EXTERNAL RELATED DOCUMENTS

Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2007)
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/_files/r39.pdf

NHMRC National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007) 
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e72syn.htm

NHRMC Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes (7th edition 2004)
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/ea16syn.htm

Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
http://www.ogtr.gov.au/

The Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Guidelines for Ethical Research in Indigenous Studies (May 2000)
http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/corp/docs/EthicsGuideA4.pdf

Therapeutic Goods Administration, Note for Guidance on Good Clinical Practice (CPMP/ICH/135/95) (July 2000)
http://www.health.gov.au/tga/docs/html/ich13595.htm

PART A: PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES TO ENCOURAGE RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH CONDUCT

1. General Principles of Responsible Research

1.1. The Australian National University (hereinafter the "University") is committed to the highest standards of research integrity and expects its researchers to maintain the highest standards of professional conduct. Researchers have a duty to ensure that their work maintains the good name of the University and the profession to which they belong.

1.2. This policy prescribes the standards expected of all people engaged in research at this University, including staff, postgraduate research students and undergraduate students, and academic visitors to the University. It also provides a framework for the protection of individual researchers from possible misunderstandings and prescribes the steps to be followed if suspicions or allegations exist regarding research misconduct. All queries regarding the observance of this policy should be directed to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor.

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

1.4. Researchers across institutions and disciplines acknowledge their responsibility to the public and to the integrity of the research enterprise of which they are but a part. This responsibility is particularly important where professional practice or public policy may be defined or modified in the light of research findings.

1.5. Research can be intrinsically self-correcting of error, and intrinsically ethical, through adoption of open approaches, including:   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.

1.6. 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.

1.7. Researchers from many disciplinary contexts dispute aspects of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research and this ANU policy is framed around that Code. These researchers argue that elements of the Code or the Policy depart from the traditions of a particular discipline, or methodology, or viewpoint. The position taken by these researchers is acknowledged by the University.

However, the University also recognises the Code results from extensive engagement with the broader community beyond academia. The Code represents a “compact” with that broader community to follow certain agreed protocols. No Code can securely and persistently reach a position that balances all possible legitimate academic disciplinary practices against the community view that there are some practices that are certainly unacceptable.

Researchers who are alleged to have followed practices that are not compatible with the Code and the Policy must not assume that the University will accept as a defence a post facto claim that the adopted practice is defined by academic disciplinary traditions. Rather, researchers who are permitted to have the protection of the University while engaging in a research practice that is not compatible with the Code must develop and document the proposed practice before adopting it. In all cases the proposed variation must be approved by the Vice-Chancellor. Examples of such practices would include the use of a pseudonym (potentially inconsistent with aspects of Chapter 5) and research that deliberately plays with concepts of truth (e.g. research publications that are ambiguous in claiming to be fact or fiction).

1.8. Researchers must foster and maintain a research environment of intellectual honesty and integrity, and scholarly and scientific rigour. Researchers must:

• respect the truth and the rights of those effected by their research
• manage conflicts of interest so that ambition and personal advantage do not compromise ethical or scholarly considerations
• adopt methods appropriate for achieving the aims of each research proposal
• follow proper practices for safety and security
• cite awards, degrees conferred and research publications accurately, including the status of any publication, such as under review or in press
• promote adoption of the Code and avoid departures from the responsible conduct of research
• conform to the policies adopted by the University and bodies funding the research.

1.9. Researchers must accept responsibility for their actions when disseminating research findings.

1.10. Researchers must comply with ethical principles of integrity, respect for persons, justice and beneficence.

1.11. Written approval from appropriate ethics committees, safety and other regulatory bodies must be obtained when required. The “National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research” and “Values and Ethics— Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Research” (or any replacement documents) sets out principles for protecting human participants in research

1.12. Researchers must respect the animals they use in research, in accordance with the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes (see Appendix 3).

1.13. Researchers should conduct their research so as to minimise adverse effects on the wider community and the environment.

1.14. A researcher who considers that research misconduct may have occurred must have regard to the University’s policies and values, and act in a timely manner.

2. Management of Research Data and Primary Materials

Introduction

The responsible conduct of research includes the proper management and retention of the research data that represents the evidential basis for the research outcomes. Retaining the research data is important because it may be all that remains of the research work at the end of the project. While it may not be practical to keep all the primary material (such as ore, biological material, questionnaires or recordings), durable records derived from them (such as assays, test results, transcripts, and laboratory and field notes) must be retained and accessible.

The researcher must decide which data and materials should be retained, although in some cases this is determined by law, funding agency, publisher or by convention in the discipline. The central aim is that sufficient materials and data are retained to provide evidence that justifies the outcomes of the research and can be used to defend them if they   are challenged. The potential value of the material for further research should also be considered, particularly where the research would be difficult or impossible to repeat.

2.1. Data management should comply with relevant privacy protocols. As the University is constituted under federal legislation it must conform to the Commonwealth Privacy Act 1988 and other State and Territory privacy laws (where applicable). In particular, researchers need to comply with the 11 Information Privacy Principles of the Act when using or including personal information of a person. Also relevant is the University's policy Privacy: Statement on the Collection, Use and Control of Personal Information. Researchers must not use confidential information of the University, another person or a third partyfor   their own personal advantage or that of a third party without first obtaining permission. Confidentiality must be respected when required by a University contract or policy – e.g. during the period of evaluation of a commercialisation opportunity under the ANU Intellectual Policy.

2.2 Concerning ownership of data, as a general rule the materials and data retained at the end of a research project carried out under the auspices of ANU are the property of ANU, although by general agreement this may extend to another institution with an interest in the research, or a central repository.   The ownership may also be influenced by the funding conditions of the project. Within the terms of the ANU Policy Intellectual Property - Ownership, Protection and Commercialisation, the University does not own IP created by a student, unless prescribed otherwise by law, the student assigns that IP, or its development to the University, or the student had developed the IP directly in the course of working as a staff member.

2.3. Other than privacy or contractual requirements for confidential data, research results and methods in general should be open to scrutiny by colleagues within the University and, through appropriate publication, by the research community at large. The ANU strongly encourages the open publication of research results. Non-confidential data related to publications should be available for discussion with other researchers.

2.4. The University requires that each department or research unit must establish procedures for the retention of the evidentiary data described in the Introduction, and for the keeping of records of data held. Data (including electronic data) must be recorded in a durable and appropriately referenced form. Computing systems must be secure, and information technology personnel must understand their responsibilities for network security and access control. The cost of retaining and managing evidentiary data is a part of the cost of research, unless the data can be archived or curated by other parties.

2.5. Data must be held for a reasonable time to allow it to be accessed by potential users.  For data that are published this may be for as long as interest and discussion persist following publication. In general the minimum period for retention shall be at least 5 years from the date of publication, however, in any particular case the period for which data should be retained should be determined by the specific type of research. For example: for short-term research projects that are for assessment purposes only, such as research projects completed by students, retaining research data for 12 months after the completion of the project may be sufficient. For most clinical trials, retaining research data for 15 years or more may be necessary. For areas such as gene therapy, research data must be retained permanently(eg patient records).  If the work has community or heritage value, research data should be kept permanently at this stage, preferably within a national collection. The retention period for data must comply with legislative obligations for University information such as the Archives Act.

2.6. Wherever possible, original data must be retained in the department or research unit in which they were generated. Arrangements for material held in other locations must be documented by the researchers and the department or research unit head. Individual researchers should be able to hold copies of the data for their own use. Retention solely by the individual researcher provides little protection to the researcher or the University in the event of an allegation of falsification of data. Agreements covering ownership and storage of research data should be reviewed whenever there is movement or departure of research staff between institutions including those outside of Australia.

2.7. Confidentiality agreements to protect intellectual property rights may be agreed between the University, the researcher and a sponsor of the research. Where such agreements limit free publication and discussion, limitations and restrictions must be explicitly agreed (see the ANU policy, Intellectual Property: Ownership, Protection and Commercialisation). In general researchers should not unnecessarily enter agreements which limit or prevent open access to information of potential public interest, especially for periods of time longer than 1-2 years.

2.8. It is the obligation of the researcher to enquire whether formal confidentiality agreements apply and of the Head of the Department or research unit to inform researchers of their obligations with respect to these provisions.

2.9. Confidentiality agreements must be reported to the appropriate College Dean. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor must approve confidentiality agreements that have a commercial intent.

2.10 When 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.

2.11. 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.

2.12. In projects that span several institutions, an agreement should be developed at the outset covering the storage of research data and primary materials within each institution.

2.13. If the results from research are challenged, all relevant data and materials must be retained until the matter is resolved. Research records that may be relevant to emerging or current allegations of research misconduct must be sequestered and must not be destroyed.

3. Supervision of students/research trainees

Introduction: All research trainees must receive training on research ethics, the Code and the research policies of the ANU. This should have high priority for completion early in their studies and careers. Researchers and supervisors must ensure that the role model they provide to junior colleagues is positive and conducive to a research culture of excellence, integrity, professionalism and mutual respect.

In return, research trainees must understand that in undertaking research they are joining an endeavour that requires dedication and accountability. Thus, research trainees also have responsibilities under this section.

3.1. The University shall ensure that there is a specific, responsible and appropriately qualified supervisor of each research trainee and researcher new to research in the University (see the Code of Practice - Supervision in Higher Degrees by Research).

3.2. The University shall ensure that its policies support the supervisors to assure effective intellectual interaction and effective oversight of the research at all times.

3.3 The University shall ensure all research trainees receive training on applicable research ethics, the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, and relevant ANU research policies as early in the careers of the trainees as possible, and preferably at induction.   The training should extend to occupational health and safety, confidentiality and privacy and environmental protection, as well as technical matters appropriate to the discipline. The training shall include the University’s mechanisms for dispute resolution. Training in research ethics and the responsible practice of research will be provided centrally although   Colleges may conduct ethics courses as they see fit.

3.4. Supervisors should guide the professional development of research trainees. This involves providing guidance in all matters relating to research conduct and overseeing all stages of the research process, including identifying the research objectives and approach, obtaining ethics and other approvals, obtaining funding, conducting the research, and reporting the research outcomes in appropriate forums and media.

3.5. Supervision includes oversight of the research outcomes from those under supervision. A supervisor must be satisfied that the research methods and outcomes of researchers and research trainees under their supervision are appropriate and valid.

3.6. Researchers and supervisors must ensure that research trainees receive appropriate credit for their work.

3.7. Where the student is working in a team, the supervisor and other team members must take care not to compromise the integrity of the activities that represent the scope of the student’s research project. Plans should be made and respected to ensure that the student’s intellectual responsibility is enabled, and that materials are appropriately made available to the student before the other needs of the team are satisfied.

4. Publication and Dissemination of Research Findings

Introduction: Dissemination of research findings is an important part of the research process, passing on the benefits to other researchers, professional practitioners and the wider community. There are many ways of disseminating research findings. Formal publication of the results of research will usually take place in academic journals or books, but this is not always the case. This section of the policy applies to all forms of dissemination, including non-refereed publications, such as web pages, and other media such as exhibitions or films, as well as professional and institutional repositories. Relative to the dissemination of research findings there is a variety of established accepted practice and convention between different research disciplines.

4.1. The University encourages the open presentation and discussion of results.   Results should be exposed to peer review, especially where publication of a matter of public interest or importance is involved. The account should be complete, and, where applicable, include negative findings and results contrary to the hypotheses. Publication activities must take into account any restrictions relating to intellectual property or culturally sensitive data. Researchers must, where feasible, also provide research participants with an appropriate summary of the research results.

4.2:Researchers have a responsibility to their colleagues and the wider community to disseminate a full account of their research as broadly as possible. The account should be complete, and, where applicable, include negative findings and results contrary to their hypotheses. Publication activities must take account of any restrictions relating to intellectual property or culturally sensitive data. Researchers must, where feasible, also provide research participants with an appropriate summary of the research results.

4.3: The University encourages the presentation and discussion of results via peer reviewed pathways.   As a general principle, research findings that are subject to the possibility of error should be reported in the public media only after there has been an opportunity for review by an expert or experts in the field of research, except where there is a contractual arrangement.

4.4. It is not acceptable to repeat the reporting of identical research findings in several different publications, except in particular and clearly explained circumstances, such as review articles, anthologies, collections, or translations into another language. An author who submits substantially similar work to more than one publisher, or who submits work similar to work already published, must disclose this at the time of submission. Researchers must take all reasonable steps to obtain permission from the copyright holder before republishing research findings.

