• Section 1 - Preamble
• Section 2 - Purpose
• Section 3 - Scope
• Section 4 - Policy
• Section 5 - Procedure
• Advice available prior to making an allegation
• Allegation of research code breach 
• Continuing student study and enrolment
• Preliminary assessment of an allegation of research code breach
• Reporting to Director, Academic Governance and Standards
• Actions following preliminary assessment
• Student Research Integrity Panel
• Outcomes of Student Research Integrity Panel
• Student grounds of appeal
• Reporting outcomes of research integrity breach or serious research integrity breach
• Record Management
• Request for independent review
• Section 6 - Section 6 - Definitions

Section 1 - Preamble

(1) This Procedure is effective from 9 December 2024.

Section 2 - Purpose

(2) This Procedure documents the University’s processes for managing and investigating allegations of research code breaches in accordance with the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, 2018 (the Code), and the Guide to Managing and Investigating Potential Breaches of the Code, 2018.

(3) The University will investigate allegations of research code breaches and ensure the principles of procedural fairness apply throughout the management and investigation of an allegation.

Section 3 - Scope

(4) This Procedure applies to allegations of a research code breach relating to research conducted by those working or studying under the auspices of Deakin University, including University staff or students as well as honorary and adjunct appointees.

(5) Where an allegation of a research code breach relates to:

1. a graduate researcher and occurs during or after the thesis examination process or any published research by a graduate researcher, the matter will be managed in accordance with this Procedure.
2. a staff member who is also a student, the Pro Vice-Chancellor, Research Planning and Governance will determine whether the Higher Degrees by Research (HDR) Assessment Procedure or this Procedure should apply.
3. a student involving coursework units or other Graduate Research program content, the Pro Vice-Chancellor, Research Planning and Governance will seek the advice of the Dean of Students as to whether the matter should be managed according to this Procedure or the Student Academic Integrity Procedure.

(6) This Procedure does not limit a complainant seeking protection under the Protected Disclosures Act 2012 (Vic) for allegations concerning fraud, corruption or improper conduct (including the misuse or misappropriation of publicly funded resources) by a staff or student. The University’s obligations in respect of a public interest disclosure are set out in the Public Interest Disclosures Procedure.

Section 4 - Policy

(7) This Procedure is pursuant to the Research Conduct Policy.

Section 5 - Procedure

Advice available prior to making an allegation

(8) Anyone considering making an allegation of research code breach may obtain advice from a Research Integrity Adviser (RIA).

(9) RIAs can advise on research integrity related matters, research code breach processes and options for reporting a potential research code breach. RIAs will not assess or investigate an allegation or contact the person(s) who is the subject of the allegation.

Allegation of research code breach 

(10) Allegations of a research code breach must be reported to the Designated Officer, either directly or through Research Ethics and Integrity, in a timely manner and should:

1. be submitted in writing
2. include all information pertinent to allow identification and investigation of the allegation.

(11) On receipt of an allegation, the Designated Officer may request Research Ethics and Integrity staff to gather initial information for the Designated Officer to make one of the following determinations:

1. The allegation be dismissed because it:
   1. contains insufficient information; or
   2. was made with no basis in fact or in bad faith or vexatiously.
2. There are reasonable grounds for a potential research code breach to be pursued via preliminary assessment in accordance with clause 15 onwards.
3. The allegation refers to matters that should be pursued in accordance with other University policies or procedures or processes.

(12) Where an allegation poses a likely significant risk to human or animal safety, the environment or national security, the Designated Officer must take appropriate protective or precautionary action.

(13) The Designated Officer may notify the Vice-Chancellor of any allegation of a research code breach, where they deem necessary.

Continuing student study and enrolment

(14) Current students who have an allegation made against them may remain enrolled throughout the management of this Procedure, including during the University appeals process. The Pro Vice-Chancellor Researcher Development Academy will decide whether the student can continue to conduct research during this time.

Preliminary assessment of an allegation of research code breach

(15) Where the Designated Officer has determined there are reasonable grounds for a potential research code breach, an Assessment Officer will be appointed to conduct a preliminary assessment. The purpose of a preliminary assessment is to gather and evaluate facts and information to assess whether an allegation, if substantiated, constitutes a research code breach, and the seriousness of that breach.

(16) The Assessment Officer must:

1. be independent from the allegation/s;
2. have appropriate experience or expertise;
3. have no conflict of interest or bias.

(17) The Assessment Officer will notify the person against whom the allegation/s have been made (the Respondent), in writing, that they are the subject of allegation/s of a research code breach and that a preliminary assessment of the allegation/s will be conducted.

(18) The Respondent will be provided with sufficient detail to understand:

1. the nature of the allegation;
2. the process of review, including nominated timeframes that may be subject to discretionary extensions approved by the Designated Officer;
3. access to support services for Deakin staff and students subject to an allegation;
4. their right to respond in writing within 10 working days of notification of the allegation.

(19)  Where a Respondent admits to the allegation/s or is no longer employed or studying under the auspices of the University, the preliminary assessment will continue, including identifying required corrective actions.

(20) The Assessment Officer will contact Research Finance Services to determine whether funding bodies require notification and clarify any other contractual obligations arising from the allegation/s.

(21) The Assessment Officer will prepare a confidential preliminary assessment report for the Designated Officer within 60 working days of the respondent being notified in writing of the allegation/s. This deadline may be extended by the Designated Officer if they consider it is necessary to ensure all relevant issues are fairly investigated and considered.

(22) For the purposes of the preliminary assessment, the Assessment Officer may:

1. seek subject matter advice from an appropriate person/s with expertise on these matters, provided that the person or persons have no conflict of interest or bias;
2. seek legal advice;
3. consult with the Designated Officer if required. This does not preclude the Designated Officer from making a determination according to clause 23;
4. broaden the investigation to include additional staff or students as Respondents to the allegation, where supported by the evidence. These staff or students will be notified according to clause 17.

(23) On receipt of the preliminary assessment report, the Designated Officer will make a determination that:

1. there are no reasonable grounds to support a finding of a research code breach and the matter be dismissed; or
2. the allegation/s amount to one or more research code breach/s and that any corrective actions proportional to the seriousness of the breach are to be managed in accordance with clause 27; or
3. there are reasonable grounds for an allegation of a serious research code breach and that the matter be referred and managed in accordance with clause 28.

Reporting to Director, Academic Governance and Standards

(24) Within five working days of making a determination under clause 23 (b) or (c), the Designated Officer will notify the Director, Academic Governance and Standards of the determination and its rationale. On receipt of this notification, the Director, Academic Governance and Standards will confer with the Designated Officer as to whether the determination warrants notification to TEQSA in accordance with the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (TEQSA Act).

Actions following preliminary assessment

(25) The Designated Officer will inform the Respondent/s and Complainant, in writing, of the determination and outcome of the preliminary assessment. 

(26) Where an allegation has been dismissed on the grounds that it was made with no basis in fact or in bad faith or vexatiously, action against the Complainant may be taken by the Deputy Vice Chancellor Research and Innovation according to the Staff Discipline Procedure or Student Misconduct Procedure.

(27) Where it is determined under clause 23(b) that an allegation constitutes a research code breach:

1. the corrective actions will be managed by the:
   1. Head of Academic Unit for matters relating to the Respondent/s; and/or
   2. Research Ethics and Integrity for matters not directly related to the Respondent
2. for a research code breach by a staff member, the Vice-Chancellor may also take action in accordance with clause 68.3 of the Deakin University Enterprise Agreement 2023 (2023 EA); or
3. for a research code breach by an honorary or adjunct appointee (including an Emeritus Professor) or any other person who is working under the auspices of the University but is not subject to the 2023 EA, the University retains sole discretion to determine what (if any) corrective actions are required. Research Ethics and Integrity will manage corrective actions with the Respondent. For Emeritus Professors, regard shall be given to the Emeritus Professors Appointment Policy as appropriate.

(28) Where it is determined under clause 23(c) that there are reasonable grounds for an allegation of a serious research code breach, the Designated Officer will refer the matter:

1. to the Vice-Chancellor to be managed in accordance with clause 68.4 of the 2023 EA for allegations relating to staff. In this case, the Chief People and Culture Officer will be advised prior to notifying the Vice-Chancellor;
2. for a formal investigation by a Student Research Integrity Panel in accordance with clause 29 of this Procedure, for allegations relating to students; or
3. to the Vice-Chancellor (or nominee) for a serious research code breach by an honorary or adjunct appointee (including an Emeritus Professor) or any other person who is working under the auspices of the University but is not subject to the 2023 EA. The University retains sole discretion to determine what (if any) corrective actions are required. For Emeritus Professors, regard shall be given to the Emeritus Professors Appointment Policy as appropriate.

Student Research Integrity Panel

(29) Where there is a determination under clause 23(c) that there are reasonable grounds for an allegation of a serious research code breach by a student and the matter is referred under clause 28b, the Designated Officer will appoint a Student Research Integrity Panel (Panel) to investigate the matter.

(30) The Designated Officer will:

1. nominate persons to the Panel, who have no conflict of interest or bias;
2. develop the terms of reference;
3. seek legal advice on matters of process where appropriate.

(31) The Panel will consist of:

1. an appropriately qualified and experienced Chair;
2. a person with sufficient expertise and standing in the discipline relevant to the allegation, not involved in the supervision of the student, who is capable of assisting the other members of the Panel to understand any technical, research or scientific questions which may be in dispute;
3.  a person with understanding of responsible conduct of research and expertise in investigating research code breaches either through their academic study or through the administration of research;
4. any person co-opted to the panel by the Chair;
5. a reasonable gender balance and diversity of members as determined by the Chair. 

(32) The student will be notified at least 10 working days before the Panel investigation of:

1. the date and location of the Panel investigation;
2. the Panel's composition and the student’s opportunity to raise any conflict of interest concerns;
3. the details of the allegation and evidence supporting it;
4. the opportunity to respond to the allegation in writing up to two days prior to the Panel investigation and/or attend the Panel investigation in person and to call witness/es to the Panel investigation;
5. the right to bring a support person to the Panel investigation according to clause 34;
6. the opportunity to ask questions of the Panel and to answer questions asked by the Panel during the panel investigation;
7. the Panel investigation being held even if the student does not respond or attend the Panel investigation and that a decision will be made (and outcome determined, if appropriate) in their absence.

(33)  Where further evidence is received that may be relevant to the Panel investigation, it will be provided to the student as soon as possible.

(34) Students may bring a support person to any meetings associated with the Panel investigation, provided that the person is not a practicing lawyer. Where the support person has expertise likely to assist the Panel on procedural, technical or factual matters or if the student requires reasonable adjustments, the Panel will allow the support person to speak on the student’s behalf.

(35) For the purposes of the investigation, the Panel:

1. will review the evidence of the allegation;
2. will provide the student an opportunity to respond to the allegations;
3. may interview any staff, student or other relevant people, as required;
4. may seek legal advice, if required;
5. may seek advice on any technical matters from appropriate persons, provided there is no conflict of interest or bias;
6. will make a finding of fact on whether a research breach has occurred, and the extent of that breach;
7. may recommend actions, as required.

(36) The Panel findings should be made by consensus based on the evidence and on the balance of probabilities.  Where consensus is unable to be achieved, the decision will be made via a majority vote. Where there is no majority decision, the Chair will make the final decision.

(37) The Panel will provide a summary of the investigation, findings and recommendations (where required) to the Designated Officer. Where there are dissenting views, these should be included in the Panel’s report.

Outcomes of Student Research Integrity Panel

(38) On receipt of the Panel’s report, the Designated Officer will determine whether the allegation/s:

1. are substantiated, and if they are not, that the matter be dismissed; or
2. amount to one or more research code breaches; and/or
3. amount to one or more serious research code breach/s.

(39) The Designated Officer will notify the student within 10 working days of the decision being made.

(40) Research Ethics and Integrity will notify the Manager International Student Support and Compliance, Deakin International, of any substantiated allegations involving an international student.

Student grounds of appeal

(41) A student may appeal to the University Appeals Committee on the grounds outlined in the Student Appeals Procedure, within 20 working days of being notified of the decision.

Reporting outcomes of research integrity breach or serious research integrity breach

(42) The Designated Officer will inform the Respondent/s and Complainant of the outcome of the preliminary assessment and any Panel investigation, as well as any grounds of appeal and their right to request an independent review. Relevant parties may also be notified of the decision, where required.

(43) The Designated Officer will notify the Director, Academic Governance and Standards to ensure that TEQSA is informed of outcomes from the investigation where required.

(44) The Pro Vice-Chancellor Research Planning and Governance will:

1. report annually to the Risk and Compliance Unit on the occurrence and nature of allegations and any actions to address the underlying causes; and
2. report biannually on decisions and trends to Academic Board and University Council through relevant committees.

Record Management

(45) Records of the allegations of research code breach and serious research code breach and investigation outcomes will be held by the Deputy Vice Chancellor Research and Innovation.

Request for independent review

(46) Respondents and Complainants may request the Australian Research Integrity Committee (ARIC) to review the processes undertaken by the University to manage and investigate allegations of research code breaches.

Section 6 - Section 6 - Definitions

(47) For the purpose of this Procedure:

1. Academic Unit: as defined in the Research Conduct Policy.
2. Assessment Officer: a person appointed to conduct a preliminary assessment into a potential research code breach. The person must be as independent as possible from the allegation/s; have appropriate experience or expertise; and have no conflict of interest or bias.
3. complainant: a person or persons who has made an allegation of research code breach or serious research code breach.
4. Designated Officer: Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research and Innovation or nominee appointed to receive allegations about the conduct of research or potential breaches of the Code and to oversee their management and investigation where required.
5. notify: email the staff or student to their Deakin and last known personal email addresses.
6. research code breach: a breach of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, 2018.
7. Research Integrity Advisers (RIA): Deakin-appointed academics nominated to promote a culture of responsible conduct of research within Deakin and provide advice to those with concerns or complaints about potential breaches of the Code.
8. research integrity: a commitment to honesty, accuracy, efficiency and objectivity in research which meets the requirements of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, 2018.
9. Respondent: person or persons subject to an allegation of research integrity breach or serious research integrity breach.
10. Serious research code breach: refers to more serious or deliberate conduct that involves:
    1. intent or deliberation, recklessness or gross and persistent negligence; and/or
    2. serious consequences, such as false information on the public record, or adverse effects on research participants, animals or the environment.
       1. Serious Research Code Breach includes fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or deception in proposing, carrying out or reporting the results of research, and failure to declare or manage a serious conflict of interest. It includes avoidable failure to follow research proposals as approved by a research ethics committee, particularly where this failure may result in unreasonable risk or harm to humans, animals or the environment. It also includes the willful concealment or facilitation of a research breach by others.
       2. Repeated or continuing instances of Research Code Breaches may also constitute a Serious Research Code Breach and do so where these have been the subject of previous counselling or specific direction. A Serious Research Code Breach does not include honest differences in judgment in management of the research project and may not include honest errors that are minor or unintentional.
11. Student: has the meaning given in the Deakin University Act 2009 (Vic) and includes a person who was a student at the time the relevant conduct occurred, as defined in the Academic Board Regulations.
12. Supervision: the provision by a staff member of advice and guidance about research during a unit or course
13. Vexatiously: refers to a vexatious complaint that lacks substance, and has been intentionally fabricated, and/or relates to a complaint that has already been resolved.