Online Course “Scientific Integrity”

1. What is Scientific Integrity?

Scientific Integrity

“Scientific integrity forms the basis for trustworthy

research. It is an example of academic voluntary
commitment that encompasses a respectful attitude
towards peers, research participants, animals,
cultural assets, and the environment, and
strengthens and promotes vital public trust in
research.” (DFG 2019:7)

DFG 2019
Scientific Integrity: Definition of the German Council of Science and Humanities

“Scientific integrity means a necessary ethical

attitude and an overarching culture of honesty in
scientific work, which must be upheld and promoted.”
(Transl. Wissenschaftsrat 2015:5)

Wissenschaftsrat 2015
Honesty

“Science and the humanities are founded on

integrity. It is one of the key principles of good
scientific practice and therefore of every piece of
research. Only science performed with integrity can
ultimately be productive science and lead to new
knowledge.” (DFG 2013:64)

DFG 2013
Research as Knowledge Gain

Discover reality and seek truth Give explanations on questions

Make the world understandable for

humans by means of theories, Make prognoses
hypotheses and laws

Balzert et al. 2011

Principles of Scientific Integrity

Commitment to follow principles Truthfulness, openness, self-discipline,

of good scientific practice self-criticism, fairness

Maintain credibility and Attitude and awareness

acceptance of science of responsibility

Balzert et al. 2011

Criteria of Research

Further development and exchange Self-criticism and ethical reflection

Exchange and transparency Dialogue with society

Swiss Academies of Arts and Science 2008

Classical Quality Criteria of Scientific Research

1. Objectivity 2. Reliability 3. Validity

Döring & Bortz 2015

 References

• Akademien der Wissenschaft Schweiz (2008) Wissenschaftliche Integrität. Grundsätze und Verfahrensregeln.

• Balzert, H. et al. (2011) Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten: Ethik, Inhalt und Form. Herdecke/Witten: W3L.

• Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) (2013) Sicherung guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis. Empfehlungen der
Kommission „Selbstkontrolle in der Wissenschaft“, Denkschrift. Weinheim.

• Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) (2019) Leitlinien zur Sicherung guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis.
Kodex, online available:
https://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/foerderung/rechtliche_rahmenbedingungen/gute_wissenschaftliche_praxis/kod
ex_gwp.pdf (Status: 01.08.2019).
English translation available: German Research Foundation (2019) Guidelines for Safeguarding Good Research Practice. Code of
Conduct, online available:
https://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/foerderung/rechtliche_rahmenbedingungen/gute_wissenschaftliche_praxis/kodex_gwp_en.pdf
(Status: 25.06.2020).

• Döring, N. & Bortz, J. (2015) Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften. 5.
Aufl. Springer.
 References

• Sponholz, G. & Baitsch, H., (1999) Teaching research ethics (TRE). In: Ethik in der Medizin 11, S. 190–204.
Springer.

• Wissenschaftsrat (2015) Empfehlungen zu wissenschaftlicher Integrität. Positionspapier.

 Online Course “Scientific Integrity”
2. Recommendations for Safeguarding
Scientific Integrity
Claim for Universality

“Scientific work is based on a number of basic

principles that guideline scientists internationally and
independently of their respective discipline.“
[…]
“A central task of the universities is to communicate
these principles to young scientists and students.”
(DFG 2013:13)

DFG 2013
Recommendations to Ensure Good Scientific Practice

• First published in 1998, updated in 2013,

revised fundamentally in 2019

• Reaction to act of scientific misconduct

• Established by international commission of experts

• Goal: culture of scientific integrity as a professional ethics

• Available also in English: Guidelines for Safeguarding Good

Research Practice. Code of Conduct

• In German: Leitlinien zur Sicherung guter wissenschaftlicher

Praxis

DFG 2019
Recommendations to Ensure Good Scientific Practice

19 guidelines, such as

• General principles and professional ethics

• Manage institutions and work units
• Provide persons of trust (ombudspersons)
• Reflect current state research
• Authorship in publications
• Procedures to be adopted if scientific misconduct is suspected

