These Research Ethics Guidelines (hereafter "Guidelines") is to establish research ethics standards that must be observed by Academic Researchers (hereafter "Researchers") applying for publication of papers or contributions in relation to research activities conducted by The Korean Association on Developmental Disabilities.

These Guidelines apply to The Journal of Developmental Disabilities Research published by The Korean Association on Developmental Disabilities and all other publications.

These Guidelines are enacted and revised by the Board of Directors of The Korean Association on Developmental Disabilities, and are reviewed, reviewed and verified according to the Research Ethics Guidelines submitted by the editorial committee. A separate Research Ethics Deliberation Committee is formed to deliberate on reported matters related to research ethics.

This Guidelines stipulates research misconduct as in each of the following paragraphs, and in principle, papers with misconduct are not published, and if related problems are found after publication, they will be deleted.

• 1. Forgery” refers to the act of writing a dissertation by making false data or research results that do not exist.
• 2.“Falsification” refers to the act of distorting the contents or results of research by artificially manipulating, changing, or deleting research data, equipment, and processes.
• 3.“Plagiarism” refers to the act of plagiarizing another person's ideas, research contents, research results, etc. without the approval or citation of the original author.
• 4.“Unfair article authorship” refers to not granting article author qualifications to a person who has made an actual contribution or contribution to the research without justifiable reasons, or conversely, granting article author qualifications to a person who has not contributed or contributed to the research.
• 5.“Interfering with the investigation of misconduct” refers to the act of intentionally interfering with the investigation of the person or others suspected of misconduct or harming the informant.
• 6.“Other misconduct” refers to an act that seriously deviates from the research-related norms generally accepted in the academic field.

• 1. The Journal of Developmental Disabilities’, the academic journal of this society, is published four times a year on March 30, June 30, September 30, and December 30 every year.
• 2.In relation to the purpose of the research, sufficient explanations about potential risks in mental, physical and other aspects that may occur during or after the research should be provided to the research subjects, and the fact that consent has been obtained in relation to this should be specified in the research article in principle. do it with
• 3. In the case where it is difficult for the research subject to make a decision on whether to consent on his/her own, in principle, the fact that consent has been obtained from the research subject's guardian shall be specified.
• 4. In principle, if a research subject's audio or video is required for data collection, consent from the research subject must be obtained before recording.

• 1. Provide the research subjects with an opportunity to obtain information about the nature, results, and conclusions of the research, as long as it does not impair scientific and human values.
• 2.When it is known that the research procedure has caused harm to the participants, measures are taken to minimize the damage.

• 1. Authors are recognized for their achievements as an author only for research that they have actually conducted or contributed, and are responsible for their contents.
• 2.The order of authors (including translators) of papers or other publications should be fairly determined according to their contribution to the research regardless of their relative status. You cannot be recognized for your achievements as a co-author, first author, or corresponding author simply by being in a specific position. On the other hand, the act of not being recognized as a co-author (including a translator) or a co-researcher even though he has contributed sufficiently to research or writing (including translation) cannot be justified. If the contribution to research or writing (including the translator) is low, express gratitude in footnotes, introductions, and acknowledgments rather than being included as an author.
• 3.When several people jointly participate in the work, it is not acceptable to submit or publish a article as if it were one's own independent work without the consent of all the co-authors.

Authors should not publish or submit previously published research (including research to be published or under review) as if it were a new research, regardless of domestic or overseas, and should not submit the same research to similar societies. If you wish to publish using a part of research published before submission, you must provide information about the previous publication to the editor of the journal you wish to publish and check whether it is a duplicate publication or double publication. However, this regulation does not apply to papers presented at conferences.

