To safeguard good scientific practice, the Friedrich Schiller University Jena (FSU) has adopted the following principles and rules of procedure. The FSU will investigate any and all cases of suspected scientific misconduct at the University where there is concrete evidence or indications thereof. If, upon clarification of the facts, investigations confirm the suspected scientific misconduct, measures appropriate for the case in question will be taken making use of all options available.
With this, the Friedrich Schiller University Jena also wants to promote and foster awareness for the basic principles of scientific practice among its established scientists and scholars, and to teach them to students and young researchers early on and continually as a self-evident condition and prerequisite for scientific and academic work.
In addition, the present Guidelines clearly affirm the University’s non-acceptance of scientific misconduct because it undermines public confidence in science and academia as well as mutual trust among scientists and scholars themselves.
(1) The conduct of scientific work is founded on basic principles valid in all scientific disciplines. The primary principle is integrity and honesty towards oneself and towards others. Integrity and honesty are both, an ethical principle and the basis for the rules of good scientific practice, the details of which may differ from one discipline to another.
(2) As examples of good scientific practice can, in particular, be considered:
(3) Good scientific practice is advanced and promoted through the cooperation of the many members of the University. Ensuring that the corresponding rules and principles are observed, communicated, and taught is primarily the task of the individual scientists and scholars, also if they lead projects or working groups, if they supervise young researchers, or have other management functions. All Faculties and other scientific or academic institutions take on the responsibility and tasks they have been assigned and entrusted with in professional training, the promotion of young researchers, and the organization of research and academic life. Through the individuals working at these institutions and through their collegial bodies, they are responsible for creating the organizational and institutional conditions needed to safeguard good scientific practice.
(1) Scientific misconduct, on the other hand, is violating ethical standards, giving false information, infringing intellectual property rights of others or compromising their research activity in another way, either intentionally or by gross negligence in a setting relevant to science and academia. The specific circumstances of each individual case shall be decisive.
(2) As examples of scientific misconduct can, in particular, be considered:
2. infringement of intellectual property
with regard to a copyrighted piece of work of another individual or significant scientific findings, hypotheses, teachings, or research approaches of others notably through
3. compromising research activity of others by
(3) Sharing the responsibility for academic misconduct can, among other things, arise as a result of active involvement in the misconduct of others, of having knowledge of falsifications committed by others, of being a co-author of falsified publications, or as a result of gross neglect of supervisory duties.
To safeguard good scientific practice and to prevent scientific misconduct in research, the following rules are to be adhered to at the Friedrich Schiller University Jena:
(1) Upon election by the Senate, the Rector shall, for the duration of 3 years, name four persons from among the University’s professors as ombudspersons and points of contactde for all members of the university who may want to voice allegations of scientific misconduct or report potential scientific misconduct. Re-election shall be possible. Names of these ombudspersons shall be made available on the University’s website.
(2) One ombudsperson shall be elected for each of the following academic areas: Arts, Humanities, and Cultural Sciences; Law and Economics and Business Administration; Natural Sciences; and Medicine. The ombudspersons shall have considerable experience in carrying out research projects and in training young researchers, and shall have good national and international contacts.
(3) Each of the four ombudspersons may be contacted by all members of the University and they shall fill in for each other. They shall listen to and give advice to any person that may inform them of suspected scientific misconduct. Every member of the University is entitled to be personally heard by one of the ombudspersons within a short space of time. The ombudspersons shall review the totality of the accusations for their veracity and relevance, examine their possible motives, and investigate possibilities to refute them.
(1) To investigate accusations of scientific misconduct, a committee shall be formed, and the names of its members shall be made available on the University’s website. It shall consist of a chairperson to be elected by the Senate upon recommendation of the Rector, the Vice-Rector for Research ex officio, and a member of the University’s Faculty of Law as legal expert. The Committee may consult with a representative of the status group concerned in a specific case; he/she shall have an advisory capacity only. In addition, the Committee may include up to three persons as experts with an advisory capacity on a case-by-case basis.
(2) The Committee shall meet upon request of one its members.
(3) The Committee shall meet in closed session. Decisions are taken by simple majority; in the event of a tie, the chairman has the casting vote.
(1) If one of the ombudspersons is given concrete indications of suspected scientific misconduct, he/she shall inform the chairperson of the Committee in writing of the accusations voiced, ensuring strict confidentiality to protect the whistleblower as well as the individual accused of scientific misconduct.
(2) The Committee shall be entitled to gather information and statements required to clarify the issue, and, on a case-by-case basis, to consult with expert reviewers of the concerned scientific field and other experts. The Committee examines in unfettered consideration of the evidence whether or not there has been a case of scientific misconduct.
(3) One of the ombudspersons may present the specific accusations on behalf of the whistleblower without having to disclose his/her identity. The person accused of scientific misconduct shall have to be informed without delay of the incriminating facts and of any pieces of evidence where applicable. The person accused as well the whistleblower shall, in a suitable way, both be given the opportunity to state their views respectively. Upon request, they shall be heard in person. The person accused of scientific misconduct as well as the whistleblower may each chose to be assisted by a person of trust.
(4) If the identity of the whistleblower is not known to the person accused of scientific misconduct, it shall be disclosed to him/her if he/she is otherwise not able to defend him-/herself properly, in particular because the credibility of the whistleblower is of essential importance to confirm the case of scientific misconduct. The Committee shall have to decide on whether or not to disclose the whistleblower’s name. It may be decided to exceptionally not disclose the whistleblower’s identity if facts and evidence are obvious and clear.
(5) The committee shall submit to the Rector a final report of the results of its investigations, including recommendations for further actions. At the same time, it shall inform the person accused of scientific misconduct as well as the whistleblower of the main results of its investigations.
(6) On the basis of this final report and the Committee’s recommendations, the Rector shall decide whether to dismiss the case or whether there is sufficient evidence of scientific misconduct. In case sufficient evidence was found, he/she shall also decide on further actions to be taken. If the person in question has unjustly and without good reason been accused of scientific misconduct, the Rector shall ensure his/her rehabilitation.
Jena, 20. Dezember 2006
Prof. Dr. Klaus Dicke, Rector of the Friedrich Schiller University Jena
Stand 2006, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena