JICAS ISSN : 2384-2113 (Online)
◆ Guidelines

Research Ethics Guidelines for IDEC (IC Design Education Center)

General Provisions

1. Purpose

The Research Ethics Guidelines for all articles published in IC Design Education Center (hereinafter referred to as IDEC) aim to right development of research by preparing the ethical rules and standards when research misconduct occurs.

2. Scope

The Guidelines apply to all those who participate in publishing the manuscripts in IDEC.

3. Terms Definition

Research misconduct refers to acts such as plagiarism, forgery, dual publication, and unreasonable author listing in the process of all research procedure as defined in the following statements.

① “Plagiarism” refers to using or copying someone else’s idea or work without proper approval or quotation.

② “Forgery” refers to distorting research contents by manipulating or modifying data or research results.

③ “Dual publication” refers to publishing the manuscript of oneself in other journals with the same contents without proper approval or citation.

④ “Unreasonable author listing” refers to excluding a person who has made technical contribution to the research from the author list or granting author qualification to a person who has not made technical contribution.

The Research Ethics Regulations

4. Ethics Committee

The Ethics Committee reviews IDEC Research Ethics and takes action accordingly.

5. Composition of Committee

(1) The number of the Committee is ten or less including the head of IDEC.

(2) The chair of Ethics Committee shall be the chair of Editorial Committee, and the chair will appoint the members of the Committee. The term in office shall be two years.

(3) The chair will appoint the secretary of the Committee.

(4) If a member submits a manuscript, a new member will be appointed while it is being reviewed.

6. Committee Meeting

(1) The chair convenes a meeting and becomes the chair.

(2) A meeting is held by more than half of the Committee members, and a decision is made by more than half of the members present.

(3) The meeting's decision process should not be revealed to the public.

7. Function of Committee

(1) The Committee will establish all research ethics related to IDEC.

(2) The Committee will prevent and investigate research misconduct.

(3) The Committee will verify and take action reviewing research ethics.

(4) The Committee will protect the informant.

(5) The Committee will address issues of research ethics that are raised by the chair.

8. Request for Review

(1) Issues related to research misconduct can be reported to IDEC directly by phone, written paper, or e-mail.

(2) Even if reported anonymously, the issue should be handled in accordance with the blindness, if there is specific details and evidence of research misconduct.

9. Procedure

(1) When a case of research misconduct occurs, the Committee should convene a meeting and review the case.

(2) The one whose manuscript is in doubt should comply with the Committee's investigation.

(3) The Committee can require attendance or submission of information to the submitter of the manuscript under study, the reviewer who has raised the question, and if necessary others.

(4) The Committee should protect the informant, and also allow the submitter to defend oneself fully so as to protect one’s right.

(5) The Committee should make a final decision and report the result to the informant and the submitter.

(6) The judgement of research misconduct could be made by a majority of the members of the Committee and a vote of 2/3 or more of the attendance Committee members.

10. Disciplinary Measures

The Committee will report the result to the head of IDEC, and take disciplinary measures as follows.

① Prohibition of submission

② Unacceptance of the manuscript

③ Deletion or Invalidation of the paper already published

④ Admonition or notification publicly in IDEC or other Society

⑤ Deprivation or suspension of one’s membership of IDEC

11. Reconsideration

(1) The informant and the suspect can request a reconsideration to the Committee within ten days from the date of notification of the result.

(2) It is assumed that the result is accepted after ten days from the notification.

(3) The Committee should decide whether to reconsider the matter immediately upon a request, and proceed with Articles 9 and 10 if majority of the members of the Committee approve it.

12. Rights Protection

(1) The identity of the informant should not be disclosed to outside.

(2) The reputation of the suspect should not be violated until the research misconduct is confirmed.

(3) It is strived to restore the honor of the one whose suspicion has proven innocent.

13. Record Keeping

Records should be kept for five years from the date of the investigation ends.

14. Attachment

(1) Article which is not specified in the Guidelines can be added in accordance with the decision of the Committee or the rules of IDEC.

(2) The Guidelines take effect as from April 30, 2018.

Guidelines for the Researchers

15. Plagiarism

The researcher should not take part or all of others’ research results as if they are its own research results. The researcher can refer to others’ research results with approval, but it is a plagiarism using without citation.

16. Dual Publication

The researcher should not publish one’s previously published work in other journals. This includes research results which is being planned or under review.

17. Plagiarism Search Program

When submitting a manuscript, the submitter should revise the manuscript if suspected sentences are found (more than six) using 문헌 유사도 검사 서비스 (Korea Citation Index, National Research Foundation of Korea) offered by JAMS (Journal & Article Management System).

18. Citation and Reference

(1) When referring to public research results, the researcher should describe the contents accurately and clarify the source.

(2) The researcher should make the citation through the footnotes when referring to others’ research results, so that the readers can distinguish previous research results and ideas, arguments, and interpretations of the researcher who refers them.

19. Research Achievement

The researcher can have achievements and responsibilities for the research results only when they are actually done by the researcher.

20. Revision

The submitter should accept the evaluation results of the Editorial Committee and the judge and reflect them as much as possible on the manuscript. If not agree, the submitter should notify the Editorial Committee the reasons for the disagreement in detail.

Guidelines for the Editorial Committee


The Editorial Committee takes all the responsibilities for the evaluation and the publication of the manuscripts submitted to the center, and follows the guidelines strictly.


The Committee should treat the authors only on the quality of the manuscripts and the guidelines, not on gender, age, affiliation, as well as any preconceptions.


The Committee should ask the judge who has expert knowledge on the field to review the manuscripts. However, if the evaluation of the same manuscript is significantly different between the judges, the committee can take advice to another judge in that field.


The Committee should not disclose the details of the author and the manuscript to outside until the publication of the manuscript is decided.

Guidelines for the Judge


The judges should review the manuscripts asked by the Editorial Committee in good faith, and notify the Committee of the results within the deadline.


The judges should review the manuscript fairly by objective criteria regardless of theoretical orientation, academic beliefs, personal relationship between the author, etc. The judges also should read the manuscript fully and should not reject the manuscript without sufficient reasons.


The judges should respect personality and independence of the authors as a professional intellectual. The judges can express their own opinion in the review paper, and if the revise of the manuscript is needed, the reasons should be explained in detail with soft and polite expressions.


The judges should keep the secret of the manuscript. The judges will not disclose the manuscript except the case of taking advice for the evaluation. The judges also should not refer to the manuscript without the authors’ approval before publishing.