The purpose of these bylaws is the regulation of matters regarding the organization and administration of the Academic Integrity Committee (hereinafter “Committee”) of Ewha Research Institute for Translation Studies (hereinafter “Institute”) and their research ethics, whose objectives are to establish academic integrity, to prevent misconduct in academic research, and to implement the tasks of identifying, determining and enforcing compliance issues in accordance to Article 14 of the Institute Regulations.

These bylaws shall apply to all who conduct academic research in direct or indirect connection to the Institute's research activities.

1. Misconduct in academic research (hereinafter “misconduct”) refers to fabrication, falsification, plagiarism and the like in regards to the proposal and the execution of the research as well as the reporting and publication of the research findings. The university's code of ethics classifies acts that violate research ethics but do not affect the quality of the research as inappropriate acts in academic research and distinguishes such acts from the classification of misconduct. However, the Committee shall classify all acts of dishonesty as misconduct, setting out the following definitions.
   1. ① “Fabrication” refers to the act of falsely making up data or research findings that do not exist.
   2. ② “Falsification” refers to the act of intentionally manipulating the research materials, equipment, processes and the like or arbitrarily changing or deleting data to distort the research contents or findings.
   3. ③ “Plagiarism” refers to the act of copying others’ papers, patents, ideas and other intellectual creation or research contents and findings without proper consent or citation.
   4. ④ “Unfair authorship” refers to the act of either not listing an individual who made a substantial contribution to the research as an author for no justifiable reason, or granting authorship to those who played no significant role in the work for reasons such as expressing gratitude or deference.
   5. ⑤ The act of proposing to or pressuring another to commit one or more of the misconducts described above shall also be considered misconduct.
   6. ⑥ Misconduct also refers to any and all acts of serious deviation from the generally accepted extents of the academic field of translation and interpreting.
   7. ⑦ Misconduct also refers to the act of urging, pressuring or threatening someone to commit one or more of the misconducts described above.
2. Conflict of interest refers to any circumstances in which an individual or an institution participating in the publication of papers has a financial stake or is involved in personal connections with a certain paper.
3. “Informant” refers to the person or persons who first notifies the university or research-supporting institute of the fact that an act of misconduct has come to his or her knowledge or who provides evidence of someone's misconduct.
4. “Subject under investigation” refers to the person or persons under investigation for suspicions of misconduct that had either been reported or come to the university or research-supporting institute's knowledge, or to the person or persons who have come under investigation because their potential involvement in an act of misconduct was uncovered during the process of conducting investigation. The term does not refer to the witnesses in the investigation process.
5. “Preliminary investigation” refers to the procedure for determining whether an official investigation needs to be launched on particular allegations of misconduct.
6. “Main investigation” refers to the procedure for determining whether the allegations of misconduct are true or not.
7. “Decision” refers to the procedure of concluding the investigation findings and notifying the informant and the subject under investigation of the findings.

In the case where research is conducted on human subjects, and therefore, an approval from the relevant institution is required, the contributor shall obtain approval for research from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the affiliated institution and faithfully conduct research according to an approved research plan. In addition, the editor may request submission of a written agreement or IRB approval, if necessary.

If the contributor has any possible conflict of interest, such as certain financial benefits, with regard to the topic of a paper, they shall specify this on the title page and notify the editorial board of such matters in a written statement.

If the co-author(s) of a research paper is a “specially related person and minor (under the age of 19), or a family member (e.g., any of relatives within the fourth-degree relationship, such as spouse or offspring),” the principal author or corresponding author shall disclose their relationship with the co-author(s) and explain the reason for which the specially related person(s) has joined the research as a co-author. Any violation of this rule by the contributor shall be considered misconduct and be subjected to deliberation. In addition, if the explanation for this reason is not stated clear or reasonable, the editorial board may refuse to accept the paper in question. Additionally, when misconduct aroused from the involvement of a specially related person(s) as a co-author is confirmed, such misconduct shall be informed to affiliated institutions (e.g., college entrance-related institutions or research-related institutes) where the specially related person(s) may benefit from participating in research. Disclosure of misconduct is based on prior consent obtained to collect and use personal information of the specially related person(s) specified in “Disclosure Form of Research Participation Plan of Specially Related Person(s) and Pre-release Form of Co-authoring a Publication with Specially Related Person(s)” provided by the Institute.

The Committee shall conduct research ethics education via online and offline channels, such as an academic conference, email, or an online forum.

The Committee shall deliberate and decide on the following matters.

1. Matters relating to the establishment and management of academic integrity policies
2. Matters relating to the decision to launch preliminary and main investigations and to the authorization of the investigation findings
3. Matters relating to the appointment of preliminary and main investigation committee members
4. Matters relating to approval of request for a re-investigation
5. Matters relating to the protection of the informant and the rehabilitation of the subject under investigation
6. Matters relating to processing the results of academic integrity validation and the follow-up measures
7. Other matters as submitted by the chairperson

The Committee shall consist of no more than nine members who are recommended by the editorial board from among the head of the editorial board, the head of the administrative board and researchers and who are appointed by the director of the Institute. The chairperson shall be elected by mutual vote from among the members.

The director of the Institute can also serve as the chairperson and appoint more than three members who are professional experts in the relevant field and appoint more than two members from outside the Institute. However, interested parties to the matter under investigation cannot be included. The terms of the chairperson and members shall be two years with consecutive terms allowed. However, in case of a new member who was appointed to fill a vacancy, the term shall last for the remainder of the predecessor's term.

