Rules of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences and Humanities for Safeguarding Good Research Practice

The Bavarian Academy of Sciences and Humanities (hereinafter: the Academy) is the largest and most research-intensive of the eight state academies in Germany, and one of the oldest. The Academy conducts innovative long-term research, brings together scholars from different disciplines across national borders, contributes its academic expertise to policy-making and society, supports junior researchers, and serves as a forum for dialogue between the scientific community and the general public. Research integrity and adherence to the principles of good research practice are essential prerequisites for all scientific work at the Academy. The Academy will investigate any allegations of scientific misconduct and, within the limits of the law, take appropriate action in each individual case. The following Academy rules for safeguarding good research practice were adopted by the Academy’s plenary meeting of ordinary members in accordance with Section 11(1) (a) and (c) of the Academy’s Statutes.

(1) Members who are engaged in research and research associates at the Academy must adhere to the rules of good research practice. These include:

• The general principles of scientific work such as
  • completing work in accordance with established practice
  • documenting the results
  • performing critical assessment of results achieved by oneself or within one’s own group
  • maintaining strict integrity with regard to one’s own work and that of third parties; this principle is of particular importance in publications and presentations at academic events
• As well as the specific principles applicable to individual academic disciplines.

(2) In addition to the Academy’s Executive Committee, its project committees, project advisory boards, Sections and institutes are responsible, within their respective areas, for ensuring that the tasks of management, supervision, conflict resolution and quality assurance in the implementation of research projects are clearly assigned and effectively carried out. Equal opportunity and principles of diversity are taken into account in the recruitment and development of staff.

In particular, it is the responsibility of the project committees to ensure that the roles and responsibilities of those involved in a research project, as well as those of non-academic staff, are clearly defined at every stage of the project. These may need to be modified if the main focus of an individual’s activities changes.

Taking on management responsibilities comes with the corresponding accountability. Key responsibilities include, in particular, ensuring that junior researchers receive appropriate individual support, as well as promoting the career development of research staff and research support staff. At all organisational levels, individuals and bodies entrusted with managerial or supervisory responsibilities must prevent the abuse of power and the exploitation of relationships of dependency.

(3) Particular attention shall be paid to the support of junior researchers and to guiding them in the application of the principles of good research practice. In order to support the development of young talent, we maintain close cooperation with universities.

(4) The Academy, its project committees, project advisory boards and institutes shall secure research data and research results made publicly accessible, as well as the underlying primary data, core materials and, where applicable, the research software used, and shall store these on durable and secure media for at least ten years, either in its own custody or in a suitable and relevant regional infrastructure, to serve as the basis for publications in its field. The retention period begins on the date on which the information is made publicly available. The Academy’s regulations regarding the termination of projects must be observed. If there are valid reasons for not retaining certain data, these must be explained and appropriately documented.

Members of the Academy and all those engaged in research at the Academy are bound by the rules of good research practice. They must be communicated to members upon their admission to the Academy and to all involved in the Academy’s research projects upon commencing their work. Researchers at all stages of their careers at the Academy regularly update their knowledge of the standards of good research practice and the current state of research.

When planning a project, it is essential to take the current state of research fully into account and acknowledge it. Identifying relevant and appropriate research topics requires careful review of publicly available research outputs. Where relevant, the significance of gender and/or diversity aspects for the research project in question should be considered.

Legal frameworks, such as statutory provisions and contractual obligations, must be observed at all times. When entering into contractual obligations, it must be borne in mind that the actual use of research data lies primarily with the researchers who collect it. Access to research data by third parties must be regulated. Necessary approvals and, where required, ethics approvals must be obtained at an early stage. Every step of the research process is carried out lege artis. This particularly applies to compliance with subject-specific standards, and to the application of established, scientifically sound and transparent methods. It also applies to processes such as the calibration of equipment and the collection, processing and analysis of research data. Furthermore, it covers the citation of original sources, the selection and use of research software, its development and programming, and to the maintenance of laboratory logs and adequate research documentation. The documentation must also include any known subsequent use of the research results.

