Research

POL 585-2 - Integrity in Research and Scholarship

 

Response
to Main Document

01/13 10:49 AM

 

Subject:

 

0585-02 Integrity in Research and Scholarship

 

Response to:

 

 0585 Research

 

Category:

 

Part 05 - Academic


Originator:


William Busst

Part 5 - Academic

Integrity in Research and Scholarship Policy
POL 585-2

Policy Type:

Academic

Policy Sponsor:

Provost and Vice-President Academic

Effective:  

 Oct 21, 2002

Office of Administrative Responsibility:

Associate Vice-President Research

Last Reviewed:  

August 2012

Approver:

General Faculties Council

Approved:  

August 23, 2012

 

A. OVERVIEW


Mount Royal University is committed to creating and maintaining an environment in which research and scholarship are encouraged and supported. The success of these endeavours relies upon the sustained efforts of researchers and scholars pursuing knowledge, innovation and application within a framework of academic freedom. However, it also depends upon a rigorous adherence to the fundamental principles of integrity, grounded in a belief in honesty, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility in all academic work.



B. PURPOSE


The Integrity in Research and Scholarship Policy is intended to educate, guide and promote the highest standards of integrity by researchers and scholars in their pursuit of research and scholarship sanctioned by Mount Royal.

The Policy is intended to operate in conjunction with, and as a complement to, relevant employee collective agreements and University policies (including the Mount Royal Code of Student Conduct and the Ethics of Research Involving Human Subjects Policy. If it is determined that discipline is to be imposed for a breach of this Policy, any existing disciplinary process applicable to the affected individual will be followed.

The Policy is also to be interpreted as consistent with the Tri-Agency Research Integrity Policy, which is recognized and endorsed by Mount Royal.

 

C. SCOPE


This Policy applies to all Mount Royal members that engage in research and scholarship.

The Principles also apply to all those involved in Mount Royal sanctioned research and scholarship, including external agencies receiving transfer of funds and any research collaborators.


D. POLICY


Mount Royal is committed to ensuring that the highest ethical standards are maintained in the conduct of institutionally sanctioned research and scholarship.

All research and scholarship shall be carried out in accordance with, but not limited to, the following:

·  Tri-Agency Research Integrity Policy;

·  Tri-Agency Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans;

·  Canadian Council on Animal Care Policies and Guidelines;

·  The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act;

·  Licenses for research in the field;

·  Laboratory Biosafety Guidelines;

·  Controlled Goods Program;

·  Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Regulations;

·  Canada's Food and Drugs Act; and

·  Alberta Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.


Mount Royal University is committed to the principle that research data collected using public funds belong in the public domain, in keeping with the OECD Declaration on Access to Research Data from Public Funding and the SSHRC Research Data Archiving Policy. Where not constrained by issues of confidentiality and the protection of research participants, or by contractual stipulations, all data resulting from research supported by public funds should be preserved and made available for the use of others within two years of the completion of the research project for which the data were collected.


Responsibilities


Mount Royal University is responsible for providing an environment that supports the best research and fosters researchers' abilities to act honestly, accountably, and fairly in the search for, and dissemination of, knowledge.  The University is responsible for addressing allegations of breaches of this and related Tri-Agency policies by researchers, and is also responsible for promoting awareness of what constitutes the responsible conduct of research, the contents of these policies and procedures, and the process for addressing allegations.

Individual researchers and scholars are responsible for following the best research practices honestly, accountably, openly and fairly in the search for and in the dissemination of knowledge.  Researchers are responsible for adherence to the institutional policies governing that work, as well as professional or disciplinary standards, and shall comply with all applicable laws or regulations.

All Members of the Mount Royal University community are responsible for facilitating the goals of this Policy by reporting any suspected breach of the principles outlined herein


E. DEFINITIONS


When used in this Policy, the following terms have been specifically defined:

Institution means Mount Royal University and all of its Faculties, Departments, Institutes, Divisions, programs and services.

Sanctioned activity means any research or scholarly activity which is initiated, conducted, aided, authorized or supervised by Mount Royal University.

Complainant means any person who alleges an act that contravenes this Policy.

