Research integrity – the current model

Research integrity in Australian universities and research institutions is maintained through a 'self-regulation' model set by the Commonwealth research funding bodies, the Australian Research Council (ARC) and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).

Universities and research institutions are contractually required (as a condition of receipt of funding from the ARC/NHMRC) to monitor and ensure compliance with the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (the Code) and its supporting documents.

The Code sets out the key principles for researchers and institutions, and is supported by guides on topics such as managing investigations, authorship, collaborative research and managing conflicts of interest (the Guides), as well as two sub-codes for ethical conduct in research involving human participants or animals.

Breaches of the Code

A breach of the Code can arise due to a departure from responsible research conduct or research integrity and can span a broad spectrum of seriousness. The Code and the Guides require institutions to adopt policies and procedures to investigate and address breaches of the Code, and to take appropriate actions in response to any findings of a breach. The ARC and NHMRC each have a research integrity and misconduct policy, which institutions are also required to comply with as a contractual condition for the receipt of ARC/NHMRC funding.

The Code also allows for the Australian Research Integrity Committee (ARIC) to conduct an external review of an Institution's compliance processes under the Code. ARIC has no enforcement powers and its remit is limited to providing findings and, occasionally, making recommendations to the ARC/NHMRC, who may elect to suspend or place restrictions on funding in response to non-compliance.

Common themes

Some common themes that have arisen in the work we do with institutions in this area include:

1. Managing competing process interests: preliminary assessments and investigations may impact the interests of multiple stakeholders; applicable employment and industrial relations arrangements may be inconsistent with the Code framework; there may be potential criminal conduct that requires engagement with police or corruption commissions; and there is always reputational sensitivity and defamation risk to be navigated.
2. Conflicts of interest: these often arise in research generally and, in particular, when there is collaboration between institutions. Appropriate disclosure and management of conflicts of interest is often not well understood or instituted, which can lead to breaches of the Code and the relevant Guide on managing conflicts of interest in research.
3. Procedural fairness in the preliminary assessment process: although not mandated by the Guides, it may be appropriate for a respondent to be heard by the preliminary assessor before a decision is made that there is a potential breach of the Code requiring investigation. This is particularly relevant if there will be no investigation, but corrective actions that can impact a respondent. It is also not uncommon for a respondent to assert there has been procedural unfairness at the preliminary assessment stage, which is said to have invalidated the entire process.
4. The paradox of a preliminary assessment: a preliminary assessment determines whether there may be a potential breach of the Code, but in certain circumstances allows 'corrective actions' to be taken without referral to an investigation. Decision makers and panel members must be conscious of this distinction in communicating outcomes.
5. External ARIC reviews: short timeframes and extensive document requests are common and pose challenges to resource.

The future of the self-regulation model

The limited remit and powers of ARIC have been subject to criticism and calls for reform. There are proposals for a regulator with powers to:

• oversee investigations;
• designate who conducts the investigation and how; and
• compel participation and production of documents.

This model is comparable to other jurisdictions and the oversight would be similar to how some of the corruption commissions operate. However, there are concerns about the cost of a regulator and the potential for it to slow down already complex processes.

An action list for universities and research institutions

Dealing with issues of research integrity is a challenge for even the most experienced institutions. To ensure sound, reasonable and procedurally fair outcomes, institutions must:

1. consider whether their internal culture promotes integrity and an environment in which it is 'safe to speak up' about research integrity concerns;
2. ensure current frameworks (including internal policies and procedures and collaborative research arrangements) facilitate compliance with the Code;
3. develop training and guidance materials to guide decision makers and panel members;
4. provide decision makers and panel members with the correct resources and support; and
5. maintain robust document management processes.

To find out more about research integrity in universities and research institutions, please reach out to the relevant MinterEllison contacts below.