 Welcome everyone. This is a webinar around the management of data and information in research guide and the related code for the responsible conduct of research. I'm Adrian Burton. We'll also have Justin Withers from the ARC. Before we begin, I'd like to acknowledge and celebrate the first Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and pay our respect to the elders past and present. Over the last couple of years, the authors of the co-authors of the guide for the responsible conduct of research, that's Universities Australia, NHMRC and ARC, have been updating the code and bringing out a series of guides related to the code in our fairly mostly unregulated or self-regulated, the self-regulated system that we have for research in Australia. This policy document is the sort of peak statement about research integrity and the updating of the code and the related guides is a very important development in the research sector. So the ARDC is facilitating a number of webinars around this change and particularly we are focusing in on the guide to the management of data and information. So today we have a series of events. Today's event is really to familiarise ourselves with the changes in both the code and the related data guide, which was the abbreviation I'll use. So it's really to get an idea of what the changes are and have a clear idea of what the responsibilities of researchers and research organisations are in this area. So that will be today's event and we'll adjust into a briefing about that. Tomorrow and next week we have two workshops, which are having established what data management, what the responsibilities and roles of different actors are. We'll have two workshops to exchange information about what good data management practices are and what experience the institutions have had in implementing those. So there's one workshop tomorrow targeted at universities and there's one in exactly one week's time for the MRIs. Today we've got Mr Justin Withers who's the Director of Access International and Integrity at the Australian Research Council who will be giving us a background to the changes and the new content of the code and the related data guide. Justin. Thanks Adrian. What I'll do now is I'll share my screen and we'll get rolling. So hopefully you can all see my screen. So let's get moving. All right. Okay, so today I'm going to talk about primarily funder's expectations in relation to data management. That will be focusing on the data management guide in a lot of detail. But I'd also like to take the opportunity to just set the scene about the research funding landscape in Australia. Talk briefly about the development of the new version of the Australian Code for the Responsible Connective Research which was released in 2018. Also I've got a slide on the national statement on ethical conduct in human research which is part of the suite of documents and guides that are in place to support and underpin the ethical conduct of research in Australia. And then following on from the data guide where I'll talk about responsibilities of institutions and also of researchers. I'll also touch on ARC and NHMRC expectations regarding the management and access of data that's produced as a result of our funding. So Australian government investment in R&D the last one each year was $9.6 billion across a variety of portfolios. It's quite a unique funding system here in Australia where the delivery of R&D funds is quite diverse through a number of portfolios including industry, education, health, defence and other agencies such as environment and agriculture. Of the funding that's delivered they're $9.6 billion. That's directly related to the Australian Code. There is about $800 million that comes from the ARC and an equivalent amount of money that is delivered through NHMRC. And part of the requirements for receiving that funding is an explicit adherence to the code and it's supporting documentation. So that is included in all of the ARC and NHMRC guidelines and funding rules. So for those of you who are not familiar I'll just touch on the purpose and key activities of the ARC and then likewise the same for the NHMRC. So ARC has been around in one shape or form for quite some time but in its current form there was some legislation introduced in 2001 the ARC Act which basically sets out what the responsibilities of the ARC are and they're delivered through three key activities. Key activity one is funding the highest quality research. Activity two is assessing the quality and engagement impact of research delivered through train universities and also we provide advice to the government on science and research matters. We're part of the education portfolio and as a result we report directly to the Minister for Education. The NHMRC, I like to refer them to the MZR sister agency. We work very closely and hand in glove with each other. The ARC funds all disciplines including the very basic side of biology and medical research but all clinical research is delivered through the NHMRC whose budget is slightly larger than ours and their three key missions and themes are investing in high quality health and medical research to build research capability within Australia, supporting the translation of health and medical research in a clinical practice and also maintaining a strong integrity framework for research and guideline development to underpin rigorous research practices in Australia. So whilst the ARC and NHMRC and UA are co-authors of the code and a number of other accompanying documents the secretariat support and the driver for that development of that information is generally res with the NHMRC. At the moment they're also delivering a number of programs under the Medical Research Future Fund which was established in 2015. That's a $20 billion perpetual fund where the interest earned on that investment is drawn down and and directed towards strategic health related research and a lot of those schemes are delivered through NHMRC whilst they're managed primarily through the Department of Health. A couple of years ago NHMRC also went through a bit of a revisit and review of the way they delivered their funding and came up with a revised funding stream of four main streams, investor data grants, synergy grants, ideas grants and strategic and leveraging grants. So they cover off various aspects of medical research through those grants. So the next slide looks at the framework for the Responsible Connective Research. I'll get rid of all these bubbles. Someone who did this for me, didn't tell me