An “evaluation” of the Australian Research Integrity Committee is due to complete this month – some researchers want ARIC beefed up, others want an independent investigation agency instead and some don’t know what Aric does
ARIC has a less Himalayan than horizontal profile but even so, in its time has, attracted unkind comments in the research community. Back in 2013 there were arguments whether an independent office investigating research misconduct allegations would be better than ARIC looking at how institutions dealt with them (CMM August 19 2013).
We have a lot of sympathy for the opinion that Australia needs a new approach to the investigation and action upon allegations of research misconduct. We need an expert review process that is independent of the kind of institutional conflicts of interest that currently appear to be influencing how cases are being handled. This is just not a case of allegations being handled properly, they need to be transparently done so, without any fear of the impact on institutional reputation.
A national research integrity office is not mentioned in the topics of the present evaluation of ARIC – which focus on process, standing and take-up of recommendations and whether “ARIC‘s existence and role are known and understood by relevant stakeholders” –
However there is room to raise one in some of the references;
“the relevance of ARIC’s advice to the respective CEOs, including its suggested recommendations to institutions”
and,
“institutions’ compliance and cooperation on reviews and the extent to which ARIC’s recommendations are acted on when communicated to institutions”
The review was also charged with looking at, “research integrity arrangements in other countries.”
