1. “Research Materials” refers to pre-processing data and literature collected by researchers through experiments, observations, and surveys to achieve research purposes.
2. “Research Data” refers to the data processed from research materials and secondary data and literature using them.
3. “Research Results” refers to structured conclusions drawn by researchers using research data obtained through research activities.
4. “Research Output” refers to academic works and intellectual property such as reports, thesis, publications, and scripts that describe the final results obtained by researchers through research activities.

② Scope of Research Misconduct

1. “Fabrication” is the act of falsely making, recording, and reporting research materials or research data or research results that do not exist.
2. “Falsification” the act of distorting the research contents or results by artificially manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, etc. or arbitrarily modifying or deleting research materials and research data.
3. “Plagiarism” is the act of making a third party aware of its creation by using not general knowledge but original ideas or creations of others, as shown in the following items, without proper source indication.

A. When using all or part of other people's research without indicating the source
B. When not indicating the source of the word or sentence structure of another person's work that was paraphrased
C. When not indicating the source of the original ideas of others, etc.
D. When not indicating the source while translating and utilizing other people's works

4 .“Unjust Indication of Author” is the act of not granting authorship to persons who have contributed to the research contents and results without justifiable reasons, or granting authorship to persons who have not contributed, on the grounds of appreciation or respect as follows.

A. When author qualification is granted even though there is no contribution or contribution to the research or results
B. When not qualifying as an author despite one’s contribution to the research or results
C. When a student's thesis is published or presented in an academic journal under the sole name of his or her academic advisor

5. “Unjust Duplicate Publication” is an act of obtaining unfair benefits, such as when a researcher receives research funds or is recognized as a separate research work after publishing the same or substantially similar work as his or her previous research results without a source
6. An "authorship" is an individual judged to have made a substantial intellectual or practical contribution to a publication, and has public credibility in the results of the research.
7. “Interference with Investigation on Research Misconduct” is an act that deliberately interferes with the investigation of a person's misconduct or inflicts harm on the informant.
8. Other acts that seriously deviate from the scope normally accepted in each academic field

③ Criteria for the authorshipt

1. made a substantial contribution to conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
2. drafted the work or reviewed/revised it critically for important intellectual content; AND
3. approved the latest version of the article to be published; AND
4. agreed to be responsible for the every aspect of the research to ensure solving problems or investigating questions related to the accuracy or integrity of the work

④ Criteria for the contributort

① One shall not violate the purpose of the establishment of the academic society or impair the dignity of the academic society, and shall perform academic activities and various projects in a fair and sincere manner.
② Academic objectivity shall be maintained in the entire process of conducting research, with no fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and no arbitrary use of other people's intellectual property.
③ The author of the paper shall be limited to those who have substantially contributed to the writing of the paper and shall not make an unfair mark of the author, such as not omitting those who have contributed to the writing of the paper.
④ The papers contributed and published in the academic society shall not be duplicated and published in other academic journals at home and abroad, nor shall they be duplicated and published in journals published by other academic society.
⑤ The editor, in deciding whether to publish the contributed paper, shall endeavor to ensure that objective evaluation is made solely based on the quality level of the paper and the contribution regulations, regardless of any preconceptions or personal relationship.
⑥ The reviewer shall faithfully evaluate the papers requested by the Journal Editorial Committee within the period prescribed by the examination regulations and notify the editorial committee of the results thereof. If it is deemed that he is not the right person to evaluate the content of the paper, the editorial committee shall be noticed without delay.
⑦ The reviewer shall keep the confidentiality of the papers to be examined. Nor shall the contents of the paper be quoted without the author's consent before the publication of the journal.

1) Where a paper or part of it is contributed as it is or by modification or supplementation, the facts must be stated.
2) Where a research report or part of it is submitted as it is, modified, or supplemented, the facts must be stated.
3) Where a doctoral or master's degree paper is contributed as it is or in a modified or supplemented form, the author of the dissertation must be included in the list of authors.
4) When quoting published academic materials, describe accurately and clarify the sources unless they are commonly understood.

