Policy on Research Integrity

Update approved by the Academic Council on January 29, 2025.
Adopted by the Senate on April 24, 2025.

Table of Contents

1 - Preamble

The ethical issues surrounding research integrity are numerous, but trust—in the public those involved in research, the research process itself and its results forms the cornerstoneFootnote 1. It is within this context that the present policy on research integrity must be situated.

Responsible conduct of research is the expected behaviour of anyone engaged in research or supporting research activities at any stage of a research project (from formulating the research question to writing the report, publishing, and disseminating findings, including planning, execution, data collection, research analysis, and proper management of research funds). This conduct requires knowledge and application of established professional standards, as well as adherence to ethical values and principles essential to carrying out all research-related activities. These values include honesty, fairness, trust, responsibility, and opennessFootnote 2.

This policy complies with the Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of ResearchFootnote 3 (Framework) adopted by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERCC), the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRCC) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). It also complies with the Policy on Responsible Conduct of ResearchFootnote 4 (FRQ Policy) adopted by the Fonds de recherche du Québec. For any interpretative margin in this document, the FRQ’s Policy for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2022) will determine the requirements.

Through this policy, Royal Military College Saint-Jean (RMC Saint-Jean) aims to encourage and promote values of integrity in research. It also seeks to meet the requirements and expectations of granting agencies regarding responsible research conductFootnote 5.

This policy complements the Ethics Policy for Research Involving Human Participants at RMC Saint-Jean.

2 - Objectives

2.1. Define key terms related to research integrity;

2.2. Specify the principles guiding RMC Saint-Jean in matters of research integrity;

2.3. Present the procedure for managing conflicts of interest and handling allegations of misconduct or breaches of research integrity;

2.4. Outline the responsibilities of stakeholders in research integrity.

3 - Scope of Application

This policy applies to any individual, from all disciplines, employed by RMC Saint-Jean with either an indeterminate or fixed-term status, engaged in research activities either outside or within the premises of RMC Saint-Jean. It also applies to any external individual, regardless of academic or professional status, conducting research involving human participants at RMC Saint-Jean.Footnote 6

4 - Definitions

4.1. The term research integrity refers to all behaviours that uphold the dignity of individuals and animals, as well as the intrinsic values of science namely honesty, fairness, trust, responsibility, and opennessFootnote 7.

4.2. Research misconduct or breach of integrity refers to “any intentional, negligent, or reckless behaviour that threatens research integrity”Footnote 8, including complicity in such conduct.

Here is a non-comprehensive list of examples of misconduct or breaches that may lead to sanctions:

4.3. A conflict of interest refers to “any situation where the interests of a person covered by this policy conflict with their responsibilities and duties. Conflicts of interest may be actual, apparent, or potential. For example, they can be financial, political, ideological, or professional. They can relate to the (institution), the individual, close relations, friends, or professional associates, past, present, or future”.Footnote 9

Here is a non-comprehensive list of examples of conflicts of interest that must be declared and could lead to sanctions if concealed:

4.4. A person conducting research refers to any individual who regularly or occasionally engages in research, creation, or development activities at or for RMC Saint-Jean. This definition includes individuals with student status as well as postdoctoral fellows involved in research activities.

4.5. A person collaborating on research refers to any individual directly or indirectly involved in the execution or management of research, creation, or development activities at RMC Saint-Jean.

5 - Principles

5.1. Regarding integrity in research, RMC Saint-Jean recognizes the following principles: Respect for individuals collaborating on research and respect for copyright.

Any significant contribution from individuals collaborating on research, as well as those with student status, must be acknowledged.

When appropriate, share the outcomes of the research to ensure that the organizations, individuals, or communities that contributed to it benefit from the results (for example, Indigenous communitiesFootnote 10) have access to research results and other forms of benefits when applicable (including intellectual property and financial returns).

Any unpublished works by other researchers and academics must only be used with their permission, with proper acknowledgment.

All archives must be used in accordance with the rules established by archival sources.

5.2. Respect for the confidentiality of information

Any new information, data or concepts obtained through access to confidential manuscripts such as research funding applications or unpublished works, must only be used after obtaining the author's permission.

5.3. Respect for rigor and integrity in research

In the collection, recording and analysis of data, as well as in the communication and publication of results, the principles of rigor and research integrity must be upheld.

5.4. Respect for fair treatment of individuals participating in research

Special attention is given to equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in the design and implementation of a research project.

5.5. Respect for rules regarding conflict of interest situations

Any material, financial or other conflicts of interest that could lead to research misconduct or a breach of integrity must be disclosed to sponsoring organizations, academic research institutions, specialized journals, or funding agencies.

5.6. Respect for the requirements of granting agencies regarding the responsible and ethical use of public funds

Complete and accurate information necessary for evaluating funding application must be provided transparently and truthfully.

Research funds must be managed responsibly, in accordance with sound accounting, financial, and ethical principles.

The source and details of financial support for research must be properly acknowledged, as required by funding agencies.

6 - Procedure for Managing Conflict of Interest Situations

A conflict of interest, as defined, is not a form of misconduct but rather a situation that arises at a personal or institutional level. However, the existence of such a situation can lead to misconduct or breaches of research integrity. To prevent this from occurring, certain actions must be taken to ensure ethical management:

6.1. Preventing Conflict of Interest Situations

Any individual engaged in research activities must avoid placing themselves in a situation where they may have to choose between personal interests the interests of others, the interests of RMC Saint-Jean, and the interest of research.

6.2. Declaring conflicts of interest

Any individual engaged in research activities must declare:

The declaration must be made in writing to the Directorate of Studies.

RMC Saint-Jean commits to disclosing, in writing, to the relevant granting agency any conflict of interest that may affect a decision regarding a grant or scholarship application.

6.3. Conflict of Interest Management

This declaration must be processed promptly by the Office of Research Dean, determining appropriate measures to prevent conflicts of interest or the appearance of such conflicts.

These measures may include:

7 - Procedure for Handling Allegations of Misconduct or Breaches of Research Integrity

When an allegation of misconduct or breach of research integrity arises, the procedure for handling the allegation is as follows:

7.1. Receipt of an Allegation Misconduct or Breach

  1. Any individual (referred to as “the complainant”), whether inside or outside the institution, may file an allegation of misconduct or breach (referred to as “complaint”) if they have reasonable doubt that someone has violated this policy.
  2. The complainant must submit a written complaint identifying their name, contact details,the suspected individual, and describing the misconduct to the Directorate of Studies.
  3. Complaints may also originate from granting agencies.
  4. Anonymous complaints will not be processed.
  5. At all times:
    • The complainant retains control over the process of their case; they may halt the process; at any time, unless legal proceedings are involved;
    • The individuals involved (complainant and respondent) must be protected and granted anonymity following the complaint submission;
    • The confidentiality of information is respected.

7.2. Preliminary Review of the Allegation of Misconduct or Breach

  1. The Directorate of Studies reviews the complaint and has ten (10) working days to decide whether it is admissible. To assist in this decision, it must collaborate with the Office of the Research Dean.
  2. If the complaint is deemed inadmissible, the complainant is informed within ten (10) working days of the decision and reasons for rejection:
    • If new information is provided, the complainant may resubmit their complaint to the Directorate of Studies.
    • If the complainant believes their rights were violated, they have ten (10) working days to appeal to the Senate of RMC Saint-Jean, submitting a written request for reconsideration.
    • The Senate reviews the complaint and has ten (10) working days to determine its admissibility. It may seek advice from other individuals to assist in this decision. The Senate’s decision is final.
  3. Once the preliminary admissibility review is complete, the Directorate of Studies promptly forwards the necessary information to the relevant granting agency;
  4. If the complaint is deemed admissible, the Directorate of Studies initiates the investigation process;
  5. The Directorate of Studies may decide not to initiate an investigation if, after hearing the respondent, the facts are clear (e.g., if the respondent acknowledges the alleged facts or if the review does not bring new information regarding the allegation). In such exceptional cases, it must along with the Office of the Research Dean, prepare an investigation report for the relevant granting agency; with notification to the complainant.

7.3. Investigation Procedure

7.3.1. Appointment of the Investigation Lead

  1. The person in charge of the Office of the Research Dean is automatically designated as the investigation Lead. However, if the complaint directly or indirectly involves this individual, the Directorate of Studies appoints another person deemed sufficiently impartial and knowledgeable in research integrity to conduct the review. This person will act as “the investigation lead” (hereafter).
  2. The individual subject to the complaint (referred to as “the person implicated”) is notified within five (5) working days, by the investigation lead about the submission of the complaint, its contents, and the initiation of an investigation. The complainant is also informed.

7.3.2. Composition of the investigation committee

  1. The investigation lead establishes, within ten (10) working days, a Complaint Review Committee of three (3) individuals who have no connection to the person(s) involved in the complaint, including at least one external member.
  2. Committee members must be selected for their in research integrity, and at least one member must have specialized knowledge in the research field relevant to the complaint. None of the committee members should have any real, potential or apparent conflict of interest with the individual or research in question. If an officer cadet conducting research is involved, the committee must, also include an officer cadet.

