HOME > Publications > Books

Manual for Research and Publication Ethics in Science and Engineering

Cho Eun Hee, Kim Young-Mog, Park Kibeom, Son Wha-Chul, Yoon Tae-Woong, Lim Jeong Mook, Hwang Eun Seong
ISBN-13: 978-89-5938-345-0-93190
Korean Federation of Science and Technology Societies
This is an open-access publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Research Ethics in Science and Engineering

Research Ethics in Science and Engineering

I. Scope of Research Ethics

1. General guidelines for scientific research

In modern society, science is no longer practiced within the ivory tower only for the pure joy of discovering the truth. More and more academic scientists are receiving payment or financial assistance as a reward for their research. Some scientists are becoming wealthy from the monetary value of their intellectual property. In other words, research not only promotes the prestige of scientists for their academic achievement, but has also become an important source of financial gain. This has resulted in increasing pressure on scientists to achieve significant research accomplishments. The rapidly increasing number of scientists has also resulted in growing competition for research ideas and funding. Meanwhile, research that had never been imagined in the past, such as human genome project, is now pursued. Furthermore, because research is being conducted by teams of scientists, from a few to dozens under one head scientist, it has become more important than ever to closely supervise the research.

These changes have occurred as the result of an increase in the number of scientists and the expansion of the scope of research fields. In the past, there were fewer scientists than now; these scientists followed purely conventional ways of practicing scientific research, but now these norms are being replaced for practical reasons and convenience. Consequently, there is a growing need to emphasize the general principles and standards of research ethics.

Considering these contexts, scientists should fully understand and practice the “Principles for ethical conduct in research” proposed by David B. Resnik and considered as essential in the science and engineering fields internationally. In 1998, Resnik first proposed 12 principles for ethical conduct. Later, in 2009, the 12 principles were republished after modifications were made according to the current ethical issues of that time. In the principles published in 2009, issues of intellectual property, respect for colleagues and test subjects, and resource management were emphasized. While principles of ethical conduct based on research integrity were emphasized in the 1998 version, principles based on respect for scientists and resources were emphasized in the 2009 version. Rather than disregarding the principles of 1998 as history, both sets of principles should be understood and implemented. Accordingly, the principles of both 1998 and 2009 are introduced below.

Principles for ethical conduct in research, 1998 1[1]

  • Honesty: Scientists should not fabricate, falsify, or misrepresent data or results. They should be objective, unbiased, and truthful in all aspects of the research process.

  • Carefulness: Scientists should avoid errors in research, especially in presenting results. They should minimize experimental, methodological, and human errors and avoid self-deception, bias, and conflicts of interest.

  • Openness: Scientists should share data, results, methods, ideas, techniques, and tools. They should allow other scientists to review their work and be open to criticism and new ideas.

  • Freedom: Scientists should be free to conduct research on any problem or hypothesis. They should be allowed to pursue new ideas and criticize old ones.

  • Credit: Credit should be given where credit is due but not where it is not due⋯ Responsibility and credit should be viewed as two sides of the same coin; a person should be given credit for a piece of research only if they can take responsibility for it (Kennedy 1985).2

  • Education: Scientists should educate prospective scientists and insure that they learn how to conduct good science. Scientists should educate and inform the public about science.

  • Social responsibility: Scientists should avoid causing harm to society and they should attempt to produce social benefits⋯ Scientists have an obligation to conduct socially valuable research, to participate in public debates, to give expert testimony (if asked), to help make science policy, and to debunk junk science.

  • Legality: In the process of research, scientists should obey the laws pertaining to their work⋯ Laws pertain to many different aspects of research, including the use of hazardous and controlled substances, the use of human and animal subjects, the disposal of wastes, hiring practices, the appropriation of funds, and copyrights and patents (PSRCR 1992).3

  • Opportunity: Scientists should not be unfairly denied the opportunity to use scientific resources or advances in the scientific profession⋯ Scientists should not discriminate against colleagues or prospective colleagues on the basis of race, sex, national origin, nationality, age, or other characteristics not directly related to scientific competence (Merton 1973).4

  • Mutual respect: Scientists should treat colleagues with respect⋯ The principle implies that scientists should not harm one another, either physically or psychologically, that they should respect personal privacy, that they should not tamper with each other's experiments or results, and so forth.

