Doris Cornils (EUPONS Head of Scientific Controlling & Consulting)
EUPONS bases its scientific quality assurance on the DFG Code of Conduct “Guidelines for Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice” (2019). This contains the following basic principles and various principles (guidelines) to which EUPONS refers.
The basics include:
- A voluntary commitment to “treating each other, study participants, animals, cultural assets and the environment with respect” (DFG: 7).
- The constitutionally guaranteed freedom of science as a responsibility and guideline for scientific action.
- “Institutions in which science is organized” are guaranteed good scientific practice by their members “through honest thought and action, not least through organizational and procedural regulations” (ibid.).
- EUPONS promotes good scientific practice “by setting research ethics standards to which it commits its members and which it establishes in the community”.
- The editing of scientific publications is based on “the requirements for high-quality science through […] review procedures” (ibid.).
- EUPONS also “contributes to countering dishonesty in science” (ibid.: 8) through its own procedures for punishing “scientific misconduct” (Code of Conduct / Policity).
DFG principles (guidelines) of good scientific practice
Guideline 1: Commitment to general principles
All scientists and persons working scientifically at and for EUPONS are “responsible for ensuring that their own conduct complies with the standards of good scientific practice”. This includes in particular “working lege artis [i.e. according to the rules of the art, DC]”, which corresponds to recognized professional standards, scientifically sound knowledge and the necessary care. This also means “maintaining strict honesty with regard to one’s own and third parties’ contributions, consistently doubting all results oneself and allowing and promoting critical discourse in the scientific community” (ibid.: 9).
Guideline 2: Professional ethics
All scientists and researchers working at and for EUPONS are responsible for “implementing the fundamental values and standards of scientific work in their actions”. This includes, among other things, “regularly updating their knowledge of the standards of good scientific practice and the state of research” (ibid.). At EUPONS, experienced scientists and scientific learners engage in a mutual learning and further training process and in regular professional exchange.
Guideline 3: Organizational responsibility
EUPONS creates “the framework conditions for scientific work” (ibid.: 10). EUPONS provides its founding and full members with free training courses on the fundamentals of scientific work and good scientific practice. To ensure a high scientific quality of research and publication of results, all founding and full members without a professional scientific background are strongly recommended to participate in the training courses on the basics of scientific work. The organizational structure of EUPONS ensures that scientific management, quality assurance and controlling are regulated.
Guideline 4: Responsibility of the management of work units
At EUPONS, management positions for various work units are awarded as part of regular application procedures. Applicants are selected if they have excellent and high-quality qualifications for the position in the form of training and work experience.
The heads of the scientific work units assume responsibility for the respective unit. This includes the coordination, supervision and monitoring of the scientific work content. The final approval of scientific publications is the responsibility of the EUPONS Scientific Lead.
Guideline 5: Performance dimensions and assessment criteria
“High-quality science is based on discipline-specific criteria. In addition to the acquisition of knowledge and its critical reflection, other performance dimensions are also included in the assessment.” These include, for example, “public relations, […], knowledge and technology transfer” (ibid.: 12).
Guideline 7: Cross-phase quality assurance
The scientific members of EUPONS conduct the research processes lege artis. “When scientific findings are made publicly accessible (in the narrower sense in the form of publications, but also in the broader sense via other communication channels),” […] “the collection, analysis of collected data, the research methods used, etc. are explained” (ibid.: 14).
If errors are discovered after publication, these will be reported immediately to the project management and the EUPONS Scientific Lead and corrected accordingly (after consultation).
The sources “of data used in the research process” as well as their type and scope are “identified” or described and “the original sources are cited” (ibid.). It is an “essential component of quality assurance” (ibid.: 15) that the research results and findings can be understood by other researchers through detailed descriptions of the methodology and approach.
Guideline 9: Research design
The current state of research must be comprehensively presented in all scientific research projects. The research questions are identified on the basis of the current state of research. Both require intensive research of already published, scientifically recognized sources (cf. ibid.).
Guideline 10: Legal and ethical framework
“With regard to research projects, a thorough assessment of the research consequences and an evaluation of the respective ethical aspects should be carried out. The legal framework of a research project also includes documented agreements on the rights of use of the resulting research data and research results” (ibid.: 16).
Guideline 11: Methods and standards
“In order to answer research questions, researchers [and persons working scientifically at EUPONS, DC] apply scientifically sound and reproducible methods” (ibid.: 17). The use of recognized methods and compliance with standards when collecting data and publishing research results are “an essential prerequisite for the comparability and transferability of research results” (ibid.).
Guideline 12: Documentation
Researchers and persons working scientifically at EUPONS “document all information relevant to the production of a research result as comprehensibly as is necessary and appropriate in the subject area concerned in order to be able to review and evaluate the result”. […] “Selection of results” (ibid.) is not permitted.
Guideline 13: Providing public access to research results
In the context of publications, “the research data, materials and information on which the results are based, the methods used […] and work processes must be comprehensively presented. […] Scientists must provide complete and correct evidence of their own and third-party preliminary work” (ibid.: 18). This procedure corresponds to the “FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Re-Usable).
Patents, certificates as well as further education and training and trademarks based on results researched within the framework of EUPONS can only be applied for and used by the EUPONS Scientific Lead.
Guideline 14: Authorship
“An author is someone who has made a genuine, comprehensible contribution to the content of a scientific text, file or software publication. All authors agree to the final version of the work to be published. They are jointly responsible for the publication, unless explicitly stated otherwise. Authors ensure and, as far as possible, work to ensure that their research contributions are marked by the publishers or infrastructure providers in such a way that they can be correctly cited by users” (ibid.: 19). “The order of authors is determined in good time” (ibid.: 20).
Guideline 16: Confidentiality and neutrality in reviews and consultations
“Researchers who assess submitted manuscripts, applications for funding or the eligibility of individuals are obliged to maintain strict confidentiality in this regard. They disclose all facts that could give rise to concerns of bias.” This “also applies to members of scientific advisory and decision-making bodies” (ibid.: 21). EUPONS publishes exclusively on the basis of peer review procedures.
Guideline 17: Archiving
EUPONS ensures the preservation of research data and results as well as underlying materials for an appropriate period of time.
Guideline 18: Whistleblowers and persons affected by allegations
In the event of non-compliance with good scientific practice and procedures, a discussion is held with the EUPONS ombudsperson. The ombudsperson reports to the Advisory Board and decides together with the Board on the further course of the procedure.
EUPONS takes into account the “basic idea of the presumption of innocence towards the person concerned at every stage of the procedure as part of a case-by-case assessment. In principle, the person affected by the allegations should not suffer any disadvantages from the investigation of the suspicion until scientific misconduct has been formally established” (ibid.: 23).
Source: DFG (2019): Guidelines for safeguarding good scientific practice. Code
Available at: https://zenodo.org/records/14281892 [05.02.26]