RESEARCH ETHICS REGULATION

Convergence Education Research Ethics Regulation

Enacted 1 April 2016 (Regulation No. 1)

Amended 30 January 2024 (Regulation No. 1)

Preamble

The publication of a professional journal that publishes the results of academic research on convergence education research is one of the important projects of this institute. In order to contribute to the development of convergence education research through the publication of high-quality academic journals, it is necessary to establish ethical regulations that should be observed by journal editors and judges as well as authors of research papers.

The Research Ethics Regulation of “Convergence Education Review” (hereinafter referred to as the "Ethics Regulation") stipulates the principles and standards that contributors, editorial members, and judges should observe in the performance of research. Contributors, editors, and judges should be able to appreciate the value of research and share their findings together by complying with research ethics when conducting academic research and publishing research papers, which is essential for true academic development in convergence education research.

Chapter I. Research-related Ethics Regulations

Section 1 Ethics Regulations that the author must abide by

The scope of research misconduct shall be determined as follows, and a researcher who has performed the following acts shall be subject to investigation into research misconduct:

• (1) “Fabrication” shall refer to making up data or research results that do not actually exist.
• (2) “Falsification” shall refer to distorting the substance or results of research by manipulating the material, equipment, or process of research or arbitrarily modifying or omitting data.
• (3) “Plagiarism” shall refer to the using another person's ideas, research contents, or results without proper permission or citation.
• (4) “False authorship” shall refer to denying authorship (without justifiable reason) to a person who has made a scientific or technical contribution to the content or results of research or conferring authorship out of gratitude or respect to a person, who has made no scientific or technical contribution.
• (5) Any activity which either intentionally interferes with the investigation made for suspicious fraudulent acts of his or her own or others or threatens or harm the informant;
• (6) Any activity which seriously deviates from the one commonly acceptable to the other academic fields.

• (1) The author shall be responsible only for the research he actually conducted or contributed to,
• (2) and shall also be recognized as an achievement.
• (3) Authorship shall be determined on the basis of participation in the following four matters
  • 1) Substantial contribution to the conception and design of the research or to the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data for the study; 2) Contribution of new analysis or critical revision of the work for important contributions to the knowledge of the authors; 3) Final approval of the manuscript for publication; and 4) Agreement to take responsibility for all aspects of the work, including ensuring that issues concerning the accuracy or veracity of the work are adequately investigated and resolved. Authors must meet all of the conditions in 1), 2), 3), and 4). In addition, each author must be responsible for his or her portion of the paper and be able to identify which other co-authors are responsible for which specific portions. Anyone who does not meet these four criteria should be recognized as a contributor, not an author. Obtaining (procuring) funding, collecting data, and providing general comments do not qualify as authorship.
• (4) If there are more than two authors, a corresponding author should be designated. The corresponding author has primary responsibility for all matters raised by the editors and readers, and any opinion expressed by the corresponding author shall be considered as the opinion of all co-authors.
• (5) The criteria for co-first or co-corresponding authors is acceptable only if the authors are judged to have played a contributing role in the research.
• (6) The order of authors (translators) or authors should accurately reflect their contributions to the research, regardless of their relative positions. Simply holding a position does not justify becoming an author or being recognized as a first author. On the other hand, it is also unjustifiable for a person to contribute to research or writing (translation) and not be listed as a co-author (translator) or co-researcher. Minor contributions to research or writing (translation) are appropriately acknowledged in footnotes, prefaces, acknowledgments, etc.
• (7) Even if the source is acknowledged, quotations that extend beyond the scope of common sense citations (e.g., a few pages) must have the author’s permission; otherwise, they constitute a violation of the author's rights, if not plagiarism, and are unacceptable.
• (8) It is unacceptable to submit or publish a work as if it were one’s own work without the consent of all co-authors when several people have collaborated on the work.

The author shall not publish or contribute his/her previously published works (including those scheduled for publication or under examination) regardless of home and aboard. Where intending to publish using research already published, he/she shall provide information on the previous publication to the editor of the journal he/she intends to publish and verify whether it falls under duplicate publication or double publication. Provided, that academic presentation papers do not apply to this regulation.

