Preamble
The Australian and international community expects research to be conducted responsibly, ethically and
with integrity. The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (the Code) articulates the
broad principles that characterise an honest, ethical and conscientious research culture. It establishes
a framework for responsible research conduct that provides a foundation for high-quality research,
credibility and community trust in the research endeavour. It outlines the expectations for the conduct of
research in Australia or research conducted under the auspices of Australian institutions.
The primary responsibility for ensuring the integrity of research lies with individual researchers
and institutions. The Code sets out principles and responsibilities that both researchers and institutions
are expected to follow when conducting research. Critical to this endeavour are the moral leadership
and espoused values of the institution and the shared values and expectations of honesty and integrity
that characterise an institution’s leadership and culture.
The previous version of the Code has served as an important point of reference to researchers
and administrators. In addition, its widespread adoption has provided the Australian community, and
those responsible for funding research, with greater confidence in the integrity of research. This updated
version of the Code has the same goal, but is presented in a simpler way that more clearly articulates
the high-level principles, responsibilities and expectations that apply to all research across all disciplines.
This Code does not incorporate the laws, regulations and guidelines and other codes of practice that
apply to the conduct of research. Those responsible for the conduct of research are expected to be
aware of and comply with the applicable laws and codes.
The Code will be supported by a number of Guides that detail how to comply with the principles and
responsibilities of the Code. The advice is relevant to the diversity of Australian research institutions
and research disciplines. Institutions and researchers are strongly encouraged to follow the advice
in the Guides. For institutions, the Guides provide a reference for the development of processes that
promote the principles and responsibilities of the Code.
The Code represents the core behaviours that characterise the responsible conduct of research. A failure
to meet the principles and responsibilities set out in the Code is a breach of the Code. A breach of the
Code occurs on a spectrum from minor breaches to those that are more serious. A serious breach of
the Code that is carried out with intent or recklessness or negligence is particularly egregious and may
be referred to as research misconduct. The Guide to Managing and Investigating Potential Breaches
of the Code (the Investigation Guide) outlines the preferred model for institutions to use to investigate
and manage potential breaches, determine any corrective actions to ensure the integrity of the research
record and when a finding of research misconduct may be made.
The Australian Research Integrity Committee will use the Investigation Guide as a benchmark for
reviewing how an institution funded by National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) or
Australian Research Council (ARC) has managed a potential breach of the Code.
Compliance with this Code is a requirement for the receipt of funding by NHMRC and ARC.
Other research agencies are encouraged to adopt this Code as a mandatory requirement.
2Australian C ode for the R esponsible C onduct of R esearch
Principles of responsible research conduct
The principles (P1–P8) that are the hallmarks of responsible research conduct are:
P1 Honesty in the development, undertaking and reporting of research
• Present information truthfully and accurately in proposing, conducting and reporting research.
P2 Rigour in the development, undertaking and reporting of research
• Underpin research by attention to detail and robust methodology, avoiding or
acknowledging biases.
P3 Transparency in declaring interests and reporting research methodology, data and findings
• Share and communicate research methodology, data and findings openly, responsibly
and accurately.
• Disclose and manage conflicts of interest.
P4 Fairness in the treatment of others
• Treat fellow researchers and others involved in the research fairly and with respect.
• Appropriately reference and cite the work of others.
• Give credit, including authorship where appropriate, to those who have contributed to
the research.
P5 Respect for research participants, the wider community, animals and the environment
• Treat human participants and communities that are affected by the research with care and
respect, giving appropriate consideration to the needs of minority groups or vulnerable people.
• Ensure that respect underpins all decisions and actions related to the care and use of animals
in research.
• Minimise adverse effects of the research on the environment.
P6 Recognition of the right of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to be engaged in
research that affects or is of particular significance to them
• Recognise, value and respect the diversity, heritage, knowledge, cultural property and
connection to land of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
• Engage with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples prior to research being undertaken,
so that they freely make decisions about their involvement.
• Report to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples the outcomes of research in which
they have engaged.
P7 Accountability for the development, undertaking and reporting of research
• Comply with relevant legislation, policies and guidelines.
