Support system for the implementation of good academic practice

1. Institutional support for the implementation of good academic practice
    1.1. Building a learning and working environment where good practice and principles of sustainable development are followed.
    1.2. Organisation of trainings in academic ethics, incl. research ethics.
    1.3. Creation of guidance documents and procedural bodies necessary for the functioning of good practice.
    1.4. Development of a competent preventive and advisory system.
    1.5. Establishment of the procedural rules for handling the cases of probable breaches of the principles of good academic practice.
2. Action when a breach of the principles of good academic practice is suspected
    2.1 Asking for advice and help before the submission of a justified notification of a suspicion or complaint
    2.2 Notifying about a suspected breach of the principles of good academic practice
3. Handling suspected breaches of the principles of good academic practice and complaints
    3.1 Principles of fair procedure
    3.2 Initial procedure for handling suspected breaches of the principles of good academic practice and complaints
    3.3 Discussing complaints and suspicions in the Ethics Committee / special committee
    3.4 Managing information related to the procedure
 

Tallinn University follows the European values in its activity. To confirm it, the Rector signed the Magna Charta Universitatum in 2009, which has over time become one of the most important basic document developing the principles and values of universities (see “Magna Charta”). 
Consequently, the aim of the university is to develop and transmit knowledge, while respecting academic freedom, maintain the community of scholars and learners committed to this activity, and to achieve high academic quality through joining research and studies.

The Tallinn University Academic Charter highlights openness, quality, professionalism and unity as our basic values, and states that the university’s mission is to support the sustainable development of Estonia. Following this, we have set the objective to become the promoter of intelligent lifestyle in Estonia. Intelligent lifestyle entails primarily science-based decisions so that both the society and citizens could cope better.

Today, Tallinn University is in the top 5% of the best universities in the world in the rankings of Times Higher Education and QS World Ranking. Thus, we can safely say that we are a science-based university. It also places an important responsibility on the university in the European value area as well as the firm prerequisite that principles agreed in the codes of ethics concerning the academic activity in Estonia and Europe are respected.

One such important agreement is the Estonian Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, signed by Tallinn University on November 1, 2017, together with 20 research and development institutions, the Estonian Research Council, and the Ministry of Education and Research. By this, we took a commitment to support more systematically the compliance with the principles of research integrity and the promotion thereof among the university members on the basis of common basic values: freedom and responsibility, honesty and objectivity, respect and consideration, fairness, and openness and cooperation.

In order to support the implementation of good academic practice, the Rector established the TLU Ethics working group in spring 2019. The aim of this group’s activity is to map these fields of activity of the university where ethical issues or risks arise (incl. research ethics, unequal or unethical treatment, disputes, academic fraud, etc.), to analyse the current practices and regulations of treating such issues and risks, to assess the development needs of this area in view of national and European regulations and agreements, and to develop proposals for optimal solutions, whereby the university’s resources have been taken into account. This document is a vision drawn up jointly by the working group and approved by the university Senate, which describes the important parts of the TLU support system for the implementation of good academic practice and provides a basis for the systemic implementation of the support system in the university. This document brings together the references to the university regulations where the current procedures and processes concerning the good academic practice have been set out.

On the proposal of the working group, the TLU Agreement on Good Academic Practice is being prepared at the same time, which deals with the principles of good practice of teaching, learning, managing, and other areas that are important in the context of academic activity, in addition to research integrity; and thus creates a comprehensive framework for rendering meaning to the various aspects of good academic practice. We will add different guidance documents and other such tools to support the implementation of good practice to the Agreement on Good Academic Practice.

By the Code of Conduct for Research Integrity already referred to above, the institutions who signed it have agreed to work with each other in the implementation of research integrity and in the development of the procedural rules for handling cases of misconduct in order to ensure the credibility of science and as equal treatment of the members of different research institutions as possible. Following this, we are carrying out our development of good academic practice in close cooperation with the Centre for Ethics of the University of Tartu and have used the instructions for applying the Code of Conduct for Research Integrity of the University of Tartu and other documents of the University of Tartu concerning good practice (see https://www.ut.ee/et/ulikoolist/head-tavad-ulikoolis) as a basis in preparing these instructions in many subsections in agreement with the University of Tartu. For the reason of easy readability, we do not separately refer to the TLU documents which provided the basis in the subsections of this document.

Academic institutions have an important role in maintaining and promoting good academic practice, incl. good science (hereinafter jointly referred to as good practice), and in ensuring the accountability of research work. The amount of these universities who have understood and expressed the importance of developing and supporting the relevant field is growing. In the European cultural space, the existence of the support system for good practice and procedural rules for handling the cases of breaches demonstrates the quality of an academic organisation, reflected also by the fact that academic ethics is one the assessed areas in the process of external assessment of our universities (see http://ekka.archimedes.ee/korgkoolile/institutsionaalne-akrediteerimine/)

Institutional responsibility involves many fields of activity that the ethics working group tried to involve comprehensively, following the general model below:

1.1.    Building a learning and working environment where good practice and the principles of sustainable development are followed

Vision: The employees feel that the selection of candidates for posts and promotion is fair and transparent. Manifestations of conflicts of interests (incl. specifically conflicts of interests in the academic world) are taken seriously in order to avoid corruption risks and nepotism. Lecturers, students, heads of structural units, researchers, etc. can be sure that they are working and studying in an environment that is safe, open and reliable, and free of discrimination. The Agreement on Good Academic Practice helps us all to contribute to building a good and sustainable learning and working environment, to keep from getting into undesirable situations, solve these, where necessary, and to be regardful towards one another.

Leading bodies at the university: Personnel Office, Academic Affairs Office.

Related regulations:
Employment Relations Rules
Study Regulations

1.2.  Organisation of trainings in academic ethics, incl. research ethics

Vision: Education in ethics and good practice is integrated in the university’s study programmes of all levels in a natural way, and forms a part of the life-long self-development of lecturers and researchers. The university ensures that all students get the basic skills and knowledge of the good functioning of research and the researcher’s responsibility at the earliest possible stage, and from experienced and competent supervisors. We pay particular attention to the new generation of lecturers and researchers. In the rapidly changing and developing world, the university’s academic staff also needs regular training in order to ensure professional development and the understanding of contemporary issues and treatments.

Leading bodies at the university: Academic Affairs Office, Division of Doctoral Studies and study programme administrators; Personnel Office and the network for supporting the professional development of staff.

Related regulations:
Statute of Study Programme
Information on the internal trainings of the university is available in the training calendar.
 

1.3.   Creation of guidance documents and procedural bodies necessary for the functioning of good practice

Vision: The university creates and makes available to its members the guidance documents, which cover different aspects and issues of the implementation of good practice. The university also offers easily accessible information that helps the members to decide whom to contact in case of questions and problems related to academic ethics. As regards novel topics, we pool our own and external experts in order to keep the existing guidance documents updated and relevant, and to develop additional guidelines where necessary. Bodies necessary for promoting and implementing good science (such as the Ethics Committee) function in the university.

Leading bodies at the university: ethics working group, the Rectorate.

Related regulations:
Statute of TLU Ethics Committee
The TLU Ethics Committee is an independent panel of experts the aim of which is to evaluate the data protection and ethical aspects of research conducted at the university in order to ensure compliance with internationally recognised ethical principles and the protection of the health, human dignity, identity, integrity and other basic rights and freedoms of people participating in research as research subjects. The Ethics Committee evaluates research conducted in TLU if the researcher considers such evaluation necessary. The Ethics Committee can also be contacted in the case of ignorance of academic customs, breach of ethical standards and disputes in accordance with the procedure set out in the statute.
The documents, guidelines for the researchers, dates of meetings of the Ethics Committee, etc. are available in the intranet of TLU.

Guidance documents:
Links to the existing guidance documents have been systematically brought together in the document formulating the principles of good practice. Guidance documents are continuously updated and added to the good practice sections referred to above.  

1.4.    Development of a competent preventive and advisory system

Vision: The university has created a preventive and advisory system concerning different aspects of academic ethics; an important part of this system is formed by the advisors with good knowledge of ethics, corresponding personal characteristics, good repute and good academic and/or scientific results, who can be contacted with different questions and dilemmas. The parties of the advisory system ensure high-quality support through systemic self-development.

Leading bodies at the university: ethics working group, the Personnel Office, the Rectorate.

The proposal of the ethics working group for the establishment of the advisory system:
In addition to the already existing 0.5 position of the chairperson of the Ethics Committee, to create two centrally financed part-time positions: the Psychologist-Counsellor (position created in the Personnel Office in September 2020 with the title Counsellor) and the Commissioner for Equal Treatment. As the university’s resources are limited, we consider beginning with the volume of small workload (i.e. 0.25 + 0.25) in these positions. As the extension of the advisory system, to create a voluntary discipline-specific network of research ethics advisors. The advisory system and the network include the already existing employees of the Career and Counselling Centre who counsel students. In the future, it is appropriate to consider possibilities of involving students who are acquiring the relevant professional skills for the role of counsellors, e.g. as professional placement, etc.
In matters pertaining to equal treatment and research integrity outside the scope of the Study Regulations, students may contact the Commissioner for Equal Treatment or the chairperson of the Ethics Committee, accordingly. Thus, a double procedural system for the staff and students will not be developed in the university.
A general model of the advisory and procedural system of good academic practice has been presented in the figure below and explained in detail:

The role of the chairperson of the Ethics Committee in counselling:

• the main role is connected to handling the cases, but the chairperson can give advice, where necessary, if a person wishes to understand whether and how to submit a formal complaint, etc. and take the role of the conciliator with the consent of the parties;
• participates in the work of the TLU advisors of research integrity and keeps our network of research ethics advisors informed or agrees on sharing this role with the research ethics advisor(s). (We have an agreement with the University of Tartu that they accept this, if we pay in the amount equal to their advisors, which they have agreed to be EUR 10.000 a year per advisor).

 
Research ethics advisors are the university’s academic employees, or employees with academic experience and competence, i.e. persons who have been academically recognised and competent in research ethics. Upon approving the discipline-specific advisors, we follow the disciplines determined by the TLU doctoral studies councils, i.e. there are four advisors in total (accordingly, in the humanities, natural sciences, social sciences and educational sciences), the principle of rotation, that is, we appoint the advisors for a maximum of 3 years, and the principle of openness, i.e. all university members can make justified proposals as regards the advisors. The Ethics Committee discusses the proposals and makes a justified proposal, in turn, to the Vice-Rector for Research for approving the discipline-specific research ethics advisors.

The role of a research ethics advisor is carried out by agreement as a part of academic institutional activity within the agreed workload or as additional duty. Where possible, targeted project-based means are used for remunerating the advisor.

Research ethics advisors:

• are the first contact persons in their discipline who can be addressed in the case of questions concerning adherence to the principles of research integrity or in case of suspicion of a breach of the principles of research integrity;
• help to prepare a complaint, where necessary, or send the person asking for help to the right person/body in the university (such as the Personnel Office or a member of the advisory system, depending on the specific case).

The Psychologist-Counsellor preferably has the background of an occupational psychologist or in another field of psychology and is a member of the staff of the Personnel Office. Their main role includes:

• supporting the mental health of the university employees, incl. identifying and evaluating the problems one faces in personal and professional life, and the problems in the cooperation of units and teams;
• counselling the university as regards the activities supporting mental health, incl. activities planned for the promotion of the employees’ mental health, in the planning of actions and activities for the management of psychosocial hazards in the university’s working environment, and making proposals regarding trainings on mental health for the employees and other such development activities;
• cooperation with the counsellors of the Career and Counselling Centre, if the case of the employee receiving counselling is linked to a student, so that the division of roles could be clear.

The Psychologist-Counsellor sends the employee who contacted them to other parties of the advisory system or other employees of the university for advice or solution, where necessary.

Students receive support from the counsellors of the Career and Counselling Centre whose role includes:

• counselling students (incl. exchange students) and prospective students in the case of a suspected breach of the principles of good practice related to interpersonal relationships, and supporting them, where necessary, in submitting a justified complaint;
• in the cases that concern relations between students and the university staff and disputes, counselling students in cooperation with the psychologist who counsels the employees.

 
The Commissioner for Equal Treatment preferably has a social science background and knows the legislation in the field of equal treatment and gender equality, and other relevant legal acts; is a member of the Management Support Office and has been employed by the Rector. The Commissioner for Equal Treatment constitutes the first point of contact for all persons connected to the university in matters of disagreements and conflicts as regards equal treatment, where the essence of the problem is mapped and either handled or sent to the appropriate unit; in the latter case, the Commissioner for Equal Treatment has the right and obligation to ask about the process (incl. to gain access to the documents related to the case). The Commissioner for Equal Treatment must be independent of the management of the university and other parties. 

The duties of the Commissioner for Equal Treatment broadly divide into two scopes of work:
a)   dealing with complaints or reacting to cases where there is a reason to suspect unequal treatment, e.g. discrimination on the basis of gender or other bases, harassment, payment of unequal remuneration, etc. Participating in handling these complaints (elaborated in Section 4 on the procedure for handling suspected breaches of good academic practice and complaints). This also includes advising the university employees on possible cases of unequal treatment and issues on equal treatment;
b)   promotion of gender equality and equal treatment in the university, i.e. the proactive role:

• creating and improving basic documents of equal treatment (incl. adding the objectives of gender equality and equal treatment to the university’s strategy documents);
• advises the university staff in the preparation of regulations etc. from the aspect of ensuring equal treatment;
• in the process of the establishment of regulations, provides the assessment whether equal treatment has been ensured;
• introduces the principles of gender equality and equal treatment to the university staff, the position of the Commissioner for Equal Treatment;
• conducts or helps to organise trainings and communication activities concerning issues of equal treatment in employment relationships and the fields of activity of the university (e.g. gender equality in research projects, etc.), advises researchers, where necessary, on how to take into account the gender aspect and other gender equality principles in research projects;
• prepares regular reports on the complaints submitted and processed to the university’s management and staff, and on the situation of gender equality and equal treatment in the university (e.g. the gender pay gap).

Requirements for the person filling the position, necessary skills and knowledge for the successful performance of the listed duties, incl.

• good knowledge of equal treatment and gender equality, primarily in the context of organisations; relevant professional experience;
• knowledge of gender equality and equal treatment legislation;
• cooperation and communication skills;
• strategic thinking;
• skills and willingness to promote equal treatment in the university.

When one contacts the Psychologist-Counsellor and the Commissioner for Equal Treatment, the anonymity of the person must be ensured, if they so wish, and the counsellor must ensure confidentiality.

In the course of counselling / advising, the Psychologist-Counsellor and the Commissioner for Equal Treatment may consult, in agreement with the person who contacted them, other counsellors, employees of the Centre for Ethics of the University of Tartu or TLU employees (i.e. the staff of the Personnel Office, lawyers, etc.), ensuring that third persons will not find out the name of the person in question or other sensitive circumstances which may harm concrete persons.
 

1.5.   Establishment of the procedural rules for handling the cases of probable breaches of the principles good academic practice

Vision: The university has established clear procedural rules, on the basis of which one can notify of the suspected breaches of good academic practice and handle these cases. Following the procedural rules, it is possible to: 1) resolve disputes and through these solutions create models for similar situations (educational objective), 2) give the opportunity to submit complaints for people who feel that they have been treated in an unfair and/or unethical manner, and 3) in more severe cases, impose sanctions on the one who breaches the principles of good academic practice, incl. research integrity.

Leading bodies at the university: ethics working group, the Ethics Committee, the Rectorate.

Related regulations:
TLU Study Regulations
Statute of TLU Ethics Committee

See the schematic presentation of the advisory and procedural system of good academic practice under clause 1.4.

Breaches of the principles of good academic practice, incl. research integrity, can be divided into major and minor. Breaches of the principles of good practice that have serious negative consequences and have been committed knowingly, as a result of utter negligence or carelessness in a situation where it is reasonable to assume that the person can or should foresee the consequences, are major. Major breaches of the principles of research integrity such as falsification, fabrication and plagiarism (FFP), allowing unauthorised access to research subjects’ personal data or unauthorised publication of these, commencement of research that involves ethical risks without the approval of the Ethics Committee, etc. may be brought as examples. If a person has made a mistake in a situation where it was difficult to foresee the consequences and these are not serious, the case should not be treated as a major breach of the principles of research integrity and this should be taken into account in the imposition of punishment or possible corrective actions. The breach of good practice also means that an employee or student of the university or the university do not fulfil their duties.
 
In cases of suspected cases of breaches of the principles of good academic practice, incl. research integrity, or one simply wishes to receive advice, it is recommended to first act in accordance with the general organisation of work at the university by contacting one’s immediate supervisor or head of unit; in the case of matters relating to employment relationships, also a specialist in the Personnel Office or other such officials. For students, the first contact persons are the study counsellor, study programme administrator, head of studies of an academic unit and the director. At the same time, practical experience suggests that in many situations, issues of academic ethics (incl. disputes) are directly or indirectly interconnected with employment and power relationships, which may hamper solving these issues impartially in accordance with the normal procedure. In such cases, it is wise to use the advisory system of good academic practice developed in the university or the system for processing the breaches of academic ethics described below (see also the schematic presentation of the advisory and procedural system of good academic practice under clause 1.4.).

2.1   Asking for advice or help before the submission of a justified notification of a suspicion or complaint

If university members have questions concerning the compliance with the principles of good academic practice or they suspect that there have been breaches of good academic practice, they may contact the following persons for advice:

a.    discipline-specific research ethics advisor;
b.    the Psychologist-Counsellor (counsellor of staff in the Personnel Office and students’ counsellors in the Career and Counselling Centre);
c.    university’s Commissioner for Equal Treatment;
d.    directly the chairperson of the Ethics Committee (hereinafter collectively referred to as the advisor).

Advice may be requested from multiple members of the advisory system, but it is good practice in such a case that the person asking for advice informs the particular advisor of the fact that they have also turned to other persons for advice.

To ask questions or to speak about the suspicions, the person need not definitely prove their suspicions. The advisor is obliged to guarantee the confidentiality of the communication and to protect the university member asking for advice or speaking of their suspicions from harmful consequences. Asking for advice does not obligate the person to submit a complaint.

