CAUT | ACPPU
Canadian Association of University Teachers
CAUT Policies
CAUT Policy Statement on Research Misconduct
Research misconduct is defined as a serious breach of good research practice that includes but is not limited to falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism committed willfully or through gross negligence when planning, carrying out or reporting on research.Each post-secondary institution should have negotiated procedures for dealing with allegations of research misconduct. These procedures should include the right to the grievance procedure in the collective agreement.
Anyone accused of research misconduct should have the right to a full, fair and impartial hearing, with complete access from the onset of any investigation to all charges and the evidence for them. The procedures should also ensure that those who responsibly and in good faith raise questions about the lack of honesty are treated fairly, and those whose research results or writings have been plagiarized or otherwise prejudiced by the research misconduct receive justice.
Institutional regulations on research misconduct should be negotiated with the academic staff association.
The policy should provide for fair, prompt, judicious and confidential investigation of the charges by the institution’s administration to see whether or not there is a case that warrants formal action. It should ensure that accused academic staff members and the academic staff association are informed of such allegations at the earliest opportunity and that academic staff members are told of their rights to consult the academic staff association or a lawyer before responding the results of any investigation should be communicated to the member and the academic staff association. If the institution’s administration decides either that the charges are valid or that discipline should be imposed, such charges or discipline should be subject to the grievance procedure of the collective agreement1. Under arbitration procedure, any investigation arising out of the disciplinary hearing should be held de novo.
If the institution’s administration wishes to rely on the accusations, testimony or evidence of individuals, they must be identified and be available for cross-examination. The arbitration panel shall have the power to rule on the validity of the complaint and to determine the appropriate penalty. The institution’s administration should protect witnesses from reprisals.
Approved by the CAUT Council, November 2010.
Endnote1. See CAUT Model Clause on Fraud and Misconduct in Academic Research and Scholarly Activity
Top of page