Guidelines for Ensuring Good Scientific Practice and Dealing with Scientific Misconduct of the Technische Informationsbibliothek and Procedural Principles

Adopted version of May 8, 2023, Last modified June 27, 2023

Introduction

The foundations of valid scientific work are the honesty of scientists towards themselves and others, and integrity in the pursuit of truthful knowledge. The present guidelines of the TIB for ensuring good scientific practice implement both levels one and two of guidelines 1 to 19 of the DFG Kodex "Guidelines for Good Scientific Practice" from August 2019 (DFG Kodex) - decided in the Leibniz Association as the version "Leibniz Code of Good Scientific Practice" in November 2021 (Leibniz Code) - as well as the "Guideline for Good Scientific Practice in the Leibniz Association" from November 28, 2019 (Leibniz Guidelines).

1 General Principles

The standards of good scientific practice, which are announced in this guidelines and are based on the DFG Kodex, are mandatory for all scientists at the TIB as well as for all other actors of the scientific system working at the TIB who contribute to the assurance of scientific integrity. For simplicity, these individuals will henceforth be referred to as researchers.

Guideline 1 Commitment to the General Principles

Every scientist carries the responsibility to ensure that their own behavior meets the standards of good scientific practice.

The fundamental principle of good scientific practice is to work "lege artis". This includes maintaining strict honesty regarding one's own contributions as well as those of others, consistently questioning all results, and allowing and promoting critical discourse within the scientific community.

Guideline 2 Professional Ethics

Scientists at the TIB are responsible for realizing the fundamental values and standards of scientific work in their actions and for standing up for them. Conveying the fundamentals of good scientific work is an integral part of scientific training at the TIB from the earliest possible stage. Scientists at all career levels regularly update their knowledge of the standards of good scientific practice and the state of research.

Experienced scientists as well as early career scientists support each other in the continuous learning and further education process and engage in regular exchange.

Guideline 3: Organisational Responsibility of the TIB Direction

The TIB direction provides the environment for scientific work. It is responsible for compliance and promotion of good scientific practice, as well as appropriate career support for all scientists. The TIB leadership ensures the prerequisites for scientists to comply with legal and ethical standards. The environment includes clear and written procedures and principles for personnel selection, career development, and equal opportunities.

The TIB direction bears responsibility for an appropriate institutional organisational structure. This ensures that, depending on the size of the individual scientific working units of the TIB, the tasks of leadership, supervision, quality assurance, and conflict resolution are clearly assigned and appropriately communicated to the respective members and affiliates.

Gender equality and diversity are considered in personnel selection and personnel development. The respective processes are transparent and minimize unconscious bias as far as possible. In order to ensure a balanced, non-discriminatory evaluation, the equality officers and the staff council are also formally involved in the application process. The TIB is regularly certified according to the Total E-Quality Award, which realises the compatibility of career and family also for the scientists. Personnel development is also subject to the above-mentioned non-discriminatory evaluation and is supported, among other things, by the annual discussions between employees and supervisors.

Guideline 4: Responsibility of the management of working units

Heads of scientific work units within the TIB bears responsibility for the unit as a whole. The interaction within scientific work units is such that the group as a whole can fulfill its tasks, that the necessary cooperation and coordination take place, and all members are aware of their roles, rights, and duties. Particularly included in the management task are ensuring the appropriate individual support of scientific novices as well as career promotion for scientific and science-supporting personnel. Abuse of power and exploitation of dependency relationships are to be prevented by suitable organisational measures both at the level of the individual scientific work unit and at the management level.

The size and organisation of the TIB's scientific work units are designed in such a way that management tasks, in particular the transfer of competence, the scientific support as well as the supervisory and mentoring duties, can be appropriately carried out. The fulfilment of management tasks goes hand in hand with corresponding responsibility. Scientists at the TIB enjoy a career stage-appropriate balance of guidance and self-responsibility. They have an adequate status with corresponding rights of participation. They are empowered to shape their careers through increasing independence.