Faculty member means any full or part-time faculty member who is employed by Mount Royal University.

Mount Royal Member shall include all individuals associated with the University in a research or scholarly capacity including, but not limited to, full-time and part-time instructors teaching credit and non-credit courses, any other person teaching courses, counsellors, librarians, teaching assistants, post-doctoral fellows, research fellows, undergraduate and other students, full-time and part-time administrative, professional, support staff and other persons paid by or through the University and anyone working under University auspices.

Research is defined as an undertaking intended to extend the collective knowledge of a field through a disciplinary inquiry or systematic investigation. Research activities include, but are not limited to, major projects, class assignments, peer-reviewed research projects, non-peer reviewed research projects, conducting sponsored research and developing and promulgating theories.

Research Data are, in the context of this Policy, defined as factual records (numerical scores, textual records, images and sounds) used as primary sources for scientific research, and that are commonly accepted in the scientific community as necessary to validate research findings.  A research data set constitutes a systematic, partial representation of the subject being investigated. This term does not cover the following:  laboratory notebooks, preliminary analyses, and drafts of scientific papers, plans for future research, peer reviews, or personal communications with colleagues or physical objects (e.g., laboratory supplies, strains of bacteria and test animals such as mice) (based on the OECD Principles and Guidelines for Access to Research Data from Public Funding, 2007).

Research data from public funding is defined as research data obtained from research conducted by government agencies or departments, or conducted using public funds provided by any level of government.

Scholarship relates to the principles and products of academic achievement and may include, but is not limited to, development of new technologies or applications of such, relevant professional activities, integration of knowledge, attainments relating to academic standards such as reports, papers and assignments, and disseminating findings through such means as publication, presentation, performance, recording or exhibition.


Published Procedures to this Policy


· Research Integrity Principles

· Integrity in Research and Scholarship Procedures

· Collection, Storage and Authenticity of Data

Part 5 - Academic

Parent Policy:  Integrity in Research and Scholarship
POL 585-2

Research Integrity Principles and Responsibilities

 

Procedure Type:

Academic

Procedure Sponsor:

Provost and Vice-President, Academic

Effective:  

 April 10, 2010

Office of Administrative Responsibility:

Associate Vice-President, Research

Last Reviewed:  

 August 2012

Approver:

Provost and Vice-President, Academic

Approved:  

August 23, 2012



1. The University adopts the Tri-Agency Framework:  Responsible Conduct of Research as it applies to the responsibilities of researchers, scholars and collaborators, as well as to Mount Royal University itself.


At a minimum, researchers are responsible for:

(a) Using a high level of rigour in proposing and performing research; in recording, analyzing, and interpreting data; and in reporting and publishing data and findings.

(b) Keeping complete and accurate records of data, methodologies and findings, including graphs and images, in accordance with the applicable funding agreement, institutional policies and/or laws, regulations, and professional or disciplinary standards in a manner that will allow verification or replication of the work by others.

(c) Referencing and, where applicable, obtaining permission for the use of all published and unpublished work, including data, source material,methodologies, findings, graphs and images.

(d) Including as authors, with their consent, all those and only those who have materially or conceptually contributed to, and share responsibility for, the contents of the publication or document, in a manner consistent with their respective contributions, and authorship policies of relevant publications.

(e) Acknowledging, in addition to authors, all contributors and contributions to research, including writers, funders and sponsors.

(f) Appropriately managing any real, potential or perceived conflict of interest in accordance with the Mount Royal University policy on Conflicts of Interest in Research, in order to ensure that the objectives of this Policy are met.

In addition, researchers, scholars and collaborators working on Mount Royal sanctioned research will

(g) Honour terms and conditions of agreements including financial accountability under which sponsored research will be conducted provided they do not conflict with the Tri-Agency Framework.

(h) Honour all institutional and Tri-Agency regulations on research ethics, including the Mount Royal policy of the Ethics of Research Involving Human Subjects, and the Tri-Agency Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct of Research Involving Humans;

(i) Avoid retaliation against those who acted in good faith and reported or provided information about alleged research misconduct. Of particular concern are students and research assistants.


