1. The purpose of our procedure
This Procedure details the processes for managing and investigating research conduct and potential breaches of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, 2018 (the Code) and Adelaide University policies and procedures related to the responsible conduct of research. It is informed by the Guide to Managing and Investigating Potential Breaches of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, 2018 (the Guide). Parts of this Procedure are taken directly from the Guide but are not specifically referenced throughout. This Procedure should be read in conjunction with:
- The Research Integrity Policy
- The relevant Enterprise Agreement in place from time to time.
2. Who our procedure applies to
2.1 Inclusions
This Procedure applies to complaints relating to research or research related activities of all current and former staff and students, including former staff of the foundation universities, who are, or have been, involved in or who assist with the conduct of research associated with Adelaide University. This extends to adjunct staff, titleholders, and visiting researchers.
For the purposes of determining the scope of this Procedure, research that is associated with Adelaide University means research that Adelaide University is responsible for, which for the avoidance of doubt includes research the foundation universities were (or are) responsible for. This includes, but is not limited to, research funded by the University, when a researcher lists Adelaide University in the by-line of a research output, or research conducted at Adelaide University facilities/campuses.
2.2 Exclusions
Until an Adelaide University Enterprise Agreement is in place, where a complaint involves or relates to staff where clauses of their foundation university Enterprise Agreement apply, including in relation to disciplinary processes, this Procedure will be applied in conjunction with those clauses. For the avoidance of doubt, where there are inconsistencies, the governing Enterprise Agreement of the staff member’s foundation university will have precedence. Once the Adelaide University Enterprise Agreement is in place, relevant procedures will be updated accordingly.
Where a complaint involves or relates to a student, this Procedure will only apply to research activities in undergraduate or postgraduate awards where a student has potentially behaved contrary to the Code. This Procedure does not apply, for example, to allegations of student misconduct that are not related to research integrity, and which are addressed under the [relevant student misconduct policy/procedure].
3. Transitional process for investigating a breach of the Code
Until an Adelaide University Enterprise Agreement is in place, if the Designated Officer determines that it is appropriate to establish an investigation, where the respondent is an Adelaide University Staff member the investigation process will follow the relevant policies and procedures and Enterprise Agreements of the foundation university with which the respondent is associated.
The applicable policies and procedures are as follows:
- University of Adelaide:
- Research Misconduct Procedure (2019)
- University of South Australia:
- Enterprise Agreement (2023)
- Research Integrity Procedure (2021)
4. Our investigating and managing research conduct procedure
4.1 Our Procedure underpins a procedurally fair review of complaints or concerns about research conduct. It also provides a framework of natural justice for the assessment or investigation of matters that may breach, or have been found to breach, the Code, including those that constitute research misconduct.
4.2 Breaches of the Code involve a failure to meet its principles and responsibilities. This may relate to a single concern or multiple concerns about research conduct.
4.3 Examples of breaches of the Code include, but are not limited to:
4.3.1 Not meeting required research standards
- conducting research without appropriate ethical approval
- failing to conduct research as approved by an appropriate ethics review body
- misusing research funds
- concealing or facilitating breaches (or potential breaches) of the Code by others.
4.3.2 Fabrication, falsification, misrepresentation
- fabricating, falsifying, or misrepresenting research data or source material
- falsification and/or misrepresenting information to obtain funding.
4.3.3 Plagiarism
- plagiarising someone else’s ideas, data, or other material.
4.3.4 Research data management
- inappropriately destroying research records, research data or source material
- inappropriately disclosing or accessing research records, research data, or source material.
4.3.5 Supervision
- failing to provide adequate guidance or mentorship to research trainees or those under supervision.
4.3.6 Authorship
- failing to offer authorship when warranted, or accepting authorship when unjustified
- failing to acknowledge the contribution of others fairly.
4.3.7 Conflicts of interest
- failing to declare a conflict of interest or funding source properly.
4.3.8 Peer review
- failing to conduct peer review responsibly.
4.4 Breaches of the Code occur on a spectrum, from minor to major.
Breaches that follow education or training may also be considered research misconduct.
