1. Scope of application

When suspicion of research misconduct arises, an investigation process will be carried out according to the code of research ethics of a given research institute. Government-funded projects will have to comply with the principles articulated by the decree of the Ministry of Science, ICT, and Future Planning entitled “Regulations on the Management of National Research and Development Projects” (hereafter, the Decree) or ordinance of the Ministry of Education entitled “Guidelines for Assurance of Research Ethics” (hereafter, the Ordinance).

After the 2007 research fraud incident involving Hwang Woo-suk, the government announced a set of regulations entitled “Guidelines for Assurance of Research Ethics.” This was previously an ordinance of the former Ministry of Science and Technology, but is currently a decree of the Ministry of Science, ICT, and Future Planning. Moreover, the 2011 Sciences Promotion Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same act included related articles on research ethics. An ordinance of the Ministry of Education was enacted in order to implement those articles as administrative rules.

The processes of investigating research misconduct outlined by the Ministry of Science, ICT, and Future Planning (MSIP) and the Ministry of Education (MoE) are virtually identical. The majority of research institutes have also enacted their own codes based on the regulations in the Ordinance of the former Ministry of Science and Technology. Therefore, aside from small details (e.g., the proportion of outsiders to include when forming an investigation committee), there is no room for confusion when implementing the regulations.

2. Scope of investigation

The investigation of research misconduct will be handled by the research institute where the relevant research was conducted.

In cases where suspicion of research misconduct arises during the evaluation of a national research and development project, the research institute must carry out the first investigation. The funding agency will then take on the secondary role of reviewing the results of the first investigation.

In cases where the researcher has become affiliated with another institution after completing the research project in question, the previous institution must investigate the misconduct and then notify the current institute of the results. Even in cases where the former institution faces challenges in carrying out the investigation due to geographical or other factors, the responsibility lies with the former institution. Moreover, even if the relevant researcher declines to cooperate with the investigation, the former institution must consider all related matters, make an autonomous decision, and then notify the current institution of the results.

In cases where the researcher has become affiliated with another institution during the course of a research project, it may be difficult to determine where the research was conducted. Most research misconduct appears in the final results of the research, such as in dissertations, reports, and other published materials. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider the institution with which the researcher was affiliated when the final results of the research were presented to be the institution where the research was conducted.

In cases where two or more institutions participated in a project, in principle, a separate investigation should be performed at each institution. However, in order to avoid unnecessary duplication and confusion, it is possible for the institutions in question to consult with each other and form a joint investigation committee.

In the following instances, it is possible to request that an investigation be performed by an umbrella organization, such as the funding agency.

3. Time limitations for investigation

The previous “Guidelines for Assurance of Research Ethics” (Ordinance of the former Ministry of Science and Technology) mandated that “misconduct that occurred five years before the reported date⋯ shall not be handled.” However, the amended 2011 ordinance and the current decree of the Ministry of Science, ICT, and Future Planning have deleted all such clauses. Therefore, misconduct in all past research can be subject to investigation.

The rules regarding research ethics has no relation to the regulations pertaining to disciplinary measures against faculty. Even if a time limitation for disciplinary measures expires, research integrity must be verified.

4. Burden of proof

The research institute and investigation committee have the burden to prove the allegations of misconduct, which means that it is not the respondent who has to prove his or her freedom from suspicion, but it is the investigation committee who has the responsibility of proving the allegations of misconduct of the respondent; the respondent, nevertheless, has the burden of going forward with and of proving any affirmative defenses raised, by a preponderance of the evidence.

Due to the inherent characteristics of the research process, it is very difficult for the investigation committee to become aware of the specific circumstances of the alleged research without the respondent's cooperation. Therefore, if the respondent does not actively cooperate, the committee must regard that as proof of misconduct. For instance, if a suspicion of fabrication arises and the respondent refuses to provide the original material, the investigation committee must interpret this to mean that there is, in fact, no original material.

5. Investigation organizations

According to the Decree of the Ministry of Science, ICT, and Future Planning and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Education, during the preliminary inquiry stage, the institution in question may autonomously form an investigation committee. During the main investigation stage, an investigative body in the form of a committee must be assembled, and must include outsiders and experts in the relevant field of research.

After an investigation committee is formed, its independence must be strictly maintained. The committee must be free of any external interventions or instructions.The code of the State Science and Technology Commission and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology state that the following persons must be excluded from being members of an investigation committee: relatives according to civil law, teachers or students, and co-researchers.

Considering the size of South Korea's pool of experts, it is more important to manage conflict of interests with the respondent instead of avoiding it entirely. In addition, opportunities for recusal must be granted to whistleblowers and all statements and opinions of the members of the investigation committee made during the investigation must be recorded.

