PURPOSE

This policy details the principles and processes for responsible conduct of research at Global Leadership Institute (GLI) by academic staff and Higher Degree Research (HDR) students. It is based on the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2018) (National Code) and associated guides.

SCOPE

All academic staff and HDR students

Matters relating to coursework Masters capstone projects are dealt with according to the Academic Integrity Policy

PRINCIPLES

In accordance with the National Code, GLI’s principles of responsible conduct of research are:

1. Honesty in the development, undertaking, and reporting of research.
2. Rigour in the development, undertaking, and reporting of research.
3. Transparency in declaring interests and reporting research methods, data, and findings.
4. Fairness in the treatment of others.
5. Respect for research participants, the wider community, animals, and the environment.
6. Recognition of the right of First Nations Peoples to engage in research that affects or is of significance to them.
7. Accountability for the development, undertaking, and reporting of research.
8. Promotion of responsible research practices.

DEFINITIONS

Allegation: claim or assertion arising from preliminary assessment that there are reasonable grounds to believe a breach has occurred. may refer to a single allegation or multiple allegations.

Balance of Probabilities: on the weight of evidence, it is more probable than not that a breach has occurred.

Breach: failure to adhere to the National Code, relevant legislation, and GLI policies. It may refer to a single breach or multiple breaches.

Complainant: person who lodges a complaint regarding a potential breach of responsible research conduct.

Conflict of Interest: independent observer may reasonably conclude that professional actions of a person or institution are or may be unduly influenced by other interests;

Delegated Officer: designated GLI academic leader with knowledge of research practice, legislation, and policies.

Research: see Research and Scholarship Policy

Researcher: academic staff member (including contracted HDR supervisors) or HDR student engaged in research activity.

Research Data: facts, observations, or experiences on which an argument, theory, hypothesis, or test is based. It includes raw or analysed information, such as notes, digital or hard copy primary sources, questionnaires, multimedia outputs, photographs, artefacts, or tests.

Respondent: person being investigated regarding a potential breach of responsible research conduct.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF GLI

GLI ensures that:

• responsible research conduct is mandated and monitored;
• this policy is clearly explained during staff induction, HDR supervisor training, and HDR student induction;
• regular training and resources about the National Code are provided for academic staff, HDR supervisors, and HDR students;
• governance and management practices of responsible research conduct are maintained;
• dissemination of research findings is encouraged, facilitated, and supported;
• processes are in place to report and investigate complaints about potential breaches of the National Code;
• resolution of complaints is prompt, effective, and fair with a focus on the welfare of all parties involved;
• safe and secure storage of research data is provided, and appropriate access managed;
• no victimisation of complainants or respondents is tolerated.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF RESEARCHERS

GLI researchers have a responsibility to:

• support a culture of responsible research conduct;
• undertake regular training in responsible research practices;
• obtain all approvals prior to commencement of research and adhere to any conditions of approval;
• adhere to the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research and the National Code;
• comply with relevant legislation, discipline standards, and GLI polices;
• present information truthfully and accurately in proposing, conducting, and reporting research;
• cite other relevant work appropriately and accurately;
• participate in peer review that is fair, rigorous, and timely, maintaining confidentiality where required;
• demonstrate robust methodology appropriate to research aims and conclusions that are justified by results;
• share and communicate methods, data, and findings openly, responsibly, and accurately;
• disclose and manage actual or perceived conflicts of interest;
• acknowledge those who have contributed to the research, giving credit or authorship where appropriate;
• value and engage with First Nations Peoples communities prior to commencement of the research and adhere to the Ethical Guidelines for Research with Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Peoples.

MANAGEMENT OF DATA AND PRIMARY MATERIALS

Management of research data and primary material during and after research is finalised adheres to Information and Record Management Policy. Subject to any confidentiality, contractual, privacy or protection requirements, access and reference to research data and materials must be permitted.

COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH

GLI encourages collaboration between researchers, institutions, and industry where the research is appropriately managed through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). All researchers must comply with the National Code, relevant legislation, and GLI policies, in addition to any other relevant standards from the collaborator.

BREACHES OF RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH CONDUCT

Breaches of responsible research conduct at GLI include, but are not limited to:

1. Not meeting required research standards:
   • failure to adhere to the Research Ethics Policy;
   • failure to conduct and report research as approved by GLI’s external authorised human research ethics body;
   • conducting research without the requisite approvals;
   • misuse of research funds;
   • concealment or facilitation of breaches (or potential breaches) of the National Code by others, such as not reporting potential breaches and/or facilitation of breaches.
2. Fabrication, falsification, misrepresentation:
   • fabrication or falsification of research data, software codes, or source material;
   • misrepresentation of research data or source material;
   • falsification and/or misrepresentation to obtain funding.
3. Plagiarism:
   • plagiarism of another’s work, including theories, concepts, research data and source material;
   • duplicating a publication without acknowledgment of the source, including self-plagiarising;
   • deception in proposing, carrying out, or reporting results of research.
4. Research data management:
   • failure to appropriately maintain research data and primary materials as detailed in the Information and Record Management Policy;
   • inappropriate destruction of research records, research data, and/or source material;
   • inappropriate disclosure of, or access to, research records, research data and/or source material.
5. Supervision:
   • failure to provide adequate guidance or mentorship on responsible research conduct to researchers, research trainees or research students under their supervision;
   • failure to ensure that supervisors meet eligibility criteria;
   • failure to act in accordance with the Research Supervision Policy.
6. Authorship:
   • failure to acknowledge the contributions of others fairly;
   • misleading ascription of authorship including failing to offer authorship to those who qualify or awarding authorship to those who do not meet the requirements.
   • failure to adhere to the authorship requirements in the Research and Scholarship Policy.
7. Conflicts of interest:
   • failure to disclose and manage actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest;
   • failure to declare relevant interests to funding bodies, research participants, publishing editors, collaborators, and the general public;
   • failure to declare financial interests related to a member of the researcher’s immediate family.
8. Peer review:
   • failure to participate in peer review in a fair and responsible way;
   • failure to maintain confidentiality or use information obtained for personal advantage;
   • failure to act appropriately, respectfully, and constructively when conducting a peer review.
9. Collaboration:
   • failure to adhere to the protocols listed in a GLI MOU;
   • failure of collaborators to comply with the National Code, relevant Australian legislation, and GLI policies;
   • failure to comply with relevant policies and legislation of international collaborators;

Where a complaint relates to activities that have (or have the potential to) harm humans, animals, or the environment, GLI takes immediate action to minimise the risk of harm. In such cases, it may also be necessary to inform relevant external agencies and/or manage the matter in accordance with relevant GLI policies. Where a breach involves potentially corrupt or criminal behaviour, the matter may be referred to an external agency to investigate.

SEVERITY OF BREACHES

Severity of a breach of responsible research conduct is determined on a case-by-case basis and considers:

• extent of the breach;
• extent to which research participants, the broader community, animals, and the environment are or may have been affected by the breach;
• extent to which the breach impacts the credibility of research;
• whether the breach is a significant departure from accepted practice;
• level of experience of the researcher;
• whether GLI failed to provide adequate training for academic staff and/or HDR students;
• whether there is a pattern of breaches by the researcher;
• any other mitigating or aggravating circumstances that occurred.

Minor

Honest differences in judgement and unintentional errors that can be addressed at the preliminary assessment stage. This generally includes:

• a requirement for the respondent to receive counselling or mentoring;
• an informal warning;
• a formal warning recorded on the student’s record if applicable.

Major

This generally includes:

• intentional, reckless, and/or negligent breach of responsible research conduct; and/or
• repeated or persistent breaches after previous corrective actions or as requested by GLI’s external authorised human research ethics body.

Major breaches require investigation.

PROCEDURES

BREACHES OF RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH CONDUCT FLOWCHART

REPORTING BREACHES

Anyone can report a complaint about a potential breach of responsible research conduct. GLI academic staff have an obligation to report suspected breaches. The complainant may:

• communicate directly with the person against whom the complaint is made;
• refer the matter to a person in a supervisory capacity;
• not proceed with a complaint considering the circumstances;
• submit a complaint.

1. Initial Receipt of Complaint

The complainant submits a complaint via research@gli.edu.au, including relevant information and supporting evidence. The delegated officer may assist a complainant in submitting a complaint. Anonymous complaints are considered, depending on the nature of the complaint and the evidence presented. Complaints deemed vexatious are dismissed. Where a complainant subsequently chooses not to proceed with a complaint, GLI is still obliged to determine whether to proceed to a preliminary assessment.

Upon receipt of a complaint, the delegated officer determines whether to:

• proceed to a preliminary assessment;
• request additional documentation;
• dismiss the complaint;
• refer the complaint to other GLI policy processes.

Potential breaches in collaborative research are managed on a case-by-case basis, depending on the lead institution, contractual arrangements, where the events occurred, where the complaint was lodged, and relevant international research practices.

2. Preliminary Assessment

If the complaint proceeds to a preliminary assessment, the delegated officer:

• informs the respondent and requests a response in writing within 10 working days;
• oversees fair, timely, and transparent processes;
• seeks further expertise if required;
• engages with the respondent to clarify information.

The delegated officer then determines whether to:

• proceed to investigation;
• resolve the matter with or without corrective actions;
• dismiss the complaint;
• refer the complaint to other GLI policy processes.

Outcomes of the preliminary assessment are provided to the complainant and respondent at the conclusion of a preliminary assessment, if appropriate.

3. Investigation

For a major breach, an Investigation Panel is constituted, including the Academic Dean and at least two GLI researchers in a relevant field who have no direct association with the allegation. The respondent is advised of the investigation, in writing, and provided an opportunity to meet with the panel and bring a support person.

Considering the evidence and on the balance of probabilities, the panel determines whether the respondent has breached responsible research conduct. The panel provides a draft report to the respondent who can respond within 10 working days. The report is also to be provided to the complainant in cases where the complainant is directly affected by the outcome.

4. Outcome

Within five (5) working days after the panel meeting, the delegated officer communicates the decision to the respondent in writing. If applicable, other parties are also informed of the decision.

If the panel decides that the respondent did not breach responsible research conduct, no penalty is applied. Efforts, if required, are made to restore the reputation of affected parties. Where there is a finding of poor scholarship, the delegated officer may recommend further training and/or mentoring.

A major breach of responsible research conduct may result in the following:

• a systematic issue at GLI is referred to the relevant department to be addressed;
• an academic staff member is dealt with according to the Code of Conduct Policy;
• a HDR student may be required to retake milestone work or other penalties decided by the HDR Program Director. The breach is recorded on the student’s file.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

For international students on a student visa, a penalty of suspension or exclusion will result in being reported to the relevant government departments and may result in cancellation of the student visa.

GLI makes every effort to correct any public records of the research, including publications, if a breach has affected the accuracy or trustworthiness of research findings and their dissemination.

COMPLAINTS, GRIEVANCES, AND APPEALS

If a HDR student wishes to appeal the decision, they have the right to follow the Student Grievance and Appeals Policy. The student should provide as much detail as possible in support of their case, including drafts of the work in question.

RESPONSES TO STAFF BREACHES

If the academic staff member wishes to appeal the decision, the Staff Grievance Policy should be followed. Penalties for research misconduct will consider the fact that academic staff are expected to have learned responsible research conduct earlier during their research journey. Breaches may result in disciplinary action listed in the Code of Conduct Policy.