Institutional responsibilities

describing the most common cognitive distortions

Acting on ‘soft’ research misconduct – A Research Integrity commentary

In this commentary sheet we discuss what some have termed ‘soft misconduct’ and five ways in which institutions can deal with them. Others have reasonably observed that they are just research misconduct and should be investigated and punished as such.  While this might indeed be the case, until national research integrity codes (such as the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research) list these behaviours as being research misconduct, institutions will need to deal with them with their own policies and procedures.

Cover image for passive-aggressive mischief in a lab.

How to avoid passive-aggressive mischief in a lab – A Research Integrity commentary

An institution that doesn’t have a mechanism where individuate can make complaints/make allegations where the identity of complaints will be protected or a mechanism where individuals can make anonymous complaints/make allegations, are begging for passive-aggressive behaviour, though not quite as humorous as this Don Mayne cartoon. This is Research Integrity Commentary Sheet is available for download by our Patrons.

Cover image of the talk by Gary Allen and Mandy Downing

Vulnerability, research ethics review and the review of s4 of the National Statement – A Human Research Ethics talk by Gary Allen and Mandy Downing

How we approach vulnerability can empower and respect individuals or compound their isolation and discrimination they face. In this 11 minute talk by Dr Gary Allen and spoken by Mandy Downing. This talk was sponsored by QUT as part of its HREC professional development and the Committe’s active engagement with the National Statement.