Journal of Intellectual Property (J Intellect Property; JIP)
KCI Indexed
OPEN ACCESS, PEER REVIEWED
Enactment and Revisions:
These Research Ethics Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the Ethics Regulations) aim to establish the principles and standards of ethics regarding the submission, editing, and review of academic manuscripts to be published in The Journal of Intellectual Property (hereinafter referred to as JIP) by the Korea Institute of Intellectual Property (hereinafter referred to as KIIP).
KIIP must publicize these Ethics Regulations when soliciting manuscripts for JIP. These regulations apply to all authors, reviewers, and editors of the journal.
1. When submitting a manuscript through the online submission system, authors must review and check all items on the Research Ethics Pledge and Checklist as mandatory requirements; otherwise, the submission cannot be completed.
2. Reviewers are considered to have pledged to comply with these regulations by agreeing to the Reviewer’s Pledge presented during the review process in the online submission system.
3. Editors are considered to have pledged to comply with these regulations by signing the Editor’s Pledge upon their appointment.
1. Matters not explicitly stated in these regulations shall follow the common rules and guidelines provided by relevant institutions, such as the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), the National Research Council for Economics, Humanities, and Social Sciences (NRC), and the Center for Research Ethics Information.
2. Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, if the application of such rules is unclear or difficult, the decision of the JIP Editorial Board shall prevail.
Authors must not present research or claims that they did not personally conduct or develop as their own. Even when citing others’ research results or claims multiple times, authors must clearly state the source and avoid any act of plagiarism that portrays such content as their own.
1. Authors shall not engage in fabrication, which involves creating false research data or results that do not exist.
2. Authors shall not engage in falsification, which involves distorting research content or results by artificially manipulating research processes, materials, equipment, or data, or by arbitrarily modifying or deleting data and statistics.
1. Authors are credited only for research they have actually performed or to which they have made a significant contribution, and they bear full responsibility as authors.
2. The listing of authors in a manuscript or publication must accurately reflect the degree of contribution to the research, regardless of their position or status. Authorship should not be granted to those who did not contribute, nor should it be denied to those who did without justifiable reason.
3. If an individual’s contribution does not meet the criteria for authorship but is still significant, the author may acknowledge them (e.g., in a footnote or preface).
1. Authors shall not submit research that has been previously published (including those scheduled for publication or under review) in other domestic or international journals as if it were a new work, nor shall they submit identical or substantially similar content to other journals.
2. To publish using previously released research, authors must disclose the source and provide the Editorial Board with information regarding the prior publication to determine whether it constitutes duplicate or redundant publication. In case of doubt, publication is only permitted with the Editorial Board’s approval.
3. Authors shall not engage in “salami slicing” (fragmenting research into multiple small papers) for the purpose of increasing the number of publications.
1. When citing published academic materials, authors must describe them accurately and clearly state the source unless the information is common knowledge. Information obtained through manuscript review, grant evaluation, or personal contact may only be cited with the consent of the provider.
2. When citing others’ writings or borrowing ideas, authors must use footnotes to indicate the citation or reference, ensuring readers can distinguish between prior research results and the author’s original thoughts and interpretations.
3. When re-citing another person’s work (secondary citation), the author must explicitly disclose the fact that it is a re-citation.
Authors should make a sincere effort to accept and incorporate the opinions of reviewers and editors presented during the peer-review process.
1. For manuscripts where a minor (under the age of 19) or a family member of the author (spouse, children, or relatives within the fourth degree of kinship) (hereinafter referred to as a “Special Related Person”) participates as an author, there must be a clear and verifiable contribution by that person to the research and writing.
2. When submitting a manuscript involving joint research with a Special Related Person, the author must complete and submit the “Pre-disclosure Form” (Appendix 1).
1. If an author utilizes AI tools in the preparation of a manuscript, the output may only be used as a supplementary means of research. The purpose and scope of such usage must be disclosed in a footnote on the first page or at the top of the reference list.
2. The author bears full responsibility for the accuracy, suitability, and overall usage of any information or data obtained through AI tools.
3. Authors must ensure that the use of AI tools does not involve illegal acts, such as plagiarism, copyright infringement, or personal data violations, and must be careful not to violate research ethics.
Editors bear all responsibility for deciding whether to publish a submitted manuscript and must respect the integrity and independence of authors as scholars.
Editors must treat submitted manuscripts solely based on their quality and compliance with submission guidelines, without any bias regarding the author’s gender, age, affiliation, or personal relationships.
Editors must request reviews from individuals with professional expertise and the ability to make fair judgments. Reviews should not be requested from individuals who have conflicts of interest, personal ties, or hostile relationships with the author that may hinder objective evaluation. If evaluations differ significantly among reviewers, the editor may seek advice from additional experts.
Editors must not disclose any information about the author or the content of the manuscript to anyone other than the assigned reviewers until a final publication decision is made.
1. If improper use of AI tools is suspected or the disclosure of AI usage is unclear, editors may request an explanation, data submission, or revision from the author.
2. If the Editorial Board determines that there is improper AI usage (e.g., plagiarism, fabricated data) or a failure to properly disclose AI usage, it may return the manuscript, suspend the review, or cancel the publication (and publicize the violation).
Reviewers must faithfully evaluate the manuscripts assigned by the Editorial Board within the specified period and notify the Board of the results.
Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively based on scholarly standards, independent of their personal academic beliefs or relationships with authors. If a reviewer feels unqualified to evaluate a specific manuscript, they must notify the Editorial Board immediately.
Reviewers must respect the integrity and independence of authors. Review opinions should state the reviewer’s judgment clearly and provide detailed reasons for any required revisions or supplements in a fair and objective manner.
Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript under review. It is inappropriate to show the manuscript to others or discuss its content unless specifically seeking advice for the evaluation. Reviewers must not cite the manuscript’s content without the author’s consent before it is published.
1. Reviewers shall not upload the manuscript or any related review materials to AI tools during the review process.
2. Reviewers may use AI tools supplementally when writing review opinions, but they bear full responsibility for such usage.
1. Anyone who suspects or discovers a violation of these Ethics Regulations may report it to the Editorial Board or the Ethics Committee.
2. Reports may be made orally, in writing, by phone, or by email, and should generally be made using the reporter’s real name. However, anonymous reports accompanied by specific evidence of a violation will be treated as real-name reports.
3. The Ethics Committee must protect the reporter’s identity and ensure they do not suffer any disadvantage. The Committee shall inform the reporter of the results of the investigation upon request, within the limits allowed by law.
1. The Ethics Committee consists of the Editor-in-Chief (who serves as the Chair) and 5 to 10 members appointed by the Editor-in-Chief.
2. Members may be replaced or added in cases of resignation or conflict of interest, even during their term.
3. Committee members may be subject to exclusion, challenge, or recusal.
1. The primary responsibility for verifying ethics violations lies with the institution (university, research institute, etc.) the investigated party was affiliated with at the time of the research. The Ethics Committee shall prioritize requesting an investigation from said institution and respect its findings. However, the Ethics Committee may conduct a direct investigation if:
1.1. The investigated party has no affiliation.
1.2. The institution refuses or significantly delays the investigation without justifiable reason.
1.3. The matter is directly related to JIP’s internal operations (e.g., procedural violations during submission or review).
2. The Ethics Committee conducts an independent fact-finding investigation involving the reporter, the investigated party, and witnesses. If a violation is confirmed, it suggests sanctions to the Editorial Board.
3. Investigations should ideally be concluded within three months. This period may be extended once with the Editorial Board’s approval.
4. The Committee may request the attendance of individuals and the submission of materials.
5. The Committee must provide both the reporter and the investigated party with opportunities to state their opinions and file objections.
6. The investigated party must cooperate with the investigation. Failure to cooperate without a valid reason constitutes a violation of ethics.
7. No one shall intentionally obstruct an investigation or harm the reporter.
1. Resolutions of the Ethics Committee require the attendance of at least two-thirds of the members and the approval of a majority of those present.
2. If a violation is confirmed, the Committee recommends specific sanctions to the Editorial Board.
1. The identity of the reporter must not be disclosed and should not be included in the final report unless absolutely necessary.
2. The investigated party must be given sufficient opportunity to explain. Their honor and rights must be protected until the investigation is complete. If cleared of charges, the Committee should strive to restore their reputation.
3. The investigated party may request information regarding the investigation process and schedule.
1. The Editorial Board may impose the following sanctions, alone or in combination, based on the severity of the violation:
1.1. Formal warning or request for correction (for minor violations).
1.2. Decision of “not eligible for publication” (if the paper is not yet published).
1.3. Retraction of publication and retroactive invalidation of all online/offline versions.
1.4. A ban on submitting to JIP for three years from the date of the decision.
1.5. Suspension or revocation of qualification as a reviewer or editor.
1.6. Recovery of manuscript fees or other paid expenses.
1.7. Public notice of the retraction and reasons (on the JIP and KIIP websites) and preservation of records.
1.8. Notification of the violation to relevant institutions such as the NRF.
1.9. Notification to the author’s affiliated institution or the research funding body.
1.10. If a violation involving a Special Related Person is confirmed, notification to the institutions (e.g., schools, research centers) that benefited from the publication.
2. The Editorial Board shall notify the reporter and the investigated party of its final decision in writing without delay.
If the investigated party or the reporter objects to the Editorial Board’s decision, they may request a re-deliberation in writing, stating the reasons, within 20 days of receiving the notice.
These regulations take effect from December 3, 2005.