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 Misconduct and Inappropriate Research Practices

Research Misconduct and Inappropriate Research Practices

I. Scope and Meaning of Research Misconduct

1. Scope

According to the Guidelines for Assurance of Research Ethics 1 of the Ministry of Education and the Rules for Research Ethics Assurance and Prevention of Scientific Misconduct 2 of the Ministry of Science, ICT, and Future Planning, the types of research misconduct include “fabrication,” “falsification,” “plagiarism,” “unjustified authorship,” and “other acts that deviate from the acceptable range in each academic field,” as well as “intentional intervention in investigation of suspected acts of one's own or others' misconduct, or acts of harming a whistleblower.”

“Fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism” are acts of research misconduct as defined by the United States Federal Guidelines and universally characterized as the most basic acts of misconduct. In Korea, the act of “unjustified authorship” was also included in this list in order to abolish such acts through strict regulations, for it has been the most prevalent type of misconduct in Korea.

“Acts that deviate from the acceptable range in an academic field” and “research through other unjustified means” have a comprehensive meaning that can regulate acts of research misconduct on their own. These actions have been added to the definition to deal with cases where acts of misconduct are difficult to define precisely or to address new and ambiguous forms of misconduct that may occur in the future.

“Plagiarism” is clearly a representative act of research misconduct, while “self-plagiarism” and “duplicate publication” are not usually included in the acts of research misconduct. Some countries, however, include them in the acts of research misconduct, and in the case of Korea, a public hearing occurred in June 2015 on whether we should define “self-plagiarism” and “duplicate publications” as acts of research misconduct, and consequently, such activities are expected to be included in the acts of research misconduct soon. Even nowadays, duplicate publication is regarded as a highly inappropriate act and is subject to a severe level of disciplinary measures. 3

2. Intent of the regulation of research misconduct

It is important to know why research misconduct is a significant issue in science. “Fabrication” and “falsification” distort the truth and deliver inaccurate information to other researchers; accordingly, other researchers may be greatly wronged, and advancement of the development of science might also be hindered. “Plagiarism” does not distort the data, but instead, overstates the researcher's accomplishment by using the stolen work of others. “Unjustified authorship” also misrepresents the work of researchers.

The fundamental problem of research misconduct is that such action destroys the trust and sense of team spirit among fellow researchers. Misconduct in research threatens to undermine the foundation of science since the advance in science is based on the trust among the members of the science community. Misconduct in research undermines the foundation of science, which is based on the “integrity of scientists.” “Acts that deviate from the acceptable scope in each academic field” may be determined by how greatly they damage the trust and sense of team spirit among fellow researchers.

Research misconduct is different from “unintentional or accidental distortion and irregularities,” in that the misconduct is deliberate. The intentional aspect of the misconduct is the reason why the guidelines of the Ministry of Education accentuate the disciplinary measures for research misconduct; in fact, the majority of institutions impose disciplinary measures according to the degree of research misconduct. 4

II. Fabrication and Falsification of Data

1. Fabrication of data

Fabrication is the act of inventing data or results without actually measuring them or acquiring them through investigation. The following case of inserting arbitrary numbers despite the absence of measurement at the 1 hour and 3 hour points in time is an example of fabrication of data.

Fig. 1

Example of data fabrication


Other examples of data fabrication are: (1) not measuring the control group and just assigning arbitrary numbers to the control group after the experiment, (2) entering similar numbers to retain statistical significance, and (3) using data or images from other past research of their own or of others and presenting them as newly discovered data.

2. Falsification of data

Data falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or procedures, or changing or omitting data without reasonable justification such that the results are not accurately reflected. The following example is a representative case of data falsification in which the numbers at the 3 hour point in time have been changed so that the data is arranged in a linear growth pattern.

Other broadly similar examples of data falsification include: (1) unjustified modifications to the data records in lab notes, (2) reporting fraudulent details of experimental procedures, materials, and figures in research proposals and articles, and (3) dishonest presentation of the study content in an abstract for an academic presentation.

Fig. 2

Example of data falsification


In terms of usage, there is no need to distinguish between data ‘fabrication’ and data ‘falsification’; they are the same, in that they present nonexistent data as true.

III. Plagiarism

1. Definition of plagiarism

Dictionaries define plagiarism as “copying words or ideas of another person and presenting them as one's own original work.” Plagiarism includes the following two acts: “taking” the work of another person and adding onto one's work, and “deceiving the public” by presenting these results as if they are one's own independent work.

Meanwhile, the Guidelines for Research Ethics of the Korean Association of Academic Societies define plagiarism as, “copying or paraphrasing the entire text or parts of others' work without giving appropriate credit”; however, this is an extremely ambiguous definition of plagiarism, for it can be assumed that reusing another person's work is acceptable if appropriate credit is given. In fact, the majority of cases where the work of others is copied verbatim with credit given should be considered acts of plagiarism.

Using more than one sentence word-for-word from another person's work is generally considered unacceptable, and even a single sentence must be cited to disclose that it is not the author's own work. This is the agreement of the editors of the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), who have broad experience in editing international academic journals. 5 Thus this should be accepted as the international standard and appropriate practice in the academic world.

Unintentional or accidental plagiarism is still considered plagiarism | Often, students who have poor writing ability and who do not know proper citation practices engage in plagiarism. Even scholars who have experience with writing papers make the mistake of incorporating information or ideas they gained from other sources and failing to properly acknowledge the original sources of their writing. Whether unintentional or accidental, such cases cannot avoid being labeled as plagiarism.

Copyright infringement | Plagiarizing another person's work can be considered an act of copyright infringement. Even when the text that is plagiarized is not very long, if the plagiarized section includes the important parts of the author's work that reflects his or her creative efforts, it is likely to be adjudicated not only as plagiarism but also as copyright infringement. Serious consequences follow a conviction of copyright infringement; in most cases, reparations to be paid to the copyright holder is much higher than any financial benefit obtained from the act of plagiarism, and in some serious cases, a jail sentence may be imposed. 6

Case of copyright infringement without plagiarism | Reusing and citing images from the work of others may not be considered plagiarism when the researcher provides appropriate citations. However, the researcher must receive permission to use the illustrative material from the publisher who possesses the copyright to the paper, image, or book. For instructions on the correct use of illustrative material, refer to section E, ‘Plagiarism of Data’ of this manual.

Case of plagiarism without copyright infringement | Copyrights are only valid during the lifetime of the author and 50 years after the death of the author; after this period, the work belongs in the public domain. Using works in the public domain does not fall under copyright infringement; it is considered publicly available information. However, the issue of plagiarism may still be raised because the majority of scientific papers remain as theories and not as widely accepted knowledge even after the death of the author. Furthermore, even if a theory becomes accepted knowledge, passing off someone else's expression or idea as one's creative work falls under plagiarism. 7

2. Types of plagiarism

1. Idea plagiarism

Using the opinion, research idea, method, or system of analysis, or the organization of the paper and its results without appropriate credit is a form of idea plagiarism. Idea plagiarism often occurs among researchers writing a paper for the first time, during the process of writing the introduction. When the researcher develops ideas proposed in another paper while explaining the background information of his research topic in the introduction, if he does not cite the original sources, readers may mistake the argument as that of the researcher, which then results in idea plagiarism.

A more serious form of idea plagiarism is the act of taking the hypothesis or the main idea from the work of another person and presenting the paper as if he or she is the first person to come up with it. Such a paper is generally rejected for publication for the reason that reviewers do not find “creativity or novelty” of discovery in the paper. However, if the reviewers are not aware of the existing paper, it may still be published without the plagiarism detected; such a case would raise the issue of idea plagiarism.

Another frequently occurring form of idea plagiarism is taking credit for the ideas picked up from academic conference or personal communication. In this case, a phrase such as “John F Weinberg, personal communication” must be inserted in the pertinent place in the paper to give credit for the idea of another person.

Reviewers may receive ideas helpful to their own research through reviewing papers or research proposals of others. However, it is inappropriate for the reviewer to cite such material in his or her paper; to avoid conflict of interest, they must not administer the review of submitted papers relevant to their own research. If the reviewer learns an idea from reviewing and wants to use it, the proper way to do it while sustaining trust among researchers is to cite the idea after the research under review is published.

2. Text plagiarism

Duplication (verbatim plagiarism; copying)

Fig. 3

Example of duplication8[1]


Duplication is the act of using a majority of another person's work word-for-word. Most duplication without appropriate citation is an intentional act of misconduct.

Inappropriate paraphrasing/summarizing

When introducing the work of another person, a writer must make use of paraphrasing (changing the words and structure while maintaining its meaning) and summarizing (condensing the information), so that another person's idea is introduced without copying it word-for-word. Appropriate citations to the idea are still required in the pertinent section.


Paraphrasing. Examples of inappropriate and appropriate paraphrasing9[2]

  • Original Passage: All of our organs and tissues are comprised of cells, and the aging of our bodies is believed to be caused by the aging of these cells. In organs, cells die out for various reasons, and the dead ones are replaced with new ones. However, cells in an aged body appear to have low potential to duplicate themselves, and therefore, the dead ones cannot be easily replaced. This leads to shrinkage and loss of organ function.

    - ES Hwang, “Mechanism of Aging” (2015, an imaginary paper)

  • Example of inappropriate paraphrasing: Organs and tissues such as the stomach, kidneys, and bones are made up of cells, and our aging is thought to be caused by the aging of these cells. In our body, cells are frequently lost and replenished. However, the cells in an aged body are found to replicate slowly or stop dividing. For this reason, not all the lost cells are replaced. This would lead to reduction in size and function of organs (Hwang, 2015).

  • Example of appropriate paraphrasing: The aging of cells in our organs is believed to cause atrophy and the decline of organ function, which are the reasons our bodies age. When we are young, dying cells are rapidly replaced by new ones. However, as we age, cells gradually lose the potential to duplicate and dead ones are not readily replaced, leading to a decrease in the number of cells in an organ (Hwang, 2015).

In the example of inappropriate paraphrasing in Section B, Inappropriate paraphrasing / summarizing, the structure of the original passage is maintained and only a few words are changed. This cannot be objectively viewed as a newly created passage. Such a situation occurs when one writes the paper in a hurry and takes the passage of another person's work verbatim in a so-called cut-and-paste manner; it is the result of poor conversion of the work and idea of others into one's own expression.

In the example of appropriate paraphrasing, not only the words, but also the entire sentence structure, are changed. A writer must be able to completely understand the works and ideas of others and convert them into his or her own thoughts (as if explaining to a more junior scholar) when introducing another person's work. Only through this process, can the writer create his or her own piece while using the work of another person.

A writer is naturally bound to introduce the results or arguments of another person's work while writing the introduction of the paper. In such a situation, the writer must remember to practice appropriate paraphrasing by understanding the information and changing the words using his or her own expressions. Writers must adopt the habit of continuous paraphrasing and familiarize themselves with such forms of writing.

Fig. 4

Example of inappropriate passage citation10[3]


Inappropriate passage citations

A writer may think that there is no problem with taking an entire passage of text from another person's work word-for-word if credit is given at the end; however, in most cases, such cases are plagiarism.

In the example above, the right passage (highlighted in yellow) is basically copied word-for-word from the passage on the left (highlighted in blue) with a footnote at the very end to acknowledge the source.

In fact, this form of writing is indeed plagiarism because the added footnotes do not precisely indicate the location of the original passage. Readers will not be able to determine whether the citations refer only to the last passage followed by the footnote or to the entire passage above after the previous citation. Consequently, if the author leads the reader to believe that the passages are his/her own creations, then this author has engaged in the act of taking credit for another person's work.

Fig. 5

Example of appropriate passage citation11[4]


One must be fully aware of the appropriate method of citing passages when introducing the work of another person. As in the example of appropriate passage citation, the extracted passage can be clearly differentiated from the author's work by the use of indentation or quotation marks. As a result, the reader will not be confused between the excerpted passage and the current author's work. Additionally, citations must appear at the end of the passage used.

Passage citation is used when citing the work of another person and maintaining its original connotations is necessary. It is commonly used in the humanities and social science, but rarely in scientific papers, as there is rarely a need to retain the feelings and connotations of the original author.

Comprehensive citation

We will use the term “comprehensive citation” to describe a single representative citation in the beginning or at the end of the passage instead of including individual citations for each text. This is technically a form of plagiarism because, similar to the above example of inappropriate passage citations, readers cannot differentiate between the extracted passage and the author's own work; each part of the original passage must be individually cited.

The majority of this passage has been written referencing the work of H. Smith (2015).

Plagiarism of data

Plagiarism of data is also an act of taking credit for another person's data (image, table, figure, etc.). This falls under the act of data fabrication because the researcher has not produced the data himself through experiments or research. Similarly, reusing the researcher's own previously published data irrelevant to the current topic cannot be exactly viewed as plagiarism, but is nonetheless an act of data fabrication.

