Overview the Research Code for beginning researchers

The Australian government is following international trends in requiring institutions to comply, and document that they comply, with best practice research. This international trend arises through a few high profile abuses of the research process.

In the code: sections 1--8 describes required practices; sections 9--12 describe procedures to address abuses. (Most subsection headings are simple active declarative statements---this is good writing.)

1. General principles of responsible research
2. Management of research data and primary materials. Public funding of universities leads to the recognition that outputs, including data, must be available publicly. The other issue is reproducibility. For example, in computational work there is no imperative to retain output, but one must retain the programs and the input. This applies even to graphics you draw for the dissertation: you may have drawn them interactively, but ensure you store the commands and data used. Maintaining appropriate confidentiality most often applies to human related data: ensure it is stored in a way that requires at least a password (e.g. encrypted).
3. Supervision of Research Trainees. Honours and P/G students must be active in seeking guidence: usually from supervisor. Students must undertake training.
4. Publication and dissemination of research findings. Cite the relevant work of other authors fully and accurately (two assessment criteria for your dissertation). Acknowledgments disclose support. Confidentiality applies also to appropriate handling of yours/others Intellectual Property. Sometimes research is announced before being fully tested, but very arguable as 'fully tested' is unclear (e.g. neutrinos faster than light).
5. Authorship. Your dissertation is your own. But in any journal/conference publication you usually recognise the intellectual input of your supervisor by co-authorship. However, a Head of Laboratory usually has no real intellectual input and so should not be author.
6. Peer Review. Students marking U/G assignments is a form of peer review. You should be mentored. Be aware of conflicts of interest.
7. Conflicts of interest. Be aware.
8. Collaborative research across institutions. For honours students most likely to affect cross-school projects where may have to meet two sets of requirements, and manage any conflicting requirements.
9. Management of allegations of breaches. There exists a procedure. In the first instance discuss with a mentor such as supervisor or honours coordinator.

   Hint: if you have a sensitive meeting, then subsequently confirm in writing (by email perhaps) your summary of the outcomes of the meeting.