4.5. 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 or presentation in a peer-reviewed outlet.

4.6. Research findings that entail matters of public concern or that are likely to alarm the public should be published with regard to that situation. Where the researchers judge that urgent publication is required, prior to peer review, the findings must be tendered first to responsible public or professional authorities. The unreviewed and hence tentative status of the findings must be advised at the same time. Only where responsible authorities fail to act can unreviewed reporting to the media be justified, and again the unreviewed status of the findings must be reported to the media outlet at the same time.

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

4.8. Publications must include information on the sources of financial and in kind support for the research, and reveal actual or potential conflicts of interest. Researchers must acknowledge the host institution and funding sources of the research. Secret sponsorship must be avoided. To protect the integrity of research, financial sponsors must not be permitted to influence the content or presentation of research results. They should also not prevent or delay the publication of research findings, except where protection such as in the form of a patent is genuinely in the process of being obtained, the work is confidential, or there are contractual limitations that have been expressly approved by the University.

4.9. Publications authored or co-authored by a student enrolled at the University or a staff member of the University or a Visiting Fellow must acknowledge that the work was undertaken at the University by including the name of the University in the by-line.

4.10. Deliberate inclusion of inaccurate or misleading information relating to research activity in curricula 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 their shared nature where any of these relate to more than one researcher.

4.11. 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

4.12. In the disciplines that require it, the confidentiality requirements of a sponsor may prevent or delay peer review until after the research results are delivered to the sponsor. In such cases, the researcher must explain to the sponsor that the work has not been subject to peer review. Whenever a sponsor's confidentiality requirements prevent peer review of a research report before its delivery to the sponsor, the researcher must inform the sponsor that the research outcomes will not be finalised until after peer review.

5 Authorship

Introduction: The outcomes of research may be disseminated in a variety of ways but enduring forms, such as journal articles, are particularly important.  To be named as an author, a researcher must have made a substantial scholarly contribution to the work and be able to take responsibility for at least part of the work they contributed.  Concerning authorship there is a wide variety of established accepted practices and conventions between different research disciplines.

Disputes over the inclusion, exclusion or order of potential authors represent not an uncommon feature of research publication.   Particularly where colleagues have a tradition of cooperation, or where authors work across different organisational or cultural systems, an informal approach to authorship appears sufficient and has the attraction of simplicity. However, if a dispute does arise the informality will prove to be a mistake. Accordingly, the Code and Policy sets out a framework for authorship that is designed initially to protect the integrity of research and the standing of researchers. 

5.1. Attribution of authorship depends to some extent on the discipline but in all cases authorship reflects substantial participation through a substantial contribution to at least one of:

• conception and design,
• collection of data
• analysis and interpretation of data;
• drafting the article or revising it critically so as to contribute to the interpretation

5.2. Authorship of a research output is a matter that should be discussed between researchers at an early stage in a research project, and reviewed whenever there are changes in participation.

5.3. Where a work has several authors, one should be appointed corresponding author to record authorship and to manage communication about the work with the publisher.   Except when compelling circumstances render it impossible, all authors must approve the version to be published.

5.4. Researchers must offer authorship to all people, including research trainees, who meet the criteria for authorship listed above.   Those offered authorship must accept or decline in writing within a reasonable time Where a potential author has not responded in a reasonable time, the corresponding author should create and maintain a record of decisions made on behalf of the authors, to assist in any subsequent review of the circumstances of publication.

5.5. The following activities are not of themselves criteria for inclusion of authorship:

• Participation solely in the acquisition of funding or the collection of data
• General supervision of the research group.
• Being head of department, holding other positions of authority, or personal friendship with the authors
• Providing a technical contribution but no other intellectual input to the project or publication
• Providing routine assistance in some aspects of the project, the acquisition of funding or general supervision of the research team
• Providing data that has already been published or materials obtained from third parties, but with no other intellectual input.

5.6 Authors must be able to show that any part of an article that is centrally important to its main conclusions is the responsibility of at least one author. An author takes public responsibility for at least that part of the output in that author's area of expertise. To ensure the integrity of research publication, no person who is an author, consistent with this definition, must be excluded as an author without his/her permission in writing. This implies that on very rare occasions, the particular article may not be published owing to legitimate reservations regarding critical parts of the work, held by one or more of the researchers.

5.7. Order of authorship may be a potential source of contention and

many different ways of determining order of authorship exist across research disciplines.   While the significance of a particular order may be understood in a given setting, order of authorship has no generally agreed meaning. It is not possible to interpret from order of authorship the respective contributions of each author and therefore authors should decide the order of authorship together

5.8. Students as authors own the copyright of their thesis, in accordance with the ANU policy, Intellectual Property: Ownership, Protection and Commercialisation.

5.9. Due recognition of all participants is a part of a proper research process. The authors must ensure that others who have contributed to the work are recognised in the research output, including research students/trainees, research assistants and technical officers. Courtesy demands that individuals and organisations providing facilities should also be acknowledged. (Where authors may be reasonably expected to apprehend that individuals or organisations so named would take offense, their written consent must be obtained.)

5.10. Authors of web-based publications must take responsibility for the publication’s content – including any copyright material contained therein - and must be clearly identified in the publication.

5.11. The department of the corresponding or senior author must retain the written acknowledgment of authorship discussed above in the form of an original hand-written signature (See attached authorship form). It is acceptable to use faxed or emailed consent. This also applies to published conference abstracts and similar publications. If an author is deceased or cannot be contacted following reasonable efforts, the publication may proceed provided that there are no grounds to believe that this person would have objected to being included as an author.

5.12. Disputes about authorship should be referred in the first instance to the appropriate Dean or Director. This applies both to disputes within the University and disputes involving co-authors outside the University. If the dispute cannot be resolved at that level, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor shall determine within a reasonable period of time what action should be taken. Disputes over authorship will not normally give rise to findings of research misconduct, other than through proven plagiarism.

6.0. Peer Review

Introduction: The term “peer review” describes impartial and independent assessment of research by others working in the same or a related field. Peer review has a number of important roles in research and research management, in the assessment of grant applications, in selecting material for publication, in the review of performance of researchers and teams, and in the selection of staff.

Participation in peer review processes should be encouraged. Peer review provides expert scrutiny of a project, and helps to maintain high standards and encourage accurate, thorough and credible research reporting.

6.1. It is important that participants in peer review:

• are fair and timely in their review
• act in confidence and do not disclose the content or outcome of any process in which they are involved
• declare all conflicts of interest, do not permit personal prejudice to influence the peer review process, and do not introduce considerations that are not relevant to the review criteria
• do not take undue or calculated advantage of knowledge obtained during the peer review process
• ensure that they are informed about, and comply with, the criteria to be applied
• do not agree to participate in peer review outside their area of expertise
• give proper consideration to research that challenges or changes accepted ways of thinking.

6.2. Researchers whose work is undergoing peer review must not seek to influence improperly the process or outcomes.

6.3. Researchers in receipt of public funding have a responsibility to participate in peer review processes leading to publication of work for the scholarly or general community.

6.4. Supervising researchers have a responsibility to assist trainee researchers in developing the necessary skills for peer review and understanding their obligation to participate.

7.0. Conflicts of Interest

Introduction:   A conflict of interest exists where there is a divergence between the individual interests of a person and their professional responsibilities such that an independent observer might reasonably conclude that the professional actions of that person are unduly influenced by their own interests.

Conflicts of interest in research are   common and it is important that they are disclosed and dealt with properly. Conflicts of interest have the potential to compromise judgments and decisions that should be made impartially. Such compromise could undermine community trust in research.

7.1. The responsible practice of research requires the disclosure of any potential conflict of interest. The University has in place a policy on Conflict of Interest and Commitment (1303a/2002). It covers appropriate disclosure of affiliation with, or financial involvement in, any organisation or entity with a direct interest in the subject matter or materials of researchers, including personal or family relationships. The full range of potential interests includes 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. Disclosure should cover any situation in which the conflict of interest may, or may be perceived to, affect any decision regarding other people.

7.2. Researchers have an obligation to disclose any potential conflict of interest to editors of journals, to the readers of published work, and to external bodies from which funds are sought.