To prevent abuse of power and exploitation of dependency relationships, there are, in addition to the ombudspersons, other contacts in the form of personnel representatives, representatives of doctoral students and post-docs, as well as equal opportunity officers. Regularly conducted employee surveys, guided externally, also provide monitoring.

Guideline 5: Performance Dimensions and Evaluation Criteria

A multidimensional approach is necessary for the evaluation of the performance of scientists: the performance evaluation generally follows qualitative, discipline-specific standards. Quantitative indicators should flow into the overall evaluation in a differentiated and reflective manner. In addition to scientific performance, other aspects can be considered.

High-quality science is based on discipline-specific criteria. In addition to the acquisition of knowledge and its critical reflection, scientific excellence, third-party funding acquisition, scientific service, and soft skills are included in the assessment as performance dimensions. Originality and quality have precedence as performance and evaluation criteria over quantity. Quantitative indicators can only be differentiated and reflected in the overall assessment. Individual performances are systematically recorded each year, documenting, among other things, publication activity, extent of third-party funding acquisition, teaching activity, and other performances such as cross-sectional tasks and committee activities.

The TIB takes into account the evaluation criteria of the Leibniz Association when evaluating its scientists. The overarching goals of the TIB, agreed upon with financiers in the form of programme budgets, are specified in the context of confidential annual talks with the respective superiors for the current year. In the annual discussion, scientists receive performance feedback on work results, commitment, efficiency, and social competence during the past period.

Guideline 6: Ombudspersons

The TIB has two independent ombudspersons, whom its scientists and members can turn to with questions about good scientific practice and suspected scientific misconduct. The ombudspersons can represent each other in case of concern, bias, or prevention. The TIB ensures that the ombudspersons are well-known.

Scientists elect an ombudsperson and a deputy ombudsperson in a secret election. The TIB management is responsible for conducting the secret election and ensures that the ombudspersons are suitably introduced to the TIB.

The term of office is four years, with the possibility of re-election once. All scientists at the TIB, as well as all other actors in the scientific system working at the TIB, are eligible to vote. The election regulations "Election Regulations of the Technical Information Library for the Election of Ombudspersons" governs all other matters. The ombudspersons should possess personal integrity, independence, objective judgment, and experience, such as in leadership positions, necessary for their duties. However, they must not be members of a central governing body of the TIB during their term. The TIB's ombudspersons advise as neutral and qualified contacts in questions of good scientific practice and in cases of suspected scientific misconduct and, as far as possible, contribute to solution-oriented conflict mediation. Principles of the ombudspersons' activity are confidentiality, neutrality, fairness, and transparency towards the parties involved. They are the first point of contact for disagreements, suspicions, and disputes regarding the standards of good scientific practice. They receive the necessary substantive support and acceptance in carrying out their tasks. The ombudspersons become active when a suspicion is brought to their attention.

The tasks of the ombudspersons include:

• Active communication of the rules of good scientific practice and contribution to making scientific integrity a natural part of the work of TIB's scientists,
• Statements on cases of suspected scientific misconduct,
• Review of allegations of scientific misconduct in a formal procedure,
• Collaboration with the central Leibniz Ombuds Committee.

Should both TIB ombudspersons be biased or unable to represent each other, scientists can turn to the central ombuds committee of the Leibniz Association or the national "Ombudsman for Science" committee of the DFG. The interaction between the ombudspersons of the TIB and the central Leibniz Ombuds Committee is regulated by the guideline for good scientific practice in the Leibniz Association.

Should it appear that an ombudsperson can no longer reliably perform their tasks or if trust in the ombudsperson's proper fulfillment of their tasks is no longer present, a vote of no confidence is provided for. This is only possible if at least two-thirds of those eligible to vote agree. The ombudsperson must be heard before a decision on the vote of no confidence is made.

