CODE OF CONDUCT

The RDA/RDRF Code of Research Conduct is prepared and reviewed annually by the RDA Research Conduct Committee. The following presents guidelines for members to follow when dealing with scholarly works.

 

INTRODUCTION

Members of RDA/RDRF must adhere to the RDA/RDRF Code of Research Conduct in their work. RDA/RDRF Council's process for dealing with allegations of scholarly misconduct in the Association's journals and proceedings is detailed in the RDA/RDRF Research Conduct Committee Process Guidelines. In brief, if a suspected violation is reported to a journal editor or conference chair, then it may escalate up to the RDA/RDRF Honorary Secretary who may instruct the RDA/RDRF Research Conduct Committee to launch a formal investigation.

 

OVERVIEW

The body of the Code is divided into three groups of Code Items. They are listed below in summary form, with detailed interpretations and guidance in the following sections.

 

CATEGORY ONE: Codes that must ALWAYS be adhered to-

  1. Do not plagiarize

  2. Do not fabricate or falsify data, research procedures, or data analysis

  3. Do not use other people’s unpublished writings, information, ideas, concepts or data that you may see as a result of processes such as peer review without permission of the author

  4. Do not make misrepresentations to editors and conference program chairs about the originality of papers you submit to them

 

CATEGORY TWO: Codes in this category are "recommended ethical behavior"

  1. Respect the rights of research subjects, particularly their rights to information privacy, and to being informed about the nature of the research and the types of activities in which they will be asked to engage

  2. Do not abuse the authority and responsibility you have been given as an editor, reviewer or supervisor, and ensure that personal relationships do not interfere with your judgment

  3. Do not take or use published data of others without acknowledgement; do not take or use unpublished data without both permission and acknowledgement

  4. Declare any material conflict of interest that might interfere with your ability to be objective and impartial when reviewing submissions, grant applications, software, or undertaking work from outside sources

  5. Acknowledge the substantive contributions of all research participants, whether colleagues or students, according to their intellectual contribution

  6. Use archival material only in accordance with the rules of the archival source

 

ADDITIONAL ADVICE: The following suggestions are provided on how to protect yourself from authorship disputes, miss-steps, mistakes, and even legal action

  1. Keep the documentation and data necessary to validate your original authorship for each scholarly work with which you are connected

  2. Do not republish old ideas of your own as if they were a new intellectual contribution

  3. Settle data set ownership issues before data compilation

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

  • Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) Collective Bargaining Model Clause on Fraud and Misconduct in Academic Research and Scholarly Activity

  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) Integrity in Research and Scholarship Policy Statement

  • University of Minnesota - Board of Regents Policy "Code of Conduct”

  • The first version of the AIS Code of Research Conduct (September 23, 2003) was prepared by the AIS Research Conduct Committee consisting of Robert Davison, City University of Hong Kong, Malcolm Munro, University of Calgary, and Detmar Straub, Georgia State University

  • i:\ais\ais folder\administration\office management\ais administrative bulletins\admin bulletin - ais code of research conduct2.doc pp10-11

 

 

*******