they were flying in like that. But anyway, so essential to the framework is the code. The Australian code for the Responsible Connective Research and it's essential to our research integrity framework. It's been in place known as the code since 2007. There was a previous document before that pending 96 by the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee but it took on its name of the Australian code in 2007 and it was revised again in 2000 or released in 2018 after a couple of years of revision. So I'd like to emphasise here that research integrity in Australia is a shared responsibility. So the ARC and NHMRC as the two largest government funders of competitive grants have worked with UA to develop the code and supporting documents. Research institutions themselves have primary responsibility for maintaining research integrity and ensuring the concerns about potential breaches of the code are appropriately addressed. So the code is supported by other codes and statements including the National Statement which covers research with human subjects. There's also supporting documentation regarding research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities and also AACSIS has just released a revised code on research involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders peoples and communities and that is part of the system of research integrity underpinning the responsible research in Australia. ARC and NHMRC funding guidelines and funding agreements require compliance with the code and the other codes and statements as a condition of funding. So the research that we do fund are legally obliged to adhere to the principles in these documents. As well as these as the codes and documents, NHMRC and ARC also have policies in place, research integrity policies that require institutions to report relevant breaches of the code to us and also provide mechanisms for our organisations to apply actions and consequential actions in response of breaches to the code. So it basically opens up a line of communication for us to be across research integrity issues at universities. It makes the system transparent particularly to us given that we are providing a fair amount of support for that research. Now given that research integrity in Australia is primarily a self-managed system where institutions themselves are responsible for I guess investigating themselves, there's an avenue of appeal to make sure that those processes are all above board and that is the Australian Research Integrity Committee. So they're designed to assure integrity through its review functions. So if someone has concerns about the procedure fairness and the way in which institutions have investigated issues, they can put in an ARIC request for review. And another element of this quality framework is TEXA, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. It's an independent national quality assurance and regulatory agency of higher education. And all institutions that are given the status of universities have to comply with TEXA's requirements. You may have noticed recently that looking to expand their remit a little bit and have included an integrity unit to look at a high level research integrity compliance at institutions as well. And the NHMRC and UA and ARC are working closely with TEXA to make sure that there's no overlap between the responsibilities that we deliver for research integrity and what TEXA is planning. So as I've alluded to before, the code underpins the framework for responsible kind of research in Australia, essential to that. And in 2018, the latest version of this code was released. It's been co-authored again by ARC, NHMRC and UA. And essentially the version we have now builds on the 2007 version. It's a title or compact document and it's presented in a more simpler way, designed to support high quality research, enhance credibility of research and promote community trust in research. By no means do we think that the code has been diluted by its short and condensed version into a principle based document. Because as I'm about to speak to shortly, there are a whole lot of series of guides with detail that was in the previous 2007 version that can provide assistance to institutions and researchers in meeting their requirements of the code. So the code is now a principle based document. There are eight principles of research integrity and there's 29 responsibilities associated with those that institutions and researchers need to adhere to and be responsible for. So I won't go into too much detail regarding the actual responsibilities, apart from those related to data management, which I'll cover later. But the codes eight principles are honesty in the development, undertaking and reporting of research, rigor in the development, undertaking and reporting of research, transparency in declaring interests and reporting research methodology, data and findings, fairness in the treatment of others, respect for research participants, the wider community, animals and the environment, recognition of the right of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to be engaged in research that affects or is of particular significance to them, accountability for the development, undertaking and reporting of research and the promotion of responsible research practices. So these eight principles inform the 29 responsibilities that apply for institutions of which there's 13 and 16 responsibilities for individual researchers. So some of these responsibilities relate to only one of the eight principles, others relate to multiple. So as I read through those principles, you probably would have picked up, there's a few that could either directly or literally relate to data management practice and integrity. So as I said, the 2018 version of the code hasn't been watered down at all. It's been tightened. And if you look at it in its entirety with the supporting guides that have been put in place to underpin those, the principal base code, there is a lot more detail and detail that's presented in a guide, a way to guide institutions and researchers to meet those principles. So those guides include, of course, the investigation guide, which was released at the same time as the code, so that outlines how institutions should address allegations of breaches of the code and they should go about investigating those and being procedurally fair about doing that. And then the old version of the code in 2007 had a series of chapters at the front, a lot of those related to various elements of research undertaking. And