Handling allegations of research misconduct procedure

Procedure

Intent

To set out what constitutes research misconduct and the process for handling allegations of research misconduct

Scope

University wide

Exclusions

Nil

Procedure steps and actions

What constitutes research misconduct?

Breaches of the Code of Conduct for Research can take the following forms.

• failure to implement the Code – students or staff fail to take responsibility for adhering to the standards, provisions and/or procedures set out
• actions or omissions, but without inherent intent, deliberation or recklessness, or without serious consequences
• more serious or deliberate deviations, involving serious consequences such as false information or adverse effects on people

The first two forms do not constitute research misconduct. They may arise from ignorance, inexperience, poor judgment, or honest error in the design or execution of the research, or in the interpretation of research results, and should be handled by counselling or advice from supervisors and/or senior management, or by specific direction of supervisors and/or senior management.

Only the third form may be regarded as research misconduct.

To be considered a complaint or allegation of research misconduct, it must involve all of the following:

• an alleged breach of the Code
• intent and deliberation, recklessness or gross and persistent negligence
• serious consequences, such as false information on the public record, or adverse effects on research participants, animals or the environment

It includes, but is not limited to: fabrication of results, falsification or misrepresentation of results, failure to declare or manage a serious conflict of interest, and misleading attribution of authorship. It also includes the wilful concealment or facilitation of research misconduct by others.

Handling allegations

Complaints or allegations of breaches of the Code of Conduct should be raised with supervisors or Heads of School. However, if this is not appropriate, the query or allegation should be addressed to the school Research Director, the college Deputy/Associate PVC Research or one of the university’s Research Integrity Advisers. They should conduct an internal inquiry, which may be informal. If the matter is not resolved, or it appears to meet all the criteria for research misconduct, a written allegation should be lodged with the Designated Person (DP).

The DP makes enquiries, and secures the relevant evidence including experimental material, IT records, other documents, and names of witnesses, as necessary. The DP considers whether there is sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations, and if not, conducts enquiries (either him/herself or through an investigating officer) by:

• compiling documents and materials,
• securing electronic records, emails, research results,
• collecting witnesses’ statements, and
• where relevant, gathering material about the proper research practice in that discipline

The DP should consider the circumstances of staff in the workplace where the complaint has been made, including whistleblower protection, arrangements to defuse workplace tensions, protect non-involved researchers, and generally ensure people are treated fairly.

Once the DP determines that sufficient information has been compiled, or that all reasonable efforts to gather information have been exhausted, and has considered all the information available, he or she recommends to the delegated officer that:

• the complaints or allegations be dismissed
• the complaints or allegations be referred to another relevant process or
• the university bring a charge of research misconduct against the researcher/s, the charge being framed in the context of the university workplace agreement

Charge of research misconduct

If at this point research misconduct is admitted, or the delegated officer decides on the basis of the material provided not to proceed further, the matter goes no further. The delegated officer advises all relevant parties in writing, and in the case of an admission of misconduct, determines appropriate disciplinary action for the researcher/s involved.

If charges are to be brought, the delegated officer must inform the researchers who are the subject of the allegations of the nature of the allegations, the identity of the persons making the allegations, and the steps the university will be taking – except where the he/she deems it inappropriate to do so because of the circumstances of the case, or where precluded by law.

The delegated officer should advise other relevant parties such as journal editors and collaborating institutions.

The delegated officer establishes the inquiry panel or other processes as appropriate under the university workplace agreement, ensuring that any panel includes those with sufficient expertise and understanding of the research environment. The panel should have the power to gather evidence in addition to that provided by the DP. The panel will to determine the allegations and decide if misconduct has occurred and refer its findings to the relevant delegate for the imposition of a penalty. All enquiry deliberations and findings are private. No further hearing will be conducted into the matters that gave rise to the findings, unless the decision is appealed.

All investigations should be conducted as expeditiously as possible, consistent with ensuring that the facts of the case are uncovered and that the rights of the person(s) who is the subject of the allegations are respected. Accordingly senior management may direct that witnesses and/or the evidence be made available promptly.

The delegated officer will impose penalties in accordance with university policies and agreements, on the basis of the findings and the employees’ record of performance and conduct.

Findings of research misconduct and the action taken by the university should be communicated to the relevant funding agencies, journals, collaborating institutions, researchers and other parties as relevant.

In some circumstances it may be necessary to report non-adverse findings to ensure the reputation of the researchers is restored.

Handling allegations of research misconduct – responsibilities

Adapted from the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2007)

Responsibilities
The University	Cultivates responsible research environment Handles complaints promptly, treating all affected parties fairly Establishes written policy on complaints, covering: Breaches of code (consequences not serious, not a wilful act); Research misconduct, warranting disciplinary action if proven)
Delegated officer (currently this is the PVC R&I)	Receives advice from Designated Person Decides as to action: dismiss claim, refer to another process, proceed under misconduct provisions of workplace agreement Disseminates findings Determines disciplinary action in accordance with workplace agreement
Designated Person	Appointed by delegated officer Receives written allegations Keeps register of complaints Conducts preliminary inquiry to determine if there is a prima facie case If no prima facie case, advises all parties: no further action If prima facie case established, frames charge Provides findings to delegated officer
Research Integrity Advisers	Advise on responsible conduct of research and adherence to the RMIT Code of Conduct for Research Advise those making, or considering making, allegations of breaches of the Code
Heads of School	Undertake school level investigation in a timely manner Cultivate responsible research environment Assure compliance with Code
Research supervisors	Cultivate responsible research environment Mentor researchers Assure familiarity with Code Ensure high standards of research integrity
Researchers	Familiarity with RMIT Code of Conduct for Research Maintain high standards of research integrity

[Next: Supporting documents and information ]