• Journal of the Korean Society of Food Culture
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.128-141
• /
• 2012

This study focused on the historic documents known as $deungnok$, records created during preparations for royal events in the $Joseon$ Dynasty, rather than the often cited $uigwe$, the documents describing the Royal Protocol of the $Joseon$ Dynasty. As a reference to the food served at royal banquets, the $deungnok$ can enhance our understanding of royal banquet foods. Seven specimens of $deungnok$ describing royal banquet foods are currently in existence, created during preparations for royal events by the agencies in charge of food, the $Saongwon$ and $Jeonseonsa$. Owing to the nature of their authorship, the details recorded in these $deungnok$ hold great value as important resources for the study of royal banquet cuisine. $Naeoejinyeon$-$deungnok$, which documented an $oejinyeon$ banquet held at the $Junghwajeon$ Pavilion in November 1902, was somewhat disorganized and fragmented. $Jinyeonuigwe$ was more inclusive and well-summarized, since the former were progress reports to the King during banquet preparations that listed various items separately, such as dishes for each table setting and the kinds of flower pieces, and thus did not present a complete picture of all the details as a whole. The latter, on the other hand, were final reports created upon completion of a banquet, and contained more comprehensive records not only of the $chanpum$ (the menu of dishes served), but also the sorts of tableware and tables, floral arrangements, location, scale, and installation date of the $sukseolso$ (temporary royal kitchens for banquets). They also offer a more effective summary by simplifying details duplicated in identical table settings. Nevertheless, the $Naeoejinyeon$-$deungnok$ recorded some facts that cannot be gleaned from the $Jinyeonuigwe$, including the height of some dishes presented in piled stacks, as well as the specific names of dishes and their ingredients. The comparative study of the historic records in the $deungnok$ and $uigwe$ will be helpful in identifying and understanding the specific foods served at royal banquets. The $oejinyeon$-$seolchando$ diagrams in $Naeoejinyeon$-$deungnok$ depict the table settings for the King and the Crown Prince. The two diagrams contain large rectangles divided into three sections. In each section are similar-sized circles in which the names of dishes and the titles for table settings are recorded. From these records we can see that the arrangements of the table settings for the King and the Crown Prince are similar. The relationships and protocols shown in the arrangement of dishes and table settings for the King and the Crown Prince at royal banquets in the $Seolchando$ appear to be consistent. By comparing the two references, $deungnok$ and $uigwe$, which recorded the dishes served at royal banquets, the author was able to determine the height of some foods served in stacked arrangements, the names of $chanpum$, the ingredients used, and the configuration of the $chanpum$. The comparative review of these two written records, $deungnok$ and $uigwe$, will be helpful for a proper understanding of the actual food served at royal banquets.

• Journal of Distribution Science
• /
• v.12 no.6
• /
• pp.15-20
• /
• 2014

Purpose - In general, researchers try to abide by the code of research ethics, but many of them are not fully aware of plagiarism, unintentionally committing the research misconduct when they write a research paper. This research aims to introduce researchers a clear and easy guideline at a conference, which helps researchers avoid accidental plagiarism by addressing the issue. This research is expected to contribute building a climate and encouraging creative research among scholars. Research design, data, methodology & Results - Plagiarism is considered a sort of research misconduct along with fabrication and falsification. It is defined as an improper usage of another author's ideas, language, process, or results without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism has nothing to do with examining the truth or accessing value of research data, process, or results. Plagiarism is determined based on whether a research corresponds to widely-used research ethics, containing proper citations. Within academia, plagiarism goes beyond the legal boundary, encompassing any kind of intentional wrongful appropriation of a research, which was created by another researchers. In summary, the definition of plagiarism is to steal other people's creative idea, research model, hypotheses, methods, definition, variables, images, tables and graphs, and use them without reasonable attribution to their true sources. There are various types of plagiarism. Some people assort plagiarism into idea plagiarism, text plagiarism, mosaic plagiarism, and idea distortion. Others view that plagiarism includes uncredited usage of another person's work without appropriate citations, self-plagiarism (using a part of a researcher's own previous research without proper citations), duplicate publication (publishing a researcher's own previous work with a different title), unethical citation (using quoted parts of another person's research without proper citations as if the parts are being cited by the current author). When an author wants to cite a part that was previously drawn from another source the author is supposed to reveal that the part is re-cited. If it is hard to state all the sources the author is allowed to mention the original source only. Today, various disciplines are developing their own measures to address these plagiarism issues, especially duplicate publications, by requiring researchers to clearly reveal true sources when they refer to any other research. Conclusions - Research misconducts including plagiarism have broad and unclear boundaries which allow ambiguous definitions and diverse interpretations. It seems difficult for researchers to have clear understandings of ways to avoid plagiarism and how to cite other's works properly. However, if guidelines are developed to detect and avoid plagiarism considering characteristics of each discipline (For example, social science and natural sciences might be able to have different standards on plagiarism.) and shared among researchers they will likely have a consensus and understanding regarding the issue. Particularly, since duplicate publications has frequently appeared more than plagiarism, academic institutions will need to provide pre-warning and screening in evaluation processes in order to reduce mistakes of researchers and to prevent duplicate publications. What is critical for researchers is to clearly reveal the true sources based on the common citation rules and to only borrow necessary amounts of others' research.