When asking for advice, it is not essential whether the person turns to the advisor because of an incident that happened to himself/herself or to a third person. Advice can be asked both orally and in writing. Asking for advice and giving it should be as informal for university members as possible. Asking for advice is not documented and it is not followed by any official procedure. The advisor can still take notes about the circumstances of the case or the general description of the problem by drawing up a generalised summary of the worries of the person(s) who contacted them, and, where necessary and in agreement with the person who contacted him/her, consult other advisors, staff of the Centre for Ethics of the University of Tartu or TLU staff (e.g. employees of the Personnel Office, lawyers, etc.). In such a case, the advisor must guarantee the confidentiality of the person who contacted him/her, i.e. the advisor cannot disclose the person’s name or the circumstances on the basis of which the person may be easily identified, or which may harm the concrete person or further handling of the case.

Depending on the essence of the problem, the advisor can recommend to the person who contacted them to turn, for the next consultation, to their immediate superior or the head of the structural unit, or to prepare and submit a notification of a substantiated suspicion regarding a breach of good practice. In the latter case, the advisor may help the person who contacted them in the formalisation of the notification of a substantiated suspicion. In case that the person who contacted the advisor does not want to be involved in the proceedings, but reliable prima facie justification/verification exists on the suspected breach and the suspected breach is severe enough for the university to intervene, the advisor may turn to
the chairperson of the Ethics Committee with the suspected breach of the principles of research integrity. In this case, the advisor must guarantee the person’s confidentiality throughout the further proceedings. Still, it should be taken into account that the lack of witnesses may make proving the suspected breach of the principles of good academic practice difficult and the advisor should use such an option only in exceptional cases, where the damage caused by the potential breach or inaction justifies it.

2.2   Notifying about a suspected breach of the principles of good academic practice

Every university member, member of the university’s management body and an external person (if the case concerns Tallinn University or its members) who has a substantiated suspicion that a breach of the principles of good academic practice has occurred may notify about it.

There are two options for notifying about a suspected breach of the principles of good practice. The cases where the person who notifies of the breach has no personal interests or claims are treated as suspicions. The cases where a university member or an external person has personal interests or claims are treated as complaints. Complaints cannot be submitted
anonymously, as the aim of the complaint is the protection of a person’s rights or interests, e.g. arguments concerning the attribution of authorship or use of data. Suspicions can be submitted anonymously, but it should be considered that, if problems concerning finding additional information on the case occur during the proceedings, and the breach cannot be proved, the case will be dismissed.

The Commissioner for Equal Treatment, research ethics advisor and head of unit also have the prudent right to submit a substantiated suspicion if a university member contacts them, but a solution is not found as a result of this initial communication and the person himself/herself does not wish to submit the suspicion.

The notification of a substantiated suspicion is usually submitted to the chairperson of the Ethics Committee, but in the case of disputes and suspected unfair treatment, notification of a substantiated suspicion may also be submitted to the Commissioner for Equal Treatment. The content of the communication and the person who submits it are confidential, but the persons conducting the procedure can acquaint themselves with the materials. All persons related to the procedure must keep the obligation of confidentiality. As regards ignoring academic customs, breaches of ethical norms and disputes related to students, applications are submitted and cases handled usually in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Study
Regulations of the university. In cases that are not governed by the Study Regulations, one can contact the chairperson of the Ethics Committee or the Commissioner for Equal Treatment. If, on the basis of the general organisation of work, the head of unit is contacted first, it must be weighed whether the communication is consultative (see subsection 4.1.) or it is a notification of a substantiated suspicion (suspicion or complaint). In the latter case, the head of unit tries to find a solution to the problem and if they succeed, later submits a short description of the problem and the result to the chairperson of the Ethics Committee. The information is used for the collection of statistics on cases of suspected breaches of the principles of good academic practice which have come up and been solved at the university. If the problem cannot be solved in the unit, it will be forwarded to the chairperson of the Ethics Committee. In order to avoid the simultaneous handling of the same case by the head of unit, the chairperson of the Ethics Committee and the Commissioner for Equal Treatment, the person to whom the substantiated suspicion or complaint has been submitted whether it is appropriate to inform the other officials referred to above or what are the suitable solutions to avoid possible simultaneous handling. Where necessary, it is agreed who will handle the case further. The chairperson of the Ethics Committee is under no obligation to forward the submitted suspicion and complaint applications to the committee for processing. They have the discretion and decision-making powers regarding the following action:

a)    to forward the case to the Ethics Committee for processing in the context of the suspected breach of the principles of research integrity;

b)    to make a proposal to the Rector for setting up a case-based procedure committee;