5. Responsible conduct of research
5.1 Each person to whom this Procedure applies must act in accordance with the principles and obligations of the Code.
6. Responsibility to report concerns about research conduct
6.1 Each person to whom this Procedure applies is required to report concerns about research conduct in accordance with this procedure.
7. Institutional roles and responsibilities
7.1 All concerns and complaints about research conduct will be taken seriously by Adelaide University.
7.2 In alignment with the Guide, the following institutional roles are assigned during the process for managing and investigating breaches of the Code:
7.2.1 Responsible Executive Officer
A senior officer at the institution who has final responsibility for investigating reports concerning potential or confirmed breaches of the Code, and for deciding on the appropriate course of action.
7.2.2 Designated Officer
A senior professional or academic officer or officers appointed to oversee management and investigation of complaints or concerns about research conduct.
7.2.3 Assessment Officer
A person or persons appointed by Adelaide University to conduct a preliminary assessment of a complaint about research.
7.2.4 Research Integrity Advisor
A person or persons with knowledge of the Code and institutional processes, nominated by an institution to promote the responsible conduct of research and to provide advice to those with concerns or complains about potential breaches of the Code.
7.2.5 Research Integrity Office
The area within Adelaide University’s research compliance, ethics and integrity function that is responsible for receiving and managing complaints about research conduct and supporting the conduct of Preliminary Assessments and Investigations. Staff in the [Research Integrity Office] may also act as the Assessment Officer under this Procedure.
The Research Integrity Office also supports the development and management of processes related to responsible research conduct, including, but not limited to, providing education and advice to all researchers and supporting Adelaide University’s network of Research Integrity Advisors.
7.3 Review Officer (RO)
A Review Officer is a senior officer with responsibility for receiving requests for procedural reviews of an investigation into concerns about research conduct.
8. Complaint handling principles
8.1 The University will ensure that its assessment and investigation processes follow the principles of procedural fairness.
8.2 Complaints made in confidence and in good faith will not lead to disciplinary action against the persons making the complaints.
8.3 The Designated Officer may dismiss a complaint at any stage for a variety of reasons, including if they determine it is malicious, vexatious or made in bad faith.
The matter may be referred for appropriate action, including any action against the complainant. In such cases, the matter must be referred for appropriate action in accordance with the relevant Code of Conduct.
Adelaide University seeks to resolve complaints sensitively, fairly and confidentially, while following the principles of procedural fairness. Procedural fairness concerns the process by which a decision is made, not the fairness or merits of the decision itself.
8.4 A complaint, or aspects thereof, received by the Research Integrity Office may be referred to the Adelaide University Integrity Office for contemporaneous or additional consideration under an alternative University process at any time. For example, where the complaint relates to a potential breach of ethics approval, this action may require temporary referral to, or enlistment of services from, another area of the University. For clarity, this does not then mean, nor is it intended to imply, that the matter is no longer characterised as a research integrity matter and does not interfere with the ability of the Designated Officer to make determinations under this procedure.
8.5 Where the Designated Officer assesses the matter referred to in the complaint poses an immediate risk of harm to humans, animals, or the environment, they will consider appropriate and proportional responses.
These may include, without limitation and by way of example, stopping the research, suspending ethical or compliance approvals, or stopping certain activities relating to the research.
The Designated Officer will notify relevant funding agencies or other parties (or perform any other relevant actions) as necessary, including where the University has a contractual obligation, or is required to do so under a funding agency’s policies.
8.6 The Designated Officer will consider the impact on the complainant when determining the appropriate level of involvement in and communication about the progress of their complaint.
Anonymous complaints or complainant identity withheld
8.7 Where the identity of a complainant may be known to the Designated Officer or Research Integrity Office staff, but the complainant asks to have their identity withheld, all reasonable measures will be taken to protect the anonymity of the complainant.
However, this may limit any process or subsequent processes undertaken under this procedure, depending on the nature of the complaint.
8.8 Complaints can be made anonymously. However, allegations made in this way can only be assessed on the information provided, noting this may limit any assessment or investigative processes, including under circumstances associated with the [Protected Interest Disclosure Procedure]. A person making a complaint or disclosure can seek appropriate protection against victimisation under [Protected Interest Disclosure Procedure].
