(Legislated on April 12, 2008)
(First revised on October 18, 2013)
Chapter 1 General rules
Article 1 (Purpose)
Article 2 (Research ethics observance duty and deliberation)
- This regulation has purpose of establishing research ethics of the institute by regulating basics and disciplinary actions for journals published in 'Journal of the Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture' which is the journal of the 'Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture' and research service requested to the institute.
- ① The author of thesis published in 'Journal of the Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture' and research service has responsibility of academic truth, creativity, and research ethics observance duty.
- ② Academic truth is that author of thesis published in 'Journal of the Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture' and research service has sincere in all process of research accomplishment, and must not intentionally omit, add, falsify the process and results of the research.
- ③ Academic creativity is that thesis published in 'Journal of the Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture' and research contents of research service should secure creativity differentiating from author's or other's existing research achievements.
- ④ The author of thesis published in 'Journal of the Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture' and research service is limited to person who actually contributed to research accomplishments.
- ⑤ Deliberation and authority for research ethics observance duty belongs to the research ethics committee.
Chapter 2 Regulation of research related ethics
< Paragraph 1 Ethics regulation for author >
Article 3 (Publishing achievements and author labeling)
Article 4 (Falsification․modulation)
- ① Responsibility and authority as author are limited to actually performed and contributed research by the author.
- ② Author(translator) of thesis or research service or order of author should be reflected as the first author, corresponding author, or co-author according to the contribution level. Also, usually accepted level of contribution can be expressed in 'acknowledgement'.
Article 5 (Plagiarism)
- ① Author must not falsify or modulate research results. Falsification and modulation include actions intentionally expressing materials or numerical values, photos and pictures different from the truth.
- ② Falsification is the action falsely making data or results that do not exist.
- ③ Modulation is the action distorting research contents or results by intentionally fabricating research process, or changing or deleting data.
Article 6 (Duplicated publication)
- ① Author must not describe research or part of opinion that he did not perform as own research results or opinions.
- ② Plagiarism is the action intentionally using printed information such as domestic and international journals, conference journals, research reports, master's-doctoral thesis papers, publications, magazines, internet that are already presented academic idea, opinion, expression, research result without clearly citing.
- ③ Plagiarism also applies to parts without citation has more than 'certain amount' and 'similar' expression to presented contents, and also applies if author is the same as already presented contents(self-plagiarism).
- ④ However, describing generally used academic knowledge or research results in the academic world without citation is not plagiarism.
- ⑤ In case of problem for plagiarism, plagiarism is decided from evaluation by ethics committee.
Article 7 (Citation and reference labeling)
- ① Author, regardless of domestic or oversea, must not publish(submit) previously published research(including scheduled for publication or under evaluation) as new research.
- ② Thesis already published in domestic․oversea journal or thesis under evaluation cannot be submitted to 'Journal of the Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture'.
- ③ In case of submitting to 'Journal of the Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture' with intactly or partly revised․supplemented thesis, research report, and degree thesis presented in conference must specify the truth.
- ① In case of citing published academic materials, it should be clearly specified and the source must be clearly specified for materials against common sense. In case of materials obtained during evaluation of journal or research proposal or personal contact, it only can be cited with approval of information provided researcher.
- ② In case of citing other's writing or using idea, citation and reference must be specified through footnote, and must be stated for readers which part is advanced research results and which part is own creative thinking, opinion, or interpretation.
< Paragraph 2 Ethics regulation that should be followed by editing member >
Article 8 (Responsibility of editing committee and editing member)
Article 9 (Secrecy of thesis evaluation)
- ① Editing committee must do its best to protect honor of the institute and members, and raise status of the institute through edition of journals.
- ② Editing committee has all the responsibility of publication judgment for submitted thesis, and should respect personality of contributor and independence as a scholar.
- ③ Editing member should deal submitted thesis fairly based on quality of thesis and evaluation regulation irrelevant to sex, age, affiliation of the author as well as any prejudice or personal relation.
- ④ Editing member should requested evaluation of submitted thesis to examiner with professional knowledge and fairly judging capability. Objective evaluation should be approached as much as possible with avoiding examiners who have relation or hostile to the author.
- ① Editing member must not leak personal information of examiner from evaluation process and must not leak personal information of author to examiner.
- ② Editing member must not leak contents of the thesis other than examiners until the decision of publication.
< Paragraph 3 Ethics regulation that should be followed by examiner >
Article 10 (Responsibility of examiner)
Article 11 (Secrecy of examiner)
- ① Examiner must sincerely evaluate and notify evaluation results to editing committee within regulated period of time. If examiner decides he is not well-qualified person, it should be notified to editing committee with no delay.