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

8.0. Collaborative Research Across Institutions

Introduction: Research can involve a wide range of collaborations within institutions, between institutions, and internationally. Collaborative research has increased markedly in recent times and this raises specific issues, such as sharing intellectual property, managing research findings, managing conflicts of interest, and commercialising research outcomes.

8.1. Researchers involved in joint research across institutions should recognise and deal with the special problems associated with such activities. They must be aware of, and comply with, all policies and written agreements affecting the project, particularly those relating to ethics approvals, the dissemination of research findings and the management of research data and primary materials.

8.2 When establishing research collaboration, researchers must disclose as soon as possible any actual or apparent conflicts of interest relating to any aspect of the project.

9.0. Conforming to ethical and safety requirements

Introduction:   The University is committed to carrying out ethical and safe research. Researchers must comply with the requirements of committees responsible for human research ethics, animal experimentation ethics, and biosafety ethics.  A safe working environment in which to conduct each research project must be ensured.

9.1. 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 methods and practices are essential parts of the research process.

9.2. 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 and safety guidelines. Where appropriate, researchers should seek advice from the relevant University ethics committee and the University's Occupational Health and Safety Committee.

9.3. 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.

9.4. Research must comply with legislation such as the Commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000 and related Regulations, the ACT Animal Welfare Act 1992, the Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes (2004) the Commonwealth Privacy Act 1988 and established guidelines such as the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007) and where relevant the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research's Guidelines for Ethical Research in Indigenous Studies (2000). It is the obligation of the researcher to comply with such legislation or guidelines and of the Head of the Department or research unit to inform researchers of their obligations with respect to these requirements.

9.5. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor is responsible for monitoring the observance of the relevant guidelines and compliance with the legislation.

9.6. Where research procedures are of a kind requiring approval by the University's Human Research Ethics Committee and possibly outside human research ethics committees, or its Animal Experimentation Ethics Committee, or its Institutional Biosafety Committee (Recombinant DNA Monitoring Committee), or by other safety or validly constituted regulatory committees, research must not proceed without such approval.

9.7. The University expects its researchers to be familiar with the appropriate professional codes of practice in their own disciplines.

9.8. Ethical research practice provides a sound basis for a deep commitment to research integrity. The University expects that all researchers and research trainees will have mastered the training material provided through courses in general research ethics through the Office of Research Integrity (human research ethics and animal ethics) and the OH&S Unit (Recombinant DNA), and in supervision skills offered through the Centre for Educational Development and Academic Methods.

10.0. Management of intellectual property

10.1. The University has in place policy on management of intellectual property:

a) Intellectual Property: Ownership, Protection and Commercialisation and

b) ANU Intellectual Property Manual

11.0. Commercialisation

11.1. Commercialisation of any research should be undertaken in accordance with the University's policy on Intellectual Property: Ownership, Protection and Commercialisation

PART B: BREACHES OF THE CODE, RESEARCH MISCONDUCT, AND THE FRAMEWORK FOR RESOLVING ALLEGATIONS

12.0. Appointment of advisers on integrity in research and designated people to receive formal complaints.

12.1. Advisers on integrity in research

The University shall nominate at least seven people who are familiar with the literature and guidelines on research misconduct to be advisers on integrity in research. Their task shall be to give confidential advice to staff and students/trainees about what constitutes misconduct in research, the rights and responsibilities of a potential complainant, and the procedures for dealing with allegations of research misconduct within the University.

12.2. Designated people to receive formal complaints

The University shall appoint at least two designated people to whom allegations of misconduct in research are to be made. These should be senior academics experienced in research and preferably from different discipline areas and should be a mix of males and females. It is important that the Vice-Chancellor should be informed immediately a complaint is received and be kept informed as the case is considered.

12.3. A designated person should consider the material provided by the complainant and should advise the Vice-Chancellor whether the allegation should be dismissed or investigated further. The role of a designated person is not to conduct an investigation but simply to advise whether the material provided by the complainant warrants dismissal of the allegation or further investigation. If the Vice-Chancellor determines that further action is required, the procedures for dealing with misconduct in the current ANU Enterprise Agreement in the case of staff and the Discipline Rules and Medical Leave Rules in the case of students shall apply.