• 1. When an author cites publicly available academic materials, he or she should make an effort to describe it accurately and clearly state the source unless it is a material that belongs to common sense. In the case of data obtained during evaluation of a article or research proposal or through personal contact, it can only be cited after obtaining the consent of the researcher who provided the information.
• 2.When an author cites another person's writing or borrows (references) another person's thoughts, he must clearly state whether the citation or reference is made through a footnote. You should let the reader know if it is your original idea, argument, or interpretation.
• 3.Even if the source is disclosed, the author's permission must be obtained for citations in which the amount of citation exceeds the range of citations accepted by common sense (eg, several pages). It is a violation of rights and cannot be tolerated.

Researchers whose article has been confirmed to be published must sign and seal the "Ethics Compliance Agreement" related to research ethics of this society before publication of the relevant issue.

• 1. The editorial board is responsible for the publication of the submitted paper, and must respect the author's personality and independence as a scholar.
• 2.Editors should treat the submitted papers for publication in a journal fairly, regardless of the author's gender, age, affiliated institution, as well as any prejudice or personal acquaintance, based on the level of the paper and the submission rules.
• 3.The editorial board should request the evaluation of the submitted paper to a reviewer with professional knowledge and fair judgment in the relevant field. When requesting a review, try to make an objective evaluation by avoiding reviewers who are close to or hostile to the author. However, if the evaluation of the same article differs significantly among the reviewers, a third-party expert in the relevant field may be consulted.
• 4.Editors must not disclose the author or the contents of the article to anyone other than the reviewers until publication of the submitted article is decided.

• 1. The article reviewer must faithfully evaluate the article requested by the journal editor within the period set by the review regulations and notify the editor of the evaluation result. If it is determined that you are not the right person to evaluate the content of the paper, you must notify the editor of the fact.
• 2.The article reviewer must fairly evaluate the article requested for review based on objective criteria, regardless of personal academic beliefs or personal relationship with the author. A article must not be rejected without specifying sufficient grounds, a article must not be rejected because it conflicts with the reviewer's own point of view or interpretation, and the article subject to review must not be evaluated without properly reading it.
• 3.The article reviewer shall notify the editorial board of any findings that fall under Article 4 of the research misconduct in the article requested for review.
• 4.The article reviewer must not disclose the contents of the review.

When editors and article reviewers recognize that they have violated the “Research Ethics Guidelines”, they should try to rectify the problem by reminding the contributor of the “Research Ethics Guidelines”. However, if the problem is not corrected or a clear violation of the “Research Ethics Guidelines” is revealed, it can be reported to the Research Ethics Deliberation Committee. The identity of the person who reported the violation of the “Research Ethics Guidelines” shall not be disclosed.

• 1. If a violation of this research ethics regulation is suspected, a research ethics review committee (hereafter “deliberation committee”) may be formed in addition to the editorial committee of the society to review cases of violation and result processing in detail.
• 2.In principle, the Deliberation Committee shall be composed of 5 or more members.
• 3.
  The Deliberation Committee shall be comprised of experts in the relevant research field and outsiders who are not affiliated with the relevant research institute according to the following criteria.

  • ①More than 50% of experts in the relevant research field
  • ② 20% or more of outsiders who are not affiliated with the relevant research institute
• 4.The Deliberation Committee shall notify the informant of the list of investigators under the provisions of Paragraph 1 before the commencement of this investigation, and if the informant raises a justifiable objection to the evasion of the investigator, it shall be accepted.

• 1. In the course of the investigation, the Deliberation Committee may request the presence of the informant, the person under suspect, the witnesses and the referee to make a statement, and in this case, the person under suspect must comply.
• 2.The Deliberation Committee may request the subject to submit data, and may restrict access to persons involved in misconduct and seize and keep the research data for the preservation of evidence.
• 3.The Deliberation Committee may suggest appropriate sanction measures to the editor-in-chief for those involved in misconduct determined to be true.

