The Journal of
the Korean Institute of Interior Design

The Journal of
the Korean Institute of Interior Design

  • ISSN : 1229-7992(Print)
  • ISSN : 2733-6832(Online)
  • KCI Accredited Journal

Editorial Office

  • Tel. +82-2-564-2598
  • Fax. +82-2-564-2599
  • E-mail.

Chapter 1 General Provisions

Article 1 Purpose

The Code of Ethics establishes research ethics for researchers who conduct research as a member of the Korean Institute for Interior Design (hereinafter referred to as “the Institute”), prevents research misconduct in advance, and verifies the truth fairly and systematically when research misconduct occurs. The purpose of the regulations is to prescribe matters concerning the establishment and operation of the Research Ethics Committee (hereinafter referred to as “the Committee”) to deal with the above.

Article 2 Application Target and Scope

The Ethics Regulations apply to all members of the Institute and must be followed unless there are other special regulations regarding establishing research ethics and verifying research integrity when conducting research and presenting papers.

Article 3 Scope of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct stipulated in the Ethics Regulations refers to each subparagraph below.

  1. ① “Forgery” is the act of creating false data or research results that do not exist.
  2. ② “Falsification” is an act of artificially manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, etc., or distorting research content or results by arbitrarily modifying or deleting data.
  3. ③ "Plagiarism" is the act of using another person's ideas, research content, results, etc., without proper citation.
  4. ④ “Unfair authorship” refers to the refusal to grant author qualifications to a person who has contributed to the research content or results without justifiable reasons or to the act of expressing gratitude or respect to a person who has not contributed to the author qualifications.
  5. ⑤ “Duplicate publication” is the act of republishing previously published material without proper approval or citation, except in the case of a dissertation.
  6. ⑥ It intentionally obstructs investigations into suspicion of misconduct by oneself or others or inflicts harm on the informant.
  7. ⑦ Other acts that seriously deviate from the range generally accepted in design or art-related academic fields, etc.

Chapter 2 Establishment and Operation of the Research Ethics Committee

Article 4 Roles and Functions

The Committee deliberates and decides on the following matters related to the research ethics of members of the Institute.

  1. ① Matters concerning the establishment and operation of research-ethics-related systems.
  2. ② Matters concerning the preliminary investigation and primary investigation of research misconduct.
  3. ③ Matters concerning the protection of the informant and confidentiality.
  4. ④ Matters concerning measures to restore the reputation of the investigated person.
  5. ⑤ Matters concerning verification of research integrity, processing of verification results, and follow-up measures.
  6. ⑥ Other matters requested by the Editor-in-Chief

Article 5 Composition

  1. The president and vice-president who is editor-in-chief must be ex officio, and at least three other members should be constituted from the editorial board.
  2. The chairperson must be the president, and the term of office of the chairperson and members is the same as that of their position.
  3. The chairperson may appoint expert members after hearing the Committee's opinions.

Article 6 Meeting

  1. The chairperson convenes a committee meeting if necessary and serves as the chairperson.
  2. Unless otherwise stipulated, the meeting is decided by the attendance of a majority of the enrolled members and the consent of a majority of the members present. However, a power of attorney is recognized as attendance at the
  3. Committee's establishment but does not grant voting rights.
  4. When deemed necessary by the Committee, the relevant persons may be present to hear their opinions.
  5. In principle, the meeting is confidential.
  6. Members involved in the research subject to the investigation cannot participate in the meeting.

Article 7 Rights and Responsibilities

  1. During an investigation, the Committee may request the informant, the person under investigation, the witness, and the referee to appear and submit evidence.
  2. If the person under investigation refuses to attend or submit data without justifiable reason, this violates the Code of Ethics, and it can be presumed that the person has acknowledged the facts of the charges.
  3. The Committee may take necessary measures to prevent the loss, damage, concealment, or alteration of research records or evidence.
  4. Committee members must maintain confidentiality in all matters related to deliberation.
  5. If it is determined that violation of the Code of Ethics is confirmed, appropriate sanctions can be suggested to the president.

Chapter 3 Research Integrity Verification

Article 8 Reporting and Receiving Reports of Misconduct

  1. The informant may report to the Institute's secretariat in any way possible, and in principle, the report should be made under the informant’s real name. However, if a person wishes to report anonymously, the informant must submit the name of the thesis (or research project name) and specific details and evidence of research misconduct in writing or by email.
  2. A reporting informant who knew or could have known that the information was false is not included in the scope of protection.

Article 9 Preliminary Investigation

  1. A preliminary investigation is a procedure for deciding whether to conduct a primary investigation into allegations of research misconduct. It must be initiated within 15 days from the date of receipt of the report, and the following matters must be reviewed.
    1. ① Whether the information to be reported falls under the research misconduct stipulated in Article 3
    2. ② Whether there is a need for and tangible benefit to conducting the primary investigation owing to specificity and clarity in the content of the report.
  2. The chairperson may decide immediately without instigating the primary investigation when the investigated person admits to all the facts of research misconduct.
  3. The chairperson must notify the informant of the preliminary investigation results in writing within 10 days of the
  4. completion of the preliminary investigation. However, this is not the case with anonymous reporting.
  5. The preliminary investigation is carried out by the Research Ethics Committee. If necessary, a separate subcommittee may be formed, or an investigation may be requested from an expert whose affiliation differs from the subject of investigation.
  6. The preliminary investigation must be completed within 30 days from the start date of the investigation and approved by the Committee.

Article 10 Initiation and Period of Main Investigation

  1. The primary investigation is a procedure to prove the truth of research misconduct. It must start within 30 days from approval of the preliminary investigation result and be completed within 90 days from the start date of the investigation, including judgment.
  2. The primary investigation is conducted by forming an Investigation Committee under Article 11. If the Investigation Committee determines that the investigation cannot be completed within the period specified in Paragraph 1 above, it may explain the reason to the Committee and request an extension of the investigation period.

Article 11 Composition and Authority of Investigation Committee

  1. The chairperson of the Investigation Committee must concurrently serve as the chairperson of the Research Ethics Committee.
  2. The Investigation Committee must comprise five or more members, including the chairperson and two persons with abundant professional knowledge and experience in the relevant field.
  3. To secure fairness and objectivity, some outside personnel who are not members of the Institute may be commissioned. A person who has an interest in the matter under investigation should not be included in the Investigation Committee.
  4. The Investigation Committee must notify the informant of the list of investigators before the commencement of the primary investigation. It should be accepted if the informant raises a justifiable objection to the investigator's refusal.
  5. During the investigation, the Investigation Committee may request the informant, the person under investigation, the witnesses, and the referee to provide a statement. In this case, the person under investigation must comply.
  6. The Investigation Committee may request the person under investigation to submit data. To preserve the evidence, the Investigation Committee must secure, and store data previously submitted to the Institute by those involved in research misconduct and other pre-published data.

Article 12 Protection of the Informant and the Person under Investigation

  1. Under no circumstances must the informant's identity be exposed directly or indirectly, and the informant's name must not be included in the investigation result report to protect the informant, unless necessary.
  2. The informant must be protected from being disadvantaged in status or discriminated against in terms of working conditions for reporting research misconduct.
  3. Matters concerning the informant's identity are not subject to information disclosure.
  4. If the informant is disadvantaged or discriminated against in Paragraph 2, or their identity is exposed against their will, the relevant institution will be held responsible.
  5. A person under investigation refers to a person who has been investigated for research misconduct because of the informant's report, or the knowledge of a research institution, or a person who is presumed to have participated in research misconduct in the investigation is not included in this.
  6. Be careful not to infringe on the honor or rights of the person under investigation until verification of whether there has been any misconduct is completed. Efforts must be made to restore the reputation of the person under investigation who is found to be innocent.
  7. All matters related to the investigation, such as reporting, investigation, deliberation, resolution, and suggested actions, must be confidential. Those who directly or indirectly participated in the investigation, the head of the agency, and related staff must not disclose all information obtained during the investigation and performance of duties. However, if there is a need for disclosure because of justifiable reasons, this may be announced after the resolution of the Investigation Committee.
  8. The Investigation Committee must guarantee equal opportunities for the informant and the person under investigation to express opinions and raise objections and must inform them of the relevant procedures in advance.

Article 13 Judgment

  1. Judgment refers to the chairperson confirming the investigation result and notifying the informant and the person under investigation in writing.
  2. All investigations, from the start of the preliminary investigation to the judgment, must be completed within six months. However, if it is determined challenging to investigate within this period, the Investigation Committee may extend the investigation period by notifying the agency transferring the information, the informant, and the person under investigation.

Chapter 4 Actions after Verification

Article 14 Submission of Investigation Results

  1. In the case of conducting a preliminary investigation and a primary investigation, the chairperson must submit the results to the Committee within 10 days from the end of each investigation.
  2. The report under Paragraph 1 must include the following matters.
    1. ① Details of the report
    2. ② Investigation results
    3. ③ List of members of the Investigation Committee (limited to the case of the primary investigation)
    4. ④ Whether the main investigation should be conducted and the basis for judgment (limited to the case of preliminary investigation)
    5. ⑤ The role of the examinee in the research and whether the research misconduct is actual (limited to the case of the primary investigation)
    6. ⑥ List of relevant evidence, witnesses, and other persons who participated in the consultation (limited to the case of the primary investigation)
    7. ⑦ Statements of the informant and the person under investigation.

Article 15 Follow-up Measures for Investigation Results

  1. A person judged for research misconduct may be subject to the following sanctions or both.
    1. ① Revocation of publication of the paper that has been rejected for research and notification of this on the Institute’swebsite and collection of papers
    2. ② Prohibition of paper submission for three years after the judgment
    3. ③ Notification to the National Research Foundation of Korea and related organizations
    4. ④ Other appropriate measures.
  2. The notice in Paragraph 1, Item ①, must include the author's name, the paper's title, the paper's volume (number), the date of cancellation, and the reason for the cancellation, etc.
  3. The Committee should determine other appropriate measures under Paragraphs 1 through ④ according to the severity of the misconduct.
  4. The Committee may disqualify or suspend the membership of a person who intentionally or grossly and negligently reports something different from the truth or spreads false facts concerning the research ethics of this Institute.

Article 16 Follow-up Measures such as Restoration of Honor

If the investigation determines that there was no research misconduct, the Committee may take appropriate follow-up measures by striving to restore the reputation of the investigated person or the suspect.

Article 17 Retention and Disclosure of Records

  1. Records related to the investigation must be kept for five years from the end of the investigation.
  2. After the judgment is over, the results should be reported to the Institute's Board of Directors. The Committee's resolution in case there is a possibility that the person concerned may be disadvantaged concerning identity-related information, such as the list of informants, investigators, witnesses, referees, and persons participating in the consultation, may be excluded from the disclosure.

Chapter 5 Publishing Ethics

Article 18 Authorship

  1. Authorship means 1) making a significant contribution to the conceptual framework and content organization, data collection or planning data collection, analysis, and interpretation of research; 2) writing the main content of the research or revising important content; 3) in the process of writing a research paper, agreeing on and taking responsibility for all aspects related to the research content so that questions related to the accuracy of the content can be adequately resolved; 4) approving the paper for final publication
    1. ① The first author is the person who made the most significant contribution to the research.
    2. ② The corresponding author receives comments and corrections, etc., of the paper review sent by the editor of the journal and contacts them. The corresponding author should provide a contact number so readers can contact the research team when they need to. The corresponding author is one among the authors, and in principle, the number of corresponding authors is preferably one for one paper. The first author may also serve as the corresponding author. When submitting a paper, the authorship list and copyright transfer agreement must be signed and presented by the corresponding author.
    3. ③ People who participated in or contributed to the study but are not recognized as authors because they are partial or do not have the conditions of an author are classified as contributors and are mentioned in the acknowledgments.
    4. ④ Authorship is determined by discussion with the research team in advance, and the order of authors is determined according to the contribution and importance of the research.
  2. Invalid authorship

    Unfair authorship is not included in research misconduct, but it is regarded as a dishonest act of the researcher.

    1. ① Invited (gift) author: Researchers who do not have or lack authorship are included in the list of authors due to personal acquaintance with the researcher. It is often referred to as an honorary author by including a person above the head of an institution or organization, such as a gifted person, as an author.
    2. ② Phantom author: This refers to the case where a person who played a significant role in the study is excluded from the authorship because of being a subordinate.
    3. ③ Exchange author: As the study is subdivided, this refers to a case in which other researchers who are experts in the same field of interest help each other. The other researcher includes the other as authors in their paper.
    4. ④ Fraudulent authors: This refers to the act of including a famous person who did not participate in the research as an author without that person’s permission to increase the likelihood that the paper will be accepted. Sometimes, the names of renowned foreign researchers are stolen.
  3. Statement of Conflict of Interest and Prior Reporting of Related Relationships

    Authors should report in advance any conflict of interest or a special relationship with a paper's co-author, as follows.

    1. ① Authors must notify of all potential conflicts of interest in advance to prevent the possibility of research misconduct. Potential conflicts of interest include financial support and personal relationships. In particular, the paper should clearly state all financial support related to research.
    2. ➁ If the co-author is in a special relationship, the author submits the "Personal Information Provision Agreement" and "Reporting Form for Co-authorship of Papers with Related Persons" in advance. A “related person” refers to the researcher's family (spouse, children, etc., within the fourth degree) or minors (persons under the age of 19).

Chapter 6 Editorial Board’s Ethics

Article 19 Responsibility

The editorial board is responsible for deciding whether to publish the submitted paper and should supervise and continuously strive to comply with research ethics.

Article 20 Fairness

The editorial board should treat the submitted papers fairly, solely based on the quality of the papers and submission rules, regardless of the author's gender, age, organization, and any preconceived notions or personal acquaintances.

Article 21 Selection Criteria for Reviewers

The editorial board should request evaluation of the submitted papers from reviewers with professional knowledge and fair judgment in the relevant field. When requesting a review, the board must seek an objective evaluation as much as possible by avoiding reviewers who are too friendly or hostile to the author. However, if evaluation of the same paper differs significantly among the reviewers, a third-party expert in the relevant field may be consulted.

Article 22 Confidentiality

The editorial board must not disclose the author or the paper's contents to anyone other than the reviewers until the publication of the submitted paper is decided.

Chapter 7 Reviewers’ Ethics

Article 23 Integrity

The reviewers must faithfully evaluate the paper provided by the editorial board within the period set by the review regulations and notify the editorial board of the evaluation result. If a reviewer determines he or she is not the right person to evaluate the contents of the paper, the reviewer must notify the editorial board without delay.

Article 24 Evaluation

The reviewers should evaluate the paper based on objective criteria, regardless of personal academic beliefs or personal relationships with the author. A paper must not be rejected without specifying sufficient grounds for doing so or because the paper conflicts with the reviewer's point of view or interpretation. The paper subject to review must not be evaluated without thorough reading of it.

Article 25 Respect for Authors

Reviewers should respect authors’ personality and independence as professional intellectuals. In the evaluation, reviewers must state their judgment of the paper and explain in detail the reason for the changes or supplementation they believe necessary. They must use polite and constructive expressions as much as possible, and refrain from demeaning or insulting the author.

Chapter 8 Others

Article 26 Amendment of Research Ethics Regulations

The procedure for amending the Research Ethics Regulations is in accordance with the revision procedure for the rules of this society.

Enacted on May 1, 2007
Revised on November 27, 2014
Revised on March 10, 2020
Revision on October 29, 2021