University misconduct inquiries lack transparency

I appealed to the Australian Research Integrity Committee (ARIC) who then passed its own findings to Professor Anderson. Despite recent correspondence with ARIC, which has not drawn a response, I have never been informed in detail of the inquiry findings as required by the Code and as determined by ARIC itself. This particular case also shows that the Code is ineffective and can be ignored without sanction.

Unfortunately, this parallels the response of UNSW to the allegations made there. In both cases inquiry findings were made without justification and the complainants were told that the outcomes were "strictly confidential" and not to be disclosed to any third party.

This means that the inquiry could simply be a whitewash, given that the reasons for the dismissal of allegations could not be challenged under appeal - a basic tenet of procedural fairness and natural justice which is also mandated by the Code.

Further, under the present secretive system, even if allegations of research misconduct are upheld, no meaningful sanctions need be applied. Those found to have engaged in misconduct may suffer no reputational damage and are free to move to another research organisation - which may remain unaware of their past history of misconduct.

The institution can also protect its own reputation, as the public will never know that misconduct has taken place. This can be contrasted with the practice of professional bodies, who release the adverse findings of complaints against doctors, psychologists and others. The Office of Research Integrity in the US publishes adverse findings against named researchers and retains them on its website for three years.

There is some evidence that universities are beginning to be more open about research misconduct, particularly in Queensland where the Crime and Misconduct Commission has taken an interest in the issue.

While initially the University of Queensland was prepared to ignore a whistleblower, and initially failed to comply with directions from the commission in relation to allegations of nepotism, more recently they have cooperated with the commission, investigated research misconduct under the supervision of the commission, named the accused researcher and requested a journal to withdraw a published paper.

This shows that an independent body can play a critical role in ensuring that research misconduct is properly investigated and that whistleblowers are taken seriously and protected from adverse actions. It also shows that guilty researchers can be named.

What is needed to ensure that this approach is extended to other Australian states is a national body with the legislated power to conduct its own investigations independently of the institution where the misconduct is alleged to have occurred.