2 Research Process - Guidelines for Good Scientific Practice

Guideline 7: Cross-Phase Quality Assurance

Scientists at TIB carry out every step in the research process in a lege artis manner. Whenever scientific findings are made publicly available (in the narrower sense in the form of publications, but also in the broader sense via other communication channels), the quality assurance mechanisms applied are always outlined. This is especially true when new methods are developed.

Continuous, research-accompanying quality assurance refers in particular to compliance with subject-specific standards and established methods, processes such as the collection, processing and analysis of research data, the selection and use of research software, its development and programming. Scientists correct their data and findings if they notice inconsistencies or errors after publication. If the inconsistencies or errors give rise to the retraction of a publication, scientists at the TIB work as quickly as possible with the respective publisher or infrastructure provider etc. to ensure that the correction or retraction is carried out and clearly marked. The same applies if scientists are alerted to such inconsistencies or errors by third parties.

The origin of data, materials and software used in the research process is indicated and the subsequent reuse is documented; original sources are cited. The nature and extent of research data generated in the research process are described. The handling of this data is designed according to the requirements in the affected field. For this purpose, the TIB, in addition to this guideline, has adopted a research data policy with the aim of promoting responsible and open handling of research data and creating the best possible conditions for research data management. Source code developed in-house for publicly available research software is provided by staff in a persistent, citable and documented manner. That results or findings can be replicated or confirmed by other scientists (for example, through a detailed description of materials and methods) is – depending on the affected subject area – an essential part of quality assurance.

Guideline 8: Actors, Responsibilities, and Roles

The roles and responsibilities of the scientists involved in a research project, as well as the science-supporting staff, must be clear at all times during a research project.

The participants of a research project communicate regularly. They define their roles and responsibilities in an appropriate way and adapt them, if necessary. An adaptation is particularly indicated when the main focus of work of a participant in the research project changes.

Guideline 9: Research Design

Scientists at TIB consider the current state of research comprehensively and critically when planning a project. The identification of relevant and appropriate research questions requires careful research into already publicly available research output. The TIB Directorate ensures the conditions necessary for the research of publicly available research performances.

Methods for avoiding (unconscious) biases in the interpretation of findings, for example blinding of experimental series, are used, as far as possible. Scientists at TIB check whether and, if so, to what extent gender and diversity may be significant for the research project (with regard to the methods, the work programme, the goals, etc.). The respective framework conditions are taken into account when interpreting the findings.

Guideline 10: Legal and Ethical Framework Conditions, Usage Rights

TIB scientists handle the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of research responsibly. They take into account rights and obligations, in particular those resulting from legal requirements, but also from contracts with third parties, and, if necessary, obtain and present permissions and ethical votes. In relation to research projects, a thorough estimation of research consequences and an assessment of the respective ethical aspects should take place. The legal framework of a research project also include documented agreements on the rights of use for the research data and research results emerging from it.

Scientists at TIB should be continuously aware of the dangers of misuse of research results. Their responsibility is not limited to compliance with legal requirements but also includes the obligation to use their knowledge, experience, and skills in such a way that risks can be identified, assessed, and evaluated. In doing so, they particularly take into account the aspects associated with security-relevant research (dual use). The TIB Directorate is responsible for ensuring that its employees comply with the rules and promotes this through appropriate organisational structures. They develop binding principles for research ethics and procedures for the corresponding assessment of research projects, taking into account national and international regulations as well as - if applicable - the Research Ethics Procedures of the Leibniz Association.

As far as possible and reasonable, TIB scientists make documented agreements on the rights of use at the earliest possible stage in the research project. Documented agreements are particularly advisable when several academic and/or non-academic institutions are involved in a research project, or when it is foreseeable that scientists will change their research institution and would like to continue to use the data they have generated for (their own) research purposes. Further use is particularly granted to those who collect it. Within the framework of an ongoing research project, the beneficiaries (especially in accordance with data protection regulations) also decide whether third parties should have access to the data.

Guideline 11: Methods and Standards

In answering research questions, scientists apply scientifically based and understandable methods. When developing and applying new methods, they place particular emphasis on quality assurance and the establishment of standards.

