(1) This Procedure is effective from 16 August 2023. (2) This Procedure documents the processes for managing and investigating potential breaches of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, 2018 (the Code), in accordance with the Guide to Managing and Investigating Potential Breaches of the Code, 2018 (the Investigation Guide). (3) This Procedure applies to allegations of a research code breach and serious research code breach by University staff or students conducting research in Honours, coursework or higher degrees by research (HDR). For allegations involving students that relate to academic integrity involving coursework units and other HDR program content, the Pro Vice-Chancellor Researcher Development 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. (4) Where an allegation concerns a staff member who is also a student, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research and Innovation will determine which process is the most appropriate in all the circumstances. (5) This Procedure does not limit a person's ability to lodge a protected disclosure where an allegation concerns dishonest conduct by a staff or student researcher, serious enough that if proven it could constitute a criminal offence or provide reasonable grounds for dismissal. Any protected disclosure should be made in accordance with the Public Interest Disclosures procedure. (6) This Procedure is pursuant to the Research Conduct Policy. (7) Course Directors and Faculty Higher Degrees by Research (HDR) Coordinators will ensure that students enrolled in courses involving research are provided with information about research integrity as part of their orientation to the University. (8) Information about research integrity will be included in all relevant unit sites and made available on the Candidature Engagement website. This will include a statement on research integrity incorporating definitions, sources of support and penalties that may apply for research code breaches and serious research code breaches. (9) Supervisors and Supervision teams will provide students with genuine opportunities to learn how to conduct research with integrity in accordance with expected discipline conventions when they commence research units or courses at the University, with reminders provided throughout their course. (10) A member of staff in each Academic Unit will be nominated to ensure that: (11) A Faculty, Institute or Academic Unit staff member or group will be nominated to support new and existing staff to improve relevant practices relating to research code breach or serious research code breach. (12) Anyone considering making an allegation/s of research code breach or serious research code breach may obtain advice on integrity from an Adviser in Research Integrity appointed by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research and Innovation. The advice is confidential except as set out in clause 13. Advisers provide advice on research matters, research integrity breach processes and options for reporting a research code breach and serious research code breach. They will not attempt to assess or investigate an allegation/s or contact the person(s) who is the subject of the allegation/s. (13) Where the allegation/s is serious enough to constitute a public interest disclosure under the Public Interest Disclosures Act 2012 (Vic) and the person considering making the allegation/s decides not to proceed, the Adviser may choose to make a public interest disclosure in accordance with the Public Interest Disclosures procedure. (14) Anyone who believes a research code breach or serious research code breach has taken place must act in a timely manner and formally report the allegation/s to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research and Innovation or nominee. Where possible, the allegation should be made in writing. (15) Where an allegation of research code breach or serious research code breach poses a likely significant risk to humans, animal safety, the environment or national security, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research and Innovation or nominee must take appropriate protective or precautionary action. (16) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research and Innovation or nominee will make the following determination: (17) Where it is determined an allegation was made with no basis in fact or in bad faith or vexatiously, efforts will be made by the Pro Vice-Chancellor Researcher Development to restore the reputation of any affected parties, and if required, action will be taken according to the Staff Discipline procedure or Student Misconduct procedure. (18) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research and Innovation or nominee may notify the Vice-Chancellor of any allegation of serious research code breach. (19) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research and Innovation or nominee will appoint an Assessment Officer to conduct a preliminary assessment of the allegation of serious research code breach. (20) The Assessment Officer must meet the following criteria: (21) The Assessment Officer will notify the Director, Academic Governance and Standards where an allegation/s of serious research code breach has been made. The Director, Academic Governance and Standards, will undertake assessment of the allegation and provide a recommendation to Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor Academic for determination on whether to notify the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) according to the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011. (22) Where an allegation/s of serious research code breach relates to NHRMC or ARC funding, the Assessment Officer will contact the Deakin Grants Office to determine if notification to funding bodies is required in accordance with the NHMRC policy on misconduct related to NHMRC funding or ARC Research Integrity and Research Misconduct Policy. (23) The Assessment Officer will notify the staff or student against whom the allegation/s have been made, in person, or by video or other electronic means where a face-to-face meeting is not possible, and in writing, that they are the subject of allegation/s of serious research code breach and that a preliminary assessment of the allegation/s will be conducted. (24) The staff or student against whom the allegation/s has been made will receive a written notification of the nature of the allegation and given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and/or to make written submissions, within 10 working days of receipt of the allegation. (25) The Assessment Officer will conduct their preliminary assessment with procedural fairness. They will: (26) Where a staff member or student admits to a research code breach and/or has left the University, the preliminary assessment into the allegation of serious research code breach will continue, including identifying appropriate corrective actions. (27) For purposes of the preliminary assessment, the Assessment Officer may: (28) The Assessment Officer may broaden the investigation to include additional staff or students as respondents to the allegation where supported by the evidence. Additional staff or students will be notified according to clause 24. (29) To determine the seriousness of a breach, the Assessment Officer may consider the following factors (without excluding other factors): (30) The Assessment Officer will prepare a confidential preliminary assessment report within 60 working days of the allegation being made and advise the Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research and Innovation