Research misconduct inquiries that South Korea’s rules expect to finish within months are taking years, according to data from the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) reported by Retraction Watch on 10 November 2026. Of the 83 misconduct cases the NRF has overseen since 2021, 49, including some that are still open, did not reach a decision within the six-month deadline set by the Ministry of Education.
What the data show
The NRF supplied the figures in October 2026 to the office of Kim Sunmin, a National Assembly member on the Science, Technology, Information, Broadcasting and Communications Committee. Korean media, including Newsclaim (19 October 2026) and ZDNet Korea, published them. According to the reports:
- 30 of the 83 cases were handled within six months; 49 took longer, and 22 of those were open for more than a year.
- For more than half of the cases (47, or 56%, per Newsclaim), the NRF could not confirm when the preliminary inquiry began or ended.
- The longest completed investigation ran 911 days, about two and a half years, from the start of the preliminary inquiry to a decision. It concluded that a project to develop a breast cancer symptom app using traditional Korean medicine involved no misconduct.
- Retraction Watch reports that one ongoing improper-authorship case has been in preliminary review for more than 1,000 days, although that stage is supposed to take 30 days, and that another improper-authorship and obstruction case filed in May 2024 has been pending for 854 days.
Responses
The NRF told Korean media that inquiries take time because institutions consult outside experts and give researchers a chance to respond. Kim Sunmin said that investigating rigorously and taking years to reach a conclusion are entirely different problems, and that failing to manage even the start and completion dates is a serious problem for a specialized agency. She called for shorter investigation periods and asked the NRF to review the delayed cases and the reasons they stalled. Retraction Watch reports that neither the NRF nor Kim responded to its requests for comment.
Why it matters for research integrity offices
The reported figures concern timelines and record-keeping rather than outcomes: the share of cases past a stated deadline, and the share where start and end dates could not be confirmed. For universities and research offices, the reported gaps point to two practical questions that the sources frame as open: whether stage-level deadlines (for example the 30-day preliminary inquiry) are tracked, and whether case dates are recorded consistently enough to show where an investigation stalled. The sources do not say what capacity or resourcing explains the delays.
Background
Retraction Watch notes that improper authorship has been a persistent problem in South Korea, including a 2019 retraction of a paper listing a government official’s daughter who made no intellectual contribution. CASRAI has also covered a related NRF investigation, the Changwon National University president case, and the broader debate over NRF research assessment.