• (1) If the author cites published academic materials, he/she shall endeavor to describe them accurately, and shall clearly state their sources unless they are in common sense. In the case of data obtained during the evaluation of a paper or research plan or through personal contact, it may be cited only after obtaining consent from the researcher who provided the information.
• (2) When the author cites another person’s writing or references another person’s ideas, he/she shall state whether he/she is cited or referenced in footnotes, and shall enable readers know which part is the result of prior research and which part is his/her original idea, claim, and interpretation.

The author shall endeavor to accept and reflect the opinions of the editorial members and the judges presented in the course of evaluating the thesis as much as possible, and if he/she disagrees with them, he/she shall write the grounds and reasons in detail and notify the editorial board.

For human subjects research, authors must obtain approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of their institution and must meet the ethical standards set forth in the Declaration of Helsinki. In the case of animal experiments, authors must obtain approval from the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) of their institution for the care and use of animals. Research on pathogens that require a high level of biosafety must also be reviewed by the relevant committee (IBC). The approval of the above matters should be described in the “Experimental Methods section” of the paper. If there is any misconduct related to the writing of the paper, the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, http://publicationethics.org/) shall be followed to resolve it.

• (1) Corresponding authors must disclose on the manuscript cover page any potential conflicts of interest that may affect the interpretation of the results. Such conflicts may arise from financial support, relationships with sponsors, or pressure from interest groups. Even if authors are confident that they have not been influenced in the preparation of the manuscript, they should still disclose any potential conflicts of interest. Convergence Education Research Institute also requires reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest to the editor prior to reviewing a particular manuscript. The author(s) must also disclose all funding sources that supported the research.
• (2) Authors shall make efforts to reduce and eliminate the possibility of personal conflicts of interest arising from the participation of specially related persons such as minors (under the age of 18) or family members (spouse, children, grandparents, parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and first cousins) in research. Authors must report any related parties to the Society in advance when presenting or submitting studies involving related parties. If a research presentation or paper involving a related party is used for the admission or employment of a related party, the author must report it to the Society, and the Society will notify the relevant organizations.

• (1) Articles submitted to the journal must faithfully follow the guidelines recommended by the Gender Innovation Policy (http://gister.re.kr/).
• (2) In the case of research articles involving human subjects, distinguish between sex (biological sex) and gender (social sex) in the description of gender.
• (3) Researchers are encouraged to include men and women in their studies and to analyze the results comparatively.
• (4) It is recommended to provide a scholarly justification for single-gender studies.

• (1) Authors of articles submitted and published in Convergence Education Review shall be responsible for participating in continuous research ethics education.
• (2) At the time of submission, all authors are encouraged to regularly complete the ‘Research Ethics Training’ organized by the Convergence Education Research Institute or the affiliated institution, the Research Ethics Training Portal of the National Research Foundation of Korea, or the Research Ethics Training provided by the National Institute of Science and Technology Human Resources Development.
• (3) Contributors selected for research and development projects under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education are encouraged to complete research ethics training at an educational institution designated under the agreement in accordance with MOE Order No. 449, “Guidelines for Securing Research Ethics,” in advance.

Section 2 Ethics Regulations that the editorial board members must abide by.

The editorial member shall be fully responsible for determining whether to publish the contributed paper and shall respect the independence as a scholar and personality of the author.

The editorial member shall treat a paper contributed for publication of an academic journal fairly, regardless of the author's gender, age, or institution, as well as any preconceived or personal acquaintance.

The editorial member shall request the evaluation of the contributed papers to the judges with professional knowledge in the relevant field and fair judgement ability. When requesting an examination, he/she shall endeavor to ensure that an objective evaluation is made by avoiding judges who are close to the author or who are hostile. However, if the evaluation of the same paper differs significantly among reviewers, a third expert in the field may be consulted.

Editorial members shall not disclose matters concerning the author or the contents of the paper to anyone other than the judge until the publication of the contributed paper is decided.

Section 3 Ethics Regulations that the judges must abide by.

The judges shall faithfully evaluate the papers requested by the editorial members of the academic journal within the period prescribed by the screening regulations and notify the editorial members of the results of the evaluation. If it is deemed that he/she is not the right person to evaluate contents of the paper, he/she shall notify the editorial member of the fact without delay.

The judge shall evaluate paper requested for examination fairly based on objective standards, regardless of personal academic beliefs or relationships with an author. The paper should not be eliminated without sufficient evidence, or the paper should not be eliminated because it conflicts with the examiner's own point of view or interpretation, nor should the paper be evaluated without reading it properly.

The judge shall respect the independence of the author as a professional intellectual. The evaluation opinion should state its judgement on the paper, but explain why it is deemed necessary to be supplemented. It is recommended to use polite and gentle expressions as much as possible, and refrain from disparaging or insulting the author.

The judges shall keep a secret about the thesis subject to examination. It is also not desirable to show the paper to others or discuss the content of the paper with others unless specifically advice is sought for paper evaluation. In addition, the contents of the paper should not be cited without the author's permission before the publication of the journal in which the paper is published.

Chapter II. Guidelines for Enforcement of Ethics Regulations

Contributors of the “Convergence Education Research” shall pledge to comply with these “Ethics Regulations.”

When the editorial members and the judges recognize that contributor have violated the “Ethics Regulations”, they shall endeavor to correct the problem by reminding him/her to observe “Ethics Regulations”. However, if the problem is not corrected or a clear violation of “Ethics Regulations” is revealed, it can be reported to “the Ethics Committee”. The identity of a person who has reported a violation of “Ethics Regulations” shall not be disclosed.

• (1) The Ethics Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee”) shall be composed of three or more ethics committee members (hereinafter referred to as “members”), including the Ethics Chairperson (hereinafter referred to as the “Chairperson”), who shall serve for a term of two years and may be reappointed. However, a member may be dismissed even before the expiration of his/her term of office if a research ethics problem occurs, if the member’s attendance rate at the committee is significantly low, or if other reasons arise that make it difficult for him/her to act as a member.
• (2) The members of the committee shall be appointed by the President of the Institute of Convergence Education upon the recommendation of the Chairperson from among the members who are recognized as being able to fairly and independently conduct deliberation activities to protect and improve the level of research ethics.
• (3) The committee shall be organized in such a way that the members’ academic fields, schools of origin, etc. are not excessively biased in order to ensure the neutrality and fairness of the judgment.

The committee shall deliberate and resolve the following matters.

• (1) Matters related to the establishment and operation of the research ethics and integrity system
• (2) Matters concerning the protection of persons involved in the investigation and measures to restore the honor of the subjects
• (3) Matters related to the processing and follow-up of research integrity verification results
• (4) Matters concerning the establishment and operation of the research ethics education system
• (5) Matters concerning reporting of misconduct and preliminary investigation methods
• (6) Initiation of investigation and approval of investigation results
• (7) Approval of disclosure of the investigation report after adjudication
• (8) Approval of requests for external organizations to conduct research ethics investigations

• (1) The chairperson may convene a meeting at the request of a member of the Society, a report, or the request of the Editorial Board to examine issues and set regulatory measures.
• (2) The meeting shall be decided by the attendance of more than half of the members and the favorable vote of more than half of the members present.
• (3) The chairperson may substitute written deliberations if he/she deems the matter to be minor.
• (4) When the committee deems it necessary, it may invite relevant parties to appear and hear their opinions.
• (5) Meetings shall be closed to the public.

• (1) A person shall not be a commissioner in a case if he or she falls under any of the following subparagraphs.
  • 1) A person who is or was related to the informant or the subject under Article 777 of the Civil Code.
  • 2) A person who is or has been in a priestly relationship with the informant or respondent, or who is or has been conducting research jointly with the informant or respondent.
  • 3) Any other person deemed to be likely to harm the fairness of the investigation.
• (2) The chairperson shall inform the informant of the list of committee members pursuant to Article 19 (1) prior to the commencement of the investigation, and shall accommodate the informant’s request for recusal of a committee member for legitimate reasons. However, this shall not apply if the whistleblower cannot be contacted due to circumstances, in which case the relevant information shall be included in the investigation report.
• (3) If a committee member has an interest in the matter under investigation, he/she shall apply for recusal himself/herself.

