About us

Research ethics

Statement

The Australian Museum recognises that knowledge, both internally generated and acquired from outside, underpins all of our programs. In its Mission statement, the Museum pledges to influence debate. The Museum contributes to debate on our world through its public programs including exhibitions and related education programs, through the publication of its knowledge in scientific and popular articles, through seminars and lectures, through public advice and through input into various legislative processes, including providing expert advice and comment. All of these outcomes are critically important and all depend on a strong and responsive research program. They are also dependent upon effective communication. The Museum's research results will be communicated in a style and format which is accessible to the needs of the general reader as well as specific audiences.

While research in the Museum is for many purposes and takes many forms, these guidelines (based largely on the Australian Vice Chancellors' Committee Guidelines) apply to research practice that has a primary focus on publication for a professional audience in professional media. Communication of results of research in popular media and through the Museum's public programs will also be encouraged but need not follow such stringent guidelines as those set down here.

The broad principles that guide research have been long established. Central to these are high ethical standards, and validity and accuracy in the collection and reporting of data. The responsibility of the research community to the public and to itself is acknowledged. This responsibility is particularly important where professional practice or public policy may be defined or modified in the light of research findings.

Communication between collaborators; maintenance and reference to research records; presentation and discussion of work at meetings of experts; publication of results, including the important element of peer review; and the possibility that investigations will be repeated or extended by other researchers, all contribute to the intrinsically self-correcting and ethical nature of research.

Competition in research can have a strong and positive influence, enhancing the quality and immediacy of the work produced. However, competitive pressures can also act to distort sound research practice, if they encourage too-hasty preparation and submission of papers, the division of reports on substantial bodies of work into multiple small reports to enhance the 'publication count' of the author(s), or an undue emphasis on safe but mundane research at the expense of more creative and more innovative lines of study. Accordingly the Museum gives due emphasis to quality and originality of research, as well as to quantity of research output, and has set up this code of conduct as a framework for sound research procedures and for the protection of individual researchers from possible misunderstandings.

It is a basic assumption that Museum researchers are committed to high standards of professional conduct. Museum researchers have a duty to ensure that their work enhances the good name of the Museum and the profession to which they belong.Museum researchers should only participate in work which conforms to accepted ethical standards and which they are competent to perform. When in doubt they should seek assistance and advice from their colleagues or peers. Debate on, and criticism of, research work are essential parts of the research process.

The Museum and researchers have a responsibility to ensure the physical safety of all those associated with the research, and at a minimum to meet all of the requirements set down in the Museum's Occupational Health and Safety Policy (accessible on the Museum network.)

In general research results and methods should be open to scrutiny by colleagues within the institution and, through appropriate publication, by the profession and public at large. The Museum will avoid entering contracts that set a condition of non-publication of results in a public form. The Museum as an agency of the Government of New South Wales is governed by NSW government policies regarding intellectual property, and by relevant legislation and industrial agreements. If data of a confidential nature are obtained, confidentiality must be observed and researchers must not use such information for their own personal advantage or that of a third party. Non-release of research data may also be necessary for a limited period in the case of contracted research or of non-contractual research which is under consideration for patent protection.

These guidelines are based on the Australian Vice Chancellors' Committee Guidelines on Research Practice, and are compatible with the NSW Ombudsman's Administrative Good Conduct (January, 1997), Museums Australia's Code of Ethics for Art History and Science Museums (1994), and the Australian Museum's Code of Conduct (accessible on the Museum's network).

These policies and guidelines come into effect on 1 February 1998.

Guidelines

1. General principles

1.1 It is the intent of these practices and policies to promote the highest possible standards and discourage misconduct and fraud. These policies are intended to encourage the open presentation and discussion of results, with an emphasis upon peer review mechanisms.

1.2 Museum researchers have an obligation to achieve and maintain the highest standards of intellectual honesty in the conduct of their research.

1.3 Museum researchers must be aware of and adhere to ethical principles of justice and veracity, and of respect for people and their privacy and avoidance of harm to them, as well as respect for non-human subjects of research. Research must comply with relevant legislation and with Museum policies, such as those on collecting, import and export, animal care and ethics, indigenous heritage, and human skeletal remains.

1.4 Where research procedures are of a kind requiring approval by a human or animal ethics committee, or by other safety or validly constituted regulatory committees, research must not proceed without such approval.

1.5 The Associate Director is responsible for the observance of these guidelines, and in doing so is answerable to the Director. All research managers will assist the Associate Director in the interpretation and monitoring of the guidelines.

1.6 Where other codes of ethical research exist, they will be addressed in so far as they are consistent with these guidelines. Any conflict between these guidelines and other codes of ethical research practice will be resolved by the Associate Director.

2. Data storage and retention

2.1 Data are retained for three reasons: i) for extensions of the original investigation, ii) for re-assessment due to academic differences of opinion or interpretation, and iii) to address controversies that may arise including precedence of discovery, or allegations of misconduct. For the first and second, data should be maintained in perpetuity. For the third, data should be retained long enough to meet legal requirements (e.g. statute of limitations) that apply to New South Wales government agencies.

2.2 Original data (including electronic data) must be recorded in a durable and appropriately referenced form that is as near as practicable to their original format. Data management must comply with relevant privacy protocols, such as the Australian Standard on personal privacy protection. The Museum Archivist will be the person responsible for keeping data which are identified in published work as available supplementary data, and will establish standards for both hard copy and electronic data storage.

2.3 Wherever possible, specimens and objects which form the basis for research publications should be housed in Museum research collections, or those of other appropriate archival institutions. This is particularly true for type material. If conditions of grants or permits set lodgment conditions, these conditions must be adhered to. Wherever possible, data based on Museum collections should be cross-referenced to catalogued items, and collection databases should note the existence of archived data in accordance with the Museum's Collections Development and Maintenance Policy (accessible on the Museum network).

2.4 Original data or copies, including field notes, are to be retained in the department or research unit in which they were generated while required for reference, after which they will be transferred to the Archives. Data referred to in publications as supplementary data which are available must be lodged with the Museum Archivist if determined as having long-term value.

2.5 Data referred to in publications must be available for discussion with other researchers. Where confidentiality provisions apply (for example, where the researchers or institution have given undertakings to third parties, such as the persons who are subjects of the research), it is necessary for data to be kept in a way that reference to them by third parties can occur without breaching such confidentiality.

2.6 Confidentiality agreements to protect intellectual property rights may be agreed between the institution, indigenous peoples, the researcher and a sponsor of the research. Where such agreements limit free publication and discussion, limitations and restrictions must be explicitly agreed, and, where appropriate, they should be noted in publications. Data or objects that indigenous people wish to remain confidential must remain so.

2.7 As set down in the Museum's Policies and Procedures for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Collection and Related Issues, researchers on Indigenous collections will provide a copy of all research results to the Museum and will be encouraged to submit a report to the relevant Aboriginal community.

2.8 It is the obligation of the researcher to enquire with relevant parties whether confidentiality agreements apply and of the leaders of research groups to inform researchers of their obligations with respect to these provisions.

2.9 All confidentiality agreements should be approved at an early stage by the Division Head or Research Centre Head, or nominated representative.

2.10 Museum guidelines on the establishment and ownership of and access to databases containing confidential information, and any limits on this, will conform with the Museum's Collections Development and Maintenance Policy.

2.11 When the data are obtained from limited access databases, or via a contractual arrangement, written indication of the location of the original data, or key information regarding the database from which it was collected, must be retained by the researcher or Division/Research Centre in which the research was undertaken.

2.12 Researchers must be responsible for ensuring appropriate security for any confidential material, including that held in computing systems. Where computing systems are accessible through networks, particular attention to security of confidential data is required in accordance with the Museum's Network Security Policy. Security and confidentiality must be assured in a way that copes with multiple researchers and the departure of individual researchers from the Museum.

3. Authorship

3.1 Minimum requirement for authorship for research output should accord with the following. Authorship is substantial participation in a research program, where any of the following conditions are met: a) conception and design of the research program; b) major acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; and c) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content. Authorship requires that the person has given final approval of the version to be published. Participation solely in the acquisition of funding or the non-substantive collection of data or participation in field work does not justify authorship. General supervision of the research group is not sufficient for authorship. An author's role in a research output must be sufficient for that person to take public responsibility for at least that part of the output in that person's area of expertise. No person who should be an author, consistent with this definition, must be excluded as an author without their permission in writing.

3.2 Authorship of a research output is a matter that must be discussed between participants at an early stage in a research project, and reviewed whenever there are changes in participation. Disputes regarding authorship prior to submission of manuscripts for publication are to be brought to a Division Head or Research Centre Head for mediation, and if unresolved, are to be dealt with as in 7.2.

3.3 When there is more than one co-author of a research output, one co-author (by agreement amongst the authors) should be nominated as executive author for the whole research output, and should take responsibility for record-keeping regarding the research output.