DFG 2019
Position Paper of the German Council of Science and Humanities

• Overview of national and international guidelines

• Progress of implementation in Germany

• Recommendations regarding

• Ability to implement scientific integrity

• Research process and publication practice
• Handling of conflicts
• Evaluation criteria
• Areas of responsibility of the various actors

• Available only in German

Wissenschaftsrat 2015
Position Paper of the German Council of Science and Humanities

Communicate good scientific practice

(n=194 Faculties from German state Universities; multiple answers possible)

100%

80%

60% 57.2%

41.2% 39.7%
40%

19.6%
20%
9.8% 7.7%

0%
Bestandteil
Percentage ofvon Individual decision Teaching unit in Continuing Not known No offer
Fachmodulen
subject modulesim of lecturer doctoral phase education for
BA- und/oder
in BA and/or MA MA- lecturers and
Studium
studies (e.g.(zb.
in In researchers after
Einführungskursen)
introductory PhD
courses)
Transl. Wissenschaftsrat 2015:19
Principles of Good Scientific Practice at RWTH University

Specific RWTH principles

§§ 1 – 10 Principles for good scientific practice

• Work according to lege artis

• Document results and consistently question all results
• Ensure strict honesty with regards to one's own and third parties
contributions
• Avoid and prevent scientific misconduct

§§ 11 – 18 Procedure to be followed if
scientific misconduct is suspected

§§ 19 – 25 Measures to be taken in the

event of scientific misconduct

RWTH 2020
Summary

• A core task of higher education institutions is to communicate the universal basic principles of good
scientific practice to students and young academics

• The Guidelines of the German Research Foundation DFG and the position paper of the Council of
Science and Humanities contain the most relevant rules for maintaining scientific integrity for
researchers in Germany

• RWTH Aachen University itself has laid down certain principles to which the scientists at RWTH must
adhere
References

• Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (2013) Vorschläge zur Sicherung guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis:

Empfehlungen der Kommission „Selbstkontrolle in der Wissenschaft“, Denkschrift. Weinheim.

English translation available: German Research Foundation (2013) Recommendations of the Commission on Professional Self
Regulation in Science, Memorandum. Weinheim.

• German Research Foundation (DFG) (2019) Guidelines for Safeguarding Good Research Practice. Code of
Conduct, online available:
https://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/foerderung/rechtliche_rahmenbedingungen/gute_wissenschaftliche_praxis/kodex
_gwp_en.pdf (Status: 25.06.2020).

• RWTH Aachen (2020) Leitlinien und Verfahren zur Sicherung guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis der Rheinisch-
Westfälischen Technischen Hochschule Aachen. Amtliche Bekanntmachung. Aachen, online unter:
https://www.rwth-aachen.de/global/show_document.asp?id=aaaaaaaaantvavg (Stand 07.01.2021)

• Wissenschaftsrat (2015) Empfehlungen zu wissenschaftlicher Integrität. Positionspapier, online available:

https://www.wissenschaftsrat.de/download/archiv/4609-
15.pdf;jsessionid=7E7D23FDA0F91FCB71AD50023AE213E5.delivery1-master?__blob=publicationFile&v=4
(Status: 01.08.2019).
 Online Course “Scientific Integrity”

3. Scientific Misconduct
What is Scientific Misconduct?

“Scientific misconduct is deemed to have occurred

if, in a scientifically relevant context, false
statements are made consciously or with gross
negligence, if the intellectual property of others is
infringed or if their research activities are otherwise
impaired.” (transl. HRK 1998:3)

HRK 1998
Types of Scientific Misconduct

Declare incorrect information

Violate intellectual property

Claim (co-)authorship of another

author without their consent

Sabotage research activities

Delete primary data

HRK 1998
Types of Scientific Misconduct - Plagiarism

Fr. plagiat = intellectual theft

Violation of intellectual property Causes for plagiarism

• Text plagiarism / literal plagiarism • Lack of ethical awareness

• Translation plagiarism • Pressure to publish („publish or perish“)
• Paraphrasing plagiarism / plagiarism of • Unclear / inconsistent consequences
ideas
• Imitation plagiarism
• Quotation plagiarism
• Self-plagiarism / plagiarism of your own
ideas

Universität Duisburg-Essen
Responsibility for Misconduct of Others

Active participation in the misconduct

Being aware of the fraud of others
of others

Co-authoring of publications containing Grossly neglecting the supervisor‘s

faked data or information duties

HRK 1998
What Causes Scientific Misconduct?

