The members of the academic society faithfully fulfill their ethical and social duties as academic researchers. They satisfy the academic goal of investigating the truth through their research and strive to contribute to human happiness and societal progress. As academic researchers, members improve their knowledge, skills, and traits in a spirit of faithfulness, respect, and honor; at the same time, they strive to achieve a symbiosis between humans and the environment. They must behave honestly and fairly and follow all relevant rules and regulations so that they can be viewed as model leaders in the establishment of a sound and progressive society. In order to achieve this, the members behavior must conform to standards that can elevate them to the status of experts, and they must aim to become trustworthy researchers. 

Article 1 (Members Duties) 

1) The members of this academic society must adhere to the standards of researchers and contribute to academic and societal development through academic research, and they must faithfully fulfill the duties required of researchers. 

2) Authors who submit papers as members of this academic society must agree to allow the society to use the copyrights of such published papers. 

Article 2 (Committee Creation) 

A research ethics committee is created within this society to evaluate the members compliance with standards and faithfulness toward their obligations. 

Article 3 (Committee Composition) 

1) Committee Chairperson: 1 person

2) Committee Members: 10 or fewer people

3) Assistant Administrator: 1 person

Article 4 (Member Elections) 

The members of the committee are appointed according to the recommendation of the society chairperson and approval of the board of directors. The committee chairperson is elected by the committee. 

Article 5 (Committee Duties) 

The committee evaluates the members actions that violate academic research ethics and obligations and reports the results to the board of directors.

Article 6 (Ethics Violation Examples) 

The following are examples of actions that the committee would consider as violations during an evaluation. 

1) Actions related to the dignity of the members

(1) Causing public censure through ethics violations as a researcher, including improprieties with research funds, etc.

(2) Judgments related to the dignity of a member follow from the need to improve the country and academia, in general, and judgments will not be made based on unfair reasons such as the intervention of public opinion.

2) Actions related to the morality of research results

(1) Stealing ones own or others research results and pretending that they are new research, engaging in the falsification of results, and resorting to plagiarism.

(2) Intentionally downplaying existing research to give prominence to ones own research, or introducing omissions or distortions to give the reader a false impression.

(3) Using anonymity to make unfair comments.

(4) Cases where it is judged that there are serious ethical flaws in another researchs presentation, process, or results.

Article 7 (Evaluation Process) 

Committee evaluations comprise the following process: 

1) The committees evaluation begins with a request for evaluation from the committee or the society chairperson. Once an evaluation request is received, the committee chairperson must convene the committee immediately.

2) The committee discusses the cases that are brought up and determines the process of evaluation for the items, including whether or not internal or external evaluation members will participate, etc. Any members who may have a negative effect on the impartial execution of the evaluation are excluded.

3) The committee conducts a comprehensive review of the researchers research results and determines whether violations of research ethics have occurred. If the committee requires it, they can interview the researcher, informants, evaluation committee members who have brought up the issue, etc.

4) The committee chairperson determines the cases, with the majority of the members in attendance and majority of attendees agreeing upon. The chairperson reviews whether the accused researcher should be granted an opportunity to explain after consulting with that person.

5) The researcher gives his or her explanation at a non-public meeting of the committee. The committee chairperson sufficiently explains the outcome of the evaluation to the researcher. The material requested for the explanation is prepared, and a notice for attending the meeting is given.

6) After the explanation, the evaluation committee chairperson ultimately decides whether the evaluation committee should reverse its decision and report it to the board of directors. The reversal of the original decision is made with 2/3 or more members in attendance and with the agreement of 2/3 or more members.

7) The evaluation members are not allowed to make public the evaluated members status or information regarding the evaluations progress, etc.

Article 8 (Evaluation Results Report) 

The committees evaluation results must be reported to the board of directors immediately. The report must include each of the following items: 

1) Information on the evaluation appointment

2) The inappropriate behavior that is the subject of the evaluation

3) The names of the evaluation committee members and evaluation process

4) The basis for reaching the evaluation decision and related evidence

5) The name of the evaluated employee and resolution process

Article 9 (Disciplinary Action) 

Once the committee completes the evaluation and face-to-face examination, it decides on the type of disciplinary action to be taken. The types of disciplinary actions include the following, and they can be combined: 

1) Expulsion

2) Cancellation of the papers attribution and prohibition of quotation

3) Presentation of a public apology to the academic society

4) Suspension of qualifications as a member

Article 10 (Follow-Up Measures) 

The board of directors reviews the evaluation committees report and selects one of the following measures: 

1) The society chairperson immediately executes the evaluation committees decision in accordance with the board of directors decision.

2) If the evaluation results are judged to have problems in terms of rationality and validity, the board of directors can request its reevaluation by the evaluation committee or ask for a supplement to the report. The board of directors request can be made only through documents that show a concrete reason.

Enacted: June 25, 2007