Defining research misconduct and serious research misconduct

1. A complaint or allegation of research misconduct will be dealt with in accordance with this procedure if it involves the following:

a. meets the definition of research misconduct (paragraph 2) or serious research misconduct (paragraph 4); and

b. has consequences that are not trivial.

Research Misconduct

2. "Research 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.

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,

• state or present a material or significant falsehood; or
• 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, meaning 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 any work of another person with the deceptive intention to portray the work 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 including those associated with the review of any manuscript or grant application;

iii. 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, breaching the moral rights of authors, 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.

f. Interference: A researcher or reviewer shall not intentionally and without authorisation take, sequester or materially damage any research-related material of another researcher, 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 policies governing research practice.

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

3. Research 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.

Serious Research Misconduct

4. Serious research misconduct includes: recurrence or continuation of conduct, which has previously been found to be research misconduct on the part of the staff member; a failure to follow research protocols approved by research ethics committees or statutory licence conditions, where that failure has resulted in an unreasonable risk or actual harm to humans, animals or the environment; deliberately publishing false research results that become part of the public record; conduct that is alleged to be research misconduct but where the consequences of the alleged breach result in serious harm to the University, or other staff, students or visitors, and the conduct is characterised by a reckless and wilful disregard for the consequences of the alleged conduct.

Research Misconduct Assessors

5. The University will appoint at least two senior researchers as ‘Research Misconduct Assessors'. The role of the assessor 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. Assessors will be listed on the ANU website: http://www.anu.edu.au/ro/ORI/Office/ORI_RRP.php

Designated Person and initial inquiries

6. The University has appointed the Pro Vice Chancellor - Research as the Designated Person for the purposes of this procedure. The Designated Person (DP) will receive initial complaints or allegations of research misconduct.

7. On the receipt of a complaint or allegation of research misconduct, the DP may make enquiries, secure the relevant evidence including experimental material, IT records, other documents or names of witnesses, as necessary.

8. The DP will consider the circumstances of staff in the relevant workplace where a complaint of research misconduct has been made including any action that may need to be taken under the Protected Disclosures Policy, arrangements to defuse workplace tensions, protect non-involved researchers, take steps to ensure that the confidentiality of the allegations is maintained whilst the processes of this Procedure are in train and generally ensure that people are treated fairly.

9. The DP refers the allegations of research misconduct to one of the Research Misconduct Assessors who considers the allegations to see if, on the material available:

a. the conduct that it is central to the substance of the allegations, if proven, would amount to research misconduct; and
b. whether a prima facie case of research misconduct exists.

10. Where an allegation of serious research misconduct is made or where it becomes apparent during the initial investigation that an allegation may be serious research misconduct, the DP will advise the Director-Human Resources who will report the allegations to the Vice-Chancellor (or delegate).

11. If both (a) and (b) in paragraph 9 above are not satisfied the DP either dismisses the allegations or refers the allegations to another relevant process (for example - as misconduct or serious misconduct that is not research or serious research misconduct), informing the staff member who is the subject of the allegations, accordingly.

12. If the allegations are not dismissed or referred elsewhere, then:

a. if there is sufficient information provided to substantiate the allegations without further investigation, formulate charges of misconduct and proceed to refer the allegations to a Research Investigation Committee pursuant to section 15 below; or
b. if the DP determines that further investigation is warranted conduct enquiries (either him/herself or through an investigating officer) to gather relevant material. The DP, may for example:

i. compile documents and materials;
ii. secure electronic records, emails, research results;
iii. collect witnesses' names and statements, and
iv. where necessary, gather material about the proper research practice in that discipline.

c. Once the DP determines that sufficient investigations have been completed, or determines that reasonable efforts to gather information have been exhausted, the DP either:

i. formulates charges specifying whether the alleged misconduct is research misconduct or serious research misconduct. The charges will be drawn by reference to this procedure and the ANU Enterprise Agreement,
ii. dismisses the allegations; or
iii. where the conduct is deemed misconduct or serious misconduct (not related to research) refers the allegations and any material that has been gathered to the relevant supervisor for management under the misconduct provisions of the ANU Enterprise Agreement; or
iv. Refers the allegations to other relevant bodies where such action is warranted by the nature of the material that has been gathered (e.g. Australian Federal Police).