1. If any of the following items are applicable, the person shall not be appointed as a member or a chairperson of the investigation committee for the year.
   1. ① Anyone who is in a relative relationship defined by Article 777 of the Civil Act with the informant or the subject under investigation
   2. ② Anyone who has been in a teacher-pupil relationship or co-authored research with the informant or the subject under investigation
   3. ③ Anyone who might compromise the fairness of the investigation
2. The chairperson of the Committee shall inform the informant of the list of members of the investigation committee before the main investigation is initiated and accept the informant's petition for recusal of a member(s) of the investigation committee if their petition is filed on the grounds of reasonable excuse. However, this shall not be applied if the informant is unable to be contacted under circumstances caused by the informant. In this case, such information shall be included in the investigation findings report.
3. If a member of the investigation committee has a conflicting interest in the research under investigation, they shall request for evasion voluntarily.

In cases when necessary because of the specialty of the investigation or validation, the Committee can appoint specialized committee members.

1. The chairperson shall convene Committee meetings and preside over the meetings.
2. The quorum for a meeting shall be attended by at least one-half of the registered members and a resolution shall be made by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of those attending.
3. When the agenda under review is acknowledged by the chairperson to be a minor matter, it can be reviewed in writing.
4. When acknowledged by the Committee to be needed, a related party can be summoned for opinion.

Reports of misconduct shall only be received when using one's real name and addressed to the director of the Institute.

1. The Committee shall form a preliminary investigation committee consisting of three members within 10 days of receiving the report.
2. The preliminary investigation shall be the responsibility of the director of the Institute but the Committee shall appoint the members of the preliminary investigation committee.
3. The preliminary investigation committee shall report its findings to the Committee within 30 days of launching an investigation and the findings report shall include the following.
   1. ① The specifics of the report received and the identity of the informant
   2. ② The allegations of misconduct being investigated and the relevant research project
   3. ③ The decision to whether launch a main investigation and the grounds for such a decision
   4. ④ Relevant evidence material
   5. ⑤ Confirmation of whether five years have passed from the initial date of the prescription period

1. Should the Committee decide based upon the findings of the preliminary investigation committee that a main investigation is necessary, it shall form a main investigation committee within 30 days of approving the findings of the preliminary investigation.
2. The main investigation committee shall consist of at least seven members, including at least four professional experts with considerable knowledge and experience in the relevant field and at least two outside members for the sake of fairness and objectiveness.
3. The main investigation committee shall report its findings to the Committee within 90 days of launching its investigation and the findings report shall include the following.
   1. ①The specifics of the report received and the identity of the informant (except in cases of anonymous reports)
   2. ②The allegations of misconduct being investigated and the relevant research project
   3. ③The role of the subject under investigation in the research project and whether the allegations are true
   4. ④Evidence material and list of witnesses
   5. ⑤Objections or arguments either by the informant or the subject under investigation regarding the investigation findings and the results of processing such objections or arguments
   6. ⑥List of main investigation committee members
4. Should the need to extend the investigation arise, the investigation period can be extended with the permission of the chairperson.
5. Specific guidelines needed for individual investigation activities by the main investigation committee shall be determined by the chairperson after Committee approval.
6. Records related to the main investigation shall be stored for five years after termination of the investigation.

1. Should the Committee approve the investigation findings by the main investigation committee that the actions of the subject under investigation correspond to misconduct in academic research, it shall recommend disciplinary measures to be taken by the director of the Institute.
2. Should the Committee approve the investigation findings by the main investigation committee that the actions of the subject under investigation does not correspond to misconduct in academic research, it shall take measures to rehabilitate the reputation of the subject under investigation.
3. The Committee can recommend to the director of the Institute to take disciplinary measures against a member of the Institute who, as an informant, had made a report against the truth, disregarding facts that went against his or her statement or testimony, whether intentionally or by gross negligence.
4. The specifics of the disciplinary measures as mentioned in clauses 1 and 3 shall be determined separately. An author who is found to be violating research ethics shall not submit their papers to this journal for five years and not be allowed to participate in reviewing the submitted papers as a reviewer for the corresponding period.

The chairperson shall, without undue delay, notify the subject under investigation and the informant of the Committee's decision on the investigation findings in writing.

Should either the subject under investigation or the informant appeal the Committee's decision, he or she can request a re-investigation by presenting the reasons in writing to the Committee 30 days within having received notification of the decision.

Both the informant and the subject under investigation must be guaranteed equal rights and opportunities of statement, objection and argument and be informed of the related process in advance.

1. According to what is needed in the investigation, the informant, the subject under investigation, witnesses and the like may be requested to attend a meeting to give a testimony to the investigation committee. The subject under investigation must accede to such a request.
2. During investigation, the subject under investigation could be required to submit relevant data and in order to preserve the evidence data, substantial measures could be taken such as restricting the subject under investigation from entering the research lab or seizing and keeping relevant research data.

1. The Committee under no circumstance shall expose the identity of the informant and ensure that the reputation of the subject under investigation is protected until the investigation findings are concluded.
2. Any and all matters related to reports, investigations, reviews and deliberations as well as actions proposed are to be confidential. However, when a considerable need to disclose the information arises, such as a request from a government entity, the matter could be disclosed after a Committee resolution.
3. All committee members and persons who have directly or indirectly participated in the investigation, related committee members shall keep confidential all the information that was obtained during the process of investigating, reviewing, voting and executing tasks and the duty to hold confidential information in confidence shall remain in effect even after the individual is no longer in the position.

The Committee shall take preventive measures against any possible acts of retaliation against the informant and when such an act of retaliation occurs, shall inform the chairperson of such fact and recommend the chairperson to take disciplinary measures.