Researchers shall document all information relevant to the generation of a research result in a manner that is sufficiently transparent as required and appropriate within the relevant field, so that the result can be verified and evaluated. As a general rule, they shall also document individual findings that do not support the research hypothesis. No selection of results should be made in this context. Where specific technical recommendations exist for review and evaluation purposes, the researchers must document their work in accordance with the relevant guidelines. If the documentation does not meet these requirements, the limitations must be clearly explained, along with the reasons for them. Documentation and research findings must not be manipulated; they must be protected against manipulation as effectively as possible. Recognised methods for avoiding bias in the interpretation of findings must be applied. Particular emphasis is placed on quality assurance and the establishment of standards when new methods are developed or implemented. For all types of publication, the quality assurance procedures applied must always be disclosed.

Research projects shall be continuously assessed in terms of the consequences, risks and ethical implications of their findings. This applies in particular to the field of security-relevant research (dual use). These assessments take place within the project committees and advisory boards, as well as within the respective Sections. Agreements regarding the use of research data and results must be set out in writing.

When assessing the performance of researchers, factors other than scientific achievement may also be taken into account. The evaluation of performance is guided primarily by qualitative criteria, with quantitative indicators only being incorporated into the overall assessment in a nuanced and considered manner. Where they are provided voluntarily, the individual circumstances set out in CVs are taken into account when making decisions, alongside the categories specified in the German General Equal Treatment Act.

Responsibility for the content of publications issued by the Academy lies exclusively with the respective authors. An author is anyone who has made a genuine, verifiable contribution to the content of a scientific text, data or software publication. [1] If a particular contribution is not sufficient to justify authorship, appropriate recognition of the support should nevertheless be provided elsewhere, e.g. in footnotes, in the foreword or in the acknowledgements. Honorary authorship is not permitted. A managerial or supervisory role alone does not constitute co-authorship. The participating researchers shall agree on who should be listed as an author. An agreement on the order of authorship shall be made in good time, usually no later than the drafting stage of a manuscript, on the basis of transparent criteria and in accordance with disciplinary conventions. All authors shall approve the final version of the work to be published. They share responsibility for the publication unless explicitly stated otherwise. Approval must not be withheld without good cause. Any refusal to give approval must be justified by verifiable criticism of the data, methodology or results. Authors shall ensure, and where possible take steps to ensure, that their research articles are identified by publishers and other publication providers in such a way that they can be correctly cited by users.

Authorship also entails a commitment to continually question research findings and methods even after publication. If researchers have made their findings publicly available and subsequently notice any inconsistencies or errors, they shall correct them. If such inconsistencies or errors give rise to the retraction of a publication, the researchers shall liaise with the relevant publisher or publication provider without delay to ensure that the correction or retraction is carried out and appropriately indicated. This also applies if researchers are made aware of such inconsistencies or errors by third parties.

[1] A meaningful, genuine contribution is deemed to exist in particular when a researcher makes a scientifically significant contribution to

• the development and design of the research project, or
• the establishment, collection, acquisition or provision of data, software, sources, or
• the analysis, evaluation or interpretation of the data and sources, and the conclusions drawn from them, or
• the writing of the manuscript.

Publication venues are carefully selected on the basis of their quality and reach within the respective field of research. In particular, project committees should discuss which publication formats to choose prior to the publication of research findings. This may be, for example, in book form, in a specialist journal or online publication (such as specialist, data and software repositories, blogs or a combination of different publication formats). The scientific quality of a contribution does not depend on the publication in which it is made publicly available.

In principle, all relevant research findings shall be published. Publications that are too small in scale should be avoided. If, in individual cases, certain results are not published, this decision must be justified and documented. The decision to publish scientific results must be based solely on scientific criteria. To the greatest extent possible, the underlying research data, materials and information, the methods used and, where applicable, the software employed should be made available, and workflows should be documented in detail. Software developed in-house should be made publicly available as open source, including the source code. Both one’s own prior work and the work of others must be cited completely and correctly. Self-citations should be kept to a minimum.

The general public must be granted unrestricted access to complete research results. All research findings are therefore always made available, as far as possible, as open access publications or in accordance with the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable). Further details are set out in the Open Access Policy [1] of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

[1] See Digital Strategy of BAdW

In addition to these rules, the guidelines of the relevant funding body apply to the Academy’s research associates.