8.9 In the event an anonymous complaint is progressed to preliminary assessment or investigation, the source of the complaint will not be entitled to participate in the procedure or receive any notice of progress, outcome, or action taken in respect of the complaint.
Withdrawing a complaint
8.10 Where a complainant elects not to proceed with a complaint or seeks to withdraw a complaint, the University will continue to progress the complaint in accordance with its obligations under the Guide.
Notifications
8.11 Upon receipt of a complaint, Adelaide University will follow any agreed reporting obligations to any of its funders, including providing outcomes of an investigation, in accordance with relevant laws, regulations, policies, or contractual obligations. [1]
Confidentiality
8.12 Complaints and investigations will be kept confidential to the extent possible. However, the Responsible Executive Officer, Designated Officer, or Assessment Officer may determine it is necessary, or be obliged, to disclose certain information to relevant parties (such as experts or affiliated organisations) to obtain relevant information.
8.13 Disclosure will also occur when it is required by law, or where disclosure is required contractually or under relevant policy frameworks such as those from funders. Any disclosure will only include the minimum information necessary in order to maintain the highest levels of confidentiality possible or practicable.
Multiple Complaints, Concerns, and/or Respondents
8.14 Where a complaint involves more than one respondent or more than one concern:
8.14.1 A single complaint with multiple respondents will be handled as a single process, unless the Designated Officer determines that would be prejudicial to one or more of the respondents, or if separate processes are required in order to align with Adelaide University policies or procedures.
8.14.2 Multiple complaints of a potential breach of the Code against a respondent will be dealt with as a single process.
8.14.3 Where a complaint also includes concerns that are not specifically related to breaches of the Code, the Designated Officer will refer these concerns to the appropriate processes. Any separate investigative processes will be coordinated to minimise the impact on all parties involved.
8.14.4 Where a complaint involves multiple respondents where at least one is from Adelaide University and one from another institution, the Designated Officer will determine whether to request to the relevant institution that a joint investigation should be conducted.
8.14.5 During an investigation, if concerns emerge about previously unidentified persons, the Designated Officer will determine if a separate process is undertaken.
Options available prior to making a complaint
8.15 When an individual is unsure whether research conduct falls under the Code, they should seek guidance from a Research Integrity Advisor. The Research Integrity Advisor should explain to the individual the options available to them, including:
8.15.1 not proceeding if the concern clearly does not relate to the Code
8.15.2 proceeding under another institutional process
8.15.3 making a complaint about a potential breach of the Code to the Research Integrity Office.
8.16 A Research Integrity Advisor must not have a conflict of interest, must not be involved in investigating or assessing the merit of any complaint, should not make contact with the person who is the subject of the proposed complaint, nor be involved in any subsequent investigation other than as a witness or to provide testimony.
9. Making a complaint about research conduct
9.1 Complaints about research conduct can be submitted in writing and in confidence to the Research Integrity Office.
9.2 Verbal complaints made to the Research Integrity Office will be confirmed in writing.
9.3 Complaints received by other members of Adelaide University should be forwarded to the Research Integrity Office.
9.4 The complaint does not need to identify the sections of the Code or processes breached but must provide as much detail as possible and include all relevant information.
9.5 Complaints will be acknowledged in writing as soon as possible following receipt.
10. Receipt of complaint
10.1 Once a complaint is received, the Designated Officer will determine whether it relates to a potential breach of the Code and how to proceed.
10.2 Where the Designated Officer determines the complaint:
10.2.1 relates to a potential breach of the Code, they will assign an Assessment Officer to conduct a preliminary assessment.
10.2.2 is not related to the Code or is out of scope of this Procedure for any reason, it will be referred as appropriate or necessary this may include referral to other University processes, dismissal, or referral to another institution or organisation.
10.3 Any contemporaneous, related or separate matters considered under clause [8.4] will be coordinated between functional areas of the University to minimise impact on all parties involved and facilitate communication and coordination between the relevant functional areas.
11. Preliminary assessment
11.1 Until the Adelaide University Enterprise Agreement is in place at the relevant time, the procedures and requirements set out in the foundation university Enterprise Agreement of the [respondent] will apply. Where there is any conflict between the two, the foundation university Enterprise Agreement will take priority.
11.2 The purpose of the preliminary assessment is to gather and evaluate facts and information, assess whether there is sufficient evidence of a potential breach of Code and make any recommendations for further action.
11.3 The Designated Officer will notify relevant parties, including named complainant(s) and respondent(s), that a complaint appears to be related to a potential breach of the Code and has progressed to a preliminary assessment.
Conducting a preliminary assessment
11.4 Once assigned, the Assessment Officer will gather and evaluate facts and information concerning the matter and take immediate steps to secure relevant evidence including, without limitation, experimental material, IT records, data records or workbooks, correspondence, approvals, other documents, and/or names of witnesses, as necessary.
11.5 In conducting the preliminary assessment, the Assessment Officer may:
11.5.1 seek clarification from and meet with the complainant if required
11.5.2 discuss the matter with the respondent to clarify the facts or information if required
11.5.3 conduct inquiries relevant to the complaint, including consulting with subject matter experts where specialist understanding is necessary to assess the complaint
11.5.4 subject to relevant considerations such as privacy, confidentiality or security, access relevant records and personnel of the University
11.5.5 seek legal advice.
11.6 If the Assessment Officer decides a meeting with the respondent is required the Assessment Officer must notify the respondent and provide:
- sufficient detail for the respondent to understand the nature of the complaint
- an opportunity to respond in writing within ten (10) days.
11.7 If the respondent does not respond within 10 days (where requested) without an extension granted or reason provided, the Assessment Officer will continue with the preliminary assessment. The Assessment Officer may also request to meet with the respondent.
11.8 Any person interviewed by the Assessment Officer will have the option to bring a support person to this meeting.
11.9 A record of any meetings should be prepared and the respondent provided with a copy.
11.10 After completing the preliminary assessment, the Assessment Officer will provide a written report to the Designated Officer, which includes:
11.10.1 a summary of the complaint and the process undertaken
11.10.2 an inventory and evaluation of facts, documents and information gathered and analysed
11.10.3 whether the complaint is or is likely to be, vexatious or made in bad faith
11.10.4 how the potential breach, if any, relates to the principles and responsibilities of the Code and/or institutional processes and an evaluation of the seriousness of any such breach
11.10.5 recommendations for further action (if any).
Outcomes of a preliminary assessment
11.11 The Designated Officer will consider the preliminary assessment report and, on the basis of the presented facts and information determine whether the matter will be:
11.11.1 dismissed
11.11.2 referred to another Adelaide University area and/or process
11.11.3 referred for investigation
11.11.4 resolved locally, with or without corrective action(s)
11.11.5 referred to another institution, where relevant.
11.12 The outcome of the preliminary assessment will be provided in writing and in confidence to:
11.12.1 the respondent
11.12.2 the complainant
11.12.3 any other relevant parties, including without limitation Adelaide University parties, funding agencies, relevant institutions, or as contractually required.
Referral to investigation
11.13 Where the Designated Officer determines a complaint should be referred for an investigation:
11.13.1 Where the respondent is a staff member, referral for investigation will follow the transitional arrangements outlined in section 3 of this procedure.
11.13.2 The respondent may admit or contest the determination. If a response is not received after 10 working days, without an extension granted or reason provided, or the respondent neither admits to a breach of the Code nor contests the determination, the Designated Officer will either finalise the matter or refer to an investigation or proceed as may otherwise have been determined under section 11.11.
11.13.3 If the respondent admits to a breach of the Code or research misconduct, and referral to an Investigation is no longer required, the Designated Officer will inform the Responsible Executive Officer. The Responsible Executive Officer will decide the subsequent action(s) and any referrals for further actions. The Responsible Executive Officer will inform the Designated Officer of the referrals.
11.13.4 In circumstances where contemporaneous investigations are conducted, the Designated Officer will advise the [relevant stakeholder(s)] of the determination under this procedure.
11.13.5 Where the respondent is a student, the Designated Officer may refer the matter to the [Senior Manager, Complaints, Appeals and Conduct] for appropriate action under the [Adelaide University Student Misconduct Policy]. If the matter is referred for investigation this will be managed in accordance with section 12 of this procedure. Where the respondent is a staff member, referral for investigation will follow the transitional arrangements outlined in section 3 of this procedure.
