Research and Publication Ethics
Download PDF (학술지 연구윤리세칙)Chapter 1. General Provision
Article 1 (Purpose)
The purpose of these bylaws is to set forth research ethics related to the publication of journals, including the Journal of Real Estate Analysis, to prevent research misconduct and fairly address research misconduct, if any.
Article 2 (Applicability)
These bylaws shall apply to articles intended for publication in journals published by the Real Estate Research Institute of the Korea Real Estate Board.
Chapter 2. Research Misconduct
Article 3 (Research Misconduct)
Research misconduct (hereinafter referred to as “misconduct”) refers to fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, unfair authorship, double submission, duplicate publication, re-submission, and co-authorship with related parties. The definition of different types of misconduct shall be based on each of the articles presented below.
Article 4 (Fabrication and Falsification)
① Fabrication refers to the act of falsely creating non-existent data or research results.
Falsification refers to the act of distorting the research content or results by artificially manipulating the research process or arbitrarily altering or deleting data.Article 5 (Plagiarism)
Plagiarism refers to the act of stealing someone else’s ideas, research content, or results without proper approval or citation.
1. Plagiarism shall be applicable to the unauthorized use of the original thoughts (ideas), unique expressions (words, phrases, clauses, sentences, graphs, diagrams, photographs, etc.), research concepts (hypotheses) or methods (analytical frameworks or logic), research theories and results, data, and research materials contained in the work of someone else.
2. Reusing one’s own work in whole or in part without properly citing the source, as if it were something new, shall count as plagiarism.
3. In the event that someone else’s research ideas, data, or sentences are used partially, the source must be accurately indicated or cited.
4. If the quantity or quality of citations, even if properly cited, exceeds a reasonable extent to the degree that it undermines the originality of research, it shall count as plagiarism.
5. Articles, drawings, ideas, and research results that are common knowledge in the academic community shall not be considered plagiarism, even if they are described without citations.
Article 6 (Unfair Authorship)
Unfair authorship refers to the act of not granting authorship to any person who has made scientific or technological contributions to the research content or results without any justifiable reason or granting authorship to any person who has not made scientific or technological contributions for gratitude, honor, or other reasons.
Article 6-2 (Double Submission)
Double submission refers to the act of submitting the same or a substantially similar article to two (2) or more journals, or submitting an article under review at one journal to another journal for review; provided, however, that it shall not be considered double submission to submit an article to another journal after a notice of unacceptable for publication is received from one journal or the withdrawal of the submission is completed.
Article 7 (Duplicate Publication)
① Duplicate publication refers to the act of resubmitting (republishing) the same work or a work substantially similar to the one already presented (published) by the submitter without disclosing that it has been previously published.
1. Articles published in journals or candidate journals listed in the National Research Foundation of Korea, articles published in international journals, or other similar articles may not be submitted to or published in this journal.
2. Articles published in journals that are not journals or candidate journals listed in the National Research Foundation of Korea, such as on-campus journals, may be submitted to and published in this journal only if they are revised and supplemented, in which case the fact of revision and supplementation must be indicated.
3. One’s previous research work may be submitted in the process of deepening and applying research, but said work must be indicated by citing the source.
4. In the event that articles and research reports presented at conferences, seminars, and other events are revised or supplemented and submitted to this journal, such a fact must be clearly indicated.
5. In the event that a PhD or Master’s degree thesis is revised or supplemented and submitted to this journal, the author of the thesis must be included as an author.
② The following types of acts shall not be considered duplicate publication; provided, however, that the existence and source of any previous work used is indicated:
1. Submitting an unpublished degree thesis as an article;
2. Submitting a work written at the request or for the purpose of a specific organization, including but not limited to a service report or policy proposal, as a separate article;
3. Submitting one’s previously published research report as a separate article, and;
4. Developing and submitting a working paper or equivalent research material as an article.
Article 8 (Re-submission)
① Re-submission refers to the act of re-submitting an article determined as unacceptable for publication in this journal or other similar articles.
② Any article determined as unacceptable for publication in this journal or other similar articles may not be re-submitted.
③ Notwithstanding Paragraph 2, in the event that any article is recognized as different, as it is significantly different from the previous article in at least two (2) of the following aspects, it may be re-submitted:
1. Research purpose;
2. Research method;
3. Research materials;
4. Research scope;
5. Research results, and;
6. Development of logic.
Article 8-2 (Co-authorship with Related Parties)
Co-authorship with related parties refers to the act of falsely filling out the confirmation form of co-authorship by related parties in Appendix 8 of the Journal Editing and Publication Bylaws regarding the participation of minors (persons under the age of 19) or family members (blood relatives within four degrees of kinship, including spouses and children) (hereinafter referred to as “related parties”) to benefit from the article (e.g., use in college admission, academic progression, and employment).
Article 9 (Other Types of Misconduct)
Other types of misconduct include ① the act of intentionally interfering with the investigation of suspected misconduct of oneself or someone else, or inflicting harm on the whistleblower;
② The act of seriously deviating from what is commonly accepted in the academic community, and;
③ Any other similar research misconduct.
Article 10 (Deliberation and Confirmation)
The point of whether the act constitutes misconduct and the severity of the misconduct shall be determined by the outcome of the preliminary investigation conducted on a mutatis mutandis basis or by deliberation and resolution of the Research Ethics Investigation Committee and shall be finally confirmed by the Editorial Board (this refers to the Editorial Board as defined in the Journal Editing and Publication Bylaws. The same shall apply below).
Chapter 3. Research Ethics Investigation Committee
Article 11 (Composition)
① The Research Ethics Investigation Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Investigation Committee”) shall consist of at least five (5) investigators, including one (1) Chairperson.
② The Chairperson of the Investigation Committee shall be appointed by the Editorial Board from among the Editors-in-Chief, and if necessary, the Chairperson may be appointed separately by resolution from among the editors who are not Editors-in-Chief.
③ The members of the Investigation Committee shall be appointed by the Chairperson of the Investigation Committee from among editors or external experts, and at least fifty (50) percent of the total number of the members shall be appointed from those with expertise and experience in the applicable field.
④ Any person who has any of the following conflicts of interest with the subject matter of the investigation shall not be the Chairperson of the Investigation Committee or a member of the Investigation Committee:
1. Any person who has or had a kin or in-law relationship with the whistleblower or the investigatee;
2. Any person who has a teacher-student relationship with or conducts or conducted research with the whistleblower or the investigatee;
3. Any other person who may compromise the fairness of the investigation, and;
4. Any person for whom the whistleblower or the investigatee requested recusal and the Editorial Board found it to be justifiable.
⑤ In the event that the investigator is involved or suspected of being involved in misconduct, the investigator may be dismissed by resolution of the Editorial Board.
⑥ The Secretary shall be the Secretary of the Editorial Board.
⑦ Deleted [March 17, 2025]
Article 12 (Functions)
The Investigation Committee shall deliberate on and resolve the following matters:
1. Deleted
2. Launch of an investigation and determination of the outcome of the main investigation;
3. Protection for the whistleblower and the investigatee;
4. Handling of and follow-up on the outcome of misconduct verification, and;
5. Other matters for the operation of the Investigation Committee.
Article 13 (Term of Activity)
The Investigation Committee shall remain active from the time it is convened by the Editorial Board under Article 23 until the completion of the main investigation.
Article 14 (Resolution by the Investigation Committee)
① The Investigation Committee shall be convened with a majority of the registered members, and a resolution shall be passed when a majority of the members present vote in favor of it. In case of a tie, it shall be considered rejected; provided, however, that the decision on the point of whether it constitutes misconduct and the severity of the misconduct from Articles 4 through 9 is resolved with the presence of a majority of the registered members and a vote in favor by two-thirds of the members present.
② The Investigation Committee shall have a confidential meeting in principle and may invite related persons to attend if required to hear their opinions.
③ Deleted [March 17, 2025]
Article 15 (Investigation Fees)
Investigation fees may be paid to external investigators who attend the Investigation Committee.
Chapter 4. Reporting and Protection of Rights
Article 16 (Reporting)
① “Whistleblower” refers to the person who notifies the Editorial Board of the fact or evidence of misconduct.
② The whistleblower may report misconduct in any way possible, including but not limited to orally, in writing, by phone, or by e-mail, and shall report it under the whistleblower’s real name; provided, however, that any report in writing or by e-mail containing the name of the research project or article and the content and evidence of a specific misconduct shall be treated as if it were reported under the real name, even if it is reported anonymously.
Article 17 (Protection of the Rights of Whistleblowers)
① The Editorial Board and the Investigation Committee shall have obligations to protect the whistleblower from disadvantages in status, including but not limited to penalties, discrimination in working conditions, unreasonable pressure, and harm for reporting misconduct.
② The Editorial Board and the Investigation Committee shall be responsible in the event that the whistleblower is subject to disadvantages under Paragraph 1 or the whistleblower’s identity is exposed against the whistleblower’s will for reporting misconduct.
③ In the event that the whistleblower wants to know about the investigation process and schedule after reporting misconduct, the whistleblower may request the Editorial Board and Investigation Committee to notify of it, and the Editorial Board and Investigation Committee shall respond in good faith.
④ In the event that the whistleblower knew or must have known what was reported was false, the whistleblower shall not be protected.
Article 18 (Protection of the Rights of the Investigatee)
① “Investigatee” refers to the person who is the subject of an investigation into misconduct because of a report that was made, because of recognition by the Editorial Board, or because the person is presumed to have engaged in misconduct during the investigation process, and the term does not include any reference person or witness during the investigation process.
② The preliminary investigator and Investigation Committee shall be careful not to unfairly infringe on the reputation or rights of the investigatee during the verification process.
③ Any allegation of misconduct shall not be made public until the outcome of the investigation is confirmed.
④ In the event that the investigatee wants to know about the investigation, handling process, and schedule for misconduct, the investigatee may request this information from the Editorial Board and Investigation Committee, and the Editorial Board and Investigation Committee shall respond in good faith.
Chapter 5. Research Misconduct Verification Process and Criteria
Article 19 Deleted
Article 20 (Principles for Research Misconduct Verification)
① The Investigation Committee shall have the responsibility for proving the fact of misconduct; however, in the event that the investigatee fails to submit any material requested by the preliminary investigator or Investigation Committee or intentionally destroys any material, the burden of proof shall be on the investigatee to prove what is contained in the requested material.
② The Investigation Committee shall ensure equal rights and opportunities for the whistleblower and the investigatee to express their opinions, file an appeal, and defend themselves and shall inform them of the relevant procedure in advance.
Article 21 (Research Misconduct Verification Process)
The research misconduct verification process shall be conducted in the stages of the preliminary investigation, main investigation, and adjudication, and the process is as shown in Appendix 1.
Article 22 (Preliminary Investigation)
① The preliminary investigation refers to a procedure to determine whether it is necessary to investigate suspected misconduct, and in the event that sufficient suspicion of misconduct is recognized, the main investigation may be launched immediately without the preliminary investigation. The decision of whether the preliminary investigation shall be launched shall be determined by the Editorial Board within fourteen (14) days of the date the Editorial Board becomes aware of the misconduct or the date the report is received.
② The Chairperson of the Editorial Board shall designate no more than two (2) preliminary investigators from among editors or external experts, and any person who has any of the following conflicts of interest in the subject matter under investigation shall not be a preliminary investigator:
1. Any person who has or had a kin or in-law relationship with the whistleblower or the investigatee;
2. Any person who has a teacher-student relationship with or conducts or conducted research with the whistleblower or the investigatee;
3. Any other person who may compromise the fairness of the investigation, and;
4. Any person for whom the whistleblower or investigatee requested recusal and the Editorial Board found it to be justifiable.
③ Once the preliminary investigators are designated, the whistleblower and investigatee must be notified of the start of the preliminary investigation, informed of the list of preliminary investigators, and given the opportunity to file a recusal request. The preliminary investigator must also be given the opportunity to file a recusal request.
④ The preliminary investigation shall be launched within ten (10) days of the date the recusal and evasion procedure under Paragraph 3 is completed and the preliminary investigators are confirmed.
⑤ The preliminary investigator shall investigate each of the following matters and report to the Editorial Board within fifteen (15) days of the date of the launch of the preliminary investigation:
1. Whether the act constitutes misconduct under Article 3;
2. Deleted
3. Whether the main investigation is needed.
⑥ The results of the preliminary investigation shall cover the following matters:
1. Details of the report;
2. Details and results of the preliminary investigation;
3. Recommendation and basis for whether the main investigation should be conducted;
4. Statements of the whistleblower and investigatee, and;
5. Time and location of the investigation, a list of preliminary investigators (including their affiliation and major), and any other evidence related to misconduct.
⑦ The results of the preliminary investigation shall be resolved by the Editorial Board under Article 23.1, and the whistleblower and investigatee shall be notified in writing of the outcome of the resolution within five (5) days; provided, however, that the foregoing shall not apply in the event that the whistleblower is anonymous.
⑧ In the event that the investigatee admits to all facts of misconduct as a result of the preliminary investigation, the content of the report is inaccurate, or the severity of suspicion does not require an investigation or appropriate handling, the Editorial Board may make a final confirmation based on the outcome of the preliminary investigation without proceeding with the main investigation process.
⑨ In the event that the whistleblower or investigatee disagrees with the outcome of the preliminary investigation and the decision of whether to conduct the main investigation, the whistleblower or investigatee may file an appeal to the Editorial Board in writing within three (3) days of receiving the notice, and the Editorial Board may re-determine whether to conduct the main investigation within fourteen (14) days of receiving the appeal.
⑩ The whistleblower or investigatee may not file another appeal against the outcome of the Editorial Board’s resolution on the previous appeal under Paragraph 9.
Article 23 (Main Investigation)
① The Editorial Board may decide whether to conduct the main investigation and convene the Investigation Committee within ten (10) days of receiving the outcome of the preliminary investigation under Article 22.
② Once the Investigation Committee is convened, the whistleblower and investigatee must be notified of the start of the main investigation, informed of the list of investigators, and given the opportunity to file a recusal request. The investigator must also be given the opportunity to file a recusal request.
③ The Investigation Committee shall launch the main investigation within fourteen (14) days of the date the recusal and evasion procedure under Paragraph 2 is completed and the composition of the Investigation Committee is confirmed.
④ To launch the main investigation, the Chairperson and members of the Investigation Committee shall sign and submit a document stating they have no conflict of interest with the whistleblower, the investigatee, and the subject matter under investigation.
⑤ The Investigation Committee shall have the following authorities for the main investigation:
1. The Investigation Committee may require the whistleblower, investigatee, witnesses, and reference persons to appear to make a statement during the course of the investigation;
2. The Investigation Committee may require the investigatee to submit materials and may retain the research materials for the preservation of evidence, and;
3. The Investigation Committee may make suggestions to the Editorial Board about imposing penalties under Article 26 on the person involved in misconduct.
⑥ While the Investigation Committee may extend the investigation period by resolution of the Editorial Board, the extended period, including the initial investigation period, may not be more than sixty (60) days. The Investigation Committee shall submit an investigation outcome report including the following items to the Editorial Board within thirty (30) days of the launch of the main investigation:
1. Details of the report;
2. Outcome of the preliminary investigation and investigation progress;
3. Relevant evidence and witness statements;
4. Defense or statements of the whistleblower and investigatee;
5. Determination and conclusions of the Investigation Committee, and each party’s role in the misconduct;
6. Determination of the severity of the misconduct and recommendation about penalties, and;
7. Time and location of the investigation, and a list of investigators (including their affiliation and major).
⑦ The Investigation Committee shall give the whistleblower and investigatee an opportunity to state their opinions and to file an appeal and defend themselves before deciding on the outcome of the main investigation. In the event that the whistleblower or investigatee has no response, the whistleblower or investigatee shall be deemed to have no objection.
Article 24 (Adjudication)
① Adjudication refers to the process in which the Editorial Board confirms the outcome of the investigation and notifies the whistleblower and investigatee of it in writing, and the notification must be completed within five (5) days of confirmation of the Editorial Board.
② Confirmation of the Editorial Board, which must be made within fourteen (14) days of the date of submission of the preliminary investigation or main investigation outcome report, refers to the resolution of the following items based on the outcome of the preliminary investigation (if the main investigation is not conducted under Article 22.8) or the main investigation:
1. Whether it constitutes research misconduct, and;
2. Penalties under Article 26.
③ The entire investigation from the launch of the preliminary investigation to adjudication must be completed within six (6) months; provided, however, that, in the event that it is deemed difficult to conduct the investigation within this period, the Editorial Board may extend the investigation period for no more than one (1) month.
Article 25 (Re-deliberation)
① In the event that the whistleblower or investigatee disagrees with adjudication, the whistleblower or investigatee may file an appeal in writing to the Editorial Board within three (3) days of the date of the notice, and the Editorial Board shall decide on re-deliberation within fourteen (14) days of the date of receipt of the appeal.
② In the event that re-deliberation is decided, the Investigation Committee shall be re-convened and, if necessary, a new Investigation Committee may be formed.
③ The whistleblower or investigatee may not file another appeal against the outcome of the Editorial Board’s deliberation on the appeal under Paragraph 1.
Article 26 (Penalties for Misconduct)
The Editorial Board may impose any of the following penalties on any person who commits misconduct:
1. Reject for publication and review (remove from the list of published journal articles if already published);
2. Ban the submitter from future submissions (for at least one (1) year depending on the severity);
3. Announce it on the website of the Real Estate Research Institute of the Korea Real Estate Board and in upcoming journals;
4. Notify the National Research Foundation of Korea of the details of the misconduct;
5. Notify the journal in case of double or duplicate publication, and;
6. Notify applicable organizations (e.g., schools and research-related organizations from which the related party received benefits, including but not limited to college admission, academic progression, and employment).
Addendum [Created]
These bylaws shall be effective from August 17, 2015.
Addendum [December 4, 2020]
These bylaws shall be effective from December 10, 2020.
Addendum [August 17, 2022]
These bylaws shall be effective from August 17, 2022.
Addendum [January 30, 2024]
These bylaws shall be effective from January 30, 2024.
Addendum [February 10, 2025]
These bylaws shall be effective from February 10, 2025.
Addendum [April 1, 2025]
These bylaws shall be effective from April 1, 2025.