The application of a method usually requires specific competencies, which may be covered by correspondingly close collaborations. The establishment of standards for methods, for the use of software, for the collection of research data, and for the description of research results forms an essential prerequisite for the comparability and transferability of research results.

Guideline 12: Documentation

Scientists at TIB document all information relevant to the obtaining of a research result as comprehensibly as necessary and appropriate in the respective field, in order to be able to review and evaluate the result. As a rule, they therefore also document individual results that do not support the research hypothesis. A selection of results should not be made in this context. If specific professional recommendations exist for the review and evaluation, TIB scientists carry out the documentation in accordance with the respective requirements. If the documentation does not meet these requirements, the limitations and reasons for this are clearly stated. Documentation and research results must not be manipulated and should be protected as much as possible against manipulations.

An important basis for enabling replication is to deposit the information necessary for understanding the research about the used or emerging research data, the methodological, evaluation and analysis steps as well as possibly the formation of the hypothesis, to ensure the traceability of citations, and, as far as possible, to allow third parties access to this information. When developing research software, the source code is documented. TIB supports the traceability of research results through its research data policy.

Guideline 13: Making research results publicly accessible

In principle, TIB scientists contribute all results to the scientific discourse. However, there may be reasons in individual cases for not making results publicly accessible (in the narrower sense in the form of publications, but also in the broader sense via other communication channels). This decision must not depend on third parties. Scientists decide in their own responsibility - taking into account the conventions of the relevant field - whether, how and where they make their results publicly accessible. Once a decision has been made to make results publicly accessible, TIB scientists describe them completely and comprehensibly. This also includes, as far as possible and reasonable, making the research data, materials and information underlying the results, the methods used and the software used available and fully explaining the workflows. Self-developed software is made publicly accessible by providing the source code. Scientists fully and correctly acknowledge their own and other's preliminary work.

The TIB has adopted a Research Data Policy and an Open Access Policy, which serve as a guide for TIB scientists to make research results publicly accessible. For publications, "quality over quantity" applies, i.e. inappropriately small-scale publications are avoided and previously made public results are cited. Scientists limit the repetition of the content of their publications as (co-)authors to the extent necessary for understanding the context. They cite their previously made publicly accessible results, unless this can be exceptionally waived according to the discipline-specific self-understanding. For reasons of traceability, connectivity of research and reusability, TIB scientists, whenever possible, deposit the research data and central materials underlying the publication - following the FAIR principles ("Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Re-Usable") - in recognized archives and repositories. For this purpose, the TIB operates an institutional repository that follows the FAIR principles. Limitations may arise, for example, in the context of patent applications with regard to public accessibility. If specially developed research software is to be made available to third parties, it is provided with an appropriate license.

Guideline 14: Authorship

An author is someone who has made a significant and individual contribution to the content of a scientific text, data or software publication in a comprehensible manner. All authors agree to the final version of the work to be published. They share responsibility for the publication. Deviations from this principle must be explicitly indicated in the publication. TIB authors ensure, as far as possible, that their research contributions are labelled by the publishers or infrastructure providers in such a way that they can be correctly cited by users.

The contribution justifying authorship must be made to the scientific content of the publication. Whether a contribution is significant, individual and comprehensible must be examined separately in each individual case and depends on the field in question. This is usually the case if scientists have contributed significantly to:

• The development and conception of the research project, or
• The elaboration, collection, procurement, provision of data, software, sources, or
• The analysis/evaluation or interpretation of the data, sources and the conclusions resulting from these, or
• The drafting of the manuscript.

If a contribution is not sufficient to justify authorship, this support can be appropriately recognised in footnotes, in the preface or in an acknowledgement. An honorary authorship, in which no such contribution was made, is not permitted in the Leibniz Association. A leadership or supervisory function does not in itself justify co-authorship.

Scientists agree on who should be the author of the research results. The agreement on the order of authors is made in good time, usually at the latest when the manuscript is being drafted, using comprehensible criteria and taking into account the conventions of the respective field. Without sufficient reason, required consent to a publication of results must not be withheld. The refusal of consent must be justified with a verifiable critique of data, methods or results.

Guideline 15: Publication organ

TIB authors carefully select the publication organ – considering its quality and visibility in the respective discourse field. Scientists who assume the role of editors carefully check for which publication venues they take on this task. The scientific quality of a contribution does not depend on the publication organ in which it is made publicly accessible.

In addition to publications in books and scientific journals, specific discipline-specific repositories, data and software repositories, as well as blogs, are also considered. A new or unfamiliar publication venue is checked for its credibility. An essential criterion for the selection decision is whether the publication organ has established its own guidelines for good scientific practice. The TIB supports its scientists in the selection of publication organs, especially with Open Access publications and in avoiding predatory publishing.

Guideline 16: Confidentiality and neutrality in evaluations and consultations

Honest conduct is the basis of the legitimacy of a judgment process. TIB scientists, who are particularly assessing submitted manuscripts, funding applications, or the qualifications of individuals, are strictly obligated to confidentiality in this regard. They disclose all facts that could justify the fear of bias. The obligation of confidentiality and the disclosure of facts that could justify the fear of bias also apply to members of scientific advisory and decision-making bodies.

The confidentiality of the third-party content to which the reviewer or committee member has access includes the prohibition of disclosure to third parties and personal use. TIB scientists immediately report any potential conflicts of interest or biases that could be justified in relation to the evaluated research project or the person or object of the consultation to the responsible body.

Guideline 17: Archiving

TIB scientists shall adequately preserve research data or research results that have been made publicly accessible, as well as the underlying raw materials and, if applicable, the research software used, in accordance with the standards of the subject area concerned, and shall store them for an appropriate period of time. If there are comprehensible reasons for not retaining certain data, the scientists shall explain this. The TIB provides the necessary infrastructure for this purpose.

If scientific findings are made publicly accessible, the underlying research data (usually raw data) - depending on the respective subject area - are generally kept accessible and reconstructible for a period of ten years at the institution where they originated or in cross-site repositories. In justified cases, shorter retention periods may be appropriate; the corresponding reasons are described in a comprehensible manner. The retention period begins on the date public access is established.

3 Procedure in case of non-compliance with good scientific practice

Guideline 18: Whistleblowers and persons affected by allegations

The TIB ombudspersons and, if necessary, an investigation commission (see section 5), who investigate suspicions of scientific misconduct, are committed to protecting both the whistleblowers and those affected by the allegations in all procedural steps in an appropriate manner. The investigation of allegations of scientific misconduct is carried out explicitly while maintaining confidentiality and upholding the principle of presumption of innocence. The whistleblowers' report must be made in good faith. Deliberately false or malicious allegations can themselves constitute scientific misconduct. Neither the whistleblower nor the person affected by the allegations should suffer disadvantages for their own scientific or professional advancement due to the report.

Allegations should not lead to delays during the qualification of the whistleblower, especially in the case of young scientists, and the preparation of theses and doctoral dissertations should not be disadvantaged. This also applies to working conditions as well as possible contract extensions.

The ombudspersons of the TIB and possibly an investigation commission adhere to the basic principle of presumption of innocence towards the person affected in every stage of the process, based on a case-by-case assessment. The person accused of allegations should fundamentally not suffer any disadvantages from the investigation of suspicion until scientific misconduct has been formally identified. The whistleblower must have objective indications that standards of good scientific practice may have been violated.

If the whistleblower cannot check the facts themselves or if there are uncertainties regarding the interpretation of the applicable rules for good scientific practice about an observed event, the whistleblower should refer to the ombudsperson of the TIB, or to the national DFG committee "Ombudsman for Science" or possibly to the central ombudsperson of the Leibniz Association for clarification of the suspicion.

The review of reports, where the whistleblower does not disclose their name (anonymous report), is decided on a case-by-case basis. An anonymous report can only be reviewed in a process if the whistleblower presents reliable and sufficiently specific facts to the body reviewing the suspicion. If the whistleblower is known by name, the ombudspersons of the TIB and possibly an investigation commission handle the name confidentially and do not disclose it to third parties without the corresponding consent. Something else only applies if there is a legal obligation for this, or if the person accused of the allegations cannot otherwise adequately defend themselves because the identity of the whistleblower is exceptionally crucial. Before the name of the whistleblower is disclosed, they will be immediately notified; the whistleblower can decide whether to withdraw the report - with foreseeable disclosure of the name.

The confidentiality of a process is restricted if the whistleblower goes public with the suspicion. The investigating body decides on a case-by-case basis how to deal with the violation of confidentiality by the whistleblower. The whistleblower is also to be protected in the case of unproven academic misconduct, provided the reporting of the allegations was not demonstrably made against better judgment.

Guideline 19: Procedures in Allegations of Scientific Misconduct

The TIB and the Leibniz Association have established procedures for dealing with allegations of scientific misconduct on the grounds of adequate legal bases as well as the applicable Leibniz guideline on good scientific practice, which are set out in this guideline for TIB scientists. The corresponding regulations include, in particular, definitions of circumstances of scientific misconduct, procedural rules and measures in the event that scientific misconduct is identified. The regulations are always applied in addition to relevant, higher-ranking standards.

Not every violation of good scientific practice constitutes scientific misconduct. The nature and severity of possible violations are set out in the relevant guidelines and regulations of the Leibniz Association and in this guideline in sections 4, 5 and 6. They clarify questions regarding the responsibility for each part of the procedure, the weighing of evidence, the representation of the ombudspersons and the members of the investigation committee, bias and, if applicable, the principles of due process of law. They are set up in such a way that the person affected by the allegations as well as the whistleblower are given the opportunity to comment at every step of the procedure and that, until scientific misconduct has been proven, the information about the parties involved in the procedure and the findings to date are treated confidentially. TIB ensures that the entire procedure is carried out as promptly as possible and takes the necessary steps to complete each phase of the procedure within a reasonable period of time. The rules and regulations of the TIB and the Leibniz Association indicate various measures to be applied depending on the severity of the proven scientific misconduct. If, after scientific misconduct has been determined, the withdrawal of an academic degree is considered as a measure, the bodies responsible for this are involved. After completion of the investigation, the result will be reported to the affected scientific organisations and, if necessary, to third parties who have a justified interest in the decision.

4 Elements of scientific misconduct

Not every violation of good scientific practice constitutes scientific misconduct. Scientific misconduct occurs when (in a scientific context) false statements are made intentionally or grossly negligently, when other people's scientific achievements are unlawfully appropriated, or the research activities of others are hindered.

Scientific misconduct includes false and misleading statements in a scientifically significant context, particularly:

• the invention of data,
• the falsification of data (for example, by selecting desired or rejecting undesired results or evaluation methods without disclosing this, or by manipulating a presentation or illustration),
• incorrect statements in publication lists or a funding application (including false statements about the publication medium and about publications in print),
• multiple publication of data or texts without appropriate disclosure.

Scientific misconduct includes infringement of intellectual property rights, in particular:

• concerning a legally protected work created by others or essential scientific knowledge, hypotheses, doctrines or research approaches originating from others,
• the unauthorised adoption or other use of passages without adequate proof of authorship (plagiarism),
• the exploitation of research approaches and ideas without consent, especially as a reviewer,
• the presumption or unfounded assumption of scientific authorship or co-authorship, as well as the denial of such authorship or co-authorship,
• the falsification of the content, or the unauthorised publication and making available to third parties as long as the work, finding, hypothesis, teaching, or research approach has not yet been lawfully published;
• claiming authorship or co-authorship of another person without that person's consent.

Scientific misconduct includes the unfair obstruction of other's research activities - including damaging, destroying, or manipulating experimental setups, devices, documents, hardware, software, or other items that others need for their research. The elimination of research data, if it violates legal regulations or recognised principles of scientific work, as well as the illegal non-elimination (especially of personal) data, is considered scientific misconduct.

Neglect of scientific management responsibilities and supervisory duties by any person with personnel responsibility in a way that facilitates violations against good scientific practice is scientific misconduct.

Co-authorship while accepting participation in a forgery-laden publication is scientific misconduct. The deliberate pretense of the implementation or claiming of quality assurance measures and procedures (such as peer-review) is scientific misconduct.

5 Procedure for resolving conflicts and investigating allegations of scientific misconduct

The ombudspersons of the TIB usually become active upon request. Scientists can freely choose which ombudsperson of the TIB they turn to. The ombudspersons of the TIB can consult each other. The whistleblower must give their consent in advance. If it is a matter of consultation to prevent misconduct or of mediation between persons, the discussions can be terminated by any party at any time, without giving reasons. In the case of mediation, the implementation of the developed solution proposals is up to the conflict parties themselves. The ombudspersons do not have the authority to take measures to enforce or monitor the agreements made. The review of anonymous reports is to be weighed by the ombudspersons. In principle, an efficient investigation requires the confidential naming of the whistleblower to the ombudsperson. The offenses against good scientific practice that are valid for the TIB are defined in Section 4 and serve as guidance. The whistleblower's report must be made in good faith. Deliberately false or malicious allegations can themselves constitute scientific misconduct. If an ombudsperson has an allegation of scientific misconduct, they will conduct an examination if there are sufficiently concrete allegations and a justified initial suspicion of misconduct. Not every violation of the rules of good scientific practice constitutes scientific misconduct.

5.1 Preliminary Examination

Procedure-relevant information about scientific misconduct should normally be submitted in writing to one of the ombudspersons. If the report of suspected misconduct is made verbally to the ombudsperson, the ombudsperson is to prepare a transcript. The ombudsperson confirms receipt to the whistleblower within a week of receiving the report. The ombudsperson independently and immediately conducts a preliminary examination. The bias of the investigating ombudsperson can be claimed both by her/himself and by the persons concerned. If there is disagreement about the allegation of bias, the chairperson of the TIB's scientific advisory board decides. The ombudsperson is obliged to prevent as far as possible disadvantages for the scientific and professional advancement of the persons providing the information, as well as to protect the accused from unjustified accusations. This obligation also applies to persons and bodies that may be involved in the further proceedings.

As part of the preliminary examination, the ombudsperson immediately asks the accused person in writing for a statement on the allegation. In doing so, it shall list the incriminating facts and evidence vis-à-vis the accused person. A deadline is set for the statement; this should normally be two weeks. The deadline can be extended. The statement should be made in writing. Accused persons are not obliged to incriminate themselves. As part of the preliminary examination, the ombudsperson can request, procure and view documents, procure and secure other evidence, obtain statements or - if necessary - external expertise. All persons involved are to be asked for confidential treatment of the inquiry.

The ombudsperson documents what steps have been taken to clarify the facts. After completing the relevant investigations and evaluating all relevant evidence, including the statement of the accused person, the ombudsperson immediately decides on the further course of the proceedings. The decision depends on whether, based on the facts, a finding of scientific misconduct by the investigation commission appears more likely than a discontinuation of the proceedings (sufficient suspicion). If there is no sufficient suspicion of prosecutable scientific misconduct, the ombudsperson discontinues the proceedings. If there is sufficient suspicion, the ombudsperson transfers the preliminary examination to a formal investigation, which is conducted by the investigation commission. The decision is to be recorded in writing in a memorandum; the whistleblower, the accused person and the TIB management are to be informed in writing about the decision and the decisive reasons.

If the proceedings are terminated by the ombudsperson, the parties involved can appeal. The proceedings are then forwarded directly to the central ombudsman body of the Leibniz Association.