11.13.6 Where the respondent is a titleholder and a breach is determined, the Designated Officer may refer the matter to the Responsible Executive Officer. The Responsible Executive Officer may take action under the [Titleholder - Conferral of Honorary Roles Procedure] and refer the matter to the affiliated organisation where relevant or required. If the matter is referred for investigation this will be managed in accordance with section 12 of this procedure.
12. Investigation
12.1 Where the respondent is a student or titleholder, and the Designated Officer has determined it appropriate to establish an Investigation under clause 11.13 they will:
12.1.1 appoint the investigation panel, having consulted with the Responsible Executive Officer
12.1.2 prepare a clear statement of the allegations and the terms of reference for the Investigation
12.1.3 seek legal advice on matters of process where appropriate
12.1.4 inform the respondent, the complainant and any other relevant parties of the decision to conduct the investigation
12.1.5 provide the respondent with the composition of the investigation panel, allowing the respondent the opportunity to raise any concerns
12.1.6 arrange for the investigation panel to be provided with a copy of the original complaint, the Preliminary Assessment report and its associated evidence, and any additional information they may request; and
12.1.7 arrange for executive support to the investigation panel in undertaking administrative functions and drafting correspondence.
12.2 The Investigation may be conducted by one or more persons. The composition of the investigation panel (including the number of members, level of independence from Adelaide University, and considerations of gender and diversity) will be determined by factors including the potential consequences for those involved, the seniority of those involved, and the need to maintain public confidence in research. However, it will include at least the following member attributes:
- knowledge and experience in the relevant field of research
- familiarity with the responsible conduct of research; and
- prior experience on similar panels or relevant experience or expertise.
All academic members of the investigation panel will hold a Level D appointment or higher, and be in a position senior to that of the respondent in each case. Where there is more than one member on the investigation panel, the Designated Officer will appoint one of the members as a chair.
12.3 The investigation panel may include members internal or external to Adelaide University, taking into account the need for members to be free from bias or conflicts of interest. All members will be required to complete a Conflict of Interest Statement and a Confidentiality Agreement.
12.4 The investigation panel will:
12.4.1 apply the principles of procedural fairness in undertaking the Investigation;
12.4.2 act expeditiously, fairly, impartially and confidentially, and ensure the Investigation is demonstrably conducted free from bias or preconception or conflicts of interest;
12.4.3 consider all material relevant to the matter, and request additional material if required;
12.4.4 develop an investigation plan;
12.4.5 permit the University and respondent, and if they so request, their representatives and/or support person (in the case of the respondent), to be present at all hearings where evidence is taken or submissions are being made, subject to any confidentiality requirements;
12.4.6 interview any other persons as determined by the investigation panel;
12.4.7 consider on a case-by-case basis whether to permit legal or specialist representation on request; and
12.4.8 prepare a written report for the Designated Officer detailing their findings of fact and associated reasoning, providing a determination based on the evidence and on the balance of probabilities as to whether the respondent has breached the Code.
12.5 If the respondent does not make representations to, or appear before, the investigation panel in a timely manner, the Investigation will continue in their absence.
12.6 All those asked to give evidence are to be provided with relevant, and if necessary de-identified, information including:
12.6.1 the schedule of meetings and/or hearings they are asked to attend;
12.6.2 the relevant parts of the terms of reference for the Investigation, if appropriate;
12.6.3 how the investigation panel intends to conduct interviews;
12.6.4 notice that they may have a support person present;
12.6.5 whether the interviews will be recorded;
12.6.6 whether an opportunity will be provided to comment on matters raised in the interview;
12.6.7 disclosure of conflicts of interest;
12.6.8 the confidentiality requirements; and
12.6.9 the investigation panel’s composition and procedures.