  • Efficiency: Scientists should use resources efficiently⋯ Research that could probably be reported in one paper is sometimes divided up into three, four, or five papers. Additionally, scientists also sometimes use the same results for several different papers simply by making some minor changes in writing or presentation. Both of these practices can be regarded as unethical because they waste the scientific community's resources (Huth 1986).5

  • Respect for subjects: Scientists should not violate rights or dignity when using human subjects in experiments. Scientists should treat non-human, animal subjects with appropriate respect and care when using them in experiments.

[2] D Kennedy On academic authorship Stanford, CA Stanford University Press 1985.

[3] Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research (PSRCR) Responsible science 1 Washington, DC National Academy Press 1992.

[4] RK Merton The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations Chicago University of Chicago Press 1973.

[5] EJ Huth Irresponsible authorship and wasteful publication Ann Intern Med 1986 104 257 9.

Guidelines for ethical research conduct, 2009 6[6]

  • Honesty: Honestly report data, results, methods and procedures, publication status, research contributions, and potential conflicts of interest. Do not fabricate, falsify, or misrepresent data in scientific communications, including grant proposals, reports, and publications (Pellegrino 1992, Resnik 1996a.b).

  • Objectivity: Strive for objectivity in experimental design, data analysis, data interpretation, peer review, personnel decisions, grant writing, expert testimony, and other aspects of research where objectivity is expected or required.

  • Openness: Share data, results, ideas, tools, materials, and resources. Be open to criticism and new ideas.

  • Confidentiality: Protect confidential communications, such as papers or grants submitted for publication, personnel records, business or military secrets, and records that identify individual research subjects and patients.

  • Carefulness: Avoid careless errors and negligence; carefully and critically examine your own work and the work of your peers. Keep good records of research activities, such as data collection, research design, consent forms, and correspondence with agencies or journals. Maintain and improve your own professional competence and expertise through lifelong education and learning; take steps to promote competence in science as a whole.

  • Confidentiality: Protect confidential communications, such as papers or grants submitted for publication, personnel records, business or military secrets, and records that identify individual research subjects and patients.

  • Carefulness: Avoid careless errors and negligence; carefully and critically examine your own work and the work of your peers. Keep good records of research activities, such as data collection, research design, consent forms, and correspondence with agencies or journals. Maintain and improve your own professional competence and expertise through lifelong education and learning; take steps to promote competence in science as a whole.

  • Respect for colleagues: Respect colleagues, students, and subordinates. Do not harm colleagues; treat them fairly. Do not discriminate against colleagues on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, or other characteristics not related to scientific qualifications. Help to educate, train, mentor, and advise the next generation of scientists.

  • Respect for intellectual property: Honor patents, copyrights, and other forms of intellectual property. Do not use unpublished data, methods, or results without permission. Give credit where credit it is due. Do not plagiarize.

  • Respect for the law: Understand and comply with relevant laws and institutional policies.

  • Respect for research subjects: Show proper respect and care for animals when using them in research. Do not conduct unnecessary or poorly designed animal experiments. When conducting research on human subjects, minimize harms and risks and maximize benefits; respect human dignity, privacy, and autonomy; take special precautions with vulnerable populations; and distribute fairly the benefits and burdens of research.

  • Stewardship: Make good use of human, financial, and technological resources. Take care of materials, tools, samples, and research sites.

  • Social responsibility: Promote good social consequences and prevent bad ones through research, consulting, expert testimony, public education, and advocacy.

  • Freedom: Research institutions and governments should not interfere with freedom of thought and inquiry.