3.4 Where the research is published, including electronically, all co-authors of a publication must acknowledge their authorship in writing in terms of, at least, the minimum acceptable definition at 3.1, above. This signed statement of authorship must specify that the signatories are the only authors according to this definition. It must state that the signatories have seen the version of the paper submitted for publication and agree to its submission for publication.

3.5 The written acknowledgment of authorship must be placed on file in the Associate Director's Office at the time of submission of the research output for publication, and be retained as part of the Museum's central records system.

3.6 If, for any reason, one or more co-authors are unavailable or otherwise unable to sign the statement of authorship, the Division Head or Research Centre Head may sign waiving this and stating the reason for their unavailability. Electronic (email) communication from a co-author may be accepted by a Division Head or Research Centre Head in lieu of a written statement of authorship.

3.7 The authors must ensure that others who have contributed to the work are recognised in the research output. Courtesy demands that individuals and organisations providing facilities should also be acknowledged.

3.8 Conflicts arising through disputes about authorship will be dealt with by the Museum's Grievance Procedures which are modified in section 7, below.

4. Publication

4.1 Publication of multiple research papers/works based on the same set(s) or subset(s) of data is not acceptable except where new or significantly different aspects of a study are explored. In these cases there should be full cross-referencing within the papers (for example, in a series of closely related works, or where a complete work grew out of a preliminary publication and this is fully acknowledged).

4.2 An author who submits substantially similar work to more than one publisher must disclose this to the publishers at the time of submission.

4.3 As a general principle research findings should not be reported in the public media (including electronic public media such as the World Wide Web), before they have been reported to a research audience of experts in the field of research. Ideally this should be by publication, or acceptance for publication, in a peer-reviewed journal, but it may be by oral presentation to a meeting of research workers or advertised Museum seminar. Where there are good reasons to release research findings prior to reporting them to a research audience of experts, this may be done only following approval of an appropriate Division Head or Research Centre Head (the Associate Director will be consulted if required) who will evaluate the research findings and the reasons for their release. Public release of results prior to publication is more likely to be permitted if those results have been subject to the Museum's pre-submission review process.

4.4 It is acknowledged that where issues of public policy and concern make advice prior to public release in the sense of 4.3 desirable, such advice must be tendered first to the public or professional authorities responsible for the matter in question, and the unreported status of the findings must be advised at the same time. Only where responsible authorities fail to act on a matter of public concern can prior reporting to the media be justified, and again the unpublished status of the findings must be reported at the same time.

4.5 Where there is private reporting of research that has not yet been exposed to open peer-review scrutiny, especially when it is reported to prospective financial supporters, researchers have an obligation to explain fully the status of the work and the peer-review mechanisms to which it will be subjected.

4.6 Publications must include information on the sources of financial support for the research. Financial sponsorship that carries an embargo on such naming of a sponsor should be avoided.

4.7 Deliberate inclusion of inaccurate or misleading information relating to any aspect of research activity (including publications, funding, awards, co-authorship) in curriculum vitae, grant applications, job applications or public statements, or the failure to provide relevant information, is a form of research misconduct. Accuracy and honesty are essential in all dealings related to research.

4.8 All reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that published reports, statistics and public statements about research activities and performance are complete, accurate and unambiguous.

5. Supervision of students / research trainees

5.1 There will be a specific, responsible and appropriately qualified supervisor of each research trainee and researcher new to research in the institution.

5.2 The ratio of trainees to supervisors must be low enough to assure effective intellectual interaction and effective oversight of the research.

5.3 Each trainee should be advised by his/her supervisor of these guidelines and other relevant material on applicable government and institutional guidelines for the conduct of research, including those covering ethical requirements for human or animal studies, requirements for confidentiality, and occupational health and safety matters.

5.4 Supervisors must provide guidance in all matters of good research practice.

5.5 The supervisor must ensure, as far as possible, that these guidelines are adhered to.

6. Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest

6.1 These guidelines recognise the Museum's policies regarding potential conflicts of interest as set down in the Museum's Code of Conduct ( which is accessible through the Network, and held on the central files).

6.2 The Museum's policies and procedures regarding appropriate disclosure of affiliation with, or financial involvement in, any organisation or entity with a direct interest in the subject matter or materials of researchers are covered by the Museum's Code of Conduct, including its policy on Conflict of Interest (accessible as outlined in 6.1). These procedures cover the full range of potential interests, including the direct benefits such as sponsorship of the investigation or indirect benefits such as the provision of materials or facilities or the support of individuals such as provision of travel or accommodation expenses to attend conferences. Such disclosure covers any situation in which the conflict of interest may, or may be perceived to, affect any decision regarding other people.