Volunteer reviewers are required to maintain the confidentiality of the documents made available to them and to disclose any conflicts of interest. The obligation to maintain confidentiality and to disclose any facts that could give rise to concerns about bias also applies to members of scientific advisory and decision-making bodies. Confidentiality regarding third-party content to which reviewers or committee members have access precludes its disclosure to third parties and its use for personal purposes.

In an academic context, scientific misconduct occurs when false statements are intentionally negligently made, when the intellectual property of others is infringed, or when their research activities are otherwise impaired unlawfully or contrary to public policy. The circumstances of each individual case are decisive.

In particular, the acts listed in the appendix are to be regarded as scientific misconduct. 

Members and all staff of the Academy may contact an independent ombudsperson in cases of conflict, regarding matters of good research practice, or in relation to suspected scientific misconduct. The ombudsperson and a deputy who can step in in the event of a conflict of interest or incapacity are appointed by the Academy’s Executive Committee for a term of five years. A further term of office is possible.[1] The respective ombudsperson will be announced across the Academy in an appropriate manner. The Academy’s management and committees support the ombudsperson’s work, promote their acceptance within the organisation and thus help to ease their workload.

In addition, members and all staff at the Academy can also contact

• the German national body known as the “Ombuds Committee for Research Integrity”[2]
• the Section spokesperson responsible for the relevant field, and/or
• a spokesperson for the research associates.

The contact persons advise those who inform them of a specific suspected case of scientific misconduct and, on their own initiative, take note of any specific information that comes to their attention. They examine the grounds for suspicion in terms of plausibility, bearing confidentiality and the principle of the presumption of innocence in mind. If suspicions of scientific misconduct are substantiated, the President must be informed immediately.

Researchers and other Academy staff who, acting in good faith,[3] provide specific evidence of suspected scientific misconduct must not suffer any detriment to their own academic and professional advancement as a result. The same applies to those implicated in the allegations, as long as no scientific misconduct has been established. The whistleblower must be protected even where no scientific misconduct is proven, provided that it cannot be shown that the allegations were made knowingly and in bad faith.

[1] The act of knowingly or maliciously making false allegations may in itself constitute scientific misconduct.

[2] Ombudspersons may not be members of a central governing body of their institution whilst holding this office. The President selects scientists of integrity with management experience to serve as ombudspersons.

[3] The “Ombuds Committee for Research Integrity" is an independent body that provides advice and support on matters relating to good research practice and its violation through scientific misconduct.

(1) The President shall appoint an ordinary member and a research associate from the relevant Section to head the investigating committee. In addition, the President shall appoint deputies to the head of the investigating committee. Further members of the investigating committee, as well as their deputies, may be appointed by the President.

(2) The head of the investigating committee shall investigate all incriminating and exonerating circumstances. They shall then inform the person concerned – where appropriate without naming the informant – of the allegations of scientific misconduct against them and give them the opportunity to respond within two weeks. The statement in response may be made in writing or orally; the person concerned must be informed of this. For oral statements, a transcript of the hearing shall be drawn up, read out to the person concerned and approved by them.

(3) On the basis of all the facts established and the statement made by the person concerned, the head of the investigating committee shall assess the allegation of scientific misconduct by exercising their discretion in evaluating the evidence. They are entitled and obliged, within the limits of their capabilities, to take all necessary steps to clarify the facts of the matter, in particular to seek further comments and information. In individual cases, they may consult competent specialist assessors and experts in handling such cases.

(4) The head of the investigating committee shall bring to the attention of the person concerned all incriminating facts and available evidence. Both the person concerned and, where applicable, the informant must be given the opportunity to comment if they so wish. To this end, they may call upon a trusted person to act as their adviser. Minutes are to be taken of the statement.

(5) If the identity of the informant is not known to the person concerned, it shall be disclosed to them if this information is necessary for an adequate proper defence. This is particularly important where establishing scientific misconduct hinges on the credibility of the informant.

(6) Care must be taken to ensure that proceedings are conducted expeditiously. Each procedural step shall be completed within an appropriate timeframe.

