|
第一條
國立成功大學（下稱本校）為處理有關違反學術倫理案件，依專科以上學校學術倫理案件處理原則及本校學術倫理與研究誠信實施辦法，建立客觀公正之審議程序，並維護本校聲譽及保障當事人權益，特訂定本辦法。
Article 1
According to the Guidelines for Handling Academic Ethics Cases for Junior Colleges or Above and NCKU’s Regulations on the Implementation of Academic Ethics and Research Integrity, The Regulations on Reviewing Cases Where Teachers or Researchers Are in Breach of Academic Ethics (The Regulations) are enacted to handle breach of academic ethics cases, establish an objective and just review procedure, and safeguard NCKU’s prestige, as well as the rights of concerned parties.
第二條
本辦法適用於本校下列人員：
一、專任教師及研究人員。
二、專案教師及研究人員。
三、臨床教師。
四、稀少性科技人員。
五、兼任教師。
研究計畫聘用博士後研究人員及專(兼)任助理人員，準用之。
Article 2
The Regulations shall apply to the following persons:
1. Full-time teachers and researchers
2. Project teachers and researchers
3. Clinical teachers
4. Rarity technology staff members
5. Part-time teachers
The Regulations also apply to post-doctoral researchers and full-time/part-time assistants hired for research projects.
第三條
本校教師或研究人員之學術成果有下列情形之一者，違反學術倫理：
一、造假：虛構不存在之申請資料、研究資料或研究成果。
二、變造：不實變更申請資料、研究資料或研究成果。
三、抄襲：援用他人之申 請資料、研究資料或研究成果未註明出處。註明出處不當，情節重大者，以抄襲論。
四、由他人代寫。
五、未經註明而重複出版公開發行。
六、大幅引用自己已發表之著作，未適當引註。
七、以翻譯代替論著，並未適當註明。
八、教師資格審查履歷表、合著人證明登載不實、代表作未確實填載為合著 及繳交合著人證明。
九、送審人本人或經由他人有請託、關說、利誘、威脅或其他干擾審查人或審查程序之情事，或送審人以違法或不當手段影響論文之審查。
十、其他違反學術倫理行為。
Article 3
Any of the following situations, if found in the academic research of NCKU’s teachers or researchers, constitute a violation of academic ethics:
1. Forgery: Fictitious application material, research material, or research results.
2. Alteration: Untruthful alteration of application material, research material, or research results.
3. Plagiarism: Use of application material, research material, or research results without citing sources. Inappropriate source citing, if found to be grave, should be treated as plagiarism.
4. Written by a third party.
5. Repetitive publication without explanatory notes.
6. Citing one’s own published works in large amounts without appropriate citing.
7. Adopting translated statement(s) from work(s) of others in one’s own research without appropriate citing.
8. Untruthful statement in the teacher’s CV for qualification review or in co-author identification documents, failure to state that the representative work is co-authored, or failure to submit co-author identification.
9. The applicant seeks to interfere with the reviewer or reviewing procedures, either in person or through a third party, by means of asking, lobbying, luring, threatening, or other means. Or the applicant attempts to exert influence on the research review process with illegal or inappropriate means.
10. Other acts that violate academic ethics.
第四條
對所發表著作具實質貢獻，始得列名為作者。學生學位論文之部分或全部為其他發表時，學生應為作者。
作者應確認所發表論文之內容，並對其負責。著作違反學術倫理經查證屬實時，相關人員應負下列責任：
一、列名作者應對所貢獻之部分，負全部責任。
二、列名作者其列名未符合國內外標準者，雖未涉及或認定其違反學術倫理，惟於因列名於發表著作而獲益時，應負擔相應責任。
三、重要作者兼學術行政主管、重要作者兼計畫主持人，對所發表著作，或指導教授對其指導學生所發表之學位論文，應負監督不周責任。
Article 4
An individual can only be named as an author of a research work if he/she has made a substantial contribution to the published work. In the case of published work, either in whole or in part, of a student’s graduation thesis/dissertation, the student shall be considered the author.
The author shall confirm the content of the published work and be responsible for it. When the work is found to be in violation of academic ethics, the relevant parties shall assume the following responsibilities:
1. The author(s) listed shall assume full responsibility for their contributed part(s).
2. If the author(s) listed do not meet domestic or foreign criteria and are not or have not been deemed in violation of academic ethics, they shall still assume responsibilities if they are benefiting from being listed as authors.
3. Where an important author is also an academic or administrative supervisor, or also the principle investigator of a research project, then he/she shall also assume responsibility for ineffective supervision. This shall also apply to a case where a supervisor oversees a student’s graduation thesis/dissertation.
第五條
本校設學術倫理審議委員會（下稱倫理委員會），採任務編組方式組成，置委員九至十一人，由校長聘請副校長、該領域校內外公正學者專家六至八人與法律專家二人組成，其中校外公正學者專家不得少於三人。
倫理委員會委員均為無給職，校外委員得依規定支給出席費及交通費。
Article 5
An Academic Ethics Review Committee (hereinafter “the Ethics Committee”) shall be set up and organized into task-oriented units. Nine to eleven members shall serve in the Ethics Committee, which shall include the Vice President, six to eight academics and experts in related fields from within or outside the University, and two legal experts, all of whom are to be invited by the President. The Ethics Committee shall include no fewer than three academics and experts from outside the University.
Committee members serving in the Ethics Committee are non-paid. However, members from outside the University may receive an attendance fee and transport stipend.
第六條
倫理委員會置召集人，由校長指定副校長一人擔任。召集人因故不能行使職權時，由委員互推一人代理之。
倫理委員會開會時，應有三分之二以上委員出席，出席委員三分之二以 上同意，方得決議。
Article 6
The Ethics Committee shall have a convener, who shall be the Vice President as appointed by the President. If the convener cannot exercise his/her powers and duties, an acting convener chosen among the Ethics Committee members by the members themselves shall take his/her place.
Resolutions may only be passed at Ethics Committee meetings with attendance of two-thirds of all Ethics Committee members and upon the consent of two-thirds of attending members.
第七條
學術倫理案件處理過程中審議及處理之相關人員，與被檢舉人有下列情事之一者，應自行迴避：
一、曾有指導博士、碩士學位論文之師生關係。
二、配偶、前配偶、四親等內之血親或三親等內之姻親，或曾有此關係。
三、近三年發表論文或研究成果之共同參與研究者或共同著作人。
四、審查該案件時共同執行研究計畫。
五、現為或曾為被檢舉人之訴訟代理人或輔佐人。
被檢舉人得申請下列人員迴避：
一、有前項所定之情形而不自行迴避者。
二、有具體事證足認其執行職務有偏頗之虞者。
相關人員有第一項所定之情形而未自行迴避，或其執行職務有偏頗之虞者，本校應依職權命其迴避。
相關人員，得自行申請迴避。
委託送請審查之專家學者，其迴避準用本條規定。
Article 7
Person(s) reviewing or handling academic ethics cases shall recuse himself/herself from the review process if the person(s) meets the following criteria in relation to the defendant.
1. Used to be the defendant’s supervisor for his/her doctoral or master dissertation/thesis.
2. Is currently a spouse, was formerly a spouse, or is or used to be within fourth degree consanguinity or within third degree affinity with the defendant.
3. A co-participant or co-author in a published paper or academic research over the past three years.
4. Currently carrying out research project(s) with the defendant at the time of case review.
5. Currently or formerly an agent ad litem or assistant ad litem to the defendant.
The defendant may ask the following person(s) to be recused from the review process:
1. Those who meet any criteria of the preceding paragraph but have not recused himself/herself from the review process.
2. Those who may be unjust in the review process if verified by substantial facts.
Those who meet any criteria of Paragraph 1 or have the potential to be unjust in carrying out his/her duties but have not recused himself/herself from the review process shall be ordered by the University to be recused.
Relevant persons may seek to recuse on their own accord.
The rules for being recused in this article also apply to experts and academics that are delegated to review academic works.
第八條
倫理委員會開會時，得邀請被檢舉人或其所屬之單位主管及相關人員列席。
Article 8
Defendants, supervisors, and relevant persons of the units that the defendant belongs to may be invited to attend the meeting held by the Ethics Committee.
第九條
檢舉違反學術倫理案件，檢舉人應具真實姓名及聯絡方式，並具體指陳對象、內容及檢附證據資料，向本校提出；檢舉人提供之身分資料有化名、匿名或不實情事者，以未具名檢舉論。
前項檢舉案件，檢舉人未具名或無具體事證，本校得不予受理。但未具名如有具體指陳對象、違反內容且充分舉證者，得依前項規定辦理。
Article 9
When informing the relevant authority of cases in violation of academic ethics, the informant shall provide the University his/her real name, means of contact, and clearly state the persons concerned in the violation, a description of the violation, and documents of proof. Informants who inform using an alias, stay anonymous, or inform untruthful matters will be considered anonymous informants.