• Ensure good stewardship of public resources used to conduct research.
• Consider the consequences and outcomes of research prior to its communication.
P8 Promotion of responsible research practices
• Promote and foster a research culture and environment that supports the responsible conduct
of research.
3Australian C ode for the R esponsible C onduct of R esearch
Responsibilities of institutions
Responsible research conduct is fostered and underpinned by the research culture of the institution.
Institutions have an obligation to encourage and support responsible research conduct. They are
accountable to funding organisations and the Australian community for how research is conducted.
To foster responsible research conduct, institutions will:
R1 Establish and maintain good governance and management practices for responsible
research conduct.
R2 Identify and comply with relevant laws, regulations, guidelines and policies related to the
conduct of research.
R3 Develop and maintain the currency and ready availability of a suite of policies and procedures
which ensure that institutional practices are consistent with the principles and responsibilities
of the Code.
R4 Provide ongoing training and education that promotes and supports responsible research
conduct for all researchers and those in other relevant roles.
R5 Ensure supervisors of research trainees have the appropriate skills, qualifications and resources.
R6 Identify and train Research Integrity Advisors who assist in the promotion and fostering of
responsible research conduct and provide advice to those with concerns about potential
breaches of the Code.
R7 Support the responsible dissemination of research findings. Where necessary, take action to
correct the record in a timely manner.
R8 Provide access to facilities for the safe and secure storage and management of research data,
records and primary materials and, where possible and appropriate, allow access and reference.
R9 Facilitate the prevention and detection of potential breaches of the Code.
R10 Provide mechanisms to receive concerns or complaints about potential breaches of the Code.
Investigate and resolve potential breaches of the Code.
R11 Ensure that the process for managing and investigating concerns or complaints about potential
breaches of the Code is timely, effective and in accord with procedural fairness.
R12 Support the welfare of all parties involved in an investigation of a potential breach of the Code.
R13 Base findings of investigations on the balance of probabilities and ensure any actions are
commensurate with the seriousness of the breach.
4Australian C ode for the R esponsible C onduct of R esearch
Responsibilities of researchers
Researchers will uphold the principles of responsible research conduct in all aspects of their research.
To this end, researchers will:
R14 Support a culture of responsible research conduct at their institution and in their field
of practice.
R15 Provide guidance and mentorship on responsible research conduct to other researchers or
research trainees under their supervision and, where appropriate, monitor their conduct.
R16 Undertake and promote education and training in responsible research conduct.
R17 Comply with the relevant laws, regulations, disciplinary standards, ethics guidelines and
institutional policies related to responsible research conduct. Ensure that appropriate approvals
are obtained prior to the commencement of research, and that conditions of any approvals are
adhered to during the course of research.
R18 Ensure that the ethics principles of research merit and integrity, justice, beneficence and respect
are applied to human research.
R19 Engage with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and respect their legal rights and
local laws, customs and protocols.
R20 Ensure that the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) are considered at all stages of
research involving animals and minimise the impacts on animals used in research and in so
doing support the welfare and wellbeing of these animals.
R21 Adopt methods appropriate to the aims of the research and ensure that conclusions are justified
by the results.
R22 Retain clear, accurate, secure and complete records of all research including research data and
primary materials. Where possible and appropriate, allow access and reference to these by
interested parties.
R23 Disseminate research findings responsibly, accurately and broadly. Where necessary, take action
to correct the record in a timely manner.
R24 Disclose and manage actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest.
R25 Ensure that authors of research outputs are all those, and only those, who have made a
significant intellectual or scholarly contribution to the research and its output, and that they
agree to be listed as an author.
R26 Acknowledge those who have contributed to the research.
R27 Cite and acknowledge other relevant work appropriately and accurately.
R28 Participate in peer review in a way that is fair, rigorous and timely and maintains the
confidentiality of the content.
R29 Report suspected breaches of the Code to the relevant institution and/or authority.
5Australian C ode for the Responsible Conduct of Research
Definitions
Term Definition
3Rs The 3Rs are three principles that underpin a systematic framework to achieve the goal of humane
experimental techniques. The principles are: Replacement of animals with other methods; Reduction
in the number of animals used; and Refinement of techniques used to minimise the adverse impact
on animals.
Balance of probabilities The civil standard of proof, which requires that, on the weight of evidence, it is more probable than not
that a breach has occurred.
Breach A failure to meet the principles and responsibilities of the Code. May refer to a single breach or
multiple breaches.
Conflict of interest A conflict of interest exists in a situation where an independent observer might reasonably conclude
that the professional actions of a person are or may be unduly influenced by other interests. This refers
to a financial or non-financial interest which may be a perceived, potential or actual conflict of interest.
Institution Includes universities, independent research institutes, hospitals or any other organisation that conducts
research. May refer to one or multiple institutions.
Peer review The impartial and independent assessment of research by others working in the same or a
related field.
Research The concept of research is broad and includes the creation of new knowledge and/or the use of
existing knowledge in a new and creative way so as 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.
Research misconduct A serious breach of the Code which is also intentional or reckless or negligent.
Researcher Person (or persons) who conducts, or assists with the conduct of, research.
6Australian C ode for the R esponsible C onduct of R esearch
Development of the Code
The Code has been jointly developed by the National Health and Medical Research Council,
the Australian Research Council and Universities Australia as a guideline under the National Health
and Medical Research Council Act 1992. The development of the Code has been overseen by an
expert working committee that consisted of the following members:
Member Position Period
Professor Mike Calford (Chair) Provost, University of Tasmania April 2015–December 2017
Professor Mike Brooks Deputy Vice Chancellor Research,
University of Adelaide
April 2015–December 2017
Professor Andrew Davidson Medical Director, Melbourne Children’s Trials Centre,
Murdoch Childrens Research Institute
April 2015–December 2017
Emeritus Professor Toni Makkai Former Dean, College of Arts and Social Sciences,
Australian National University
April 2015–December 2017
Professor Philip Mitchell Head of the School of Psychiatry,
University of New South Wales
April 2015–December 2017
Emeritus Professor Janice Reid Former Vice-Chancellor and President,
Western Sydney University
April 2015–December 2016
Dr Paul Taylor Director, Research Integrity, Governance and Systems,
RMIT University
February 2016–December 2017
Professor Mandy Thomas Executive Dean, Creative Industries Faculty,
Queensland University of Technology
April 2015–August 2017
Dr Karolyn White Director, Research Ethics and Integrity,
Macquarie University
April 2015–December 2017
Dr Sarah Winch Head of the Discipline of Medical Ethics, Law and
Professionalism, The University of Queensland
December 2016–December 2017
7Australian C ode for the R esponsible C onduct of R esearch
Annotations
Purpose
These guidelines articulate the commitment and approach to the responsible conduct of research
expected of all persons engaged in research at or through Swinburne University of Technology. The
University has developed these guidelines to meet the principles and responsibilities as established
in the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2018, referred to as the Code).
Scope
These guidelines apply to researchers and those personnel who assist with the conduct of research.
This includes academic staff, professional staff, students (including Research Higher Degree (RHD)
students and industry placement students) and technical staff as well as visiting academics and
adjunct appointees University-wide, including Sarawak campus.
All research at Swinburne must be conducted in accordance with these Guidelines and the Code
irrespective of the funding source or whether the research requires ethics clearance.
Failure to conduct research in accordance with these Guidelines or the Code may be grounds for
disciplinary action (refer to the Swinburne Research Misconduct Guidelines).
Application
All researchers and those personnel who are assisting in the conduct of research under the auspices
of the University must familiarise themselves with these Guidelines and ensure that its provisions
are observed. This includes when research is conducted outside Australia.
Where researchers and those personnel who are assisting in the conduct of research are in doubt
about the applicability of provisions of these guidelines or the appropriate course of action to be
adopted, particularly with regard to possible or actual breaches of these Guidelines or instances of
research misconduct, advice should be sought in the first instance from any of the Advisors in
Research Integrity appointed by the University.

