Guidelines for Ensuring Good Scientific Practice

Adopted by the Academy’s Plenary Assembly on July 22, 2023.

In 1998, the General Assembly of the German Research Foundation (DFG) adopted recommendations on self-regulation in science. In the summer of 2018, the DFG decided to revise them. The revised version of the 1998 memorandum, now referred to as the Code, is titled “Guiding Principles for Ensuring Good Scientific Practice.” It was adopted by the DFG General Assembly on June 3, 2019. The DFG has also adopted procedural rules for dealing with research misconduct.

As a member institution of the DFG, the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities considers the DFG’s Guiding Principles to be binding for its own scientific work.

The following Guiding Principles adapt the German Research Foundation’s Guiding Principles to the specific circumstances of the Heidelberg Academy, whose scholarly work is fundamentally shaped by scholarly discourse within the classes and in the plenary session, the work of its research projects—which is largely characterized by the Academy’s program focused on the humanities and social sciences—and the WIN program. The guidelines are binding for all those involved in the Academy’s scholarly work. Where necessary, the DFG’s Guiding principles and their explanatory notes should be consulted for their interpretation. The Rules of Procedure are taken into account to the extent that their provisions do not

I. Commitment to the Rules of Good Scientific Practice (DFG Guiding Principle 1)

The Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, guided by the DFG’s guidelines for ensuring good scientific practice, sets forth the following rules, which—taking into account the specific characteristics of each Field of expertise—constitute the binding framework for the work of every researcher at the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities. The Academy ensures that the guidelines for ensuring good scientific practice are publicized in an appropriate manner.

To the extent applicable, the guidelines apply to

• individuals who submit grant applications to the Academy
• individuals who receive funding from the Academy
• individuals who serve as reviewers for the Academy
• individuals who participate in review and evaluation procedures within the Academy’s committees,

even if they are not members of the Academy or employed by it.

II. Professional Ethics (Guiding principle 2)

All researchers at the Academy are responsible for ensuring that the fundamental values of science are respected and the standards of scientific work are upheld in their work. Experienced researchers and direct, subject-matter supervisors engage in ongoing dialogue with researchers who are still at the beginning of their careers regarding adherence to the fundamental values and standards of scholarly work at the earliest possible stage.

Good scientific work means always staying abreast of the current state of research, constantly reevaluating one’s own approach, and critically reviewing one’s own results. Interactions with colleagues, staff members, competitors, and predecessors must be conducted in good faith. Above all, it is essential to clearly indicate which results have been adopted from the research of others. Critical discourse within the scientific community should be actively sought.

Good scientific practice includes third-party review. This requires openness to criticism and doubt, as well as diligence, impartiality, and objectivity when evaluating the work of colleagues.

III. Organizational Responsibility of the Leadership of Scientific Institutions (Guiding Principle 3)

The Academy’s leadership creates the framework for sound scientific work. It bears responsibility for an organizational structure appropriate to the Academy’s tasks. It ensures that, in projects, programs, and initiatives, the tasks of management, oversight, conflict resolution, and quality assurance are clearly assigned and communicated to all participants in an appropriate manner.

It designs the processes for personnel selection and development to be open and transparent.

The Academy guarantees equal opportunity, particularly with regard to gender. It does not discriminate. It promotes early-career researchers, among other things, by bringing together young and experienced researchers to foster ongoing exchange. It offers continuing education opportunities for all employees.

One of the Academy’s management responsibilities is to ensure at all levels that relationships of dependency are not exploited.

IV. Responsibilities of the Heads of Work Units (Guiding principle 4)

The heads of the research projects are responsible for the internal organization of their projects. They shall provide employees with the best possible conditions for fulfilling their duties.

The careers of research staff should be promoted in accordance with the opportunities available at the Academy. As an institution that does not itself award degrees, the Academy cannot assume sole responsibility for supervising employees who are pursuing a doctoral degree or a postdoctoral qualification. However, the respective project leaders and working group members are available to provide appropriate individual guidance.

