Research Misconduct Reporting
This platform may be used by any person (“Reporting Person”) to report any allegation of Research Misconduct committed by an NUS Staff (Respondent).
“Research Misconduct” is defined as fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or any questionable research practices or wrongdoing in proposing, designing, performing, recording, supervising or reviewing research, or in reporting research data/results, in paragraph 5.3 of NUS Code and Procedures for Academic and Research Integrity (the Code).
This reporting channel is independently managed by the ARCIO to facilitate objective investigation into the allegation in accordance with the Code.
Under the NUS Whistleblowing Policy, Reporting Persons are encouraged to identify themselves1 and to cooperate fully with ARCIO’s investigations2.
After receiving the report, ARCIO will conduct a preliminary assessment based on the information provided. If no prima facie case can be made out or it is determined that an investigation is not required, ARCIO will inform a Reporting Person who has identified him/herself3.
If there is a prima facie case, a thorough investigation will be carried out. ARCIO’s investigation will be for purposes of assessing the merits of the allegation. ARCIO’s assessment will be submitted to the Evaluation Authority4, including for further review or determination of follow-up action(s) if any, required to be taken against the Respondent.
Reporting Persons are advised that as due process will apply to all investigations against any NUS Staff, a Reporting Person who is an NUS Staff requiring any interim action to be taken to redress his/her grievance should approach his/her supervisors5, Dean or Head or OHR for help.
If you wish to proceed to make a report, please email arcio@nus.edu.sg.
Thank you.
Notes
1 NUS Whistleblowing Policy:-
(5.2) The Whistleblower is encouraged to identify himself/herself and provide his/her contact details. In the case where the whistleblower is an NUS staff member and he/she wishes to remain anonymous, he/she may make a report with his/her supervisor or another staff member whom he/she trusts, who in turn reports it through the dedicated channels while keeping the whistleblower’s identity anonymous where possible. Concerns raised anonymously are much less persuasive and may hinder investigation work as it is difficult to look into the matter or to protect the whistleblower’s position. Accordingly, consideration will be given to these factors:
a. Severity of issue raised.
b. Credibility of the concern or information.
c. Likelihood of confirming the concern or information from attributable sources.
(5.3) After making a report, the Whistleblower should refrain from further investigation of the incident, confrontation of the accused or further discussion of the incident. If he or she has identified himself/herself, he or she will be contacted by the investigation team to provide additional information or clarification, where appropriate.
2 Including attending in-person interviews with ARCIO investigators designated for the case and furnishing to ARCIO of document and information evidentiary of and related to the allegation
3 See footnote 1 on paragraph 5.3 of the NUS Whistleblowing Policy.
4 As defined in the Staff Disciplinary Procedures and Sanctions (SDP)
5 As defined in the SDP