7.3.3. Investigation Process

  1. The committee conducts and documents the investigation:
    • The individual and the complainant are invited to collaborate in the investigation and submit any information that may allow for an impartial review of the complaint.
    • When necessary, the committee may request testimony from other individuals.
  2. Throughout the investigation, the Senate, the Directorate of Studies, the Office of the Research Dean, and the Complaint Review Committee members protect the confidentiality of information and the anonymity of the individuals involved.
  3. The investigation lead compiles a file containing the entire procedure (complaints, consulted documents , email, exchanges information requests, and any other documents related to the case):
    • This file is kept securely for five (5) years at the office of the investigation, lead and contains all documentation related to the committee’s activities;
    • Access to the file is strictly limited to the members of the Complaint Review Committee.

7.3.4. Drafting the Preliminary Report

  1. After the investigation, the committee drafts “a preliminary” report and submits it within fifty (50) working days after the start of the investigation to the respondent and the complainant.
  2. This report outlines the complaint, the investigation and the decision made based on the complaint. It includes an evaluation of the consequences, whether minor or serious, of the alleged facts, along with the committee’s recommendations.
  3. The Complaint Review Committee may categorize the complaint as “unfounded”, “founded, but not resulting serious” or “founded, serious consequences.”
  4. In making decision, all committee members must strive to reach a consensus. If consensus cannot be achieved, the decision is made by majority vote.
  5. The individual subject to the complaint (the respondent) and the complainant have ten (10) working days to respond to the report.

7.3.5. Final Report

  1. After receiving the responses from the respondent and the complainant within the allotted time, the committee takes note the reactions and adjusts the report as needed “to finalize it”;.
  2. If the complaint is deemed unfounded, the investigation lead sends the final report to the Directorate of Studies, the complainant and the respondent to inform them of the committee’s conclusions. The Directorate of Studies forwards a letter summarizing the complaint review to the relevant granting agency, containing any necessary information;
  3. If the complaint is deemed founded but does not result in serious consequences, impact, the investigation lead requests the respondent to promptly correct the situation. If the respondent agrees and implements the necessary corrections, the case is closed, and the complainant is notified in writing of the adjustments made. The investigation lead sends the final report to the Directorate of Studies, the complainant and the respondent to inform them of the committee’s conclusions and the agreement reached. The Directorate of Studies then forwards the final report to the relevant granting agency.
  4. If the complaint is deemed founded, and the reported facts lead to serious consequences, the committee’s report is submitted to the Senate of RMC Saint-Jean for follow-up and the implementation of specific measures as soon as possible. The report is also forwarded to the Directorate of Studies.
    • Within thirty (30) working days of the investigation’s conclusion, the Senate sends a copy of the final report, along with the identified measures, to the respondent, the complainant, and the relevant granting agency;
    • If the investigation was requested by a granting agency, the Senate submits a complete copy of the report within the same time frame, adhering to the Act Respecting Access to Documents Held by Public Bodies and the Protection of Personal Information (L.R.Q., c. A-2.1). Following this submission, the Senate remains available to provide clarifications or additional information. Granting agencies also reserve the right to impose their own sanctions in accordance with their directives and policies;
    • If misconduct is confirmed and the situation warrants such action, funds granted by the funding agencies may be withheld until necessary corrective measures deemed acceptable by the agencies are implemented.

7.3.6. Appeal Procedure

  1. The complainant may appeal the committee’s decision if they believe their rights have been violated. They then have ten (10) working days to submit a written request to the Senate to have their complaint re-examined.
  2. The respondent may appeal the committee’s decision if they believe their rights have been violated. They then have ten (10) working days to submit a written request to the Senate for a re-evaluation of their case.
  3. After reviewing the case file and the appeal request, the Senate may:
    • uphold the committee’s decision;
    • request that the Directorate of Studies form a new committee to examine the appeal request and, if necessary, conduct a new investigation. To assist in its decision, the Directorate may seek advice from other individuals. The members of this new committee must not be the same as those from the initial committee, but they must possess expertise in research integrity and in the research field relevant to the complaint. The conclusions of the appeal committee are final.

7.3.7. Retention of Documents

  1. Final reports from the Complaint Review Committee are kept securely under lock in the office of the Research Dean for two (2) years for complaints deemed unfounded, and for five (5) years for complaints deemed founded, regardless of the severity of the consequences.
  2. The person in charge of the Office of the Research Dean ensures that all documents and related records shared with third parties are destroyed when the allegations have been dismissed.