6.3 Museum staff must disclose at the time of reporting or proposing research (for example, in a grant application), any potential conflict of interest to leaders of research teams and to editors of journals, to the readers of published work, and to external bodies from which funds are sought. Within the Museum, Division Heads or Research Centre Heads should be informed by research leaders of any conflict of interest of a research team member.

7. Research misconduct

DEFINITION

"Research misconduct" or "Scientific misconduct" is taken here to mean fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research. It includes the misleading ascription of authorship including the listing of authors without their permission, attributing work to others who have not in fact contributed to the research, and the lack of appropriate acknowledgment of work primarily produced by a research student/trainee or associate. It does not include honest errors or honest differences in interpretation or judgements of data.

Examples of research misconduct include but are not limited to the following :

Misappropriation : A researcher or reviewer shall not intentionally or recklessly

  1. plagiarise, which shall be understood to mean the presentation of the documented words or ideas of another as his or her own, without attribution appropriate for the medium of presentation;
  2. make use of any information in breach of any duty of confidentiality associated with the review of any manuscript or grant application;
  3. intentionally omit reference to the relevant published work of others for the purpose of inferring personal discovery of new information.
  4. Interference : A researcher or reviewer shall not intentionally and without authorisation take or sequester or materially damage any research-related property of another, including without limitation the apparatus, reagents, biological materials, writings, data, hardware, software, or any other substance or device used or produced in the conduct of research.

Misrepresentation : A researcher or reviewer shall not act with intent to deceive, or in disregard for the truth:

  1. state or present a material or significant falsehood; or
  2. omit a fact so that what is stated or presented as a whole states or presents a material or significant falsehood.

Procedures where research misconduct is suspected or alleged

7.1 Procedures for dealing with instances of suspected or alleged research misconduct, are based on Museum grievance and disciplinary procedures.

7.2 The Division Heads and Research Centre Heads will be the designated advisers on integrity in research, and the point of first contact for allegations of research misconduct. Heads will consult with the Associate Director as required. If unresolved at this level, allegations of research misconduct are to be directed as designated in the Museums Grievance Procedures. The Grievance Manager will convene a committee of two to three Museum research staff (or outside persons of equivalent qualifications) acceptable to all parties in the case, but including one officer of at least equivalent grading to any party involved in the allegations. This committee (the Research Misconduct Committee) will conduct a fact-finding investigation (7.3).

7.3 The fact-finding investigation of a charge of research misconduct must make provision for a written statement of any allegations to be provided to the person(s) against whom such allegations are directed, and for a written response from that person to be received and considered. A fact-finding investigation should be limited to determining whether a case exists that research misconduct may have occurred. The Research Misconduct Committee will provide written copies of its conclusions to the Grievance Manager, the Associate Director and all parties at the Museum who were directly involved. The fact-finding investigation will maintain a high level of confidentiality.

7.4 If a case for consideration of research misconduct is found to exist in the fact-finding investigation by the Research Misconduct Committee, the Associate Director will arrange for advice of this to be given, in confidence, to the secretary of any funding agency currently supporting the person in question, on the understanding that the agency will not terminate its support on the basis of that advice alone.

7.5 A formal investigation under Museum Disciplinary Procedures will be initiated by the Director if the fact-finding investigation by the Research Misconduct Committee finds that a case exists. If the preliminary investigation finds there is no case, the matter is closed, except that the accuser, if dissatisfied with this outcome, may elect to continue the matter under the Museum's Grievance Procedures. Any persons advised as per 7.4 will be informed by the Associate Director of the outcome of the formal investigation.

7.6 If research misconduct is found to have occurred by the formal investigation, the Associate Director will report this to any funding agency that funded work in respect of which such misconduct occurred, or which is currently supporting the person found to have engaged in research misconduct, and to journals and other media through which the research in question was reported.

7.7 Any such investigation to establish the facts of a matter in which research misconduct is alleged to have occurred, will continue even if the person accused of such misconduct resigns from the institution. Distortions of the research record must be rectified, whether or not the persons involved remain in the Museum.

7.8 The procedures must consider the interests of all interested parties and the protection of persons making allegations in good faith, and of persons accused of misconduct. It is considered that the above procedures do this. No person will be penalised, disciplined or disadvantaged in any way for making an allegation, or providing information to a fact-finding or formal investigation, in good faith.

Interested parties include: