconduct. With intentionality, however, plagiarism can be corresponding to 'theft of intellectual product'. The context of plagiarism is not restricted to the stage of publication. It can be extended to prior stages of proposing (i.e. preparing the research proposal) and performing (executing the research), and reviewing (writing the review papers). Duplicate publication is regarded as a self-plagiarism in broad interpretation of plagiarism. To avoid dangers of plagiarism, earnest efforts from all members of scientific community are needed. First of all, researchers should keep 'transparency' and 'integrity' in their scientific works. Editorial board members and reviewers should keep fairness and well-deserved qualification. Government and research foundations must be willing to provide sufficient financial and policy support to the scientific societies; Up-graded editorial services, making good use of plagiarism detection tools, and thorough instruction on how to write a honest scientific paper will contribute to building up a healthy basis for scientific communities.

• 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.

• 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.

• Journal of Distribution Science
• /
• v.15 no.5
• /
• pp.49-52
• /
• 2017

Purpose - To improve and strengthen existing publication and research ethics, KODISA has identified and presented various cases which have violated publication and research ethics and principles in recent years. The editorial office of KODISA has been providing and continues to provide advice and feedback on publication ethics to researchers during peer review and editorial decision making process. Providing advice and feedback on publication ethics will ensure researchers to have an opportunity to correct their mistakes or make appropriate decisions and avoid any violations in research ethics. The purpose of this paper is to identify different cases of ethical violation in research and inform and educate researchers to avoid any violations in publication and research ethics. Furthermore, this article will demonstrate how KODISA journals identify and penalize ethical violations and strengthens its publication ethics and practices. Research design, data and methodology - This paper examines different types of ethical violation in publication and research ethics. The paper identifies and analyzes all ethical violations in research and combines them into five general categories. Those five general types of ethical violations are thoroughly examined and discussed. Results - Ethical violations of research occur in various forms at regular intervals; in other words, unethical researchers tend to commit different types of ethical violations repeatedly at same time. The five categories of ethical violation in research are as follows: (1) Arbitrary changes or additions in author(s) happen frequently in thesis/dissertation related publications. (2) Self plagiarism, submitting same work or mixture of previous works with or without using proper citations, also occurs frequently, but the most common type of plagiarism is changing the statistical results and using them to present as the results of the empirical analysis; (3) Translation plagiarism, another ethical violation in publication, is difficult to detect but occurs frequently; (4) Fabrication of data or statistical analysis also occurs frequently. KODISA requires authors to submit the results of the empirical analysis of the paper (the output of the statistical program) to prevent this type of ethical violation; (5) Mashup or aggregator plagiarism, submitting a mix of several different works with or without proper citations without alterations, is very difficult to detect, and KODISA journals consider this type of plagiarism as the worst ethical violation. Conclusions - There are some individual cases of ethical violation in research and publication that could not be included in the five categories presented throughout the paper. KODISA and its editorial office should continue to develop, revise, and strengthen their publication ethics, to learn and share different ways to detect any ethical violations in research and publication, to train and educate its editorial members and researchers, and to analyze and share different cases of ethical violations with the scholarly community.

• Journal of Korean society of Dental Hygiene
• /
• v.16 no.6
• /
• pp.1023-1031
• /
• 2016

Objectives: The purpose of the study was to investigate the related factors of learning ethics of dental hygiene students. Methods: A self-reported questionnaire was completed by 278 dental hygiene students in G metropolitan city from June 9 to July 29, 2016. The data were analyzed by frequency analysis, percentage and stepwise multiple regression analysis using SPSS 12.0 program. The questionnaire comprised learning ethics (10 items), condition of learning ethics (10 items), reason of plagiarism (8 items), intellectual property right consciousness (8 items), internet ethics consciousness (20 items), individual ethics consciousness (2 items). Results: Condition of learning ethics was higher in mosaic plagiarism (33.9%). The main reason of plagiarism was higher in lack of time (52.7%). Related factors with the intellectual property right consciousness was use of reference (${\beta}=0.424$), internet expectancy (${\beta}=0.228$) and parental rearing attitude (${\beta}=0.229$) (Adjusted $R^2=0.336$). Related factors with the internet ethics consciousness were parental rearing attitude (${\beta}=-0.241$), academic achievements (${\beta}=0.420$), internet expectancy (${\beta}=-0.368$) and grade (${\beta}=-0.154$)(Adjusted $R^2=0.390$). Related factor with the individual ethics consciousness was academic achievements (${\beta}=0.445$) (Adjusted $R^2=0.192$). Conclusions: To increase the learning ethics and preventing plagiarism, it is necessary to have essential understanding and practice to make the liberal arts education and extracurricular program of institutions.

• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.33 no.3
• /
• pp.241-242
• /
• 2023

As part of efforts to internally strengthen the research ethics capacity of the Korean Academy of Health Policy and Management, we have compiled research ethics issues that are frequently encountered in public health researches. Firstly, when reusing research reports or dissertations as papers, efforts should be made to avoid unfair duplicate publication. Compliance with the institutional review board exemption process is required, and additional efforts should be devoted during the text recycling process to prevent self-plagiarism or unjust duplicate publication.

• Journal of Practical Engineering Education
• /
• v.16 no.4
• /
• pp.471-479
• /
• 2024

This study aims to examine the cognitive and affective changes in university students' writing self-efficacy when engaging in reflective writing classes utilizing ChatGPT. Over ten sessions, reflective writing classes using ChatGPT were conducted for students enrolled in a mandatory writing course at S University in Gyeonggi Province. The reflective journals written by the students during these sessions were meticulously reviewed as qualitative data with statistical analysis of pre- and post-surveys on writing self-efficacy. The results confirmed that utilizing ChatGPT in reflective writing classes positively impacted students' writing self-efficacy. Participants showed increased interest and confidence in their writing abilities when using ChatGPT. It was reported that they received cognitive assistance in outlining and paragraph structuring from samples generated by ChatGPT. Although survey results showed an overall increase in writing self-efficacy, the only statistically significant change was in the 'plagiarism response' category, which means a clear awareness of plagiarism issues. The process of personalizing the ChatGPT-generated samples requires consistent practice, and systematic guidelines on using such helpful tool effectively should be reinforced as a future task.

• 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.