6. Protecting the rights of whistleblowers and respondents

The opportunities and rights to state an opinion, raise an objection, and present a defense should be guaranteed equally to whistleblowers and respondents. The term “equally” here does not mean granting equal amounts of time for speaking. It means that when conflicting testimonies are given, the investigation committee must not refer to just one side of the argument but must inform the other side and grant the other side the opportunity to give a counter-statement and a defense.

Since these principles were written with the assumption that the whistleblower is an individual, they may be flexibly applied in the following cases: when research misconduct is reported to a research institute after being confirmed at a conference or in a journal, when allegations of misconduct are raised via the internet or the media, when a specific whistleblower cannot be determined, and when the whistleblower is not an individual but an organization, such as a committee.

In reality, protection for whistleblowers is limited since no higher law establishes their protection. However, the investigating agency must strictly maintain the confidentiality of the whistleblower's identity and must be particularly mindful of any disadvantages or discrimination against internal whistleblowers.

A respondent is not limited to the person who was reported. Participants in the relevant research or anyone suspected of additional charges during the investigation of misconduct may be added to the list.

A respondent must be presumed to be innocent until the results of the investigation are confirmed. The investigation agency has the obligation to try their best to ensure that no harm is inflicted on the respondent's integrity or rights.

During the investigation, the investigation committee may require the respondent to attend inquiries or hand in materials, but has no legal authority to enforce these actions. However, failure to cooperate with the investigation must be deemed as proof of misconduct.

When a committee takes further action to seize documents or restrict access to research labs, it must thoroughly review whether such measures conflict with laws regarding a person's fundamental rights, and only carry out such actions sparingly.

In cases where a committee collects materials such as research reports or project proposals pertaining to previous research for evidence, it must thoroughly review whether doing so conflicts with laws regarding the disclosure of information.

1. The basic procedures for investigation

After an allegation of research misconduct arises, the investigative process involves a preliminary inquiry, a main investigation, and adjudication. In principle, the preliminary inquiry, completion of the final investigation, and notification of the results of the investigation must all be carried out within six months.

If, during the actual investigation, it is difficult to complete all of the procedures within six months for any reason, the term may be extended as appropriate.

2. Preliminary inquiry

The preliminary inquiry is the process of determining whether a main investigation is needed to investigate an allegation of misconduct, and must begin within 30 days of the date of receiving an allegation. The research institute may autonomously determine the technique for executing the preliminary inquiry.

The preliminary inquiry is not required under all circumstances. In cases where there is sufficient suspicion of misconduct, the institute may begin the process with the main investigation.

A preliminary inquiry involves two components: the process of collecting basic information and affirming the facts before carrying out the main investigation, and the process of excluding cases that involve unreliable or insignificant accusations and therefore do not require a main investigation. Therefore, it is advisable that the preliminary inquiry should be carried out quickly, with the main goal of judging whether an allegation as valid. If so, the contents of the allegation should be evaluated in the main investigation.

The results of the preliminary inquiry must be reported to the whistleblower and, in cases where the research was funded by external sources, to the funding agency as well.

The following is the standard procedure that should be taken after the allegation and through the preliminary inquiry:

Fig. 1

Procedures for the preliminary inquiry1[1]

The roles of each agent during the preliminary inquiry are as follows:

3. Main investigation

The purpose of the main investigation is not simply to ascertain whether misconduct took place, but to make an overall judgment after considering all factors, such as the intention and severity of the misconduct, whether it was repeated, the roles of the co-researchers, and other circumstances.

In cases involving suspicions of fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or duplication, the investigation should not be limited to the specific research targeted in the allegation, but should cover all related research that the respondent carried out in the past.

The investigative process for ascertaining the facts of plagiarism or duplication is relatively simple, but the process of investigating fabrication and falsification may require a substantial amount of time and effort.

The following is the standard procedure that should be taken after the preliminary inquiry up to the beginning of the main investigation.

Fig.2

Procedures for the main investigation3[3]

The main investigation committee must establish standards of judgment in preparation for varying opinions among its members.

Even if the respondent or the whistleblower does not agree with the conclusions of the investigation committee, there is no need to conduct a further investigation.

The following elements must be included in the final report:

4. Adjudication

The investigation process is completed when the investigation committee makes a final confirmation of the results of the decisions and notifies the whistleblower and the respondent.

During the process of confirming the findings of the investigation committee, other parties, such as the research integrity committee or agency head, must not arbitrarily change the results.

5. Measures after the investigation of research misconduct

The investigation of research misconduct is completed by the adjudication process. According to the level of severity of the misconduct, follow-up measures will take place, such as personnel committees and disciplinary action.

