Scientific misconduct

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article or paragraph presents the situation in Germany . Help us to describe the situation in other countries.

The term scientific misconduct was defined in more detail in July 1998 by a recommendation by the plenum of the German Rectors' Conference (HRK). The HRK's recommendation is based on a resolution of the Senate of the Max Planck Society from November 1997. In addition to the concept of scientific misconduct, the HRK has also published recommendations in this document for the procedural rules in the event of suspected scientific misconduct.

The term “scientific misconduct” is used to define and counteract undesirable behavior in science that is contrary to “good scientific practice” . In particular, it concerns misrepresentation, infringement of intellectual property and problems of authorship and consent in scientific publications . In September 2019, the German Research Foundation (DFG) issued a binding code with guidelines to ensure good scientific practice .

An extensive collection of known cases of scientific misconduct can be found under Fraud and Forgery in Science .

definition

The University Rectors' Conference generally defines:

“Scientific misconduct exists if, in a scientifically relevant context, false statements are made deliberately or through gross negligence, the intellectual property of others is infringed or their research activities are impaired in some other way. The decisive factor are the circumstances of the individual case. "

In detail is stated:

The following can be considered as serious misconduct:

a) Incorrect information

  • inventing data;
  • falsifying data, e.g. B. by selecting and rejecting unwanted results without disclosing them,
  • by manipulating a representation or illustration;
  • incorrect information in a letter of application or a funding application (including incorrect information about the publication organ and publications in print).

b) Intellectual Property Infringement

  • In relation to a copyrighted work created by another person or material scientific knowledge, hypotheses, teachings or research approaches originating from others:
  • unauthorized use under presumption of authorship (plagiarism),
  • the exploitation of research approaches and ideas, especially as a reviewer (theft of ideas),
  • the presumption or unfounded assumption of scientific authorship or co-authorship,
  • the falsification of the content,
  • the unauthorized publication and the unauthorized making available to third parties as long as the work, the knowledge, the hypothesis, the teaching or the research approach have not yet been published.

c) Claiming the (co-) authorship of someone else without their consent.

d) Sabotage of research activities (including damaging, destroying or manipulating test arrangements, devices, documents, hardware, software, chemicals or other items that someone else needs to carry out an experiment).

e) Removal of primary data (...) insofar as this violates legal provisions or discipline-related recognized principles of scientific work.

Shared responsibility of those involved

Regarding the question of possible joint responsibility of indirectly involved parties, it says:

Joint responsibility for misconduct can result from, among other things

  • active participation in the misconduct of others,
  • Knowledge of counterfeiting by others,
  • Co-authorship of forged publications,
  • gross neglect of the duty of supervision.

Problems specific to young scientists

2014 Percentage of temporary researchers in Germany.

In the vast majority of cases where there is an infringement of intellectual property or the falsification of research results, the assessment of the misconduct is unambiguous, provided there is evidence of the misconduct of a scientist and his intent. In such cases, any dispute between competing parties can be dealt with in front of third parties. B. the arbitral award of an appointed ombudsperson can be requested. In matters of intellectual property, it is more difficult to point out misconduct if the injured party is in an official or career-related relationship with the injuring party. This is covertly - because it is often unspoken, but sometimes also used directly in a one-to-one conversation - as a means of pressure when z. B. an expiring employment contract or a scientific assessment of the work done is pending. In these cases, it is important to consider whether or not the short-term protection of intellectual property outweighs the resulting obstacle to future career paths. Naturally, mostly young scientists who are employed on a temporary basis are affected, e. B. Post-doctoral students - but also occasionally doctoral students - because they represent a clear majority of a good 90% among under 45-year-olds in the German scientific landscape. In most cases, the young colleagues affected are not even aware of their rights to their work, so that subliminal, rumored fears in this regard lead to pleasing behavior, which is fatally imitated by their peers. Typical cases are unfounded claims against both first and co-authors in publications, patents and project applications. In almost all of these cases, young authors have to endure co-authors of their superior colleagues in the further exploitation of innovative research results or ideas or are even excluded from first authorship. In these cases, copyright law can only rarely help, as legal scholars attest.

In her article "Credit where credit's due" in NATURE magazine (Vol 440, March 30, 2006) under the heading NEWS, Special Report, Helen Pearson discusses strategies on how to avoid disputes over authorship and reports on the situation in various disciplines Countries. She writes that at the University of Pittsburg a "Panel of Research Integrity" censured American and English scientists for unfoundedly accepting most of the honors for work in which they were only involved or not at all. On the other hand, their judgment on German practice in the publication of scientific results is rather devastating: "Until recently, it was standard for the head of a German department or institution to take credit on a paper regardless of input. Graduate students and postdoctoral fellows frequently complain of being pushed down the author list, if they are included at al. " Pearson suggests discussing the co-authorship issue before working together, quoting Kate Kirby of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who co-authored a survey of young physicists: "Proactive discussion is really important."