These Guidelines must be read in conjunction with applicable regulations, policies and closely-
related Swinburne guidelines including:
• Swinburne People, Culture and Integrity Policy
• Swinburne Researcher Guide to the Management of Potential Breaches of the Australian
Code
• HDR Research Training Statement of Practice
• Research Data Management Guidelines
• Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2018)
• National Statement on Ethical Conduct on Human Research (2007) – updated 2018
Definitions
Word/Term Definition
Code Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2018)
3Rs The 3Rs are three principles that underpin a systematic
framework to achieve the goal of humane experimental
techniques. The principles are: Replacement of animals with
other methods; Reduction in the number of animals used; and
Refinement of techniques used to minimise the adverse impact
on animals.
Conflict of interest A conflict of interest exists in a situation where an independent
observer might reasonably conclude that the professional actions
of a person are or may be unduly influenced by other interests.
This refers to a financial or non-financial interest which may be a
perceived, potential or actual conflict of interest.
Research The concept of research is broad and includes the creation of new
knowledge and/or the use of existing knowledge in a new and
creative way so as 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.
Researcher Person (or persons) who conducts, or assists with the conduct of,
research. This includes adjuncts, HDR students on placement, HDR
students who are located outside of Australia, researchers and
HDR students located in Sarawak, casual employees, contract
employees.
Breach A failure to meet the principles and responsibilities of the Code.
May refer to a single breach or multiple breaches.
Research misconduct A serious breach of the Code which is also intentional or reckless
or negligent

1. Principles of responsible research conduct
These principles are taken directly from the Code and reproduced here to emphasise the importance
of each principle.
1.1. Honesty in the development, undertaking and reporting of research. Present information
truthfully and accurately in proposing, conducting and reporting research.
1.2. Rigour in the development, undertaking and reporting of research. Underpin research by
attention to detail and robust methodology, avoiding or acknowledging biases.
1.3. Transparency in declaring interests and reporting research methodology, data and findings.
Share and communicate research methodology, data and findings openly, responsibly and
accurately. Disclose and manage conflicts of interest.
1.4. Fairness in the treatment of others. Treat fellow researchers and others involved in the
research fairly and with respect. Appropriately reference and cite the work of others. Give
credit, including authorship where appropriate, to those who have contributed to the
research.
1.5. Respect for research participants, the wider community, animals and the environment Treat
human participants and communities that are affected by the research with care and respect,
giving appropriate consideration to the needs of minority groups or vulnerable people. Ensure
that respect underpins all decisions and actions related to the care and use of animals in
research. Minimise adverse effects of the research on the environment.
1.6. Recognition of the right of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to be engaged in
research that affects or is of particular significance to them. Recognise, value and respect the
diversity, heritage, knowledge, cultural property and connection to land of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander peoples. Engage with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples prior
to research being undertaken, so that they freely make decisions about their involvement.
Report to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples the outcomes of research in which they
have engaged.
1.7. Accountability for the development, undertaking and reporting of research. Comply with
relevant legislation, policies and guidelines. Ensure good stewardship of public resources used
to conduct research. Consider the consequences and outcomes of research prior to its
communication.
1.8. Promotion of responsible research practices. Promote and foster a research culture and
environment that supports the responsible conduct of research.
2. Researcher Responsibilities
2.1. Research Integrity
Researchers are expected to:
2.1.1 Foster and maintain a culture of responsible research conduct.
2.1.2 Conduct their research with honesty, integrity, respect, scholarly and scientific rigour.
2.1.3 Conduct research that is trustworthy, uses appropriate methods; and report findings
accurately. All researchers are accountable for the conduct of their research.
2.1.4 Complete and promote training in responsible research conduct. This includes any
training specific to a researcher’s particular field of practice.
2.1.5 Adopt methods appropriate to the aims of the research and ensure that conclusions
are justified by the results.

2.2. Supervision of Research Trainees
Research trainees including honours students, Higher Degree by Research (HDR) students and
industry placement students are an important part of Swinburne. Supervision of HDR students must
be conducted in accordance with the Research Training Statement of Practice as well as the
provisions in Code and these guidelines.