Meanwhile, there are situations that require the introduction of another person's data. For example, when developing an idea in a review paper, it is much more effective to include data such as images and graphs presented in another's research paper and explain each component. In that case, the data can be used and presented with permission from the copyright holder. The researcher can download the ‘Request for permission to reproduce published material’ form from the journal homepage with the published paper and obtain permission after filling out the form and sending it to the publisher or the journal editor. The journals also recommend permission from the original author, which is an important procedure to show respect for the intellectual efforts of the original author.

3. Citation

There are many important components to a paper, such as the creative ideas, analysis system, logic, hypothesis, theory, and conclusion of the author. If the researcher has come up with or developed his ideas based on the work and ideas of others, providing citations so that the author receives the appropriate recognition for his contribution is a sign of respect for the fellow researcher who originally generated the idea or content.

Another role for references in papers and books is to provide the readers with the sources of much more extensive information than just the information provided in the author's own work. If the reader tracks down each reference and studies them thoroughly, he or she should be able to grasp the hypothesis of the paper as well as all its relevant theories rather than merely reading one article. In other words, readers can obtain much more comprehensive knowledge and information than from just the material provided within the paper.

4. Citation formatting and style guide

Citation formatting and style guide differ by the type of academic journal and university; in universities, in particular, it is up to the author, as there is no specific style guide. Basically, journal citations require the name of the author, the year of publication, article title, and the title, volume, and page number(s) of the journal. Book citations require the title of the chapter used, book title, publisher, year of publication, and location of the publisher.

  • Reference to personal communication or information obtained at a conference: ⋯(John Weinberg, personal communication)

  • Reference to data or information derived from oneself or a co-author: ⋯(John Weinberg, unpublished data)

  • Information to be presented in a paper already submitted for publication or that the author intends to submit: ⋯(John Weinberg, in preparation, or John Weinberg, to be published elsewhere)

  • Information to be presented in a paper that is about to be published: ⋯(John Weinberg, in press in Nature (DOI #))

  • Citing a student's graduate thesis: (based on the thesis submitted by GD Hong for a Ph.D. degree, University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea, 2011)

  • Citing web material: “Shanker, T. (2011, July 6). Pentagon weighs strategy change to deter terror. The New York Times online edition. Two examples retrieved July 24, 2011 from html?pagewanted=all&r=0' or World Health Organization Homepage. Retrieved July 17, 2011 from http:// (Must include the date when the site was accessed)

Unpublished data or information must also be indicated with a citation. Reference to the contents presented by the speaker of a conference must also be cited. Failure to do so results in idea plagiarism. The following cases are examples of citation commonly used in various situations.

When citing secondary sources, that is, introducing the work of a third party cited in the referred primary source, it is inappropriate to only cite the third party as if one has read the original work when one has not done so. However, if the original text is unavailable, there must be a specific reference to a secondary source. This is not common in papers of science and engineering, but the following method is usually used for such citations.

  • J. Weinberg (1972, as cited in Lee and Leonard, 2009) suggested that⋯

  • It was suggested that the Earth is composed of carbon and minerals (Weinberg, 1972, as cited in Lee and Leonard, 2009).

  • It was suggested that the Earth is composed of carbon and minerals [[3] as cited in [4]].

  • It was suggested that the Earth is composed of carbon and minerals [[4], translation of [3]].

Academic journals provide information on the appropriate citation rules and formatting in the “Guide to Authors” or “Instructions to Authors.”

IV. Unethical Practices Nearly Identical to Research Misconduct

1. Self-plagiarism (text recycling) and redundant publication (duplicate publication)

1. Definition and scope

Self-plagiarism is the reuse of a small portion of one's own published research in a new article or book. Because the term self-plagiarism sounds awkward, the term “text recycling” is more frequently used.

Redundant publication (duplicate publication) is publication of an article that is similar or identical to one's previously published works. Compared to self-plagiarism, which reuses only a small portion of the text, redundant publication reuses the same material on a much larger scale. There are many cases of redundant publication in which, particularly, the research objectives, methods, conclusion, and logical flow are quite similar.

The most common form of redundant publication is duplication of data. An example is presenting five different data in one paper and reusing three of them as results in another paper. Because the same data are used, much of the results and discussion sections inevitably overlap. Additionally, because the overall conclusions are similar, the arguments made in the papers are inevitably similar, and so not much new information is derived from the subsequent paper. Due to the overlapping data and text, problems of copyright infringement can also be involved.

Nevertheless, if only the most important portion of text (a few sentences) of one's previously published paper is reused for re-emphasis and is appropriately cited, it may be considered as acceptable. The extent of reuse allowable differs across different academic fields.

Guideline number 4 in the Guidelines for Research Ethics of the Korean Association of Academic Societies defines redundant publication as “an author using academic works identical or similar to his or her own previous research results⋯ without proper citations of the other journals or works.” This is not an accurate definition, for overuse of past works is an inappropriate practice even when proper citations are used. On the other hand, Seoul National University's Guidelines for Research Ethics defines research misconduct as “the act of relying upon the research idea, research data, and text of one's previously published works, which tarnishes the originality of the research (regardless of whether references or citations are used),” 12 which is an accurate description. 12

2. Problems of self-plagiarism and duplicate publication

Self-plagiarism and duplicate publication are not technically plagiarism because they do not steal the work of another person; however, using portions of one's previously published works is not only a copyright infringement against the first publisher, but also a depreciation of one's own work. Furthermore, it is dishonorable to increase the number of publications of one's research by producing trivial journal articles of little value.

In addition, self-plagiarism and duplicate publication waste the time and effort of fellow researchers by making them read or review papers having little informative value. They also damage the trust among researchers by raising confusion. Redundant publication also causes errors of duplicated evidence of a certain effect in current meta-analyses methods. For this reason, the majority of academic journals request that papers submitted “contain new research results that have not been published in the past.” The magazine Nature provides a thoughtful discussion on this point.

“Many researchers say that republication without citation violates the premise that each scientific paper should be an original contribution. It can also serve to falsely inflate a researcher's CV by suggesting a higher level of productivity. And although the repetition of the methods section of a paper is not necessarily considered inappropriate by the scientific community, “we would expect that results, discussion and the abstract present novel results”

(Nature 2010, 468, p. 745)

3. Types of duplicate publications

Common forms of duplicate publication

The first type of duplicate publication is consecutive publication of journal articles using identical subjects and the effects measured with the same method but with slightly different treatment. Although the results are partially different, the research outline is retained; consequently, these papers have a substantial amount of overlapping text and data. Production of a representative paper and subsequent publications of similar papers fall under this form of duplicate publication.

