Home >>

Research & Development Management

Code Of Conduct For Research

Approved by Academic Council, 3rd March 1999

1.     Preamble
2.     Ethical Considerations
3.     Data Storage and Retention
4.     Authorship
5.     Publication
6.     Research Supervisors
7.     Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
8.     Definition
9.     Receipt of Complaints
10.     The Preliminary Investigation
11.     The Formal Investigation
12.     Protection of Interested Parties
13.     Advisers on Integrity in Research

1. Preamble

1.1 The broad principles that guide research have been long established. Central to these are the
maintenance of high ethical standards, and validity and accuracy in the collection and reporting of data.  The responsibility of the research community to the public and to itself is acknowledged. This  responsibility is particularly important where professional practice or public policy may be defined or  modified in the light of research findings.

1.2 The processes of research protect the truth. Communication between collaborators, maintenance and reference to research records, presentation and discussion of work at meetings of experts, publication of results, including the important element of peer review, and the possibility that investigations will be repeated or extended by other researchers all contribute to the intrinsically self-correcting and ethical nature of research.

1.3 Competition in research can have a strong and positive influence, enhancing the quality and
immediacy of the work produced. However, competitive pressures can act to distort sound research practice, if they encourage too-hasty preparation and submission of papers, the division of reports on substantial bodies of work into multiple small reports to enhance the ‘publication count’ of the author(s), or an undue emphasis on safe but mundane research at the expense of more creative and more innovative lines of study. Accordingly, the University gives due emphasis to quality and originality of research, as well as to quantity of research output, and has established this Code of Conduct which is to be seen as a framework for sound research procedures and for the protection of individual researchers from possible misunderstandings. The Executive Dean is responsible for monitoring the observance of the Code in each Division, in association with the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research).

1.4 The Code is set out in Part 1 of this document. Part 2 outlines the procedures which should be used to deal with any allegations of misconduct in research against a staff member or research student.

2. Ethical Considerations

2.1 It is a basic assumption of institutions conducting research that their researchers are committed to high standards of professional conduct. Researchers have a duty to ensure that their work enhances the good name of their institution and the profession to which they belong.

2.2 Researchers have an obligation to achieve and maintain the highest standards of intellectual honesty in the conduct of their research.

2.3 Researchers must be aware of and adhere to ethical principles of justice and veracity, and of respect for people and their privacy and avoidance of harm to them, as well as respect for non-human subjects of research. Research must comply with established guidelines such as the NHMRC Statement on Human Experimentation and Supplementary Notes and the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes.

2.4 Where research procedures are of a kind requiring approval by the University’s
Human Research Ethics Committee or Animal Ethics Committee, or by any other validly
constituted regulatory body such as a safety committee, research must not proceed
without such approval. In these cases, the Office of Research Management will not release
funds until the necessary approval has been obtained.

2.5 Researchers should only participate in work which conforms to accepted ethical standards and which they are competent to perform. When in doubt they should seek assistance with their research from their colleagues or peers. Debate on, and criticism of, research work are essential parts of the research process.

2.6 The University and its researchers have a responsibility to ensure the safety of all those associated with the research. It is also essential that the design of projects takes account of any relevant ethical guidelines.

2.7 If data of a confidential nature are obtained, for example from individual patient records or from certain questionnaires, confidentiality must be observed and researchers must not use such information for their own personal advantage or that of a third party.   Secrecy may also be necessary for a limited period in the case of contracted research or of non-contractual research which is under consideration for patent protection. In general, however, research results and methods should be open to scrutiny by colleagues within the institution and, through appropriate publication, by the profession at large.

3. Data Storage and Retention

3.1 Data (including electronic data) must be recorded in a durable and appropriately referenced form. The University will establish procedures for the retention of data and for the keeping of records of data held in departments or research units, and will promulgate information about these procedures.

3.2 Data must be held for sufficient time to allow reference. For data that are published this may be for as long as interest and discussion persists following publication. It is in the interests of all researchers to ensure that original data are safely held for periods of at least five years.

