Binding guide lines for the implementation of the rules to ensure good scientific practice at Max-Born-Institute
Preamble
In 1998, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) formulated suggestions for the safeguarding of good scientific practice. These recommendations were employed by the Wissenschaftsgemeinschaft Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (WGL) as a basis for the formulation of such rules, and their implementation at the WGL institutions was recommended. Following up on this, the Board of the Forschungsverbund Berlin (FVB) passed procedural guide lines on how to deal with allegations of scientific misconduct, which are binding for all employees of the Forschungsverbund Berlin that are engaged in scientific work. The institutes of the FVB are requested to issue preventive regulations for the safeguarding of good scientific practice that are adapted to the specific scientific circumstances of each institute.
In the future, the obligation to obey policies of good scientific practice will be a criterion for funding by the DFG. Therefore, the subsequent rules are based on the "suggestions to ensure good scientific practice" of the DFG committee "self-policing in science" as well as the corresponding WGL recommendations.
At the Max-Born-institute, observance of these policies is compulsory as per work contract. For existing contracts, the staff will be asked to sign their consent in writing.
- Good scientific practice
- Definition of good scientific practice
Good scientific practice includes maintaining professional standards having in view the most recent state of knowledge. It requires familiarity with and consideration of the current literature and the application of the most recent methods and results.
It is characterized by questioning the current state of the art as well as one's own findings, by checking and cross-checking the former, but also by giving honest credit to the contributions of colleagues, collaborators, competitors, as well as previous work.
Securing quality is an important part of scientific honesty. Besides honesty with regard to oneself and others as an ethical norm, it is a fundament of scientific professionalism. It is warranted by (critical) collaboration within the research group as well as clearly allocated responsibilities.
This implies
- well defined, not necessarily hierarchical organizatorial structures,
- the delegation of subtasks and the functional separation of responsibities,
- being aware of the rights and the responsibilities of the individual,
- proper supervision and reporting, efficient education of young researchers,
- avoiding, recognizing, and solving conflicts.
- Documentation of data
Maintaining quality and, in consequence, good scientific practice further implies documentation of all steps and secure storage of all primary data, ensuring reproducibility before publication, as well as allowing access to this documentation by eligible third persons.
- Authorship
An essential aspect is the responsibility in the case of (joint) authorship. All authors of scientific publications are jointly responsible for the contents; honorary authorships are inacceptable. The author is accountable, he or she stands for the scientific results and warrants the contents of the publication.
- Definition of good scientific practice
- Policies of good scientific practice at the Max-Born-Institut
- Organizatorial structures
The directors are responsible for conducting, supervising, and securing the quality of scientific work at the Max-Born-Institut and the adjudication of conflicts. In special cases, they may delegate this responsibility to division or project leaders.
Unless specified otherwise in points 2.2 to 2.6 of these binding guide lines, those who are responsible make sure by adequate measures that the goals of the research and the tasks of the individual researchers are identified and defined, that each participating person has their clearly allocated functions (rights and obligations), that progress towards goals and milestones is assessed at regular intervals, and that young researchers, doctoral and diploma students are adequately supervised and mentored.
- Primary data documentation
Primary data that are pertinent to a publication (results of searches and experimental data) as well as a self-explanatory documentation of the research should be securely stored on appropriate media (e.g. CD-ROM). This applies especially for diploma, doctoral, and habilitation theses. The department heads are responsible for establishing the documentation.
The division leaders pass on the entire documentation including a reprint of the publication to the library of the Max-Born-Institute, which archives the documentations and securely stores them for ten years. In the process of preparing the KLR reporting, completeness of the documentations will be ascertained and the results will be reported to the directors.
In the laboratories of the Max-Born-Institut, laboratory-protocol books with consecutive page numbering have to be kept and stored that continuously document the ongoing work. The project leaders guarantee that these protocols are available for verification at any time. For the long term, the protocol books will be stored by the division leaders.
- Education
Conveying the rules of good scientific practice and ascertaining observance is a matter of particular concern in the education scientific supervision of young researchers. The directors see this is implemented within their respective areas of responsibily ensure proper documentation.
The directors and the employees with "habilitation" and/or joint appointments at universities are responsible for the education researchers. Normally, diploma and doctoral students will be assigned immediate superviser from the ranks of the scientific personnel.
- Evaluation criteria
For promotions and hirings, originality and quality of publicatmore weight than quantity. The mere number of citations is nobr>decisive criterion. The citing paper must be specifically concernedbr>the contents of the cited paper. "Productivity" is a meaningful criter>only in the context of quality indicators.
- Authorship
The list of authors of an original publication includes those and only those who substantially contributed to the conceptual design of the respective study or experiment, or to the experiment itself, or to the analysis or the interpretation of the data, or to the composition the manuscript and who have consented with its publication and are willing to share the responsibility.
Mere data recording, funding the research, being leader of the group which the research was carried out or perusing the manuscript does not normally warrant coauthorship (cf. 1.3).
- Original publications
Original publications communicate new observations or experimental resulincluding conclusions. Hence, multiple publication of the same results is nadmissable.
In order to ensure verifiability of the scientific research, the publicatimust contain a precise description of the methods and results, unless tparticular form of the publication (abstract, short communication) does nadmit this.
Findings that support the authors' hypothesis must be communicated the same footing as findings that contest it.
Findings and ideas of other scientists as well as relevant publicatioof other authors is to be adequately cited.
Fragmentation of the results of some research with serial publication mind is to be avoided.
- Organizatorial structures
- Ombudsman
In the event of disagreements and arguments regarding behavior that may related to scientic misconduct, the ombudsman elected in tMax-Born-Institut may be consulted for mediation and counsel (cf. 1.1 of tprocedural guide lines of the FVB for the case of suspected scientifmisconduct).
The ombudsman is directly available to all scientists for counsel asupport regarding issues of good scientific practice and its violation by scientific dishonesty. The function of the ombudsman is to provide counsel and mediation in such cases. In particular, this imlies advising persons who want to disclose scientific misconduct to investigating bodies or already did so and, therefore, fear they might be subject to sanctions.
The ombudsman is not bound to follow any formal procedures. He is guided by the principles of confidentiality, fairness, and transparency to the involved persons and parties. As far as possible, the proceeding will be conducted with all sides consenting.
Actually ascertaining scientific misconduct and imposing sanctions is not part of the ombudsman's duties. However, in the case of serious suspicion scientific misconduct, the ombudsman may initiate proceedings along the lines of the afore-mentioned procedural guide lines of the FVB.
Berlin, the 25.3.2002