Disclaimer: This is an English translation of the original Korean document “연구 윤리 규정”. In case of any discrepancy, the Korean version takes precedence.

Chapter 1. General Provisions

Article 1. (Purpose)

The purpose of these Regulations is to establish research ethics with respect to articles and data published (or to be published) by the Korean Association for Digital Humanities (KADH) (hereinafter referred to as “the Association”), to prevent research misconduct, and to define the basic matters concerning the establishment and operation of the Association’s Research Ethics Committee (hereinafter referred to as “the Committee”) for the fair and systematic verification and handling of research integrity in the event that research misconduct occurs.

Article 2. (Obligations)

Members of the Association must comply with the norms of research ethics, conduct their research activities in accordance with their scholarly conscience, and contribute to the development of academia and society. In addition, when submitting a manuscript, they must agree to the research ethics pledge (including the self-checklist) through the online submission system.

Article 3. (Prevention of Conflicts of Interest)

Authors, reviewers, and editorial board members must anticipate and manage in advance any academic, financial, or personal conflicts of interest that may arise in the course of conducting research and reviewing manuscripts. Where a conflict of interest exists or is likely to arise, the party concerned must disclose it to the Committee and the Editorial Board immediately and explicitly, and must be recused from the fair conduct of review and editorial duties.

Article 4. (Prevention and Management of Research Misconduct by Co-authors with Special Relationships)

(1) “Persons with special relationships” refers to minors (under 19 years of age) or family members (spouse, children, and other blood relatives or in-laws within the fourth degree of kinship) of the researcher.

(2) When conducting joint research and submitting an article with a person with a special relationship, the author must notify the Editorial Board of the participation of the co-author with a special relationship at the time of submission and submit a “Prior Consent Form for the Provision of Personal Information.”

(3) If research misconduct is confirmed in an article involving a person with a special relationship, the Committee must immediately notify the affiliated institutions (e.g., schools related to admissions and advancement, research-related institutions) where the author with the special relationship benefited from the article of the fact of the research misconduct.

Article 5. (Research Involving Human Subjects and Review by the Institutional Review Board)

In the case of research involving human subjects (including surveys, interviews, and the like), researchers are encouraged to obtain review by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of their affiliated institution in order to protect the human rights and the bioethical welfare of research participants. Furthermore, for research involving human subjects, it is recommended to reflect gendered innovations policies that consider the differences between biological sex and sociocultural gender during data analysis. Where necessary, the Editorial Board may, during the review process, request the submission of relevant supporting documentation, such as an IRB approval certificate.

Article 6. (Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence)

Researchers may use generative artificial intelligence (AI) in the course of their research, including in the writing of manuscripts, the analysis of data, and translation. However, AI may not serve as an agent of scholarly activity such as research or peer review, and researchers must clearly state within the manuscript the nature and scope of the AI use as well as the names of the tools employed. The ultimate scholarly and ethical responsibility for the accuracy and veracity of AI-generated outputs, and for any infringement of copyright, rests entirely with the researcher.

Article 7. (Utilization of the Article Plagiarism Prevention System)

Authors must mandatorily submit a similarity check result report, such as the Korea Citation Index (KCI) Article Similarity Check, when submitting a manuscript. In addition, to cross-verify for plagiarism, the Editorial Board must independently re-check the similarity of all submitted manuscripts using an article plagiarism prevention system prior to the first round of peer review and strictly verify them.

Article 8. (Establishment of the Research Ethics Committee)

A Research Ethics Committee shall be established to handle matters related to compliance with research ethics for articles and data submitted to and published in the journals and other publications issued by the Association.

Article 9. (Subjects and Scope of Application)

These Regulations primarily apply to articles and related outputs published in the journals and publications issued by the Association. They also apply to all academic events organized by the Association and to all scholarly activities of Association members directly or indirectly related thereto. Unless there are other special provisions related to establishing and verifying research ethics, these Regulations shall be followed.

Article 10. (Definitions)

The terms defined in these Regulations are basically as follows:

(1) “Research misconduct” refers to the fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or self-plagiarism of content, the improper attribution of authorship, or any act that undermines research integrity, committed intentionally or through gross negligence and irrespective of the research purpose, in the process of proposing, conducting, or presenting research.

(2) “Fabrication” refers to the act of creating false data or research results that do not exist and recording or reporting them.