Measures to promote good scientific practice

In all German university and non-university research institutions, seminars and lectures are now offered to educate prospective scientists about the prevailing problem and / or personal advice from ombudspersons . Conditions like those in the private sector (term: bossing) should be prevented in science. Since 1998 the DFG has tried to establish general rules that are internationally recognized among scientists in Germany by means of a memorandum to ensure good scientific practice. In an article in Deutsches Ärzteblatt (2005), Stengel, Bauwens, Ekkernkamp report on comparable rules of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors known as the Vancouver Statement . The three authors point out that magazines such as the British Medical Journal have long since adopted concrete measures in addition to moral and ethical appeals. For example, any conflicts of interest that may result from third-party funding are disclosed. And in particular, one expects to rigorously mark the contribution of each individual author to a manuscript, which is also recommended in the article as an example for Germany. The subject of good scientific practice has also occupied the German Bundestag several times; most recently in 2019 (printed matter 19/12165 and 19/13751). In the meantime, the DFG has concretized and specified its recommendations. She apparently rates the specific problem of young scientists described here as serious enough to be included in her - recently binding - Code of Good Scientific Practice (September 2019) and others. a. to include a catalog of services for authorship in which it specifies (code of good scientific practice, excerpt: guideline 14, pages 19-20):

  1. Authors of scientific publications always share responsibility for their content. An author is only someone who has made a significant contribution to a scientific publication.
  2. Honorary authorship for which no such contribution has just been made is not permitted. A management or supervisor function alone does not constitute co-authorship.
  3. The required consent (from an administrative superior) for the publication of results must not be refused without sufficient reason.

criticism

These rules aim to guarantee the exclusive rights of employed scientists to the journalistic exploitation of their results. Nevertheless, the question arises as to how far z. For example, the presentation of one's own research to non-involved colleagues and / or superiors and the subsequent discussion of the results must at the same time be viewed as an essential scientific contribution, which would justify their co-authorship. In fact, after such presentations, colleagues are not invited to co-author, but superiors are. This practice is particularly questionable if, as is usual in larger institutions, the (administrative) superior in question is busy with management tasks as department or institute head and the actual research activity (planning, implementation and publication) is incumbent on scientific staff. Young employees then seek advice from well-known colleagues with adequate professional qualifications and publication activities, mostly from their own, more rarely from neighboring institutes on campus. Colleagues who are permanently employed but do not have an administrative position (so-called supervisors, research group leaders, senior scientists ...). Such collaborations often lead to the fact that the scientific work of third parties is taken into account in the publication planning between the young scientist and the administrative superior, but is not sufficiently rewarded in the list of authors, in extreme cases not at all.

Systemic weaknesses

The cause for the occurrence of such misconduct is due to the ignorance of good scientific practice paired with a tight institutional hierarchy. Manuscripts for publications, patents, project applications must be approved by the administrative superior before submission, even if he himself had previously requested co-authorship or even first authorship. Instead, it would be easy to ask for an internal review from uninvolved colleagues in order not to provoke a conflict of interest.

Such structural weaknesses in the system paired with excessive ambition on the part of both sides can encourage rather than dampen the misconduct of young scientists. And systemic weaknesses only rarely come to light, namely when the misconduct of a young scientist is discovered. Because then the investigation proceedings that are being started are not directed against co-authors who are superiors to the same extent , as in the case of Jan Hendrik Schön . Here too, according to legal scholar Ansgar Ohly, copyright does not offer any protection. It is argued that the supervisor bears no direct responsibility for the content of the work because he was not involved in generating the research results or was even included in the list of authors on an honorary basis. All relevant regulations contradict this.

The fact that "horse trading" between authorized and unauthorized authors is common in this area - partly to reproduce the number of publications by those involved, partly as a lubricant to make it easier for superiors to raise funds - was recently revealed by an insider from physical research in an article in SPEKTRUM.de Scilogs disclosed.

The systemic weaknesses also include the application criteria common in Germany for career steps by superiors in higher management positions in science. When applying, candidates are also judged on the number and quality of their own publications, not exclusively those of their employees, even if, as the head of an organizational unit (i.e. department, institute, research center), they have not pursued their own research for a long time because they have management tasks are busy. In such cases, young employees usually have "understanding" and support their superiors who are competing. This creates résumés with allegedly several hundred publications, which in most disciplines an active scientist would not be able to achieve. In such cases, the frequency of naming his organizational unit in publications (affiliation) could almost always be used as a criterion without a conflict of interest for the applicant.

literature

  • German Research Foundation and Ombudsman of the DFG (ed.): Scientific misconduct - experiences of ombuds committees: Conference report , Weinheim 2004: Wiley-VCH, ISBN 3-527-31231-5 .

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ see archive link ( Memento from August 30, 2011 in the Internet Archive ), introduction, point 4, and procedural rules in the event of suspected scientific misconduct by the Max Planck Society (PDF; 86 kB)
  2. ↑ Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Ed.): Guidelines for Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice . 2019, ISBN 978-3-527-34740-7 ( dfg.de [PDF]).
  3. ↑ a b see On Dealing with Scientific Misconduct in Universities - Recommendation of the 185th Plenum of the University Rectors' Conference on July 6, 1998 ( Memento from August 30, 2011 in the Internet Archive )
  4. ↑ Federal Report on Young Scientists 2017
  5. ↑ "The weaker usually gives in" Interview with Ansgar Ohly, legal scholar at the University of Bayreuth, SPIEGEL online, 2010.
  6. ^ Helen Pearson, "Credit where credit's due"
  7. ^ FU Berlin, Seminar on Good Scientific Practice
  8. ↑ DFG Ombudsman
  9. ↑ DFG: Recommendation on good scientific practice
  10. ↑ ICMJE recommendation .
  11. ↑ Deutsches Ärzteblatt
  12. ↑ Printed matter 19/12165 , printed matter 19/13751
  13. ↑ Code of Good Scientific Practice
  14. ↑ Spiegel-online: "The weaker usually gives in"
  15. ↑ SPEKTRUM.de Scilogs