Lack of ethical awareness

Pressure to publish („publish or

perish“)

Orientation towards quantitative

performance indicators

Unclear / inconsistent consequences

Poor knowledge of scientific methods

Guraya & Guraya 2017

What to Do about Scientific Misconduct?

The German Research Obmudsman

• Founded in 1999 by the German Research

Foundation (DFG)

• Honorary committee

• Counseling regarding
− Good scientific practice
− Resolution of conflicts in the case of scientific
misconduct

• Committed to secrecy

Ombudsman für die Wissenschaft

What to Do about Scientific Misconduct at RWTH Aachen University?

Locally active ombudspersons at the Responsible for conflicts and

university suspected scientific misconduct

Appointed by the RWTH Rectorate Two independent persons of trust

RWTH 2011
What to Do about Scientific Misconduct at RWTH Aachen University?

Entitled to take all necessary steps to

Commission for the investigation of investigate the facts
scientific misconduct

• Reports to the rectorate

(recommendation for decision)
• Rectorate decides based on the
recommendations of the commission
Makes decisions to its free discretion
based on the investigated facts and the
collected evidences

RWTH 2011
References

• Fanelli (2009) How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of
Survey Data. PLoS ONE, 4(5).

• Guraya S. Y., Guraya S. S. (2017) The confounding factors leading to plagiarism in academic writing and some
suggested remedies: A systematic review. J Pak Med Assoc, 67(5), S. 767-772.

• HRK – Hochschulrektorenkonferenz (1998) Zum Umgang mit wissenschaftlichem Fehlverhalten in den

Hochschulen. Empfehlung des 185. Plenums am 6. Juli 1998 in Bonn.

• Ombudsman für die Wissenschaft, online available: www.ombudsman-fuer-die-wissenschaft.de/ (Status:

25.06.2020).
Available in English

• RWTH Aachen (2011) Grundsätze zur Sicherung guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis der Rheinisch-Westfälischen
Technischen Hochschule Aachen. Amtliche Bekanntmachungen. Aachen, online available: https://www.rwth-
aachen.de/global/show_document.asp?id=aaaaaaaaaaaoyxb (Status: 01.08.2019)
 References

• RWTH Rektoratskommission zur Aufklärung wissenschaftlichen Fehlverhaltens, online available: www.rwth-

aachen.de/cms/root/Die-RWTH/Einrichtungen/Organisation/Rektorat/~qjvg/Rektoratskommission-zur-Aufklaerung-
wiss/ (Status: 25.06.2020).
Available in English

• Universität Duisburg-Essen, Plagiate als Diebstahl geistigen Eigentums, online available: www.uni-
due.de/plagiate/definition.shtml (Status: 25.06.2020).
 Online Course “Scientific Integrity”

4. Research Ethics and Social

Responsibility
Research Ethics

Goals of research ethics

Identify necessities, Protect and preserve

Critically reflect
limits and principles of the rights of persons
research practice
empirical research involved in research

von Unger et al. 2014

Freedom of Research

The freedom of research and the freedom of teaching are anchored in Article 5 of the Constitutional
Law of the Federal Republic of Germany.