The example below comprises an actual journal article (left) that investigates the biological changes in a cell caused by drug treatment that damages the cell (left), and a hypothetical article (right) suggesting that the level of free oxygen radicals known to be formed by this drug determines the degree of biological changes in a cell. The second paper barely has any independent new information, has an almost identical form of idea development in the introduction, the same research method, and a substantial amount of overlapping results (three of the results have identical titles). 13

Fig. 6

Example of common form of duplicate publication


Salami publication (segmented publication)

Salami publication is publishing two or more articles using the same research design and data originally derived from a single study. An example would involve publishing five parameters measured from a single research design that examined 10 parameters and drew a conclusion on the effect of a drug on diabetes in an endocrinology journal, and publishing the other five in a geriatric journal. Because a complete and accurate conclusion can only be drawn when all of the 10 original parameters are analyzed together, dividing and publishing the data in portions weakens the arguments of each paper. To prevent this reduction in quality, part of the data may be duplicated in the two papers, which leads back to the issue of redundant duplication.

In most cases, salami publication originates from a single study that gets divided into several papers during the process of data collection and completion of the paper. Consequently, the quality of each paper is low, and only when the papers are combined into one, can there be one strong convincing argument or hypothesis.

Salami publication often occurs in human subject research. Because of the difficulty of recruiting test subjects, there is pressure to produce as many papers as possible using the results obtained from those test subjects. If the original plan was to create several papers and a sufficient amount of data was collected, the issue of salami publication would not occur. Consequently, researchers must be required to undergo a thorough research design process, submit the proposal up front to publish several papers, and receive approval from the IRB prior to beginning the research. IRB reviews the validity of the proposal, including the number of the test subjects. Accordingly, this approval from the IRB can resolve the issue of duplicate publication in which the basic information on the subjects overlaps in multiple papers.

“Imalas” publication

“Imalas” publication (the word “salami” backwards) is publishing a similar paper after increasing the investigation period, or the number of subjects of a previously published paper, and re-investigating the same hypothesis. Publishing the results of investigating 100 subjects on the identical topic investigated with 20 subjects in the previously published paper can be an example of imalas publication. In another example, the same investigation was conducted using elementary students as subjects for the first paper and middle school students for the second paper; if there is no valid justification for why different results were expected in the second paper, it will not provide any new value and will be considered imalas publication.

On the other hand, if there are sufficient reasons to expect the subsequent study to overturn the results of the first study or new information or a hypothesis can be provided, the subsequent study can be validated. For example, if a method of measurement much more precise than the previous method is developed and another researcher has overturned the results of an existing study by using this technique, a re-investigation of the previous study using this technique would be valuable.

Publishing translations

Translating a paper published in Korean into English and presenting it in an international academic journal or translating a paper published in English into Korean and presenting it in a Korean academic journal is a form of redundant publication because a single research accomplishment is published twice. This practice is only permitted under conditions described in the “Secondary publication” section below.

☞ Secondary publication

Since scholars present papers in order to propagate information or a hypothesis the author has generated and to receive approval for its validity from fellow scholars, prohibiting publication of translations as an act of misconduct is not the wisest thing to do. In fact, publishing translations could be acceptable because presenting research translated from Korean to English in international academic journals disseminates new information among international readers.

In the academic community, the process of translating works into another language or changing the words and format and presenting them for the readers of another academic discipline is allowed through a method of secondary publication. Three requirements must be met for secondary publication (for example, in the case of republishing a paper published in Korean journal). First, the researcher must receive permission from the editor of the Korean journal to translate the paper and allow secondary publication. Second, the researcher must receive permission from the editor of the desired international journal for submission of the translated manuscript of the primary published version. Third, when the translated manuscript is published after passing the review, citations to the original source must appear on the first page of the article: “This article is based on a study first reported in the Korean Journal of ⋯” 14

Presenting the paper of a certain academic discipline in the journal of another academic discipline is also possible through secondary publication. For example, one may publish the research results on the effect of acupuncture in the Journal of Korean Acupuncture Society, and then may present them in the Journal of the Korean Physics Society to question the significance of the physical interpretations and to transmit the information. In this case, the author must simplify the medical terms and change the writing style according to the conventions of the corresponding academic discipline. Additionally, the author must go through the three procedures mentioned above.

However, one problem that typically occurs in secondary publication is that there are two published papers from a single study; it is inappropriate to count both papers as part of one's publication achievement.

2. Things to consider in plagiarism and self-plagiarism

1. Borrowing text from published material

To what extent can one reuse portions of one's own previously published material in a new paper without receiving accusations of self-plagiarism? Although there is no consensus on this question, it may be determined by common sense. For example, the Guidelines for Research Ethics of Seoul National University propose that “one may use portions of his own research results within the scope of not harming the originality of the research.” 15 The Research Integrity Committee of the University of Seoul has proposed in its regulations that “Duplicate publication by using the identical research idea, research data, and text of a previously published paper or book and publishing them in the same language or in a different language is an inappropriate act of misconduct; however, an exception is in cases in which only small portions overlap with the previously published paper and therefore the novelty of the new manuscript can be objectively acknowledged.” Meanwhile, the specific standard of the acceptable amount differs by the academic discipline. Journals in the field of life science seem to have strict ethical standards, and they tend to suggest that “reusing texts exceeding one paragraph or five sentences⋯ is not appropriate regardless whether they have been properly cited.” 16

2. “Materials and methods” or “Methods” section

When a researcher writes a paper using the data acquired in the same experiment or investigation method described in his previously published paper, the general consensus of journal editors is that using the same description of the methods section does not fall under self-plagiarism. Expert opinion regarding self-plagiarism proposed on the Q&A Forum of iThenticate 17, the international plagiarism detection service, also presents a similar view.

Q6: “If a scientist is describing a method that is used in different papers, can they use that same description?”

A: (Bob) Anecdotal feedback from CrossCheck members indicates that editors are largely unconcerned with plagiarism in method sections. In fact, it has been requested that iThenticate includes a feature that excludes methods from originality check.

(Rachael) I'd agree with Bob. An Editor reading the paper as a subject specialist will understand that there will necessarily be a degree of overlap/the same methods section if the same method has been used. (Bob Creutz, Executive Director of iThenticate; Rachael Lammey from CrossRef)

However, certain academic journals may disagree with this opinion, and so one must peruse the author's guidelines of the corresponding journal.

3. Using text considered to be common knowledge

In Korean copyright law, expressions or ideas not recognized for their creativity may be freely used without citation. Upon using the very well-known phrase from John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address, one may avoid accusations of plagiarism and the consequences of the copyright law.

However, if it is difficult to determine whether the corresponding text is common knowledge, it is best to indicate citations. The following Harvard Guide to Using Sources 18 provides detailed guidance regarding citations of common knowledge.

  • If you compared one of President Obama's lines to this very well-known phrase from John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address, “Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country,” you would not need to provide a citation for that one phrase.

  • However, if you were to analyze Kennedy's speech substantively and quote additional lines, then you would need to cite anything you quoted from his speech so that your readers could confirm the original language of the speech.

4. Redundant publication in different types of documents

Reusing the contents of one's published paper when writing a chapter book generally requires an author to go through the basic procedures for secondary publication; one must receive permission from the editors and the publishers of both documents and cite the original sources. Meanwhile, when using only a small portion as opposed to a form of secondary publication, one must provide clear citations and paraphrase the corresponding section properly to avoid redundant publication.

Publishing all of his or her previously published papers as a book or as an anthology or a special issue of an academic journal should follow secondary publication procedures to avoid the criticism of redundant publication. Thus, in the preface, the original sources should be clearly cited, and the fact that it is an anthology or a collection of papers should also be clearly specified. In addition, these may not be submitted as part of one's publication achievements.

A researcher may use the contents of his or her papers or other academic works, given appropriate credit, when they are explained in plain language or include some duplication in general books, educational books, or nonprofessional newsletters. However, even in these cases, it is recommended that researchers follow the procedures of secondary publication.

5. Conference abstracts

A researcher may reuse an abstract for his or her academic conference presentation or the materials and images used in the poster presentation in his or her graduate thesis or in an academic journal. Presenting the exact same material at another academic conference is not problematic because an academic conference presentation is considered to be part of the research activity of introducing a yet unverified hypothesis to colleagues of various fields questioning its validity. Accordingly, an abstract is not a complete paper and must not be counted as part of one's research accomplishment. (For students in Korea, an academic conference presentation abstract is sometimes considered to be a record of research activity but should not be counted as part of one's research achievements.)

6. Conference proceedings

Only a few copies of conference proceedings are usually published. Because their distribution is also limited, they are considered gray literature, which is not widely accessible. Unless the manuscripts are selected through a rigorous peer review process, papers presented in proceedings are generally not acknowledged as academic papers because the majority of them propose hypotheses that have not yet been evaluated.

Meanwhile, it is generally acceptable for the data presented orally or through posters at an academic conference to be published later in an academic journal. However, when the data was widely accessed (for example, online) through the proceedings, a researcher may encounter difficulties in publishing his or her data in an academic journal; the author may be criticized for duplicate publication because it is a violation of the author's agreement upon submission that the paper consists of new information that has not been published through another medium. For a researcher who publishes his or her data in such proceedings, the report will not be recognized as an academic paper, and the author may not be able to use his or her own data elsewhere.

In the case of some engineering fields such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics of Engineers (IEEE), the conference proceedings themselves are referred to as journals. The submission of conference abstracts to IEEE academic conferences is referred to as a “call for papers” as opposed to a “call for abstracts,” and the documents published as proceedings are selected through a strict peer review process. Likewise, a contribution to conference proceedings can be acknowledged as an academic paper when a paper submitted to the academic conference is selected by a peer review and is then published and distributed online regularly and internationally, and when the academic society publicly announces that the corresponding entry to the conference proceedings is accepted as an academic journal by the academic society.

Additionally, the IEEE has a policy in which a researcher can reuse a portion of previously published data in a new paper given that original sources are properly cited, and the researcher can publish it as a full paper in one of the IEEE's own academic journals when the journal editor approves and acknowledges that the new research will make an innovative academic contribution. Even though such a policy is a breach of the general agreement in academia that “only new data that has not been previously published must be printed,” the IEEE's position is that if the new research is assessed to have sufficiently innovative value, reusing data is not going to be questioned.

There are occasions in which conference proceedings that have not gone through peer review are published as a special issue of an academic journal. This may be criticized as disregarding the responsibilities of an academic journal, which are only to publish data that has exceeded a certain degree of completion and maintains research integrity.

7. Letters and brief communication

If the discovery of certain research is considered to be important and needs to be circulated immediately, it can be published in the form of a “letter” or “brief communication” first and then can be published as a full paper after the research is completed. In this case, duplicate use of the data is allowed as long as there are citations to the original papers. IEEE is representative in such cases, and some academic journals in physics fields also follow this practice. This practice is only possible between the journals of the same academic societies or journal publishers, for presenting the contents of short communication papers published in another academic journal will be an act of copyright infringement.

Articles which mainly expand findings that were previously published as Communications in JACS or elsewhere and which only incorporate experimental data, without greatly expanded scope and without providing new in- sights or conceptual breakthroughs, will be declined. Articles that are mainly routine extensions of previously published related work will also be declined with the recommendation for submission to more specialized journals.

Overall, it is important to remember that most academic journals strictly regulate duplicate use of data. On the subject of submission regulations, the Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) writes:

Most journals require that all scientific papers must provide innovative information that has not been previously published. If the author plans to publish his or her work in the form of brief communication papers, intending to publish a full paper at a future date, the author should consult the corresponding academic journal prior to doing so.

8. Publishing a collection of reports of contract research results as a book or a journal article

A report of contract research results can be published as an academic journal article unless it is not allowed by the contract. However, a collection of submitted contract reports are compiled as a book assigned an ISBN number and uploaded to the Internet becomes a copyrighted work. Therefore, if the contract report is further developed and published as an article of an academic journal at a later time, it is violating the principle of publishing new data that has not been previously published.

On the other hand, while 76% of Korean scholars in the humanities viewed duplications across different research reports as an act of misconduct, only 53% of scholars in engineering fields had the same view. 19 These results may reflect the view in engineering that while journal papers are published in and open to the public domain, contract research reports only concern the researcher and the institution that requested the report. In addition, because duplications of reports in engineering occur mostly in the general introductory sections of objective information rather than the original hypothesis or argument section, researchers tend to view the issue less negatively.

9. Publishing students' gradate theses as academic journal articles

In general, although students' graduate theses are the product of several years' hard work, data presented in a thesis should be first refined and edited through the peer review process and then should be distributed among scholars of an academic society so that it can be disseminated more widely. Accordingly, publishing theses as academic journal articles is an important academic activity of scholars that must be encouraged. In addition, in many cases, thesis publication is conducted by the student's academic advisor or the principal investigator; the advisor or the principal investigator is usually given credit as the corresponding author or the co-author.

Among humanities scholars in Korea, more than half view duplications between students' graduate theses and academic journal articles as cases of research misconduct, but this may be considered a limited perspective. In the West, dissertations are often published as books or journal articles. However, when an advisor publishes his or her student's dissertation in a journal and lists his or her name as an author, it is usually considered inappropriate in the literature, history, and philosophy disciplines; in these disciplines, the importance of individual motives and creativity in the writing process is traditionally considered very important. According to Ki-beom Park, however, only one quarter of the professors in the science and engineering fields view duplication from students' graduate theses in academic journal articles as cases of misconduct. 20 This discrepancy is probably because the views of the humanities disciplines have strongly dominated the Korean academia, not properly recognizing the fact that science and engineering research nowadays requires collaboration.

10. Using the contents of one's published academic journal article in one's own graduate thesis

Nowadays, a growing number of science and engineering disciplines have been requiring research paper publications in academic journals as part of the doctoral degree requirements. As a result, many doctoral candidates first publish portions of their research in an academic journal and later insert the previously published contents into their graduate thesis. Duplicate usage of one's research (including data and text) in both a thesis and an academic journal is an acceptable practice in the science and engineering fields, not only in Korea but also worldwide.

However, one must still exercise caution during this process. For example, if a student has co-authored a collaborative research paper with multiple researchers, and he or she uses the same contents of the research paper in his or her own graduate thesis, plagiarism and copyright infringement issues arise; in principle, the slightest bit of data and text produced by a co-researcher should not be included in a student's gradate thesis, and if they are used, it becomes a copyright infringement unless the other authors have provided written permission. However, even if prior permission is obtained, it is still considered misconduct as plagiarism and fabrication of data. If one must use the data of another person, it must be introduced as a text summary not a copy of the data figure or table from the original paper, and it must be properly cited.

■. Additional Factors to Consider: Copyright of Academic Journals in Korea

1. Current status of copyright management of academic journals in Korea

Currently, most Korean academic journals may give permission to third parties to access papers after receiving consent or copyright transfer agreement of authors to the publisher as part of a journal publishing agreement. However, neither the consent form nor the copyright transfer agreement provides any information regarding copyright ownership. Such practice by the academic society is subject to criticism because it assumes the academic society has greater authority over the submitted manuscripts than is actually allowed

Most academic societies in Korea operate a homepage on the internet for efficient management of journal articles, as well as economic benefit and ease of access for members. The academic societies often upload the journal articles to their own homepage without a clear copyright transfer agreement or legal contract with the author of the manuscript. Some academic societies have also contracted with companies that provide the articles to third parties via the internet as a paid service. 21

These digital knowledge distribution companies (such as Korean Studies Information Inc. and Nurimedia) usually have contracts for ‘right of transmission’ and ‘right of electronic publication’ with an academic society, construct a digital database composed of the papers of the corresponding academic journal, and sell them to universities, research institutes, and businesses. However, because the main ownership of the copyright of the online version of the academic journal, as well as the digital right of reproduction, right of transmission, and right of production of secondary copyrighted work have not been clearly legally defined, conflicts regarding copyright arise. 22

2. Examples of and precedents set in Korean academic journal article copyright disputes

There was once a legal dispute between a digital knowledge distribution company and Korea Reproduction and Transmission Rights Association (KORRA), a copyright advocacy organization, regarding the ownership of copyright of an academic journal article. KORRA filed a lawsuit against the digital knowledge distribution company stating that “the digital knowledge distribution company has signed a contract of right of transmission with an academic society that has not received consent of use from each individual copyright holder, which is a violation of chapter 136, article 1, clause 1 of the copyright law.” The argument is that the construction of a digital database based on the original text of an academic journal paper is copyright infringement against the author as production of a secondary copyrighted work. 23

Chapter 136 (Penalty)

  • A person to whom any one of the following issues applies may be sentenced to up to 5 years in prison or fined up to 50 million won, or both. <revised 2011.12.2>

  1. A person who has violated the intellectual property rights, and other property rights protected by this law (excluding the rights under Article 93), by duplication, performance, public transmission, exhibition, distribution, rental, or publication of secondary copyrighted work.

Regarding this issue, the Seoul High Court has decided that in the “appeal hearing of a request for injunction against service of academic copyrighted work” (Case 2007-D-872), 1) if the digital distributor of the original text entered into a contract with the academic society and sold the paper published by the academic society in the form of a database, it would be a violation of the copyright of the author of the paper. 2) However, the degree of violation was not to the extent of prohibition of the service. 24

3. Directions for improving the expansion of public access to academic journals and resolving copyright issues of Open Access journals

Because academic papers are a representative form of nonprofit copyrighted works, most authors want more people to verify and evaluate their work; as a result, the number of Open Access journals is increasing. The expansion of Open Access is also advantageous for the public. However, to resolve the copyright issues and conflicts of academic journals, the following public policy changes must be made as soon as possible:

  1. Copyright transfer agreement of the academic work from the academic society of the original author

  2. Clear stipulations regarding ownership following copyright transfer

  3. Clarification of ownership regarding the right of reproduction and transfer of the digital database, secondary copyrighted work (fee-based or free access to the paper online or offline)

V. Unjustified Authorship

In Korea, the “act of not attributing authorship to an individual who has made scientific contributions without justification or attributing authorship to an individual who has not made scientific contributions,” in other words, unjustified authorship is defined as another type of research misconduct. (Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning ordinance No. 6 [enacted 2013.8.5], Guidelines for Assurance of Research Ethics [enforced 2012.8.1] [Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology instruction No. 206, 2012.8.1, revised section]). This is not the case in the United States.

1. What determines the authorship of a paper?

Authors of a paper must take responsibility for their work. The process of scientific verification of the research continues even after the paper is submitted or published, which is critical for strengthening the scientific discovery and the scientific value of the hypothesis. Authors must be able to properly respond to questions that may arise during the scientific verification process. For this reason, authors must be familiar with their work and be able to propose logical explanations regarding the data acquisition, method, interpretation, and validity of the results. Such a role would not be possible simply by measuring experimental points without knowing the purpose of the research.

1. People who are eligible to be listed as an author

To be listed as an author, the following conditions must be met: (1) the individual must plan or design the research, or understand the concept and purpose of the research and (2) participate in the acquisition and interpretation of data or writing the draft, and (3) read the final version of the manuscript before submission and approve it. Some of the recent academic journals include an author contribution list, in which the contributions of each author are listed in the front, or at the end, of the paper.

2. People who are ineligible to be listed as an author

The following persons would not satisfy the conditions to be listed as an author: (1) a person who only measured and acquired the data, (2) a person who only provided the laboratory, equipment, or research funds, and (3) a person who only provided the research idea. (These people should instead be acknowledged in the acknowledgments section.)

Practice of determining authorship

Dr. Kim, an assistant professor of gynecology, conducted research regarding the correlation between cervical cancer and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and has written a paper. Which of the following people should be listed as authors of this paper?

  1. The head professor who was already engaged in a project on treatment of cervical cancer heard Dr. Kim's presentation on his research plan in a departmental meeting and thought that this research would strengthen the research level of his gynecology department and provided a portion of his research funds to Dr. Kim's research.

  2. A resident, during the two years of her career, collected samples from cervical cancer surgeries that were used for Dr. Kim's research.

  3. An intern student decided to participate in Dr. Kim's research. After learning the necessary techniques from the research assistant in the neighboring laboratory, this intern carried out the experiment and determined the presence of virus within the samples.

  4. A technical assistant of the department conducting routine typing of HPV (a type of virus frequently found in cervical cancers) in tissue samples from the outpatients for diagnostic use, recently met Dr. Kim in the hallway and explained the increasing frequency of observation of HPV and HIV co-infection in cervical cancers. Later, this technical assistant measured the frequency of co-infection from his own samples and delivered data to Dr. Kim. These were presented in the paper.

  5. A postdoc taught Dr. Kim the most difficult technique that is necessary to successfully complete the last experiment.

  6. A professor in the Pathology Department provided Dr. Kim with his own rare DNA samples of HIV3 and HIV4 (types of HIV strains), from which Dr. Kim acquired data shown in Fig. 4 of the paper.

  7. A senior professor made comments and suggested new wording in several parts of the manuscript.

People who deserve authorship: C and D

2. Order of the listing of authors

Authorship is listed in the order of contribution to the research. A researcher or student who produced the largest part of data is generally listed as the first author; in fact, in most research institutions and academic societies, the person who made the greatest contributions to the paper is listed first. People (co-authors) who made fewer contributions than the lead author are listed as second or third authors according to their contributions, while corresponding authors are generally listed at the very end. However, because corresponding authors are marked separately, they may be listed anywhere in accordance with the production of data. In other words, if the person who produced the largest amount of data has written the paper and became a corresponding author, he is listed in the very beginning of the list of authors. To avoid disputes, it is better to decide the order of listed authors when the role of each researcher is decided at the beginning of the study, rather than at the end when the manuscript is ready for submission. Meanwhile, if the editor requests information regarding the role and contribution of each author upon the submission of the manuscript, it may be possible to reduce the issue of unjustified registration of authors to some extent.

VI. Other Behaviors to Avoid in Research Activity

The Guidelines for Assurance of Research Ethics of the Ministry of Education includes “acts that severely deviate from the acceptable range of each academic field” as research misconduct. Additionally it notes that “research institutes may include in their regulations acts that require internal investigation or prevention in addition to the acts of research misconduct listed in Clause 1.”

Depending on the situation, some acts that occur during the research process, or after the study, may not be viewed as acts of misconduct or inappropriate practice; however, they may nonetheless cause suspicion regarding research integrity, damage the conventions of the scientific society, and cause problems such as wasting time and resources. There are rarely cases in which such acts have been called into question and submitted for disciplinary measures. Nevertheless, these acts may be considered to have instigated research misconduct and so may result in disciplinary measures equal to the degree of research misconduct.

These acts are generally classified as “questionable research practice (QRP).” The following is a representative example of QPR as proposed by the US National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Engineering, and Institute of Medical Sciences. 25

1. Act of not retaining important data for an appropriate period of time

Article 11 (Record keeping and management) states:

“① The head of the research institute has the responsibility of storing and managing the research notebook produced during the research funded by the government. Clause ② 1. The retention period of the research notebook is 30 years from the date first written.”

- Guidelines for Research Notebooks [National Science and Technology Council instruction No. 2011-19, enacted 2011.10.4]

A research notebook with data recorded or kept on file is the most important evidence proving that the researcher actually conducted the corresponding research. The research notebook is also required for reproduction of the research results. Upon retirement or movement to different institution, a researcher must pass on the research notebook to the research institution.

The instructions above and the regulations of universities do not specify what disciplinary measures will be imposed for the absence of a research notebook. However, in the absence of a research notebook or omission of important data in the notebook, a researcher cannot prove himself innocent if suspected of plagiarism or fabrication of data, and also may be suspected of manipulation of data.

2. Requesting authorship simply for contributions irrelevant to the study

The Guidelines for Assurance of Research Ethics of the Ministry of Education state that “the act of attributing authorship to an individual who has not made contributions, out of gratitude or respect” is an act of research misconduct. When a person who does not have sufficient qualifications to be registered as an author requests authorship, he/she is committing an act of misconduct, which requires a higher degree of disciplinary measures than that for other research misconduct.

3. Abusing a student or a member of research team

A student (or a member of research team) may suffer abuse at the hands of a professor (or a senior researcher.) There are often media reports of professors making personal requests irrelevant to the research or imposing financial disadvantages on students. An even more serious offense is professors demanding or inducing research misconduct by psychologically manipulating the students, which deserves greater disciplinary measures than that for actually committing research misconduct. Furthermore, cases of wasting the students' time and energy by intentionally refusing to provide the student with proper research guidance or depriving the students of the opportunity of authorship are also wrongdoings on an equal footing with research misconduct.

4. Refusing or interfering in another researcher's justified request for information or sharing of materials regarding data or research material of the paper

Refusing access to the research notebook raises the suspicion of the absence of a research notebook or of apparent misconduct evident within the contents. There are often requests for the original data reported in the paper or portions of substances acquired from the data collection process. This is important for the reproduction of the reported results and is also a meaningful academic convention to promote further advancement of the research by sharing valuable information and substances. Refusing such a request from a fellow researcher does not lead to disciplinary measures; however, if it happens repeatedly, the researcher may be suspected of interfering in the reproduction of his research results, or engaging in closed research. In such cases, warnings may be issued if the academic society is informed of such an act.

5. Publishing or releasing information to the public about the estimated level or the expected results as if they are valid, when there have not been sufficient data provided for reproduction of the results or its verification by fellow scientists

Researcher Woo Suk Hwang has been criticized the most for this type of infraction. In 2005, he presented to the general public the results of his stem cell research as if they were valid, without first presenting the results in an academic conference or journal, that is, without having the scientific validity of his research reviewed by his fellow scholars. This is an act of deceiving the public who pay taxes for researchers to conduct research with integrity. When such acts are committed intentionally, warnings and disciplinary measures are needed; even if it is not research misconduct, it is nevertheless an inappropriate act violating personal and scientific integrity and honor.