• (1) The Committee shall investigate research misconduct upon receipt of a specific report or suspicion.
• (2) The committee shall deliberate, resolve, and implement within 60 days from the date the report is first received.
• (3) The committee shall determine whether a research ethics violation has occurred through a detailed review of the suspected paper if the validity of the complaint or report is recognized.
• (4) In order to conduct a fair and rigorous investigation, the chairperson may appoint an external person as an expert member.
• (5) In the course of the investigation, the committee may require the informant, respondent, witnesses, and references to appear for a statement, in which case the respondent must comply.
• (6) The Committee may require the respondent to submit materials and may take measures to preserve relevant materials in order to preserve evidence.
• (7) A Contributor who is reported to have violated the Ethics Regulation shall cooperate with any investigation conducted by the Ethics Committee. Failure to cooperate with the investigation is itself a violation of the Ethics Regulation.
• (8) Contributors who are reported for violating the Ethics Regulation shall be given a full opportunity to be heard.
• (9) If a violation of research ethics is recognized as a result of the committee's deliberations, the committee shall immediately notify the complainant and the accused of the results of the deliberations and give the accused an opportunity to re-state his/her case within 10 days.
• (10) If, as a result of the committee’s deliberations, it is recognized that the contents of the complaint or report are inappropriate or that the complainant's claim is valid, the committee shall immediately notify the complainant, the complainant, and the respondent that the respondent is not guilty.
• (11) If the accused is not exonerated or the validity of the accusation is not recognized within the specified period, the committee shall finally determine the contents of future restrictions on the activities of the Society and announce them on the Society’s website.

• (1) The committee shall make a judgment confirming that the accused’s behavior in relation to the facts of the deliberation is research misconduct by a majority of the members present and by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the members present.
• (2) The committee may revoke or suspend the membership of a person who intentionally or grossly negligently makes a report that is different from the truth or disseminates false facts in relation to the research ethics of the Society.
• (3) If there is a verdict of research misconduct, the following sanctions may be imposed or combined.
  • 1) Cancellation of publication of fraudulent research papers
  • 2) Notification of the fact that the publication of the fraudulent research paper has been canceled
  • 3) Revocation or suspension of membership
  • 4) Suspension of submission qualification
  • 5) Notification to related organizations
  • 6) Other appropriate measures
• (4) The preceding paragraph “2) Notice of the minimum facts of publication of a fraudulent research paper” shall include the name of the author, the title of the paper, the volume and issue number of the paper, the date of cancellation, and the reason for cancellation.

• (1) Until a final disciplinary decision is made by the Institute on a violation of the Code of Ethics, the Ethics Committee shall not disclose the identity of the whistleblower.
• (2) The Committee shall protect the whistleblower and endeavor not to unduly infringe on the honor of the subject.
• (3) All matters related to the report, investigation, review, etc. shall be kept confidential. However, if there is a need for disclosure, it may be disclosed through a resolution of the committee.
• (4) Members of the committee and those who directly or indirectly participate in the investigation shall not unfairly divulge information obtained during deliberations, resolutions, and other investigations.

The independence and neutrality of the ethics committee established by this regulation shall be guaranteed.

• (1) The Committee may conduct online and offline research ethics education for authors, editorial board members, and judges of the Convergence Education Review.
• (2) The committee shall promote the spread of research ethics education by posting the research ethics regulations on the website of the Convergence Education Research Institute (https://ceri.knue.ac.kr/) so that anyone can read them at any time.
• (3) The committee shall promote the spread of research ethics education by posting the research ethics regulations in the 『Convergence Education Review』 booklet and PDF file.
• (4) The committee shall promote the spread of research ethics education by attaching the research ethics regulations to the call for papers for 『Convergence Education Review』 and introducing research ethics education conducted by the Korea Research Foundation Research Ethics Education Portal or the National Institute of Science and Technology Human Resources Development.

Matters not specified in these regulations shall be applied according to the decision of the Ethics Committee.
If it is found to be plagiarism, the subsequent measures shall be in accordance with the recommendations of the National Research Foundation of Korea.