V. Performance Dimensions and Evaluation Criteria (Guiding Principle 5)

Various criteria are taken into account when evaluating the performance of researchers. In hiring decisions and other contexts where performance and evaluation criteria are applied, originality and quality always take precedence over purely quantitative criteria. In addition to qualitative standards, however, quantitative indicators may be used in a differentiated and thoughtful manner as part of the overall evaluation. Other aspects of performance, such as individual commitment in various areas, may be recognized. Similarly, specific features of résumés may be taken into account in the evaluation process within the framework of the principle of equal treatment.

VI. Ombudspeople (Guiding principle 6)

For the purpose of providing advice, conducting preliminary reviews, and mediating conflicts regarding issues of good scientific practice, the Academy’s plenary session shall elect a qualified ombudsperson from among its members. A substitute must be designated in the event of bias or inability to perform duties. The term of office for the ombudsperson and their substitute is four years. A single reelection is permitted. The ombudsperson and their substitute may not simultaneously serve as a member of any other central body of the Academy. When selecting the ombudsperson and their substitute, conflicts of interest must be avoided. The ombudsperson and their substitute are announced on the Academy’s website.

In particular, the ombudsperson is tasked with serving as a point of contact for those involved in cases of suspected violations of the principles of good scientific practice brought to their attention, providing advice while strictly maintaining confidentiality. To the extent possible, in cases of research misconduct, the Ombudsperson will act as a mediator with the aim of reaching an amicable resolution or will refer suspected cases to the Academy’s Commission on Good Scientific Practice via the Executive Board. The Ombudsperson receives the support necessary to carry out their duties.

All members of the Academy have the right to contact the Academy’s Ombudsperson or the “Ombudsman for Science” committee appointed by the DFG.

VII. Cross-Phase Quality Assurance (Guiding principle 7)

The Academy takes steps to ensure that the quality of scholarly work is monitored throughout the entire research process in accordance with discipline-specific standards. The origin of the data and materials used in the research process is disclosed, and their reuse is documented; original sources are cited. Software used with publicly accessible source code must be documented and citable.

If errors or inconsistencies are subsequently discovered in research results that have already been presented to the public, the Academy ensures clarification and, if necessary, correction as quickly as possible.

The ability of other scientists to review research results is an essential component of quality assurance.

The oversight of the Academy Program’s long-term projects by commissions composed of particularly distinguished scientists is a form of quality assurance specific to the Academy.

VIII. Stakeholders, Responsibilities, and Roles (Guiding principle 8)

The tasks and responsibilities of all parties involved in a research project must be clearly defined. All parties must be included in the necessary consultations. Regular communication among the participants ensures that necessary adjustments are made.

IX. Research Design (Guiding principle 9)

When planning a project, researchers must comprehensively present and acknowledge the current state of research. Thorough research into previously published research findings is considered a prerequisite for identifying relevant and appropriate research questions. The Academy bears responsibility for establishing the necessary framework conditions. With regard to methods, work programs, objectives, or similar aspects, researchers assess the extent to which gender and diversity may be significant for the research project. Appropriate methods are applied to avoid potential biases in the interpretation of research results.

X. Legal and Ethical Framework (Guiding principle 10)

The Academy ensures that the researchers working on its research projects exercise the freedom of research granted to them under the Constitution in a responsible manner; that they observe the rights and obligations arising from legal requirements or contracts with third parties, and that they obtain the necessary approvals and ethics committee clearances where required. The legal framework of a research project also includes documented agreements regarding the use of the research data generated by it. In particular, the researcher who collects the data is entitled to use it. The authorized users decide whether third parties should be granted access to the data. They apply their knowledge and experience to assess and evaluate the consequences of a research project (e.g., the risk of misuse of their research).

XI. Methods and Standards (Guiding principle 11)

The researchers working at the Academy use methods in their research that comply with the standards of their respective disciplines. They ensure that the research process is transparent. Transparency in the working practices of its research projects is important to the Academy; this is particularly true where new paths are being explored.

XII. Documentation (Guiding principle 12)

The documentation of research results by scientists is fundamental and necessary. This includes documenting individual results that do not support the research hypothesis. No selection of documentation should be made in this context. The documentation clearly outlines which research data were used, generated, and analyzed, as well as the results derived from them. One of the goals is to enable third parties to reproducibly replicate the research process. Documentation is carried out in accordance with the specific guidelines applicable in the Field of expertise. If the documentation of research results does not meet the relevant (disciplinary) guidelines, the limitations and reasons for this must be clearly explained. When developing research software, the source code is also included. The documentation and research results are protected against manipulation to the greatest extent possible.

XIII. Providing Public Access to Research Results (Guiding Principle 13)

Researchers contribute the results generated in their research projects to the scientific discourse. They decide independently of third parties whether to make scientific results publicly available. They provide a complete description of the results made publicly available. This includes full and accurate acknowledgment of their own and others’ prior work, based on the research data and materials underlying the results, the methods applied, and the software used. There is no obligation to cite one’s own results that have already been made publicly available if, according to disciplinary norms, such citations are not required. Self-citations must be kept to a minimum.

In keeping with the principle of “quality over quantity,” researchers avoid unduly fragmented publications.

To ensure the interoperability of research and the reusability of the research data and materials underlying the publication, researchers make them discoverable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (in accordance with the FAIR principles), preferably in established archives and repositories.

XIV. Authorship (Guiding principle 14)

An author is anyone who has made a genuine, verifiable contribution to the content of a scientific text, data, or software publication. A genuine contribution exists, in particular, when a researcher has made a scientifically significant contribution to

• the development and design of the research project or
• the development, collection, acquisition, or provision of data, sources, or software, or
• the analysis, evaluation, or interpretation of the data and sources, as well as to the conclusions drawn from them, or
• the drafting of the manuscript

.

If a contribution to the publication is insufficient to qualify for authorship, the support is acknowledged, for example, in footnotes, forewords, or acknowledgments. A leadership or supervisory role does not, in and of itself, constitute co-authorship. Honorary authorship is not permitted.

Researchers must agree in a timely manner, based on transparent criteria and taking into account the conventions of each Field of expertise, on who will be listed as an author. As a rule, all authors bear joint responsibility for the publication. They agree on the order of their names and work with publishers and infrastructure providers to ensure proper citation. Refusal to consent to the publication of results must be sufficiently justified with verifiable criticism.

XV. Publication Medium (Guiding principle 15)

Authors carefully select appropriate publication media and formats from among the various publication options based on quality and visibility. Academy scholars who serve as editors carefully evaluate the publication options for which they assume editorial responsibility. A publication medium’s own guidelines on good scientific practice serve as an indicator of its credibility. The scholarly quality of a contribution should be independent of the publication in which it appears. Possible publication outlets also include specialized repositories, data or software repositories, and blogs. Unknown publication outlets are evaluated for their credibility.

XVI. Confidentiality and Neutrality in Reviews and Consultations (Guiding principle 16)

When Academy members serve as reviewers on behalf of the Academy, they are obligated to maintain strict confidentiality. This applies in particular to expert statements regarding individuals, funding applications, or manuscripts. The confidentiality of this third-party content, to which Academy members have access, precludes its disclosure to third parties and its use for personal purposes. They are also obligated to disclose all facts that could give rise to a conflict of interest. These obligations apply equally to those who participate in relevant deliberations and decisions within committees.

XVII. Archiving (Guiding principle 17)

Researchers shall preserve publicly accessible research data and research results, as well as the underlying key materials and, where applicable, the research software used, in accordance with the standards of the respective Field of expertise. If there are verifiable reasons for not retaining certain data, researchers must explain these reasons. The Academy provides the necessary infrastructure in collaboration with partner organizations. Archiving is carried out in accordance with the applicable standards of the relevant Field of expertise. Data is generally retained for ten years starting from the date public access is granted. Shorter retention periods must be clearly justified.