However, in research practice, these freedoms can collide with other existing rights:

Exclusion of research Regulation of Export bans on certain

objectives methods countries
(e.g., nuclear and (e.g., experiments on (e.g., knowledge, products,
biological weapons) humans) services)

DFG 2014
Risk Analysis and Impact Assessment

The omission of research can represent a risk

Knowledge of potential risks

Inclusion of possibilities of use and abuse and the controllability of results

Limits of one's own research must, depending on the evaluation, be drawn

within the framework of freedom of research

Science is subject to self-regulation of its research

DFG 2014
Dual-Use-Problem

Multiple possibilities for the use The unknown nature of

Research results are of research results can make it future chains of action
always at risk of impossible to clearly distinguish makes it more difficult to
misuse between „good“ and „bad“ assess research and its
research consequences and risks

DFG 2014
Science and Social Responsibility

Definition “Social responsibility of organizations”

“A key feature of social responsibility is the will of an organization to take social

and environmental concerns into consideration in the decision-making process
and to report the effects of its decisions and activities on society and environment.
This requires transparent and ethical conduct to contribute to a sustainable
development while respecting the applicable law and international standards of
conduct. It also means that social responsibility must be integrated in the entire
organization, practiced in all relationships of the organization and the interests of
all stakeholders must be taken into consideration.” (transl. DIN ISO 26000
2011:20)

DIN ISO 26000 2011

DIN ISO 26000 “Social Responsibility of Organizations”

Principles

The International Standard ISO 26000

The DIN Standard is designed for use
is a voluntary guideline developed to
of all organization independent of size,
help organizations implement social
focus and area of activity.
responsibility.

Focuses on the individual needs of

The implementation of the standard is
organizations, institutions, corporations,
part of a risk management that helps
and universities and is supplemented
prevent scientific misconduct.
by specific standards and initiatives.

DIN ISO 26000 2011

Risk Analysis and Impact Assessment

1. Accountability

2. Transparency

3. Ethical behavior

4. Respect for the interests of stakeholders

5. Respect for constitutional law

6. Respect for international standards of conduct

7. Respect for human rights DIN ISO 26000 2011

DFG – Guideline for Securing Good Scientific Practice

Guideline 3 :
Organizational responsibility of the management of scientific institutions

Guideline 4:
Responsibilities of the management of work units

Guideline 8:
Actors, responsibilities, and roles

DFG 2019
References
• Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) und deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina e. V., (2014)
Wissenschaftsfreiheit und Wissenschaftsverantwortung. Empfehlungen zum Umgang mit sicherheitsrelevanter
Forschung. Online available: http://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/dfg_im_profil/reden_stellungnahmen/2014/dfg-
leopoldina_forschungsrisiken_de_en.pdf (Status: 28.06.2019).

• Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) (2019) Leitlinien zur Sicherung guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis. Kodex,
online available:
https://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/foerderung/rechtliche_rahmenbedingungen/gute_wissenschaftliche_praxis/kodex
_gwp.pdf (Status: 01.08.2019).
English translation available: German Research Foundation (2019) Guidelines for Safeguarding Good Research Practice. Code of
Conduct, online available:
https://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/foerderung/rechtliche_rahmenbedingungen/gute_wissenschaftliche_praxis/kodex_gwp_en.pdf
(Status: 25.06.2020).

• DIN ISO 26000 (2011) 2011-01 –Leitfaden zur gesellschaftlichen Verantwortung (ISO 26000:2010). Beuth Verlag,
Berlin, Wien, Zürich.

• Mittelstraß, Jürgen (1990) Von der Freiheit der Forschung und der Verantwortung
des Wissenschaftlers. In: Naturwissenschaften, Ausgabe 77, S. 149-157. Springer.

• Von Unger, H.; Narimani, P.; M´Bayo, R. (Hrsg.) (2014) Forschungsethik in der qualitativen Forschung.
Reflexivität, Perspektiven, Positionen. Wiesbaden: Springer.
Online Course “Scientific Integrity”

5. Diversity in Science
Diversity in Science

• Diversity of Why don‘t we have any new

ideas?
• Fields and disciplines
• Projects
• Research methods
• People

To cover all socially relevant areas with research, they must be adequately represented in science

DFG 2017, illustration adapted by Tom Fishburne

Diversity in Science

No one may be excluded from a scientific career

based on non-scientific facts such as
• Gender
• Ethnic Origin
• Age
• State of health
• Sexual identity
• Religion or ideology

This is also stated in the German General Equal Treatment Act (AGG: Allgemeines
Gleichbehandlungsgesetz der Bundesrepublik Deutschland)

DFG 2017, AGG 2006

Diversity in Science – Advantages

• The German Research Foundation (DFG) offers measures for equal opportunities in the
individual funding procedures to support
• Equality between men and women in science and
• Compatibility of family life and scientific career
• Socially diverse groups breed demonstrably more innovation than homogeneous groups
• Wide range of individual expertise can aid in solving complex problems

DFG 2017, Schiebinger & Schraudner 2011, Phillips 2014

Diversity in Science – Advantages

• Thus promotes added value for research and technology through

• Ensuring excellence and quality of results, and
• Improving sustainability
• Added value for society by making research more responsive to social needs
• Creating value for companies by developing new ideas, patents and
technologies

DFG 2017, Schiebinger & Schraudner 2011, Phillips 2014

Diversity in Science – Guidance

„Researchers examine whether and to what extent

gender and diversity dimensions may be of
significance to the research project (with regard to
methods, work programme, objectives, etc.). The
context in which the research was conducted is
taken into consideration when interpreting findings.“
(DFG 2019:15f.)

DFG 2019
 Practical Example – Communication in Science

• Educational textbooks reproduce gender stereotypes through

• ...language (e.g. choice of words, metaphors and process names)
• ...and presentation (pictures, graphics and tables)

Statement of RWTH Aachen University

„Equality starts with our language. In accordance with the What does a „scientist“ look like?
Landesgleichstellungsgesetz (state equal opportunities law),
the university must ensure equal treatment of men and
women in terms of language in official correspondence.“
(transl. Förderung der Gleichstellung, RWTH Aachen)

RWTH Aachen 2019, Schiebinger 2013, Fermilab

Practical Example – "Nude" is not a colour

• „Skin-coloured" underwear or plasters are almost always designed for

white skin
• Mostly the colour "beige" is meant by this
• Defining "nude" or "skin colour" as the colour of white skin solidifies the
idea that white skin is the norm
→ "Nude" is a state, not a colour

Rethinking language and visual presentation in textbooks can help to eliminate

unconscious gender inequalities that hinder research and innovation.

Gregull 2012, Schiebinger 2013, own illustration

Practical Example – Pregnant Crashtest-Dummies

• Conventional seat belts do not functionally fit the body of pregnant

women

• Even emergency braking at slow speeds damages mother and child

Main cause of death for unborn children when mothers are involved
in an accident

• The male body was defined as the norm in science for a long time and
is considered as the reference for development and research
Development of crash test dummies
Source: www.volpe.dot.gov

• Not thinking about size, shape, gender or skin colour can be life-
threatening

Standards for reference models of the population must be questioned!

Pearlman 1996, Schiebinger 2013

Code of Conduct of DFG on the Responsibility of Supervisors and Assistants

„Researchers are responsible for putting the

fundamental values and norms of research into
practice and advocating for them. Education in the
principles of good research begins at the earliest
possible stage in academic teaching and research
training.“ (DFG 2019:9f.)

DFG 2019
Code of Conduct of DFG on the Responsibility of Supervisors and Assistants

„The heads of HEIs and non-HEI research

institutions create the basic framework for research.
They are responsible for ensuring adherence to and
the promotion of good practice, and for appropriate
career support for all researchers.“ (DFG 2019:10)

DFG 2019
Promotion of scientific staff

• Academic staff are entitled to individual support and career development within the framework of the
organisational concept of the respective institution
• Structural concepts prevent abuse of power and the exploitation of dependency

Promotion of doctoral projects

• Graduate schools and trainings as well as doctoral programmes in universities and non-university
research institutions generally have doctoral guidelines and conclude supervision agreements

DFG 2019, Sponholz 2019

 References

• Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz (AGG) (2006), online available:

https://www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/publikationen/AGG/agg_gleichbehandlungsgeset
z.pdf?__blob=publicationFile (Status: 23.04.2020).
• Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) (2019) Leitlinien zur Sicherung guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis. Kodex,
online available:
https://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/foerderung/rechtliche_rahmenbedingungen/gute_wissenschaftliche_praxis/kodex_gw
p.pdf (Status: 18.03.2020).
English translation available: German Research Foundation (2019) Guidelines for Safeguarding Good Research Practice. Code of
Conduct, online available:
https://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/foerderung/rechtliche_rahmenbedingungen/gute_wissenschaftliche_praxis/kodex_gwp_en.pdf (Status:
25.06.2020).

• Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) (2017) Inklusiv forschen. Forschung – Das Magazin der deutschen
Forschungsgemeinschaft, 03, 26, online available:
https://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/dfg_magazin/aus_der_forschung/forschung_magazin/2017/forschung_2017_03.pdf
(Status: 19.03.2020).
• Gregull, E. (2012) „Wie Rassismus aus Wörtern spricht“ - Ein Nachschlagewerk zu Sprache, deutschem Kolonialismus
und Rassismus. Heimatkunde - Heinrich Böll Stiftung, online available: https://heimatkunde.boell.de/de/2012/04/01/wie-
rassismus-aus-woertern-spricht-ein-nachschlagewerk-zu-sprache-deutschem-kolonialismus (Status: 22.05.2020).
• Pearlman, J., Viano, D. (1996) Automobile crash simulation with the first pregnant crash test dummy. American Journal
of Obstetrics & Gynecology 175, 977-981.
 References
• Phillips, K. W., Medin, D., Lee, C. D., Bang, M., Bishop, S., & Lee, D. N. (2014) How diversity works. Scientific
American, 311(4), 42-47, online available:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Megan_Bang/publication/280845360_Particular_Points_of_View/links/57485c2808
ae18b6dce91abf.pdf (Status: 19.03.2020).
• RWTH Aachen (2019) Förderung der Gleichstellung, online available: https://www.rwth-aachen.de/cms/root/Die-
RWTH/Profil/Gender-Diversity/~ckpm/Foerderung-der-Gleichstellung/ (Status: 18.03.2020).
• Schiebinger, L. (2013) Gendered Innovations: How Gender Analysis Contributes to Research, online available:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248399777_Gendered_Innovations_How_Gender_Analysis_Contributes_to_
Research (Status: 30.03.2020).
• Schiebinger, L., & Schraudner, M. (2011) Interdisciplinary approaches to achieving gendered innovations in science,
medicine, and engineering1. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 36(2), 154-167, online available:
https://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/ISR_07_Schiebinger.pdf (Status: 19.03.2020).
• Sponholz, G. (2019) Curriculum für Lehrveranstaltungen zur „Guten wissenschaftlichen Praxis “für alle
wissenschaftlichen Disziplinen, online available: https://ombudsman-fuer-die-wissenschaft.de/wp-
content/uploads/2019/11/2019-Curriculum-f%C3%BCr-Lehrveranstaltungen-zur-GWP.pdf (Status: 19.03.2020).
• Image Sources
− Fermilab: https://ed.fnal.gov/projects/scientists/amy.html, https://ed.fnal.gov/projects/scientists/eric.html
− Tom Fishburne: https://marketoonist.com/2018/08/diversity.html
 Online Course „Scientific Integrity“

6. Dealing with research data

and conflicts of interest
Research Data

• Measurement data
• Laboratory values
• Audiovisual information
• Texts
• Survey data
• Objects from collections or samples
• Methodological test methods (questionnaires, software, simulations)

DFG 2015
Differences between the Scientific Disciplines

„The ways of and conditions for access to research data must

be developed separately for the individual scientific
disciplines, taking into account the methods of data
acquisition, the volume and potential for integration of the
data, as well as its practical usability. At the same time, the
respective life cycles and usage scenarios of the data in the
specific research fields have to be considered.“ (Alliance of
German Science Organisations 2010:2)

Alliance of German Science Organisations 2010

Tasks in the Life Cycle of Research Data

Planning/
Creation

Access/Use Selection

Preservation Ingest/
measures Acquisition

Storage/
Infrastructure

Transl. Ludwig & Enke 2013:15

Overarching Tasks of Research Data Management

Organiza-
tion

Identifiers Costs

Metadata Rights

Transl. Ludwig & Enke 2013:16

DFG – Guidelines

Guideline 9:
Research design
Guideline 10:
Legal and ethical frameworks, usage rights
Guideline 11:
Methods and standards
Guideline 12:
Documentation
Guideline 17:
Archiving

