• Section 1 - Purpose and Scope
• Section 2 - Principles
• Section 3 - General Procedures 
• Section 4 - Receipt of Complaints
• Section 5 - Preliminary Assessment
• Outcomes of the Preliminary Assessment
• Reporting Obligations to Funding Agencies
• Section 6 - Investigation
• Preparing for the Investigation
• Investigation Panel
• Conduct of the Investigation
• Considering the Seriousness of Any Breach 
• Outcomes from the Investigation
• Section 7 - Mechanisms for Review
• Section 8 - Roles and Responsibilities
• Section 9 - Definitions and Interpretations Specific to this Procedure

Section 1 - Purpose and Scope

(1) In conducting research, and training and employing researchers, the University of New England (UNE) has a responsibility for the prevention, detection, investigation and resolution of complaints about the conduct of that research.

(2) These procedures are for the guidance of UNE Representatives, Higher Degree by Research HDR Candidates or HDR Supervisors, and Students who become involved in a potential breach of the UNE Code of Conduct for Research Rule (CCR), be that as a complainant or respondent, or UNE officer undertaking a role outlined in these procedures. The procedures should be read in conjunction with the CCR, the relevant staff collective agreement, or equivalent employment contract for staff related matters.

(3) Complaints relating to potential research-related breaches are managed according to:

1. the relevant CCR that was in effect at that the time of the alleged conduct, and
2. the relevant procedure for managing potential breaches or complaints that was in effect at the time the report was made.

(4) Wherever practical, these procedures mirror those contained within the Guide to Managing and Investigating Potential Breaches of the Australian Code for Responsible Conduct of Research developed by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Australian Research Council (ARC) and Universities Australia (UA).

(5) An overview of UNE’s procedures for investigating research conduct breaches or related complaints, as described in the procedures below, is available in Figure 1 – Overview of UNE Research Conduct – Managing Potential Breaches Procedures.

(6) These procedures apply to all UNE Representatives and Students who carry out research under the auspices of UNE.

Section 2 - Principles

(7) These procedures are to manage matters relating to potential breaches, including inquiries, complaints and allegations that one or more researchers have conducted research that is not in accordance with the CCR.

(8) All procedures, including inquiries, allegations, reviews, assessments and investigations are conducted confidentially, with respect for the person making the complaint (complainant) and the subject (respondent) of the complaint.

(9) Complainants and respondents must be treated in accordance with legislative requirements, the principals of procedural fairness, natural justice, and with respect for cultural sensitivities.

(10) Reprisal, threatening behavior or other adverse action against any person involved in the complaint process will not be tolerated. Any such action will be dealt with as a separate action under the Student Behavioural Misconduct Rules, the UNE Code of Conduct, or other provisions contained in the relevant collective agreement or employment contract.

(11) At all stages in considering and/or investigating complaints, where the respondent is a staff member, the requirements under the relevant collective agreement or equivalent employment contract must be met.
 

Section 3 - General Procedures 

(12) Role terms for managing potential breaches procedures are shown in Table 1 of Section 8 Roles and Responsibilities.

(13) Persons considering making research-related complaints may initially consult with either a Research Integrity Adviser (RIA) or the Research Integrity Office (RIO). The RIO and RIA’s can provide confidential explanation of options available, including options for addressing matters through: 

1. informal avenues, or
2. other relevant UNE avenues,

(14) Other concerns that do not relate to the CCR, or for complaints relating to Ethics Committees, should follow their respective procedures, where appropriate.

(15) Complainants are encouraged to provide all information that they hold in relation to their complaint to assist the assessment of the matter at an early stage of the process.

(16) Complainants are not required to identify specific CCR, or process clauses, in their complaint.

(17) Where the respondent is an HDR Student, the Graduate Research Academic in the Graduate Research School must be notified as appropriate, and UNE policies relevant to HDR will apply.

(18) Where the respondent is an international HDR Student, the International Services Manager in UNE International must be notified as appropriate. The Research Integrity Office (RIO), if necessary, is to seek advice on the requirements of the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018, and the respondents student visa, from the International Services Manager in UNE International.

(19) Where a complainant chooses not to proceed with a complaint, UNE still has an obligation to assess the nature of the complaint and decide whether to proceed to a preliminary assessment.

(20) Anonymous complaints must be considered based on the information provided.

(21) Where a respondent ceases their relationship with UNE, UNE must continue with this process to the extent possible. Where errors or distortions of research are identified, the research record must be rectified
where possible.

(22) All decisions, and reasons for those decisions, about complaints must be confidentially documented within UNE’s Records Management System (RMS).  This includes decisions relating to the four stages an inquiry may go through: inquiry, preliminary assessment, investigation and review. Records and documentation should be retained in accordance with UNE’s  Records Management Rule and  Records Management Procedures.

Section 4 - Receipt of Complaints

(23) To make a complaint contact the Research Integrity Office at UNE. Preference is for complaints to be made in writing and emailed to researchintegrity@une.edu.au.

(24) Complaints are lodged with a Designated Officer, who is selected by the Responsible Executive Officer (REO) or their delegate, and who has had no prior involvement in the substantive issue, or subject, of the complaint.

(25) On receipt of the complaint:

1. the Research Integrity Office (RIO) will acknowledge receipt of the complaint, and
2. the Designated Officer will consider whether the complaint relates to a potential breach of the CCR.

(26) If the Designated Officer determines that the complaint does not relate to a breach of the CCR, they will:

1. dismiss the complaint, or
2. refer the complaint to another University process where appropriate.

(27) If the Designated Officer determines that the complaint relates to a breach of the CCR, they will proceed to a preliminary assessment of the complaint.

(28) The Designated Officer will advise the complainant of their decision.
 

Section 5 - Preliminary Assessment

(29) The Designated Officer will appoint an Assessment Officer to conduct the preliminary assessment of the complaint.

(30) The Assessment Officer is responsible for the conduct of the preliminary assessment, ensuring that appropriate
processes are followed in a timely manner, and consulting with the Designated Officer as required. The
Assessment Officer will also ensure records of the preliminary assessment are prepared and retained and seek expertise from other sources, either internal or external to UNE, as required.

(31) The Assessment Officer will offer the respondent an opportunity to meet with them during a preliminary assessment to clarify the facts and/or information. Follow-up meetings with the respondent, and the complainant, may be arranged as required. The Assessment Officer will:

1. notify the respondent in writing of the complaint and provide sufficient detail for the respondent to understand the nature of the complaint;
2. notify the respondent of the time and place of the meeting, giving the respondent the option of bringing a support person; and
3. provide the respondent with an opportunity to respond in writing, within a nominated timeframe, after the meeting.

(32) The Assessment Officer will prepare a record of meetings and provide the meeting participants with a copy.

Outcomes of the Preliminary Assessment

(33) On completion of the preliminary assessment, the Assessment Officer will provide a written report to the
Designated Officer in a timely manner. This report will include:

1. a summary of the process that was undertaken;
2. a statement of the facts and information that was gathered and reviewed;
3. an evaluation of facts and information; and
4. an explanation of how the potential breach relates to the CCR.

(34) The Designated Officer will consider the preliminary assessment advice and determine, on the basis of the information presented, whether there is merit to the complaint and whether the matter should be:

1. dismissed;
2. resolved locally within the terms of the relevant collective agreement or employment contract;
3. referred to other UNE processes; or
4. referred for investigation.

(35) Where a complaint is not referred for investigation, the Designated Officer should consider the following actions:

1. if the complaint has no basis in fact (for example due to a misunderstanding or because the complaint is frivolous or vexatious) then efforts, if required, must be made to restore the reputation of any affected parties;
2. if a complaint is considered to have been made in bad faith or is vexatious, efforts to address this with the complainant should be taken under appropriate UNE processes (e.g. Code of Conduct);
3. addressing any systemic issues that have been identified using the appropriate policy or procedure.

(36) An admission by the respondent of a breach of the CCR should not be seen as an endpoint. It may still be necessary to conduct an investigation to identify appropriate corrective actions, other parties that may be involved, or other necessary steps or actions.

(37) Where a respondent leaves the University following a complaint, UNE has a continuing obligation to address the complaint.

(38) UNE should provide the outcomes to the respondent and, if appropriate, to the complainant at the conclusion of a preliminary assessment in a timely manner.

Reporting Obligations to Funding Agencies

(39) Subject to the requirements of relevant privacy legislation, if a decision is made to investigate a potential breach of the CCR, advice of this investigation must be given to the funding agencies directly funding the
research or person involved, in accordance with the notification rules of that agency. Further advice on this can be obtained from the Research Integrity Office (RIO).

Section 6 - Investigation

Preparing for the Investigation

(40) Where the Designated Officer determines from the preliminary assessment that an investigation is required, this is to be based on there being reasonable grounds to believe a breach of the CCR would have occurred if the allegations are upheld. The matter will then be investigated as a single allegation or multiple allegations.

(41) Where the Designated Officer determines that an investigation is required, they will:

1. prepare a clear statement of allegations;
2. develop the terms of reference for the investigation;
3. nominate the members of the Investigation Panel; and
4. seek legal advice on matters of process where appropriate.

Investigation Panel

(42) Persons nominated to the Investigation Panel (Panel) are to work together to:

1. complete an investigation into a potential breach of the CCR; and
2. produce a report on the findings of facts and may make recommendations.

(43) All members of the Panel must be independent of the matter being investigated and have no conflicts of interest effecting, or effected by, the matter.

(44) Panel membership may be drawn from UNE staff and/or appropriately qualified external people.

(45) Panel membership will include:

1. at least one member with knowledge and expertise in the relevant field of research;
2. at least one member who is familiar with responsible conduct of research; and
3. at least one member with experience on similar panels or with other relevant experience or expertise.

(46) The Designated Officer will appoint one member of the Panel as Chair of the Investigation Panel, when the Panel is more than one person.

(47) The Panel shall have gender diversity when the Panel is more than one person. Where this is not possible, the Designated Officer must provide a documented explanation of why gender diversity was not met.

(48) Legal representation of parties is not allowed. A person appearing before the Investigation Panel may be accompanied by a support person.

(49) The Research Integrity Office (RIO) will provide secretariat support to the Panel.

(50) Once the Panel is appointed, the Designated Officer will provide the respondent with:

1. the terms of reference for the investigation;
2. the names of members of the Investigation Panel; and 
3. the name and contact details of the person providing secretariat support to the Panel.

(51) If the respondent has a concern regarding a member of the Panel’s independence or potential conflict of interest, they should raise this immediately with the Designated Officer. The Designated Officer will consider the respondent’s concern and take any action as they deem appropriate. The Designated Officer will advise the respondent of their actions.

(52) The Designated Officer will provide the Investigation Panel with:

1. the initial complaint;
2. all relevant information assembled by the Assessment Officer;
3. records of the conduct of the preliminary assessment;
4. the report of the preliminary assessment;
5. a copy of the statement of allegations;
6. records of any communications on the matter involving the Designated Officer, the Assessment Officer, the complainant, the respondent including the respondent’s responses; and
7. any other relevant information.

Conduct of the Investigation

(53) The Investigation Panel will:

1. determine its process for investigation;
2. disclose and manage other conflicts of interest. Noting that members of the Panel must have no conflicts of interest effecting, or effected by, the matter;
3. conduct investigation proceedings in private, unless the respondent and the Designated Officer agree otherwise;
4. interview other persons and consider further material as it believes appropriate;
5. asses the evidence;
6. determine findings of fact about the allegations;
7. identify whether there has been a breach of the CCR, having regard to the evidence and on the balance of probabilities;
8. consider the seriousness of any breach; and
9. provide a report on its findings of fact that is consistent with the Panels terms of reference.

Considering the Seriousness of Any Breach 

(54) Once a breach has been found, the seriousness of a breach should be determined in alignment with the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (ACRCR). The ACRCR identifies that a breach of the Code occurs on a spectrum from minor breaches to those that are more serious. A serious breach of the Code, that is carried out with intent or recklessness or negligence, is particularly egregious and may be referred to as research misconduct.

(55) Serious breaches would typically require investigation, while some minor breaches may be addressed at the preliminary assessment stage. There are also some matters that relate to research administration that can easily be rectified at the local level and resolved prior to the need to consider a preliminary assessment. Unintentional administrative errors, clerical errors or oversights are some examples of this.

(56) Factors to consider in assessing the seriousness of any breach include:

1. the extent of the departure from accepted practice;
2. the extent to which research participants, the wider community, animals, and the environment are, or may have been, affected by the breach;
3. the extent to which it affects the trustworthiness of research;
4. the level of experience of the researcher;
5. whether there are repeated breaches by the researcher;
6. whether UNE failures have contributed to the breach; and
7. any other mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

Outcomes from the Investigation

(57) The Investigation Panel’s draft report should be provided to the respondent with a reasonable timeframe for comment. The timeframe given should reflect the complexity of the matter. The draft report may also need to be provided to the complainant if they will be affected by the outcome.

(58) Following consideration of any further information, the Investigation Panel’s report is finalised and provided to the Designated Officer.

(59) The Designated Officer will provide the final report to the Responsible Executive Officer with recommendations based on consideration of the:

1. findings of fact;
2. evidence presented;
3. any recommendations made by the Panel;
4. extent of the breach;
5. appropriate corrective actions; and
6. if referral to disciplinary procedures, or other UNE processes, is required.

(60) Where systemic issues are identified as a contributing factor, these need to be referred to the Responsible
Executive Officer, and to the appropriate UNE department to be addressed.

(61) The Responsible Executive Officer will consider the following before advising, referring, or taking action in relation to the complaint:

1. findings of fact;
2. evidence presented;
3. any recommendations made by the Designated Officer and/or the Panel;
4. extent of the breach;
5. appropriate corrective actions; and
6. if referral to disciplinary procedures, or other UNE processes, is required.

(62) If the Responsible Executive Officer finds that there has not been a breach of the CCR, they will also consider:

1. if the allegation has no basis in fact, efforts required to restore the reputations of those alleged to have engaged in improper conduct;
2. if an allegation is considered to have been frivolous or vexatious, action to address this with the complainant under appropriate UNE processes; and
3. the mechanism for communication with the complainant.

(63) If the Responsible Executive Officer finds that there has been a breach of the CCR but that the breach does not constitute research misconduct, the Responsible Executive Officer may take action under other UNE provisions
or processes (e.g. unsatisfactory performance) and advise the respondent accordingly.

(64) If the Responsible Executive Officer finds that there has been a breach of the CCR and the breach constitutes research misconduct, the Responsible Executive Officer will refer the matter to the appropriate officer for action under the relevant collective agreement, employment contract, or student rule. The Responsible Executive Officer will also:

1. Consider whether other institutions, including funding bodies and collaborating institutions, should be 
   advised; and
2. Take actions to correct the public record of the research, including publications, if a breach of the CCR
   has affected the accuracy or trustworthiness of research findings and their dissemination.

(65) Any decisions of, or actions taken by, the Responsible Executive Officer must be communicated in writing to the respondent and, if appropriate, the complainant.

(66) A summary of outcomes arising from actions under the relevant collective agreement, employment contract
or student rule should be reported back in writing to the Responsible Executive Officer, to complete the record of complaint and be included in the TRIM complaint record.

Section 7 - Mechanisms for Review

(67) UNE has a process for internal review in line with the Guide to Managing and Investigating Potential Breaches of the Australian Code for Responsible Conduct of Research. The aim of an internal review is to affirm, or not, the outcome of the preliminary assessment or investigation.

(68) Requests are considered for an internal review on the grounds of procedural fairness of a preliminary assessment of a potential breach of the CCR, or investigation into allegations of a potential breach of the CCR.

(69) To make a request for review contact the Research Integrity Office at UNE. Preference is for requests for review to be made in writing and emailed to researchintegrity@une.edu.au.

(70) A Review Officer will be assigned to conduct the request for review and produce a review report for the Responsible Executive Officer (REO) on the findings of facts and recommendations on course of action(s).

