The Journal of Intellectual Property (J Intellect Property; JIP)
KCI Indexed
OPEN ACCESS, PEER REVIEWED
pISSN 1975-5945
eISSN 2733-8487
Menu
Enactment and Revisions:
This set of ethics regulations (hereinafter referred to as the regulations) aims to establish the principles and standards of research ethics that must be observed by authors submitting to The Journal of Intellectual Property (hereinafter referred to as JIP) published by the Korea Institute of Intellectual Property (hereinafter referred to as KIIP).
1. KIIP must publicize these regulations at the time of soliciting manuscripts for JIP, and they apply to editors, reviewers, and authors contributing to JIP.
2. Individuals intending to submit papers must submit a Compliance with Research and Publication Ethics (Appendix 1).
Reviewers are considered to have pledged to comply with these regulations when reviewing submissions, and editors at the time they attend the editorial board meetings.
Any matter not specified in these regulations shall follow the common rules provided by governmental bodies such as the Korea Research Foundation and the National Research Council for Economics, Humanities, and Social Sciences.
1. Author(s) must conduct all research activities related to their papers honestly and truthfully.
2. Author(s) must describe the content and significance of their research objectively and accurately and must not arbitrarily delete or add research results.
3. Author(s) must ensure that all research activities are free from bias and prejudice.
Author(s) should strive to enhance social benefits and conform to public interest standards through their research and be aware of the impact their research may have on society.
Author(s) must ensure that the publication and use of their research results conform to their academic conscience and must not distort or exaggerate research outcomes for enhancing reputation or securing research funds.
Author(s) must respect intellectual property rights such as patents and copyrights and comply with relevant research laws.
Authors must not present parts of research or claims they did not perform as if they were their own in papers or publications. Citing sources for others’ research results, even if referenced multiple times, presenting them as their own constitutes plagiarism.
1. Authors are only responsible for, and credited for, research they have actually conducted or contributed to.
2. The order of authors (or translators) in papers or other publishing achievements must accurately reflect the extent of their contributions, regardless of relative status. Simply holding a position does not justify being an author or the primary author. Conversely, not being recorded as a co-author (or translator) or co-researcher despite contributing to the research or writing (translation) is also unjustifiable. Small contributions should be appropriately acknowledged in footnotes, prefaces, acknowledgments, etc.
1. Author(s) must not publish or attempt to publish their previously published research materials (including those pending publication or under review) as new research materials, regardless of domestic or international context.
2. If using previously published research materials for publication, Author(s) must clearly disclose the source, provide information about the previous publication to the editor of the journal they wish to publish in, and obtain permission from the editorial board after confirming whether it constitutes duplicate publication.
3. Author(s) must not engage in “salami-slicing” to increase their number of publications.
1. When citing published academic materials, author(s) should strive for accuracy and must clearly indicate the source unless it is common knowledge. Materials obtained through personal contact or during the evaluation of papers or research proposals can only be cited with the consent of the researcher who provided the information.
2. When quoting someone else’s text or borrowing ideas, it is mandatory to indicate through footnotes whether it is a citation or reference, and this notation must allow readers to distinguish what is derived from previous research and what constitutes the author’s original thoughts, claims, or interpretations.
Authors should strive to incorporate the suggestions made by editors and reviewers during the evaluation of their papers as much as possible.
1. Papers involving minors (under 19 years old) or family members (spouse, children, and blood relatives within four degrees of kinship, hereinafter referred to as ‘special related persons’) must have clear contributions from these special related persons.
2. Joint research papers with special related persons must submit a pre-disclosure form (Appendix 2) at the time of paper submission.
Editors are responsible for all decisions regarding the acceptance of submitted papers and must respect the integrity and independence of authors as scholars.
Editors must treat papers submitted for publication in the journal fairly, based solely on the qualitative level of the papers and compliance with submission regulations, without any prejudice or personal bias, including but not limited to the author’s gender, age, or institutional affiliation.
Editors must request the evaluation of submitted papers from reviewers who have expert knowledge and fair judgment skills in the relevant field. When requesting a review, editors should avoid reviewers who have an excessively close or hostile relationship with the author to ensure as objective an evaluation as possible. However, if there is a significant discrepancy in the evaluations for the same paper, advice from a third expert in the field may be sought.
Editors must not disclose any information about the author or the content of the submitted papers to anyone other than the reviewers until a decision on the publication has been made.
Reviewers must diligently evaluate the papers entrusted to them by the editorial board within the specified period and notify the editorial board of the evaluation results. If a reviewer feels unqualified to evaluate the content of a paper, they must inform the editorial board without delay.
Reviewers must evaluate papers based on objective criteria, independent of personal academic beliefs or private relationships with the authors. Papers should not be rejected without sufficient justification, nor should they be rejected simply because they contradict the reviewer’s own views or interpretations. Reviewers must not evaluate papers without having read them properly.
As professional scholars, reviewers must respect the integrity and independence of the authors. Evaluation reports should clearly state the reviewer’s judgment of the paper, and reasons should be detailed for any areas where improvements are deemed necessary. Expressions should be polite and gentle, and demeaning or derogatory expressions should be avoided.
Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the papers under review. Unless specifically seeking advice for the evaluation of a paper, it is not advisable to show the paper to others or discuss its content with others. Additionally, the content of the paper must not be cited without the author’s consent before the journal in which the paper is published has been released.
1. Relevant parties must make an effort to correct any ethics violations they become aware of by reminding the involved parties of the regulations. However, if the problem is not corrected or if clear cases of ethics violations are revealed, it may be reported to the journal’s ethics committee.
2. Reports can be made by any means possible, including orally, in writing, by telephone, or by email, and should ideally be made under the reporter’s real name. However, anonymous reports are also acceptable if they are submitted in writing or by email and include specific details and evidence of the ethics violation. The ethics committee should treat anonymous reports with the same regard as those made under real names.
3. The ethics committee must not disclose the identity of the person who reported the issue to the journal and must ensure that the reporter does not suffer any disadvantages as a result of the report. The reporter can request information from the ethics committee about the investigation and handling results, and the ethics committee must respond diligently.
The ethics committee shall consist of the editor-in-chief and between five and ten members appointed by the editor-in-chief, with the editor-in-chief serving as the chairperson. The committee may change its members under special circumstances.
1. After conducting a thorough investigation based on reports, suspects, witnesses, references, and evidence regarding alleged violations of the ethics regulations, the ethics committee may recommend appropriate sanctions to the editor-in-chief if the violation is substantiated.
2. The decision-making power of the ethics committee members is equal, and decisions are made by the attendance of at least two-thirds of the members and a majority vote of those present.
1. All related parties must not intentionally obstruct the investigation of allegations of ethics violations or harm the reporter.
2. Non-cooperation with the investigation constitutes a violation of the ethics regulations in itself.
1. Sufficient opportunity for explanation must be provided to the party under investigation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the investigated party’) for alleged violations of the ethics regulations.
2. The ethics committee must take care not to infringe on the honor or rights of the investigated party until the investigation of the ethics violation is complete and must strive to restore the honor of the investigated party if they are found not guilty. The identity of the involved parties must not be disclosed by the ethics committee until a final disciplinary decision regarding the ethics violation has been made.
3. The investigated party may request information from the ethics committee about the investigation and handling procedures and schedule, and the ethics committee must respond diligently.
The procedure for imposing sanctions for violations of the ethics regulations is as follows:
1. The reporter presents evidence related to the ethics violation.
2. The investigated party presents counter-evidence and explanatory materials.
3. If the ethics committee proposes disciplinary action, the editor-in-chief convenes the editorial board to make a final decision on whether to impose sanctions and the contents of such sanctions. Disciplinary actions such as warnings, suspension or revocation of submission qualifications, and cancellation of paper publication may be imposed on parties found to have violated the ethics regulations.
The editorial board will impose the following sanctions on submitted papers that violate these ethics regulations:
1. If the paper has not yet been published online or offline in the journal, a ‘not eligible for publication’ decision will be made.
2. If the paper has been published online or offline in the journal, retroactive invalidation of the journal publication of the said paper will be made.
3. A ban on submitting papers to journals published by the Korea Intellectual Property Research Institute for three years.
4. Recovery of manuscript fees paid.
5. Public and preservation measures will specify the fact and reasons for the withdrawal of the paper.
6. Notification through the Korea Intellectual Property Research Institute’s website and journal.
7. Notification of the detailed contents to the Korea Research Foundation.
8. Notification of the details to the research funding institution if the paper was written with research funding.
9. Notification of the details to the author’s affiliated institution.
10. If the misconduct of a special related co-author is confirmed, the fact of the research misconduct of the special related author will be notified to the related institution (schools related to admissions and advancement, research institutions, etc.) that benefited from the said paper.
If the editor-in-chief decides not to impose sanctions, this fact must be promptly notified to both the reporter and the investigated party.
These regulations take effect from March 25, 2009.