13. Subject to securing relevant evidence pursuant to clauses 7 or 12 above or where the safety of members of the University may be compromised, the staff member(s) who is the subject of the allegations of misconduct will be informed that allegations have been made. Once there is a determination that the allegations will be the subject of formal misconduct charges as per clauses 12 above, the staff member will be given an opportunity to respond in accordance with the processes outlined in this Procedure.

14. The DP can delegate some or all of his or her functions, for example, to an experienced senior officer.

Research Investigation Committee (RIC)

15. The charges formulated by the DP pursuant to clause 12 above, together with all of the information and material gathered by the DP relevant to the allegations of research misconduct are referred to a RIC formed in accordance with this clause.

16. The Vice Chancellor (or delegate) shall appoint the Chair of the RIC having conferred with the ANU Branch President of the NTEU and agreed on an acceptable chair. Normally the Chair of the RIC will not be an ANU staff member and will be experienced in conducting a research investigation, or in the conduct of tribunals of fact, and/or be a subject expert in relation to the matter under investigation. In the event that agreement on a chair cannot be reached the matter may be referred to Fair Work Australia for resolution under clause 75 - Dispute Avoidance and Settlement of the ANU Enterprise Agreement.

17. The RIC shall include a suitably qualified nominee of the NTEU ANU Branch President and a suitably qualified nominee of the Vice Chancellor (or delegate). Prior to determining the specific composition of the RIC, the Vice Chancellor (or delegate) shall confer with the ANU Branch President of the NTEU to ensure that the RIC includes:

a. at least one member with sufficient expertise and standing in a discipline relevant to the allegation of research misconduct (or in a cognate discipline) such that that member will be capable of understanding and assisting the other members of the RIC to understand any technical, research or scientific questions which may be in dispute; but who will be seen as clearly independent of any of the participants; and

b. at least one member with expertise in investigating research conduct issues, either through his or her professional experience, academic study or through the administration of research.

18. In order to achieve the requirements of paragraph 22 (a) and (b) are met, the Vice-Chancellor and the NTEU Branch President may agree that two (2) additional members be added to the membership of the RIC (so there may be five members).

19. Where an allegation is of serious research misconduct then the RIC must comprise members who hold no current employment or visitor appointment with the ANU.

20. The RIC will ensure that the rules of procedural fairness are followed, but otherwise will determine what additional procedures to follow in its inquiry and shall at all times act in conformity with the procedures set out in clauses 74.17 and 74.18 of the ANU Enterprise Agreement 2010 - 2012.

21. The DP will provide all evidence collected and any investigator's report to the chair of the RIC that is established: the DP will play no further role in the inquiry process.

22. The RIC, however comprised must:

a. be free of any conflict of interest;

b. have sufficient expertise and understanding of the relevant research environment and the nature of an inquiry process;

c. allow union representation and/or permit the staff member to seek legal advice as desired by the staff member facing the misconduct charges;

d. have power to gather evidence in addition to that provided by the DP. An RIC must also have access, where required for the purposes of its inquiries to all areas of the ANU, including staff and students, and must be provided with proper facilities and services; and

e. have power to determine the charges and decide if research misconduct has occurred.

23. One or more officers (legally trained or otherwise) may be engaged to assist the RIC with gathering of further evidence, questioning of witnesses, obtaining expert opinions and advising on procedural questions.

24. Where an RIC has been established and is investigating charges of research misconduct, but determines that the conduct revealed by its investigations is more properly characterised as serious research misconduct, the Chair of the RIC will inform the Vice-Chancellor (or delegate) and, either

a. where the RIC comprises no external members cease further operations. The Vice-Chancellor (or delegate) will follow the procedures for establishing an RIC to investigate serious research misconduct and all of the information provided to the earlier RIC will be forwarded to the Chair of a newly formed RIC, which will conduct its inquiries in accordance with this Procedure; or

b. where the RIC comprises all external members, adjourn its proceedings to allow the DP to re-formulate the extant charges as charges of serious research misconduct and then resume its inquiry.

Conduct of hearings, notification of findings and correction of the public record

25. All processes and findings of a RIC are private unless:

a. the ANU Enterprise Agreement or another law permits them to be public; or

b. all persons involved in have expressly or impliedly waived their right to privacy; and

c. suitable legal protections (for example, against defamation proceedings) for persons involved in the RIC processes undertaken pursuant to the Procedure are obtained.

26. Where the ANU is obliged to do so without breaching legal requirements, including the rights of the subject of the misconduct allegations to privacy and procedural fairness, the Vice-Chancellor (or delegate) will provide advice of the allegations and the outcome of any disciplinary proceedings to relevant funding agencies, journals, collaborating institutions, researchers, professional registration bodies, the general public and other parties, as relevant.

27. Where findings are made by an RIC exonerating a staff member facing misconduct charges, those findings must be communicated to the same bodies that were notified (if any) pursuant to clause 26.

28. All record keeping relative to the handling of research misconduct allegations must be in accord with the ANU policy, Records and Archives Management

Penalties

29. Should an RIC establish a finding that research or serious research misconduct has occurred, its findings will be referred to the appropriate officer who has responsibility for determining what disciplinary action may be taken, pursuant to the ANU Enterprise Agreement.

Appeals

30. A decision to impose disciplinary action is a ‘reviewable decision' and can be appealed pursuant to the terms of the ANU Enterprise Agreement 2010 - 2012.

External inquiries

31. Processes instituted pursuant to this Procedure may need to be suspended on procedural fairness grounds, or other grounds, should there be an external criminal, civil or other administrative tribunal inquiry into the same factual matters as those alleged to constitute misconduct.

32. After any such external inquiry is completed, and where it remains feasible to do so, the ANU may then consider and complete the research misconduct inquiry.

Collaborative research and research conducted whilst not an employee of the institution

33. Notwithstanding the above procedure, where the Vice-Chancellor and the President of the NTEU Branch agree that the allegations of research misconduct appear to involve action in concert between employees of more than one employer, the relevant CEOs of the employers and the NTEU may agree that a joint investigation and inquiry be held. The procedures for such a joint investigation and inquiry shall be agreed in writing, and where this occurs, those agreed procedures shall apply in substitution for the procedures otherwise set out in this Procedure and the ANU Enterprise Agreement.

34. Where legally possible, the University will cooperate when investigating allegations of research misconduct arising from research collaborations across institutions (including non-university research organisations) - sharing information and limiting duplication.

35. If the alleged research misconduct occurred when the ANU staff member was a student at or employed by another institution, the allegations will be passed to that other institution for investigation and appropriate action.

36. In the case of an allegation involving a researcher when employed elsewhere, the DP of the ANU may investigate the conduct of the researcher to satisfy the ANU that there has been no research misconduct while the researcher was employed by the ANU. ANU will cooperate with the previous employing institution to the full extent that is legally possible including the provision of information to assist any inquiry established by the previous institution.

37. If another institution finds an allegation of research misconduct proven against an employee of ANU whilst they were employed elsewhere, the findings will be assessed by the DP and ANU may follow the procedures as for an allegation of misconduct pursuant to this Procedure and the ANU Enterprise Agreement.

38. In the event of any direct inconsistency between the provisions of this procedure and the ANU Enterprise Agreement clauses 71.12 - 71.19 (Serious Research Misconduct) of the Enterprise Agreement will apply.

Changes to para 5, added responsible executive, corrected formatting on web version