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.