국내 정기간행물에 나타난 그림책 서평의 내용분석

공정자 한국문헌정보학회 2014 한국문헌정보학회지 Vol.48 No.2

In this study, the picture book reviews shown in Korean periodicals were analyzed to provide the developmental foundation for picture book reviews and expand the professional area of librarians as the producers of book review. Through the literature research and the Delphi Technique the desirable standard of book reviews was suggested, the contents in domestic book review mediums were analyzed for the rightness of describing based on the standard of the book review and henceforward the way of development was suggested. The result from analysis of book review showed that the outstanding book reviews should be more produced based on the desirable standard of book review and the evaluative statements should be developed more than the descriptive statements. Depending on the mediums the contents of the book review were different by the book reviewers’ occupations, so the book reviewers should develop their professional knowledges in literature and art. Because the longer book review made the outstanding book review with the rightness of the desirable standard of book review, the certain quantity of book review should be needed and the role of librarians as the book reviewers should be further extended. 본 연구는 그림책 서평의 발전적 토대를 마련하고 서평의 생산자로 사서의 전문영역을 확장하는데 기여하고자 국내 정기간행물에 나타난 그림책 서평을 내용 분석하였다. 문헌연구와 델파이 기법을 통하여 바람직한 그림책 서평의 기준을 제시하고, 국내 서평매체에서 그림책 서평기준에 맞는 서평을 기술하였는지에 대한 내용을 분석하고 향후 그림책 서평의 발전방안을 제시하였다. 그림책 서평의 분석 결과 그림책 서평의 바람직한 기준에 맞는 우수한 서평이 더 생산되어야 하며, 기술적 서술보다 평가적 서술의 내용이 많아져야 한다. 또한 매체별로 서평자의 직업에 따른 서평의 내용이 달라지므로 서평자의 문학과 미술에 관한 전문지식이 필요하다. 서평의 분량이 길수록 서평기준에 맞는 우수한 서평이 생산되므로 일정분량이상의 서평이 필요하며, 서평 작성자로서 사서의 역할이 더욱 확대되어야 할 것이다.

Why could we rely on the reviewer’s online review? : Review rating scheme, reviewer reputation scheme and navigation support

Un-Kon Lee,Kil-Soo Suh,Jai-Yeol Son 한국경영정보학회 2010 한국경영정보학회 학술대회논문집 Vol.2010 No.1

Online feedback mechanism, also known as reputation systems (Resnick et al. 2000), refers to the IT systems that enable the collection and dissemination of information about past transaction of traders (Dellarocas 2003, Resnick 2000, Pavlou & Dimoka 2006) As the word-of-mouth, they have referred to the online feedback to make their shopping decision, because they have trust in the online feedbacks and their reviewers. But in fact, some researchers have insisted that current online feedback mechanism was vulnerable to express the real value of shopping experience and this has resulted in distorting effect on customers’ purchase decision making (Dellarocas 2005, Resnick & Zeckhauser 2002, Duan & Whinston, 2005, Li & Hitt, 2008). For this remedy, current online feedback literature has mainly focused on the conceptual implication or structural assurance such as the seal of approval, and policy etc.. But, these are not enough to solve the above problem, because mechanism design modification and legal mechanism are usually more expensive to institute and people continue to seek to loophole (Bakos and Dellarocas 2002). In this research, we will propose another solution, the market driven mechanism consisted of review rating scheme, reviewer reputation scheme, and review navigation support by the peer customer community. By introducing the peer rating mechanism we could make feedback mechanism more cheap, sound and sustainable. Also, it could make them purchase decision via the more high qualified feedbacks, more credible reviewer and more effectively search and evaluate mechanism.

