D/2.7 Procedures for dealing with allegations of research misconduct

[Print-friendly version]

2.7.1 Application
2.7.2 Definition of research misconduct
2.7.3 Advisors on integrity in research
2.7.4 Receipt of complaints
2.7.5 Formal investigation of complaints - staff
2.7.6 Formal investigation of complaints - students
2.7.7 Student appeals
Related Documents
Modification History

THIS POLICY IS CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW - CONTACT Director, Office of Research FOR FURTHER DETAILS.

2.7.1 Application

The following procedures provide an institutional framework for dealing with allegations of research misconduct and establish a fair and equitable process for determining whether research misconduct has occurred. QUT's process for dealing with allegations of research misconduct is consistent with the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research.

Top

2.7.2 Definition of research misconduct

Research misconduct is constituted by a failure to comply with the specific provisions of the QUT Code of Conduct for Research and the broader Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research.

Research misconduct includes, but is not limited to

• 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
• lack of appropriate acknowledgment of work primarily produced by a research student / trainee or associate
• the fabrication of data and claimed results which cannot be substantiated
• the falsification or misrepresentation of data and results including changing records
• plagiarism
• falsification or misrepresentation to obtain funding
• the pursuit of research practices which deviate in critical ways from those commonly accepted within the research community for proposing, conducting or publishing research
• a breach of the University's research ethics arrangements (in accordance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research and/or the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes , and/or the State and Federal Gene Technology Regulations).

Research misconduct does not include honest errors or honest differences in interpretations or judgements of data.

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

(a) Misappropriation

A researcher or reviewer shall not intentionally or recklessly

• 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
• make use of any information in breach of any duty of confidentiality associated with the review of any manuscript or grant application
• intentionally omit reference to the relevant published work of others for the purpose of inferring personal discovery of new information.

(b) 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. If warranted by the extent of substantial damage to property, cases may also be referred and dealt with in accordance with procedures outlined in the QUT Code of Conduct (for staff) and E/8.1 Management of student discipline (for students), in addition to these procedures.

(c) Misrepresentation

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

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

Top

2.7.3 Advisors on integrity in research

(a) The Faculty Research Ethics Advisor (see D/6.1.4) in each faculty will act as adviser to staff and students on issues of integrity in research/research misconduct. It is expected that Faculty Research Ethics Advisors will be familiar with

• the University's Code of Conduct
• the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research
• the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research
• the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes
• the State and Federal Gene Technology Regulations
• Values and Ethics - Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Research (NHMRC, 2003)
• the QUT Code of Conduct for Research
• the Code of Good Practice for Postgraduate Research Studies and Supervision at QUT.

In the course of providing advice, the Faculty Research Ethics Advisor may recommend one of the following options

(i) referring the matter directly to the person against whom the allegation is being made

(ii) not proceeding, or withdrawing the allegation, if discussion resolves the concerns

(iii) referring the allegation to a person in a supervisory capacity for resolution at the school or faculty level

(iv) making an allegation of research misconduct in writing to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Commercialisation).

(b) Where staff or students, in seeking advice from the Faculty Research Ethics Advisor, recognise a potential or actual conflict of interest either on personal or professional grounds, the staff member or student must advise the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Commercialisation).

(c) The Faculty Research Ethics Advisor will advise staff and students about what constitutes misconduct in research and issues of integrity in research, and explain the rights and responsibilities of individuals in relation to any complaints.

(d) The Faculty Research Ethics Advisor's role does not extend to the investigation or assessment of the allegation.

Top

2.7.4 Receipt of complaints

Allegation of research misconduct - Preliminary Review

(a) A complaint of suspected or alleged misconduct in research by a QUT-related research worker, including QUT staff and postgraduate students, whether or not it has occurred within the University, is to be made as soon as practicable in the first instance to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Commercialisation), as the Designated Person under the QUT Code of Conduct for Research (D/2.6).