If the informant stays anonymous or the informed material is insubstantial, the University has the discretion to refuse such informed materials. However, if the informant stays anonymous but has provided substantial information regarding the party involved, description of the violation, and substantial documents of proof, then the case shall be handled according to the preceding paragraph.
第十條 學術倫理案件之審議相關資料，應予保密；受理檢舉、參與審議程序之人員就所接觸之資訊，應予保密。
檢舉人之真實姓名、地址及其他足資辨識其身分之資料，應予保密。
Article 10
Materials related to the review of academic ethics cases shall be kept confidential. Information accessed by persons involved in handling informants or participating in the reviewing process shall be kept confidential.
Name, address, and other information that may allow a third party to determine the identity of the informant shall be kept confidential.
第十一條
檢舉違反學術倫理案件，經學術誠信辦公室審查受理後，由秘書室依本辦法第五條規定組成倫理委員會，並由教務處成立調查小組，進行調查後將調查報告提交倫理委員會審議。
前項調查小組，由教務長、被檢舉人所屬學院院長及遴聘與系爭案件學術領域有關之校內外學者專家三人組成之。調查小組召集人由校長視個案性質指定之。
Article 11
Any case informed to be in violation of academic ethics shall first be reviewed by the Office of Academic Integrity before being referred to an investigation team formed by the Office of Academic Affairs, which shall undertake an investigation and submit the investigation report to the Ethics Committee, which has been established according to Article 5 of the Regulations by the Secretariat Office, for further review.
The investigation team, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, consists of Chief of Academic Affairs, dean of the college that the person being informed belongs to, and three scholars or experts selected from outside the University whose expertise is related to the case in question. The convener of the investigation team shall be appointed by the President according to the nature of the case.
第十二條
調查小組所為之調查程序不公開。
Article 12
The investigation procedure of the investigation team shall not be disclosed.
第十三條
調查小組因調查事實及證據之必要，應通知被檢舉人提出必要之資 料、物品或書面說明。
Article 13
For purposes of investigating facts and evidence, the investigation team shall notify the defendant to present necessary materials, objects, or written explanations.
第十四條
調查小組應於組成後二個月內完成調查，必要時，得延長一個月，並通知檢舉人及被檢舉人。
Article 14
Investigation by the investigation team shall be completed within two months from the establishment of the team but may be extended for another one month if necessary. In the latter case, the informant(s) and the defendant(s) shall be notified of such extension.
第十五條
檢舉案件經調查後認定無違反學術倫理之情事時，調查小組應提交調查報告交倫理委員會確認。倫理委員會如認為調查報告不完備或有應調查情事未予調查者，得請調查小組續為調查。
Article 15
After investigation, if no breach of academic ethics is found, the investigation team shall submit an investigation report to the Ethics Committee for confirmation. If the Ethics Committee finds that the report is incomplete or outstanding issues require further investigation, the Ethics Committee is empowered to ask the investigation team to continue investigation.
第十六條
檢舉案件經調查後認定有違反學術倫理之情事時，調查小組應將調查報告送達被檢舉人，並提交倫理委員會審議。
Article 16
After investigation, if proof of violation of academic ethics is indeed found, the investigation team shall send the investigation report to the defendant and submit the case to the Ethics Committee for further review.
第十七條
倫理委員會就前條案件進行審議時，應通知被檢舉人提出書面或口頭答辯。
Article 17
When reviewing the case pursuant to the preceding article, the Ethics Committee shall notify the defendant to submit a written or oral plea against the accusation.
第十八條
倫理委員會應於收受調查報告後二個月內完成審議，必要時，得延長一次，並通知檢舉人及被檢舉人。
Article 18
The Ethics Committee review shall be done within two months from the day of receiving the investigation report but may be extended once if necessary. In the case of extension, the informant(s) and defendant(s) shall be notified..
第十九條
倫理委員會於審議時，對於被檢舉人違反學術倫理行為，如仍有判斷困難之情事，得列舉待澄清之事項再委請專業學者審查。
Article 19
If the Ethics Committee finds it difficult to determine whether the defendant is in violation of academic ethics, the Committee may make a list of issues pending clarification by experts or academics.
