ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

International

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Are we missing the true picture? Stop calling a moneybox, a fishing hook0

 

It can be pleasing to see mainstream media taking an interest in research integrity, particularly when misconduct involving you or your institution is not the focus of the story. Advising HDR candidates, new supervisors and other early career researchers about predatory publishers can feel like a public service and is something that can shock your audience into paying attention.

But could the label predatory publishers be concealing a more complex picture?

The binary notion of prey and predator;a trusting but naive researcher and a greedy con-artist; and the white hats and black hats of old-fashioned westerns can feel authentic, real and dangerous.

However, it might just be that we’re missing the collective long-con.

Rather than hapless and tricked researchers, there is data and commentary to suggest at least some experienced researchers are gaming the system and using the non-existent peer review of Illegitimate publishers to add a paper to their publication track record.

In the subscribers’ area, AHRECS senior consultant Gary Allen reflects on how we should be talking about the very real problem – A rose thorn by any other name?

Contributors:
Gary Allen, AHRECS Senior Consultant, gary.allen@ahrecs.com | Gary’s AHRECS profile

This post may be cited as:
Allen, G. (26  October 2018) Are we missing the true picture? Stop calling a moneybox a fishing hook. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/research-integrity/are-we-missing-the-true-picture-stop-calling-a-moneybox-a-fishing-hook

We invite debate on issues raised by items we publish. However, we will only publish debate about the issues that the items raise and expect that all contributors model ethical and respectful practice.

Undue Influence in Research Between High-Income and Lower-Income Countries0

 

Red Thaddeus D. Miguel

According to the Belmont Report (1979), respect for persons incorporates two ethical convictions: individuals are to be treated as autonomous agents, and those with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection.

It is because of these guiding principles that we, researchers and health practitioners, are extremely careful in planning and designing our research on populations who are more likely to have diminished autonomy. We endeavour to protect vulnerable groups in our studies because their circumstances make them more susceptible to being taken advantage of. To do otherwise, according to Gillet (2008), would simply be selfish and would be acting in bad faith. In fulfilment of their mandate, ethics review boards likewise have clear guidelines in the protection of vulnerable populations. Unlike protocols for the protection of minors, pregnant women, prisoners, terminally ill, intellectually challenged, and militarized to name some of the most common guidelines for vulnerable populations, guidelines for impoverished population may be more difficult to construct. As laid out by the Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice (1996, p.8), impoverished persons may have the propensity to be unduly influenced by the expectations of benefits associated with participation. But how does one judge whether a token for participation is enough to influence the decision of a person? For children, for example, being below a certain age is understandably a reason to protect the child’s interest and warrants the use of assent forms. However, for the economically disadvantaged drawing the line is more difficult to assess.

Some studies have questioned whether incentives impair the ability of participants to make decisions about risk. These claims have cited the studies of Halpern et al. (2004) and Bentley and Thacker (2004), which find participants are not likely to forego the risks of participation when offered greater compensation.However, these findings were based on hypothetical enrolment and were done with small sample sizes. More important for this discourse, however, is that these studies were done in developed countries. In a study by Kass et al.(2005), participants of studies implemented in developing countries (LMICs) were noted not only to be facing challenges in understanding the study protocol thus affecting their autonomous decision making, but were also noted to participate primarily because of the incentives presented.As Benatar (2002) notes great disparities exist in health and wealth between developed and developing countries and therefore ethical standards must take into consideration the differences and adapt to the rising level of research in developing countries.

Recognizing the imbalances of power, resources, and knowledge that exist in the setting of research between high-income and lower-income, the Global Code of Conduct for Research in Resource-Poor Settings (2018) outlines guidelines to avert ethics dumping in lower-income setting. Article 6 of the guidelines tackle specifically the topic of compensation and benefits, ‘Researchers from high-income settings need to be aware of the power and resource differentials in benefit-sharing discussions, with sustained efforts to bring lower-capacity parties into the dialogue’.

Coming from an LMIC, I could not agree more with the guidelines set. In gauging the amount for benefits, one has to be careful with the amount being paid to participants for their involvement so as not to cause undue influence to those who wish to participate in the study; including the local parties into the dialogue is therefore vital to upholding ethical standards. What is acceptable in one country may cause undue influence in another, especially to economically disadvantaged persons in LMICs. Moreover, even within the LMIC itself, interactions between researchers from a high-income region and participants from a low-income area likewise pose some problems and therefore knowing the local factors that could cause undue influence is important.