2. A breach of the above principles or violation of any portion of the Integrity in Research and Scholarship Policy will constitute misconduct under this and any related policies.  Breaches include, but are not limited to, the following:


(a) Fabrication:  Making up data, source material, methodologies or findings, including graphs and images.

(b) Falsification:  Manipulating, changing, or omitting data, source material, methodologies or findings, including graphs and images, without acknowledgement and which results in inaccurate findings or conclusions.

(c) Destruction of research records:  The destruction of one's own or another's research data or records to specifically avoid the detection of wrongdoing or in contravention of the applicable funding agreement, institutional policy and/or laws, regulations and professional or disciplinary standards.

(d) Plagiarism:  Presenting and using another's published or unpublished work, including theories, concepts, data, source material, methodologies or findings, including graphs and images, as one's own, without appropriate referencing and, if required, without permission.

(e) Redundant publications:  The re-publication of one's own previously published work or part thereof, or data, in the same or another language, without adequate acknowledgement of the source, or justification.

(f) Invalid authorship:  Inaccurate attribution of authorship, including attribution of authorship to persons other than those who have contributed sufficiently to take responsibility for the intellectual content, or agreeing to be listed as author to a publication for which one has made little or no material contribution.

(g) Inadequate acknowledgement:  Failure to appropriately manage any real, potential or perceived conflict of interest, in accordance with the University Policy on Conflicts of Interest in Research, preventing one or more objectives of this Policy from being met.


3. The responsibilities of Mount Royal University include:


(a) Meeting and maintaining the standards set out in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on the Roles and Responsibilities in the Management of Federal Grants and Awards.

(b) Promoting education and awareness of the importance of the responsible conduct of research by:


a. Promoting awareness of all Tri-Agency requirements, the consequences of failing to meet them, as well as the University's process for addressing allegations, to all those engaged in research activities at the institution.

b. Communicating this Policy within the institution and making public statistical annual reports on confirmed findings of breaches of this Policy and actions taken, subject to all applicable laws.

c. Communicating within the institution the central point of contact for receiving confidential inquiries, allegations and information related to allegations of breaches of this and Tri-Agency policies.


(c) Reporting to funding agencies on any investigations involving research related to a funding application submitted to that agency or to an activity funded by that agency.

 

Part 5 - Academic

Parent Policy:  Integrity in Research and Scholarship
POL 585-2

Integrity in Research and Scholarship Procedures

Policy Type:

Academic

Policy Sponsor:

Provost and Vice-President, Academic

Effective:  

 April 10, 2010

Office of Administrative Responsibility:

Associate Vice-President, Research

Last Reviewed:  

 August 2012

Approver:

Provost and Vice-President, Academic

Approved:  

 August 23, 2012



1. STANDING COMMITTEE


1.1. Mount Royal shall maintain a standing committee on the ‘Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)’. The Committee is charged to perform the following duties:


1.1.1. To encourage the creation and maintenance of a research climate that promotes faithful adherence to high ethical standards in the conduct of research without inhibiting the productivity and creativity of faculty or students;

1.1.2. To review and disseminate information to faculty on procedures for addressing misconduct and conflicts of interest in research;

1.1.3. To develop and maintain appropriately written and enforced policies on integrity and conflict of interest in accordance with Tri-Council and other national and provincial policies and legislation;

1.1.4. To review conflict of interest disclosures and make final decisions on the University response, utilizing a supervisor’s recommendation (as detailed in the University policy on Conflicts of Interest in Research);

1.1.5. To review integrity issues identified in internal research proposals and ethics protocols (other than those involving human participants in research) and to provide recommendations to applicants and their supervisors; and

1.1.6. To provide a first stage of review for formal allegations; providing advise to the Provost and Vice-President Academic.

 

2. COMMITTEE CHARTER


2.1. The RCR Committee shall be composed of no more than eight tenured faculty members appointed by the Provost and Vice-President Academic (Provost), plus the Diversity and Human Rights Advisor and the Chair.

2.2. The Associate Vice-President Research shall serve as the Committee Chair and shall report on Committee activities to General Faculties Council through the Research and Scholarship Advisory Committee.