c)    to deem the circumstances brought in the application as not contradictory to the good practice, and thus not to initiate the procedure, forwarding the corresponding decision to the submitter of the complaint together with a justification. As regards disputes etc., the situation may, however, require intervention for restoring good professional relationships, etc. – in such a case, the chairperson of the Ethics Committee may take the role of the conciliator in agreement with the submitter of the complaint or initiate the process of finding the solution according to the powers assigned to the university’s units and persons. Upon making the decision, the chairperson of the Ethics Committee assesses the extent of the possible infringement on the private lives of the connected persons, the appropriateness of processing the case in the committee resulting from the time it happened, etc. The Commissioner for Equal Treatment has the discretion and decision-making powers regarding suspicion and complaint applications in matters of disputes and unfair treatment whether:

a)    to make a proposal to the Rector for setting up a case-based procedure committee;

b)    to deem the circumstances brought in the application as not contradictory to the good practice, and thus not to initiate the procedure. As regards disputes etc., the situation may, however, require intervention for restoring good professional relationships, etc. – in such a case, the Commissioner for Equal Treatment may take the role of the conciliator in agreement with the submitter of the complaint or initiate the process of finding the solution according to the powers assigned to the university’s units and persons. The case-based procedure committee includes at least three members, and for cases of
disputes and suspected unfair treatment the Commissioner for Equal Treatment is always involved in the work of the Ethics Committee or procedure committee. The chairperson of the Ethics Committee does not have to, but may be a member of the case-based procedure committee.
 
Guidelines for submitting suspicion and complaint applications on suspected breaches are drawn up by the Ethics Committee and the Commissioner for Equal Treatment in cooperation, and made available on the university’s webpage. The chairperson of the Ethics Committee records all materials related to the submitted complaints and suspicions, and these are used for the collection of statistics on cases of suspected breaches of the principles of good academic practice which have come up and
solved at the university, prepared under the responsibility of the secretary of the Ethics Committee. As regards the submitted suspicions and complaints, the Commissioner for Equal Treatment records the materials and submits them to the chairperson of the Ethics Committee for the collection of statistics. In notifying about a suspected breach of the principles of good academic practice, one must consider that:

1)    the person who submitted the suspicion or complaint will be summoned to the Ethics Committee, procedure committee or official as a witness to answer additional questions. To protect the rights of the parties, each person summoned to the committee has the right to ask for advice and help from a legal expert or a person they trust. In this case, the helper will also participate in the meeting with the committee;

2)    the action which caused the suspicion or complaint may not be proved, in which case the procedure is terminated and no further action will follow;

3)    in the case of a minor violation or interpersonal disagreements, the situation is resolved by conciliation or corrective action.

3.1  Principles of fair procedure

On the basis of Section 5 of the Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, the transparency of the process and impartial and fair treatment of all parties must be ensured when handling suspicions and complaints concerning the breach of the principles of research integrity (see 5.4.2.). In addition, bona fide whistleblowers and the dignity and private life of all parties must be protected (see 5.4.3.), and the confidentiality of the procedure must be ensured (see 5.4.3.). The essential procedural principles are explained below.

Impartiality presumes impartial treatment of the person against whom the accusation has been made. This means, inter alia, that the person must not be considered guilty before their guilt has been proved. This also presumes that the assessment of the circumstances of the case must be as objective and prudent as possible. Persons closely connected to the case or its participants cannot be case handlers. If necessary, a substitute who has no personal relation to the case must be found for the chairperson of the Ethics Committee, the officials handling the case, incl. the members of the Ethics Committee or the Rector.

Justice presumes weighing all circumstances in the assessment of the suspicion and the complaint, incl. for instance, the earlier activities of the person against whom the complaint or suspicion has been launched, the severity and intentionality of the breach, the damage caused by the breach to third parties or the potential damage to the reputation of the university. Justice presumes that the university’s reaction to the complaint and suspicion, and to the assessment given as the result of the procedure is proportional to the breach committed by the person. Therefore, disciplinary sanctions should be applied only in the case of severe breaches, where the person is directly guilty. In the case of less severe cases, other corrective action should be preferred.

Transparency presumes that the whole procedure is understandable to the person against whom the complaint or suspicion has been launched and can be followed by them. Essential materials and information that could have significant impact on the assessments on their activities must not be concealed from them during the procedure. Transparency also presumes that procedure for handling suspicions and complaints, the persons participating in the relevant discussion and the final assessment are understandable to persons who did not participate in the procedure. In exceptional cases, the person responsible for the procedure may decide to declare the procedural materials either partially or completely public because of great public interest. If possible, all materials used in the procedure must be documented in the digital form.

Protection of participants means that the private life and dignity of all persons involved in the procedure is sufficiently protected. In general, the bona fide whistleblower should also be protected, which means that their person is not revealed to the persons participating in the procedure. In exceptional cases, if there is sufficient evidence that the suspicion or complaint
was malevolent, the submitter of the suspicion can be made public. Protection of private life and dignity presumes that all the persons participating in the procedure are under the obligation of confidentiality. Particular care should be taken that the circumstances concerning persons’ private lives and damaging their reputation do not become public before the end of the
procedure. To this end, a confidentiality agreement is concluded with all the participants in the procedure, where necessary.

Timeliness presumes that the procedure is conducted without unsubstantiated delay and the reaction to suspicions and complaints is immediate. Timeliness requires prompt action from the persons conducting the procedure in situations which need intervention to avoid damage or where there is substantiated doubt that the evidence may become outdated.

3.2   Initial procedure for handling suspected breaches of the principles of good academic practice and complaints

Suspicions and complaints regarding a breach of the principles of research integrity which have not been solved at the level of the unit, are initially assessed by the chairperson of the Ethics Committee or the Commissioner for Equal Treatment, who, as the first step, documents each submitted suspicion or complaint. In order to avoid the simultaneous processing of the same case by the head of unit, the chairperson of the Ethics Committee and the Commissioner for Equal Treatment, the person to whom the substantiated suspicion or complaint has been submitted immediately informs the other employees referred to above. Where necessary, it is agreed who will handle the case further.

The person/persons suspected of the breach of the principles of research integrity are informed of receiving the suspicion or complaint. In the interests of procedural fairness, the notification should also include information on the suspect’s rights and options to defend themselves.

During the initial assessment of the case, the chairperson of the Ethics Committee and the Commissioner for Equal Treatment have the right to collect additional information on the circumstances of the case and to speak to the university members for this purpose. The university members are obliged to help the chairperson of the Ethics Committee / the
Commissioner for Equal Treatment during the assessment of the case, to give oral statements and to submit written materials. The collected information must also be documented and connected with the initial assessment given on the complaint or suspicion regarding the breach of the principles of research integrity.

Upon making the initial decision, the chairperson of the Ethics Committee / the Commissioner for Equal Treatment assesses the extent of the possible infringement on the private lives of the connected person, the appropriateness of processing the case in a broader body (committee) resulting from the time it happened, etc. Following the Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, the severity of the breach and the earlier conduct of the transgressor must be considered in processing the complaint or suspicion regarding its breach, and a difference should be made between deliberate breaches and honest errors (Code of Conduct for Research Integrity 5.4.4). Thus, it is possible that each time a breach of the principles of research integrity is ascertained, the complaint or suspicion is not automatically forwarded to the Ethics Committee / case-based committee, especially when the breach was caused by an honest error or it was a one-time minor breach.

The initial assessment of the chairperson of the Ethics Committee and the Commissioner for Equal Treatment can be one of the following:

1)   termination of the processing of the complaint or suspicion regarding the breach of the principles of research integrity – if the materials collected during the procedure do not refer to the breach of the principles of good academic practice;

2)   forwarding the complaint or suspicion regarding the breach of the principles of research integrity to another institution – if the materials collected during the assessment show that some other institution would be more suitable for handling the breach. For instance, in the case of a violation of valid legal norms, rules of another research institution or the approval of the Ethics Committee;

3)   solving the problem within the competences assigned to the university’s units and persons – in the case of a minor breach which can be solved by corrective actions, or if the situation contradicting good academic practice can be solved within the competences assigned to the university employee(s). If the submitter of the complaint agrees, the chairperson of the Ethics Committee / the Commissioner for Equal Treatment can forward the issue to the head(s) of the unit(s). It may also be possible to find a solution that satisfies all parties. In such a case, the proceeding is terminated;

4)   forwarding the suspicion or complaint regarding a breach of the principles of research integrity to the Ethics Committee or making a proposal to the Rector for setting up a case-based procedure committee – if the breach of the principles of research integrity is severe and needs further investigation and identification of the person who is responsible for the breach. In such a
case, the chairperson of the Ethics Committee prepares and submits a summary and appropriate materials on the suspicion or complaint to the members of the Ethics Committee or case-based procedure committee.

In handling a suspicion or complaint regarding a breach of the principles of research integrity, fair treatment of all parties must be ensured. If the suspicion or complaint regarding a breach of the principles of research integrity concerns a particular person, but their error or guilt is not revealed, actions to restore the person’s damaged reputation must be implemented, where necessary.

If the submitter of a suspicion or complaint regarding a breach of the principles of research integrity is not satisfied with the result of the initial proceedings, they have a right to ask for a secondary assessment. If the suspicion or complaint is submitted for a secondary assessment, the chairperson of the Ethics Committee or the Commissioner for Equal Treatment
is obliged to initiate the proceedings either in the case-based procedure committee or in the Ethics Committee. Thus, the suspicion or complaint regarding a breach of the principles of research integrity can be forwarded to the Ethics Committee by the chairperson of the Ethics Committee for the purpose of proceedings only if:

1)    they have assessed the initial suspicion or complaint and found that this could be a severe breach of the principles of research integrity, the proceedings of which in the broader Ethics Committee is appropriate and justified, or

2)    the submitter of the suspicion or complaint wishes to receive a secondary assessment.

3.3   Discussing complaints and suspicions in the Ethics Committee and the case-based procedure
committee

If, on the basis of the initial assessment of the chairperson of the Ethics Committee or the Commissioner for Equal Treatment, proceedings of a suspicion or complaint regarding a breach of the principles of research integrity are initiated in the Ethics Committee / special committee, all following meetings and decisions will be documented.

In the course of the proceedings for a suspicion or complaint regarding a breach of the principles of research integrity, the committee has the right to collect additional information on the circumstances of the case and speak to the university staff. Where necessary, the committee may also interview the person who submitted the suspicion or complaint regarding a
breach of the principles of research integrity, if this does not unduly harm their interests. Each person summoned to the committee has the right to ask for legal advice or other advice from a person they trust. In this case, the obligation of confidentiality also extends to that person.

The accused person has the right to see all the materials collected to prove their guilt. To ensure the fair treatment of the parties, it is recommended to summon the submitter of the complaint and the accused person to the committee separately.
Depending on the circumstances of the case, the committee may make one the following decisions:

1)    to cancel the suspicion or complaint regarding a breach of the principles of research integrity – if the materials collected in the course of the proceedings do not refer to a breach of good practice or the breach cannot be proved on the basis of the collected material;

2)    to forward the suspicion or complaint regarding a breach of the principles of research integrity to another institution – if the materials collected during the assessment show that some other institution would be more suitable for handling the breach. For instance, in the case of a violation of valid legal norms, rules of another research institution or the approval of the Ethics Committee;

3)   to confirm the suspicion or complaint regarding a breach of the principles of research integrity (partially) - if it is a severe breach of a principle of research integrity and the guilt of the person(s) has been proved.

In the case of confirming the suspicion or complaint, the committee draws up a final summary of all essential proofs and adds its substantiation, why, in the assessment of the committee, a breach of the good practice has occurred. In more severe cases, the chairperson of the procedural body sends the assessment of the committee (incl. the summary of the case and
recommendations on potential sanctions) to the rector of the university. The rector makes the final decision whether and which sanctions are to be implemented. In less severe cases, the assessment is sent to the heads of the connected units, whose responsibility is to organise corrective actions.

A more detailed procedure for handling suspicions or complaints regarding a breach of the principles of research integrity is set out in the Statute of TLU Ethics Committee. If the parties involved in the suspicion or complaint should have any claims after receiving the assessment of the committee, they have the right to submit additional opinions or evidence once within a reasonable time period to the committee, on which assessment has not yet been provided. In this case, the committee examines the case again and forms its final assessment, taking into account the additional materials and opinions. In addition to the action referred to above, it is not possible to challenge the assessment of the committee within the university.   

3.4   Managing information related to the procedure

The ascertained breaches must be documented. Documentation is necessary so that all potential breaches of the principles of research integrity would leave a trace and, where necessary, could be accessible afterwards. For the sake of transparency, all the documents and other materials of the procedure should be in digital form and linked to one another. Materials
processed in the special committee are forwarded by the chairperson of the committee to the chairperson of the Ethics Committee in order to ensure the preservation of the information on cases in a uniform system.

Essential outcomes of handling the breaches of good practice can become models or precedents for future cases, but they also have an educational purpose, e.g. for discussions in courses of research ethics. Therefore, the chairperson of the Ethics Committee publishes short anonymous summaries of processed cases. At that, the privacy and dignity of all parties must be protected; therefore, the published information can only include a short general description of the case, its assessment and the final decision.

In substantiated cases, if there is great public interest in the case, the chairperson of the Ethics Committee has the right to publish the information related to the complaint or suspicion after the end of the procedure. Materials of earlier procedures must be accessible according to the need, considering, on the one hand, the interests of the public and the university, and, on the other hand, the need to protect the right of the parties of the procedure to privacy. Thus, depending on the circumstances of the case and the persons’ interests, the materials can also remain confidential after the end of the handling of the suspicion or complaint regarding the breach of good practice.

Access of the heads of university’s units to the materials related to their subjects must not be allowed by default, but it is for the chairperson of the Ethics Committee to decide in which cases access by third persons is substantiated. Primarily, such access is justified in the case of proved breaches after which sanctions or corrective actions are implemented.