Code of Ethics

Good Practices in Academic Research

Academic Freedom, Integrity and Responsibility

Academic Freedom is liberty to pursue knowledge via; Teaching and reading without violating the law of the land, academic etiquettes, regulations laid out by NMIT, or breaching the principles of scholarly community. It sets researchers free for investigating the subject of his/her interests while setting the boundaries of the discipline

Best Practices Checklist for Researchers

• Maintain high Integrity in research activities
• Uphold value/moral/ethics in own work
• Understand Policies
• Solve doubts and problems by raising questions professionally and promptly
• Share any new information and opportunities available with your colleagues
• Should not hold employment from two or more different offices
• Researcher should foster an environment wherein their research findings and academic activities may be discussed
• Resources allotted for research and academic activities should be utilized only for research
• Ownership of Invention should comply with the policy of drafted by the Research council of NMIT. Benefits/ royalties generated through innovation/intellectual property are shared in accordance to the rules of the institution.
• . Research work/ consultation agreements outside the institution should be well reported to NIMT
• Prior approval from the institution is mandatory for engaging in other professional activities such as service on scientific advisory board or consultancy etc
• A researcher should be open to collaborative work with investigators having different but complementary skills at the Institution.

Data Management

• Draft and get approval for the policy for managing the experimental/result data for NMIT and outside utilization
• Presence of data handling/management expertise is necessary
• Understand and follow sharing standards, data collection policies
• Abide by the regulations of the discipline, institution, funder, journal, and relevant government agencies
• Research integrity requires the reporting of all relevant observations. Integrity considered to be breached if failure to demonstrate the reported conclusions, withholding of information about related and deciding factors
• If some data needs to be omitted for a valid reason such as neglecting outliers, the reason should be stated and well documented in a tamper-proof ledger or online account.
• Research data obtained in studies performed at NMIT are not the property of the researcher or principal investigator
• Data belongs to the Institution, which can be held accountable for the integrity of the data if the researchers have left the Institution
• Reason for the Institution claiming to ownership of research data is to grantee of sponsored institutional research awards
• Controlled and monitored access to data should normally not be restricted
• In case of applying for copyright or patenting from the group project, a written agreement mentioning the rights of each individual of the group should be specified
• A principal investigator exiting from NMIT is permitted to take a copy to another institution for continuing the research only upon signing the IPR agreement of usage.
• Principal investigator should communicate the roles and responsibility to every individual related to research activity (preferably in writing).
• Individual exiting the research group should state which parts of the project he/she might continue to work on once leaving the research group. This clarifies the extent to which a copy of the research data may be taken. Co-investigators belonging to other institution are allowed to access the data which they helped to obtain

Authorship and Communication

• Confirm to the standards followed for research publications.
• Findings of other researchers should be attributed by proper citation (by following an appropriate citation style of the journal/book/conference/website etc.)
• Be transparent while communicating with your peer researchers.
• Investigators are obliged to make research findings accessible, in a manner consistent with the relevant standards of publication. The reported data and methods should be detailed and should facilitate the replication by other researchers.
• Authorship should be limited to contributors who is/ are involved in design, conceptualization, interpretation, and execution of the published findings.
• Authors of scientific document should acknowledge individuals who have given advice, helped in analyses, offered consultation for subject matter expertize, or supported the research in any way. It is all left to the decision of the principal author to determine whether include these as authors or not
• Before communicating the manuscript of the work to book/conference/journal, written consensus should be taken from every individual involved in research work
• The principal investigator or the author submitting the work is accountable for managing the submission and completion of the work, and for ensuring every contributor of the work given required acknowledgement.
• Every author is liable for revision, verification, and compilation of the changed part of the manuscript
• Order in which co-authors' name(s) to be included in manuscript will differ with the discipline. It is highly necessary that all co-authors should agree to the basis for assigning an order of names prior to the assignments
• A corresponding author will be responsible for communicating with the publisher or editor, and for informing all co-authors of the status of reviews/publications.
• A paper should not be referred to as submitted, in anticipation of expected submission
• A paper should not be referred to as accepted for publication/ in the press until receiving proof or a letter from the editor/publisher.
• Researchers should deter publishing same manuscript at two or more different avenues o Without the appropriate citation is made in the later publication to the earlier one o Unless the editor is explicitly informed.
• An author should present his/her findings as a paper that is a self-contained integral whole. Should refrain from writing numerous smaller papers for the purpose of increasing the items in the author's bibliography.
• NMIT employs plagiarism check of manuscripts through Turnitin before communicating to editors. Authors are given permission only if the plagiarism percentage is within the permissible threshold. The institution permits the submission of research publication only after getting the plagiarism check certificate from Turnitin