WI ChoDismissal of professor Kang Soo-kyung of Seoul National University engaged in fabrication of 17[Internet]2013Mar8cited 2015 Dec 15Available from:


JH EomThird party making · selling a published journal paper in form of DB is copyright violationLaw Times[Internet]2008Mar22cited 2015 Dec 15Available from:


Harvard UniversityThe exception: common knowledgeHarvard guide to using sources[Internet]Boston, MAHarvard Universitycited 2015 Dec 15Available from:


JH HongA study on copyright possession for open access and archiving of scholarly journal paper registered in Korean Research FoundationJ Korean Lib Inf Sci Soc20083943163


ES HwangSS SongIJ LeeK ParkWC SohnUnderstanding and practice of research ethicsDaejeonNational Research Foundation of Korea2011


International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing and publication of scholarly work in medical journals[Internet]ICMJE2014cited 2015 Dec 17Available from:


JY JeongCourt orders “50 million won compensation for substitution of authors of paper”Segye News[Internet]2008Aug13cited 2015 Dec 15Available from:


Ministry of Education, Science Technology Instructions No. 260. Guidelines for Assurance of Research Ethics (enacted Aug. 1, 2012, revised section).


Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning Ordinance, No. 6. Rules Regarding Management of National Research and Development Projects (enacted Aug. 5, 2013).


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


GH ParkPaper plagiarism. 2: Extracted from national project plan of professor Kim Cheol-ho of Sungkyunkwan UniversitySeoul News[Internet]2009Jun27cited 2015 Dec 15Available from:


KB ParkInvestigation of researcher's perception of research integrityDaejeonNational Research Foundation of Korea2009


Seoul National UniversitySeoul National University guidelines for research ethicsRev. ed.SeoulSeoul National University2010


Turnitin, LLCiThenticate: self-plagiarism Q&A forum[Internet]Oakland, CATurnitin, LLCcited 2015 Dec 15Available from:


WAME-Listserve[discussion list on the Internet]World Association of Medical Editors2006Nov18cited 2015 Dec 15Available from: appropriate-use-of-of-other-authors2019-sentences


[5] Ministry of Education, Science and Technology Instructions, No. 260. Guidelines for Assurance of Research Ethics (enacted Aug. 1, 2012, revised section).

[6] Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning Ordinance, No. 6. Rules Regarding Management of National Research and Development Projects (enacted Aug. 5, 2013).

[7] On June 26, 2009, the National Research Foundation of Korea took measures to restrict researchers who had engaged in duplicate publication as well as data duplication from participating in any national research and development projects ( GH Park Paper plagiarism. 2: Extracted from national project plan of professor Kim Cheol-ho of Sungkyunkwan University Seoul News [Internet] 2009 Jun 27 cited 2015 Dec 15 Available from: http://www.seoul. newsView.php?id= 20090627008018).

[8] For example, Seoul National University has expelled Professor Woo Suk Hwang, who fabricated his stem cell research paper in 2006 and has dismissed a person who engaged in other research misconduct from the College of Veterinary Medicine in 2012 ( WI Cho Dismissal of professor Kang Soo-kyung of Seoul National University engaged in fabrication of 17 articles [Internet] 2013 Mar 8 cited 2015 Dec 15 Available from: 201303/h2013030821055721950.htm).

[9] On the web forum of the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) on November 18, 2006, when Mary Ellen Kerans (coordinator, Mediterranean Editors & Translators) noted that “medical journal editors are indeed highly tolerant of one-sentence copying, provided the reference is given. Nevertheless, one-sentence copying creates problems in writing cohesion, and is to be avoided,” Diana Mason (Editor-in-Chief American Journal of Nursing) remarked, “I do agree with Mary Ellen.” and other editors also mentioned their agreement (WAME-Listserve [discussion list on the Internet]. World Association of Medical Editors; 2006 Nov 18 [cited 2015 Dec 15]. Available from: appropriate-use-of-of-other-authors2019-sentences).

[10] The case can be confirmed in the following article ( JY Jeong Court orders “50 million won compensation for substitution of authors of paper” Segye News [Internet] 2008 Aug 13 cited 2015 Dec 15 Available from: http://www.

[11] IJ Lee Research misconduct ES Hwang SS Song IJ Lee K Park WC Sohn Understanding and practice of research ethics Daejeon National Research Foundation of Korea 2011 96.

[12] Chapter 2, Article 12, Clause 5 Seoul National University Seoul National University guidelines for research ethics Rev. ed. Seoul Seoul National University 2010.

[13] Kinetics of the cell biological changes occurring in the progression of DNA damage-induced senescence Mol Cells 2011 31 539 46 (left), hypothetical text written in the form of an article by taking portions of the original paper (right). A similar case can be seen in the following two papers: Salviae miltiorrhizae radix increases dopamine release of rat and pheochromocytoma PC12 cells Phytother Res 2006 20 191 9 and Salvae miltiorrhizae BGE radix increases rat striatal K(+)-stimulated dopamine release and activates the dopamine release with protection against hydrogen peroxide-induced injury in rat pheochromocytoma PC12 cells Neurochem Res 2006 31 109 20.

[14] International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing and publication of scholarly work in medical journals [Internet] ICMJE 2014 cited 2015 Dec 17 Available from:

[15] Chapter 2, Article 8, ② Use of one's research results Seoul National University Seoul National University guidelines for research ethics Rev. ed. Seoul Seoul National University 2010.

[16] Results of a mini questionnaire (2014.2.3-14) among member journal editors conducted by the Committee of Publication Ethics of the Korean Council of Science Editors.

[17] Turnitin, LLC iThenticate: self-plagiarism Q&A forum [Internet] Oakland, CA Turnitin, LLC cited 2015 Dec 15 Available from:

[18] Extracted from Harvard University The exception: common knowledge Harvard guide to using sources [Internet] Boston, MA Harvard University cited 2015 Dec 15 Available from: keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page342055

[19] KB Park Investigation of researcher's perception of research integrity Daejeon National Research Foundation of Korea 2009 59.

[20] Ibid.

[21] JH Hong A study on copyright possession for open access and archiving of scholarly journal paper registered in Korean Research Foundation J Korean Lib Inf Sci Soc 2008 39 431 63.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] JH Eom Third party making · selling a published journal paper in form of DB is copyright violation Law Times [Internet] 2008 Mar 22 cited 2015 Dec 15 Available from: Legal-News-View?Serial=38121

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