Supervisors should:
2.2.1 Guide the professional development of research trainees and students. This involves
providing guidance in all matters relating to research conduct, and overseeing all stages
of the research process. This includes identifying the objectives and approach, obtaining
ethics and other approvals, obtaining funding, conducting the research, and reporting
the research outcomes in appropriate forums and media.
2.2.2 Ensure that students receive appropriate training to conduct their research in
accordance with these guidelines, the Code; and any other relevant policy, regulation
or legal requirement.
2.2.3 Provide guidance and mentorship on responsible research conduct, as described in
these guidelines, to research trainees under their supervision and, where appropriate,
monitor their conduct.
2.2.4 Have oversight of the research outcomes from those under supervision.
2.2.5 Be satisfied that the research methods and outcomes of research trainees and
students under their supervision are appropriate and valid.
2.2.6 Ensure that research trainees and students receive appropriate credit for their work.
2.2.7 Assist their students in developing the necessary skills for peer review and
understanding their obligation to participate in the peer review process.
2.3. Ethics, Biosafety and Other Regulatory Requirements
The ethical conduct of research is important as it promotes a culture of accountability and respect
for human and animal participants involved in the research and for minimising harm to the wider
community and environment.
Swinburne researchers should:
Example: Completing & promoting training
You are a member of a research group that conducts clinical trials. Being involved with clinical
trials not only requires you to be well versed in the National Statement for the Ethical Conduct
of Human Research and any updates to this document that are released periodically, but also in
the principles of Good Clinical Practice (GCP), the requirements of the Therapeutic Goods
Administration (TGA) and the Swinburne policy relating to conflicts of interest. It is up to the
researcher to ensure they are up to date with any relevant training and to keep completion
records of relevant training.

2.3.1 Obtain any necessary written approvals from the appropriate ethics committee(s),
biosafety committee or any other regulatory body as required by Swinburne policies
or guidelines prior to commencing research and ensure that conditions of any
approvals are adhered to during the course of the research. Clinical trials must be
registered with a recognised register in order to promote access to clinical trials.
2.3.2 Ensure that before any modifications to an approved project are implemented the
appropriate ethics committee(s), biosafety committee or regulatory body are
informed of any proposed relevant changes to the project;
2.3.3 Ensure that, if required, an extension to the approval period is applied for from the
appropriate ethics committee(s), biosafety committee or regulatory body, prior to the
lapse of that approval.
2.3.4 Ensure that the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) will be considered at all
stages of research involving animals and that this research is conducted in accordance
with the Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes.
2.3.5 Ensure that research is conducted in a way to minimise adverse effects on the wider
community and the environment.
2.3.6 Ensure that when conducting research with or about Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander peoples you respect their legal rights and local laws, customs and protocols.
The Values and Ethics – Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Health Research and the AIATSIS Guidelines for Ethical Research in Australian
Indigenous Studies must be consulted.
2.4. Conflicts of Interest
A conflict of interest exists where there is a divergence between the individual interests of a person
and their professional responsibilities such that an independent observer might reasonably conclude
that the professional actions of that person are unduly influenced by their own interests.
Conflicts of interest in research are common and are frequently unavoidable. Expert advice is
frequently needed, and the pool of experts in a field can be so small that all the experts have some
link with the matter under decision. It is important that any conflict of interest be disclosed and
dealt with properly. The perception that a conflict of interest exists is also a serious matter and can
Example: Professor John Verygood recently moved his research group to Swinburne. John’s research
had approval from his previous institution’s Human Research Ethics Committee. To make sure that the
research maintained ethics approval, John submitted his previous institution’s HREC approval
documents to the Swinburne Research Ethics Office. Given that nothing else had changed except for
the lead institution, the documents were processed through the expedited review process and only
minor changes to the consent documentation (changing researcher affiliation) was required. When a
new Research Assistant was hired by the research team, a modification to the existing ethics
application was submitted and approved prior to the new RA commencing any research on that
project.

raise concerns about the integrity of individuals or the institution and can be as problematic as an
actual conflict of interest.
Actual or perceived conflicts of interest could arise through membership of committees or boards,
selection committees, advisory groups, personal relationships, consultancies, financial delegations,
institutional responsibilities, peer review, or receipt of funding or equipment from outside bodies.
Researchers must:
2.4.1 Maintain records of activities that may lead to conflicts, for example: consultancies;
membership of committees, boards of directors, advisory groups, or selection
committees; and financial delegation or in receipt of cash, services or equipment from
outside bodies to support research activities
2.4.2 When invited to join a committee or equivalent, review current activities for actual or
apparent conflicts and bring possible conflicts of interest to the attention of those
running the process
2.4.3 Disclose to their line manager or other appropriate senior manager any actual,
potential or perceived conflicts of interest. A conflict of interest may need to be
lodged with the Swinburne Conflict of Interest register. A management plan may also
be required for each declaration.
2.4.4 Respect queries by the University and provide relevant information in relation to
potential conflicts of interest.
2.5. Research Data and Records
Research can generate large volumes of data, records and primary materials. Responsible research
data and record management practices are important to ensure the integrity of the data is
maintained. Your data and materials must be retained to justify the outcomes of research and to
defend them if they are challenged. If sufficient data and materials are not retained then the
research findings should not be published.
Researchers should:
2.5.1 Prior to commencing a project develop a research data management plan including
procedures for storage, access during and after the project, retention requirements
and destruction. Details of the data may include file formats, data quality, technical
aspects and hardware or processing parameters.
2.5.2 Maintain clear, accurate, secure and complete records of all research including
research data and primary materials. Primary materials and records should be
afforded the same care as analysed data.
2.5.3 Ensure that materials, relevant to the discipline and methodology (such as
questionnaires, fieldwork note books, notations recorded during interviews,
specimens), are retained in order to substantiate results and published conclusions.
The recommended length of time for data retention is five years from the date of any
published or reportable outcome based on that data however for identifiable health
research data the minimum period may need to be seven years, for clinical trials the
data may need to be retained for a minimum of fifteen years and for participants that

were minors at the time of participation in the research project the data must be
retained until they reach 25 years of age.
2.5.4 Where possible and appropriate (for example within the requirements of ethics
approvals) allow access and reference to research data and records by interested
parties.
2.5.5 Ensure that all data and records are stored in secure and safe location/s.
2.5.6 Only destroy data and records in accordance with all ethical and legal obligations
making sure that consideration is given for confidentiality, collaborators and
verification of any publications.
2.5.7 Not destroy any research data or records relevant to a research breach or misconduct
or where published data or conclusions have been challenged.
2.6. Dissemination, Authorship and Publications
Communication, or dissemination, of research findings is an important part of the research process.
Dissemination benefits other researchers, the wider community and it fulfils obligations to funding
bodies. There are many ways to disseminate research findings such as in refereed academic journals
or books, conference presentations, creative works and performances. Regardless of how research
findings are disseminated the general principles of honesty, integrity and accuracy apply.
Authorship practices and conventions vary depending upon the discipline. Authorship is about
ensuring that credit is given to those individuals and institutions contributing to the research.
Researchers should discuss authorship early in a research project, including who will be listed, in
what order and the responsibilities of each author; and should review authorship decisions
periodically.
All researchers should:
2.6.1 Disseminate research findings responsibly, accurately and broadly subject to
restrictions relating to intellectual property, confidentiality or commercially or
culturally sensitive data. Researchers are to comply with any agreements made with
funders and partners regarding restrictions on publications.
2.6.2 Offer authorship to all those, including research trainees, who meet the normal
disciplinary or publication criteria for authorship. Written acceptance (or veto) of the
Example: Jane publishes some exciting research data in a Q1 journal that relates back to
current data and data from her PhD over 10 years ago. The validity of the data is queried by
her peers and subsequently the Journal who request to see copies of her lab book and raw
data files to verify her results. Jane has kept careful notes outlining the steps and findings of
her research in her lab books and has kept all her previous and current data files as
recommended and is able to readily substantiate her findings.
Swinburne has information on data management available including research data storage
options, laboratory notebook guidelines, sharing your research data and movement and
disposal of data.

invitation to be an author must be obtained prior to publication from all those offered
authorship.
2.6.3 Ensure that authors of research outputs are all those, and only those, who have made
a significant intellectual or scholarly contribution to the research and its output; and
that they agree to be listed as an author. The right to authorship is not tied to a
position and must not be offered as a gift or honorary authorship. Authorship should
reflect honest contribution to the published work.
2.6.4 Acknowledge those who have contributed to the research including all sources of
financial and in-kind support for the research; and acknowledge all potential conflicts
of interest.
2.6.5 Cite and acknowledge the work of other authors appropriately and accurately. It is not
acceptable to use the work of other authors without acknowledgement. This also
applies to the researcher’s own publications, which must be cited in the same manner
as the work of other authors.
2.6.6 Where necessary, take action to correct the record in a timely manner as soon as the
researcher becomes aware of misleading or inaccurate statements about their
research.
2.7. Peer Review
Peer review is the impartial and independent assessment of research by others working in the same
or a related field. Peer review provides public credibility to the reporting of research. Researchers in
receipt of public funding have a responsibility to participate in the peer review process.
Swinburne researchers should:
2.7.1 Participate in peer review in a way that is fair, rigorous and timely and maintains the
confidentiality of the content.
2.7.2 Agree not to review any research for which they have a conflict of interest, or where
the research is outside their area of expertise. However where there are limited
numbers of potential reviewers with relevant expertise it may be unavoidable that a
reviewer has some conflict of interest. A conflict of interest must be disclosed to the
person/organisation requesting the review either prior to accepting the request or as
soon as the conflict of interest becomes apparent.
Best practice example: Tian develops a project that involves research groups from Sarawak,
Malaysia, and Vancouver, Canada. To all those involved he sends a plan for the project
including a breakdown on which group will be doing which experiments and the research
papers that could be reasonably expected from the results. In the details of the research
papers, Tian proposes who should be authors and in what order depending on their role. Tian
explains to his collaborators that the proposals for each paper can be revisited and revised if all
agree. Six months later there has been a change in one of the research groups. A new postdoc
has joined the Vancouver group. Tian emails all the collaborators proposing a new authorship
order for one of the papers and asks all involved if they agree with the change.

2.7.3 Not seek to influence the process or the outcomes when their own work is the subject of
the peer review.
2.8. Divergence from the Code and Research Misconduct
Researchers must take all reasonable steps to report suspected breaches of the Code to the
Research Ethics, Integrity and Biosafety Office or a senior manager in the relevant faculty.
Researchers are encouraged to see the advice of a Research Integrity Advisor if they have any
concerns about the research conduct of a fellow Swinburne researcher. If the concern regards a
researcher from another institution the researcher should inform that institution’s relevant
authority for such matters.
Failure of a researcher to abide by these guidelines or the Code may result in disciplinary action in
accordance with the Swinburne Researcher Guide to the Management of Potential Breaches of the
Australian Code.
Example 1:
A HDR student working on his literature review noted that several papers were very similar and
in parts exactly the same. The lead author was from Swinburne. The student approached a
Research Integrity Advisor for advice and consequently informed the Research Ethics, Integrity
and Biosafety (REIB) Office.
Example 2:
A researcher collaborating with a group from another institution noticed that the data set they
were working on had been altered giving a more significant result than had initially been
calculated. The new result supported their hypothesis far more significantly. The Swinburne
researcher raised this alteration with the collaborators who checked their data and realised an
error had been made in translation. The error was corrected.
It is important to raise concerns when it seems as though something is not right with the data or
records. In this case there it was not a deliberate act that caused the change and fortunately the
data was corrected prior to publication. The impact of incorrect data informing conclusions that
are published could be far greater than expected


Using the Information above about Swinburne Responsible Conduct of Research Guidelines answer the following questions in a coherent and few simple sentences:

1.7.1 How the Principles of responsible research conduct describes in the documents are aligned with the 8 principles of responsible research conduct mentioned in the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research 2018


1.7.2 What researchers are expected to do to maintain Research integrity?

1.7.3	What you would suggest to add in order to improve the ethical conduct of the research (Write this specific question in a single sentence)