2.3. The Chair will not vote except in the case of a tie.

2.4. Each Mount Royal Faculty shall be represented on the Committee.

2.5. The term of appointment shall be for two to three years, staggered to provide continuity.

2.6. Committee members may be reappointed by the Provost for additional terms of three years.

2.7. If for any reason a committee member resigns, the Provost shall appoint another individual to serve the remainder of the unexpired term.

2.8. All information concerning RCR Committee activities, reports, and other related documents and approvals shall be housed in the Office of Research Services.

2.9. Mount Royal shall provide financial and other professional development resources to ensure that members are provided with training in a sufficient breadth of topics to properly assess allegations.

2.10. Members will be responsible for at least one Faculty-wide training session per semester.

 

3.   MEETINGS


3.1. Meetings will occur on an as-needed basis, with a minimum of two meetings per year focused on professional development and process review.

3.2. Decisions shall be by consensus wherever possible. Where consensus cannot be reached and a majority decision is required, quorum shall be 50%+1.

3.3. Face-to-face meetings are only required in the case of formal allegations; however in-person or digitally mediated face-to-face meetings will be preferred.


4. BREACHES OF PRINCIPLES AND ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT


4.1. Breaches of principles may be identified at various stages of the research process and by any number of people. For example, Research Services may note potential problems during review of a funding application; Human Research Ethics Board reviewers may note ethical problems that do not involve the participants, and hence fall outside their mandate; students may question the fairness of their research supervisor’s conduct; or a journal may note discrepancies during manuscript review or through subsequent peer verification.  

4.2. These procedures focus on a measured, proportional response to alleged breaches of principles.

Deans and Chairs

4.3. Anyone noting a possible breach of principles should discuss the issues with their immediate supervisor. Deans and Chairs will work, wherever possible, towards an education-focused solution.

Confidential Reporting Hotline

4.4. Students, faculty or others that either do not have a supervisor or do not wish to involve their supervisor may contact the University's confidential reporting hotline to take their allegation forward to the appropriate authority.  

RCR Committee

4.5. The RCR Committee will act as a resource for Deans, Chairs and Directors to provide advice on the appropriate response to alleged breaches of principles, including both education and direct actions. In cases where Deans or Chairs are involved, or issues span Departments or Faculties, the RCR Committee will coordinate the response. In no cases will the RCR Committee intervene directly.

4.6. The RCR Committee will meet on an as-needed basis to review and discuss issues. The Committee may a) make recommendations to the researcher; b) make recommendations to the researcher’s Dean or Chair, or c) make recommendations to the Provost and Vice President Academic.

Receiving Allegations

4.7. A formal allegation of breach of this Policy may be initiated by any member of the University community, external agencies involved in research activities (such as journals or granting agencies) or other involved in or affected by Mount Royal sanctioned research.   The RCR Committee may also file an allegation when they determine that the informal process has not properly addressed the problem.

4.8. The Provost and Vice-President, Academic shall act as the institutional point of contact to receive all confidential inquiries, allegations of breaches of policies, and information related to allegations.

Filing an Allegation

4.9. A formal allegation must be made in writing to the Provost and Vice-President, Academic.  The submission must be dated and signed by the complainant.  An allegation should be filed as soon as the misconduct becomes known but not normally later than six (6) months after the occurrence; however, an allegation may not be disallowed solely on grounds of the elapse of time.

4.10. Anonymous allegations will not normally be considered. However, if compelling and corroborated evidence is submitted anonymously, the Provost will work with the RCR Committee to determine whether sufficient grounds exist to warrant an investigation.

4.11. If the Provost is party to the alleged misconduct, the President shall designate another person to assume the role of the Provost under this Policy.

4.12 The institution shall undertake to ensure that anyone making an allegation of misconduct in good faith and without mischievous or malicious intent is protected from reprisals or harassment throughout the investigation process and following the final decision.  Processes are detailed in the Safe Disclosure Policy.

4.13 The institution may independently, or at the request of a funding agency in exceptional circumstances, take immediate action to protect the administration of funds.  These actions could include freezing accounts, requiring a second authorized signature on all expenses charged to a researcher's accounts, or other measures as appropriate.

Preliminary Assessment of the Complaint

4.14 Upon receipt of an allegation in writing, the Provost shall convene the RCR Committee to determine if there is sufficient justification to warrant further investigation. The RCR Committee will review the complaint and ascertain its accuracy, completeness and relevance to the Mount Royal policy on Integrity in Research and Scholarship prior to proceeding with the formal process. If the RCR Committee finds that the investigation is not warranted the complaint will be dismissed. A false allegation made with malicious intent will itself be treated as a breach of principles and may be subject to investigation. The RCR Committee shall forward a response to the Provost within 14 business days of the complaint being filed.

4.15 As part of the preliminary assessment, the Provost or the RCR Committee may elect to meet with the respondent and/or the complainant in order to determine if there is sufficient justification to warrant a further investigation.

4.16 The Provost shall forward a summary of the complaint and the decision of the RCR Committee to the complainant and the respondent.

Formal Investigation

4.17 If the preliminary assessment results in a determination that reasonable evidence of misconduct exists, the Provost shall launch a formal investigation within twenty (20) business days of receiving the formal complaint.

4.18 An Investigation Committee will be formed by the Provost and Vice-President, Academic and will consist of the following:


· A member of Deans' Council not associated with the respondent’s Faculty or Unit, who shall be Chair of the Investigation Committee; and

· Two (2) other members to be selected by the Chair of the Investigation Committee who are not in conflict, or perceived to be in conflict, with the subject of the allegation.; one must have demonstrated relevant academic experience.

· One of the above must be an external member with no current affiliation with the institution.


4.19 All members must have the necessary expertise to properly assess the allegation.

4.20 The Chair of the Investigation Committee has the authority to obtain and retain relevant documentation. The Committee is mandated to review all scholarly activity with which the individual has been involved that is relevant to the allegation, including any abstracts, papers, other methods of scholarly communication, or financial data.

4.21 The process for collecting information may include interviews, reviews of files, and obtaining documents from relevant sources. The process for recording the collected information will include a register outlining all materials used in the investigation and a record of all interviews.

4.22 The formal investigation will normally incorporate a hearing, described in the next section.

4.23 Normally, within sixty (60) business days of the commencement of the formal investigation, and after considering all the evidence gathered in the case, the Investigation Committee shall reach a decision and submit a written report to the Provost and Vice-President, Academic. The report shall include a copy of the following:

· the complaint;

· any written response(s), pertinent documents and records;

· an outline of the process followed;

· the membership of the committee and why the members were selected;

· the findings and decision of the committee; and

· recommended sanction(s) to be imposed (if applicable), or actions to protect or restore the reputation of the respondent.

Hearings

4.24 The Chair of the Investigation Committee shall inform the respondent in writing of the date, time and location of the hearing; the reason for the hearing; the composition of the panel; and an outline of the procedures to be followed. The letter shall request the names and affiliations of any witnesses and attendants. The letter shall be marked confidential and shall be copied to the appropriate Association representative and shall contain a copy of the relevant policy.

4.25. The respondent shall be provided with an opportunity to question the makeup of the panel and to suggest alternative member(s).

4.26 The respondent may have a representative from their association present at the hearing. If the complainant is asked to appear they may also have a representative from their association present.

4.27 Unless agreed to the respondent, the Investigators and all witnesses, the hearing shall be held in camera.

4.28 If the respondent fails to appear before the hearing at the appointed time, the Investigators may, without further notice, proceed in such absence. If there are medical or compassionate reasons for non appearance, the Investigators must be notified immediately. The Investigators will determine the acceptability of such reasons and whether the hearing should be adjourned.

4.29 The respondent and their representative may be present throughout the hearing. Witnesses may be present only when they present their evidence orally; the Investigators may permit witnesses to provide their evidence in writing.

4.30 The respondent shall be given the opportunity to ask questions of any witnesses present at the hearing, but the Investigators shall have the right to disallow questions that are in their opinion inappropriate.

4.31 The hearing shall be audio recorded to be used only by those involved in the hearing and/or for purposes of appeal. The recording will be treated as confidential to the extent permitted by law and shall be retained for ten years.

4.32 Every effort shall be made to conduct the investigation in a thorough, balanced and fair manner. All parties to the complaint shall have equal access to evidence and an opportunity to respond to that evidence. Minutes of the hearing will be kept. The Chair of the Investigation Committee will keep a copy of all materials, records and notes of interviews and minutes of the hearing.

4.33 The appropriate criterion for a decision is the presence of clear and convincing evidence demonstrating a violation of the policy on Integrity in Research and Scholarship.

Sanctions

4.34 Following the submission of the Investigative Committee report, sanctions will be determined by the Provost and Vice-President, Academic.

4.35 Sanctions may vary in relation to the severity of the offence and in accordance with disciplinary procedures contained in related collective agreements, contracts and policies. However, sanctions may include, but are not limited to, reprimand, suspension and dismissal for employees, and warning, suspension and expulsion for students.

4.36 If sanctions are to be imposed against either the respondent or the complainant, the Provost will meet with that person to discuss the case, the draft report and sanctions prior to making a final decision on the nature of the sanctions.

Appeal

4.37 If either party disagrees with the decision of the Investigation Committee, that person may submit a written appeal to the President within ten (10) business days of receiving the report if, and only if, the presence of any or all of the following conditions can be convincingly demonstrated:

· alleged bias of the Investigation Committee; or

· alleged unfair procedures on the part of the Investigation Committee; or

· substantial new evidence that could not have been presented to the Investigation Committee.


4.38 The appellant and the President shall meet to review the case. The President may choose to reconvene the formal investigation and hearing with a new Investigation Committee, reconvene with the original Investigation Committee in order to hear new evidence, or dismiss the appeal.

4.39 The President shall reach a decision within five (5) working days.

Record-Keeping

4.40 One (1) copy of all documentation pertaining to cases of misconduct shall be retained for a minimum of one (1) year in MRU Central Records.

4.41 In the event that a complaint is substantiated and a sanction is imposed, records shall be kept in accordance with appropriate policies and agreements and for no less than ten (10) years.

4.42 The secured copy of materials shall be reviewed only as part of an appeal process. The access will be restricted to the personnel in the Office of Provost and Vice-President, Academic.

Reporting

4.43 A copy of the final report, along with sanctions imposed by the Provost, will be provided to both the complainant and the respondent within 10 days after the conclusion of the investigation.

4.44 Subject to any applicable laws, including privacy laws, the institution shall advise any relevant funding agency or the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research (SCRC) immediately of any allegations relating to activities funded by the agency that may involve significant financial, health, safety or other risks.

4.45 The institution shall write a letter to the SCRC confirming whether or not the institution is proceeding with an investigation where the SCRC was copied on the allegation as per Section 4.43.

4.46 The institution shall prepare a report for the SCRC on each investigation it conducts in response to an allegation of policy breaches related to a funding application submittted to one of the Tri-Agencies or to an activity funded by a Tri-Agency.  Subject to applicable laws, including privacy laws, each report shall contain:

· the specific allegation(s), a summary of the finding(s) and reasons for the finding(s);

· the process and timelines followed for the inquiry or investigation;

· the researcher's response to the allegation, investigation and findings, and any measures the researcher has taken to rectify the breach; and

· the Investigation Committee's decisions and recommendation and actions taken by the institution.

4.47 The institution's report shall not contain:


· information not related specifically to Agency funding and policies; or

· personal information about the researcher, or any other person, that is not material to the institution's findings and its report to the SCRC.

4.48 The institution and the researcher may not enter into confidentiality agreements or other agreements related to an inquiry or investigation that prevent the institution from reporting to the Tri-Agencies through the SCRC.

 

Protection of Reputation

4.49 When no misconduct is found to have occurred, every effort will be made by the Provost and Vice-President, Academic to:


· protect or restore the reputation of the person accused of, or implicated in, misconduct in research, as well as the reputation of the University; and

· collect and destroy copies of all documents and related files provided to third parties.

Protection of Agency Funding

4.50 Once misconduct has been confirmed, the Provost and Vice-President, Academic, at his or her discretion, shall instruct the institution’s accounting office to withhold the research funds flowing to the respondent.

Timeline of Formal Process
(during academic break periods, these timelines will be modified accordingly)

Filing of Complaint

Normally < 6 months after occurrence

RCR Assessment and Response to VPA

14 business days after filing

Summary of complaint forwarded to respondent

15 business days after filing

Formal investigation launched, if warranted

20 business days after filing

Investigation committee report to VPA

(normally) within 60 business days

Appeal to President

10 business days from receipt of Investigation Committee report

Report to agency/funder or SCRC, if required

Inquiry letters:  within 2 months of receipt of allegations.
Investigation Reports:  within 7 months of receipt of allegations.

Documentation retained

Minimum 1 year, 10 years if allegations upheld.

 

5. DISSEMINATION OF THE POLICY


5.1 Each new employee will be given a copy of the policy on Integrity in Research and Scholarship as part of the employee orientation regarding the workplace.

5.2 The Responsible Conduct of Research Committee will recommend to the Office of the Provost and Vice-President, Academic appropriate measures to familiarize researchers and scholars at Mount Royal with the policy on Integrity in Research and Scholarship.

6. DEFINITIONS


The following terms, in addition to those in the parent policy, have been specifically defined:

Administration or staff means any person who holds a current non-faculty appointment with Mount Royal University.

Attendant means an individual selected by the complainant or respondent to consult with, accompany or assist at any meeting, hearing or appeal related to the allegation or investigation. Without leave of the presiding committee or institutional official(s), the attendant shall not question witnesses or make submissions during any hearing or appeal.

Business day means any day, exclusive of Saturday or Sunday, which is not listed as a holiday in the institution’s Calendar.

Conflict of interest  is defined in detail in the University’s Conflict of Interest in Research policy.

Investigation Committee means the body constituted by the Provost and Vice-President, Academic for purposes of hearing complaints under the policy on Integrity in Research and Scholarship.

Member of the Mount Royal Community means any student, faculty, administrative or staff member of the institution, and persons serving in a recognized capacity for the institution and who are engaged in sanctioned research and scholarly activity.

Respondent means any person against whom an allegation of misconduct has been made under this policy.

Stakeholders includes the Mount Royal University Board, General Faculties Council, all faculty, staff, employees, contractors, students, prospective students, alumni, volunteers, partners and concerned external parties.

Third Party means any party that the researcher or scholar may deal with outside the institution, including sponsors or granting agencies.

Part 5 - Academic

Parent Policy:  Integrity in Research and Scholarship
POL 585-2

Collection, Storage and Authenticity of Data

Policy Type:

Academic

Policy Sponsor:

Provost and Vice-President, Academic

Effective:  

 April 10, 2010

Office of Administrative Responsibility:

Associate Vice-President, Research

Last Reviewed:  

 August 2012

Approver:

Provost and Vice-President, Academic

Approved:  

 August 23, 2012

 

1. COLLECTION AND AUTHENTICITY

1.1. Researchers and scholars shall use scholarly and scientific rigour in the collection, recording, and analysis of data, and in the reporting of results.

1.2. Principal investigators shall be involved both with the research design and with the supervision of the research work, such as data acquisition, recording, analysis, interpretation and storage.

1.3. Principal investigators shall retain accurately recorded and retrievable results. Wherever possible, all primary data shall be recorded in clear, adequate, original, and chronological form.

1.4. Principal investigator(s) must inform Research Services about the nature and location of data in their possession.

 

2. STORAGE AND RETENTION


2.1. Original data shall be retained by the principal investigators in a secure location for a minimum of five (5) years following the completion of the project or study or for longer periods as required by funding agencies or funding oversight agencies.

2.2. Data containing personal identifiers shall receive additional security. Storage of identifiers must be physically separate from the remaining data whenever possible. Identifiers shall be destroyed at the date recommended by the Human Research Ethics Board (HREB). The HREB may recommend variations in storage time and methods from those referenced herein.

