View Current

Misconduct - Higher Degree Research Candidate Misconduct in Research Policy

This is not a current document. It has been repealed and is no longer in force.

(1) Any allegation of misconduct made under this policy before 1 January 2016 will continue to be dealt with in accordance with the policy, to the conclusion of any appeal. From 1 January 2016, allegations of misconduct are to be made, investigated and determined in accordance with the Student Misconduct Rule.

Section 1 - Purpose and Context

(2) This Policy defines academic misconduct by research candidates. It describes the processes the University will follow in the investigation and hearing of allegations and it describes the penalties that will apply, if allegations are proven.

(3) The Misconduct - Higher Degree Research Candidate Misconduct in Research Policy applies to all higher degree research candidates who carry out research at or on behalf of the University, whether or not they are also an employee of the University or also have some other representative or associated capacity. Where alleged misconduct relates to undergraduate or postgraduate coursework units that are undertaken as part of the research candidature, the University's Misconduct - Student Academic Misconduct Policy will apply. If there is any ambiguity as to which policy applies the Academic Registrar will determine the matter.

Top of Page

Section 2 - Definitions

Misconduct in Research

(4) For the purposes of this policy:

  1. The Dean is the Dean of a University School.
  2. The Director, Research Institute is the Director of a University Research Institute.
  3. The HDR Director is the relevant Director (e.g. Director, HDR or Director, Research and HDR) as determined by the Dean, or an equivalent role as determined by the Director, Research Institute.
  4. There is an Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) (STEM cluster) and Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) (HASS cluster).
  5. The School or Research Institute (Institute) Research and Higher Degrees Committee is the relevant School Research and Higher Degrees Committee, or the equivalent committee for a University Research Institute as determined by the Director, Research Institute in consultation with the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President, Research and Development.

(5) Misconduct in research includes but is not limited to:

  1. the fabrication of data, including claiming results where none have been obtained;
  2. the falsification of data, including changing records;
  3. attribution of authorship including the listing of authors without their permission, attributing work to others who have not contributed to the research, and the lack of appropriate acknowledgment of work primarily produced by a research candidate/trainee or associate;
  4. inclusion of inaccurate or misleading information relating to research activity and publications in curriculum vitae, grant applications, job applications or public statements; or the failure to provide relevant information;
  5. other practices that significantly deviate from those commonly accepted within the research community for proposing, conducting or reporting research;
  6. departure from approved protocols in relation to human or animal experimentation or the handling of hazardous materials;
  7. infringements of the University Research Code of Practice;
  8. plagiarism; that is, submitting or presenting the work of another or others as if it were the candidate's own work. In relation to research candidature plagiarism:
    1. Applies to work submitted or presented at any stage during the candidature;
    2. Includes any material, including drafts, submitted or presented, such as a paper, chapter or agreed piece of work required by the supervisory panel, or work presented for examination.
  9. Misappropriation; that is:
    1. Using any information in breach of any duty of confidentiality associated with the review of any manuscript or grant application.
    2. Omitting reference to the relevant published work of others and thereby inferring personal discovery of new information.
  10. Interference, which includes taking or sequestering or materially damaging any research-related property of another, including the apparatus, reagents, biological materials, writings, data, hardware, software, or any other substance or device used or produced in the conduct of research.
  11. Misrepresentation; that is:
    1. stating or presenting a material or significant falsehood; or
    2. omitting a fact so that what is stated or presented as a whole states or presents a material or significant falsehood;
    3. in a manner contravening any agreement between the University and the candidate relating to the research;
    4. acting in a manner in relation to the conduct of research which is likely to bring the University into disrepute.
Top of Page

Section 3 - Policy Statement

(6) The University considers research and the pursuit of knowledge to be vital functions of the University. It is committed to ensuring that its research candidates carry out all research activities in accordance with the highest standards of professional and ethical conduct.

(7) It is the responsibility of candidates, with the guidance of their supervisors, to observe the relevant academic conventions and requirements appropriate to their field, including acknowledgement of the intellectual property of others, and to avoid all forms of research misconduct.

(8) The University expects research candidates to be familiar with and uphold the University Research Code of Practice.

Top of Page

Section 4 - Procedure

Part A - Principles for Dealing with Suspected Misconduct in Research

(9) All investigations of alleged misconduct in research are to be conducted with due regard for procedural fairness.

(10) The University must notify the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of the receipt of any complaint or allegation of Research Misconduct that is made to the Administering Institution that involves any NHMRC funded grant and any Specified Personnel within ten working days following receipt of the complaint or allegation. For full procedures please refer to the NHMRC Funding agreement.

(11) Where allegations concern more than one person, these allegations will be investigated separately for each person under the appropriate staff or candidate policy.

(12) In circumstances where a research candidate is also an employee (casual, part-time or full-time) of the University, the appropriate mechanism for testing the allegation will rest on whether the alleged research misconduct occurred within the context of his/her research study or research conducted under the terms of his/her employment.

(13) Any person who has reason to believe that a candidate has acted in a manner that constitutes research misconduct has the responsibility to report the allegation.

(14) If a person suspects misconduct has taken place he or she may seek advice from one or more of the following:

  1. a School or Research Institute HDR Director;
  2. a School Dean or Director, Research Institute;
  3. the relevant Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research);
  4. Student Support Services;
  5. the Equity and Diversity Unit;
  6. the Badanami Centre for Indigenous Education; or
  7. a University Adviser in Research Integrity.

(15) In ensuring that both the person making the allegation and the person against whom the allegation has been made are given adequate protection, University officers and staff dealing with an allegation will observe strict confidentiality and proceed with all reasonable speed, in all stages of an investigation.

(16) If an allegation is found to be not substantiated, the person who was the subject of the allegation must not be treated by the University, or supervising staff, in any way implying that the allegation was correct.

Part B - Processes for the Investigation and Hearing of Allegations of Research Misconduct

Receipt of Complaints

(17) All allegations of misconduct in research shall be directed to the relevant Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) for preliminary investigation. Formal complaints must be made in writing.

(18) The Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) will consider evidence for and against the allegation to determine whether the allegation is founded.

(19) Disciplinary action will not be used precipitately. However, in some cases where misconduct is not found it may be advisable for the supervisory panel to counsel or warn a candidate.

(20) If, following any preliminary investigation, the Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) is of the view that such allegations warrant further action the Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) shall notify the candidate in writing and in sufficient detail to enable the candidate to understand and to properly consider the precise nature of the allegation.

(21) The candidate must respond to the statement of allegations in writing within ten working days.

(22) In an emergency where extreme urgency is required the Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) may determine that a candidate be suspended or subject to particular restrictions if the alleged breach of discipline, if true would involve:

  1. Imminent or serious risk to the health, or safety of a person;
  2. Serious risk to the security, reputation, viability or profitability of the University's business;
  3. The possibility of interference with evidence that might go to proving or disproving the allegations.

(23) In cases described in Clause 19 the candidate will be provided with a written explanation of the action and notice of the allegation forthwith.

The Candidate Admits To the Allegations

(24) In the circumstances where the candidate admits to the allegations the Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) must decide within ten working days that one or more of the following actions be taken:

  1. That a warning be given;
  2. That a reprimand be given;
  3. That a penalty be imposed;
  4. That the candidate undertakes remedial action; or
  5. That the matter be referred to the Research Student Misconduct in Research Investigation Committee for consideration and recommendation as to the penalty that might be imposed.

(25) The Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) will notify the candidate by mail of the action taken under Clause 23 within ten working days of the decision being made.

(26) The Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) referral to the Research Student Misconduct in Research Investigation Committee shall set out the full details of the allegation and include the relevant documentation.

Research Candidate Challenges the Allegation

(27) Where the Research Candidate denies the allegation and the Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) decides nevertheless that there is a case to answer, the matter will then be referred to the Research Student Misconduct in Research Investigation Committee.

(28) Where the Research Candidate denies the allegation and the Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) decides that there is not a case to answer, the Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) may dismiss the allegation.

(29) Where the Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) dismisses the allegation a warning may be issued.

(30) The Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) will notify the candidate by mail of the action taken under Clauses 26 - 28 within ten working days of the decision being made.

(31) In all cases where alleged misconduct has been reported to the Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) he/she will provide a report to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President, Research and Development, for noting.

University Research Student Misconduct in Research Investigation Committee

(32) The University Research Student Misconduct in Research Investigation Committee shall be convened within 15 working days of receipt of the candidate's response to the allegation. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President, Research and Development will appoint the members of the Committee as follows:

  1. An independent Chair, with relevant experience;
  2. A research candidate selected from one of the school or institute research higher degree committees - not from the same unit as the candidate's enrolled organisational unit;
  3. A senior research active member of academic staff;
  4. An Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) who has not previously been involved with this case;
  5. The Director, Equity and Diversity or nominee may be invited to attend as an observer.

(33) The Committee will have the power to seek external advice where it believes that disciplinary or other expertise is required to ensure that the issues surrounding research misconduct are properly understood.

(34) A hearing of the Committee must, unless varied in accordance with Clause 45 of this policy, be held no later than 30 working days from the date of delivery on which the research candidate was notified of the allegation.

(35) The Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) is responsible for notifying the candidate of the hearing date, time and place, and must provide the candidate with no less than seven working days notice in which to take advice and to prepare for the hearing. That notification must include copies of all available documentation to be provided to the Research Student Misconduct in Research Investigation Committee.

(36) A research candidate who intends to attend the hearing must, within seven working days from the date of delivery of the notification confirm their attendance with the Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) in writing (including e-mail). A research candidate may call witnesses and must advise the Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) in writing of their intention to call witnesses prior to the hearing and must demonstrate their relevance to the hearing. A research candidate who does not wish to attend the hearing will have the allegation heard in his or her absence. Whether attending or not, the accused research candidate may provide a written submission that must be considered at the hearing.

(37) The Committee has the right to call witnesses and must advise the candidate of this intention prior to the hearing.

(38) The role of the Research Student Misconduct in Research Investigation Committee is to investigate the allegation through written and/or oral evidence from any complainants, the accused candidate, and relevant witnesses to determine whether the allegation is justified on the basis of the evidence. This may also include expert advice related to the issues under consideration. The Research Student Misconduct in Research Investigation Committee is to report to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President, Research and Development on the facts relating to the alleged research misconduct, whether any mitigating circumstances are evident, and to recommend on any penalty that might be imposed.

(39) Evidence placed before the Committee should be directly related to the events detailed in the allegation. The Chair has the discretion to make a determination of the relevance of any evidence placed before the Committee.

(40) The Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) or nominee will be responsible for the collation of the evidence on which the allegation of research misconduct is based and consulting with the concerned parties on the witnesses to be called for the Research Student Misconduct in Research Investigation Committee. The Committee may seek additional evidence from the Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) or nominee or the candidate.

(41) Witnesses may be called and there must be the opportunity for all parties to know what the allegations are and to ask questions. However, any questioning of witnesses will be undertaken by the Investigation Committee through the Chair. In circumstances where there may be the potential for harassment or intimidation of persons at the hearing, the Committee may vary the process of interview and questioning to avoid this but in a manner consistent with procedural fairness.

(42) A candidate at a hearing may be assisted by a fellow research candidate, a member of staff, a friend or family member. The person assisting the candidate may provide the candidate with advice, but may not normally act as an advocate or directly address the Research Student Misconduct in Research Investigation Committee, unless the Chair has given permission having regard to the particular circumstances.

(43) At the hearing, the Chair of the Research Student Misconduct in Research Investigation Committee will:

  1. Ask the Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) (or nominee) to present the details of the allegation to the hearing.
  2. Ask the research candidate if they wish to admit the allegation.
  3. Invite the candidate to respond to the allegation.
  4. Invite parties present to recount relevant facts and information.
  5. Allow the accused candidate to make a final statement prior to concluding the hearing.

(44) While hearings will be held in camera, persons who supply information to the Investigation Committee must understand that the parties involved in the hearing will see information and be aware of its source. In some cases, the identity of the person providing the information may need to remain confidential or the proceedings need to be conducted in private. It is the Chair's responsibility to determine this matter. Parties must also be aware that the investigation hearing and associated processes under this policy are not protected from formal external legal proceedings and material can be subpoenaed. The hearing, evidence, and associated proceedings are considered confidential and any breaches may result in disciplinary action.

(45) The fact that external legal proceedings have been initiated with respect to action that is the subject of an allegation under this policy is not of itself grounds for suspending or cancelling proceedings under this policy.

(46) The timelines specified in this policy may be varied at the discretion of the Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) where there are substantive practical reasons requiring a variation. Where a variation is necessary, sufficient notice will be given to all parties, and timelines may be extended or, in exceptional circumstances and with the accused candidate's consent, reduced (for example, where an International candidate requests expediency if going overseas).