now these are represented in these guides. So I'll be speaking in some detail about the data guide, but there's also a guide on authorship, one on supervision, peer review, disclosure of interests, collaborations, publication and dissemination of research, and also, as I've mentioned already, the investigation guide. Now these guides are really prescriptive. This is keeping the character as guidance documents, but also recognize that under Australia's self-regulated system is institutions that must ultimately be responsible for their policies and procedures for ensuring that they are consistent with the code. So they're not written in blood, so to speak. Institutions need to apply these guidance material to their own policies and requirements they put in place for their researchers. So as I said earlier on, there's a number of the principles that sort of relate directly to data management, and I've drawn those out here in this slide. Principle two, rigor in the development undertaking and reporting of research, which requires that research be characterised by attention to detail and robust methodology, and that researchers avoid or acknowledge biases. Principle three, transparency and declaring interests and reporting research methodology data and findings, which requires researchers to share and communicate research methodology data and findings openly, responsibly and accurately. And principle seven, accountability for the development undertaken and reporting of research so as to comply with relevant legislation, policies, guidelines and ensure good stewardship of public resources used to conduct research. Now I mentioned earlier on before I go into the exact details of researchers and institutions. The national statement on ethical conduct and human research, most recently updated in 2018, does have some specific requirements regarding data. So section three of the national statement provides guidance on ethical considerations in the design, development, review and conduct of research. It provides specific and detailed guidance on the collection, use and management of data and information for human based research and it addresses particularly ethical issues related to generation, collection, access, use, analysis, storage and retention of the data of this information that in many cases can be very sensitive. It also requires the development of a data management plan as a specific requirement in the national statement. And I'll talk a bit more about ARC expectations regarding data management plans later on. So now the data guide. This guide was released in June 2019. In essence this was about the same time that the 2018 version of the code came into force. Whilst it was released in 2018, we gave institutions years grace to be able to put in place the necessary policies and supporting information for their researchers and before it became in place in June, July 2019. So guides and assists institutions and researchers to adhere to the relevant principles of the code. It was one of the first guides released, recognizing the central role of the subject matter to research endeavor. So critically, best practice data and information management facilitates the justification and verification of the outcomes of research that maximizes the potential for future research and minimizes waste of resources of the researchers and the wider community. The guidance and the data guide corresponds directly to multiple responsibilities of the code. It specifically references the following institution responsibilities. Responsibility four. Institutions are required to provide ongoing training and education. Responsibility five. Ensure supervisors of research trainees have the appropriate skills, qualifications and resources and responsibility eight. Provide access to facilities for the safe and secure storage and management of research data, records and prime materials. And this is important given the current appetite worldwide and within the Australian government to allow access as openly as possible. As well as the specific following researcher responsibility, responsibility 22 is to retain clear, accurate, secure and complete records of all research, including research data and prime materials. And as I alluded to earlier on, we're possible and appropriate allow access and reference to these by interested parties. As I mentioned earlier, the guides are rarely prescriptive. The data guide is no exception. Instead, providing institutions with what might more accurately be described as a checklist of relevant considerations for inclusion in institutional policies, along with some limited instances of some very specific guidance. For example, of the specific guidance under the category of storage, retention and disposal, the data guide alerts institutions to the fact that research data should be consistent with any copyright or licensing arrangements, being accord with research discipline, specific practices and standards, comply with relevant privacy, ethical and publication requirements and comply with other relevant laws. Now, the specificity of the guide also includes prescribed data retention periods. So I'm bringing those to your attention. For short-term research projects, there are assessment purposes only such as research projects conducted by students, retaining research data for 12 months after the completion of the research project may be sufficient. For most clinical trials, however, retaining research data for 15 years or more may be necessary. For areas such as gene therapy, research data must be retained permanently. And if the work has community cultural historical value, research data should be kept permanently, preferably within a national collection. So the responsibility institutions to develop and implement policies and provide facilities and processes. The policies should include guidance for managing research data and primary materials that address the following ownership, stewardship and control, storage, retention and disposal, safety, security and confidentiality, access or interested parties. Policy should apply to all research conducted under the auspices of the institution and may be influenced by the funding arrangements for the project in particular. So some other responsibilities of institutions include training. Training and education may assist researchers and others in relevant roles to follow not only the institution's data management policies, but also other relevant disciplinary specific policies. In relation to ownership, stewardship and control of research data and