8 - Division of Responsibilities

Anyone engaged in research activities (regardless of level or status) has the primary responsibility of ensuring the highest standards of conduct in terms of integrity are upheld. More specifically, the responsibilities of each individual are as follows:

8.1. Person conducting or supervising research

The person conducting or supervising research is responsible for the following:

  1. applying the principles of rigor and integrity in research during the collection, recording, and analysis of data, as well as in the communication and publication of results;
  2. ensuring, when applicable, the appropriate supervision of interns, scholarship holders, or research staff and to support them in adopting responsible conduct in research;
  3. obtaining permission from an author or authors before using information, data, or novel concepts acquired through access to confidential manuscripts, such as grant applications or unpublished works;
  4. accurately citing the source of information obtained from other researchers or from other research, efforts, especially when a discovery has already been communicated or published;
  5. referencing previous publications when using research results that have already been published, and to use archives in accordance with the rules established by the archival sources;
  6. obtaining permission from the author(s) before using a patented product or process;
  7. ensuring that all individuals who contributed to the content of a publication and share responsibility for it are listed as authors, unless they have not given their consent;
  8. storing confidential data collected during research in a secure, locked location for, at least five (5) years or for the period specified in the consent form, after which the data must be destroyed so that it is no longer accessible;
  9. making data accessible, at all times, to the individuals concerned, insofar as the data collected during the research belongs to those who contributed to it;
  10. using material or financial resources allocated for research activities in a responsible and ethical manner;
  11. avoiding unduly benefiting personally from those resources;
  12. disclosing any conflicts of interest to organizations associated with the research that could influence their decisions to have someone review manuscripts (e.g. grant or fellowship applications), test products or authorize work;
  13. obtaining the necessary approvals before beginning any research involving human participants (such as interviews, simulations questionnaires, experiments, etc.). Example: from granting agencies, the RMC Saint-Jean Ethics Board or any other competent authority;
  14. cooperating in any process aimed at managing allegations of misconduct or breachs of research integrity involving past or current research activities to, which they are connected (including retaining and making available all relevant documents for assessment and review of the allegation);
  15. being proactive in remedying, when necessary, the consequences of misconduct or breachs of research integrity, and to be honest and consistent with the findings of the review;
  16. staying informed and take part in the development of best practices in research integrity, to integrate them into their research activities and to promote them—particularly, within their research teams;

8.2. Senate

The Senate is responsible for:

  1. adopting this policy, following the advice of the Academic Council;
  2. taking appropriate action against any individuals who fail to meet their obligations;
  3. respecting the decision of the Complaint Review Committee during the appeals process.

8.3. Directorate of Studies

The Directorate of Studies is responsible for:

  1. receiving complaints and ensuring compliance with the investigation procedures;
  2. overseeing the enforcement and application of the policy.

8.4. Office of the Research

The Office of the Research is responsible for:

  1. disseminating and promoting the policy to all staff and students at RMC Saint-Jean;
  2. establishing the necessary material conditions to support adherence to integrity principles;
  3. promoting best practices in research integrity through awareness and ongoing training within the RMC Saint-Jean community;
  4. ensuring the highest standards of integrity are upheld by individuals involved in the collection, recording, citation, reporting and of complaint-related data;
  5. to form the committees responsible for reviewing complaints.

8.5. Council

The Council is responsible for:

  1. recommending the adoption of the policy to the Senate;
  2. and recommending revisions to the policy.

8.6. Complaint Review Committee

The Complaint Review Committee is responsible for:

  1. reviewing complaints related to misconduct or breaches of research integrity, rendering a decision, and making recommendations;
  2. protecting the individuals involved by maintaining anonymity and the confidentiality of information.

8.7. Office of the Commandant

The Office of the Commandant is responsible for:

  1. providing the Directorate of Studies with the necessary resources to implement, evaluate, and revise the research integrity policy.

9 - Adoption, Implementation, and Dissemination of the Policy

The current version of the Research Integrity Policy was recommended by the Council of Studies on January 29, 2025, and subsequently adopted by the Senate RMC Saint-Jean, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, on April 24, 2025. It was implemented on April 24, 2025.

This policy is disseminated across all departments and services of RMC Saint-Jean.

10 - Evaluation of Implementation and Revision of the Policy

The Council of Studies may, as needed, evaluate the policy’s implementation of the policy as well as undertake its revision.

Any additions or modifications made to the policy are approved by the Senate following the Council of Studies’ recommendation. If necessary, the Council of Studies establishes a committee responsible for the revision. This committee conducts consultations with the relevant departments and services. Its recommendations are then submitted to the Council of Studies.

 
Date modified: