Australian College of Theology
Academic Integrity Policy for Higher Degree Research Candidates
1. RATIONALE AND SCOPE
The Australian College of Theology is committed to ensure its research culture is based on the principles
espoused in the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2007)1, and National
Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (updated 2013)2. Higher Degree Research (HDR)
candidates are required to demonstrate academic and research integrity by pursuing honesty and
integrity, respect for human research participants and the environment, good stewardship of resources
used to conduct research, appropriate acknowledgement of all others involved in their research, and
responsible communication of research results.
HDR candidates must familiarise themselves with the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of
Research, especially those sections that deal with the responsibilities of researchers, breaches of the
Code and misconduct in research, and the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research
If an HDR candidate breaches either the Code for Research or Statement on Ethical Conduct, or is
found to have committed misconduct prior to or during their research, the Australian College of
Theology will apply the penalties as outlined in Section 5 Procedures. Academic misconduct arising
during coursework associated with HDR candidature will be dealt with under the ACT’s Academic
Misconduct Policy.
2. DEFINITIONS
Academic Integrity: Academic and research honesty, including observance of ethical standards.
Academic Misconduct: Engaging in practices including but not limited to cheating in tests,
examinations, essays or other assessable work, plagiarism, unauthorised collusion, fraudulent or
unethical research and scholarship practices.
Authorship: Attribution of authorship occurs only when a person has made a substantial contribution
to the conception and design of the project, analysis and interpretation of research data, and drafting
significant parts of the work or critically revising it so as to contribute to the interpretation.
Breaches: Actions or omissions that are a violation or infraction of the Code for Research, and/or
Statement on Ethical Research, but are lacking intent, deliberation, recklessness or negligence and/or
serious consequences associated with research misconduct.
Code for Research: Means the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2007)
Ethical Standards: Principles of right and wrong as they govern standards of academic endeavour.
HDR candidate: A candidate enrolled in an ACT research award.
HDREP: Higher Degree Research Examination Panel
HREC: Human Research Ethics Committee
Plagiarism: To take and use another person’s ideas and to fail to give appropriate acknowledgement.
This includes material from any source, including other staff or students, the Internet, published and
un-published works.
1
Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2007) can be accessed at
https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/r39
2
National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (updated 2014) can be accessed at
https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/e72


Inadvertent Plagiarism is an act of plagiarism that arises from a lack of knowledge or
understanding of the concept of plagiarism and does not involve an intention to deceive.
Intentional Plagiarism is an act of plagiarism that arises from an intention to deceive.3
R&RSC: Research and Research Studies Committee
Research Misconduct: Includes all of the following
i.
An alleged breach of the Code; and
ii.
Intent and deliberation, recklessness or gross and persistent negligence; and
iii.
Serious consequences, such as false information on the public record, or adverse effects
on research participants, animals or the environment.
It includes but is not limited to
 Fabrication or falsification of data;
 Plagiarism;
 Breaches of confidentiality;
 Intentionally omitting reference to the relevant published work of others for the purpose of
inferring personal discovery of new information;
 Misleading ascription or attribution of authorship;
 Lack of appropriate acknowledgement in contribution to work;
 Misrepresentation through statement or omission resulting in the presentation of a material
or significant falsehood;
 Interference with any research related property or data of another person; and
 Deliberate inclusion of inaccurate or misleading information, or the failure to provide
relevant information, relating to research activity in curriculum vitae, grant applications,
job applications or public statement.
RIRP: Research Integrity Review Panel
Statement on Ethical Research: Means the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human
Research
Supervisor: Means the principal supervisor of an HDR candidate enrolled in a research course of the
ACT.
3. PRINCIPLES
3.1. HDR candidates, as research trainees, are expected to display integrity and ethics in the
conduct of their research, the development and production of their thesis, dissertation, or
creative work, and in their behaviour with respect to others.
3.2. HDR candidates are expected to take responsibility for their actions and omissions in their
engagement with research, and to accept the consequences of these should they be in breach
of legislative, regulatory or the ACT’s requirements.
3.3. Allegations of academic or research misconduct against an HDR candidate or graduate of the
ACT will be treated seriously, and subjects of allegations will be treated consistently with
principles and procedural fairness.
3.4. When an allegation of academic or research misconduct is brought against an HDR candidate,
each case will be treated on its merits with consideration given to the degree of intent,
deliberation, recklessness or negligence, and whether there have been previous allegations
against the particular HDR candidate.
3.5. Consistent with the distinction between inadvertent and intentional plagiarism this policy
distinguishes between a simple breach of the Code for Research or Statement on Ethical
Conduct, and research misconduct.
3
For the purpose of this policy ‘intention’ can be inferred from behaviour.
4. POLICY
4.1. It is the responsibility of the ACT to
4.1.1. Set in place, and ensure the consistent and procedurally fair implementation of rules,
polices and procedures relating to responsible academic and research conduct, as well
as those relating to plagiarism, academic and research misconduct;
4.1.2. Make available to all Supervisors and HDR candidates of the ACT access to the
national guidelines and ACT policies relating to responsible and ethical conduct of
research, and those policies relating to plagiarism, academic and research misconduct;
4.1.3. Ensure that all staff of the ACT, ACT affiliated colleges, and HDR candidates
understand their rights and responsibilities with respect to these guidelines, rules,
policies and procedures, and those policies relating to plagiarism, academic and
research misconduct;
4.1.4. Ensure that procedural fairness and proper administrative processes, consistent with
legislative requirements, are maintained thought the investigation, resolution and
appeal arising from an investigation, of an alleged breach of national guidelines and/or
ACT policies relating to responsible and ethical conduct of research, and those policies
relating to plagiarism, academic and research misconduct;
4.1.5. Maintain appropriate central records management of allegations of misconduct, their
investigation and outcomes, consistent with legislative and ACT requirements;
4.1.6. Ensure that ACT staff comply with legislative and the ACT’s requirements for the
management of misconduct records, and procedural fairness particularly in relation to
privacy and confidentiality.
4.2. It is the responsibility of HDR supervisors to
4.2.1. Provide leadership by example, by complying with the relevant national guidelines and
ACT policies relating to the responsible and ethical conduct of research;
4.2.2. Understand and comply with legislative and ACT requirements for procedural fairness
and proper administrative process, particularly in relation to privacy and
confidentiality;
4.2.3. Understand and comply with the requirements of the ACT with respect to preventing,
detecting, reporting and investigating allegations of, and punishing, breaches of the
ACT’s rules and policies;
4.2.4. Understand fully the requirements of the ACT and of good academic and research
practice to avoid plagiarism and other academic and research misconduct and the
consequences of not doing so;
4.2.5. Assist their HDR candidates to meet the requirements of responsible and ethical
academic and research conduct, giving clear feedback about their work and conduct;
4.2.6. Provide HDR candidates with fair warning if the supervisor believes any individual
may be at risk of breaching the ACT’s policies relating to responsible and ethical
academic and research conduct;
4.2.7. Discuss with the Postgraduate Coordinator of the candidate’s sponsoring college any
concerns the supervisor has regarding potential breaches relating to responsible and
ethical academic and research conduct;
4.2.8. Ensure that there is no possibility that a perceived conflict of interest will arise, should
an allegation of plagiarism, academic or research misconduct be brought against an
HDR candidate under their supervision; and
4.2.9. Co-operate with the investigation of any allegations of misconduct brought against an
HDR candidate under their supervision.
4.3. It is the responsibility of HDR candidates to
4.3.1. Engage in all aspects of their HDR research program with honesty, integrity and
commitment to the responsible and ethical conduct of research;
4.3.2. Read and understand the relevant national guidelines and the ACT’s policies relating
to responsible and ethical conduct of research, and those policies relating to plagiarism,
academic and research misconduct;
4.3.3. Seek and take advice and assistance from or through their supervisor, as necessary, to
ensure that they meet the requirements of relevant national guidelines and the ACT’s
policies relating to responsible and ethical conduct of research, and those policies
relating to plagiarism, academic and research misconduct; and
4.3.4. Co-operate in the investigation of any allegations of misconduct brought against them,
arising from their action or omission during or after their enrolment in an ACT research
course.
5. PROCEDURES
The procedures described below are presented in three parts:
Initial inquiry into the alleged research misconduct
Formal inquiry into the alleged research misconduct
Appeals against the outcome of the formal inquiry
5.1. Initial inquiry into the alleged misconduct
5.1.1. Allegations of research misconduct may have their origins in admissions, any
preparatory phase or the research phase or examination phase of candidature, and
should be forwarded to the ACT’s Director of Research.
5.1.2. Where an allegation of research misconduct originates during the supervision phase,
the principal supervisor will alert the sponsoring college Postgraduate Coordinator of
the alleged research misconduct, and forward the details of the alleged research
misconduct to the ACT’s Director of Research.
5.1.3. Where an allegation of research misconduct arises concerning the ethical behaviour of
the HDR candidate, the allegation should be made known to the Chair of the Research
and Research Studies Committee.
5.1.4. Where an allegation of research misconduct arises concerning the implementation of a
research ethics protocol, the allegation should be made known to the Chair of the
Human Research Ethics Committee.
5.1.5. Where an allegation of research misconduct arises during or subsequent to the
examination of material submitted as part or all of the research output of the HDR
candidate, the allegation should be made known to the Chair of the Higher Degree
Research Examination Panel.
5.1.6. If the respective Chair believes the allegation warrants further investigation, the Chair
shall request from the person alleging the research misconduct as much documentation
as possible supporting the allegation.
5.1.7. On receipt of the documentation, the Chair and one other member of the relevant
committee shall review the material with a view to determining if they are to proceed
to a formal enquiry.
5.1.8. If they determine there are insufficient grounds to proceed to a formal enquiry, the
originator of the allegation will be informed of the outcome and the basis for the
decision.
5.1.9. If they determine there are sufficient grounds, they forward all material to the Research
Integrity Review Panel which shall undertake the formal enquiry. The Chair of the
initial inquiry group shall report the matter confidentially to the Research and Research
Studies Committee.
5.2. Formal inquiry into the alleged misconduct
5.2.1. Within 10 working days of the determination to proceed to the formal inquiry, the Chair
of the Research Integrity Review Panel shall communicate in writing to the candidate,
the principle supervisor and the college Postgraduate Coordinator setting down the
allegation of breach of the Code or research misconduct and appending relevant
documentation. The Chair of RIRP shall invite the candidate to provide a response in
writing regarding this allegation within 20 working days of the date on his/her
communication, and advise the candidate that they shall be invited to address the RIRP
on the matter.
5.2.2. The RIRP shall comprise
An external member of the R&RSC who will act as Chair of RIRP;
The Chair of the initial inquiry committee;
The Postgraduate Coordinator of an affiliated college other than the sponsoring college
of the HDR candidate;
An expert in the field of study of the HDR candidate not from the candidate’s
sponsoring college;
The Executive Officer of R&RSC.
5.2.3. The Chair of RIRP will write to the candidate providing details of the allegations and
invite the candidate to attend a meeting of the committee in person or via
teleconferencing or Skype or equivalent to provide evidence regarding the allegation.
The letter to the candidate must include a copy of these procedures. The candidate may
be assisted or represented at the inquiry by any staff member employed or student
nominee studying in the candidate’s sponsoring college.
5.2.4. The formal inquiry may proceed whether or not the candidate responds (in 5.2.1) or
attends.
Options available to RIRP
5.2.4.1. where the formal inquiry concludes that the action of the candidate does not
constitute a breach of the Code for Research, the Statement of Ethical Conduct, or
research misconduct as defined above, no further action will be taken;
5.2.4.2. where the formal inquiry concludes that the action of the candidate lacked intent,
but constituted a breach of the Code for Research or Statement of Ethical Conduct;
5.2.4.2.1. if the allegation arose from the examination process, then the examination
process shall be terminated and the candidate be permitted to re-write the
work to correct the breach issues identified, and submit the rewritten work
for a new examination;
5.2.4.2.2. if the allegation arose during the research phase of candidature, then the
candidate and supervisor will be required to attend an interview with the
Chair of the Research and Research Studies Committee who will detail the
specific issues that need to be addressed by the candidate to ensure they
acts within the ACT’s Academic Integrity policy;
5.2.4.3. where the formal inquiry concludes that the action of the candidate evidences
research misconduct, the RIRP will determine an appropriate outcome and the
Chair shall notify the candidate by registered mail within ten working days of the
decision. A copy of these procedures and notification of the candidate’s right to
appeal must be included.
Outcomes may include but are not limited to
5.2.4.3.1.
5.2.4.3.2.
5.2.4.3.3.
5.2.4.3.4.
Failure of the thesis; or
Exclusion from the course for a period not exceeding two years; or
Another outcome appropriate to the case but with an impact less serious
than exclusion from enrolment in any award of the Australian College of
Theology; or
Exclusion from enrolment in any award of the Australian College of
Theology.
5.3. Appeals against outcome of the formal inquiry
5.3.1. The candidate has the right of appeal against the decision of the RIRP.
5.3.2. The candidate must make the appeal in writing to the Dean within twenty (20) working
days of the date on the written document from the ACT advising the decision that is the
subject of the appeal. The candidate must set out fully the grounds for appeal and
provide documentary evidence in support of the appeal. Within five (5) working days
of the receipt of the appeal, the Dean shall acknowledge receipt of the appeal.