Follow-up measures not only include personnel actions, such as suspension, expulsion, or dismissal, but also include a variety of actions, such as revising or retracting a dissertation or article, taking an oath of honesty for future research, or placing restrictions on additional research.

Institutions have different rules to handle the appeals raised by whistleblowers or respondents.

In cases where the funding agency is clearly identifiable, appeals can be made to the relevant agency. Other cases, such as misconduct related to graduate dissertations, may follow the rules of the research institution. If the research institute does not have any rules regarding reinvestigation, whistleblowers and respondents who do not accept the adjudication can only rely on umbrella organizations such as the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. Procedures on such matters are currently inadequate.

1. Case 1: Suspicion of research misconduct raised from the outside

June 24, 2008 | A whistleblower filed a civil petition to the Board of Audit and Inspection regarding research plagiarism.

September 5, 2008 | The Board of Audit and Inspection passed the relevant information on to the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, and the Ministry requested XXX Research Institute to conduct an investigation regarding the integrity of the research.

September 11, 2008 | XXX Research Institute formed an investigation committee made up of six insiders and three outsiders and began the main investigation.

September 2008 | The final verdict determined that plagiarism had taken place, and the results were provided to the whistleblower, the subject of the investigation, the Board of Audit and Inspection, and the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology.

October 9, 2008 | The respondent appealed to an umbrella organization and XXX Research Institute.

November 25, 2008 | XXX Research Institute responded by forming a reinvestigation committee with new members and held four meetings.

XXX Research Institute notified the Board of Audit and Inspection, the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology, the whistleblower, and the respondent of the findings of the investigation. The investigation was terminated since both the whistleblower and respondent had no objections to the results.

2. Case 2: Suspicion of research misconduct discovered during the evaluation process of a national research and development project

November 7, 2007 | During the final evaluation process of a national research and development project, a suspicion of duplication in the research report arose.

December 18, 2007 | The relevant funding agency assembled a board of review and requested the university that the respondent was affiliated with to conduct an institutional investigation to evaluate those suspicions.

January 3, 2008 | The university convoked a research integrity committee and decided to launch a main investigation.

January 4, 2008 | An investigative committee was formed, consisting of seven members, and the main investigation was begun.

February 4, 2008 | The final verdict stated that all of the allegations made by the funding agency were true, meaning that the project was plagiarized.

February 13, 2008 | The university notified the funding agency of the results of the investigation.

3. Case 3: Internal accusation

The whistleblower published an article in a Korean journal on January 2004 based on a 2003 doctoral thesis that he/she had written.

After confirming that a piece similar to his/her Korean dissertation was published in a foreign journal in 2005, but his/her name was omitted from the author list, the whistleblower reported the case to Korean and foreign journals.

2006 | The funding agency requested the relevant research institute to verify the integrity of the research.

2007 | The research institute conducted a preliminary inquiry and a main investigation.

May 2007 | The funding agency assembled a board of review to assess the results of the research institute's investigation and requested supplemental information regarding the following points:

May-September 2007 | The research institute carried out a reinvestigation with new investigation committee members, following the suggestions made by the funding agency.

September 2007 | The funding agency accepted the results of the reinvestigation and decided to replace the chief of research and restrict him/her from participating in research for the next three years.

October 2007 | The foreign journal decided to retract the study because it was a duplicate of the study published in the Korean journal.

4. Case 4: Self investigation by a funding agency

September 7, 2009 | An anonymous allegation was registered at the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, and the Commission requested the funding agency to submit relevant materials relating to the project.

December 18, 2009 | The Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission decided that the allegations were true and reported the research misconduct to the funding agency (the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission became the whistleblower).

December 30, 2009 | The funding agency decided that a self-verification process would be difficult since the respondent was working at a small company. The agency decided to investigate the case themselves and took measures to suspend research funding.

January 7, 2010 | The preliminary inquiry committee, consisting of 3 outside experts, realized the need for a main investigation in order to determine whether there was duplication in the annual report. The committee concluded that there was no correspondence between the national research and development project and the main points of the preceding research, which the whistleblower had argued were plagiarized. The duplicated phrases were marginal and were therefore judged not to be plagiarism.

January 18, 2010 | The relevant company was notified of results of the preliminary inquiry.

January 27, 2010 | A main investigation committee was formed and the whistleblower (Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission) was notified of the beginning of the main investigation.

February 8, 2010 | The first meeting of the main investigation committee was held.

February 22, 2010 | The second meeting of the main investigation committee was held.

February 26, 2010 | The third meeting of the main investigation committee was held.

March 2010 | The main investigation committee concluded that the annual research report was plagiarized.