ALWAYS TRUST IN YOUR FRIENDS? CROSS-CULTURAL EFFECTS OF REVIEW SOURCE AND INCENTIVES ON TRUSTWORTHINESS AND PURCHASE INTENTION

Dionysius Ang 글로벌지식마케팅경영학회 2018 Global Marketing Conference Vol.2018 No.07

Introduction User-generated online reviews have become an essential part of consumer decisionmaking process (Mayzlin, Dover, & Chevalier, 2014) affecting product attitudes (Schlosser, 2005), purchase intentions (Ba & Pavlou, 2002), sales (Babi? Rosario, Sotgiu, De Vlack, & Bijmolt, 2016), as well as price and quantity of transactions (Berger, Sorensen, & Rasmussen, 2010). For instance, 58% of consumers prefer sites with peer reviews, and nearly all consumers (98%) reported reading peer review before making purchases online (eMarketer, 2010). Given the reach and influence of user-generated content (UGC), it is unsurprising that companies offer numerous incentives such as coupons, rebates, free samples, and monetary payments to encourage user-generated online reviews. In 2012, Tesco, a British multinational grocery and general merchandise retailer, ran a “Share & Earn” scheme where the retailer gave loyalty points to Facebook fans sharing products. Since such reviewers are more like friends than random strangers, how does the review source and incentives affect reviewer trustworthiness and purchase intentions? Would these effects differ across individualistic and collectivistic cultures? Our research examines the cross-cultural differences in the effects of review source and incentives on reviewer trustworthiness and purchase intentions between Americans and Taiwanese. Review Source and Trustworthiness Extant research has shown that reviews from friends are usually more persuasive than reviews from strangers (Huang, Zhang, Liu, & Liang, 2014). Dubois et al. (2016) revealed that high levels of interpersonal closeness increased the negativity of reviews shared, whereas low levels of interpersonal closeness increased the positivity of reviews shared. Correspondingly, individuals tend to perceive friendly review sources as being more trustworthy and honest (Ben-Ner & Halldorsson, 2010). The circulation for UGC online reviews on social media platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram could also make the review source appear like a friend. Since user-generated online reviews appear on the user’s own profile page as well as newsfeeds of each friend connected to that user (Chatterjee, 2011), individuals could easily perceive review sources as friendly and trustworthy. Given that online trust often increases purchase intention (Bart, Shankar, Urban, & Sultan, 2005), we posit that reviews from friends increase reviewer trustworthiness, which, in turn, increase purchase intentions. Incentives While online reviews from friends could be deemed as more trustworthy, incentives could muddy the waters. Sterling (2013) showed that over 40% of consumers in a survey reported some level of doubt in the credibility of UGC, fueled by reports of firms posting “fake” positive reviews, deleting negative reviews, or manipulating consumers into making positive statements that might not be a true representation of their options (Mayzlin et al., 2014). Given the level of distrust, the Federal Trade Commission sent out more than 90 letters reminding influencers and marketers that they required to clearly and conspicuously disclose their relationships with brands when promoting or endorsing products on social media (FTC, 2017). Relatedly, in 2012, the UK Advertising Standards Authority ruled that travel website TripAdvisor must cease claiming that it offers “honest, real, or trusted” reviews from “real travelers” since they are unable to assure consumers that all review content was genuine. Even when incentives are disclosed, incentivized reviews are often viewed with suspicion and are discounted as a means of correcting for presumed reviewer bias, even if the reviewer was not biased by the incentive (Du Plessis, Stephen, Bart, & Gonclaves, 2016). Taken together, we argue that incentivized reviews will decrease reviewer trustworthiness, and consequently, purchase intentions. Cultural Differences Existing work on the effects of review source and incentives have, at least implicitly, assumed that its effects hold globally and failed to consider individual or cultural moderating factors. In particular, individualistic and collectivistic cultures differ in their perceptions of trust violations: collectivists tend to become less trusting after experiencing a violation from in-group rather than out-group members; individualists’ trust levels are less affected by violations from in-group members (Fulmer, Gelfand, 2010; van Hoorn, 2015). In the context of our research, incentivized reviews could be regarded as trust violation, where reviewers no longer act altruistically to provide honest reviews. Thus, we posit that incentives could moderate the effects that reviews from friends have on perceived trustworthiness, and consequently, purchase intention in collective cultures (i.e. Taiwanese participants). In contrast, we expect to replicate the results of previous research where reviews from friends increases reviewer trustworthiness and purchase intentions; while incentivized reviews decreases reviewer trustworthiness and purchase intentions. Formally, we hypothesize that: Hypothesis 1a (H1a): Reviews from friends will be considered as more trustworthy than review from strangers amongst American participants. Hypothesis 1b (H1b): American participants will be more likely to purchase products reviewed by friends than strangers. Hypothesis 2a (H2a): Amongst American participants, reviewers providing incentivized reviews will be perceived as less trustworthy than reviewers providing non-incentivized reviews. Hypothesis 2b (H2b): American participants will be less likely to purchase products from incentivized reviews than non-incentivized reviews. Hypothesis 3a (H3a): Amongst Taiwanese participants, when reviews are not incentivized, reviews from friends will be considered more trustworthy than reviews from strangers. The effect will be attenuated when reviews are incentivized. Hypothesis 3b (H3b): Taiwanese participants will be more willing to purchase products reviewed by friends than strangers when the reviews are not incentivized. The effect will be attenuated when reviews are incentivized. Method Participants and Design Three hundred and sixteen participants (50% female, 18-85 years old) were recruited on Qualtrics for nominal payment. Half of the participants were American and completed the survey in English while the rest were Taiwanese and completed the survey in Mandarin. A 2 (review source: stranger vs. friend) x 2 (incentive: no incentive vs. incentivized review) x 2 (nationality: USA vs. Taiwan) mixed design was adopted with source and incentive manipulated within-subject and nationality manipulated between-subjects. Procedure All participants were instructed to assume that they were travelling to London, and was searching for a hotel to stay for a couple of days. They were then presented with four hotel reviews. Both source and incentive were manipulated within-subjects. Source of the reviews was either a friend or a stranger. Reviews were either not incentivized or incentivized where the reviewer was given discount on their stay for leaving a review. To prevent order effects, the reviews were presented in random order. All reviews were 4 out 5 stars reviews, were generally positive, and were dated at a similar time. Measures After every review, participants indicated purchase intention on two items (e.g. “After reading this review, I feel like booking this hotel.”; “If there is a chance, I will book this hotel.”) on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)(Kim, Park, & Lee, 2013). Participants also rated how much they trusted the reviewer on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) on three items (e.g. “I trust this reviewer to choose a hotel for me.”; “I have confidence in this reviewer.”; “I believe this reviewer is being honest.”) (Smith, Menon, & Sivakumar, 2005). Individualism/collectivism as well as uncertainty avoidance was assessed using a 3-item measure (e.g. “Individuals should stick with the group even through difficulties.”; “It’s important to closely follow instruction and procedures.”) (Yoo, Donthu, & Lenartowicz, 2011) with a 7-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) Results Outliers were removed using Stem and Leaf plots, leaving 295 participants, 148 Taiwanese participants and 149 American participants (50% female, 18 to 85 years old). Contrary to previous research (Hofstede Insights, 2018), American participants (M = 6.07, SD = 0.96) scored significantly higher on the uncertainty avoidance scale than their Taiwanese counterparts (M = 5.56, SD = 1.01). In addition, American participants (M = 5.00, SD = 1.35) did not score significantly higher on the individualism/collectivism scale than their Taiwanese counterparts (M = 5.08, SD = 1.23). As predicted in Hypothesis 1a, a 2 (review source: stranger vs. friend) x 2 (incentive: no incentive vs. incentivized review) on reviewer trustworthiness revealed a significant main effect of review source, F(1, 146) = 25.34, p =.00, where friends (M = 5.34, SD = 1.19) were significantly more trustworthy than strangers (M = 4.97, SD =1.24) amongst USA participants. In line with H2a, there was also a significant main effect of incentive, where non-incentivized reviews (M = 5.24, SD = 1.21) were considered more trustworthy than incentivized reviews (M = 5.07, SD = 1.22), F(1,146)=6.43, p =.01. There was no significant interaction effect, F <1. Amongst the Taiwanese participants, a 2 (review source: stranger vs. friend) x 2 (incentive: no incentive vs. incentivized review) on reviewer trustworthiness revealed a significant main effect of review source, F(1, 147) = 13.02, p =.00, and incentive, F(1,147)=6.43, p =.01, qualified by the predicted interaction, F(1,147)=3.77, p =.05. Consistent with our predictions (H3a), when reviews were not incentivized, friends (M = 5.41, SD = 1.08) were significantly more trustworthy than strangers (M = 5.15, SD = 1.10), F(1,147)=15.63, p=.00. However, when reviewers were incentivized, friends (M = 5.20, SD = 1.05) were just as trustworthy as strangers (M = 5.09, SD = 1.15, F(1,147) = 1.85, p =.18. As predicted (H1b), amongst USA participants, a 2 (review source: stranger vs. friend) x 2 (incentive: no incentive vs. incentivized review) on purchase intention revealed a significant main effect of review source, F(1, 146) = 4.46, p =.04, where reviews from friends (M = 5.40, SD = 1.20) elicited higher purchase intentions than reviews from strangers (M = 5.27, SD =1.20). Contrary to Hypothesis 2b, there was no main effect of incentive, F(1,146) = 1.34, p =.25, nor interaction, F<1. Amongst Taiwanese participants, a 2 (review source: stranger vs. friend) x 2 (incentive: no incentive vs. incentivized review) on purchase intention revealed a significant main effect of incentive where non-incentivized reviews (M = 5.49, SD = 0.94) elicited greater purchase intentions than incentivized reviews (M = 5.39, SD = 0.98), F(1,147) =3.74, p=.06. There was no main effect of source, F(1,147)= 2.31, p = .13 nor an interaction effect, F(1,147) = 1.81, p =.18. In line with our hypothesis (H3b), planned contrasts revealed that when reviews are not incentivized, friends (M = 5.55, SD = 0.96) elicited significantly higher purchase intention than strangers (M = 5.42, SD = 0.95), F(1,147) = 5.73, p =.01. In contrast, when reviews were incentivized, friends (M = 5.40, SD = 0.94) elicited as much purchase intention as strangers (M = 5.38, SD = 1.02), F<1. Discussion Given the ever-important role of user-generated online reviews in consumer decisionmaking, it is necessary to understand how review sources and incentives affects perceptions of trust and purchase intentions, especially across cultures. Our study demonstrates how review sources and incentives affect reviewer trustworthiness and purchase intentions differently across individualistic versus collectivistic cultures. Specifically, review source and incentives affect reviewer trustworthiness independently in Americans. Friends are considered more trustworthy than strangers, and non-incentivized reviews are considered more trustworthy than incentivized reviews. In contrast, the effect of review source on reviewer trustworthiness is moderated by incentive in Taiwanese participants. In particular, friends are considered more trustworthy than stranger only when reviews are not incentivized. When reviews are incentivized, trust seems to be violated, and friends are regarded as just as trustworthy as random strangers. Our contributions to the UGC literature are twofold. To date, research on UGC have largely ignored the role of culture and nationality (as well as individual differences, more broadly) can play. This potentially concerning since the proliferation of UGC are not limited to a Western sample. Our work highlights how culture can complicate findings in the UGC literature, and suggests a need to better consider the role culture plays. In addition, our research specifies the specific mechanism through which culture might influence the effect of review source and incentives affect purchase intention, trustworthiness. Additional studies will be conducted to examine how and why incentives are deemed as trust violations and reduce purchase intentions when accepted by friendly reviewers in collectivist cultures. Moreover, we will attempt to detangle trust in the reviewer versus review.

Interpretation and Application of Sunset Reviews under the WTO

Lee, Eun Sup;Zhu, Zhu 법무부 2009 통상법률 Vol.- No.86

There have been growing debates surrounding the application of incomplete sunset review provisions since they were introduced into the WTO mechanism in 1995, under which implementation of sunset reviews could be counted on a dispute settlement body to be clearly interpreted and applied constantly with the drafting intentions of the provisions. Considering the fact that the insufficient and ambiguous provisions of the sunset reviews have historically been applied by the WTO member countries, this paper reviews the dispute settlement body's interpretation and application of sunset review provisions to make assessment of current WTO sunset review mechanism and to look for better and more reasonable interpretations sticking to the sprit and purpose of sunset reviews. In relation with the judicial interpretation and application of sunset review provisions, the decisions of the Appellate Body have primarily been based on the analysis of procedural aspects to arrive at its conclusion, and have not been faithful to the analysis of the substantive aspects under discussion, which are incomplete to establish the definite principles regarding the interpretation and application of the sunset reviews. Moreover, unduly making much of the distinctiveness of sunset reviews, and, therefore, granting too much deference to authorities, the dispute settlement body has accordingly distracted its attention away from the legislating purpose of sunset reviews to weaken the significance of sunset review provisions, and to make it lose the main tools to improve the sunset reviews. For the sunset reviews to be conducted effectively and promote justifiable utilization of antidumping measures, the dispute settlement body is required to establish a set of expressly unified standards as far as possible to regulate the application of sunset review provisions so that the final determination in sunset reviews could be objectively deduced from the proper investigation based on factual evidence. WTO 체제하에 일몰조항이 도입된 이래, 일몰조항의 적용과 관련한 논쟁이 계속해서 야기되고 있다. 본 논문의 목적은 WTO 회원국들이 지금까지 모호하고 불충분한 일몰재심 조항을 적용해왔다는 점을 고려하여, 일몰재심 조항에 관한 WTO 분쟁해결기구의 적용과 해석을 분석해봄으로써WTO의 일몰재심제도를 평가하고 일몰재심제도의 입법 목적을 구현한 일몰재심에 관한 합리적인 해석방안을 모색하는데 있다. 일몰재심 조항을 해석하고 적용하는데 있어 항소기구는 패널이 해석·적용한 절차적인 이슈만을 분석하여 판결한 결과 일몰재심 규정의 실체적인 이슈에 관해서는 명확한 해석기준을 제시하지 못하였다. 또한 일몰재심의 특수성을 지나치게 강조함으로써 회원국의 관련 당국에 대하여 과도한 재량권을 부여하게 되고 일몰재심조항의 입법목적을 경시하는 결과를 초래하였다. WTO 분쟁해결기구는 회원국들이 일몰재심 판정을 하는데 있어 사실적 증거와 객관적인 조사를 근거로 하도록 판례법을 확립하여야 할 것이고, WTO의 회원국들은 일몰재심을 효과적으로 이행하고 합법적인 반덤핑 조치를 장려하기 위한 더욱 명확한 통일화된 규칙을 수립하는데 보다 적극적이어야 할 것이다.

Constitutional Review and Its Procedures

Lim Ji-bong(임지봉) 숭실대학교 법학연구소 2010 法學論叢 Vol.23 No.-

대한민국헌법은 일제로부터의 해방 이후인 1948년에 제정 · 공포된 이후로 60년이 넘는 역사를 가지고 있다. 특히, 1988년의 헌법재판소 건립은 현실에서의 헌법의 실효적 적응성을 높여놓았다. 대한민국헌법은 지금까지 9차례 개정되었다. 그러한 경험들을 통해 대한민국헌법은 관련 법령과 더불어 헌법개정의 제안, 확정, 공포와 관련해 많은 기술적이고 절차적인 규정들을 가지게 되었다. 대한민국은 그러한 경험들을 통해 헌법개정의 절차를 안정화시키는 토대를 형성해왔다. 전언에 의하면, 베트남에서 1992년에 개정된 헌법이 현실을 규율하는데 비효율적이 되자 개헌을 고려하고 있다고 한다. 본 연구의 목적은 헌법개정의 일반적 쟁점들뿐만 아니라 헌법개정의 절차들을 제시하고 분석함으로써 베트남에서의 개헌이 별 혼란없이 원활하게 잘 이루어질 수 있게 하기 위한 몇 가지 시사점을 주려는데 있다. 이러한 목적을 달성하기 위해, 본 논문은 헌법개정을 정의내리는 것에서부터 시작한다. 또한 언제가 헌법개정의 적기인가에 대해서도 탐구한다. 헌법개정의 유형이나 한계에 대해서도 헌법개정의 일반적 쟁점으로 다룬다. 그리고 나서, 한국에 있어서의 헌법개정의 절차들을 분석할 것이다. 결론에서는 베트남에서의 원활한 개헌을 위해 한국의 경험들에서 도출해낼 수 있는 시사점들을 제시한다. Korean Constitution has more than 60 years of history after it was ordained and established in 1948 after the emancipation of Japanese intrusion. In particular, the establishment of Korean Constitutional Court in 1988 has upgraded the Korean Constitution that has effectiveness in a real world. The Korean Constitution experienced 9 times of revision. During the experience, Korean Constitution as well as statutes and administrative regulations has equipped with many technical and procedural provisions in details on the proposal, finalization and promulgation of the Constitutional review. Korea have laid the cornerstones to stabilize the process of Constitutional review through the experiences. As far as I know, the Vietnam is considering a Constitutional review as the Constitution in 1992 has become ineffective in regulating real world. The aim of this study is to present and analyze the procedures of Constitutional review as well as other general issues of Constitutional review and give some tips for smooth Constitutional review in Vietnam without any chaos. To achieve the aim, this paper will start with defining the Constitutional review. It will also explore when is the right time of the Constitutional review. The types and limits of the Constitutional review would be examined as the general issues of the Constitutional review. After that, this paper will analyze the procedures of the Constitutional review in Korea. Conclusively, it will highlight some implications of the Korean experience for the desirable Constitutional review in Vietnam.

위헌법률심판에서 입법과정의 합리성 심사

강일신 한국헌법학회 2019 憲法學硏究 Vol.25 No.3

In an adjudication on constitutionality of statutes, the Constitutional Court examines whether the content of questioned law violates the Constitution. The Constitutional Court determines the constitutionality by examining reasonableness or proportionality of the law. In the adjudication on constitutionality of law, the Constitutional Court judges the legitimacy of the law through substantive judicial review standard, such as the principle of proportionality, and has little interest in the legislative process through which the legislator enacted the law. Nevertheless, even when the Constitutional Court applies substantive review criteria, it may be difficult to determine the legitimacy of the law. In modern societies characterized by pluralism and uncertainty, legislator is often forced to make value judgments on socially controversial issues or to determine future situations that are difficult to predict. In this case, the Constitutional Court focuses on not only the content of the law itself but also the rationality of legislative process. The Constitutional Court has no choice but to judge the constitutionality of the law, taking into account whether the legislator has considered all aspects at issue, whether the legislator has opened the issue to public debate, and whether the legislator enacted the law with reliable evidence. While substantive legitimacy review of the law accounts for most of the decisions of the Constitutional Court and the elaboration of substantive judicial review standards has attracted the attention of the constitutional jurisprudence, the significance of the Constitutional Court’s control over the rationality of the legislative process has not been addressed sufficiently. Therefore, this article examines the rationality of the legislative process, focusing on the justification of the legislative process review, its contents, and its relationship with the substantive judicial review. This article first identifies the types of procedural reviews that may be a problem in the constitutional adjudication and considers the controversy surrounding the constitutional court’s control of the internal process of legislation (II). The article examines what the review of legislative process refers to and in which areas it can be particularly used, using comparative constitutional precedents (III). Next, the relationship between the review of the legislative process and the review of substantive content is examined, and the intensity of review on the legislative process is examined. (IV) Finally, the article concludes with an implication of legislative process review to the practice of Constitutional Court. (Ⅴ) 위헌법률심판에서 헌법재판소는 다투어지는 법률 내용이 헌법에 위반되는지 여부를 심사한다. 헌법재판소는 합리성 내지 비례성 심사를 통해 법률 내용의 헌법합치성을 판단한다. 위헌법률심판에서 헌법재판소는 과잉금지원칙 같은 실체적 사법심사기준을 매개로 문제되는 법률의 내용적 정당성을 판단하고 입법자가 그 법률에 이르게 된 입법과정에는 별반 관심이 없다. 그럼에도 불구하고, 헌법재판소가 실체적 심사기준을 적용하더라도 법률의 내용적 정당성을 판단하기 곤란한 경우가 있다. 다원성과 불확실성을 특징으로 하는 현대사회에서 입법자는 사회적으로 논란 있는 사안에 대하여 가치판단을 수행하거나 예측이 쉽지 않은 장래 상황을 규율해야 하는 처지에 놓인다. 이러한 경우, 헌법재판소는 일정 정도는 입법의 내용 그 자체의 정당성이 아닌 입법과정의 합리성에 주목하지 않을 수 없다. 헌법재판소는 입법과정에서 입법자가 문제되는 쟁점을 빠짐없이 고려하였는지, 이를 공적 토론에 충분히 개방하였는지, 그리고 입법자가 신뢰할 수 있는 정보에 근거하여 결정하였는지를 고려하여 법률의 헌법합치성을 판단하게 된다. 입법에 대한 실체적 정당성 판단이 헌법재판소 결정의 대부분을 차지하고 실체적 사법심사기준의 정교화가 헌법학의 주된 관심을 끌어온 반면, 입법과정의 합리성에 대한 헌법재판소의 통제가 갖는 의미는 우리 학계에서 비중 있게 다루어지지 않았던 쟁점이다. 이에, 본고에서는 위헌법률심판에서 입법과정의 합리성에 대한 심사의 허용가능성과 그 내용, 그리고 그것이 실체적 사법심사와 맺는 관계를 중심으로 입법과정의 합리성 심사를 검토한다. 본고는 우선 헌법재판에서 문제될 수 있는 절차적 심사의 유형을 구분하고, 이른바 입법의 내적 과정으로서 광의의 입법과정에 대한 헌법재판소의 통제를 둘러싼 정당성 논란을 고찰한 후(Ⅱ), 입법과정심사는 무엇을 지칭하는지, 그것이 특히 활용될 수 있는 영역은 어디인지를 비교헌법적 사례를 소재로 하여 검토한다(Ⅲ). 다음으로, 입법과정 심사와 실체적 내용 심사 간 관계를 고찰하고, 입법과정에 대한 심사강도 문제를 검토한다. (Ⅳ) 마지막으로, 입법과정심사의 우리 헌법실무에 대한 시사점을 언급하는 것으로 글을 마무리한다. (Ⅴ)

해부실습에서 동료평가에 대한 의과대학생들의 인식과 필요성

조정준,강성우,이승준,정수정,이재호 대한체질인류학회 2019 해부·생물인류학 (Anat Biol Anthropol) Vol.32 No.3

Peer review in dissection is a good evaluation method that allows students not only to recognize professional behavior of peers, but also to look back on themselves. The purpose of this study is to analyze the recognition and feelings of students about peer review in dissection and to use peer review more effectively. In this study, it was to examine the reflection on grades of peer review, the improvement on attitude of dissection by peer review, and the reliability of peer review, also, additionally necessary subjects, the method of peer review, the emotions of students during the peer review. As a result of the questionnaire survey, the necessity about reflection of peer review (48, 67.6%), the improvement on attitude of dissection (41, 57.7%) and the reliability of peer review (30, 44.1%) were positive. Moreover, many students asked additionally necessary subjects not to be required except for anatomy (42, 67.7%). In the questionnaire on the method of peer review, to select students who have been good and bad in the practice is best (34 students, 57.6%). In the questionnaire for emotions of students during the peer review, “bad” was the most common (25, 39.7%), and the average value was about 2.7 in the 5 scale. There is a limitation to utilize peer review as an evaluation method of anatomy education. Therefore, much more effort is needed to improve the utilization of peer review and the professor should support the emotions of students during the peer review. 해부실습에서 동료평가는 학생들이 자신과 동료들의 행동을 되돌아보게 하는 좋은 평가 방법이다. 본 연구의 목적은 해부실습에서 동료평가에 대한 학생들의 인식과 감정을 분석함으로써 향후 동료평가를 보다 효 과적으로 사용하고자 한다. 본 연구에서는 2018학년도 K대학교 의과대학에 재학 중인 본과 1학년 학생 72명 을 대상으로 동료평가의 성적 반영, 실습 태도의 개선 효과, 평가 신뢰도와 동료평가 시행이 추가적으로 필요 한 과목, 동료평가 방법, 동료평가 시 학생들의 감정에 대한 총 6개 문항을 설문하였다. 설문 조사 결과, 동료평 가의 성적 반영의 필요성 (48명, 67.6%), 실습 태도의 개선 효과 (41명, 57.7%)와 평가의 신뢰도 (30명, 44.1%) 는 긍정적인 반응을 보였다. 그리고 해부학 외 동료평가가 필요한 과목은 없다 (42명, 67.7%)는 의견이 많았다. 평가방법에 대한 설문에서는 해부실습에 성실히 참여한 학생과 성실히 참여하지 않은 학생 모두를 평가하자 는 의견이 가장 많았다 (34명, 57.6%). 그리고 평가 시 감정에 대한 설문에서는 나쁨 (25명, 39.7%)이 가장 많았 으며, 평균값은 5점 척도에서 약 2.7로써 나쁨과 보통 사이였다. 아직 해부학 교육의 평가 방법으로 동료평가를 활용하는 데에는 많은 한계가 있기 때문에 동료평가의 활용도를 높이기 위해서는 평가 시 학생들의 감정을 잘 조절할 수 있도록 많은 노력이 필요하다.

Detecting Fake Reviews: Exploring the Linguistic Characteristics by Computerized Text Analysis

Moon-Yong Kim The Institute of Internet 2024 International Journal of Internet, Broadcasting an Vol.16 No.3

Online consumer reviews have become the most important basis for online shopping and product sales. Fake reviews are generated to boost sales because online consumer reviews play a vital role in consumers' decision making. The prevalence of fake reviews violates the regulations of the online business environment and misleads consumers in decision making. Thus, the present research investigates the effects of reviews' linguistic characteristics (i.e., analytical thinking, authenticity) on review fakeness. Specifically, this research examines whether (1) the level of analytical thinking is lower for fake (vs. genuine) reviews (hypothesis 1) and (2) the level of authenticity is lower for fake (vs. genuine) reviews (hypothesis 2). This research analyzed user-generated hotel reviews (genuine reviews, fake reviews) collected from MTurk. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) 2022 was adopted to code review contents, and the hypotheses were tested using logistic regression. Consistent with the hypotheses 1 and 2, the results indicate that (1) analyticial thinking is negatively associated with review fakeness; and (2) authenticity is negatively associated with review fakeness. The findings provide important implications to identify fake reviews based on linguistic characteristics.

기관생명윤리위원회 신속심의에 대한 법정책적 기준 마련에 관한 제언

김은애(Eunae Kim) 이화여자대학교 생명의료법연구소 2016 Asia Pacific Journal of Health Law & Ethics Vol.10 No.1

For the research review to protect the research participants, the Institutional Review Board (“IRB”) has been using two procedures: one is the review procedure by full institutional review board (“full board review procedure”) as the principled research review procedure, the other is the expedited review procedure as the exceptional research review procedure. Both procedures are recognized internationally, and they have been introduced by significant numbers of Korean IRBs. But, despite the legal requirement of the research review under the Bioethics and Safety Act, there is almost nothing about the legal standards and policy related to the expedited review unlike the full board review. Operating the expedited review procedure can greatly contribute to improved IRB task efficiency because it is possible to relatively reduce the burden on the operation of the full board review procedure relatively and make it possible to make appropriate review on the research that needs the full board review because of its risk, participation of vulnerable persons, sensitiveness of collected information and so on. Besides, the review result can be derived quickly by the expedited review procedure. Therefore, to recognize the expedited review officially, to assess the appropriateness of the actual operation, to prevent abuse and misuse of the expedited review procedure, and to make the expedited review procedure used properly, the legal standards and policy about the expedited review should be established. So in this article, I propose some considerations for establishing the legal standards and policy about the expedited review such as the level and types of research risk, vulnerability of the research participant and so on.

Information Quality of Online Reviews in the Presence of Potentially Fake Reviews

송원호,박상곤,류두진 한국경제학회 2017 The Korean Economic Review Vol.33 No.1

Online reviews are important in the evaluation of product quality. This paper seeks to assess information quality of online reviews using the TripAdvisor data for Korean hotels. We first estimate the review model developed by Dai, Jin, Lee, and Luca (2012) and show that high-quality reviews contain most of the information for the quality of hotels. Second, we assess the degree of distortions caused by fake reviews through numerical experiments and show that the distortions of fake reviews are serious. Third, we compare the simple average and weighted average aggregation methods. Weighted average method is better than simple average in finding the quality of hotels but it is more vulnerable to fake reviews. Fourth, we suggest excluding low-quality reviews to deal with fake reviews and show that the benefit of avoiding serious distortions from potentially fake reviews is greater than the cost of losing information from low-quality reviews.