Program for the Prevention of Research Misconduct at Kumamoto University
April 1, 2015
Established by the President
June 20, 2018
Partial revisionThis program is established based on the provisions of Article 8, paragraph 8-1of the “Rules for the Prevention of Research Misconduct in Kumamoto University”
for the improvement of research ethics and prevention of research misconduct.
This program shall be revised whenever necessary in view of factors leading to
any research misconduct cases arising during the course of its implementation.
1.

Establishment of a responsibility structure within the university
Factors leading to research

Research misconduct prevention program

misconduct-Officers do not have an-Periodically provide information for raising awareness to eachadequate understanding ofofficer via such occasions as the conferences of division andtheir roles and responsibilities

department heads.

within the responsibility-When there is a change of officers, an adequate handoverstructure.

briefing shall be provided.

-Awareness of responsibility
weakens over time.
-Research misconduct cases go-To prevent those who have noticed research misconduct cases

unnoticed because rules on thefrom hesitating to report for fear of disadvantageous treatment,

handling of whistleblowing,

disseminate information, via web pages, briefing sessions, andinvestigations, and penalties

other means, which states that the university has

are not well recognized.

whistleblowing counters to receive whistleblowing informationand that it keeps whistleblowing information strictly
confidential and always protects informants.

2.

Development of a foundational environment for proper management and control
Factors leading to research

Research misconduct prevention program

misconduct-There is no adequate-Disseminate information on researcher’s responsibilities andunderstanding of researchers'

rules concerning research funds via web pages, briefing

responsibilities (such as thesessions, and other means.

retention and disclosure ofresearch materials) and rules
concerning research funds.
-University employees’ official-Ensure that staff members and vendors are well informed

authorities are not wellabout the official authorities vested in them at Kumamoto

understood, so the function ofUniversity.

checking misconduct doesn’t-Inform vendors that the discovery of any fraud or dishonesty

work effectively.

will result in penalties, such as the suspension of their businesswith the university.
- To make the checking function effective, check if there is any
gaps between rules and the actual situation, and revise therules as appropriate whenever necessary.

-Staff members have little-Develop and conduct training programs aimed at raising staff

awareness about complianceawareness about compliance and research ethics, and conduct

and research ethics.

questionnaire-based awareness surveys.

-There is a research-Require staff members to submit written oaths.

environment that is closed innature or that hinders internalchecks.

3.

Response to research misconduct concerning research activities and activities for propermanagement and control of research funds
Factors leading to research

Research misconduct prevention program

misconduct-The timing of budget-Periodically investigate the status of research budget

implementation tends toimplementation, send the information to researchers, and ask

concentrate in certain periods.

them whether there are any unsettled transactions. *1-Disseminate information on the research fund carry-oversystem via web pages, briefing sessions, and other means.* 2-The fund source is not- To accurately understand the budget implementation status,

specified at the point ofprovide guidance and call attention through briefing sessions

ordering.

etc. to ensure that the fund source be specified at the point ofordering. * 3-There is no adequate control of-Conduct periodical analyses of transaction records, includingtransaction records, and ofthat of staff members who placed orders, vendors, items

vendor selection andpurchased, and transaction frequencies.

information.

-Confirm transaction records with respective vendors.

-Receiving inspections have

-Provide appropriate guidance to inspection personnel aboutbecome a mere formality.

the purpose and methods of inspections whenever necessary sothey will not perform the job as a mere formality.

-There is no adequate control of-Carry out physical inspections by random sampling for goods

goods purchased.

worth 100,000 yen or more, and high value goods worth lessthan that value but which can be sold for money (PCs, tablet
computers, digital cameras, video cameras, TVs, recording
equipment, and cash vouchers).* 4-There are no adequate-For special types of service contracts, confirm with vendors byinspections for special types ofsuch means as interviews on a random sampling basis, asservice contracts.

necessary.

-Due to a lack of strict control-Ensure compliance with the rule that their working hours areover the work of employees

under the control of researchers who employ them and the staff

hired using research funds,

members in charge of administration.

there is little information on-Investigate the status of work of employees hired using

their actual working hours.

research funds, as necessary. * 5-Fact checks regarding business-Keep all those concerned well informed about rules on businesstrips are not adequate.

trip applications and reporting.* 6-Confirm with the business trip destination site, as necessary.*
74.

Promotion of information dissemination and sharing
Factors leading to research

Research misconduct prevention program

misconduct-Rules are enforced based on-Post information on the university's approaches to preventing

wrong interpretations due toresearch misconduct on the university website to make itinadequate dissemination andaccessible anytime, and keep it updated as required.

sharing of information.

-Disseminate information on help desks via web pages, briefing
sessions, and other means.*-Summarize inquiries and questions from staff members
received by the help desks, and share them on the staffmember-only website.

5.

Monitoring
Factors leading to research

Research misconduct prevention program

misconduct-Due to a lack of effective-The Audit Office should conduct risk-based auditing

monitoring, the possibility ofconcerning research funding fraud, and work to enhance andfraudulent use of researchstrengthen organizational checking functions.

funds remains undiminished.

-The Monitoring Office should cooperate with trustees,auditors, and the Fair Research Promotion Committee to
conduct effective audits.

Note:For items marked with an asterisk (*) in the research misconduct prevention program, implementthe misconduct prevention program under the supervision of the Chief Compliance Officer, referringto the separate “List of Suggested Research Misconduct Prevention Measures (Examples).”