 

3. DATA ARCHIVING


3.1. Mount Royal is committed to facilitating the advancement and creation of knowledge by encouraging researchers to share research findings and data. Sharing research findings and data is the essence of academic activities and ensures that both disciplinary and interdisciplinary knowledge and understanding can be built upon and expanded. As a Canadian, publicly funded institution participating in the Tri-Council Memorandum of Understanding, Mount Royal University endorses both the SSHRC Research Data Archiving Policy and the OECD Declaration on Access to Research Data from Public Funding, signed by Canada in 2004.

3.2. The University shall make available a publicly accessible data archive, managed by the Library, for the storage of research data and shall provide support and assistance to faculty using the archive to comply with the data archiving provisions of the policy on Integrity in Research and Scholarship.

3.3. Notwithstanding the exceptions listed herein, where required by the policies of funding agencies such as SSHRC, researchers shall deposit a copy of their research data with the institutional data archive or otherwise make it publicly available within two years following the conclusion of the research project that generated the data. Deposit of data not specifically required by external agencies shall be optional, but encouraged.

3.4 The depositor maintains intellectual property rights and must be cited by anyone using data from the archive.

3.5 Exemptions to the requirement of 3.3 to deposit data in the archive shall include the following:

3.5.1 The protection of confidentiality is of overriding importance, and no data shall be posted that contain personal identifiers such as those described in the following section, or otherwise stipulated by the University policy on the Ethics of Research Involving Human Participants or decisions of the Human Research Ethics Board.

3.5.2 The removal of identifiers may make data meaningless or prove prohibitively expensive.  In such cases, the Human Research Ethics Board should be consulted for recommendations.

3.5.3 Consulting or contractual agreements with private companies may contain clauses that limit public release of data.  However, in keeping with the University policy on Research Agreements, the principles of academic freedom require that confidentiality clauses or similar agreements do not overly limit the ability of researchers to publish.

3.5.4 Given the broad array of data types used in University research, it is impossible to envision all circumstances.  Further requests for exemptions from this provision may be made by application to the Associate Vice-President, Research.

3.5.4. Given the broad array of data types used in University research, it is impossible to envision all circumstances. Further requests for exemptions from this provision may be made by application to the Associate Vice-President Research.

 

4. SECURE LOCATIONS


4.1. All research data, prior to public dissemination, should be stored in a locked filing cabinet or on a password protected network drive accessible only to the research team.

4.2. When stored on a laptop, the hard drive should be password protected (i.e., requiring a separate password prior to booting the machine), and the data backed up regularly.

4.3. Data that are considered ‘sensitive’ typically contain personal identifiers* or can be otherwise linked to individuals. Such data should be stored, when on-campus, on a password-protected hard drive rather than a network location. Off-campus, particularly while in transit, data must be stored on a password protected and encrypted hard drive. The level of security used should match the sensitivity of the data carried.


5. DEFINITIONS


Research Data:  In the context of these procedures, "research data" are defined as factual records (numerical scores, textual records, images and sounds) used as primary sources for scientific research, and that area commonly accepted in the scientific community as necessary to validate research findings.  A research data set constitutes a systematic, partial representation of the subject being investigated.

This term does not cover the following:  laboratory notebooks, preliminary analyses, and drafts of scientific papers, plans for future research, peer reviews, or personal communications with colleagues or physical objects (e.g., laboratory samples, strains of bacteria and test animals such as mice) (based on the OECD Principles and Guidelines for Access to Research Data from Public Funding, 2007).

Research data from public funding:  is defined as the research data obtained from research conducted by government agencies or departments, or conducted using public funds provided by any level of government.

_________________________

* In this context identifiers include:

1. Names
2. Postal address information, other than town or city, province – including postal code
3. Telephone and fax numbers
4. Email addresses
5. Social insurance numbers
6. Medical record numbers
7. Health plan numbers
8. Account numbers
9. Certificate/license numbers
10. Vehicle identifiers and serial numbers, including license plate numbers
11. Device identifiers and serial numbers
12. Web URLs
13. Internet Protocol (IP) numbers
14. Biometric identifiers
15. Photographic images that include the face
16. Any other unique identifying number, characteristic or code
17. University ID numbers or login

And in certain situations:

18. Date of Birth
19. Occupation
20. Ethnicity
21. Gender
22. First three digits of postal code