XVIII. Whistleblowers and Those Subject to Allegations (Guiding principle 18)

Any suspicion of research misconduct is first reported to the Academy’s ombudsperson or to the “Ombudsman for Science” committee appointed by the DFG. In handling the suspicion, they ensure the protection of both the whistleblower and the person subject to the allegations. The investigation of the suspicion is governed by the principles of confidentiality and the presumption of innocence.

The report of research misconduct must be made in good faith. It must be based on objective evidence of research misconduct. The investigating body treats the whistleblower’s name as confidential. If it deems it necessary to disclose the whistleblower’s identity, the whistleblower must be notified in advance. The whistleblower may withdraw the report. Whistleblowers must be protected even if the suspicion of research misconduct is not confirmed, provided that the report was made in good faith. The report should not result in any disadvantages for the whistleblower or for those affected by the allegations with regard to their own academic or professional advancement.

The Academy’s Executive Board decides whether to investigate anonymous reports as well. An anonymous report may only be investigated in a formal proceeding if the whistleblowers have presented credible and sufficiently concrete facts. A proceeding cannot be initiated if the individuals concerned are unable to adequately defend themselves against the anonymously raised allegations due to the anonymity of the report.

The individuals concerned should not suffer any disadvantages as a result of the investigation until scientific misconduct has been formally established. In particular, delays in examination and qualification procedures should be avoided. Until its formal conclusion, the investigation should have no impact on working conditions or any pending contract renewals.

If the whistleblowers have gone public, the Executive Board shall decide on how to proceed.

XIX. Procedures in Cases of Suspected Research Misconduct (Guiding principle 19)

The Academy hereby establishes a procedure for handling allegations of research misconduct. In a set of rules, it defines intentional or grossly negligent violations that constitute research misconduct. Procedural regulations specifically set forth provisions regarding jurisdiction for each stage of the proceedings, conflicts of interest, the assessment of evidence, and procedural principles under the rule of law.

The parties involved, as well as whistleblowers, are given the opportunity to comment at every stage of the proceedings. Until scientific misconduct is proven, information regarding the parties involved in the proceedings and the findings to date will be treated confidentially. The Academy establishes the framework for conducting the entire proceedings as promptly as possible and takes the necessary steps to conclude each stage of the proceedings within a reasonable period of time.

XX. Scope of Application

The procedure for suspected research misconduct applies to

• members of the Academy
• employees of the Academy
• individuals who submit funding applications to the Academy
• persons who receive funding from the Academy
• persons who serve as reviewers for the Academy
• persons who participate in review and evaluation procedures within the Academy’s committees

XXI. Research Misconduct

1. Research misconduct occurs when, in a context relevant to research, a person, either intentionally or through gross negligence,

• makes false statements
• unjustifiably claims another person’s research achievements as their own
• or impairs the research activities of others.

In particular, the following are considered false statements

• the fabrication of data and/or research results
• the falsification of data and/or research results
• an inaccurate statement in a grant application or in the context of reporting obligations, insofar as these are research-related.

The following, in particular, constitute the unauthorized appropriation of others’ scientific achievements:

• the use of third-party content without the required citation (plagiarism)
• the exploitation of others’ research approaches and ideas (theft of ideas)
• the unauthorized disclosure of others’ data and findings to third parties
• the misleading presentation of third parties’ research results
• the unauthorized publication of third parties’ research approaches or research results

The following, in particular, are considered interference with the research activities of others

• the damage or destruction of manuscripts, files, or items required for research purposes
• the falsification or unauthorized disposal of research data, research documents, or research documentation

2. Research misconduct also occurs when a person, in the course of their activities at the Academy and with the intent to gain an advantage for themselves or someone else, fails to disclose—against their better judgment—facts that indicate research misconduct within the Academy.

3. The following may be considered scientific misconduct in cases of intent or gross negligence

• co-authorship of a publication that contains false statements or improperly appropriated scientific work by others
• neglect of the duty of supervision, if another person objectively commits scientific misconduct and this could have been prevented or significantly hindered through the necessary and reasonable supervision.

4. In the case of individuals who serve as expert reviewers for the Academy or participate in committees with expert review and evaluation responsibilities, the following shall be considered scientific misconduct

• the unauthorized use of data or findings of which they have become aware in the course of their expert review activities for their own scientific purposes
• the disclosure of applications or the data and findings contained therein to third parties
• the breach of the confidentiality of deliberations
• the failure to disclose facts or circumstances that could give rise to concerns about bias.

5. Knowingly false or frivolous allegations may themselves constitute research misconduct.

The circumstances of each individual case are decisive.

XXII. The Procedure

1. Preliminary Investigation
   If the Academy’s ombudsperson is informed of a suspected case, they shall conduct confidential discussions with the parties involved. If the suspicion is substantiated, the President must be informed in writing. The President schedules a meeting with both class secretaries in attendance. If this meeting also fails to clear up the suspicion or lead to any other amicable resolution, the President initiates formal proceedings.
2. Formal Investigation
   The Academy’s “Good Scientific Practice” Commission is responsible for conducting a formal investigation. It consists of at least four people: one full member from each class and two staff members. One of the full members serves as chair. The term of office for commission members is four years. The full members are elected by their respective classes. The staff representatives are appointed by the Staff Council. In the event of an apparent conflict of interest, the Committee on Good Scientific Practice appoints a replacement. Members of the Executive Board and the Ombudsperson may not be appointed to the Committee.

The Committee on Good Scientific Practice may consult additional individuals in an advisory capacity as needed.

The Good Scientific Practice Commission deliberates in closed-door oral proceedings. It assesses, based on its independent evaluation of the evidence, whether scientific misconduct has occurred. The parties involved must be heard and may be assisted by a person of their choice.

If a majority of the Committee on Good Scientific Practice considers misconduct to have been sufficiently proven, it shall submit the results of its investigation to the Executive Board along with a proposal for further proceedings for a decision. Otherwise, the proceedings shall be discontinued. The parties concerned shall be notified in writing of the outcome and the reasons therefor.

XXIII. Possible Consequences (including Sanctions, if applicable) in Cases of Research Misconduct:

In the event of research misconduct, all steps must first be taken that could lead to redress for the damage incurred. Publications produced in violation of the aforementioned rules must be withdrawn (if not yet published) or, if already published, retracted or corrected in a manner specified by the Commission on Good Scientific Practice. For various reasons (such as protecting third parties, maintaining confidence in the Academy’s scientific integrity, restoring scientific reputation, or preventing further damage), this may also involve informing a broader audience than just the specialized scientific community or the funding body. If the affected parties (as is conceivable in cases of copyright infringement) have not yet become aware of the harm themselves, they must also be informed and included in consultations regarding the appropriate means of mitigating the damage. In principle, the author and the publisher are obligated to do so; if they fail to take action, the Academy’s leadership shall initiate the necessary measures.

If the Commission on Good Scientific Practice deems sanctions necessary, these should first be sought within the framework of labor law (written warning, extraordinary termination, ordinary termination, termination of contract).

The Academy is not responsible for civil or criminal consequences of scientific misconduct. However, if there is suspicion that the misconduct has resulted in financial, psychological, or physical harm to third parties and the affected parties have not already sought legal remedies on their own, legal counsel must be consulted to assess the necessary further consequences.

XXIV. Entry into Force

These rules shall enter into force on the date of their publication, following their adoption by the Academy’s Plenary Session. Upon the entry into force of these rules, the previously valid rules for ensuring good scientific practice, adopted at the Class meeting of the Plenary on November 27, 2021, shall be repealed.

Issued pursuant to the resolution of the Academy’s Plenary Session on July 22, 2023.