1.1	Research and scholarship are vital University functions. The nature and scope of our ethical duty rests on two fundamental assumptions that ought to be self-evident. The first is that of honesty in the conduct of research, the reporting of findings, and the proper attribution of ideas and their source. The second is that positions of seniority or responsibility should never be abused so as to put pressure on colleagues or research students, for example, to forego their right to proper acknowledgement of their contribution to the research or publication in question. Any rules governing the conduct of research flow from these two essential principles.
1.2	In pursuing their research activities, all members of the University are under an obligation to observe the highest standards of professional conduct. To do otherwise would not only defeat the object of scholarly enquiry, but bring both the researcher and the University into disrepute. The need for researchers to comply with strict ethical guidelines is especially pressing where the pressure to publish may generate a temptation to neglect or relax normal practices.
1.3	In formulating this Policy for Ethical Practice in Research (hereinafter referred to as the “Policy”), it is recognized that times and practices change; and no attempt is made to anticipate developments. We wish to emphasise the importance of striking a balance between the sharing of information which is a vital ingredient of scholarly enquiry, on the one hand, and the need for proper protection of ideas and their authors, on the other.
1.4	The broad principles that guide research have been long established. Central to these are the maintenance of high ethical standards, and validity and accuracy in the collection and reporting of data. The responsibility of the research community to the public and to itself is acknowledged.
1.5	The processes of research protect the truth. Communication between collaborators; maintenance and reference to records; presentation and discussion of work at scholarly meetings; publication of results, including the important element of peer refereeing; and the possibility that investigations will be repeated or extended by other researchers, all contribute to the intrinsically self-correcting nature of research.
1.6	The present Policy is intended to serve as a framework for sound research procedures and for the protection of both the University and individual research workers.
1.7	All experiments, where the University has an interest, involving consent of human subjects and the use of vertebrate animal subjects must be referred for approval of the appropriate Faculty Ethics Committee, and/or that of the Committee for the Use of Animals in Teaching Research.
1.8	Research should, of course, be conducted in compliance with applicable laws, safety and health guidelines, which are designed to protect safety and the welfare of human subjects and of laboratory animals.

2.1	It is a basic assumption of universities conducting research that their staff members are committed to high standards of professional conduct. Research workers have a duty to ensure that their work enhances the good name of the University and the profession to which they belong.
2.2	Research workers should only participate in work which conforms to accepted ethical standards and which they are competent to perform. When in doubt they should seek assistance with their research from their colleagues or peers. Debate on, and criticism of, research work are essential parts of the research process.
2.3	The University and research workers have a responsibility to ensure the safety of all those associated with the research. It is also essential that the design of projects takes account of any relevant ethical guidelines.
2.4	If data of a confidential nature are obtained, for example from individual patient records or by questionnaires, confidentiality of the information must be observed to protect the informants. The question of the propriety of the methods of acquisition and of the use to which the data will be put should be referred to the appropriate Ethics Committee. The research workers must not use such information for their own personal advantage or that of a third party. In general, however, research results and methods should be open to scrutiny by colleagues within the University and, through appropriate publication, by the profession at large, provided that the confidentiality of individuals is adequately protected in accordance with any laws relating to data protection.
2.5	Secrecy may be necessary for a limited period in the case of contracted research. However, that need must be clearly stated in the contract and fully understood by all parties. Where a research student is involved in working on such a contract, the researcher concerned must ensure that the party sponsoring the research understands and accepts unequivocally that the thesis will not be restricted from publication, though there may be scope for not releasing certain types of data confidential to the sponsor. Consultation with the Policy Board of Postgraduate Education should be undertaken before any restrictive agreement is reached.

3.1	Certain practices, as listed below, have been identified as examples of unethical behaviour which no academic community can tolerate, and which may result in disciplinary action. They are intended only to provide a general indication of the most obvious kinds of behaviour, and are not exhaustive.
3.2	Plagiarism Plagiarism includes the direct copying of textual material, the wilful use of other people’s data and ideas, and presenting them as one’s own without acknowledgement. References to what could constitute plagiarism may be found in the Plagiarism Booklet, accessible through the University website.
3.3	Fabrication and Falsification of Data 3.3.1   Data may be subject to abuse in various ways: a) Fabrication of data, i.e. claiming data and/or results where none have been obtained; b) Falsification of data, which includes manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record(1); and c) Unauthorised use of data. 3.3.2   To prevent various forms of abuse of data, it is advisable for data to be recorded in a durable and appropriately referenced form. This is because sometimes there is a need, intrinsic to the scientific method, for results to be replicated by other workers in other laboratories, and so the original data must be preserved. If at all possible, it is in the interests of all research workers to ensure that original data are safely held for a period of at least five years. Wherever possible, a copy of the original data should be preserved in an archive or retained in the department or research unit in which they were generated, whichever means of preservation is appropriate to the field of study. In some cases there may be restrictions on the retention of data obtained from limited access databases or in a project carried out under a contract. In such cases, a written indication of the location of the original data or key information regarding the limited-access database from which it was extracted must be kept in the department or research unit. Individual researchers should be able to hold copies of the data for their own use. Nevertheless, it should be understood that retention solely by the individual research worker provides little protection to the research worker or the University in the event of an allegation of falsification of data.
3.4	Infringement of Intellectual Property It is not ethical and is against the law to infringe another person’s copyright, patents, trade-marks, computer software, and so there must be no infringement of the law with respect to any form of research output.
3.5	Improper Ascription of Authorship 3.5.1  The over-riding principle for authorship of a research output is an intellectual contribution to the research process and not merely administrative involvement. Author and co-author(s) should have significant participation in conceiving, executing or interpreting at least part of the research reported. The research team should decide which individual should be named as co-author(s). 3.5.2   One of the particularly serious offences consists in senior staff (such as heads of department or supervisors) coercing colleagues or students into allowing the former to pass off the research in question as their own, either wholly or partly. This is a failure of leadership and of moral responsibility. 3.5.3   Misleading ascription of authorship includes the listing of authors without their permission, attributing work to others who have not in fact contributed to the research, and the lack of appropriate acknowledgement of work primarily produced by a research student or any associate. Due recognition of all participants is a part of a proper research process. Authors should ensure that the work of research students, research assistants, and all support staff is properly acknowledged. 3.5.4   Each author must be able to endorse the whole work. The authors of the research output should read the final paper and agree that each of them has met the minimum requirements for authorship. It is unethical to claim authorship without reading and approving the final draft in its entirety. All of the authors are equally responsible for the contents of the research output; if the contents are bogus then all authors carry the blame. Responsibility cannot be shifted from an academically senior author to an academically junior one. 3.5.5   The unattributed presentation of any research output whether for research or teaching in a language other than the original is unacceptable.
3.6	Non-Disclosure of Potential Conflict of Interest 3.6.1   Disclosure of any potential conflict of interest is essential for the responsible conduct of research. Non-disclosure may be regarded as unethical behaviour. 3.6.2   A research worker’s affiliation with, or financial involvement in, any organisation or entity with a direct interest in the subject matter, or in the provision of materials for the research, must be included in a full acknowledgement. 3.6.3   Members of committees responsible for the allocation of research or conference grants should not participate in any way in the determination of their own applications. 3.6.4   The source of funding for research work should always be acknowledged.

1.Federal Policy of Research Misconduct, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), 2000, p.76276,

In some disciplines there will be special areas which require regulation, for example, animal and human experimentation and the handling of hazardous materials. The rules for these activities should form part of the general policy of ethics and safety for each department. The University Director of Safety should be consulted in these cases.

The Procedures adopted by the Senate for dealing with allegations of research misconduct committed by staff of the University are set out in “Procedures for Dealing with Alleged Staff Misconduct in Research”. The Policy and Procedures are accessible via the Research website on the University’s homepage, and have been incorporated in various publications, including “Research Directions, Policies and Funding at the University of Hong Kong: A Guide for Staff”, and the Terms of Service I Staff Manual.

back to top