Guidelines on Research Practice in Computer Science

Compiled by Justin Zobel, Department of Computer Science, 
RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

May 1999

The principal recommendations in this document are that:

• Research workers be committed to high standards of professional conduct.
• Research workers should only participate in work which conforms to accepted ethical standards and which they are competent to perform.
• Confidentiality must be observed.
• Data - the outcomes and results of research - must be recorded in a durable and appropriately referenced form.
• The minimum requirement for authorship of a publication is participation in conceiving, executing or interpreting a significant part of the outcomes of the research reported.
• Supervisors should ensure that the work submitted by research students is the work of the student.
• Supervisors must not publish a student's work without giving appropriate credit (usually authorship) to the student.
• Researchers should not referee a paper or examine a thesis where there is a real or perceived conflict of interest, or where there is some reasonable likelihood that it will be difficult for the referee to maintain objectivity.

General considerations

Three elements the NHMRC/AVCC opening statement are of particular relevance to practising researchers in computer science:

• It is a basic assumption of institutions conducting research that their staff members are committed to high standards of professional conduct. Research workers have a duty to ensure that their work enhances the good name of the institution and the profession to which they belong.
• Research workers should only participate in work which conforms to accepted ethical standards and which they are competent to perform. When in doubt they should seek assistance with their research from their colleagues or peers. Debate on, and criticism of, research work are essential parts of the research process.
• If data of a confidential nature is obtained ... confidentiality must be observed and researchers must not use such information for their own personal advantage or that of a third party ... In general, however, research results and methods should be open to scrutiny by colleagues within the institution and, through appropriate publication, by the profession at large.

Data storage and retention

• 2.1 Data (including electronic data) must be recorded in a durable and appropriately referenced form.
• 2.2 The department or research unit must establish procedures for the retention of data and for the keeping of records of data held.
• 2.3 Data must be held for sufficient time to allow reference ... the minimum period for retention is at least 5 years from the date of publication.
• 2.4 Wherever possible, original data must be retained in the department or research unit in which they were generated ... Retention solely by the individual researcher provides little protection to the researcher or the institution in the event of an allegation of falsification of data.
• 2.5 Data related to publications must be available for discussion with other researchers.

Authorship

• 3.1 Each institution must establish a written policy on the criteria for authorship of a research output. Minimum requirement for authorship should accord with the 'Vancouver Protocol'. Authorship is substantial participation, where all the following conditions are met: a) conception and design, or analysis and interpretation of data; and b) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and c) final approval of the version to be published. Participation solely in the acquisition of funding or the collection of data does not justify authorship. General supervision of the research group is not sufficient for authorship. Any part of an article critical to its main conclusion must be the responsibility of at least one author. An author's role in a research output must be sufficient for that person to take public responsibility for at least that part of the output in that person's area of expertise. No person who is an author, consistent with this definition, must be excluded as a author without their permission in writing.
• 3.3 When there is more than one co-author of a research output, one co-author (by agreement amongst the authors) should be nominated as executive author for the whole research output, and should take responsibility for record-keeping regarding the research output.
• 3.4 Where the research is published, including electronically, all co-authors of a publication must acknowledge their authorship in writing in terms of, at least, the minimum acceptable definition at 3.1, above. This signed statement of authorship must specify that the signatories are the only authors according to this definition. It must state that the signatories have seen the version of the paper submitted for publication.
• 3.5 The written acknowledgment of authorship must be placed on file in the department or unit of the executive author.
• 3.6 The authors must ensure that others who have contributed to the work are recognised in the research output. Courtesy demands that individuals and organisations providing facilities should also be acknowledged.

Publication

• 4.1 Publication of multiple papers based on the same set(s) or subset(s) of data is not acceptable, except where there is full cross-referencing within the papers.
• 4.2 An author who submits substantially similar work to more than one publisher must disclose this to the publishers at the time of submission.
• 4.3 As a general principle research findings should not be reported in the public media before they have been reported to a research audience of experts in the field of research.
• 4.6 Publications must include information on the sources of financial support for the research. Financial sponsorship that carries an embargo on such naming of a sponsor should be avoided.
• 4.7 Deliberate inclusion of inaccurate or misleading information relating to research activity in curriculum vitae, grant applications, job applications or public statements, or the failure to provide relevant information, is a form of research misconduct.
• 4.8 All reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that published reports, statistics and public statements about research activities and performance are complete, accurate and unambiguous.

Supervision

• 5.3 Each trainee should be provided with written material on applicable government and institutional guidelines for the conduct of research.
• 5.4 Supervisors should be obliged to provide guidance in all matters of good research practice.
• 5.5 The supervisor must ensure, as far as possible, the validity of research data obtained by a student under his/her supervision.

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest

• 6.2 Institutions must formulate and advertise to their staff policies and procedures regarding appropriate disclosure of affiliation with, or financial involvement in, any organisation or entity with a direct interest in the subject matter or materials of researchers ... Such disclosure should cover any situation in which the conflict of interest may, or may be perceived to, affect any decision regarding other people.
• 6.3 The procedures should require disclosure to editors of journals, to the readers of published work, and to external bodies from which funds are sought.
• 6.4 Researchers have an obligation to disclose at the time of reporting or proposing research (for example, in a grant application), any conflict of interest which has the potential to influence research and investigations, publication and media reports, grant applications, applications for appointment and promotion.

Research misconduct

Examples of research misconduct include but are not limited to the following :

Misappropriation : A researcher or reviewer shall not intentionally or recklessly

• a. plagiarize, which shall be understood to mean the presentation of the documented words or ideas of another as his or her own, without attribution appropriate for the medium of presentation;
• b. make use of any information in breach of any duty of confidentiality associated with the review of any manuscript or grant application;
• c. intentionally omit reference to the relevant published work of others for the purpose of inferring personal discovery of new information.

Interference : A researcher or reviewer shall not intentionally and without authorization take or sequester or materially damage any research-related property of another, including without limitation the apparatus, reagents, biological materials, writings, data, hardware, software, or any other substance or device used or produced in the conduct of research.

Misrepresentation : A researcher or reviewer shall not with intent to deceive, or in reckless disregard for the truth,

• a. state or present a material or significant falsehood; or
• b. omit a fact so that what is stated or presented as a whole states or presents a material or significant falsehood.

Thus misconduct in research includes:

• Fabrication of data and claiming results where none have been obtained;
• Falsification of data including changing of records;
• Plagiarism, including the direct copying of textual material, the use of other people's data without acknowledgement, and the use of ideas from other people without adequate attribution;
• Misleading ascription of authorship including the listing of authors without their permission, attributing work to others who have not in fact contributed to the research, and the lack of appropriate acknowledgement of work primarily produced by a research student or assistant;
• Any practice that seriously deviates from those commonly accepted within the research community;
• Intentional infringement of published Codes of Conduct.

Refereeing and examination

Researchers should not referee a paper or examine a thesis where there is a real or perceived conflict of interest, or where there is some reasonable likelihood that it will be difficult for the referee to maintain objectivity. Examples are:

• A paper (or thesis) by an author with whom the referee has recently been a co-author;
• A paper by an author at the same department as the referee, or in a closely related department either at the same university or at another university with which the referee is closely associated;
• A paper by an author who was a recent student or supervisor of the referee;
• A paper by an author with whom the referee has had recent close interaction, including not only personal relationships but also antagonistic interactions such as competition for an appointment.