12.7 The investigation panel will determine whether, having regard to evidence and on the balance of probabilities, the respondent has breached the Code. To do this, the investigation panel:
12.7.1 assesses the evidence (including its veracity) and considers if further evidence may be required;
12.7.2 may request expert advice to assist the investigation;
12.7.3 arrives at findings of fact about the allegation(s);
12.7.4 identifies whether the Code has been breached;
12.7.5 considers the seriousness of any breach;
12.7.6 provides a report on its findings of fact consistent with its terms of reference; and
12.7.7 makes recommendations as appropriate.
12.8 If the investigation panel finds during the Investigation that the scope and/or the terms of reference are too limiting, it should refer the matter to the Designated Officer, who may decide to amend them. Should this occur, the respondent and relevant others are to be advised, and the respondent given the opportunity to respond to any new material arising from the increased scope of the investigation.
12.9 The investigation panel is encouraged to reach a consensus. If the investigation panel has dissenting views there should be opportunity for these views to be included in the draft and final report. If included in the draft report, it must be provided to the respondent.
12.10 On the completion of its investigation, the investigation panel will provide a draft written report to the respondent, allowing a reasonable timeframe (dependent on the complexity of the matter) to comment. The draft report, or a summary of the information, may be provided to the complainant if they will be directly affected by the outcome.
12.11 Following consideration of a response as per clause 12.10, the investigation panel will present its final report to the Designated Officer.
Outcomes
12.12 Upon receipt of the report of the investigation panel, the Designated Officer will consider the findings of fact, evidence presented and any recommendations made by the investigation panel. The Designated Officer will subsequently provide the investigation panel’s report to the Responsible Executive Officer with a set of recommendations, including any appropriate corrective actions or sanctions if required.
12.13 The Responsible Executive Officer will make a determination based on the report of the investigation panel and the recommendations of the Designated Officer and will take the following actions:
- for research students, determine whether the findings should be referred to the [Manager, Complaints, Appeals and Conduct] for determination by the Student Misconduct Tribunal for action in accordance with the [Student Misconduct Policy and Procedure].
- for titleholders of Adelaide University, where there is a determination of a
Breach, take action as per the [Titleholder - Conferral of Honorary Roles Procedure], and refer the matter to the Affiliated Organisation where relevant.
12.14 The respondent will be advised in writing by the Responsible Executive Officer of the findings of the investigation, and any recommended corrective actions, sanctions or disciplinary procedures.
12.15 The Responsible Executive Officer will report all findings of a breach or research misconduct, and actions taken by the University in response to them, to the Complainant, the Vice Chancellor, relevant senior University managers, relevant funding agencies, journals, Affiliated Organisation, researchers, professional registration bodies, the general public and other relevant parties, as determined by the Responsible Executive Officer. Efforts will be made to correct the public record of the research, including publications if a Breach or Research Misconduct has affected the accuracy or trustworthiness of research findings and their dissemination.
12.16 Where it is determined that no breach or research misconduct has occurred, the University will make reasonable efforts to restore the reputation of the respondent, if required.
Review Process
12.17 The process, but not the outcome, of an investigation may be appealed by the respondent. Only requests for a review of an investigation on the grounds of procedural fairness will be considered. A request for review with justification must be made in writing to the Review Officer within 10 working days of the Respondent being informed of the Investigation outcome by the Responsible Executive Officer.
12.18 The Review Officer will consider whether the investigation was conducted in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness. They will report the outcome of the appeal to the Vice Chancellor for final determination.
12.19 Any recommendation for disciplinary action associated with a finding of a breach or research misconduct may be appealed by students in accordance with the [Student Misconduct Policy and Procedure].
12.20 When notifying parties of the outcome, they will be informed of their right to request a review by the Australian Research Integrity Committee in relation to processes taken under this Procedure.
13. Definitions used in our procedure
Adelaide University community means a broad range of stakeholders who engage with Adelaide University and includes (but is not limited to) all students, staff, and non-staff members of Adelaide University including alumni, honorary titleholders, adjuncts, visiting academics, guest lecturers, volunteers, suppliers and partners who are engaging with and contributing to the work of Adelaide University.
Affiliated organisation means an organisation that has signed an Affiliate Agreement with Adelaide University.
Breach A breach is defined as a failure to meet the principles and responsibilities of the Code and may refer to a single breach or multiples breaches. Examples of breaches include fabrication, falsification or misrepresentation of research data; plagiarism; inappropriate maintenance of research records, inadequate supervision or mentoring; conducting research without necessary ethical approvals; and misleading ascription of authorship.