DFG 2019
Research Data Management

Ethics Committee
Research on human beings

Animal Welfare Officer

Research on animals
Other Commissioners

Research with hazardous Technology Transfer

substances and micro- Center
organisms

Research with Copyright-

protected or patented
materials Transl. DFG Ombudsman 2009b
Cooperation in Science

Cooperation with other scientists of the same or of different fields who work:

• in the same working group

• in other working groups of the same organization
• in other scientific institutes
• in non-scientific institutions
• in industry
• in government institutions

Transl. DFG Ombudsman 2009a

RWTH „Code of Conduct“ for Dealing with Third Parties

„1. Ethical Principles of RWTH Aachen University

1.1 [...] The appreciation of others, the willingness to cooperate, and open communication between all groups
and units are important to us. [...]

2. Dealing with Collaborative Partners

2.1 The freedom of research and teaching and the independence of RWTH from the interests of third parties
are to be maintained at all times to secure scientific autonomy.
2.2 In order to meet the University’s responsibilities towards society, RWTH is obligated to publish its research
results at the appropriate time and in an appropriate form (this applies in particular to publications made as
part of doctoral projects). Third parties must agree to this principle in order to be eligible for cooperation with
RWTH.
2.3 When entering into collaborative partnerships, it is imperative that the reputation of RWTH is preserved. At
a general level, this means that the transparency of decisions must be secured. [...]

3. Dealing with Conflicts of Interest

3.1 RWTH Aachen University is a public research and educational institution. For this reason, in case of
conflicts of interest between RWTH and third parties, it is always preferable for all members of the University to
act in the public interest. [...]”

RWTH 2017
Conflicts of Interest

Conflicts of interest result from the different interests, rights and obligations of the individual
scientists and the objectives/interests of organizations involved in scientific cooperation.

• Financial conflicts
• Property conflicts
• Conflicts of loyalty
• Conflicts of responsibility

Transl. DFG Ombudsman 2009a

Prevention of Conflicts of Interest

• Discuss openly about the interests

• Work out/Determine the agreements

• Document the results of agreements

• Define the areas of responsibility

• Negotiate publication rights, property rights and financial matters in the contracts

Transl. DFG Ombudsman 2009a

 References

• Alliance of German Science Organisations (2010): Principles for the Handling of Research Data, online available:
https://gfzpublic.gfz-potsdam.de/rest/items/item_4507890_1/component/file_4507888/content (Status
25.11.2020)

• Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) (2015): DFG Guidelines on the Handling of Research Data, online
available:
https://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/foerderung/antragstellung/forschungsdaten/guidelines_research_data.pdf
(Status 25.11.2020)

• Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) (2019): Guidelines for Safeguarding Good Research Practice. Code
of Conduct, online available:
https://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/foerderung/rechtliche_rahmenbedingungen/gute_wissenschaftliche_praxis/kod
ex_gwp_en.pdf (Status 8.12.2020)

• DFG Ombudsman (2009a): Modul Interessenkonflikte, online availbale: https://ombudsman-fuer-die-

wissenschaft.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Modul_Interessenskonflikte.pdf (Status 25.11.2020)

• DFG Ombudsman (2009b): Modul Umgang mit Daten, online available: https://ombudsman-fuer-die-
wissenschaft.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Modul_Umgang_mit_Daten.pdf (Status 25.11.2020)
References

• Ludwig, J. & Enke, H. (Hrsg.) (2013): Leitfaden zum Forschungsdaten-Management. Verlag Werner Hülsbusch,
online unter: https://univerlag.uni-goettingen.de/bitstream/handle/3/isbn-978-3-86488-032-2/leitfaden_DGRID.pdf
(Status 8.12.2020)

• RWTH Aachen (2017): RWTH „Code of Conduct“ FOR DEALING WITH THIRD PARTIES, online available:
https://www.rwth-aachen.de/global/show_document.asp?id=aaaaaaaaabdcbko (Status 25.11.2020)