3.3 Whenever possible, original data must be retained in the department or research unit in which they were generated. Individual researchers should be able to hold copies of the data for their own use. However, retention solely by the individual researcher provides little protection to the researcher or the institution in the event of an allegation of falsification of data.

3.4 Data related to publications must be available for discussion with other researchers.   Where confidentiality provisions apply (for example, where the researchers or institution have given undertakings to third parties, such as the subjects of the research), it is desirable for data to be kept in a way that reference to them by third parties can occur without breaching such confidentiality.

3.5 Confidentiality agreements to protect intellectual property rights may be agreed between the institution, the researcher and a sponsor of the research. Where such agreements limit free publication and discussion, limitations and restrictions must be explicitly agreed.

3.6 It is the obligation of the researcher to inquire whether confidentiality agreements apply and of the Head of the Department or research unit to inform researchers of their obligations with respect to these provisions. All confidentiality agreements should be made known at an early stage to the Research Office.

3.7 When the data are obtained from limited access databases, or via a contractual arrangement, written indication of the location of the original data, or key information regarding the database from which it was collected, must be retained by the researcher or research unit.

3.8 Researchers must be responsible for ensuring appropriate security for any confidential material, including that held in computing systems. Where computing systems are accessible through networks, particular attention to security of confidential data is required. Security and confidentiality must be assured in a way that copes with multiple researchers and the departure of individual researchers.

4. Authorship

4.1 Authorship is substantial participation, where all the following conditions are met: (1) conception and design, or analysis and interpretation of data; (2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and (3) final approval of the version to be published. Participation solely in the acquisition of funding or the collection of data does not justify authorship. General supervision of the research group is not sufficient for authorship. Any part of an article critical to its main conclusion must be the responsibility of at least one author. An author’s role in a research output must be sufficient for that person to take public responsibility for at least that part of the output in the person’s area of expertise.  No person who is an author, consistent with this definition, must be excluded as an author without their permission in writing.

4.2 Authorship of a research output should be discussed between researchers at an early stage in a research project, and reviewed whenever there are changes in participation. Any dispute about authorship will be referred to the Executive Dean in the first instance. The Dean may refer the matter to the Pro Vice Chancellor (Research) if necessary. The Pro Vice Chancellor (Research) will consult as she/he thinks fit before reaching a decision.

4.3 When there is more than one co-author of a research output, one co-author (by agreement amongst the authors) should be nominated as executive author for the whole research output, and should take responsibility for record keeping regarding the research output.

4.4 "Honorary authorship" is unacceptable. "Honorary authorship" is sometimes claimed to occur when a person is listed as an author of a publication although they have not participated in any substantial way in the conception, execution or interpretation of at least part of the work described in the publication. On the other hand, due recognition of all participants is a part of proper research process. Authors should ensure that the work of research students (including honours students and any undergraduates involved), research assistants and technical officers is properly acknowledged.

4.5 Where the research is published, including electronically, all co-authors of a publication must acknowledge their authorship in writing in terms of, at least, the minimum acceptable definition at Section 4.1 above. This signed statement of authorship must specify that the signatories are the only authors according to this definition. It must state that the signatories
have seen the version of the paper submitted for publication.

4.6 The written acknowledgment of authorship must be placed on file in the department or unit of the executive author, at the time of submission of the research output for publication, and must remain in safe keeping in the department. If, for any reason, one or more co-authors are unavailable or otherwise unable to sign the statement of authorship, the head of department or unit may sign on their behalf, noting the reason for their unavailability.

4.7 The authors must ensure that others who have contributed to the work are recognised in the research output. Courtesy demands that individuals and organisations providing facilities should also be acknowledged.

5. Publication

5.1 Publication of multiple papers based on the same set(s) or subset(s) of data is not acceptable, except where there is full cross-referencing within the papers (for example, in a series of closely related work, or where a complete work grew out of a preliminary publication and this is fully acknowledged).

5.2 An author who submits substantially similar work to more than one publisher must disclose this to the publishers at the time of submission.