Potential breach a potential breach is defined as a potential failure to meet the principles and responsibilities of the Code and may refer to a single potential breach or multiple potential breaches.
A complaint is a written document containing a concern or complaint about research conduct in the context of the Code.
A complainant means a person bringing the complaint.
Foundation university means either the University of Adelaide or the University of South Australia.
Investigation means a process to investigate an allegation of a breach of the Code following a preliminary assessment, to determine formally whether a breach has occurred and, if so, the extent of that breach.
Natural justice Natural justice (also called ‘procedural fairness’) means acting fairly in administrative decision making and relates to the fairness of the procedure by which a decision is made, not whether the outcome is fair. Natural justice will be accorded based on the circumstances of the complaint.
A preliminary assessment is the gathering and evaluation of facts and information, assessment whether there is sufficient evidence of a breach of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, 2018, and make any recommendations for further action.
Procedural fairness means the principles that are applied to the management and investigation of a potential breach of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, 2018 namely: parties have an opportunity to be heard before a decision is made that will affect their interests; there is an absence of bias in the investigation; decisionmaking is based on evidence before the decision-makers; and decisions are communicated with reasons.
Research means “the creation of new knowledge and/or the use of existing knowledge in a new and creative way to generate new concepts, methodologies, inventions and understandings. This could include synthesis and analysis of previous research to the extent that it is new and creative”[1].
Research misconduct means a serious breach of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, 2018 (the Code) which is also intentional or reckless or negligent. Repeated or continuing findings of breaches of the Code may also constitute research misconduct. Research misconduct does not include honest differences in judgement.
A respondent is an individual responsible for the actions that are the subject of the complaint.
Support person means a person chosen by a staff member or student to provide personal support during a University process. A support person may attend meetings and take notes but must not advocate, answer questions or speak on the person’s behalf. A support person is not a legal representative; a lawyer may attend only where the relevant procedure permits and then in a non-advocacy role.
Titleholders means any person upon whom Adelaide University has conferred an honorary academic title.
13. How our procedure is governed
This procedure is categorised, approved and owned in line with the governance structure of Adelaide University and the offices and officers listed below.'
| Parent policy | Research Integrity Policy |
|---|---|
| Policy category | Academic |
| Approving authority | Co-Vice Chancellors/Vice Chancellor and President |
| Policy owner | Deputy Vice Chancellor - Research and Innovation |
| Responsible officer | Pro Vice Chancellor, Research Performance |
| Effective from | 19 December 2025 |
| Review date | September 2026 or earlier if a new EA takes effect |
| Enquiries | Interim Central Policy Unit |
| Replaced documents | None |
14. Legislation and other documents related to our procedure
Refer to the Delegation Policy for all delegations at Adelaide University.
| Category | Documents |
|---|---|
| Associated procedures | [Titleholder - Conferral of Honorary Roles Procedure] Public Interest Disclosure Procedure |
| Related policy documents | Student Misconduct Policy Public Interest Disclosure Policy |
| Referenced legislation |
Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 HESF Domain 4. Research and Research Training National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018 NHMRC Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, 2018 NHMRC Guide to Managing and Investigating Potential Breaches of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, 2018 Australian Research Council Research Integrity Policy NHMRC Research Integrity and Misconduct Policy Australian code for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research AIATSIS Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research |
15. History of changes
| Date approved | To section/clauses | Description of change |
|---|---|---|
| DD Month Year | N/A | New procedure |
At the time of writing, Adelaide University’s organisational structure, position titles, and committee names have not been confirmed. Square brackets [ ] indicate placeholders for these details. Brackets are also used to identify policy elements that are subject to further decision-making or confirmation. These will be updated once final decisions are made.
[1] For funding received from the United States Public Health Services (PHS), compliance with the PHS Policies on Research Misconduct 42CFR Part 9 may require notification of any Research Misconduct within PHS awards to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and/or the National Institute of Health immediately. This Procedure will be followed noting the specific requirements of the ORI.
[2] The NHMRC Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, 2018, p.5.