5.2 Investigation Commission to Review Allegations of Scientific Misconduct

The Investigation Commission for the Review of Allegations of Scientific Misconduct is bound by these guidelines and the definitions of scientific misconduct. In addition, it takes into account the recognised professional standards and aligns its work with the usual principles of truthfulness.

The TIB management selects the members of the investigating commission in agreement with the ombudspersons. The investigating commission consists of at least three members with voting rights, including

• one person who is qualified to comprehensively understand the scientific facts of the case and who is not an employee of the TIB,
• a fully qualified lawyer (Volljurist),
• the chairperson of the Scientific Advisory Board of the TIB.

Further non-voting members are the ombudsperson or both ombudspersons, if both are entrusted with the case, a person determined by mutual agreement between the commission and the person concerned, who searches for exculpatory arguments in the sense of an attorney for the accused person and introduces these into the discussion of the commission.

The bias of a designated member can be asserted both by the member himself or herself and by the person concerned. If there is disagreement about the allegation of bias, the TIB management decides. Should one of the three above-mentioned members be permanently prevented from participating in the investigation committee during the course of the proceedings, the TIB management shall immediately appoint a successor in agreement with the ombudsperson.

The Investigation Commission shall deliberate in non-public and oral proceedings. At its first meeting, it agrees on rules of procedure. It appoints a chairperson from among its members, who is responsible for chairing the meetings. Decisions of the commission shall be taken by majority. The members of the investigative commission and the employees involved in supporting the commission.

The investigation commission deliberates in non-public and oral proceedings. At its first meeting, it shall agree on the rules of procedure. It appoints a chairperson from among its members, who is responsible for chairing the meetings. Decisions of the commission shall be taken by majority. The members of the investigative commission and the employees involved in supporting the commission

as well as all persons involved in the proceedings or informed about the proceedings shall be bound to confidentiality. The investigative commission shall hear the accused person as well as the person providing the information and determine the context of the conduct complained of. The investigative commission may question further persons and obtain expert opinions or consult experts in an advisory capacity. As a rule, the review by the investigative commission shall be completed within a maximum period of six months from the constituent meeting of the investigative commission. The investigating committee shall draw up a report in which it assesses the existence of scientific misconduct. If the investigating committee comes to the conclusion that scientific misconduct has occurred, i.e. if the majority of the investigating committee considers the scientific misconduct to be sufficiently proven, the report shall in particular a) present and evaluate the extent of such scientific misconduct and b) determine and substantiate whether such conduct was negligent, grossly negligent or intentional.

The report may also state what further action or actions the investigating committee recommends. The report is handed over to the parties involved and to the TIB management. The management deals with the report in a timely manner and decides on further measures.

6 Closure of the investigation

The TIB management decides on the basis of the report of the investigative commission on the evidence of scientific misconduct on the necessary measures or on the termination of the proceedings. It may consult with the central Leibniz Ombudsman Board in this regard. Measures can be, depending on the severity of the proven scientific misconduct:

• Written reprimand,
• Demand to withdraw incriminated publications or - in less serious cases - to correct incorrect data by publishing an erratum,
• Forwarding of the matter to third parties concerned, for example to the university awarding the academic degrees, if the scientific misconduct may result in their withdrawal,
• Initiation of any disciplinary, employment, civil or criminal proceedings,
• in the case of intent or gross negligence, exclusion of the person concerned from the lead application for third-party funding for the TIB for one to five years (depending on the severity of the scientific misconduct).

If, on the basis of the report of the investigation commission, the TIB Directorate determines that the scientific misconduct may result in the withdrawal of academic degrees, it will forward the matter to the awarding university. The main reasons which led to the closing of the investigation or to decisions on measures to be implemented shall be communicated to the person concerned, to any persons providing information and to the chairperson of the Scientific Advisory Board.

The management decides on the passing on and publication of the decisions and the reports of the investigative commission on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the existence of a legitimate interest of third parties.