(3) “Falsification” refers to the act of artificially manipulating research materials, processes, or results, or arbitrarily altering or deleting pertinent data, thereby rendering the research inconsistent with the truth.

(4) “Plagiarism” refers to the act of using another person’s ideas, research processes, or research results in one’s research without appropriate source attribution.

(5) “Self-plagiarism” refers to the act of reusing a substantial part of one’s own copyrighted article already published in another academic journal, either as is or with only minor modifications, without explicit citation or reference.

(6) “Improper attribution of authorship” refers to the act of, without justifiable reason, withholding authorship from an individual who has made a scholarly contribution to the research content or results, or of granting authorship to an individual who has not made such a scholarly contribution, for reasons such as an expression of gratitude or courtesy.

Chapter 2. Establishment and Operation of the Research Ethics Committee

Article 11. (Functions)

The Committee deliberates and decides on the following matters to ensure the integrity of research:

1. Matters concerning the prevention of research misconduct;

2. Matters concerning the investigation of research misconduct;

3. Matters concerning the handling of investigation results and follow-up measures for research misconduct;

4. Other matters related to establishing research ethics as referred by the chairperson.

Article 12. (Composition and Roles)

The Committee consists of one chairperson and up to five members, all appointed by the president of the Association. However, members from the same institution or affiliation as the author who submitted the manuscript shall be excluded. The chairperson represents the Committee, convenes and presides over meetings, and appoints one secretary to handle the Committee’s affairs.

Article 13. (Meetings)

(1) The chairperson convenes and presides over Committee meetings as needed.

(2) Unless otherwise specified, meetings are constituted with the attendance of a majority of the incumbent members, and decisions are made with the approval of a majority of the members present.

(3) If necessary, non-members may be invited to attend meetings to provide opinions.

(4) The chairperson may conduct written deliberations if the matter for deliberation is deemed minor.

(5) Meetings are, in principle, closed to the public.

Chapter 3. Verification of Research Integrity through the Investigation and Examination of Research Misconduct

Article 14. (Reporting and Reception of Misconduct)

The Committee must investigate allegations of research misconduct when there is a specific report or when substantial suspicion is raised. Reports may be received by the Committee’s secretary through written documents, telephone, or email, with real-name reporting being the principle. For anonymous reports, efforts should be made to receive, in writing or via email, the title of the article together with the specific details of, and the evidence for, the alleged misconduct. As a rule, there shall be no statute of limitations for the verification of reported research misconduct under any circumstances.

Article 15. (Period and Method of the Preliminary Investigation)

The preliminary investigation should commence within 15 days of receiving the report and be completed within 30 days of the investigation start date, subject to the Committee’s approval. The preliminary investigation reviews the following to determine whether a full investigation is necessary:

1. Whether the reported content, in itself, constitutes misconduct as defined in these Regulations;

2. Whether the reported content is specific and clear enough to allow an investigation into its veracity. The preliminary investigation is conducted under the secretary’s supervision, with the possibility of requesting additional information from the informant and, if necessary, commissioning investigations from relevant experts.

Article 16. (Notification of Preliminary Investigation Results)

The results of the preliminary investigation should be notified to the informant in writing within 10 days after the chairperson’s approval. However, this does not apply if the informant is anonymous. The preliminary investigation report should include the following:

1. The specific content of the report;

2. An explanation of the alleged misconduct and the related article subject to investigation;

3. A recommendation on whether to conduct a full investigation and the basis for that judgment;

4. Other relevant evidence.

Article 17. (Commencement and Duration of the Full Investigation)

The full investigation should commence within 30 days of the chairperson’s approval of the preliminary investigation results. During this period, the Committee should form a subcommittee (hereinafter referred to as the “Investigation Committee”) to conduct the full investigation. The full investigation, including the judgment, should be completed within 90 days of its commencement. If the Investigation Committee determines that it cannot complete the investigation within this period, it must explain the reasons to the Committee and request an extension.

Article 18. (Composition of the Investigation Committee)

The Investigation Committee consists of up to five members and related experts. The Investigation Committee may appoint as investigators individuals who have extensive knowledge and experience in the relevant field but are not members of the Association. Individuals with a conflict of interest in the case under investigation must not be included in the Investigation Committee.

Article 19. (Request for Data Submission)

The Investigation Committee may request the submission of additional materials from the informant, the respondent, witnesses, and reference persons. In such cases, the respondent must comply.

Article 20. (Protection of the Rights of the Informant and the Respondent, and Confidentiality)

The identity of the informant must never be disclosed, directly or indirectly, and the informant’s name should not be included in the investigation report unless absolutely necessary, in order to protect the informant. Until the verification of misconduct is completed, neither the identity of the respondent nor the fact that the respondent is under investigation should be disclosed outside the Committee and the Investigation Committee. Care should also be taken not to infringe upon the honor or rights of the respondent, and efforts should be made to restore the honor of a respondent found to be without fault. All matters related to the reporting, investigation, deliberation, resolution, and recommended measures are confidential, and those directly or indirectly involved in the investigation must not disclose any information acquired during the investigation or the performance of their duties. However, where there is a justifiable need for disclosure, it may be made public through a resolution of the Committee.

Article 21. (Guarantee of the Right to Object and to Defend)

The Investigation Committee must equally guarantee the respondent the right and opportunity to state opinions, raise objections, and present a defense, and must inform the respondent of the relevant procedures in advance.

Article 22. (Judgment)

The Investigation Committee finalizes the content and results of the investigation based on the objections or defense and notifies the informant and the respondent. If agreement on the content and results of the investigation is not reached, a decision may be made by vote, requiring the attendance of a majority of the incumbent members and the approval of two-thirds or more of the members present. If the informant or the respondent disagrees with the Investigation Committee’s results, they may request a re-examination by submitting a written explanation to the Committee within 15 days of being notified of the results. The Committee decides on the validity of the explanation and whether to conduct a re-examination within 15 days of receiving it. If a re-examination is decided upon, the same Investigation Committee may be reconvened or a new one formed within 15 days. In the case of a re-examination, the assigned Investigation Committee must re-investigate the contested matters within 30 days of convening, finalize the results, and notify the informant and the respondent.

Article 23. (Submission of the Full Investigation Report)

The Investigation Committee must submit the full investigation report (hereinafter referred to as the “final report”) to the Committee within 10 days of the final judgment. The final report must include the following:

1. The specific content of the report;

2. The alleged misconduct and the related article subject to investigation;

3. The role of the respondent in the article and whether the allegations are true;

4. The related evidence;

5. The content of any objections or defense by the informant and the respondent regarding the investigation results, and how they were handled;

6. The list of Investigation Committee members.

Article 24. (Measures Based on the Results)

With respect to individuals involved in misconduct, the Committee may recommend disciplinary measures to the Association’s president where there is the attendance of a majority of the incumbent members and the approval of two-thirds or more of the members present. The president decides on the appropriate disciplinary measures and notifies the relevant author(s) in writing. Matters related to disciplinary measures may be determined separately.

Article 25. (Disciplinary Measures)

When the Committee recommends disciplinary measures, the Association’s president determines the level of disciplinary action with reference to the following items. A more appropriate disciplinary measure may be taken if deemed necessary.

(1) “Caution.” Inform all authors of the article about the misconduct and instruct them to exercise caution in future article writing.

(2) “Warning.” Inform all authors of the article about the misconduct, retract the published article, and warn them to exercise caution in future article writing.

(3) “Reprimand.” Inform all authors of the article about the misconduct, retract the published article, and post this information on the Association’s website for at least one month. Cancel all articles by the related author(s) currently under review or awaiting publication. The lead author of the article cannot submit articles to the Association for two years.

(4) “Severe Reprimand.” Officially notify the institutions of all authors and the authors themselves about the misconduct. Retract the published article and post this information on the Association’s website for at least three months. Cancel all articles by the related author(s) currently under review or awaiting publication. All authors of the article cannot submit articles to the Association for three years. In the case of plagiarism, after the above measures, the president sends a letter of apology to the authors of the original article.

Article 26. (Record Keeping and Disclosure)

Records related to the preliminary and full investigations and to disciplinary measures are kept by the Association’s General Affairs Department and must be retained for five years after completion. The final report may be disclosed after the judgment is completed, but information related to the identities of the informant, investigation committee members, witnesses, reference persons, and those who participated in an advisory capacity may be excluded from disclosure where there is a possibility of disadvantage to the parties involved.

Article 27. (Operational Rules)

Other detailed matters necessary for the Committee’s operation are determined separately after the Committee’s deliberation.

Supplementary Provisions

① Other matters not provided for herein follow general conventions or the resolutions of the Research Ethics Committee.

② These Regulations are effective from February 8, 2023.

③ These Regulations are effective from June 14, 2026.