① “Investigation Subject” refers to members subject to Research Misconduct investigation by the informant's report or when recognized by the Society or members assumed to have been involved in Research Misconduct in the course of investigation, and no witnesses or witnesses in the investigation process are included here.
② The Society shall take caution not to infringe on the honor or rights of the investigation subject in the validation process.
③ Suspicions about Research Misconduct shall not be disclosed until the judgment is made.
④ The investigation subject may require the Society to inform the institution of the procedures and schedules of the Research Misconduct, and the President shall comply with such request in good faith.

① The responsibility to prove Research Misconduct lies with the Investigation Committee. However, if the investigation subject intentionally damages or refuses to submit the data requested by the investigation committee, the investigation subject shall be held responsible.
② The Investigation Committee shall ensure the rights and opportunities of opinion statement, objection, and defense to inform informant and investigation subject in advance. In this case, the investigation subject shall also be informed of the report
③ The President shall endeavor to ensure that the Investigation Committee maintains its independence and fairness without undue pressure or interference.

① To verify a Research Misconduct, the procedures of "Preliminary Investigation“ and "Actual Investigation” and "Judgment" shall be followed.
② If the President is aware of sufficient charges against the Research Misconduct, he may initiate an actual investigation immediately without a preliminary investigation.
③ The President shall actively comply with the request of the member's affiliated agency for cooperation when the research is carried out for verification of the Research Misconduct.
④ When a member's Research Misconduct is reported and verified, the President shall notify the results to the member's affiliated institution and the academic organization for the publication of the relevant paper.

① Preliminary Investigation is a procedure for deciding whether or not to carry out an actual investigation on Research Misconduct suspicion. It is started within 30 days from the date of receipt of the report.
② Preliminary Investigation shall be conducted by the Ethics Committee in accordance with Article 10.
③ The President, if the investigation subject acknowledges all Research Misconduct facts, may make a decision immediately without going through the actual investigation.
④ The President, if there is a possibility of serious damage to the evidence, may take measures to preserve the evidence even before the formation of the Investigation Committee.
⑤ The President shall notify the informant of the preliminary investigation results in writing within ten days from the date of the termination of the preliminary investigation; and if it is decided not to carry out an actual investigation, this shall include specific reasons. However, this is not the case for anonymous reports.

① The actual investigation shall be conducted by organizing an investigation committee under Article 11 to verify the facts of the Research Misconduct.
② The Investigation Committee shall give informant and investigation subject an opportunity to state their opinions; if the party does not respond, it shall be deemed to have no objection.

1) Research Ethics Committee(hereinafter Committee) shall establish and operate a system related to research ethics.
2) The Committee shall deliberate on acts that violate the research ethics regulations and determine necessary measures according to the results of the review.
3) The Committee shall be comprised of not more than five members, including one Chairperson of the Editorial Committee.
4) The Chairperson of the Ethics Committee shall be the Chairperson of the Editorial Committee, and the members shall be appointed by the Society President upon the recommendation of the Chairperson, and the term of office shall be the same as the term of the executive members.

① Research Ethics Committee may request informant, investigation subject, witness, and testifier to appear for statement during the investigation. In this case, the investigation subject must comply.
② Research Ethics Committee may request the investigation subject to submit the data and may take measures to preserve the relevant data for Research Misconduct related persons with the approval of the Chairman for the preservation of the evidence data.
③ Research Ethics Committee may propose appropriate sanctions to the Chairperson against those involved in the Research Misconduct.

① In the event that there is an objection to the outcome of the preliminary investigation or the outcome of the decision, the informant or investigation subject may file an objection in writing to the Chairperson within 30 days from the date of notification of the result.
② Unless there is a valid reason not to file an objection under paragraph 1, the President shall handle the objection within 60 days from the date on which the objection is filed.

① The President shall terminate all proceedings concerning the judgment and objection to the Research Misconduct, and then delegate it to the Ethics Committee to take appropriate measures against the Research Misconduct.
② The Ethics Committee considers whether the disciplinary action is proportionate to the Research Misconduct to a considerable degree and make sure that it does not go against the academic community's internal regulations, related statutes and the perception of the Society.

1) The identity of the informant of Research Misconduct shall not be disclosed to the public.
2) Before the final judgment as Research Misconduct or if it is judged not to be a Research Misconduct, the identity of the researcher shall not be disclosed to the public.