(47) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President, Research and Development may delegate all or part of his/her role under this policy to another senior officer of the University.

Findings of the Research Student Misconduct in Research Investigation Committee

(48) The Research Student Misconduct in Research Investigation Committee will consider all of the evidence and information relevant to the allegation and make a determination. The Committee must prepare a written report of its findings and recommendations.

(49) The Research Student Misconduct in Research Investigation Committee may in accordance with its findings recommend to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President, Research and Development any one or more of the following actions:

  1. That the allegation be dismissed.
  2. That no further action be taken against the research candidate.
  3. That a warning be given.
  4. That a reprimand be given.
  5. That the candidate be excluded from the University for a period no greater than 24 months.
  6. That the candidate be permanently excluded from the University.
  7. That the candidate undertakes remedial action.
  8. That such other penalty as the Committee considers appropriate be imposed.

(50) During any period of suspension, the research candidate may be excluded from the University, provided that they shall be permitted reasonable access to the University for the preparation of their case and to collect personal property.

(51) In making its recommendation, the Research Student Misconduct in Research Investigation Committee must consider whether there are any mitigating circumstances and may take into account the fact that the candidate has admitted the allegation. With respect to recommendation about penalty, the Research Student Misconduct in Research Investigation Committee may take account of the candidate's previous record of research misconduct, which will be provided by the Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) to the Chair when the penalty is being considered.

(52) The Committee may also recommend on the timing of the imposition of any penalty or that the imposition of any penalty be suspended under specified conditions that the Committee may deem appropriate.

(53) In making any recommendations, the Research Student Misconduct in Research Investigation Committee may, but is not required to, have regard to previous candidate disciplinary cases of a similar nature. In such instances, the written report of the Committee must include details of any such consideration.

Following the Research Student Misconduct in Research Committee's Meeting

(54) The Chair of the Committee will, within five working days from the date of the conclusion of the hearing, forward the recommendation to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President, Research and Development. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President, Research and Development may exercise discretion in approving the recommendation of the Committee.

(55) Where the Committee deems the matter to be so serious as to warrant permanent exclusion from the University, a recommendation must be made to the Vice-Chancellor and President who will make the final determination.

(56) Where the penalty is permanent exclusion the Vice-Chancellor and President may exercise discretion in ratifying the recommendation of the Committee.

(57) The Academic Registrar will, within no more than ten working days from the ratification by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President, Research and Development or Vice-Chancellor and President (where the penalty is exclusion), write to the candidate via certified post advising him/her of the outcome of the hearing, the penalty to be imposed, and of the candidate's right of appeal to the Academic Appeals and Integrity Committee of the Academic Senate.

(58) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President, Research and Development will notify the Academic Registrar of the outcome.

(59) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President, Research and Development may notify the party who made the original allegation and any other relevant parties of any aspects of the decision which are relevant to their interests only.

Right of Appeal

(60) A research candidate who is the subject of the allegations may appeal against the determination made in relation to the Misconduct - Higher Degree Research Student Misconduct in Research Policy under either or both of the following grounds:

  1. Where the candidate considers that there has been a breach of procedural fairness; and/or
  2. Where the candidate considers that there is substantial new evidence now available relating to the original act of research misconduct that was not available to theResearch Student Misconduct in Research Appeals Committee.

(61) A research candidate who wishes to appeal against the determination must, within 20 working days from the date on which the official notification of the determination was issued, lodge a written case of appeal with the Executive Officer, Academic Appeals and Integrity Committee of Academic Senate. The grounds for appeals as specified in Clause 59 must be clearly stated. [refer to the Academic Senate Standing Committees web page]

(62) The time lines specified in this policy regarding appeals may be varied at the discretion of the Chair, Academic Senate where there are substantive practical reasons requiring a variation (refer Clause 45). Where a variation is necessary, sufficient notice will be given to all parties, and time lines may be extended or, in exceptional circumstances and with the accused candidate's consent reduced.

(63) The Chair or Deputy Chair of Academic Senate may determine that there are no valid grounds for appeal, and therefore the appeal will not be heard.

(64) The Executive Officer will, as soon as is practicable but in any case not later than 20 days from the date on which the appeal was lodged, convene a hearing of the Senate Academic Appeals and Integrity Committee.

Action If the Accused Withdraws from Candidature

(65) The Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) will report to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President, Research and Development on the status of the research and on any remedial action needed to protect affected people and the public. All interested parties should be considered.

(66) External funding bodies that supported the research or the research worker will receive a report from the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President, Research and Development on the status of the research and on any remedial action recommended.

Senate Academic Appeals and Integrity Committee

(67) For the purposes of an appeal under this Policy, the Senate Academic Appeals and Integrity Committee shall comprise:

  1. An independent Chair, being either Chair or Deputy Chair of Academic Senate or nominee of the Chair, Academic Senate;
  2. An Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) or nominee not previously involved in this case from a different school or research institute in which the appeal originated;
  3. A Postgraduate student who is a member of Academic Senate.

(68) All members of the Senate Academic Appeals and Integrity Committee must be present at all meetings and a representative of the Equity and Diversity Unit may attend meetings of the Committee as an observer.

(69) No person who has participated in the assessment of the candidate's case, before the matter has come to the Senate Academic Appeals and Integrity Committee, will be eligible to sit as a member of the Committee convened to hear an appeal by that candidate.

(70) The Executive Officer shall, no later than seven working days prior to the date of a hearing forward a copy of the appeal papers to the members of the Senate Academic Appeals and Integrity Committee and to the candidate. Notice to the candidate will be by certified mail and include the details of the time, date and place of the appeal hearing and the relevant documentation.

(71) At the hearing, the Chair of the Senate Academic Appeals and Integrity Committee will give an overview of the grounds for the appeal and present the written report of the Research Student Misconduct in Research Investigation Committee and the determination by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President, Research and Development. The candidate will be invited to present a case in person and/or in writing. The Chair of the Research Student Misconduct in Research Investigation Committee will attend the appeal hearing to answer any questions from the Research Student Misconduct in Research Appeals Committee.

(72) The candidate at the hearing may be assisted by a fellow enrolled candidate, a member of staff, a friend or family member. The person assisting the candidate may provide the candidate with advice, but may not normally act as an advocate or directly address the Senate Academic Appeals and Integrity Committee unless the Chair of the Committee has given permission having regard to the particular circumstances.

(73) While hearings will be held in camera, persons who supply information to the Senate Academic Appeals and Integrity Committee must understand that the parties involved in the hearing will see information and be aware of its source. In some cases, the identity of the person providing the information may need to remain confidential or the proceedings be conducted in private. It is the Chair's responsibility to determine this matter. Parties must also be aware that the investigation hearing and associated processes under this policy are not protected from formal external legal proceedings and material can be subpoenaed.

(74) The Research Student Misconduct in Research Appeals Committee may, on hearing the appeal by the candidate:

  1. Refer the matter back to the Investigation Committee for further inquiry and recommendation.
  2. Uphold the appeal.
  3. Dismiss the appeal.
  4. Vary, confirm, or abolish a penalty that has been imposed.

(75) Following the meeting of the Senate Academic Appeals and Integrity Committee the Chair of the Senate Academic Appeals and Integrity Committee will, within five working days of the conclusion of the meeting to hear the appeal, forward the recommendation to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President, Research and Development or, where the recommendation is that the student be expelled from the University, to the Vice-Chancellor and President, who will make the decision.

(76) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President, Research and Development or the Vice-Chancellor and President, will, within five working days of receiving the Committee's recommendation, advise the Academic Registrar of the outcome of the appeal.

(77) The Academic Registrar will, within no more than five working days of receiving the decision, inform the student of it and give reasons for the decision, via express post and email.

(78) The determination of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President, Research and Development or Vice-Chancellor and President is conclusive.

Action following the Formal Investigation in Research Misconduct

(79) If an external funding body was advised of a formal investigation and the research candidate member has been exonerated, then the external funding body will be advised accordingly.

(80) If an allegation of research misconduct is found to be substantiated, the institution will ensure that relevant publishers and sponsoring agencies are notified.

(81) Distortions of the research record must be rectified, whether or not the persons involved remain at the University.

Top of Page

Section 5 - Guidelines

(82) Nil

Associated Information

NHMRC Funding Rules Link
NHMRC Funding Agreement Link
NHMRC Complaint Link