第二十條
倫理委員會認定被檢舉人有違反學術倫理行為之情事者，除涉及教師資格送審，依相關規定辦理外，得按其情節輕重，作成下列處分之建議，送教師評審委員會或相關單位為後續處置：
一、書面申誡。
二、一定期間不受理教師資格審查之申請。
三、一定期間不予晉薪、借調、在外兼職兼課。
四、一定期間不得申請休假研究、擔任校內各級教師評審委員會委員、行政或學術單位主管。
五、一定期間不得申請研究計畫或停止研究補助， 已核定之補助，應予撤銷或終止補助，並得命催還已撥付經費之全部或部分。
六、參加一定時間之學術倫理相關課程，並取得證明。
七、停聘、解聘、不續聘。
八、其他停權措施。
Article 20
If the defendant is determined to have violated academic ethics by the Ethics Committee, the defendant shall be handled, in the case of teacher qualification review, according to regulations as deemed appropriate; otherwise, a recommendation on the following punishment based on the severity of the case may be made and referred to the Teachers Evaluation and Review Committee or associated institutions for further decisions:
1. Written reprimand.
2. Denial for a certain period of time the application for teacher qualification review.
3. Denial for a certain period of time the promotion, transfer, or part-time job or part-time teaching outside the University.
4. Denial for a certain period of time sabbatical leave for research; serving as a member at any level of the Teacher Evaluation and Review Committee within the University; serving as an administrative or academic manager.
5. Denial for a certain period of time the application for research projects or suspending research subsidies. Subsidies approved theretofore shall be revoked or suspended. The return of funding already given may be demanded, in whole or in part.
6. Required to attend courses on academic ethics for a certain period of time and acquire certifications.
7. Suspension, dismissal, or non-renewal of contract.
8. Other suspension measures.
第二十一條
倫理委員會認定被檢舉人有違反學術倫理行為之情事者，應作成書面，送達被檢舉人、檢舉人、學術誠信辦公室及其他相關單位。
Article 21
If the defendant is deemed by the Ethics Committee as being in violation of academic ethics, the results shall be sent in writing to the defendant, the informant, the Office of Academic Integrity, and other related offices.
第二十二條
研究計畫聘用博士後研究人員及專(兼)任助理人員被檢舉違反學術倫理案件時，由研究發展處組成調查審議小組，負責案件調查、審議及處置。
前項調查審議小組，由研發長、教務長、產學創新總中心中心主任及遴聘與系爭案件學術領域有關之校內外學者專家二人組成，以研發長為召集人。調查、審議程序，準用本辦法相關規定。
Article 22
In the case where post-doctoral and full-time/part-time assistants recruited for research projects are informed of violating academic ethics, such cases shall be investigated, reviewed, and handled by the investigation review team established by the Office of Research and Development.
The investigation review team in the preceding paragraph shall include the Head of Research and Development, Head of Academic Affairs, Director General of Innovation Headquarters, and two experts selected or hired from within or outside the University that are familiar with the academic field associated with the case in question. The Head of Research and Development shall be the convener. The Regulations shall apply to the investigation and review procedures.
第二十三條
前條調查審議小組開會時，應有三分之二以上委員出席，出席委員三分之二以上同意，方得決議。
調查審議小組調查結果，認定確有違反學術倫理情事，應按其情節作成下列處置，送請計畫主持人執行：
一、書面申誡。
二、參加一定時間之學術倫理相關課程，並取得證明。
三、減發當年度年終工作獎金二分之一或不予核發。
四、一定期間不得申請研究計畫或停止研究補助， 已核定之補助，應予撤銷或終止補助，並得命催還已撥付經費之全部或部分。
五、解聘（僱）。
Article 23
A resolution may only be passed in a meeting summoned by the investigation review committee, as described in the preceding article, with at least two-thirds of members attending and receiving the consent of at least two-thirds of members present.
If the defendant is determined to have violated academic ethics by the investigation and review team, the defendant shall be handled according to the following punishments based on the severity of the case and referred to the research project chief investigator for implementation:
1. Written reprimand.
2. Required to attend courses on academic ethics for a certain period of time and acquire certifications.
3. Reduce the amount of his/her year-end bonus by 50% or 100%.
4. Denial for a certain period of time the application for research projects or suspending research subsidies. Subsidies approved theretofore shall be revoked or suspended. The return of funding already given may be demanded, in whole or in part.
5. Dismissal.
第二十四條
本辦法未盡事宜，依專科以上學校學術倫理處理原則及本校學術倫理與研究誠信實施辦法等相關法令規定辦理。
Article 24
Any matters that are not regulated in these Regulations shall be administered according to the Guidelines for Handling Academic Ethics Cases for Junior Colleges or Above and NCKU’s Regulations on the Implementation of Academic Ethics and Research Integrity.
第二十五條
本辦法經校務會議通過後實施，修正時亦同。
Article 25
The Regulations shall be implemented upon approval by the University Council. Any amendments shall be processed accordingly.
These regulations were translated from the original Chinese. In the event of any discrepancies between the two versions, the Chinese always takes precedence.
|