These guidelines apply to members of KSRS and those related to projects organized by KSRS and the project personnel (However, the ethical guidelines for research articles in journals published by KSRS are set separately.)

① Research misconduct (hereinafter referred to as "misconduct") as defined in this guideline refers to forgery, falsification, plagiarism, improper indication of authorship, redundant research, double publication of an article, etc., committed in the proposal of research, conduct of research, and reporting and publication of research results, and they are as follows: 1. "Forgery" is the act of falsely creating data, research results, etc., that do not exist. 2. "Falsification" refers to the act of distorting research contents or results by artificially manipulating research, materials, equipment, processes, etc., or arbitrarily altering or deleting data. 3. "Plagiarism" is the act of stealing another person's ideas, research contents and results, etc. without due acknowledgment or citation. 4. "Unfair indication of authorship" refers to the act of not granting authorship to a person who has made scientific and technical contributions to the contents or results of research without a legitimate reason, or granting authorship to a person who has not made scientific and technical contributions for reasons such as showing gratitude or honor. 5. "Redundant research" is the act of conducting two or more research projects with the same research content and publishing the same findings. 6. "Double article publication" is the act of publishing an article with the same content in two or more journals. 7. In addition to each of the above, acts that are seriously outside the scope of what is generally accepted in the science and technology community, etc. 8. Intentionally interfering with an investigation into allegations of misconduct by oneself or others, or causing harm to an informant. ② In addition to the misconduct under the provisions of Paragraph 1, misconduct deemed necessary to conduct self-investigation or prevention may be included in the contents of Article 5.1.

The authorship should be restricted to those who should meet any of the following conditions: ① Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND ② Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND ③ Final approval of the version to be published; AND ④ Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. For the policies on the research and publication ethics not stated in this instruction, International standards for editors and authors (http://publicationethics.org/resources/international-standards-for-editors-and-authors) can be applied.

KSRS should provide education to the member on the ethical standards to be followed in the course of the project and the member's research, the scope of misconduct, response methods for misconduct, verification procedures for misconduct, etc.

Based on the contents of the guidelines, KSRS should establish and operate its own regulations on verification of research integrity appropriate to the actual situation, including the following items: 1. Scope of misconduct 2. The organization, department, or person responsible for tasks such as receiving and investigating reports of misconduct. 3. Principles for composing the verification body, such as the Research Ethics Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee”) to conduct the investigation, the investigation procedures, and its duration. 4. Types of sanctions for misconduct 5. Protecting informants and examinees

KSRS should establish a window for receiving reports of misconduct in research, examine whether the verification of integrity is fair and reasonable, and take follow-up actions based on this.

① An informant is a person who informs the relevant KSRS of the fact that he or she has recognized the misconduct or related evidence ② The informant may report in any possible way, such as orally, in writing, by telephone, or by e-mail, and in principle should report under his or her real name; however, even if the report is anonymous, if the report is made in writing or by e-mail, including the name of the research project or article, and the details and evidence of the specific misconduct, it should be handled in accordance with the report under his or her real name ③ KSRS should be obligated to protect the informant from being subjected to disadvantages such as discipline, unreasonable pressure, or harm for reporting misconduct, and should take necessary measures for this purpose ④ The informant may request to be informed of the investigation procedure, schedule, etc. after the report of misconduct, and KSRS should respond in good faith ⑤ The informant who reports the contents of the report despite knowing or being able to know that the contents of the report are false should not be included in the protection.

① An examinee is a person who has been the subject of an investigation for misconduct based on a report or KSRS’s knowledge, or a person who has been the subject of an investigation because he or she is presumed to have engaged in misconduct during the course of the investigation, and does not include testifiers or witnesses in the course of the investigation. ② KSRS should be cautious not to infringe on the honor or rights of the examinee until the verification of the misconduct is completed and should endeavor to restore the honor of the examinee who is found to be innocent ③ Allegations of misconduct should not be disclosed externally until the outcome of the judgment is finalized ④ The examinee may request to be informed of the procedures for investigating and handling misconduct and the handling schedule, and should respond in good faith.

When recognizing the occurrence of misconduct or receiving a report, one is responsible for verifying it, and the chairman of KSRS should handle the matter in good faith.

① In principle, misconduct that occurred more than five years ago from the date of receipt of the report should not be handled even if the report is received ② Even if the misconduct occurred more than five years ago, it should be handled if the examinee directly quotes the results and uses them in planning subsequent research, applying for research grants, conducting research, reporting and publishing research results, and if there is or may be a risk to public welfare or safety.