13.0 Misconduct in research

13.1. The University regards misconduct in research as unacceptable and aims to ensure a research environment that minimises the incidence of misconduct in research. Misconduct in research in some cases may amount to fraud, which is a criminal offence. Procedures for dealing with allegations of misconduct in research must be in place as failure to do this may result in the procedures failing or in the University being involved in legal proceedings.

13.2. "Misconduct", or "scientific misconduct" is significant behaviour that improperly appropriates the intellectual property or contributions of others, that intentionally impedes the progress of research, or that risks corrupting the research record or compromising the integrity of research practices. Such behaviours are unethical and unacceptable in proposing, conducting or reporting research, or in reviewing the proposals or research reports of others.

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

(a) Fabrication of data: A researcher shall not claim data where none has been obtained.

(b) Falsification of data: A researcher shall not falsify data, including changing records.

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

(i) state or present a material or significant falsehood; or

(ii) omit a fact so that what is stated or presented as a whole states or presents a material or significant falsehood.

(d) Misappropriation: A researcher or reviewer shall not intentionally or recklessly

(i) 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; plagiarism includes reproducing by copying, paraphrasing or summarising, without acknowledgement and with the intention to deceive, any work of another person as a researcher's or reviewer's own work, with or without the knowledge or consent of that other person;

(ii) make use of any information in breach of any duty of confidentiality associated with the review of any manuscript or grant application;

(iii) intentionally omit reference to the relevant published work of others for the purpose of inferring personal discovery of new information.

(e) Misleading ascription of authorship: A researcher or reviewer shall not intentionally or recklessly ascribe authorship misleadingly, including the listing of authors without their permission, attributing work to others who have not in fact contributed to the research, and failing to acknowledge appropriately work primarily produced by a research student/trainee or associate. Authors have moral rights, which are now law, and any breaches of moral rights can be subject to legal action.

(f) Interference: A researcher or reviewer shall not intentionally and without authorization 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.

(g) Other practices that seriously deviate from those commonly accepted within the research community for proposing, conducting or reporting research.

(h) Intentional infringements of the University's Policy on Responsible Practice of Research.

(i) Obstruction of investigations of research misconduct: A researcher shall not intentionally withhold or destroy evidence in violation of a duty to disclose or preserve; falsifying evidence; encouraging, soliciting or giving false testimony; and attempting to intimidate or retaliate against witnesses, potential witnesses, or potential leads to witnesses or evidence before, during, or after the commencement of any formal or informal proceeding.

13.4. The list above is not meant to be all-inclusive. There may be other serious misconduct, e.g. departures from approved protocols accepted by a specific discipline or from protocols for research involving humans, animals or gene technology.

13.5. Misconduct does not include honest errors or honest differences in interpretation or judgments of data. Free scientific inquiry naturally includes proposing hypotheses that may ultimately prove false, offering interpretations of data that conflict with other interpretations, and making observations and analyses that may prove to be in error.

14.0. Procedures for dealing with allegations of misconduct in research

14.1. Procedures for dealing with misconduct by the University's staff are covered in the ANU Enterprise Agreement.  Procedures for dealing with misconduct by the University's students are covered in the Discipline Rules and Medical Leave Rules.

14.2. Wherever possible any investigation into research misconduct shall continue even if the person accused of such misconduct resigns from the University. Distortions of the research record must be rectified, whether or not the persons involved remain at the University.

14.3. The responsible officer for the investigation or the appropriate delegate shall consider whether action is required to try to protect the interests of interested parties external to the University such as journals and other media reporting research, research funding bodies and the public.

14.4. Subject to the requirements of privacy legislation, if a case for consideration of research misconduct is found to exist, advice of this must be given to the secretary of any funding agency directly supporting the person involved, in accordance with the notification rules of the agency.

14.5. Where United States Federal Funds are involved the provisions of the Public Health Service Regulation 42 CFR Part 50, Subpart A shall apply and the Deputy Vice-Chancellor shall immediately notify the United States Office of Research Integrity about the circumstances of any investigation.

This policy (74d/2008) replaces Policy: Responsible Practice of Research (888f/2003) which replaced Guidelines for the Responsible Practice of Research (578/1993) and Procedures for Dealing with Allegations of Misconduct in Research (579/1993).