(1) This Procedure is effective from 9 December 2024. (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. (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: (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. (7) This Procedure is pursuant to the Research Conduct Policy. (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. (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: (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: (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. (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. (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: (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: (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: (23) On receipt of the preliminary assessment report, the Designated Officer will make a determination that: (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). (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: (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: (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: (31) The Panel will consist of: (32) The student will be notified at least 10 working days before the Panel investigation of: (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: (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. (38) On receipt of the Panel’s report, the Designated Officer will determine whether the allegation/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. (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. (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: (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. (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. (47) For the purpose of this Procedure:Research Integrity Breaches Procedure
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
View Current
This is the current version of this document. To view historic versions, click the link in the document's navigation bar.
Where the Designated Officer determines that there has been a research code breach or a serious code breach by the student, the Designated Officer may impose one or more outcomes as set out in Schedule 1 of the Academic Board Regulations.
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.
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.