In the Philippines for example, a number of factors are involved when it comes to deciding the amount of compensation. For example, the daily minimum wage in one area of the Philippines is 265.00 Philippine Pesos (~AUD7), while in other areas this could be as high as 512.00 Philippine Pesos (~AUD13). For this reason, I have been involved in a study that handed out supplies worth 40 Philippine Pesos (~AUD1), yet in another study we thought it was appropriate to hand out 1,000 Philippine Pesos (~AUD25). In making our decision as to how much to pay participants, we conduct our research based on the principles set forth by the Philippine Health Research Ethics Board’s National Ethical Guidelines for Health and Health-Related Research (2017, p.20):

35.4 Research participants shall be reimbursed for lost earnings, travel costs, and other expenses incurred when taking part in a study. Where there is no prospect of direct benefit, participants may be given a reasonable and appropriate incentive for inconvenience. The payments shall not be so large as to induce prospective participants to consent to participate in the research against their better judgment (undue inducement).

With this we make sure that our computation includes all the components set forth by this guideline, thus we try to include lost earnings, reimbursement for travel, incentives, and other expenses incurred by the respondent. In valuing exactly how much each of these costs, we don’t have a memorandum on the exact cost to follow instead we rely heavily on the nature, population, and area of the study.

Upon discussing this topic with two of my colleagues I find that we share similar techniques in estimating the value of each of the cost. Other researchers in the country may have different techniques, but the following are a few of the methods I have compiled from discourse with my colleagues on how to approximate the amount to compensate the participants.

  1. First, we get to know the population of interest very well. This includes taking into consideration the cultural, historical, and geographic background of the region, province, city, municipality, and town. Towns inhabited by people of a certain religion for example should not be brought a specific type of food. Another example could be that because of the terrain of a certain town, getting to the interview may mean riding a motorcycle for an hour. Knowing this we will be able to estimate the reimbursement of travel better.
  2. Different areas at different times of the year will have different needs as well. Therefore, we make sure to take this into consideration. For example, if we know that classes are about to start in one area, we might offer school supplies to participants. Similarly, if it is the rainy season, one could probably give out umbrellas to respondents.
  3. Knowing the region, a general rule of thumb one of my colleagues utilizes is to base his computation on the regional minimum wage published and updated by the Department of Labor and Employment. Using the published minimum wage, he then computes the hourly wage and makes this the maximum compensation for every hour of participation.
  4. Another practice done is to discuss the amount with local government units. Talking to the officials in the town, we are able to gauge the average income of their residents as well as the usual occupation in the area.
  5. We also take into consideration the type of study being done and the inconvenience it could cause. For example, a more difficult questionnaire asking very specific points in the timeline of the patient’s disease may warrant higher compensation than a simple demographic survey.
  6. We talk to researchers or local data collectors who have done studies with the same population, or who have undertaken the same method. Knowing how the respondents reacted to a specific amount of bother fee in the past gives us a benchmark for our studies.
  7. During the conduct of pre-testing our tools, we likewise ask our colleagues for an estimate that they believe would be a reasonable compensation for participants who would answer the questionnaire.

After we have the appropriate ‘bother fee’ in mind, we then submit this to the research ethics committees responsible for the study area. We are then given feedback whether the amount is appropriate and reasonable.

This system seems to be working largely because of the safeguards and competency of local research ethics committee and partly because of our familiarity with the system being locals ourselves. However, I cannot help but wonder how the increasing number of research projects in developing countries can affect this process. With more studies being done in LMICs maybe there is now a need to perform research into this area specifically on the exact amount or situations wherein undue influence can unintentionally occur. For example, with the theories of colonial mentality, does research done by non-Filipinos affect the responses or even influence the participation of respondents in studies done in the Philippines? Due to the volatile weather in the Philippines affecting the prices of commodities every month, does the bother fee deemed appropriate in one month still assure that there won’t be undue influence in the other months? Does the status of diplomatic relations between other countries and the Philippines affect the decision of participants when dealing with researchers from another country? Are there undue influences caused by the perception of Filipinos about certain companies funding the studies?  Will the reputations of certain institutions or organizations leading the study cause participants to participate even if normally they would not have agreed to do so? Could certain areas in the Philippines be more susceptible to undue influence than other areas due to the large gaps in income and health services between regions? Knowing these may be helpful to local researchers and those who wish to do studies locally by providing us with evidence-based standards that could guide our data collection process away from undue influence.