- ② Examiner should fully read the thesis and then fairly evaluate according to objective standard regardless of personal academic belief or personal relation with the author. The thesis must not be disapproved for publication without specified basis or eliminated for reason of conflicting with examiner's viewpoint or interpretation.
- ③ Examiner should respect personality and independence of contributor as an expert. The opinion about thesis should be described and reason for supplementation in case of needed should be described in detail on written evaluation opinion. Polite and smooth expression should be used as much as possible and refrain from depreciating and insulting expression of author.
- ① Examiner must keep the secret for examining thesis. Thesis must not be shown to others or discuss on research contents unless in case of especially asking for advice for evaluation.
- ② Examiner must not cite the contents of thesis without approval of author before publication.
Chapter 3 Research ethics regulation enforcement policy
Article 12 (Vow of research ethics regulation and violation report)
Article 13 (Composition of research ethics committee)
- ① New member of the institute must make a vow to comply with research ethics regulation, and existing member is considered of making a vow at the time of research ethics regulation was effected.
- ② Member should report to the institute when research ethics regulation violation of chapter 2 is found.
- ③ Member should report to the institute when consultation and evaluation are severely violating usually accepted range in the academic world.
- ④ The institute or research ethics committee must not open identity of member who reported the problem externally.
Article 14 (Authority of research ethics committee)
- ① When the report for research ethics regulation violation was received, editing committee must confirm reliability of the report in 3o days by collecting related materials(preliminary investigation).
- ② When editing chairman finds reliability of the report, it should be reported to the president immediately and president can deliberate in 14 days by composing research ethics committee(main investigation).
- ③ Chairman of research ethics committee has dual role of editing chairman, and total of 9 including scholarship president and related experts appoint the president. However, author, research chief, or researcher of thesis with consideration cannot be a member.
- ④ Informer can request application for challenge for member appointment of research ethics committee.
Article 15 (Judgment and disciplinary action of research violation action)
- ① Research ethics committee can propose appropriate disciplinary action to the president in case of violation found the truth after widely investigating through informer, examinee, witness, testifier, and evidential materials for issue reported as ethics regulation violation.
- ② Examinee who was reported for research ethics regulation violation must cooperate with investigation performed by research ethics committee.
- ③ Any actions intentionally disrupting the investigation for suspicion of research ethics violation or harming the informer is also considered as research ethics regulation violation.
Article 16 (Objection)
- ① Chairman of research ethics committee should provide opportunity to relevant researcher to explain in document for item proposed before the deliberation.
- ② Research ethics committee receive explanation from relevant researcher, judge research ethics regulation violation with 2/3 attendance of members and 2/3 votes agreed in 30 days, and should propose disciplinary punishment to president when violation is decided.
- ③ In case of disciplinary punishment proposal of research ethics committee, president should make the final decision of disciplinary punishment and contents by convening permanent board of directors. The disciplinary punishments such as warning, suspension of submission, suspension of member qualification, or deprivation can be made for member who is decided for research ethics regulation violation.
- ④ President must notify decision of permanent board of directors to the researcher, and can notify affiliation of researcher or joined organization.
Article 17 (Secret protection)
- ① Researcher decided of research ethics regulation violation can make objection in document only once in 1 month from notification date in case of decision of research ethics committee is assumed to be unjustified.
- ② Examinee can request application of challenge for research ethics staff who could disrupt fair investigation.
- ③ Research ethics committee can propose reconfirmation or modification of decision to permanent board of directors by deliberating the validity of objection.
- ④ President can make final decision by laying as item of permanent board of directors according to proposal of research ethics committee, then should notify its content and reason to relevant researcher.
Article 18 (Penalty)
- ① Identity of research violation action informer must be opened externally.
- ② Identity of relevant researcher must not be opened externally before final decision as research violation action or in case of judged as no research violation action.
- ① When permanent board of directors make final decision as research ethics regulation violation, editing committee should cancel the publication immediately and notify on institute journal and institute website.
- ② The penalty for research ethics regulation violation can be determined for violation degree of research ethics regulation among warning, journal submission prohibition for 1-5 years, suspension of member qualification for 1-5 years, and deprivation of member qualification.
Article 19 (Modification of research ethics regulation)
Article 20 (Enforcement date)
- Modification procedure of research ethics regulation should follow the institute regulation revision procedure. If research ethics regulation was modified, members who made vow to the existing regulation are considered as making vow to new regulation without additional vow.
- This regulation is effected on the date of establishment. However, legislation of permanent board of directors should be progressed for issue that retroactive application is needed.