Rules Scientific Practice
Rules Scientific Practice
Rules Scientific Practice
Scientific publications
o to produce and disseminate scientific publications in accordance with the accepted
rules and standards of the discipline; and, in particular when new findings are to be
published, to describe these findings and the applied methods completely and
comprehensibly as well as account for one's own and others' preliminary work
exhaustively and correctly.
o
2.1.2.
2.1.3.
2.1.4.
2.2. Scientific misconduct also comprises behaviour that entails a shared responsibility for the
misconduct of others, in particular by active participation, joint knowledge of misrepresentations,
co-authorship of falsified publications, or gross negligence of supervisory responsibilities.
2.3. For the purpose of the present rules, other misconduct is applicable if grave circumstances are
discovered that challenge the personal aptitude of the individual sponsored to be a member
(multiplier) of the global AvH network.
3. Penalties
In the event of grave violation of the above rules of good scientific practice, in particular scientific or other
malpractice, the AvH can impose one or several of the following penalties, depending on the nature and
gravity of the established misconduct
3.1. Written reprimand of the person concerned;
3.2. Request that the person concerned retract the discredited publication or correct the falsified data
(in particular by publishing an erratum), or appropriately indicate the recall of AvH sponsorship,
for example in the erratum.
3.3. Temporary suspension of funding decisions pending the resolution of the issue;
3.4. Forfeiture of eligibility for AvH sponsorship, permanent or temporary, depending on the gravity of
the scientific malpractice;
3.5. Revocation of funding decisions (complete or partial cancellation of the grant, recall of funds
granted, reclaim of funds spent), including the denial of the status of Humboldtian;
3.6. Exclusion from review and committee work for AvH.
4. Procedures
If a violation of the rules of good scientific practice (paragraph 1) or scientific or other malpractice
(paragraph 2) is suspected, the following basic procedures take effect:
4.1. If probable cause is brought to the attention of the AvH, the suspected person must be notified of
the incriminating facts and be given the opportunity to respond in writing within four weeks.
Simultaneously, the implementation of a funding decision can be suspended temporarily until the
issue is resolved (see paragraph 3.3.). Without their consent, the identity of the informant and
the allegedly injured party will not be disclosed to the party concerned in this phase
(whistleblower-protection).
4.2. In order to clarify the issue, the AvH office is authorised to request oral or written statements by
the concerned as well as third parties at any time.
4.3. If no response is received or if a response is examined and the suspicion persists, the AvH will
notify the party concerned, explicitly indicating the AvH's penalty options as well as the right of
the concerned party to remonstrate within four weeks.
4.4. If use is not made of the right to remonstrate, the AvH may impose one of the measures listed
above in paragraph 3.
4.5. If the remonstration submitted by the party concerned fails to convince the AvH, and in
particular, fails to refute the probable cause plausibly, the AvH may impose one of the abovementioned penalties. Prior to making the decision, the AvH may request an expert opinion on the
existence of malpractice from the Ombudsman of the DFG or a comparable body affiliated with
the host institution.
As of April 2014