5.3.3. The Hearing and the Outcome of the Appeal shall occur according to procedures set
down in the Policy on Student Appeals under Research Degree Rules (see
www.actheology.edu.au > Policies) with the amendment that the Academic Board
Appeals Committee may have an additional member, if the candidate requests, being
an observer, agreeable to both sides, drawn from a list of senior academics devised by
the Primate or his representative.
5.3.4. The candidate may continue in the course pending the outcome of an appeal, or be
granted suspension from the course. Should their appeal be denied, their enrolment may
be amended or terminated, depending on the outcome determined.
5.4. Recording of and access to information about breaches of the Code for Research and
research misconduct
5.4.1
The College will store data about academic misconduct, research misconduct and
breaches of the Code for Research or National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human
Research (date) in a central database. The data will be stored for a minimum period of
7 years from the date of the last incident recorded.
5.4.2
No data will be recorded where, following an informal inquiry involving the candidate,
it is determined that no academic misconduct, breach of the Code for Research, breach
of the Statement of Ethical Conduct, or research misconduct occurred.
5.4.3
Where a formal inquiry has determined a breach of the Code for Research, breach of
the Statement of Ethical Conduct, or research misconduct has occurred, the Chair of
RIRP will have access to any data stored in the database about a candidate, for
consideration when determining the appropriate outcome.
5.4.4
When it is determined a breach of the Code for Research, breach of the Statement of
Ethical Conduct, or research misconduct has occurred, the Chair of RIRP will record
the case in a central database, setting out
details of the candidate, the program, the course (if applicable) and the research work;
the type of academic misconduct;
the factors taken into consideration;
the evidence or other material on which the findings were based;
the outcome and the reasons for its determination; and
the candidate’s agreement to the specified outcome.
5.4.5
Where an initial inquiry concludes that the action of the candidate does not evidence
academic misconduct, any suspension of candidature or suspension of the examination
process shall be lifted and any record of that investigation will be removed from the
database.
5.4.6
Where an initial inquiry concludes that the action of the candidate does evidence
academic misconduct, the Chair of the initial inquiry will add a record to the database
to indicate the case was referred to the RIRP and the factors taken into consideration in
making that decision.
5.4.7
Where the RIRP is constituted, the committee, through the Chair, will have access to
the data stored regarding the initial inquiry relating to that case, and to any other cases
recorded against that candidate, in order to assist in their determination. The committee
will add a record of their determination to the database, including
the factors taken into consideration in determining an outcome;
the evidence or other material on which the findings were based;
the outcome and the reasons for its determination.
5.4.8
Where a candidate appeals the outcome of a formal inquiry, the Academic Board
Appeals Committee, through the Chair, will have access to the data stored regarding
the initial inquiry and formal inquiry relating to that case, and to any other cases
recorded against that candidate, in order to assist in their determination.
5.4.9
Where a candidate’s appeal is denied the candidate’s academic transcript will record
Exclusion or Expulsion from the course of study as necessary to reflect the decision of
the Appeals Committee.
***************
This policy replaces “Procedures for consideration of an allegation of academic misconduct by a
higher degree research candidate”, November 2007.
With the permission of the DVCR, University of New England, this policy cites large sections of the
University of New England’s “Higher Degree Research Student Responsible Research Conduct
Policy SED07/949”
Along with the University of New England policy, this policy is benchmarked against the exemplars
cited in the Academic Integrity Standards Project.
Relevant documents of the Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies were also consulted as reference
points of a peak body.
Academic Integrity Policy for HDR candidates
Supervision team
Director of Research
Academic / public
Examiners
Allegation relates to
Candidate’s Behaviour
Allegation relates to
Ethics Protocol
Allegation relates to
Examinable Material
Chair of R&RSC
EO R&RSC
One other member of
R&RSC not related to
candidates sponsoring
college
Chair of HREC
EO HREC
One other member of
HREC not related to
candidates sponsoring
college
Chair of HDREP
EO HDREP
One other member of
HDREP not related to
candidates sponsoring
college
RESEARCH INTEGRITY REVIEW PANEL
Chair: External member of R&RSC
EO R&RSC
Chair of Initial Inquiry Committee
Postgraduate Coordinator of an affiliated college not the
sponsoring college of the candidate
Expert in candidate’s field of study not related to
candidate’s sponsoring college
Dean
ACADEMIC BOARD
APPEALS COMMITTEE
Decision
No case to answer
Prima facie case to answer
No case to answer
Breach of Code for
Research
Research Misconduct
Overturn decision
No case to answer
Modify decision
Uphold decision