About us

The responsibility of the execution of the Integrated Research Integrity Management System (IRIMS) of the Faculties are vested in the office of the Deputy Dean: Research and Innovation (DD: R&I) of the five larger Faculties (FEDUC, FEMS, FHS, FHUM, FNAS) as a delegated function of the Executive Dean (ED) and the Executive Deans of the three smaller Faculties (FENG, FLAW, FTHEO). An appointed Research Integrity Officer (RIO) in the office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor: Research and Innovation (DVC: R&I) supports the ED or DD: R&I to drive the functioning of the system.

Three linked systems provide the management of the full spectrum of research integrity activities within the Faculties:

  1. The Research Ethics Offices, the Faculty Research Ethics Committees (FRECs) and the NHREC registered RECs for research ethics management;
  2. the various Scientific Committees under the management of the Research Directors (RD) for scientific management of research; and
  3. the newly established Integrated Research Integrity Management System (IRIMS) for the fostering of a climate of Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) and the management of a potential breach/transgression thereof.

The IRIMS is built on the belief that such a system should be:

  1. conducive to creating and fostering a climate of RCR, but also
  2. take full responsibility to act should any researcher (staff or student) fail to follow good research practices that could lead to research non-compliance, violation of good research practice or research misconduct (see the IRIMS guidelines under the Guidelines and Procedures section for definitions of these terms).

 

IRIMS fig 1

Figure 1: Organisational structure for research integrity

IRIMS Figure 2


Figure 2: The Integrated Research Integrity Management System (IRIMS)

IRIMS: Main components

Figure 2 gives a layout of the three main components of the IRIMS that is briefly discussed below:

Fostering a climate of responsible conduct in research

The value and benefits of research are vitally dependent on the integrity of research (Singapore Statement, 2010). The practices of a scientific community should promote confidence and trust in their research findings through Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR). This will become possible if a scientific community builds its practices on sound research integrity principles and adhering to specific accepted professional responsibilities in their conduct of research. Both the individual and the institution should accept accountability for this. The Faculties have accepted the “Framework for fostering a climate of Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)” indicating the essential four areas (support, organization, communication, and training) and their accompanying 15 elements to ensure such a climate. It includes the created environment, as well as the everyday practice of research.

Read more about fostering a climate of Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) 

Management of potential breaches in responsible conduct of research/research integrity

For purposes of making research integrity (RI) manageable within the Faculties, acts of potential breaches are placed on a continuum of seriousness and managed on either an intra-faculty level in a restorative manner with individualized mentoring or escalated to the office of the Registrar (for academics) or the Student Judicial Office (for students) to be handled in a disciplinary or legal manner. Although there is this suggested continuum, the Faculties view all these acts as harmful to maximising the quality and robustness of their research and as such will act appropriately to manage and ameliorate the effects of such acts. However, even if an act is placed on the less serious side of the continuum, with specific standard operating procedures of how to handle it, it may in some instances be justified to immediately escalate it for disciplinary action within the faculty involving People and Culture or even to escalate it to the office of the Registrar or Student Judicial Office for a formal academic integrity investigation.

See more detail in the various SOPs under the Guidelines and Procedures section.

IRIMS

Managing the research integrity appeals process

The Faculties have a mechanism in place whereby a contested decision made by the Standing Research Integrity Committee (SRIC) or the Empanelled Research Integrity Committee (ERIC) during an assessment into an alleged breach in Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) on an intra-faculty level may be revisited. It is however, expected that the alleged should make full use of the opportunity given to him/her during the initial assessment when his/her side of the story is being heard. The latter opportunity may prevent unnecessary misunderstandings. In the event of a failure to reach a resolution, the alleged may proceed in terms of the appeals process (SOP_RI_4).

Appeals may arise because the person having been assessed for allegations of a breach in research integrity (RI) on Faculty level wishes to alter some of the content of the letter written to him/her, or to question some aspects of the process, or part of the decision made on an intra-faculty level. The request is made to the DD: R&I and the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) in the office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor: Research and Innovation (DVC: R&I) for the five larger Faculties (FEDUC, FEMS, FHS, FHUM, FNAS) and the Executive Dean and the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) in the office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor: Research and Innovation (DVC: R&I) for the smaller Faculties (FENG, FLAW, FTHEO).  

Appeals panel:
A group of people empanelled by the Executive Dean (ED) with the support of the RIO in the office of the DVC: R&I for the purpose of handling a research integrity appeals request.
      

The appeals panel consists of:

  • Chairperson: ED for the five larger Faculties (FEDUC, FEMS, FHS, FHUM, FNAS) or another appointed ED for the three smaller Faculties (FENG, FLAW, FTHEO).
  • Research Integrity Officer (RIO) in the office of the DVC: R&I.
  • The Research Director (RD) of the research entity in which the alleged resides.
  • Two independent expert panellists knowledgeable about the specific RI issue at hand.
  • Secretariat.