Universität Rostock - Research - Information on externally funded research - Scientific best practice

Dated 9th September 2004 

Article 1 

The rules on ensuring good scientific practice and avoiding scientific misbehaviour dated 17. June 2002 (Bulletin of the University of Rostock No. 3 dated 18. July 2002) are amended as follows: 

§ 4 para 1 contains the following version: 

The rector appoints those professors elected by the Academic Senate (para 2) as liaison persons and contacts (ombudspersons) for university staff members that intend to report accusations on scientific misbehaviour. The periods of office start at the date of appointment. Several re-appointments are possible.  

The ombudspersons advise persons who report assumed scientific misbehaviour and pick up relevant information of which they became aware (by third parties, if applicable). 

Article 2

Issued based on the decision of the Academic Senate of the University of Rostock on 7. July 2004.  

Rostock, 9. September 2004

The Rector of the University of Rostock 

1. Amendment 

Based on the expedite decision of the rector, dated 13.06.2002, and the Senate’s confirmation, dated 03.07.2002, the following version of the „Rules on Ensuring the Good scientific practice“ is issued with amendments towards the version dated 14.08.2000 in §2, para 3-5. Thus, the previous version dated 14.08.2000 expires. 

Rules on Ensuring the Good scientific practice and avoiding scientific misbehaviour 

Preamble ^[1] 

These rules are not established by the University of Rostock as a consequence of specific cases but born of the utter conviction and high responsibility of the lecturers regarding the freedom and responsibility of research and education.  

Every dean and speaker of a department, every lecturer of an academic team and a research project is obliged, considering his role model status, to behave in a scientifically correct manner. This applies also for the duty of care regarding young academics and students, who have to develop a high degree of sensitivity and responsibility regarding possible misbehaviour in their working context, as this is one of the necessary characteristics of academic education. Thus, another principle is to intensify measures that avoid any occurrence of scientific misbehaviour. 

The University Rectors Conference and the German Research Community (DFG) articulated in explicit terms, that the avoidance of scientific misbehaviour at universities is highly important. This resulted into the rules of good scientific practise to be filled with life by the university’s scientists. 

Part A
Promotion and assurance of Good scientific practice

§ 1

Good scientific practice 

Scientific work is based on general principles that apply in the same way for all scientific disciplines. The main principle is the one of truthfulness towards him-/herself and towards others. Good scientific practices includes in particular:
- To work lege artis
- To document results
- To examine own results critically
- To respect other person’s intellectual property
Good scientific practice can only be established by cooperation of all university members. The compliance and intermediation of related vital rules is primarily a responsibility of every single scientist. Department and scientific institutions fulfil the assigned tasks regarding education, promotion of young academics and organisation of research and scientific activities. Thus, they are in charge of creating organisational-institutional conditions for the assurance of good scientific practice via their individual and collegiate bodies. 

§ 2

Promotion and assurance of Good scientific practice 

The main principles of scientific work and good scientific practice should be taught to the students at the very beginning of their studies. In the process, students should be educated according to the principles of scientific honesty and responsibility. The possibility to misbehave should be broached in a reasonable way. It is recommended to work in scientific teams when implementing research tasks. The cooperation in such teams has to be arranged in a way that the results gained in specific divisions of labour are communicated to each other, discussed critically and involved into a joint level of awareness. A supervision of the young academics has to be ensured. Strict honesty regarding the contributions of partners, competitors and antecessors has to be kept. Only those who made a significant contribution to the related research have to be mentioned as co-author. Any so-called “honorary authorship” is excluded. Authors of scientific publications are jointly responsible for its content.

For examinations, awards of academic degrees, employments and appointments, originality and quality have always to precede quantity. The same applies for achievement- and stress-oriented appropriation of research funds. Primary data that serve as a basis for publications have to be stored on durable and protected mediums inside the institution were they were produced for ten years.

Part B
Procedure in case of suspected scientific misbehaviour 

§ 3

Scientific misbehaviour 

Scientific misbehaviour occurs if false statements are made due to premeditation or gross negligence in scientifically relevant context, the intellectual property of any third party is infringed or their research activities are impaired in any other way.

Crucial regarding every single case are the individual circumstances.
a) As serious misbehaviour is particularly considered: Incorrect information due to - invention of data; - falsification of data, e. g. by selection or refuse of undesired results without disclosing this or by manipulation of a presentation or picture, - incorrect information in an application or grant application (false information about the publication medium or about publications in the press included). b) infringement of intellectual property related to any copyright protected publication or new scientific insights of any third party, hypotheses, theories or research approaches: - unauthorized use under the pretence of authorship (plagiarism); - the use of scientific approaches and ideas of third parties, especially as expert (theft of ideas); - falsification of the content; - the unauthorized publication and unpermitted disclosure to a third party prior to the publication of the assignment, finding, hypothesis, teaching or the scientific approach; c) the claim of (co-)authorship of another person only with his/her agreement. d) sabotage of research activities (the damage, destruction or manipulation of experimental design, devices, documents, hardware, software, chemicals and other things needed for implementing an experiment). e) Removal of primary data as far as they violate legal regulations or principles of scientific work accepted by the discipline. Any partial responsibility for misbehaviour may derive from active involvement into other person’s misbehaviour, knowledge about other person’s misbehaviour, knowledge about falsifications carried out by other persons, co-authorship in publications affected by falsification; gross negligence related to the duty of supervision. 

§ 4

Ombudspersons 

The rector appoints, on the Academic Senate’s suggestion, four professors as liaison lecturers and contact persons for university members who wish to file accuses of scientific misbehaviour (ombudspersons) for a period of three years. Repeated re-appointments are possible. These ombudspersons advice anybody regarding assumed scientific misbehaviour and take up relevant information they got. Ombudspersons are one professor from the field of humanities and social sciences, one professor from the field of engineering sciences, one from the field of natural sciences and one from the medical sector. Professors who are already obliged to respond to possibly received relevant information, e. g. deans, should not be appointed as ombudspersons. The ombudspersons deputize each other. In case of bias or prevention, an ombudsperson transfers the tasks incumbent upon him/her to another ombudsperson. Every university member is entitled to have a personal communication with these ombudspersons at short notice.  

§ 5

Commission 

A commission, comprising of four ombudspersons and one university member who is a qualified judge, will be installed for the investigation on accuses of scientific misbehaviour. The commission elects a chairman from its members. The commission decides on the basis of a single majority of members. The commission meets on demand. The meetings are non-public. On the suggestion of the commission, one representative of the respective status group each should take part in the meetings with advisory vote. The commission proceedings do not replace other proceeding determined by law or statutes (e. g. regulatory proceedings of universities, disciplinary proceedings, labour law litigation, criminal proceedings). These will be initiated by the competent organs, if applicable.

§ 6

Procedure in case of scientific misbehaviour 

Preliminary investigation a) In case the ombudspersons get concrete indications regarding scientific misbehaviour, they will inform the chairman of the commission in writing about the accusations, taking into account the respect for confidentiality to protect the informant and the person concerned, i. e. accused of misbehaviour. b) The commission will, mentioning the incriminating facts, give the person under suspicion of misconduct the opportunity to submit comments without delay. The deadline for this statement amounts to two weeks. The informant’s name will not be disclosed without his/her approval at this stage. c) After the commission has received the statement of the concerned person or the prescribed period is over, the commission will, within two weeks, take the decision if the preliminary investigation will be stopped as there has not been sufficient evidence for the suspicion or an assumed misbehaviour was fully investigated or if it will be transferred into a formal proceeding. d) In case the informant disagrees with the stop of the proceedings, he/she is entitled to appear in person at the commission which will reconsider its decision. In case the commission does not come to any other decision, the proceeding will be stopped definitely. Otherwise, a transfer into a formal proceeding will take place.

Formal proceeding a) The opening of the formal proceedings is announced to the university management by the head of commission. b) The commission discusses the matter in a non-public session. It checks in free evaluation of evidence if scientific misbehaviour has occurred. The scientist accused of misbehaviour will be given the opportunity to comment in an appropriate manner. The concerned person will be heard orally by request; he is entitled to involve a confidante as succour. The same applies for any other heard person. c) It might be necessary to disclose the name of informant in case the concerned person is not able to defend him/herself properly otherwise, for instance if the informants credibility and motives regarding the accusation of misbehaviour have to be investigated. d) In case the commission considers the misbehaviour to be proven, it presents the result of its investigation to the university management for decision and further processing, recommending further proceedings that take, among others, the defence of third person’s rights into account. In case there is no proof of any scientific misbehaviour, the proceedings are stopped and the university management is informed accordingly. e) The concerned person, the informant and the university management are informed in writing about the main reasons resulting into a stop of the proceeding or forwarding to the university management without delay. f) There is no internal complaints procedure related to the commission decision. g) In the end of a formal proceeding, the commission identifies all persons involved into the case, the informant included. It advises persons who were involved into processes of scientific misbehaviour without own fault how to protect their personal and academic integrity. Lecturers who were accuses unsubstantiated, have to be rehabilitated completely and publicly. h) The files related to the formal investigation have to be stored for 30 years. The persons mentioned in relation to the case of scientific misbehaviour are entitled to claim a notice of discharge issued by the commission, covering the storage period. Other proceedings are a) In case scientific misbehaviour was determined, the university management investigates the need for further measures to maintain the academic standards at the university and protects the rights of directly and indirectly involved persons. The punishment resulting from the scientific misbehaviour depends on the individual circumstances of every case. b) The institutions responsible for the relevant case will initiate, depending on the circumstances, employment law, service law, civil law, criminal law or administrative law measures ^{[2] [3]} with a related proceeding. c) The university will consider the academic consequences on faculty level, such as withdrawal of the academic degree or habilitation, on the basis of the relevant legal regulations. The faculties have to investigate in cooperation with the university management, if and how far other scientists (former and possible cooperation partners, co-authors), scientific institutions, scientific journals and publishers (in case of publications), funding institutions and academic organisations, professional associations, ministries and the public should or have to be informed. 

Rostock, the 17.07.2002

The Rector of the University of Rostock 

^[1] Names and functional titles apply for males and females each. 

^[2]  Employment and service law consequences might be, for instance:

- Warning letter

- Extraordinary notice (dismissal on grounds of suspicion, if applicable)

- Contractual notice of termination

- Termination of contract

- Initiation of disciplinary proceedings


Civil law consequences might be, for instance:

- Ban on entering the house

- Claims involving handover of property towards the concerned person

- Removal or injunctive relief related to copyright, personal right, patent law and competition law

- Restitutory claims (scholarships, third-party funds or similar)

- Claims for damage

Penal consequences have to drawn, for instance, as a result of:

- Copyright infringement

- Forgery of documents (falsification of technical documents included)

- Damage to property (data manipulation included)

- Offences against property (fraud and corruption included)

- Damage to personal life and privacy sphere

- Offences against life and assault 

^[3] If a student has become guilty of scientific misbehaviour, the commission should, in case of a subsequent regulatory university proceeding, elaborate an expertise that determines the conditions under which the student might get the chance to complete his/her studies.