5.3 As a general principle research findings should not be reported in the public media before they have been reported to a research audience of experts in the field of research - preferably by publication in a peer- reviewed journal, except where there is a contractual arrangement.

5.4 It is acknowledged that where issues of public policy and concern make prior advice desirable, such advice must be tendered first to the public or professional authorities responsible, and the unreported status of the findings must be advised at the same time. Only where responsible authorities fail to act can prior reporting to the media be justified, and again the unpublished status of the findings must be reported at the same time.

5.5 Where there is private reporting of research that has not yet been exposed to open peer-review scrutiny, especially when it is reported to prospective financial supporters, researchers have an obligation to explain fully the status of the work and the peer-review mechanisms to which it will be subjected.

5.6 Publications must include information on the sources of financial support for the research. Financial sponsorship that carries an embargo on such naming of the sponsor should be avoided.

5.7 All reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that published reports, statistics and public statements about research activities and performance are complete, accurate and unambiguous. Deliberate inclusion of inaccurate or misleading information relating to research activity in a personal curriculum vitae, grant applications, job applications or public statements, or the failure to provide relevant information, is a form of research misconduct.  Accuracy is essential in describing the state of publication (in preparation, submitted, accepted), research funding (applied for, granted, funding period), and awards conferred, and where any of these relate to more than one researcher.

6. Research Supervisors

6.1 Supervisors of each research student or trainee (including honours, master’s PhD and professional doctorate students, and junior post-doctoral staff) should be assigned to a specific, responsible and appropriately qualified senior researcher. It is recognised that joint supervision or supervisory teams will sometimes be appropriate, but a principal supervisor must always be appointed.

6.2 The ratio of trainees to supervisors should be low enough to assure effective intellectual
interaction and effective oversight of the research at all times. Generally, the Board of Research will not permit more that five research students (full-time or part-time) to be assigned to a supervisor at any one time.

6.3 Supervisors should advise research students/trainees on applicable government and
institutional guidelines for the conduct of research, including those covering ethical requirements for human or animal studies, requirements for confidentiality, occupational health and safety matters, and requirements for use of potentially hazardous agents.

6.4 Supervisors should be the primary source of guidance to research student/trainees in all matters of good research practice. The supervisor must ensure, as far as possible, the validity of research data obtained by a student under his/her supervision.

7. Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

7.1 Affiliation with, or financial involvement in, any organisation or entity with a direct interest in the subject matter or materials of researchers must be disclosed to the University.  This policy covers the full range of potential interests, including direct benefits such as sponsorship of the investigation or indirect benefits such as the provision of materials or facilities or the support of individuals such as provision of travel or accommodation expenses to attend conferences.  Such disclosure should cover any situation in which the conflict of interest may, or may be perceived to, affect any decision regarding other people.  The policy also requires disclosure to editors of journals, to the readers of published work, and to external bodies from which funds are sought.

7.2 Researchers have an obligation to disclose at the time of reporting or proposing research (for example, in a grant application), any conflict of interest which has the potential to influence research and investigations, publication and media reports, grant applications, applications for appointment and promotion.

7.3 Researchers must complete a declaration with every application to external agencies for funds to support research, or alternatively discuss their case with the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) on a confidential basis.  A researcher must comply with a direction made by the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) in relation to a real or potential conflict of interest in research. (Note: This declaration is incorporated into the Research Grant Application Cover Sheet), which must be lodged in the Research Office with every application for research funding.

7.4 These procedures are intended to eliminate discredit of a researcher and his/her research resulting from conflict of interest.

8. Definition

8.1 "Misconduct" or "Scientific Misconduct" is taken here to mean fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research.  It includes the misleading ascription of authorship including the listing of authors without their permission, attributing work to others who have not in fact contributed to the research, and the lack of appropriate acknowledgment of work primarily produced by a research student/trainee or associate. It does not include honest errors or honest differences in interpretation or judgements of data.

8.2 Examples of research misconduct include but are not limited to the following:

Misappropriation: A researcher or reviewer shall not intentionally or recklessly:

1. plagiarise, which shall be understood to mean the presentation of the documented words
   or ideas of another as his or her own, without attribution appropriate for the medium of
   presentation;
   
2. make use of any information in breach of any duty of confidentiality associated with the
   review of any manuscript or grant application; or
   
3. intentionally omit reference to the relevant published work of others for the purpose of
   inferring personal discovery of new information.

Interference: A researcher or reviewer shall not intentionally and without authorisation take
or sequester or materially damage any research-related property of another, including
without limitation the apparatus, reagents, biological materials, writings, data, hardware,
software, or any other substance or device used or produced in the conduct of research.

Misrepresentation: A researcher or reviewer shall not with intent to deceive, or in reckless
disregard for the truth:

1. state or present a material or significant falsehood; or
   
2. omit a fact so that what is stated or presented as a whole states or presents a material or significant falsehood.

9. Receipt of Complaints

9.1 The Board of Research and the Academic Council have designated the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research), the Deputy Chair of the Board of Research and one other senior researcher (to be appointed by the Board) as the group of people to whom complaints of misconduct in research are to be made. Information about the current holders of these offices may be obtained from the Director, Office of Research Management.

9.2 On receipt of a complaint, the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) shall inform the Vice-Chancellor of the nature of the complaint.

10. The Preliminary Investigation

10.1 There will be a preliminary investigation of any allegation of research misconduct. Such
preliminary investigation will make provision for a written statement of any allegations to be provided to the person(s) against whom such allegations are directed, and for a written response from that person to be received and considered.  A preliminary investigation will be
limited to determining whether a case exists that research misconduct may have occurred.

10.2 The preliminary investigation will be conducted under the direction of the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) by the group to whom the complaint was made (see Clause 9.1).

11. The Formal Investigation

11.1 If the preliminary investigation finds that a case exists, there will be a formal investigation, which shall follow the University’s procedures for dealing with cases of misconduct or serious misconduct for staff and students.

11.2 Any finding of misconduct or serious misconduct may be reported by the Vice-Chancellor to any funding agency that supported work in respect of which such misconduct occurred, or which is currently supporting the person found to have engaged in such misconduct.  The Vice-Chancellor may also report such a finding to journals and other media through which the research in question was reported.

11.3 If the person about whom the allegations of research misconduct have been made ceases
to be an employee or student of the University, the investigation shall continue in order to establish the facts of a the matter. Distortions of the research record must be rectified, whether or not the persons involved remain in the University.

12. Protection of Interested Parties

12.1 If an allegation is made, the protection of all interested parties is essential. Such fair dealing must consider the protection of persons making allegations in good faith, and of persons accused of misconduct. "Interested parties" include:

1. a person bringing an allegation;
   
2. a person against whom an allegation is made;
   
3. staff, students and trainees working with persons making an allegation, or with
   persons against whom an allegation is made;
   
4. journals and other media reporting research subject to suspected, alleged, or found
   research misconduct;
   
5. funding bodies supporting persons or research involved; and
   
6. the public.
   

13. Advisers on Integrity in Research

13.1 Researchers who are in doubt about any of the provisions of the Code or their applicability should seek advice in the first instance from one or more of the University’s Research Advisers. These people have been designated by the Board of Research and the Academic Council as advisers on integrity in research.  Their task is to give confidential advice to staff and/or students about their rights and responsibilities in research, what constitutes misconduct in research, and the procedures for dealing with allegations of misconduct. The advisers comprise the Chair of each Division’s Research Committee and at least four other members of staff appointed by the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) to ensure an adequate balance of gender, expertise, seniority and research orientations. The convenor of the group is the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research).  The names of the Research Advisers can be obtained from the Director of the Office of Research Management.

13.2 Researchers concerned with any aspect of research conduct should seek advice from one or more of the Research Advisers before lodging any formal complaint.

13.3 It is envisaged that Research Advisers will not take any formal or active part in any complaints investigation procedure.

Responsible Officer: Director, Research and Development
Date of Last Review: 3 March 1999
Date of Authorisation/Approval: 3 March 1999
Authorising/Approving Officer: Research and Development Board