Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research

The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research 2018 (commonly “the 2018 Code” or simply “the Code”) is Australia’s foundational research-integrity governance document. It was released in June 2018 by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Australian Research Council (ARC), and Universities Australia, replacing the earlier 2007 Code. It sits alongside, and is frequently confused with, the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research — the two are distinct, complementary documents issued by the same three bodies, covering different ground (see below).

What the Code covers

The Code applies to the conduct of research generally, across every discipline, not only research involving human participants. It sets out the principles and responsibilities that govern how research is designed, conducted, supervised, recorded, reported, and reviewed — including authorship, data management and retention, supervision and training, publication and dissemination of findings, peer review, conflicts of interest, and the management and investigation of potential breaches of the Code itself.

Adherence to the Code is a prerequisite for institutions receiving NHMRC or ARC funding: institutions administering that funding must agree, as a condition of their funding agreements, to comply with the Code and to have in place policies and procedures consistent with it. In practice this makes the Code binding institutional policy at essentially every Australian university and publicly funded research institution, in the same way the National Statement is binding for human-research ethics specifically.

Why 2018 replaced 2007: from rules to principles

The 2007 Code was a more detailed, rules-based document. It was widely assessed as imposing significant compliance burden on researchers and institutions without reliably preventing serious misconduct — detailed rules did not stop deliberate breaches, and a checklist-style document did little to build a genuine culture of research integrity, particularly for early-career researchers. The 2018 Code deliberately shifted to a principles-based model: a small set of overarching principles, plus a defined but non-exhaustive list of institutional and researcher responsibilities, leaving institutions to develop their own interpretive policies, procedures, and training suited to their own research profile — the same principles-plus-institutional-implementation structure the National Statement uses for human-research ethics.

The eight principles (P1–P8)

The Code articulates eight principles that are intended to underpin the conduct of all Australian research, regardless of discipline or funding source:

1. Honesty — in developing, undertaking, and reporting research.
2. Rigour — applying accepted principles of research conduct, sound methodology, and critical appraisal.
3. Transparency — in declaring interests, disclosing methods and results, and communicating findings.
4. Fairness — in the treatment of others, including in collaboration, authorship, and peer review.
5. Respect — for participants, animals, communities, and the environment involved in research.
6. Recognition of the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples — to be engaged in research that affects or is of significance to them.
7. Accountability — for the conduct of research and its outcomes.
8. Promotion of responsible research practices — embedding integrity in institutional culture, training, and supervision.

29 responsibilities: institutions (R1–R13) and researchers (R14–R29)

Beneath the eight principles, the Code sets out 29 specific responsibilities, split between the institutions that employ or host research and the individual researchers who conduct it:

• Institutional responsibilities (R1–R13) cover matters an institution controls directly: promoting a culture that fosters and values responsible conduct; developing, disseminating, implementing, and reviewing policies and procedures consistent with the Code; providing training and mentoring; managing research data and primary materials appropriately; and, notably, establishing fair, timely processes for managing and investigating potential breaches of the Code.
• Researcher responsibilities (R14–R29) cover matters within an individual researcher’s control: designing and conducting research to a high standard, maintaining accurate and complete records, disclosing conflicts of interest, ensuring authorship is attributed fairly and accurately, managing and retaining data appropriately, and cooperating with any institutional investigation of a potential breach.

The Code does not itself define exhaustive rules for every scenario (for example, it does not prescribe a single authorship standard the way some journals do) — institutions and disciplines are expected to develop consistent local guidance within the Code’s principles, which is why NHMRC has also published a series of topic-specific guides (on peer review, publication and dissemination, and other areas) to support consistent interpretation.

How institutions implement the Code

Because the Code is principles-based rather than fully prescriptive, implementation happens primarily at the institutional level, through two linked mechanisms:

Institutional research-integrity policy

Each institution bound to the Code (as a condition of NHMRC/ARC funding eligibility) must develop, disseminate, and maintain its own research-integrity policy and supporting procedures — covering areas such as authorship criteria, data management and retention periods, supervision standards, and conflict-of-interest disclosure — consistent with the Code’s principles and responsibilities. This is analogous to how a Data Management Plan operationalises a funder’s data policy at the project level, except here the institution operationalises the Code at the whole-of-institution level.

Misconduct investigation procedures

NHMRC, ARC, and Universities Australia jointly published the Guide to Managing and Investigating Potential Breaches of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, 2018 (the Investigation Guide) alongside the Code itself. It sets out a model process institutions are expected to follow when a potential breach is raised, built around procedural fairness (the right to be heard, freedom from bias, and evidence-based decision-making) and typically involving several defined institutional roles: a responsible executive officer with overall accountability, a designated officer who receives and triages concerns, assessment officers who conduct a preliminary assessment, research integrity advisers who support staff raising concerns, research integrity office staff who administer the process, and, where a full investigation proceeds, a review officer or panel. See how a research misconduct investigation actually works for the practical mechanics of this process end to end.

The Australian Research Integrity Committee (ARIC)

The Australian Research Integrity Committee (ARIC) is jointly established by NHMRC and the ARC as an internal advisory committee to the two agencies’ Chief Executive Officers. ARIC’s role is not to re-investigate or re-decide the substance (the “merits”) of a misconduct finding — it does not conduct a merits review. Instead, once an institution has completed its own investigation of a potential Code breach under the Investigation Guide, a party to that investigation can ask ARIC to review whether the institution’s process itself was conducted properly — that is, whether the institution followed proper, procedurally fair processes consistent with the Investigation Guide. ARIC then makes recommendations to the NHMRC and ARC CEOs about any procedural issues it identifies; it exists to give the Australian public and research sector confidence that institutional misconduct investigations are conducted fairly and consistently, not to substitute its own judgement for an institution’s finding of fact.

Australian Code vs. the National Statement: two distinct documents

Both documents are jointly issued by NHMRC, the ARC, and Universities Australia, both use a principles-based structure, and both bind institutions as a condition of NHMRC/ARC funding — which is why they are often mentioned together and sometimes conflated. They govern different things:

• The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research covers research-integrity conduct broadly, across every discipline and every research project regardless of whether it involves human participants — authorship, data management, supervision, peer review, conflicts of interest, and misconduct investigation.
• The National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research covers the ethical review of research involving human participants specifically — consent, risk and benefit, privacy, and the operation of Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) — and does not apply to research that has no human-participant component.

A single human-participant study is very often governed by both at once: the Code’s principles and researcher responsibilities apply to how the research is conducted and reported generally, while the National Statement (applied by the study’s HREC) governs the ethical review of the human-participant elements specifically. Neither document substitutes for the other, and an institution’s compliance with one does not imply compliance with the other.

Frequently asked questions

Is the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research a law?

No. Like the National Statement, it is not a codified statute in the way the US Common Rule (45 CFR 46) is. It binds institutions as a condition of NHMRC and ARC funding eligibility, and because nearly every Australian university and publicly funded research institution depends on that funding relationship, it is adopted as binding institutional policy across the sector in practice.

What is the difference between the Australian Code and the National Statement?

The Code covers research-integrity conduct broadly across all disciplines (authorship, data management, misconduct investigation, and more); the National Statement covers the ethical review of research involving human participants specifically. See the comparison section above — a human-participant study is typically governed by both simultaneously, for different aspects of the same project.

What happens if a researcher breaches the Code?

Their institution is responsible for assessing and, where warranted, investigating the potential breach under its own policies, developed consistent with the Investigation Guide. Outcomes can range from no further action to formal findings and sanctions, depending on the institution’s own process and the severity of the breach. A party to that investigation can subsequently ask the Australian Research Integrity Committee (ARIC) to review whether the institution’s process was conducted properly.

Does ARIC decide whether misconduct actually occurred?

No. ARIC does not conduct a merits review of the underlying finding — that is, it does not re-decide whether misconduct actually happened. It reviews whether the institution’s investigation process itself was fair and properly conducted, then makes procedural recommendations to the NHMRC and ARC CEOs.

What replaced the 2007 Code?

The 2018 Code replaced the 2007 Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. The 2007 edition was a more detailed, rules-based document; the 2018 edition deliberately moved to a principles-based structure (eight principles plus 29 institutional/researcher responsibilities) after the earlier rules-based approach was assessed as imposing compliance burden without reliably preventing serious misconduct.

References

• NHMRC, ARC and Universities Australia, “Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, 2018” (nhmrc.gov.au)
• NHMRC, “2018 Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research” overview page (nhmrc.gov.au/research-policy/research-integrity/2018-australian-code-responsible-conduct-research)
• NHMRC, ARC and Universities Australia, “Guide to Managing and Investigating Potential Breaches of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, 2018” (nhmrc.gov.au)
• NHMRC, “Australian Research Integrity Committee (ARIC)” (nhmrc.gov.au/research-policy/research-integrity/australian-research-integrity-committee-aric)
• Australian Research Council, “Australian Research Integrity Committee” (arc.gov.au/research-integrity/australian-research-integrity-committee)