2. Research integrity: The most important value in scientific research

When conducting research, scientists must exhibit a more professional mindset toward achieving excellence rather than simply complying with the basic principles of research ethics under a passive mindset. In other words, scientists must strive for research integrity. Research integrity does not simply mean integrity of research data. Research integrity is a comprehensive term including the scientist's diligence and honesty, and it must be implemented throughout the entire research process. “Integrity in Scientific Research,” 7 published by the US National Academy of Sciences, defines research integrity (individual level) as follows:

For the individual scientist, integrity embodies above all a commitment to intellectual honesty and personal responsibility for one's actions and to a range of practices that characterize the responsible conduct of research, including

  • intellectual honesty in proposing, performing, and reporting research;

  • accuracy in representing contributions to research proposals and reports;

  • fairness in peer review;

  • collegiality in scientific interactions, including communications and sharing of resources;

  • transparency in conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest;

  • protection of human subjects in the conduct of research;

  • humane care of animals in the conduct of research; and

  • adherence to the mutual responsibilities between investigators and their research teams.

II. Characteristics of Research in Science and Engineering

In comparison to research in the humanities and the social sciences, research in science and engineering has the following characteristics:

1. Collaborative research

When a number of scientists conduct research as a team, conflicts may arise during the research process or while publishing the research results. These conflicts often lead to research misconduct and result in the loss of research integrity. Accordingly, the principal investigator has the very important role of supervising the entire research process. At times, the principal investigator may initiate research misconduct, as seen in Woo Suk Hwang's 2005 stem cell research misconduct case. On the other hand, because the majority of research in science and engineering is conducted in a collaborative manner, many, including the principal investigator are listed as authors of the research paper published in a journal. This is different from research practices in the humanities, in that in the humanities, especially in literature, history, and philosophy, a student generally becomes the sole author of the research paper because it is generally believed that the development of thinking in writing is extremely important in the production of a research paper, and so including the academic advisor as an author of a paper that is based on the student's writing is deemed inappropriate.

2. Laboratory research

Scientists conduct experiments and spend the majority of their day within the restricted space of the laboratory. This may promote the development of intellectually valuable relationships among scientists; however, it can also result in serious conflicts due to limitations of space or stress from interpersonal relationships. The lead scientist must be aware of such possibilities and manage the lab environment accordingly.

3. Diversity in experimental results

Various experiments and methods of measurement are used in science and engineering research. Failure to understand the principles and usage of the equipment may cause errors during the interpretation of the results. Additionally, equipment malfunction may result in data distortion. The lead researcher and the other researchers must be mindful of such possibilities and ensure that data is managed accurately and meticulously.

4. Keeping lab notebooks

In contrast to humanities and social sciences research, where there is a narrower range of types of experiments and research methods and where ongoing follow-up is not required, research in science and engineering requires a lab notebook for recording the details of the experiment. Keeping a lab notebook is crucial not only for data management, but also as the researcher's proof of participation in performing the experiment.

5. Data processing

Various types of equipment and methods are used in science and engineering research. The resulting raw data can also be presented in many forms such as numbers, photographs, and plots. Scientists collect and process the data appropriately to present them in a clear, persuasive format; however, distortion of the truth may result, whether it is intentional (data fabrication and exaggeration) or unintentional (error).

6. Large scale research expenditure

For humanities and social sciences research, research expenditures are generally limited to the labor costs for a couple of researchers and some research expenses. In contrast, research in science and engineering requires greater labor costs as well as materials and equipment and activity expenses. This results in a higher probability of misuse of research funds. Therefore, the principal investigator's responsibility in managing research funds is extremely important.

7. Conflict in the research results

The results of science and engineering research are not only published as a paper, but often result in acquisition of a patent or transfer of technology, both having monetary value. Because a number of scientists are involved in the research, conflicts may arise in determining the order of scientists as authors and whether their names will be registered or not. An even greater conflict may result when money is involved, as in the case of acquisition of patents or transfer of technology. Such conflicts often result in permanently hostile relationships and may even divide scientists into different social groups. If this keeps up, scientists will be heading in a negative direction that will not advance the cause of scientific research and development.

8. Research on living subjects

Research in science, engineering, and social sciences sometimes involves humans as test subjects. In the past, research subjects have been known to receive unethical or unfair treatment and in some cases, damage to their health. Today, direct harm to test subjects has decreased. Instead, scientists face new problems, such as leakage of personal information. For this reason, research using human subjects is thoroughly regulated under the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the researcher's institution. Research using animals is under the supervision of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. It is important for scientists to show respect for research subjects, whether humans or animals, and to make sure they are not unnecessarily abused or harmed.

In comparison to research in the humanities and social sciences, these characteristics represent the complexity of research in science and engineering. The cause of such complexity lies in the fact that research misconduct results from the problems that arise from various experiments and the participation of many scientists, as well as the impact, both direct and indirect, on human life.

III. Issues of Research Ethics in Science and Engineering in Korea

It is uncertain how much research misconduct occurs in Korea, for the number of cases of suspected misconduct has not been properly counted, and there are no institutions responsible for such a function. According to Korean Ministry of Education data, 169 cases of research misconduct have reportedly occurred in 35 universities in Korea from 2008 to 2012, 8 which translates to one case per university each year. However, it is estimated that the actual number of cases is much greater.

According to Ministry of Education data, plagiarism (60%) tops the list of types of research misconduct, followed by unethical assignment of authorship (20%), redundant publication (11%), ghostwriting (6%), and forgery (4%). Meanwhile, according to the results of an online questionnaire “Research ethics, how far have we come?” conducted by the Center for Research Ethics Information and the Biological Research Information Center (BRIC) 9 in January 2013, 42% of Korean researchers were concerned about the issue of research ethics. For the scientists, the main concerns were, in order of importance, (1) copyright of the author (41%), (2) data processing (20%), (3) record keeping (13%), and (4) bioethics (9%). 10 There is a high probability that the majority of the respondents were young researchers of science and engineering representing life sciences, for BRIC is a community through which graduate students in the field of biological science and young scholars share information. Consequently, the results of this questionnaire can be viewed as reflecting the characteristics of research ethics of science and engineering. In a general sense, publication ethics-related issues such as plagiarism and inappropriate authorship is one of the major challenges in research ethics that Korean scientists are faced with regardless of discipline.

The following are unethical practices which occur frequently in Korea. Because Korean academia is especially susceptible to such practices, science and engineering researchers in Korea must be extra vigilant to prevent even the appearance of research misconduct.

1. Problems in research paper publication

Duplicate publication and exaggeration of accomplishments | Redundant publication, which duplicates the work of previous similar research is one of the most frequent cases of unethical practice in Korea.

Inappropriate authorship | The common practice of listing of people who had not actually contributed to the research as authors started to decrease in 2006 after unethical authorship was included in the governmental guideline as one of research misconduct. However, with the increasing emphasis on one's research accomplishments in today's society, to include people who do not deserve to be granted proper authorship of a paper seems to be on the rise among medical professionals, businessmen, and government officials who are pursuing scholarly title for the sake of their job. In contrast, graduate students or postdoctoral researchers, who should receive appropriate recognition for their contributions, are being sacrificed due to unethical authorship. In addition to the cases mentioned above, occasionally the principal investigator's misjudgment may threaten the authors' rights. 11

Media manipulation | After the incident involving scientist Woo Suk Hwang, 12 the number of cases are decreasing in which research results that have not yet received scientific verification from peer review are presented through a press conference or newspaper article by scientists seeking fame or profit, but such cases have not completely disappeared.

2. Problems during the research process

Data integrity is at the core of research integrity. To achieve data integrity, scientists must be cautious at all stages of the experiment and investigation. Not only must the research plan be thoroughly designed in the initial stage, but data must be properly recorded and stored before, during, and after the experiment. However, the importance of taking such prudent measures is often not much emphasized during research mentoring or education.

Fabrication of data | Even after the disclosure of Woo Suk Hwang's fabrication of data in his retracted Science papers in 2005, research papers involving intentional deception continue to be discovered. Prominent examples are fabrication of data in Nature Chemical Biology by professor Kim of KAIST in 2006 13 and in the works of professor Kang of Seoul National University in 2012. 14 Meanwhile, papers are often withdrawn due to the discovery of inadvertent mistakes, negligence, and self-deception. In the case of unintentional errors where the errors occurred during the data processing and proposal stage, the authors themselves generally announce their errors and retract the paper and therefore are not severely criticized; however, such cases still have a ripple effect in the scientific world due to the confusion caused by the distorted data.

Insufficient research record keeping | It is extremely important to preserve the raw data from an experiment and maintain detailed records of all the research. Even today, however, good record keeping and management by the scientists are still lacking. One of the allegations of research misconduct frequently reported to committees on research integrity is submitting the research of others, particularly the study results of a contract research service, as their own graduate thesis. Scientists must keep accurate records of their data and maintain proper research notebooks to be ready to prove their research results as their own.

3. Laboratory life and collaborative research activity

Conflicts in the laboratory | Various problems are likely to occur when a number of people work together in a laboratory or office for an extended period of time. A prime example is conflict among laboratory members. According to a 2006 survey of graduate students studying life sciences, half of the active biology laboratories in Korea struggle with conflicts that negatively affect their research. 15

Poor mentoring | The relationship between the mentor and the mentee is very important in research. Mentors can greatly impact the mentee not only during the research process, but also after the research is completed. However, although quite rare, there have been cases in Korea in which the mentors abuse their power not as an advisor, but as an authority figure. In such situations, mentees are generally forced to yield to the mentors. Sometimes the mentee then seeks revenge against the mentor by engaging in acts of research misconduct. Therefore, the academic advisor or the principal investigator must acknowledge the graduate students or the scientists not as workers to be exploited, but as the future generation of scientists and treat them with respect and with appropriate guidance. Meanwhile, the research institution must continually ensure that the mentor provides proper mentoring, guarantees a safe laboratory environment, and protects whistleblowers.

4. Ethics of research on living subjects

Initial review | Research on living subjects must undergo review by the IRB and the IACUC and approval must be received before research begins. However, many scientists are not clear on which experiments must undergo initial review as research on living subjects, and on whether their methods are ethically acceptable.

Informed consent | Before using humans as test subjects, informed consent from the human subjects must be obtained appropriately. Informed consent signifies that adequate information was provided to the subjects and that consent was voluntarily given. This also includes developing appropriate research procedures.

IV. Policy and the Current State of Research Ethics in Korea

1. Progress of research ethics policy

Systematic discussion regarding research ethics and verification of research integrity began after the stem cell research fabrication incident in 2005. An investigation committee was formed and carried out an investigation of the duplicitous research of Dr. Hwang, but there was much confusion during the process regarding the investigating body, the principles and procedure of investigation, and how to proceed after the investigation. Consequently, the need for a governmental research ethics system was proposed. The previous Ministry of Science and Technology had taken the lead by establishing guidelines for research ethics and integrity, and promulgating, in February of 2007, the “Guidelines for Assurance of Research Ethics” as article 236 in the Ministry of Science and Technology. This remains the foundation of research ethics in Korea.

Subsequently, articles concerning research ethics were added to the Framework Act on Science and Technology regarding government-sponsored research and development projects and to the Academic Promotion Act regarding academic research. Additionally, a regulatory system was established as required by the enforcement decrees, regulations of the Ministry of Sciences, ICT, and Future Planning, and regulations of the Ministry of Education.