(1) Once the investigating committee has concluded its proceedings, the head of the investigating committee shall report to the Executive Committee, submitting all relevant documents, on the outcome and state whether or not they consider scientific misconduct to have been proven.

(2) The Executive Committee shall verify that the procedure has been conducted in accordance with the rules and shall form its own opinion on the basis of the report submitted. If the Executive Committee identifies procedural errors or considers that further clarification of the facts is necessary, it shall refer the matter back to the head of the investigating committee, together with relevant guidance, who shall reopen the investigation and conclude it in accordance with that guidance.

(3) If the Executive Committee does not consider scientific misconduct to have been proven, the proceedings shall be terminated. The main reasons that led to the termination of the proceedings shall be communicated in writing without delay to the person concerned and, where applicable, to the informant.

(4) If, after careful consideration of all the circumstances, the Executive Committee considers that scientific misconduct has been proven, it shall consult with the relevant body on possible courses of action and consider what measures should be taken. In particular, consideration should be given to measures under employment law, civil law and criminal law; the retraction of publications; informing other scientific institutions or universities with regard to academic consequences; and informing other researchers, academic journals or publishers, funding bodies and scientific organisations, professional bodies, government departments, the public and the press. The measures deemed necessary, depending on the severity of the proven misconduct, shall be implemented without delay insofar as this falls within the Academy’s remit; otherwise, the relevant bodies and authorities will be involved.

(1) All parties involved in the proceedings are obliged to maintain confidentiality regarding all matters that have become known to them in the course of the proceedings, without prejudice to any other obligations arising from their membership of the Academy, unless a fact is already public knowledge or, by its nature, does not require confidentiality. The provisions of administrative and employment law concerning the duty of confidentiality and the consequences of breaching that duty remain unaffected.

(2) Articles 20 and 21 of the Bavarian Administrative Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to all parties involved in the proceedings, with the exception of the person(s) concerned and, where applicable, the informant.

(3) The investigation files shall be retained for 30 years.

These rules shall come into force on the day of their publication, following their adoption by the Academy’s plenary meeting.

Upon the entry into force of these rules, the previous rules for safeguarding good research practice, adopted at the plenary meeting on 24 February 2017, shall cease to apply.

Issued pursuant to the resolution of the Academy’s plenary meeting of 21 October 2022.

Munich, 21 October 2022

I. Scientific misconduct

In an academic context, scientific misconduct occurs when false statements are intentionally negligently made, when the intellectual property of others is infringed, or when their research activities are otherwise impaired unlawfully or contrary to public policy. The decisive factor in each case is the specific circumstances of the individual case.

The following, in particular, may be considered scientific misconduct:

1. Providing false information:

a. fabricating data;

b. falsifying data, e.g.

aa. by selecting and rejecting undesirable results without disclosing this,

bb. by manipulating a representation or image;

c. inaccurate information in an application letter or a funding proposal (including false statements regarding the publication venue and publications that are in press);

2. Violation of intellectual property rights:

a. with respect to a copyrighted work created by another person or to significant scientific findings, hypotheses, theories or research approaches originating from others:

aa. unauthorised use whilst claiming authorship (plagiarism)

bb. the exploitation of research approaches and ideas, in particular as a reviewer (theft of ideas),

cc. the unjustified claim or assumption of scientific authorship or co-authorship,

dd. the falsification of the content or

ee. the unauthorised publication or disclosure to third parties of a work, finding, hypothesis, theory or research approach that has not yet been published;

b. the claiming of (co-)authorship of another person without their consent;

3. Interference with the research activities of others:

a. the sabotage of research activities (including damaging, destroying or tampering with experimental set-ups, equipment, documents, hardware, software, chemicals or other items required by another person to perform an experiment),

b. the destruction of primary data, insofar as this contravenes statutory provisions or recognised disciplinary principles of scientific work.

II. Shared responsibility may arise, for example, from

1. actively participating in the misconduct of others,
2. knowledge of falsifications committed by others where there is a duty to prevent or disclose them,
3. co-authorship of publications containing falsified data,
4. gross negligence neglect in supervisory duties.