Mentoring and Supervision

• Subordinates work to be checked regularly for ensuring adherence to best practices
• Principal investigator should ensure financial support and administrative activities to support research.
• Supervisor should guide individual member of group for conducting responsible research, and should consider himself/herself for maintaining scientific integrity of the research project

Peer Review

• Provide timely and complete review by adhering to deadlines and instructions.
• Do not compromise the quality of the peer review process
• Maintain high professional confidentiality and ethics in the peer review process
• Escalate conflicts of interest and address them appropriately

Research Compliance

• Protect the human subjects being used for experimental purpose.
• Adhere to environmental and safety regulations
• Refrain from engaging in misuse of scientific infrastructure
• Disclose/ manage conflicts of interest.
• Reporting misconduct is a serious responsibility of all members of the research community.
• Refraining from adverse action directly or indirectly against a person who makes an allegation in good faith.

Responsibilities to Funding Agencies

• An investigator should be aware to follow the same integrity pertaining to grant proposals and applications as to manuscripts communicated for publications
• Reporting the results of experiments not yet performed is considered to be fabricated and considered as research misconduct
• An investigator should update the progress and research reports to the agency according to the rules and regulations of the award
• Budget should be considered before approving the new purchase or expenditure
• Investigator should review financial reports carefully and regularly

Possible types of Ethical violations

Conflict of Interest: Any activity that results in a conflict of interest must completely be disclosed. When effectiveness and objectivity cannot be maintained, the activity should be discontinued or avoided

Disputes about Authorship: Authorship is generally to be decided and resolved among individuals of the project. It is unethical to fabricate research results or to omit or change the information.

Duplicate Submission: Duplicate submission is unprofessional and unacceptable. Duplicate submission drains out valuable time of editors, reviewers, and staff. One should not submit extracts from research, or reports on the same research, to more than one publisher

Fabrication of Data or Results: misrepresentation or fabrication is a grave breach of professional conduct. Any intentional disregard for the truth in the documentation of observations is considered as serious research misconduct

If the NMIT research council collectively votes for the requirement of inquiry about the breach in conducting academic research, he/she are put under the scanner of the inquiry process. The very purpose of this is to review the evidence and to find out whether to conduct further Investigation. It doesn’t aim for a conclusion to whether research misconduct has, or not, occurred.

Before initiating any inquiry process, if the respondent is known, NMIT notifies to the respondent in writing as a good faith effort. The NMIT provides respondent a notification memo, duly signed by the Principal, which explains the type of the allegation(s) of research misconduct. NMIT will appoint an inquiry committee comprising three members. The complainant and respondent are asked to appear before the inquiry committee for an interview. Key witnesses and relevant research records are put forth the inquiry committee.

The Inquiry Committee prepares a written draft summary for the Inquiry, which gives recommendation/ not recommended. An Investigation is warranted if the Committee determines:

• There is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct
• The allegation may have substance, based on the Committee’s review during the Inquiry. NMIT will transmit the final Inquiry Report and any comments to the Chairman – Research Council, who will determine whether an Investigation is warranted and document the decision in writing

Program Specific Outcomes (PSOs)

• Possess skill set to design and develop newer materials, mechanical systems and processes through multidisciplinary approach suitable for societal benefits.
• Acquire practical and Hands on Exposure on different mechanical tools, equipment and simulation software through different course projects and Internships.