• 1. A informant refers to a person who has informed the fact that he/she is aware of the misconduct or related evidence.
• 2.The informant may report in any possible way, including oral, written, telephone, and e-mail, and in principle, reporting under his/her real name. However, even if it is an anonymous report, if it is submitted in writing or by e-mail, including the name of the research project or study, and the details and evidence of misconduct, it must be handled according to the report under the real name.
• 3.The informant has the duty to protect the informant from being disadvantaged in status such as disciplinary action, discrimination in working conditions, undue pressure or harm, etc., and measures necessary for this must be prepared.
• 4.Matters related to the identity of the informant are not subject to information disclosure, and if the informant receives a disadvantage under Paragraph 3 for the reason of the report or if the identity of the informant is exposed against his/her will, the informant shall be held responsible together with the organization to which the informant belongs.
• 5.If the informant wants to know about the investigation procedure and schedule after the report of misconduct, he/she may request to inform them, and he/she must faithfully comply with such request.
• 6.The informant who reported it despite knowing or could have known that the information was false is not included in the scope of protection.

• 1. The person under investigation refers to a person who has become the subject of investigation of misconduct through the report or the knowledge of the Society, and a person who is presumed to have participated in misconduct in the course of the investigation and is subject to investigation. This does not include references or witnesses in the investigation process.
• 2.The Deliberation Committee shall be careful not to unduly infringe upon the honor or rights of the person under investigation during the verification process.
• 3.Suspicion of misconduct should not be disclosed to the outside until the judgment result is finalized.
• 4.The person under investigation may request to be informed of the investigation and handling procedures for misconduct and the processing schedule.
• 5.The person under investigation should be given a sufficient opportunity for clarification.

In case of recognizing or reporting any misconduct, the responsibility for verification is handled by the Research Ethics Deliberation Committee.

• 1. In principle, even if it is received, it will not be processed for fraudulent acts older than 5 years from the reporting date.
• 2.Even if it is a fraudulent act before five years, if The person under suspect directly re-quotes the result and uses it within five years, or it shall be dealt with if there is a risk or risk to public welfare or safety.

• 1. The research ethics review committee is responsible for proving the fact of misconduct. However, if person under suspect intentionally damages or refuses to submit the data required by the deliberation committee, The person under suspect is responsible for proving the authenticity of the contents recognized as included in the requested data.
• 2.The Deliberation Committee shall equally guarantee the right and opportunity to state opinions, raise objections, and plead for the informant and The person under suspect, and shall inform them of the relevant procedures in advance.
• 3.The Editor-in-Chief shall endeavor to ensure that the Deliberation Committee is not subjected to undue pressure or interference and to maintain independence and fairness.

• 1. The verification procedure for misconduct must proceed in the stages of preliminary investigation, main investigation, and judgment.
• 2.In addition to the verification procedure in Paragraph 1, the investigation may be conducted by including additional procedures deemed necessary.

• 1. Preliminary investigation refers to the procedure for determining whether there is a need to investigate suspicions of misconduct, and must be initiated within 30 days from the date of receipt of the report.
• 2.As a result of the preliminary investigation, if the investigated person admits to all misconduct, a judgment can be made immediately without going through the main investigation procedure. With the approval of the government, measures can be taken to preserve evidence.
• 3.If the preliminary investigation determines that the main investigation has not been conducted, the specific circumstances of this will be notified in writing to the informant within 10 days from the date of decision. However, this is not the case for anonymous reporting.
• 4.If the informant is dissatisfied with the results of the preliminary investigation, he/she may raise an objection within 30 days of receiving the notification.

• 1. This investigation refers to the procedure to prove the fact of misconduct, and it must be conducted by forming a deliberation committee in accordance with the provisions of Article 13.
• 2.The Deliberation Committee shall give the informant and the person under investigation an opportunity to state their opinions in accordance with the provisions of Article 10, Paragraph 2, and shall give them an opportunity to raise objections and plead before finalizing the results of the main investigation. If the parties do not comply, it shall be deemed that there is no objection.
• 3.The contents of the objection or argument of the informant and the investigated person and the results of their handling shall be included in the investigation result report.

• 1. Judgment refers to the process of confirming the results of the main investigation and notifying the informant and the person under investigation in writing.
• 2.All investigation schedules from the initiation of the preliminary investigation to the judgment must be completed within 6 months. only. If it is judged that it is difficult to conduct an investigation within this period, the reason may be notified to the Editorial Board and the investigation period may be extended.
• 3.If the informant or the person under suspect is dissatisfied with the decision, he/she may file an objection within 3 days of receiving the notification.

• 1. The Deliberation Committee must keep all records of the investigation process in the form of audio, video or documents for at least 5 years.
• 2.The investigation result report and the list of investigators may be disclosed after the decision is made.
• 3.The list of investigative members, witnesses, witnesses, and persons participating in the consultation, etc., shall not be disclosed if there is a possibility that the person concerned may be disadvantaged.

• 1. The Deliberation Committee shall report the results and contents of the preliminary investigation and the main investigation to the Editorial Board within 10 days after the completion of the preliminary investigation and the decision.
• 2.
  The following matters must be included in the report of the results of the preliminary investigation and the main investigation.

  • ① Contents of the report
  • ② Misconduct subject to investigation
  • ③ List of investigative committee members (limited to the case of the main investigation)
  • ④ Whether or not the main investigation is conducted and the basis for the judgment (this is done in the case of a preliminary investigation)
  • ⑤ The role of the examinee in the study and whether there is any misconduct (limited to the case of the main investigation)
  • ⑥Related evidence and witnesses (limited to the case of the main investigation)
  • ⑦Contents of objections or pleadings raised by the informant and the person under suspect and the results of their handling (limited to the case of the main investigation)
• 3.
  The Deliberation Committee shall immediately report to the editor-in-chief if any of the following occurs during the investigation process, and the editor-in-chief who receives the report shall immediately report it to the relevant agency and take action such as accusation during the investigation period.

  • ① In case of serious violation of laws or regulations
  • ② When a serious risk to public welfare or safety occurs or it is obvious
  • ③ When measures by other public authorities are necessary

• 1. The Editor-in-Chief may conduct additional investigation or re-investigation to the Deliberation Committee if it is judged that there is a problem with the rationality and validity of the investigation contents and results reported pursuant to Article 21 (1).
• 2.The editor-in-chief shall take follow-up measures such as disqualification of membership for the relevant researcher and restriction of participation in society activities based on the decision result of the review committee, and notify the examinee of this.

• 1. A retrial may be requested if the Research Ethics Deliberation Committee violates the investigation procedure or if the Committee makes an arbitrarily decision without being based on objective data.
• 2.The person under suspect falling under the above paragraph may request a retrial in writing within 15 days of being notified of the decision of the Research Ethics Deliberation Committee.
• 3.The decision of the Research Ethics Deliberation Committee is automatically suspended from the date of request for retrial until the retrial is completed.
• 4.The Research Ethics Deliberation Committee requests and reviews all the data used in the existing review and, if necessary, additional information, and makes a final decision within 15 days with the attendance of at least 2/3 of the enrolled members and the approval of at least 2/3 of the members present.

If there is a disciplinary recommendation from the Research Ethics Review Committee, the president convenes a board of directors meeting to finally decide whether or not to take disciplinary action and the details of the disciplinary action. Members who are judged to have violated the Research Ethics Guidelines may be subject to disciplinary measures such as warnings, submission restrictions, suspension or deprivation of membership, and these measures may be publicly disclosed to the outside including affiliated organizations.

The procedure for revising the "Research Ethics Regulations" is in accordance with the procedure for revising the regulations for the publication of the ‘The Journal of Developmental Disabilities’ of The Korean Association on Developmental Disabilities. If the “Research Ethics Guidelines” are amended, contributors who have pledged to abide by the existing regulations will be deemed to have pledged to abide by the new regulations without additional pledges.

Matters other than those stipulated in this regulation shall be determined through a resolution of the Board of Directors of The Korean Association on Developmental Disabilities.