Any researcher with a connection to the German research scene can contact us with a request for advice on research integrity or a mediation in the sphere of good scientific practice (GSP).

Every researcher is free to apply either to the ombudsperson of his or her own institution or to the German Research Ombudsman. Local ombudspersons frequently have more detailed knowledge of the arrangements and procedures of the institution in question, and can usually be contacted locally. The German Research Ombudsman is an external contact, which can be particularly helpful in conflicts between people from different institutions. However, it is not a superior body to the local ombudspersons.

The Ombuds Committee and its office advise on general questions relating to research integrity and on questions relating to specific cases of conflict in this area. The main tasks include confidential mediation in specific cases of conflict as part of ombuds procedures, provided that these conflicts are based on misconduct that can still be remedied (see also Question 4). If a matter falls outside the Ombuds Committee’s remit, we may be able to suggest other organizations which might be able to provide appropriate advice.

There are a number of practices that can be considered incompatible with good scientific practice, but which can be reversed or corrected (also referred to as questionable research practices or QRP). These include conflicts over authorship, conflicts regarding the use of data, or conflicts resulting from inadequate mentoring (often during the doctoral phase, but also regarding the mentoring of Master’s students).

The best-known forms of fraud in science – such as data falsification and data fabrication or plagiarism (also known as ”FFP”) – typically constitute irremediable misconduct.

1) Cases of alleged serious scientific misconduct (such as plagiarism, data manipulation and data falsification) are out of scope for an Ombuds Committee mediation as such types of misconduct cannot be remedied. In Germany, the respective university or the research institution concerned is responsible for the investigation (and if necessary the sanctioning) of such cases of scientific misconduct. If we are able to confirm indications of irremediable misconduct, we immediately forward the enquiry to the institution responsible for the investigation.

2) If a matter is already subject to litigation, or if it is foreseeable that at least one of the parties will seek to initiate legal proceedings regarding the matter, the ombuds proceedings cannot be conducted (see also Question 6). The Ombuds Committee and its office also do not offer legal advice.

3) Regarding differences of opinion, or if a conflict is based on a purely content-related controversy, the Ombuds Committee cannot make an assessment. Scientific discrepancies must be discussed and resolved in the respective scientific communities.

If we discover that one of the above points applies, you will receive a written message in which we substantiate why the Ombuds Committee is unable to take further action in relation to your request.

The most important principles of ombuds work are impartiality and confidentiality. Successful conflict mediation depends to a considerable extent on whether these principles can be guaranteed. In the case of conflicts that have already been subject to litigation, there is a danger that information from the confidential ombuds proceedings, which are aimed at mediation, may be cited in the court proceedings for the benefit of one of the parties. It is therefore impossible to conduct ombuds proceedings in parallel with court proceedings on the same subject-matter or on closely-related subject-matters. If a party calls in a lawyer in the course of ombuds proceedings, the Ombuds Committee halts its mediation or discontinues the proceedings.

It is advisable to first contact the local ombudsperson or the national Ombuds Committee and describe the situation. It is usually possible to ascertain in a discussion or written exchange whether there are indications of a GSP infringement, and what further action appears to be most expedient. A confidential consultation also serves to protect the whistleblower from negative consequences.

In order to process your enquiry, we first of all only need a brief description of the matter. It can be helpful if you enclose the most important documents, if available. We will let you know if we require further information or supporting documents in order to assess the facts.

You can use our contact form to submit your enquiry. As an alternative, you can also send us an e-mail. Please note that you must attach our enquiry form to your e-mail.

You are also welcome to telephone our office first (see contact details and describe your concerns in order to find out whether we are the right port of call.

As a matter of principle, we do not contact any persons or institutions regarding your enquiry without consulting you first. If a statement by another person should appear necessary in order to mediate in a matter or to be able to assess a situation correctly, we ask for your consent beforehand. In principle, only those persons are included in ombuds proceedings whose comments are necessary in order to successfully mediate in a conflict – for example the opposing party or another body that is already involved in the matter.

No. Although the Ombuds Committee is appointed by the members of the general assembly of the supporting association OWID e.V., it performs its advisory and mediatory function independently of the members of the association, including the DFG. The members of the OWID e.V. are neither involved in ombuds proceedings, nor are they informed about the contents of any proceedings or of the parties involved.

Yes, we also process anonymous enquiries or enquiries submitted under a pseudonym. We need an e-mail or postal address where we can reach you in case we have any questions. Any recommendations that we make as part of anonymous advisory activities can only apply subject to reservations, as we only have your (subjective) view of the conflict or matter (see also Question 14).

We would like to point out that advice often benefits from a knowledge of the exact context, given that more specific proposals can then be made on how to proceed. We will treat all enquiries with absolute confidentiality, and will always discuss our suggestions for further action with you first (see also Question 9).

We do not act in parallel if the same matter is already being dealt with elsewhere, for example by a local ombudsperson or a misconduct commission (see also Question 2). The national Ombuds Committee is also not an appeal body for proceedings that have already been concluded, i.e. we do not initiate our own proceedings if the same matter has already been conclusively investigated.

If there are specific doubts as to the proper investigation of your enquiry, we can verify whether the procedure was carried out in a formally-correct manner. We generally contact the investigating body for further information.

Local ombudspersons can turn to us for advice if they have any doubts about specific enquiries or general questions about ombuds proceedings.

After receiving an enquiry, we first examine whether the Ombuds Committee can take action on the matter (see Questions 3 and 4). The enquirer may be asked for further information or supporting documents. The person(s) to whom the enquiry relates will then normally be asked for a statement. In the event of divergent statements, the Ombuds Committee contacts the persons involved in the conflict once more, asking them to specify the facts of the case (and to provide meaningful supporting documents where appropriate).

Communication usually takes place in writing. In rare cases, a mediation meeting is arranged that is chaired by the Ombuds Committee. If the Ombuds Committee has sufficient information, it makes an assessment based on the GSP rules (see also Questions 16 and 17). A chart depicting the ombuds procedure can be found here. A more detailed explanation of the ombuds procedure can be found here.

The Ombuds Committee acts in accordance with the principle of impartiality. We can therefore only make final assessments and recommendations if all the persons involved in a conflict have had the opportunity to present their perspective on the situation.

We nonetheless also offer advice for those enquirers who expressly do not wish the other persons involved to be contacted. This advice is then subject to reservations, as it is based solely on the point of view of the person making the enquiry.

The aim of ombuds proceedings is to reach an agreement or to resolve the conflict as rapidly as possible. How quickly this can be achieved depends on how promptly we receive the statements and supporting documents that we have requested. The willingness of the parties to work with us also influences the duration of the proceedings. Some proceedings can be completed within a few weeks or months, but there is no maximum time limit for ombuds proceedings.

The Ombuds Committee bases its deliberations and recommendations on the rules of good scientific practice (GSP), as formulated in the DFG Code of Conduct „Guidelines for Safeguarding Good Research Practice“ In addition, depending on the content of the enquiry, we also make use of other sets of rules from the field of scientific integrity, such as the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity or the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Since the Ombuds Committee is a body that is responsible for mediation, and not for imposing sanctions, our recommendations are not legally binding. They do however aim to prevent or remedy scientific misconduct. We therefore reserve the right to submit the facts of the case to the responsible local misconduct commission for further investigation where appropriate.