primary materials, disemphasizing with respect to ownership of data and information used or generated by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research and communities, institutions or researchers may hold data. However, they should not make decisions about the access or reuse of this data without proper consultation with the Indigenous owners. Institution of policies shouldn't be designed to unnecessarily impede the normal use of research data and primary materials by researchers. So basically they should be in place to facilitate access and use rather than impede access and use. Storage, retention and disposal, retaining the research data is important because it may be that all remains of the research work at the end of the project. So the storage, retention and disposal research data should be consistent with any copyright or licensing arrangements being accord with discipline specific practices comply with relevant policy and comply with relevant laws, regulations and guidelines. One of the key concerns about researchers is data safety and access and ownership. So the policies should also assist researchers in informing them of relevant confidentiality agreements and restrictions on the use of research data, ensure that computing systems are secure, ensure that IT personnel understand their responsibilities for network security access control and ensure that those holding primary material including electronic material understand their responsibilities. So there's a big role in training those with access to research data as well as those that generate it to ensure the safety and security of that data. As I said earlier on with the open science, open research, agenda access by interested parties is also extremely important. So the policy should describe how to make research data available to interested parties and also provide a license so people can at a glance understand how that data can be used and reused. Where sharing of research data has been requested and access has been refused the reasons for not sharing the data should be transparent and justifiable. So if you've got a research project involving a private investment for a company or industry and that data produced from that research project is owned by the company rather than the researcher there's a justify reason why that shouldn't be made openly accessible. Institutions also should look to provide facilities. So research data controlled by the institution and its researchers should be stored in facilities provided by or approved by the institution. So there's a big role there for institutions to put in place systems and databases where researchers can store use access and manage their data. So I know there's a fair few universities out there that have been doing a lot of work recently in providing that sort of data service for their researchers including a couple of spring to mind university Queensland Tasmania and UTS and Sydney are through that I'm more familiar with but I understand that there's a lot of universities there are taking that responsibility very seriously and providing facilities and support for the the safe storage and access of data. So moving on the responsibilities of individual researchers researchers should adhere to the institutional policies okay the policies are there in place to support and guide the researchers and those policies of course cover off on as I've said the management of data the relevant laws regulations and guidelines and research discipline discipline specific practices standards that apply to those in individual researchers. A data management plan should also be developed early in the research process for researchers. Duable records derived from them such as assays test results transcripts and laboratory and field notes must be retained and accessible as well. So the data guide responsibilities of research relates specifically what's on the slide here retention and publication so individual researchers of course have primary responsibility for deciding which research data and primary materials is for long-term retention and wider accessibility. So that's a judgment called by individual researchers themselves. Researchers should also manage confidential and other sensitive material appropriately and exercise care and handling confidential or other sensitive information used or in or arising from a research project. Institutions are required to provide the training but responsible researchers are responsible for ensuring that they engage with this relevant training and another responsibility for researchers is to acknowledge the use of others data in their research and they should do that by appropriately referencing and citing the work of others in the presentation publication or sharing of research. So in essence the responsibility rests with institutions to put in some systems and policies to assist their researchers as well as storage facilities etc but a lot of the onus on appropriately managing that research data about how it should be accessed and reused and cited risks with individual researchers themselves but institutions should also be able to provide support for those decision-making processes. So the ARC has long been cognizant of the value of research data and whilst we don't have a specific policy in place we do have a data statement and also have some provisions in our funding rules and grant agreements that specify our expectations regarding the management of data. So these requirements are designed to encourage researchers to consider the ways in which they can best manage stored disseminate reused their data. Data management planning from the beginning of a project helps to guide how data will be collected formatted described stored etc etc so it's very important that researchers from the very beginning of their research project or even the research concept are thinking about what data is going to be generated and how they'll manage that data. So as a co-author of the code we're committed to effective data management and again underpinned by ensuring open access to publicly funded research data whenever possible. Some institutions may have infrastructure processes in place of storing managing and sharing data and these are valuable resources that should be utilized. So since February 2014 we have required researchers to consider how they plan, manage and research data arising from ARC funded research and originally we asked in applications that researchers give a brief synopsis of how they'll manage their research data that recently evolved to rather than requiring that at the application stage we require all funded research projects to have in place a data management plan prior to the commencement of the project and this forms this is part of requirement in the funding agreement now. So this slide here explains the the expectations so around data management plans it's at the moment from ARC funding agreements from 2020 it's in section A to 2.5. Institution researchers and participating organisations have an obligation to collect and maintain research data in accordance with the 2018 code. It must be developed prior to the commencement of the project it should be consistent with the requirements contained in the 2018 code and the data guide and the data management plan should be compatible with disciplinary standards and how participants will manage the long-term preservation of data arising from the funded projects including but not limited to storage access and reuse arrangements and we also strongly encourage that data arising from the project is deposited in appropriately publicly accessible discipline or institutional repository and you must maintain you must retain your data management plan and make it available to the ARC if it's requested so we're not asking to see every one of these data management plans but we do have undertake institutional reviews occasionally and often the questions are we're looking at compliance with our funding agreements and if a project was identified to have a place to look at we'd expect that it would have a data management plan in place. As I've said before we encourage researchers to deposit data arising from a project in a publicly accessible repository now this has been in place since 2007 and in fact it was a requirement in the 2007 version of the code where researchers can't meet this requirement reasons need to be provided in our final report and as I said earlier on we don't have a specific mandate or policy in relation to this and this is in reflection of the the challenges involved in addressing the rapid growth and changes appearing in relation to data and also the very large variances in the types of data that are generated from ARC funded research so it's not necessarily a one-size-fits-all. We also actively monitor the international landscape and what's occurring there and we are actively engaged with with the number of players within Australian system including ARDC the Australasian open access strategy group call and others and as an example I'm a participant on the fair access steering group that's findable accessible interoperable and reusable which is an ongoing committee established under the Deputy Vice Chancellor's Research Committee at UA so NHMRC's expectations aren't too different than the ARC's they also acknowledge the importance of making research data publicly accessible they strongly encourage researchers to consider the reuse value of their data and take responsibilities responsible steps to share research data and associated metadata. Now part of their expectations are that researchers should ensure that appropriate metadata accompanies the data sets so people can at a glance understand what the detail is in those data sets and they also must consider the appropriate level access rather than specifying a data management plan is in place in their funding agreements NHMRC funding agreements requires that all research metadata arising from the project must be listed in the final report for each project so that's about it from me happy to take some questions and I'll throw back to Adrian to facilitate those I did get a few questions earlier on that people had sent through so I might cover off on those now before I throw to Adrian I've had a question here different research fields have orders of magnitude differences in data volume will funder support storage of the later of the larger volumes in budgets not necessarily the ARC budget is a one-line budget and whilst the the decision on whether the research project is funded is primarily on the excellence of that project there is some provisions for this dissemination of research so individual researchers or research teams could consider the value in directing some of that funding towards data retention and access but primarily the responsibility for storing large-scale volume of data is addressed with institutions there's a question regarding the expectations around fair principles for genomic databases I can't really answer that question given I'm not an HMRC and we don't fund that that type of research necessarily here but I would point to the fact that there needs to be a consideration of the safety and security of the information and people's privacy so it's really a case by case situation and that's all part of the process of developing and considering a data management plan that undertake that is looks looks to look at access arrangements and reusability and how will we support questions on the data management guide on an ongoing basis well I think if you email the ARC or an HMRC directly we can look to provide some further advice regarding specific questions whilst there but although there are you know the owners is primarily on institutions we are happy to provide some advice and consistent advice where we can I think the ARC is also a very valuable resource to do that another question how should researchers interpret principle 22 to retain clear accurate secure and complete records it's particularly in disciplines where enormous data volumes make it impractical impossible to store or complete research data the key point there is where possible so it's if an institution or a researcher has and there's no real value in retaining the whole data set there needs to be a record of the the the data that supports the research output or the publication so I mean in cases where there's massive data sets that can't be accessed or stored easily there's no responsibility at this stage to make all those accessible if you're publishing you need to make sure that the data are underpinning that research is available for those to check so is there any obligation or responsibility regarding the management of data and information facilities such as interest that support enable researchers or does the guide only apply to host institutions basically at the moment the code and the guide apply to any research that's funded by the NHMRC and ARC I do know that some of the publicly funded research agencies such as CSIRO and ANSTA are also requiring adherence to the principles in the code and I know that they do manage some increased facilities so I think there is a loose expectation that the code and the guide itself can apply to broader research endeavors in Australia outside those which are funded by ARC and NHMRC but specifically at this stage it's only that research which is funded by us that is noted in funding agreements and the and the code itself so thank you for your attention I'll hand back to Adrian now and we can facilitate some more questions and discussion if needed thank you very much great thank you very much Justin it's a really great overview of very key documents there all right well I'll go through some of these questions remembering that we have two more workshops to address kind of the implementation questions of data management at institutions and I also note that within the question the chat part of our our objective here was to set up forums in which the different the sector can exchange information and that's been happening wildly in the chat where some people have already chipped in and given their own experience I'll try and sift through some of these questions that are mostly about the actual phrasing of the code itself and if we don't get to all of them then we'll pass them on to Justin or we'll be able to either address them at the coming workshops or privately there are a couple of questions towards the beginning about I'll read one of them out here is the requirement to have proper storage facilities something that can be shared between institutions there's no reason why can't you know particularly for you know big massive data sets that are generated by collaborative research it really depends on the sort of arrangements and negotiations that are put in place between institutions but there's no reason look we don't want duplication of big data sets there's no reasoning for that to occur but as the NHMRC has pointed out sometimes all you need is some metadata that signpost the existence of the large data set which and where it can be found and that doesn't necessarily have to be within a single institution another questioner well I bet not quite the same in a situation where you have researchers working for various institutes and they're nested into a collaborative entity where does the primary responsibility for adherence to the code sit well good practice would mean that there's a data management plan in place at the start of the project and that data management plan would be based on an agreement or negotiations between all players generally speaking though if from the ARC perspective if the administering organization that's the organization that's applied for and won the funding and would be managing a larger project on the basis of other players the responsibility for data management etc would rest with that with that institution but the data management plan could specify particular nuances about how the data is managed in access but there's a couple of questions about sort of compliance and spot checks so I read out one or two of those does the ARC or NHMRC ever do proactive spot check audits or is it only based on alleged breaches as I said a little later in my presentation we do have a system of institutional visits or reviews as we call them so we generally visit two sometimes up to four institutions a year on a sort of a rolling basis it used to be called an audit but you know it's not really that formal we will come out and look at as part of that process look at a number of projects that have been undertaken by the institution making sure that they conform with with the the funding agreement and requirements and as of 2020 of course there needs to be a data management plan in place before that project can start so I would think that that one of the questions asked moving forward would be for those projects to look at can you please show me your data management plan before the project started as far as potential breaches of of the code and the guide regarding data we aren't necessarily or we're not considered an investigative body as I mentioned it's a self-regulated system so it's a case of either self-reporting or if there are instances of potential breaches of the code regarding data and someone reports that to us either openly or anonymously we will look at a little bit of due diligence to see whether there's any merit in that allegation and then we will refer it on to the institution to investigate themselves and our policies specify that if we do so they need to report back within a 12-week window on the outcomes of their preliminary assessment as to whether or not there's been a breach of the code in relation to data management and there was another question about the repercussions of a breach but I think what you're saying there is that then the the consequences are put in place by the institutions themselves no no well that's the that the institutions themselves will will look at the the issue and allegation and determine whether there's a breach of the code and in essence the severity of that breach institutions can use can can apply the term research misconduct they want to but we recognize in the guide and investigation guide and their policies that breaches of the code occur on a spectrum from being minor and inadvertent to systemic or planned fraud or integrity breaches which for all intensive purposes research misconduct whether you label it or not so once we're advised of the outcomes of the institution's consideration we will look at it on some merits and we will determine from our perspective whether we need to apply a sanction or a control ranging from maybe asking for a double certification for that researcher for a couple of years regarding data management when they apply for funding all the way through to ceasing their access to ARC funding for a number of years and recalling the the grant amount from the institution so it's a case of working closely with institutions and of course institutions themselves if they want can apply their own sanctions to that researcher as well but we will look specifically on the impact of the the project from our perspective the potential damage to the ARC reputation and act accordingly great as a question about the data retention periods and the potential for there to be inconsistency or or just not the same data retention period required by let's say there's an example of a state government requirement and potentially the federal requirement another retention requirements of different institutions perhaps just the questions you know it's really an observation that there seems to be the opportunity for a disparity yeah look I said that the guides it's a guide it's not written in law I know although there are some specific reference periods that are strongly suggested the ones that I went through about genomics data etc etc and also I kept going to the point that in relation to the management of data you also need to give consideration to other legislation and requirements as well so you need to look holistically at that and I think from an ARC and HMRC perspective if you meet the the minimum requirements that were specified in the guide it's not too much of a problem and I'm sorry I can't give you a straight answer on that but there's a guidance material only institutions are there able to interpret that and what they expect their researchers to adhere to and in doing so institutions would also give reference I think to their state legislation requirements as well yeah that's right um great let me just down here we haven't got a lot of time so just a couple more questions there and again skip over some of the ones that might be implementation stuff that can be covered in the other in the workshops uh let's have a look here covered that one does the DC do spot checks in situations where you have researchers working no we've already done that one appraisal and sentencing of research data is actually one of the most difficult aspects who should make the final call on appraisal and therefore retention period now I'm sure we'll get into this tomorrow but is there anything specific from the code point of view do you think Justin no not nothing specific but I think it's all part of the of the process that there needs to be some decisions and considerate some consideration of these issues prior to the commencement of the project involving all players and institutions should be there who I guess provides some assistance um you know the ARC also I mean part of its education remit too is to provide some I guess some assistance in in some of those considerations as well good now I might go on some of the more um practical ones as we're coming right to the end here uh the will the slides be shared yes you can make this um I think ARC will make the slides available afterwards yep not a problem we'll make them available from the ARDC website uh will the record is it being recorded will the recording be made available yes we will make the recording available uh in on the ARDC website as well checking any others here sure that we've got any others uh one last question here all universities adhere to the code they must they must but they don't always in fact quite often it's the observation have policies or procedures for data management or data storage let me start again all universities adhere to the code they must but they don't always in fact quite often have policies or procedures for data management or data storage and don't provide infrastructure for data storage does it mean all the responsibilities fall on the researchers no no institutions are required to have policies in place at a bare minimum and the support infrastructure so look I think some universities have been well prepared historically and supporting their researchers in this space but moving forward you know there is the expectation and requirement that these the support mechanisms and policies are in place at institutions we have one of the reasons that we you know the guide was released in 2018 but didn't come into force into 2019 was the need for institutions to prepare themselves for the for the sweeter policies often institutions too have shared arrangements in relation to or can in relation to storage of data and management of data but what I'm in saying short is no the responsibility for researchers are to adhere to the code but any possible shortcomings in their respect would be considered contextually in the support that's reported by institutions as well good thank you very much Justin that's really nice of you to have allocated the time I think so on behalf of the audience consider a very very loud clap at the moment thank you very much for giving us all that information Justin and clarifying it with questions as well and I also look at I encourage and I understand I think most of you guys are from research offices I think it's really important that you share information and ideas with each other there are some particular groups in place that do so already and I know that working with those people in those groups they are very very open to providing assistance to others and ensuring you know a consistent approach in supporting and underpinning the research integrity effort in Australia so I think these forums are fantastic opportunities to to make some of these links if you haven't done so already and I'm always always willing to take questions and hopefully point you in the right direction of others that might better provide assistance if I can't do it myself yes good all right and then there are a lot of organizations that are the code and all the different guides touch lots of different parts and of the research system in Australia what I DC is trying to do here is build up a community of practice if you like of the people and responsible for the implementation of the the data components of the code and its guide we've got these two workshops that we've planned again just reiterate that for tomorrow for universities and in one week for medical research institutes Keith is putting a link in there if you haven't quite registered for that yet the registrations are still open so you can participate I strongly recommend you do and other people at your organization can come in the idea here is that you know we can learn from each other and consider as a group you know some of those shades of gray and really help ourselves to implement this really nice code and the policy framework so I DC will continue to with the think of these for two workshops as the as a start here and we have a lot of communities of practice to support data management and institutional responsibilities as well as researcher responsibilities so we're very keen to contribute and to keep doing that if anyone has any suggestions for us and how we can help to support the can the help to support the sector helping itself then don't hesitate to contact us as well so I think we come to the end of our time look forward to working with you tomorrow on some of the problem solving around how to do this again thanks very much to Justin and thanks very much to the very active audience that's really helped with the questions and answers thank you very much everyone we'll see you tomorrow