Chapter 1: General Principles

Article 1 (Purpose)

These guidelines aim to clearly define the ethical standards that editorial board members, authors of research papers, and reviewers of the Information and Communication Policy Society (hereinafter referred to as the "Society") should adhere to, in order to raise awareness of their professional responsibility among relevant academic communities and society as a whole.

Article 2 (Applicability)

These guidelines apply to authors of research papers, reviewers, and editorial board members of the Society. They are also applicable to individuals engaged in other research and administrative activities within the Society.

Article 3 (Scope of Application)

Unless there are specific provisions in other laws regarding research ethics in the field of study, these guidelines shall be applied. In cases where it is difficult to apply these guidelines due to special circumstances in specific fields, they may be applied taking those circumstances into consideration.

Chapter 2: Ethical Obligations of Authors

Article 4 (Integrity of Research)

• 1.Authors must conduct all research with honesty and truthfulness.
• 2.Authors must ensure that all research activities are conducted without bias or prejudice./li>
• 3.Authors must describe the research content and its significance objectively and accurately, and should not arbitrarily exclude or add research results. Authors should also make reasonable efforts to determine if the same content has already been published.

Article 5 (Establishing the Value of Research)

• 1.Research papers should include conclusive findings of sufficient scholarly value and comprehensive evidence to support them. When submitting a research paper claiming the same conclusions as previously published papers, there must be significant academic value in presenting new evidence.
• 2.Research papers should include detailed explanations that allow experienced researchers to replicate the content of the research, demonstrating sufficient expertise in the field.

Article 6 (Caution when citing others' research)

• 1.Authors must ensure the accuracy of source references and the creation of a comprehensive bibliography. Authors should directly verify all citation elements (author names, journal volume and issue numbers, pages, publication year) from the original paper and avoid relying on secondary sources. If unavoidable, authors should clearly indicate the re-quotation and cite the original source.
• 2.Authors should cite the work being referenced in a reasonable manner that allows clear distinction from their own work, following the principle of good faith.
• 3.Authors should primarily cite publicly available works, and if they obtain unpublished academic materials through research evaluation, research proposals, or personal contact, they should obtain the consent of the respective authors before citing them.
• 4.When introducing theories or ideas from others' previously published papers into their own work, authors must explicitly indicate the source.
• 5.5.Unless authors have theoretical or empirical knowledge of related authors, any important publicly available literature that has significantly influenced the direction of the research or can aid readers in understanding the research should be included in the bibliography, excluding cases where the relevant authors can be reasonably assumed to have theoretical or experiential knowledge of it.

Article 7 (Social Contribution of Research Results)

Authors should strive to enhance social benefits and align their research with the criteria of public interest. They must be aware of the impact their research can have on society and fulfill their responsibilities as experts.

Article 8 (Collaborative Research)

When conducting collaborative research with other researchers, authors should clarify roles and relationships and fulfill their respective responsibilities. Prior to commencing the research, there should be agreement and understanding regarding the research objectives, expected outcomes, collaborative relationships, methods of data collection, storage, and sharing, authorship determination and order, selection of research leader, intellectual property rights, ownership issues, and other related matters. Individuals who have not made scholarly contributions to the research should not be included as co-authors, and individuals or institutions that have provided non-scholarly support, such as logistical assistance, should be acknowledged in footnotes or acknowledgments. The corresponding author of the paper should obtain explicit consent from all co-authors regarding their participation as co-authors. The order of listing co-authors should be determined through consensus among the co-authors, and it is desirable to prioritize the names of authors who have made significant contributions to the research. The author's affiliation should be the affiliation at the time the research was conducted, and if there has been a change in affiliation at the time of submission, this fact should be appropriately indicated in a footnote.

Article 9 (Corresponding Author)

The corresponding author should be someone who can assume overall responsibility for the research results and findings, and they bear the responsibility for the order of authorship and the demonstration of co-authorship.

Article 10 (Compliance with Applicable Regulations)

Authors should respect intellectual property rights such as patents or copyrights and comply with relevant research-related regulations and laws.

Chapter 3: Scope of Research Misconduct, Verification Procedures, and Post-Management Measures

Article 11 (Scope of Research Misconduct)

Research misconduct (hereinafter referred to as "misconduct") refers to the following acts committed in submitted papers, including forgery, falsification, plagiarism, and improper authorship attribution.

• 1.Forgery: Falsifying nonexistent data or research results.
• 2.Falsification: Manipulating the research process or arbitrarily altering, modifying, or deleting data to distort the research content or results.
• 3.Plagiarism: Appropriating another person's ideas, research content, results, etc., without proper approval or citation.
• 4.Improper Authorship Attribution: Failing to grant authorship qualifications to individuals who have substantially contributed scientifically, technically, or academically to the research content or results without justifiable reasons, or granting authorship to individuals who have not made scientific, technical, or academic contributions based on expressions of gratitude or favors.
• 5.Obstruction of Investigation: Deliberately obstructing investigations into allegations of misconduct or causing harm to whistleblowers.
• 6.Solicitation or Coercion: Proposing, forcing, or threatening others to engage in the aforementioned misconduct.
• 7.Other Acts: Engaging in actions that significantly deviate from the acceptable norms within the academic community.

Article 12 (Verification Procedures for Research Misconduct)

• 1.The verification procedures for misconduct are conducted under the supervision of the editorial committee and consist of preliminary investigation, main investigation, and judgment stages.
• 2.The preliminary investigation refers to the process of determining whether there is a need to investigate allegations of misconduct. It must be initiated within 30 days from the date of receipt of the report. If the accused party admits all allegations of misconduct during the preliminary investigation, a judgment may be made without proceeding to the main investigation.
• 3.The main investigation is the procedure to establish the facts regarding the misconduct. The editorial committee must provide the reporter and the accused party an opportunity to present their opinions. Before finalizing the results of the main investigation, opportunities for raising objections and presenting counterarguments must be given. If a party refuses to participate, it shall be deemed as having no objections.
• 4.Judgment refers to the procedure of finalizing the results of the main investigation and notifying the reporter and the accused party in writing. All investigation proceedings, from the initiation of the preliminary investigation to the judgment, must be completed within three months.
• 5.If the reporter or the accused party disagrees with the judgment, they may file an objection with the society within 30 days from the date of notification. If the editorial committee determines that the objection is reasonable and valid, a re-investigation must be conducted.

Article 13 (Post-Investigation Management Measures)

• 1.The results of the main investigation shall be communicated to the reporter and the accused party in writing within 10 days after obtaining the approval of the editorial committee.
• 2..The editor-in-chief shall promptly take necessary disciplinary measures if the investigation confirms that the accused party has engaged in research misconduct.
• 3.Specific provisions regarding disciplinary measures may be established in accordance with other relevant regulations or separately.
• 4.Records related to the preliminary investigation and main investigation shall be kept by the society, and they must be retained for a period of five years after the completion of the investigation.
• 5.The results of the investigation may be made public after the conclusion of the judgment. However, if there is a possibility of causing harm to the individuals involved, such as the reporter, investigation committee members, witnesses, informants, or advisors, their identities and related information may be excluded from public disclosure.

Chapter 4: Ethical Obligations of an Editor

Article 14 (Responsibilities and Duties of an Editor)

• 1.An editor should treat submitted manuscripts fairly, based on the quality of the paper and adherence to submission guidelines, regardless of the author's gender, age, affiliation, or personal relationship with the author.
• 2.An editor bears full responsibility for determining whether a submitted manuscript should be accepted for publication.
• 3.An editor should respect the author's integrity and academic independence.

Article 15 (Peer Review)

An editor may seek expert advice from a third party with specialized knowledge and impartial judgment regarding the quality and accuracy of the manuscript in the relevant field. However, if deemed inappropriate for the scholarly journal, the editor may reject it without conducting a review.

Article 16 (Confidentiality of Submitted Manuscripts)

An editor must not disclose the content of a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the peer reviewers until a decision regarding its publication has been made.

Article 17 (Review of Editor's Submitted Manuscripts)

The editor's submitted manuscripts should be reviewed by other editors.

Article 18 (Author's Rights)

An author may request the editor-in-chief to exclude specific individuals as reviewers for the submitted manuscript. However, the editor-in-chief must consider the request in light of the manuscript's content.

Chapter 5: Obligations of Peer Reviewers

Article 19 (Responsibilities and Duties of Reviewers)

• 1.All reviewers have an obligation to diligently review the manuscripts assigned by the editor-in-chief within the specified timeframe according to the review guidelines, contributing to the advancement of scholarship.
• 2.Reviewers should objectively evaluate the empirical research, theoretical content, interpretation of results, and quality of explanations in the paper, while maintaining high scientific and academic standards. Reviewing based on unverified personal beliefs or assumptions is inappropriate, and reviewers should make every effort to conduct a fair review regardless of their own research or personal relationships with the authors.
• 3.Reviewers should respect the author's integrity and independence as a subject matter expert. The review report sent to the editor should explain in detail the reviewer's judgment and provide specific reasons for any perceived deficiencies or areas requiring improvement in the manuscript. It is not desirable to request additional materials or explanations from the author for personal purposes.
• 4.Reviewers should strive to complete the review process promptly and send the review report to the editor-in-chief as soon as possible. If a reviewer determines that they are not suitable to review the content of the manuscript, they should promptly inform the editor-in-chief of that fact.

Article 20 (Confidentiality of Manuscripts)

Reviewers must ensure the confidentiality of the manuscripts assigned for review. It is not appropriate to show the manuscript to others or discuss its content with anyone unless specifically seeking advice. If a reviewer seeks advice from others to prepare the review report, they should inform the editor-in-chief of this fact. It is also not appropriate to quote or reference the content of the manuscript without the author's consent before the academic journal in which the paper is published.

Article 21 (Review of Manuscripts)

Reviewers should pay meticulous attention to ensuring the accurate citation of important research findings and data related to the content of the submitted manuscript. If the content of the manuscript being reviewed is very similar to another published paper in the academic journal, the reviewer should inform the editor-in-chief in detail about this fact.

부 칙

• 1.2007년 6월 7일 제정
• 2.2009년 6월 16일 개정