The responsibility of the execution of the Integrated Research Integrity Management System (IRIMS) of the Faculty of Health Sciences (FHS) is vested in the office of the Deputy Dean: Research and Innovation (DD: R&I) as a delegated function of the Executive Dean (ED). An appointed Research Integrity Officer (RIO) in the office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor: Research and Innovation (DVC: R&I) supports the 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 FHS:
1) the Ethics Office for Research, Training and Support and the two Research Ethics Committees NWU-HREC and NWU-AnimCareREC 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 thereof.
The IRIMS adopted by the FHS in February 2021 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 guidelines under the Guidelines and Procedures section for definitions of these terms).
_Page_1.png)
_Page_2.jpg)
Figure 2 gives a layout of the three main components of the IRIMS and are briefly discussed below.
1.1 A Framework for 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 FHS has 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)
1.2 Management of potential breaches in responsible conduct of research/research integrity
For purposes of making research integrity (RI) manageable within the Faculty of Health Sciences (FHS), acts of potential breaches are placed on a continuum of seriousness and managed on either an intra-faculty level in a restorative manner 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 FHS views all these acts as harmful to maximising the quality and robustness of our 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 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.
_Page_2.png)
1.3 Managing the research integrity appeals process
The Faculty of Health Sciences (FHS) 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 or investigation into an alleged breach in Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) 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 or investigation 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.
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).
- Appeals panel:
A group of people empanelled by the Executive Dean (ED) with the support of the RIO for the purpose of handling a research integrity appeals request.
The appeals panel consists of:
o Chairperson: ED.
o Research Integrity Officer (RIO) in the office of the DVC: R&I.
o The Research Director (RD) of the research entity in which the alleged resides.
o Two independent expert panellists knowledgeable about the specific RI issue at hand.
o Secretariat.