(b) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Commercialisation) should be provided with all available information relevant to the complaint, by the complainant. Where appropriate, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Commercialisation) may seek advice from the Chair of the relevant ethics committee regarding the validity of the allegation.

(c) Upon receipt of the allegation of research misconduct, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Commercialisation) must immediately provide the person/s against whom the allegation is made, with a written statement of any allegations.

(d) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Commercialisation) will seek a written response from the person/s against whom the allegations have been made within 10 working days of notification to that person of the allegations. This response will be considered to determine whether a case exists that research misconduct may have occurred.

(e) In the case of allegations of staff research misconduct, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Commercialisation) may decide to initiate an internal institutional research misconduct inquiry by appointing appropriate members, including at least one member with experience and knowledge in the relevant field or research and at least one member who is familiar with the responsible conduct of research. At least one member should have experience on similar panels or have relevant experience or expertise. The role of the panel is to investigate the case and to ensure the fair dealing and protection of all interested parties during the review. Such fair dealing must consider the protection of persons making allegations in good faith, and of persons accused of misconduct.

(f) In the case of allegations of student research misconduct, the matter may be referred to the Student Research Misconduct Committee and/or to the Registrar to be dealt with under the Management of student discipline policy (E/8.1) in cases relating to property damage. The role of the Committee is to investigate the case and to ensure the fair dealing and protection of all interested parties during the review. Such fair dealing must consider the protection of persons making allegations in good faith, and of persons accused of misconduct.

(g) Without limiting the generality of the following, interested parties may include

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

(h) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Commercialisation) will advise the Vice-Chancellor on the outcomes of any inquiry process and will provide a recommendation on further action to be taken as appropriate.

Top

2.7.5 Formal investigation of complaints - staff

(a) If the preliminary review by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Commercialisation) finds that a sufficient case exists, a formal investigation in relation to misconduct, serious misconduct or unsatisfactory performance will be established.

(b) The procedures to be followed are contained in the following

• for academic staff - in the relevant enterprise bargaining agreement 
• for professional staff - in the relevant enterprise bargaining agreement 
• for senior staff - in accordance with Disciplinary action for misconduct and serious misconduct - senior staff.

(c) If research misconduct is found to have occurred, the findings must be reported to

• any agency that funded work in respect of which such misconduct occurred
• any agency which is currently supporting the person found to have engaged in research misconduct
• journals and other media through which the research in question was reported.

(d) Where a person accused of research misconduct resigns from the University, a formal investigation to establish the facts of the matter in which research misconduct is alleged to have occurred will be undertaken or continued. Distortions of the research record must be rectified, whether or not the persons involved remain in the institution.

(e) If, after formal investigation, no case is found to exist, the research worker concerned shall be informed in writing that no further action will be taken.

Top

2.7.6 Formal investigation of complaints - students

(a) These procedures recognise that the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Commercialisation) is generally best placed to form judgement on the seriousness of an instance of student research misconduct.

(b) Allegations of student research misconduct will be dealt with by a Student Research Misconduct Committee (D/2.2).

(c) The procedures for dealing with allegations of student research misconduct are detailed in E/8.1.7.

(d) Penalties that may be imposed for proven student research misconduct are detailed in E/8.1.8.

Top

2.7.7 Student appeals

The procedure for appealing against the imposition of a penalty in relation to academic dishonesty is detailed in E/8.1.10.

Top

Related Documents

MOPP B/8.1 Code of Conduct

MOPP D/2.6 QUT Code of Conduct for Research

MOPP D/5.4 Code of Good Practice for Postgraduate Research Studies and Supervision at QUT

MOPP E/2.1 QUT Student Code of Conduct

MOPP E/8.1 Management of student discipline

Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research

National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research

Statement on Consumer and Community Participation in Health and Medical Research (NHMRC and Consumers' Health Forum of Australia Inc, 2002)

Values and Ethics - Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Research (NHMRC, 2003)

Top

Modification History

Top