(71) External review providers (e.g. The Australian Research Integrity Committee (ARIC), NSW Ombudsman) usually expect or require the person requesting an external review to have first engaged with UNE's internal review process.

Section 8 - Roles and Responsibilities

(72) Table 1: Role terms for managing potential breaches procedures:

Section 9 - Definitions and Interpretations Specific to this Procedure

(73) ACRCR - Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research

(74) Allegation - A claim or assertion arising from a preliminary assessment that there are reasonable grounds to believe a breach of the CCR has occurred. May refer to a single allegation or multiple allegations.

(75) Breach – a breach is defined as a failure to meet standards and obligations in the CCR, and may refer to a single breach or multiple breaches. Examples of breaches of the CCR include, but are not limited to the following:

1. Not meeting required research standards-
   1. conducting research without ethics approval as required by the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research and the Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes 2013.
   2. Failing to conduct research as approved by an appropriate ethics review body.
   3. Conducting research without the requisite approvals, permits or licences.
   4. Misuse of research funds.
   5. Concealment or facilitation of breaches (or potential breaches) of the Code by others.
2. Fabrication, falsification, misrepresentation –
   1. Fabrication of research data or source material.
   2. Falsification of research data or source material.
   3. Misrepresentation of research data or source material.
   4. Falsification and/or misrepresentation to obtain funding.
3. Plagiarism –
   1. Plagiarism of someone else’s work, including theories, concepts, research data, and source material.
   2. Duplicate publication (also known as redundant or multiple publication, or self-plagiarism)
      without acknowledgment of the source.
4. Research data management –
   1. Failure to appropriately maintain research records.
   2. Inappropriate destruction of research records, research data and/or source material.
   3. Inappropriate disclosure of, or access to, research records, research data and/or source material.
5. Supervision –
   1. Failure to provide adequate guidance or mentorship on responsible research conduct to researchers or research trainees under their supervision.
6. Authorship –
   1. Failure to acknowledge the contributions of others fairly.
   2. Misleading ascription of authorship including failing to offer authorship to those who qualify or awarding authorship to those who do not meet the requirements.
7. Conflicts of interest –
   1. Failure to disclose and manage conflicts of interest.
8. Peer review –
   1. Failure to conduct peer review responsibly.

(76) CCR – Code of Conduct for Research Rule.

(77) Complaint – A claim about the conduct of research or potential breaches of the UNE Code of Conduct for Research Rule (CCR).

(78) Plagiarism – is presenting someone else’s work, including theories, concepts, research data, and source material, as your own. Duplicate publication (also known as redundant or multiple publications, or self-plagiarism) without acknowledgment of the source, is also plagiarism. 

(79) Principles of procedural fairness – the principles of procedural fairness (also referred to as natural justice) apply to managing and investigating potential breaches of the Rule. These principles encapsulate the hearing rule (an opportunity to be heard), the rule against bias (decision-makers do not have a personal interest in the outcome) and the evidence rule (decisions are based on evidence).

1. Proportional – Investigations and subsequent actions need to be proportional to the extent of the potential breach of the Code.
2. Fair – Investigations need to afford procedural fairness to respondents and, where appropriate, complainants and others who may be adversely affected by any investigation. 
3. Impartial – Investigators and decision-makers are to be impartial and declare any interests that do, may, or may be perceived to jeopardise their impartiality. These interests are to be appropriately managed. 
4. Timely – Investigations into potential breaches should be conducted in a timely manner to avoid undue delays any to mitigate the impact on those involved.
5. Transparent – Information about University processes should be readily available and/or provided to respondents, complainants, all employees and students engaged in research. Accurate records must be maintained for all parts of the process, with records held centrally in TRIM and in accordance with the relevant legislation.
6. Confidential – Information will be treated as confidential and not disclosed unless required.

(80) Researcher – person (or persons) who conduct(s), or assists with the conduct of research.

(81) Research integrity - is behaviour-based and requires adherence to the ethical principles and professional standards essential for the responsible conduct of research. Research integrity is as defined in the Chief Scientist paper Trust in Science.