In addition to establishing the Guidelines for Ensuring Research Ethics, the previous Ministry of Science and Technology also focused on establishing guidelines for writing lab notebooks and on amending regulations regarding co-management of nationally sponsored research and development projects. The previous Ministry of Education 16 and the National Research Foundation of Korea 17 promoted activities to increase awareness and education of research ethics by proposing and encouraging the establishment of a research ethics code, case studies, and research ethics activities in academic societies. Focusing on the need for ethics concerning biomedical research on human subjects and embryo research, the Ministry of Health and Welfare initiated an amendment to the Bioethics and Safety Act and enhancement of responsibilities of the National Bioethics Committee. The Ministry of Culture amended the copyright law and strengthened their system of managing copyrighted materials.

When the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Science and Technology were consolidated in 2008, the administrative department of research ethics was established. Subsequently, a basic scheme of research ethics was formulated, followed by a more comprehensive policy such as raising awareness of research ethics, establishing guidelines for plagiarism and duplicate publication, and establishing a Center for Research Ethics Information Center ( Currently, matters concerning research ethics are administered by the Academic Promotion Division of the Ministry of Education. Support programs for research ethics activities are continuously promoted through periodic surveys and fora on the national and institutional status of research ethics implementation and practice.

2. Current status of implementation of institutional internal evaluation systems

Government guidelines require that along with basic principles and procedures of verification of research integrity, organizations of government-funded research and development projects must implement self-regulation with regard to research ethics. According to 2010 figures, over 80% of Korean four-year universities and over 90% of government-funded research institutions have established their own verification system such as regulations on research ethics and research integrity committees (Table 1).

Table 1

Status of establishment of internal research ethics valuation system per time period18

Period of enactment University Academic society Government-funded research institution
Before 2007 19 (10.6%) 82 (18.1%) 20 (55.6%)
2007 80 (44.4%) 190 (41.9%) 8 (22.2%)
2008 59 (32.8%) 137 (30.2%) 5 (13.9%)
After 2009 22 (12.2%) 45 (9.9%) 3 (8.3%)
Total 180 (100%) 454 (100%) 36 (100%)
Not yet enacted 35 16 4

WY Lee Investigation and analysis study of current status of research ethics activity Daejeon National Research Foundation of Korea 2011 22.

Through such activities, cases of research misconduct have been identified each year. In universities, the number of research misconduct cases officially handled by the Investigation Committee was 18 in 2007, 32 in 2008, and 48 in 2009 and 2010 together. 19

Government guidelines only apply to government-funded research and development projects; however, the institutional research ethics evaluation system developed by each research institution applies to all research conducted by its members, including student graduate theses.

3. Trends in science and technology

Beginning with the stem cell research fabrication incident, and following the government's systematization efforts, the science and technology professional associations have also begun to show interest in the professional and social responsibility of scientists and engineers. Together with the Korean Academy of Science and Technology, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Korean National Commission for UNESCO, the Korean Federation of Science and Technology Societies proposed the Scientists and Engineers Code of Ethics in 2007. Since the code of ethics and establishment of regulations were first systemized in 2008, almost all academic societies have come to uphold regulations regarding research ethics.

In addition, with the initiatives of the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors (KAMJE,, the interest in publication ethics has heightened among academic journals, which has led to the establishment of the Korean Council of Science Editors (KCSE, Since these two organizations regularly offer publication ethics training programs targeting the editors of academic journals, good research practice is expected to spread among academic journals published in Korea.



Center for Research Ethics Information/Biological Research Information CenterResearch ethics, how far have we come?SciON2013123-30[Internet]PohangBRIC2013cited 2015 Dec 15Available from:


Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research EnvironmentsNational Research CouncilInstitute of MedicineIntegrity in scientific research: creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct[Internet]Washington, DCNational Academies Press2002Box 1, Integrity in research (individual level);cited 2015 Dec 155Available from:


E DolginKorean scientist fired for fraudThe Scientist[Internet]2008Mar3cited 2015 Dec 15Available from:


EJ HuthIrresponsible authorship and wasteful publicationAnn Intern Med19861042579


YJ JangDishonorable acts account for 86% of violations of university research ethics during the past 5 yearsShare Channel News[Internet]2013Oct31cited 2015 Dec 15Available from:


D KennedyOn academic authorshipStanford, CAStanford University Press1985


DR KimHwang Woo Suk puts media manipulation before researchOh My News[Internet]2006Sep27cited 2015 Dec 15Available from:


HM KimEwha Woman's University, “controversies of Nature article author” seem to continueThe Kyunghyang News[Internet]2012Jul23cited 2015 Dec 15Available from:


WY LeeInvestigation and analysis study of current status of research ethics activityDaejeonNational Research Foundation of Korea2011


RK MertonThe sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigationsChicagoUniversity of Chicago Press1973


Ministry of Education (MOE)[Internet]SejongMOEcited 2015 Dec 15Available from:


The National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)[Internet]DaejeonNRFcited 2015 Dec 15Available from:


Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research (PSRCR)Responsible science1Washington, DCNational Academy Press1992


MS ParkEwha Woman's University, “Nature acknowledges the co-authorship of graduate student in Professor Nam Goo-hyun's paper”The Korea Times[Internet]2012Jul23cited 2015 Dec 15Available from:


DB ResnikThe ethics of science: an introductionLondonRoutledge1998


AE ShamooDB ResnikResponsible conduct of researchNew YorkOxford2009


TL StokesKorean stem cell investigation expands to another researcher, and more papersRetraction Watch[Internet]2012Jun8cited 2015 Dec 15Available from:


University of Seoul47th evaluation of academic advisor/research director by graduate students/researchers studying scienceSciON200611211130[Internet]PohangBRIC2006cited 2015 Dec 15Available from:


[8] Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments National Research Council Institute of Medicine Integrity in scientific research: creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct [Internet] Washington, DC National Academies Press 2002 Box 1, Integrity in research (individual level) cited 2015 Dec 15 5 Available from:

[9] YJ Jang Dishonorable acts account for 86% of violations of university research ethics during the past 5 years Share Channel News [Internet] 2013 Oct 31 cited 2015 Dec 15 Available from:

[10] Biological Research Information Center. A non-profit Korean web community designed to provide information on biological research. Young scientists majoring in the field of biology frequently join the site.

[11] Center for Research Ethics Information/Biological Research Information Center Research ethics, how far have we come? SciON 2013 1 23-30 [Internet] Pohang BRIC 2013 cited 2015 Dec 15 Available from:

[12] HM Kim Ewha Womans University, “controversies of Nature article author” seem to continue The Kyunghyang News [Internet] 2012 Jul 23 cited 2015 Dec 15 It has not been clearly stated in, but it has been reported that there are possibilities the student has been unjustly denied authorship. Meanwhile, on the same day, The Korea Times has reported that Ewha Womans University has decided the students deserve rights of co-authorship and has requested that the Nature journal make the corresponding modifications. MS Park Ewha Womans University, “Nature acknowledges the co-authorship of graduate student in Professor Nam Goo-hyun's paper.” The Korea Times [Internet] 2012 Jul 23 cited 2015 Dec 15 Available from:

[13] DR Kim Hwang Woo Suk puts media manipulation before research Oh My News [Internet] 2006 Sep 27 cited 2015 Dec 15 Available from: The article points out that the cloned cow Yeongrong-i announced by researcher Woo Suk Hwang in the press has not actually been published as a paper.

[14] E Dolgin Korean scientist fired for fraud The Scientist [Internet] 2008 Mar 3 cited 2015 Dec 15 Available from:

[15] TL Stokes Korean stem cell investigation expands to another researcher, and more papers Retraction Watch [Internet] 2012 Jun 8 cited 2015 Dec 15 Available from:

[16] University of Seoul 47th evaluation of academic advisor/research director by graduate students/researchers studying science SciON 2006 11 21 11 30 [Internet] Pohang BRIC cited 2015 Dec 15 Available from:

[17] Ministry of Education (MOE) [Internet] Sejong MOE cited 2015 Dec 15 Available from:

[18] The National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) [Internet] Daejeon NRF cited 2015 Dec 15 Available from:

[19] ibid. p. 38.