Rules Scientific Practice

Rules of good scientific practice, procedures, and penalties in the event of malpractice
1. Rules of good scientific practice

1.1. Those sponsored by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (AvH) are obligated to inform
themselves about and comply with the rules of good scientific practice that are in effect at their
host institution.
1.2. Moreover, those sponsored are to pledge themselves, and the staff they employ in the
framework of AvH funding, to observe the rules of good scientific practice below. Violations of
these rules or scientific or other malpractice (see paragraphs 2 and 3) may result in the penalties
described in paragraph 4.
1.3. The following principles constitute the rules of good scientific practice, both in general and
specified to the individual disciplines as necessary:
General principles of scientific work:

o to work in accordance with the accepted standards of the discipline;
o to observe the rules specific to the respective discipline with regard to the attaining,
selecting, using, documenting, and long-term securing of data and other findings;
o to challenge consistently all one's own findings;
o to maintain strict honesty with regard to the contributions of partners, competitors,
and predecessors.
Cooperation and supervisory responsibility in working groups

o to assure cooperation and supervisory responsibility in working groups; in particular,
to take organisational measures to ensure that the tasks of leadership, supervision,
conflict management, and quality assurance are clearly assigned and actually
fulfilled;
o not to compromise research activities of others.
Supervision of junior researchers

o to ensure appropriate supervision for graduates, doctoral candidates, and students,
in particular by providing each of them with a primary mentor in the working group.
Responsibility for promoting junior researchers is a top-level management priority.
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
If several participants are involved in a scientific project and its subsequent

publication, only those can be named as co-authors who significantly contributed to
the conceptual design, formulation, analysis and interpretation of the data or findings,
and the drafting of the manuscript, and have consented to its publication; so-called
'honorary authorship' is not permissible; third-party support is to be listed under
acknowledgements.
2. Scientific or other malpractice

2.1. Scientific malpractice is the misrepresentation of facts in a scientific context, either consciously
or due to gross negligence, infringement of intellectual property of others, or any other
encroachment upon others' research activities. Decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis.
The following, in particular, can be considered scientific malpractice:
2.1.1.
Misrepresentation of facts such as

2.1.1.1 forging or distorting data, for example by selecting and rejecting undesirable
results without declaring them, or by manipulating illustrations or images;
2.1.1.2. false information in an application or a funding proposal, including false
information about the publication organ and publications in print.
2.1.2.
Infringement of intellectual property concerning copyrighted work by others or significant

scientific findings, hypotheses, teachings, or research approaches by others such as
2.1.2.1. unauthorised utilisation by presumption of authorship (plagiarism), exploitation of
research approaches and ideas, in particular as a peer reviewer (theft of ideas);
2.1.2.2. presumption or unsubstantiated appropriation of scientific authorship or
coauthorship;
2.1.2.3. misrepresentation of contents;
2.1.2.4. unauthorised publication and unauthorised granting of access to third parties prior
to the publication of the work, the findings, the hypothesis, the teaching, or the
research approach;
2.1.2.5. claiming authorship or co-authorship of others without their consent.
2.1.3.
Sabotage of research activity, including damaging, destroying, or manipulating

experimental arrangements, equipment, documents, hardware, chemicals, or other
materials needed by others to conduct scientific work (including malicious displacement
or abstraction of books and other documents).
2.1.4.
Deletion of primary data if it infringes legal provisions or accepted principles of scientific

work in the discipline.
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.
5. Scope of application, coming into effect, and temporary provisions

The above regulations apply to academics who receive sponsorship from the Alexander von Humboldt
Foundation (AvH) as well as applicants for funding, host institutions, alumni, members of selection
committees, peer reviewers, and special reviewers of the AvH.
The regulations take effect on 01.08.2007. Individual AvH-sponsored projects that have been concluded
by this date will not be affected by these regulations, but are subject to the general rule that the AvH can
alter or revoke its funding decisions if circumstances are brought to its attention after the fact that would
have led to a different decision on the part of the AvH.
As of April 2014

Rules Scientific Practice

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rules Scientific Practice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rules of good scientific practice, procedures, and penalties in the event of malpractice

1. Rules of good scientific practice

General principles of scientific work:

Cooperation and supervisory responsibility in working groups

Supervision of junior researchers

If several participants are involved in a scientific project and its subsequent

2. Scientific or other malpractice

Misrepresentation of facts such as

Infringement of intellectual property concerning copyrighted work by others or significant

Sabotage of research activity, including damaging, destroying, or manipulating

Deletion of primary data if it infringes legal provisions or accepted principles of scientific

5. Scope of application, coming into effect, and temporary provisions

You might also like