or nominee if there are reasonable grounds for the allegation/s of serious research code breach and whether there is scope for further investigation. (31) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research and Innovation or nominee will consider the preliminary assessment report and within 10 working days of receiving the report determine: (32) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research and Innovation or nominee will inform the staff member or student against whom the allegation of serious research code breach is made, in person, or by video or other electronic means where a face-to-face meeting is not possible, and in writing, of the outcome and rationale of the preliminary assessment. The complainant will be advised in writing of the outcome. (33) Where an allegation of serious research code breach has been dismissed on the grounds that it was made with no basis in fact or in bad faith or vexatiously, efforts will be made by the Pro Vice-Chancellor Researcher Development to restore the reputation of any affected parties, and if required, action will be taken according to the Staff Discipline procedure or Student Misconduct procedure. (34) Where it is determined that an allegation of serious research code breach constitutes a research code breach according to clause 31b: (35) Where it is determined there are reasonable grounds for an allegation of serious research code breach according to clause 31c, the matter will be either: (36) Where a formal hearing of an allegation of student serious research code breach is required under clause 35b, a Student Research Integrity Committee will be appointed to hear the case. (37) The Student Research Integrity Committee will consist of: (38) The Chair will nominate the other members of the Committee. (39) Committee members will not have any conflict of interest in hearing the case. The Chair is able to make a decision concerning the allegation under clause 31 as well as hear the case. (40) Deakin Research will notify the student at least 10 working days before the hearing of: (41) Where further evidence is received it will be provided to the student as soon as possible. (42) The Committee may request the attendance of staff, students and other relevant people at the hearing to help them to make a decision. (43) Students may bring a support person to any meetings associated with the investigation or management of the case, provided that the person is not a practising lawyer. Where the support person has expertise likely to assist the Committee on procedural, technical or factual matters or if the student requires reasonable adjustments, the Committee will allow the support person to speak on the student’s behalf. (44) At the hearing, the Committee will review the evidence of the allegation and will give the student the opportunity to respond and interview any staff, students or other relevant people as required. The Committee will: (45) The Committee will make a decision by a majority vote at the end of the hearing or as soon as possible afterwards. The Committee Chair may adjourn the hearing if appropriate. (46) The Committee will decide whether it is more likely than not that: (47) Where the Committee decides that serious research code breach has occurred, it will apply one or more of the following outcomes: (48) The Committee will notify the student within five working days of the outcome being made, reasons and right to appeal the decision. Deakin Research will coordinate the implementation of the outcome. The decision will be implemented immediately, except where the decision relates to suspension or exclusion and the student appeals the outcome to the University Appeals Committee, in which case the decision will not be implemented until the appeal process is completed. (49) Deakin Research will record the decision and outcome in the student’s record after the conclusion of any appeal process. (50) Deakin Research will notify Deakin International if the matter involves an international student. (51) The Student Research Integrity Committee will report outcomes to the Pro Vice-Chancellor Researcher Development. (52) Students will remain enrolled throughout the management of an allegation and internal management of a breach of research integrity, including the University appeals process. The Pro Vice-Chancellor Researcher Development will decide whether the student can continue to conduct research during this time. (53) Allegations will be heard and decided even if the student withdraws from the unit or course. (54) A student may appeal to the University Appeals Committee according to the Student Appeals procedure against the decision only on one or more of the following grounds: (55) The appeal must be lodged by email within 20 working days of being notified of the outcome of the hearing according to the Student Appeals procedure. (56) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research and Innovation or nominee will inform all relevant parties of the decision and outcome of the assessment of the allegation of research code breach or serious research code breach and their right to request a review of the outcome, as outlined in clause 60. Relevant parties may include but are not limited to affected staff, research collaborators including those at other institutions, all funding organisations, journal editors, ethics committees, Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency and professional registration bodies. (57) The Pro Vice-Chancellor Researcher Development will report annually to the Risk and Compliance Unit on the occurrence and nature of allegations and any actions to address the underlying causes. The Pro Vice-Chancellor Researcher Development will report biannually on decisions and trends to Academic Board and University Council through relevant committees. (58) All allegations of research code breach and serious research code breach/es will be entered into the Breach Register held by the Pro Vice-Chancellor Researcher Development. This register will include the following: (59) Where a research code breach or serious research code breach has resulted in incorrect information being placed upon the public record, action will be taken by the Pro Vice-Chancellor Researcher Development or nominee to correct the public record, including Deakin Research Online. (60) Respondents and complainants may request that the Australian Research Integrity Committee (ARIC) review the processes undertaken by the University in relation to alleged breaches of the Code. (61) 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
Education and support for student researchers
Advice available prior to making a formal allegation
Allegation of research code breach or serious research code breach
Preliminary assessment of an allegation of serious research code breach
Actions following preliminary assessment
Formal hearing of allegation of student serious research code breach
Outcomes of student formal hearing
Continuing student study and enrolment
Student appeal
Reporting outcomes of research code breach or serious research code breach
Recording keeping
Correction of the public record
Request for review of a research code breach investigation
Section 6 - Definitions
A 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 wilful concealment or facilitation of serious research code 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 judgement in management of the research project, and may not include honest errors that are minor or unintentional.
View Current
This is not a current document. To view the current version, click the link in the document's navigation bar.