① The verification procedure for misconduct should be conducted in stages of preliminary investigation, main investigation, and judgment ② In addition to the verification procedure in paragraph 1, the investigation may include additional procedures deemed necessary.

① The preliminary investigation refers to the procedure for determining whether it is necessary to formally investigate the allegations of misconduct and should be initiated within 30 days from the date of receiving the report; the preliminary investigation should be conducted at the management meeting ② If, as a result of the preliminary investigation, the examinee admits all the allegations, the decision may be made directly without going through the main investigation procedure; if it is determined that there is a possibility of serious damage to the evidence, measures may be taken to preserve the evidence in accordance with Article 18.2 with the approval of the chairman even before the committee is formed ③ If the preliminary investigation decides not to conduct the main investigation, the specific reasons for this should be notified to the informant in writing within 10 days from the date of the decision, but this should not apply to anonymous reports ④ If the informant is dissatisfied with the results of the preliminary investigation, he or she may appeal within 30 days from the date of notification.

① The main investigation refers to the procedure for establishing the truth or falsity of the allegations of misconduct and should be conducted by forming a committee in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 ② The committee should give the informant and the examinee an opportunity to express their opinions and should also give an opportunity to object to and defend the results of the investigation; if the parties do not respond, they should be deemed to have no objection ③ The contents of the informant’s and the examinee’s objections or defenses to the results of the investigation and the results of the handling thereof should be included in the report of the results of the investigation.

① “Judgment” refers to the process of finalizing the results of the investigation and notifying the informant and the examinee ② All investigation periods from the start of the preliminary investigation to the judgment should be completed within six months; however, if determining that it is difficult to conduct an investigation within this period, the chairman may notify the reason and extend the investigation period ③ If the informant or the examinee is dissatisfied with the judgment, they may file an appeal within 30 days from the date of notification, and after reviewing this, a reinvestigation may be directly conducted if necessary.

① In principle, the committee should consist of five or more members ② The Ethics Committee member should be a member and should be appointed by the chairman ③ Prior to the commencement of the investigation, the informant should be informed of the list of Ethics Committee members pursuant to Paragraph 1, and if the informant raises a legitimate objection to the recusal of the ethics committee member, it should be accepted.

① The committee should deliberate whether a member who has been filed to the committee has violated research ethics and may enact rules necessary for this purpose ② The committee should deliberate on and resolve the filed matter within 60 days from the date of receipt ③ The decision of the committee should be made by the attendance of 2/3 of the members and the vote of 2/3 of the attended members, and the results of the deliberation and resolution should be reported to the board of directors.

① During the course of the investigation, the Committee may request the attendance of the informant, the examinee, witnesses, and testifiers for a statement, in which case the examinee must comply ② The Committee may request the submission of data from the examinee and, in order to preserve evidence, may restrict access to the laboratory to those involved in the misconduct, seize and store the research data, etc. with the approval of the head of the relevant research institute ③ The Committee may recommend appropriate sanctions to the head of the relevant research institute for misconduct judged to be true.

① The organization in charge of the investigation must keep all records of the investigation process in the form of audio, video, or documents for at least five years ② The report of the investigation results and the list of ethics committee members may be disclosed after the judgment is complete; however, it may not be disclosed if there is a risk of significantly impeding the independence of the investigation organization or causing disadvantage to the list of witnesses, testifiers, and persons who participated for consultation in the investigation process.

① The research organization should report the results and contents of the preliminary investigation and the main investigation to the chairman within 10 days after the end of the preliminary investigation and the judgment, respectively ② The report of the results of the preliminary investigation and the main investigation must include the following items: 1. Details of the report 2. Misconduct that is the subject of an investigation 3. List of Ethics Committee Members 4. Whether to conduct an investigation and the basis for the decision (for preliminary investigations only) 5. Relevant evidence and witnesses (for the main investigation only) 6. The examinee’s role in the relevant research and whether the allegations are true (for the main investigation only) 7. The informant’s and examinee’s objections or defenses to the findings of the investigation and the handling results of those objections or defenses (limited to the main investigation only).

① When the chairman receives a report pursuant to the provisions of Article 20.1., he or she may request the committee to conduct an additional investigation or submit materials related to the investigation if he or she deems that there is a problem with the contents and results of the investigation and the reasonableness and validity of the judgment. ② KSRS should take follow-up measures based on the judgment outcomes and notify to the examinee.

Anything not covered by these guidelines should be discussed and decided by KSRS’s Board of Directors. ① These guidelines should take effect on the date of promulgation.