The author declares that he has no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with either financial or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. The author has no conflict of interest.

Bibliography

Benatar SR (2002) ‘Reflections and recommendations on research ethics in developing countries’, Social Science & Medicine,1131–1141.

Bentley JP and Thacker PG (2004) ‘The influence of risk and monetary payment on the research participation decision making process’, Journal of Medical Ethics,200430293–298.

Gillett G (2008) ‘Autonomy and selfishness’Lancet, 372(9645):1214-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61507-X

TRUST Project (2018) Global Code of Conduct for Research in Resource-Poor Settings.http://www.globalcodeofconduct.org/ (Accessed September 8, 2018).

Halpern SD, Karlawish JHT, Casarett D, Berlin JA and Asch DA (2004) ‘Empirical assessment of whether moderate payments are undue or unjust inducements for participation in clinical trials’, Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine, 164801–803.

International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human use (June 10, 1996)ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline, Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R1) Current Step 4 version. Available at: https://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E6/E6_R1_Guideline.pdf (Accessed September 8, 2018).

Kass NE, Maman S and Atkinson J (2005) ‘Motivations, Understanding, and Voluntariness in International Randomized Trials’, IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 27(6):1-8.

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1978) The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Bethesda, Md.: The Commission. Available at: https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html (Accessed August 20, 2018).

Philippine Health Research Ethics Board (2017) National Ethical Guidelines for Health and Health-Related Research, Department of Science and Technology – Philippine Council for Health Research and Development, p.20. Available at: http://www.ethics.healthresearch.ph/index.php/phoca-downloads/category/4-neg?download=98:neghhr-2017 (Accessed September 8, 2018).

Contributor
Red Thaddeus D. Miguel, Health Policy Researcher, Ontario, Canada
LinkedIn profileredasmph@gmail.com

This post may be cited as:
Miguel, Red TD. (27  September 2018) Undue Influence in Research Between High-Income and Lower-Income Countries. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/undue-influence-in-research-between-high-income-and-lower-income-countries

We invite debate on issues raised by items we publish. However, we will only publish debate about the issues that the items raise and expect that all contributors model ethical and respectful practice.

The complex art of benefit-sharing0

 

In community-based participatory action programs (programs which have a research component but which are also focussed on community development and empowerment), it might be possible to identify a link between a research project and a benefit to the participating community. Over and above conducting the study, in research on domestic violence, studies have provided emotional and practical support for victims, offering information about, and organizing access to, formal and informal services, providing feedback to the study community and relevant agencies, and supporting or engaging in advocacy on behalf of abused (Usdin et al. 2000). Work on victims of state violence has also advocated for broader political change (Stanley 2012).

However, in other circumstances it may be far more likely that participants may contribute to research but gain very little direct or even no benefit from it. The lack of reciprocity may be particularly problematic if participants are drawn from vulnerable groups.

For example, members of poorer communities have a right to feel aggrieved if research undertaken in their communities is only likely to be of benefit to wealthier societies. This is most obviously the case where multinational pharmaceutical corporations trial drugs or procedures in the Global South that are in the end likely to be priced out of the reach of participant communities or which were never relevant to their needs. Not surprisingly, therefore, the concept of benefit-sharing has been most widely developed in discussions of health and genetic research.

In response, international agreements and statements related to biomedical research such as the Declaration of Helsinki (from 2000 onwards) and non-human genetic and bioprospecting research such as the legally-binding Convention on Biological Diversity (1992), formalised in the Nagoya Protocol (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010), instituted obligations relating to benefit-sharing for projects that fell within their jurisdiction. These agreements recognised that:

Those who contribute to developments in science and technology ought to share in the benefits, so if those benefits are not shared with the contributors to scientific advancement, that advancement is exploitative. (Arnason and Schroeder, 2013, p. 21)

As a result, the Nagoya Protocol pointed to the principle that research projects should offer benefits to participants. Non-financial benefits might include: sharing research results; collaboration, cooperation and contribution in research and development programmes, education and training; institutional capacity-building; contributions to the local economy; research directed towards priority needs of the participating community; institutional and professional relationships that can arise from an access and benefit-sharing agreement and subsequent collaborative activities; livelihood security benefits; and, social recognition. It is easy to imagine how such benefits, in the context of biomedical research, can be applied to social research; or, at least, it would be if social researchers were funded at the same level as biomedical researchers.

Unfortunately, the art of benefit-sharing has proved to be complex.

First, it might not be straightforward to identify what constitutes a benefit, particularly at the beginning of a researcher’s engagement with a new community. In her recent critique of transnational Feminist researchers, Rajan (2018) portrayed some external attempts at intervening in support of women’s rights in the Global South as ‘unfairly patronizing, or alternatively… ill-advised and characterized by a lack of sufficient knowledge of local context and concerns’ (p.271).

Second, it may not always be easy to work out what a particular community might regard as a fair way of sharing benefits. Even those projects that have sought to implement formal benefit-sharing arrangements have struggled to achieve a just and equitable distribution of benefits. For example, there is evidence that women have been marginalized in the negotiation and implementation of benefit-sharing arrangements, despite (and indeed because of) their additional susceptibility to exploitation within vulnerable communities. In addition, it is possible that some benefits aimed at individual participants might undermine commitments to respond to injustice at a macro-level and might even cause intra-community conflict. For instance, providing a participant family with additional food in a village where food is scarce may cause resentment among neighbours.

Third, some disciplines are less likely than others to generate tangible benefits and, even if they can, researchers may not be able to assure that the intended benefits of a research project will flow to participants. They may be particularly powerless in the face of powerful institutions whose job it is to restrict the freedom of participants. Zion et al. (2010), for example, argued that researchers seeking to work on projects on self-harm by asylum seekers funded by the Australian Commonwealth government were likely to be compromised. As asylum seekers are subjected to indefinite mandatory detention in Australia, Zion and her colleagues concluded that even projects aimed at improving the mental wellbeing of detainees risk legitimizing a detention regime that inevitably breached human rights.

Finally, acceptance of the importance of benefit-sharing arrangements is not universal. In 2008, the United States effectively opted out of the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki that relate to ensuring that research participants must be allowed access to tested clinical interventions that were found to be successful and that research in low and lower middle-income countries must be designed to benefit local communities. Even before that time, there was little evidence that Institutional Review Boards in the US were taking the requirement seriously (Macklin, 2004).

So, benefit-sharing offers a way of directing both the outcomes and the process of research towards the pursuit of global and social justice. Unfortunately, a broader range of disciplines need to do more to develop and share strategies of benefit-sharing before we can have confidence that it has found a place in across our research programs.

Acknowledgements:

This article further develops an argument that will appear in Israel, M. & Fozdar, F. (in press) The ethics of the study of ‘Social Problems’ . In Treviño, J. & Marvasti, A. (eds) Researching Social Problems. New York: Routledge.

Bibliography

Arnason, G. and Schroeder, D. (2013) Exploring Central Philosophical Concepts in Benefit Sharing: Vulnerability, Exploitation and Undue Inducement. In Schroeder, D. and Lucas, J.C. (eds.) Benefit Sharing: From Biodiversity to Human Genetics. Springer. pp.9-31

Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity. http://www.cbd.int/abs/doc/protocol/nagoya-protocol-en.pdf

Macklin, R. (2004) Double Standards in Medical Research in Developing Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rajan, H. (2018) ‘The Ethics of Transnational Feminist Research and Activism: An Argument for a More Comprehensive View’, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 43(2): 269-300.

Stanley, E. (2012) ‘Interviewing Victims of State Violence’ in Gadd, D., Karstedt, S. and Messner, S.F. (eds) The Sage Handbook of Criminological Research Methods. Sage: London. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446268285.n15

Usdin, S., Christfides, N., Malepe, L. and Aadielah, M. (2000) ‘The value of advocacy in promoting social change: implementing the new Domestic Violence Act in South Africa’, Reproductive Health Matters, 8(16): 55–65.

Zion, D., Briskman L. and Loff, B. (2010) ‘Returning to History: The Ethics of Researching Asylum Seeker Health in Australia’, The American Journal of Bioethics, 10(2): 48-56. DOI: 10.1080/15265160903469310

Contributor
Prof. Mark Israel
Senior consultant AHRECS – AHRECS Profile | mark.israel@ahrecs.com

This post may be cited as:
Israel M. (24 July 2018) The complex art of benefit-sharing. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/the-complex-art-of-benefit-sharing

We invite debate on issues raised by items we publish. However, we will only publish debate about the issues that the items raise and expect that all contributors model ethical and respectful practice.

Australian Code 2018: What institutions should do next1

 

Gary Allen, Mark Israel and Colin Thomson

At first glance, there is much to be pleased about the new version of the Australian Code that was released on 14th June. A short, clear document that is based upon principles and an overt focus on research culture is a positive move away from the tight rules that threatened researchers and research offices alike for deviation from standards that might not be appropriate or even workable in all contexts.

The 2007 Code was rightly criticized on several grounds. First, weighing a system down with detailed rules burdened the vast majority with unneeded compliance for the recklessness and shady intentions of a very small minority. Second, there was reason to suspect the detailed rules did not stop the ‘bad apples’. Third, those detailed rules probably did not inspire early career researchers to engage with research integrity and embrace and embed better practice into their research activity. Finally, the Code did little to create an overall system able to undertake continuous improvement.

But, before we start to celebrate any improvements, we need to work through what has changed and what institutions and researchers need to do about it. And, then, maybe a quiet celebration might be in order.

Researchers have some fairly basic needs when it comes to research integrity. They need to know what they should do: first, as researchers and research supervisors in order to engage in good practice; second, if they encounter poor practice by another researcher; and, third, if other people complain about their practices.

The 2007 Australian Code offered some help with each of these. In some cases, this ‘help’ was structured as a requirement and over time was found wanting. The 2018 version appreciated that these questions might be basic but that the answers were often complex. The second and third questions are partly answered by the accompanying Guide to Managing and Investigating Potential Breaches of the Code (the Investigation Guide) and we’ll return to this. The answer to the first question is brief.

The Code begins to address responsibilities around research integrity through a set of eight principles that apply to researchers as well as their institutions: honesty; rigour; transparency; fairness; respect; recognition of the rights of Indigenous peoples to be engaged in research; accountability, and promotion of responsible research practices. Explicit recognition of the need to respect the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples did not appear in the 2007 version. There are 13 responsibilities specific to institutions. There are 16 responsibilities, specific to researchers, that relate to compliance with legal and ethical responsibilities, require researchers to ensure that they support a responsible culture of research, undertake appropriate training, provide mentoring, use appropriate methodology and reach conclusions that are justified by the results, retain records, disseminate findings, disclose and manage of conflicts of interest, acknowledge research contributions appropriately, participate in peer review and report breaches of research integrity.

In only a few cases might a researcher read these parts of the Code and conclude that the requirements are inappropriate. It would be a little like disagreeing with the Singapore Statement (the one on research integrity, not the recent Trump-Kim output). Mostly, the use of words like ‘appropriate’ within the Code (it appears three times in the Principles, twice in the responsibilities of institutions and five times in responsibilities of researchers) limit the potential for particular responsibilities to be over-generalised from one discipline and inappropriately transferred to others.

There are some exceptions, and some researchers may find it difficult to ‘disseminate research findings responsibly, accurately and broadly’, particularly if they are subject to commercial-in-confidence restrictions or public sector limitations, and we know that there are significant pressures on researchers to shape the list of authors in ways that may have little to do with ‘substantial contribution’.

For researchers, the Code becomes problematic if they go to it seeking advice on how they ought to behave in particular contexts. The answers, whether they were good or bad in the 2007 Code, are no longer there. So, a researcher seeking to discover how to identify and manage a conflict of interest or what criteria ought to determine authorship will need to look elsewhere. And, institutions will need to broker access to this information either by developing it themselves or by pointing to good sectoral advice from professional associations, international bodies such as the Committee for Publication Ethics, or the Guides that the NHMRC has indicated that it will publish.

We are told that the Australian Code Better Practice Guides Working Group will produce guides on authorship and data management towards the end of 2018 (so hopefully at least six months before the deadline of 1 July 2019 for institutions to implement the updated Australian Code). However, we do not know which other guides will be produced, who will contribute to their development nor, in the end, how useful they will be in informing researcher practice. We would hope that the Working Group is well progressed with the further suite if it is to be able to collect feedback and respond to that before that deadline.

There are at least eight areas where attention will be required. We need:

  1. A national standard data retention period for research data and materials.
  2. Specified requirements about data storage, security, confidentiality and privacy.
  3. Specified requirements about the supervision and mentoring of research trainees.
  4. A national standard on publication ethics, including such matters as republication of a research output.
  5. National criteria to inform whether a contributor to a research project could or should not be listed as an author of a research output.
  6. Other national standards on authorship matters.
  7. Specified requirements about a conflicts of interest policy.
  8. Prompts for research collaborations between institutions.

For each of those policy areas the following matters should be considered:

1. Do our researchers need more than the principle that appears in the 2018 Australian Code?

2. If yes, is there existing material upon which an institution’s guidance material can be based?

3. Who will write, consider and endorse the guidance material at a national or institutional level?

Many institutions will conclude it is prudent to wait until late 2018 to see whether the next two good practice guides are released and discover how much they cover. Even if they do so, institutions will also need to transform these materials into resources that can be used in teaching and learning at the levels of the discipline and do so in a way that builds the commitment to responsible conduct and the ethical imaginations of researchers rather than testing them on their knowledge of compliance matters.

Managing and Investigating Potential Breaches

The Code is accompanied by a Guide to Managing and Investigating Potential Breaches of the Code (the Investigation Guide). The main function of this Guide is to provide a model process for managing and investigating complaints or concerns about research conduct. However, before examining how to adopt that model, institutions need to make several important preliminary decisions.

First, to be consistent with the Code, the Guide states that institutions should promote a culture that fosters and values responsible conduct of research generally and develop, disseminate, implement and review institutional practices that promote adherence to the Code. Both of these will necessitate the identification of existing structures and processes and a thorough assessment to determine any changes that are needed to ensure that they fulfil these responsibilities.

This means that institutions must assess how their processes conform to the principles of procedural fairness and the listed characteristics of such processes. The procedural fairness principles are described as:

  • the hearing rule – the opportunity to be heard
  • the rule against bias – decisionmakers have no personal bias in the outcome
  • ‘the evidence rule – that decisions are based on evidence.

The characteristics require that an institution’s processes are: proportional; fair; impartial; timely; transparent, and confidential. A thorough review and, where necessary, revision of current practices will be necessary to show conformity to the Guide.

Second, when planning how to adopt the model, institutions need to consider the legal context as the Guide notes that enterprise bargaining agreements and student disciplinary processes may prevail over the Guide.

Third, the model depends on the identification of six key personnel with distinct functions. Some care needs to be taken to match the designated roles with the appropriate personnel, even if their titles differ from those in the model, in an institution’s research management structure. The six personnel are:

  • a responsible executive officer, who has final responsibility for receiving report and deciding on actions;
  • a designated officer, appointed to receive complaints and oversee their management;
  • an assessment officer or officers, who conduct preliminary assessments of complaints;
  • research integrity advisers, who have knowledge of, and promote adherence to, the Code and offer advice to those with concerns or complaints;
  • research integrity office, staff who are responsible for managing research integrity;
  • review officer, who has responsibility to receive requests for procedural review of an investigation.

Last, institutions must decide whether to use the term ‘research misconduct’ at all and, if so, what meaning to give to it. Some guidance is offered in a recommended definition of the term but, as noted above, this will need to be considered in the legal contexts of EBAs and student disciplinary arrangements.

Conclusion

The update to the Code provides a welcome opportunity to reflect on a range of key matters to promote responsible research. The use of principles and responsibilities and the style of the document offers a great deal of flexibility that permits institutions to develop their own thoughtful arrangements. However, this freedom and flexibility comes with a reciprocal obligation on institutions to establish arrangements that are in the public interest rather than ‘just’ complying with a detailed rule. We have traded inflexibility for uncertainty; what comes next is up to all of us.

Click here to read about the AHRECS Australian Code 2018 services

The Contributors
Gary Allen, Mark Israel and Colin Thomson – senior consultants AHRECS

This post may be cited as:
Allen G., Israel M. and Thomson C. (21 June 2018) Australian Code 2018: What institutions should do next. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/research-integrity/australian-code-2018-what-institutions-should-do-next

We invite debate on issues raised by items we publish. However, we will only publish debate about the issues that the items raise and expect that all contributors model ethical and respectful practice.