Preamble

Scientific integrity forms the basis for trustworthy research. The SWP is committed to upholding it. With the following regulations, the SWP implements the German Research Foundation`s (DFG) code of conduct "Guidelines for Safeguarding Good Research Practice" (DFG Kodex) in the version dated August 2019 in a form adapted to the research activities of the SWP.

Section I: Standards of good research practice

§ 1 Scope of these statutes

The SWP, its researchers and the institution itself, ensures good research practice by promoting honest thinking and conduct, and by implementing appropriate regulations. The SWP’s management is aware of its organizational responsibility for ensuring compliance with, and communication of, good research practice. A particular aspect of organizational responsibility is the promotion of equality and diversity in scientific practice, which is set out in detail in the SWP's equality plan and diversity concept.

The guidelines for safeguarding good research practice come into force upon resolution by the Executive Board and are communicated to all employees via circular letter. These guidelines are communicated as early as possible, and are therefore included in the "Information Folder for New Employees" as well as made available on the intranet and on the SWP website.

§ 2 Individual principles of good scientific practice

Every researcher is responsible for ensuring that their own conduct complies with the standards of good research practice.

This includes:

• Working lege artis,
• Providing access to research data, relevant materials, and information used to produce a research result, as well as the methods, unless this conflicts with legitimate interests,
• documenting and preserving work processes in accordance with the guidelines on research data management,

• reflecting on the results and allowing and encouraging critical discourse within the scientific community, and

• maintaining strict honesty with regard to the contributions of third parties and towards third-party funding organizations.

§ 3 Professional ethics 

These principles require particular attention when supervising early career researchers, working together in research units and exercising managerial responsibility.

Researchers at all career levels are responsible for implementing and upholding the fundamental values and standards of scientific work in their research activities and update their knowledge about the standards of good research practice and the current state of the art. Research divisions are responsible for the communication of the fundamentals of good research practice particularly in the context of the supervision of early career researchers.

§ 4 Organizational responsibility of the institute’s management

The directors of the institution create the basic framework that enables scientific work to be carried out accordingly. They are responsible for ensuring adherence to and the promotion of good research practice, and for appropriate career support for all researchers. The institute’s management guarantees the necessary conditions to enable researchers  to comply with legal and ethical standards. The document "SWP Recruitment Process", adopted internally, sets out clear procedures and principles for personnel selection, from job advertisement to final decision. Measures for gender equality and staff diversity are laid down in the SWP's equality plan and diversity concept. The works council and the equal opportunities officer are involved in the selection of personnel, thus contributing to the transparency of the processes and helping to prevent abuse of power and exploitation of dependencies.

§ 5 Responsibility of the heads of research divisions and support units

Management tasks in a research division and a research support unit include the appropriate transfer of expertise and scientific support, as well as supervisory and mentoring duties.

The extent to which the aforementioned duties are fulfilled is decided by the heads of the unit, depending on an assessment of individual necessity and in consideration of a justified workload.

Collaboration within the unit is designed such that the group as a whole can perform its tasks, the necessary cooperation and coordination can be achieved, and all members understand their roles, rights, and duties. Suitable organizational measures are in place at the level of the individual unit and of the institution’s leadership to prevent the abuse of power and exploitation of dependent relationships. The leadership role includes ensuring adequate individual supervision of researchers in early career phases, integrated in the overall institutional policy, as well as career development for researchers and research support staff.

An appropriate balance of support and personal responsibility with corresponding participation rights must be ensured for all members of a research division.

§ 6 Dimensions of performance and assessment criteria

Research at the SWP is guided by openness to results, scientific knowledge gain, and the principles of good research-based policy advice, which are developed in an internal process. Originality and quality take precedence over quantity; quantitative evaluation criteria are only included in the evaluation in a differentiated and reflective manner. Individual circumstances and other activities within the institution may also be taken into account in the evaluation.

§ 7 Cross-phase quality assurance

Researchers at SWP carry out each step of the research process lege artis. Continuous, cross-phase quality assurance is in place.

As outlined in its Open Science Policy, the SWP is committed to a responsible and contemporary handling of research data. This policy regulates the description of the research data generated and the identification of its origin. Research data must be stored in accordance with the established and discipline-specific standards and be sufficiently documented and prepared for reuse. As far as possible, research data should be published or made accessible in recognized archives and repositories, to enable confirmation of research results and, where possible – replication by other researchers. The SWP publishes its own publication formats and series in open access under a CC-BY license and places particular emphasis on the unambiguous referencing and transparent versioning of its digital products.

When scientific findings are made publicly available (including through means other than publications), the quality assurance mechanisms used are always disclosed. In case of subsequently identified inconsistencies or errors, researchers make the necessary corrections.

The relevant infrastructures and research-related services support researchers in establishing and applying open science principles and practices and ensure further developments in this area.

§ 8 Stakeholders, responsibilities, roles

The roles and responsibilities of the individual researchers and research support staff involved in a research project must be clear at all stages of the project. The participants define their roles and  responsibilities in a suitable way and adapt them where necessary. 

§ 9 Research design

Researchers take into account and acknowledge the current state of research when planning a project. To identify relevant and suitable research questions, they familiarize themselves with existing research in the public domain. 

Within the limits of its budgetary possibilities, the institute's management ensures that the necessary basic framework for this is in place. Researchers at the SWP will use methods to avoid (even unconscious) bias and distortion in the interpretation of findings, where ever possible and reasonable.

In accordance with the diversity concept, SWP researchers examine whether gender and diversity may be relevant to the research project (with regard to the methods used, the work program, or the objectives).

§ 10 Legal and ethical framework for research

SWP researchers adopt a responsible approach to the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of research. The institute's management is responsible for ensuring that their members’ and employees’ actions comply with regulations and promote this through suitable organizational structures. 

Researchers comply with rights and obligations, particularly those arising from legal requirements and contracts with third parties and maintain a continual awareness of the risks associated with the misuse of research results. They pay particular attention to the aspects associated with security-relevant research (dual use). 

With regard to research projects, the potential consequences of the research should be evaluated in detail and the ethical aspects should be assessed. To this end, the SWP is turning its principles of research ethics and the procedure for assessing research projects into a binding agreement, and implementing an ethics board. Appropriate principles are being developed and established, which will be used to evaluate the potential ethical implications of research projects. Based on these principles, researchers will obtain approvals and ethical opinions, where necessary, and submit them to the Research Funding and Scientific Reporting Unit. 

§ 11 Rights of use

All agreements relating to the use of research data and results from SWP research projects must be documented. Such agreements should be identified at the earliest possible stage of a research project. In particular, the researcher who collected the data is entitled to use them.  In principle, the guidelines on research data apply, in which researchers are required to make their data available both internally and externally. During a research project, those entitled to use the data decide whether and how third parties should have access to them (subject to data protection regulations).

§ 12 Methods and standards

Research is conducted using scientifically sound and comprehensible methods. When developing and applying new methods, SWP researchers prioritize quality assurance and the establishment and implementation of standards. 

§ 13 Documentation and archiving

When collecting research data, researchers document it in accordance with the discipline-specific standards of political science, law, social sciences, and economics, to allow the process and the subsequent results to be reviewed and assessed. Where subject-specific recommendations exist for review and assessment, researchers create documentation and archive results in accordance with these guidelines. 

In accordance with legal regulations and in compliance with privacy and data protection laws, the SWP facilitates the archiving of research data and the associated documentation within internal file systems, in line with subject-specific standards. Where appropriate, it also enables publication in the GESIS data archive under a CC BY license. The retention period in the GESIS data archive is 25 years (bitstream preservation). The retention period begins with the date of publication. Software developed for research purposes is made available under an open license for reuse by third parties, where possible and reasonable. This includes archiving and publishing the source code for computer-assisted processing and calculations, as required, for the reuse and replication of published research data, for example. 

As a matter of principle, individual results that do not support  the research hypothesis must also be documented; the selection of results must be avoided. Documentation and research results must not be manipulated; they are protected as effectively as possible against manipulation. If documentation and archiving do not meet the above requirements, or if data is only stored for a shorter period of time, the restrictions and reasons for this must be explained in a comprehensible manner. 

The SWP's research data guidelines state that the respective researchers are responsible for creating the data sets and providing evidence of their proper documentation. With the institution's research support, the SWP’s management creates the necessary conditions and infrastructure to support researchers throughout the entire data life cycle – from planning, acquisition, selection and evaluation to management, archiving, documentation and preparation of data for reuse and publication – in accordance with subject-specific standards and to ensure archiving.

§ 14 Providing public access to research results

The SWP supports the demand for scientific research results to be made available digitally via the Internet at any time and free of financial, technical, or legal barriers. The SWP has therefore also signed the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities, which was adopted on 22 October 2023, and incorporated it into its Open Science Policy. 

In individual cases, there may be reasons not to make results publicly available. However, the decision on whether to publish research results must not depend on third parties. Researchers decide autonomously – with due regard

for the conventions of the relevant subject area – whether, how and where

to disseminate their results. However, exceptions are permissible in cases where the rights of third parties are affected, such as by contract or in security-related research. 

Where results are made publicly available at the SWP, they are described in a complete and comprehensible manner, as stipulated in the institute's Open Science Policy. This includes making the research data, materials, and information on which the results are based, as well as the methods and software used, available and fully explaining the work processes, as far as this is possible and reasonable. This is done in accordance with the FAIR principles: Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Re-Usable. The GESIS data archive is available for the publication and archiving of research data.

Research data that is not intended for publication is stored and archived in-house. Unpublished data can be released by researchers for internal reuse within the SWP. Self-programmed software is made accessible with its source code, as far as possible and reasonable. Licensing may be required. Workflows are described in detail.

Own and third-party preliminary work is documented completely and correctly, while the repetition of content from own publications is limited to what is necessary for understanding and unduly detailed publications are avoided.

§ 15 Authorship

An author is an individual who has made a genuine, identifiable contribution to the content of a research publication of text, data or software. What constitutes a genuine and identifiable contribution must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and depends on the subject area in question. With this definition of authorship, other contributions that are also essential are not considered sufficient on their own to justify authorship: These include responsibility for acquiring funding, instruction in the use of methods, standards or soft-ware applications that are necessary or useful for the implementation of the research project, support in the acquisition, collection and compilation of information and data or a leadership or supervisory function. 

If a contribution is not sufficient to justify authorship, the individual’s support

may be properly acknowledged in footnotes, a foreword or an acknowledgement, or descriptions of graphics, maps, and data sets, for example. The SWP expressly recommends this.

Honorary authorship without sufficient contribution is just as inacceptable as attributing authorship based solely on a managerial or supervisory role. All authors must agree to the final version of the work to be published; they are jointly responsible for the publication, unless specifically stated otherwise. Researchers may not refuse to give their consent to publication of the results without sufficient grounds. Refusal of consent must be justified with verifiable criticism of data, methods or results. Publications intended as reports on new research findings should describe the findings in a complete and comprehensible manner, correctly cite their own and others' preliminary work (quotations) and clearly identify previously published findings. The SWP-Aktuell and SWP Comment publication series are considered policy papers reflecting our own research findings and accumulated expertise. They are reviewed and subjected to careful factchecking, which is documented and can be verified if necessary.

Collaborating researchers agree on authorship in good time – typically before the manuscript is drafted and in accordance with clear criteria that reflect the practices within the relevant subject areas.

§ 16 Publication organs

SWP researchers publish their research findings primarily, but not exclusively, in the institute's own series.

The scientific quality of a contribution does not depend on the medium in which

it is published. In addition to publications in the SWP's internal series, monographs, anthologies, and scientific journals, authors may also consider academic repositories, data and software repositories, and blogs. Authors carefully select the publication organ, taking into account its quality and visibility in the respective field of discourse. A new or unknown publication medium is evaluated to assess its seriousness and credibility. When accepting an editorship, the author carefully reviews the respective publication.

§ 17 Confidentiality and neutrality of review processes and discussions 

Fair behavior is the basis for the legitimacy of any judgement-forming process. SWP researchers who evaluate submitted manuscripts, funding proposals or personal qualifications are obliged to maintain strict confidentiality with regard to this process. They disclose to the responsible body all facts that could give rise to the appearance of a conflict of interest, bias or favoritism.

Confidentiality means that any content examined in the course of their work may not be passed on to third parties or used for personal purposes. The same applies accordingly to members of scientific advisory and decision-making bodies.

Section II: Ombudsman

§ 18 Ombudsperson and Deputy

The Director shall appoint an experienced research associate with relevant management experience as ombudsperson for all members and affiliates of the SWP, based on recommendations from the heads of the research divisions. The term of office is limited to three years.

The ombudsperson shall receive the necessary support and mandate from the institute's management in the performance of their duties. They may not serve as a member of a central management body while serving in this role. For each ombudsperson there must be a designated substitute in case there is any concern about conflicts of interest or in case the ombudsperson is unable to carry out his or her duties. Whether there is concern about impartiality is to be assessed in accordance with Section 21 of the Administrative Procedure Act (VwVfG). A further term of office is permissible.

§ 19 Activities of the ombudsperson

The ombudsperson provides impartial advice on issues relating to good research practice and in suspected cases of scientific misconduct, independently of instructions or informal case-specific influence from the institute's management. They receive enquiries in strict confidence.

The ombudsperson at the SWP has the following responsibilities:

• Contact person for questions regarding good research practice and whenever an SWP employee or the institute is suspected of scientific mis-conduct.

• To contribute to a solution-oriented mediation in cases of conflict involving alleged scientific misconduct and questions of good research practice.

• Providing advice and referrals to other contact points when an SWP employee is suspected of being the victim of scientific misconduct by external parties.

The institute's management informs all employees internally about the selected ombudspersons at SWP by means of an internal memo. The function and persons are also announced via the intranet and the information folder that all employees receive upon joining the institute. The ombudsperson and the respective contact details are also listed on the SWP website.

The ombudsperson or the deputy forwards suspected cases of scientific misconduct to the responsible body if necessary.

Employees have the right to contact the Ombuds Committee for Research Integrity in Germany (OWID). instead of the local ombudsperson at the SWP.

Section III: Procedures for dealing with scientific misconduct

§ 20 General principles for dealing with suspected cases of scientific misconduct

The presumption of innocence and the requirement of confidentiality expressly apply to the investigation of allegations of scientific misconduct. All persons di-rectly involved in or informed of the proceedings shall sign a written declaration of commitment to treat the information confidentially.

Allegations of scientific misconduct shall be investigated fairly and in accordance with the procedural principles of the rule of law at all times. Investigations and decisions shall be conducted without regard to the person involved.

Reports of misconduct must be made in good faith; therefore, an exception to the principle of protecting the complainant applies if it can be proven that the allegations were made against better judgement. Neither the complainant nor the respondent should suffer any disadvantages in their own scientific or professional advancement as a result of the investigation of the allegation. 

The principle of confidentiality applies to all parties and findings of the proceedings. Different requirements apply only if there is a legal obligation or if the

respondent cannot otherwise properly defend himself or herself because, as

an exception, the case concerns the identity of the complainant. The ombudsperson participates in commission meetings in an advisory capacity (without voting rights).

§ 21 Examples of scientific misconduct

Not every breach of good research practice constitutes scientific misconduct. Only deliberate or grossly negligent infringements can be considered as such. Particular examples of misconduct include:

 a) False statements, in particular:

• the invention of information and data;
• falsifying information and data, for example, by selecting and rejecting undesirable (individual) results that do not support the research hypothesis and by manipulating documentation and research results;
• incorrect information in a letter of application or a grant proposal (including false information about publications and publications in press).

 

b) Infringement of intellectual property, in particular in the following cases:

• in relation to a copyright-protected work or essential scientific findings, hypotheses, teachings or research approaches of third parties;
• the unauthorized use of such works or findings while claiming authorship (plagiarism);
• the exploitation of research approaches and ideas, for example, as a reviewer or supervisor of early career researchers (theft of ideas);
• the assumption of scientific authorship or co-authorship;
• the falsification of scientific content;
• unauthorized publication and disclosure to third parties as long as the work, findings, hypothesis, or research approach has not yet been published;
• claiming (co-)authorship of another person without their consent.

c) Impairment of the research activities of others, in particular:

• sabotage of research activities;
• falsification or unauthorized disposal of research data or research documents;
• falsification or unauthorized disposal of research data documentation.

Joint responsibility for misconduct may arise, among other things, in the case of co-authorship of a publication containing false information or unauthorized appropriation of third-party data and information, neglect of supervisory duties if the scientific misconduct of another person was objectively recognizable and could have been prevented with reasonable effort, or active participation in the misconduct of others.

§ 22 Procedures for the reporting of scientific misconduct

Allegations of scientific misconduct must be addressed in writing to the ombuds-person. Anonymous allegations will not be considered.

The ombudsperson will determine whether the allegations are plausible and could constitute scientific misconduct. The ombudsperson shall first attempt to resolve the conflict with the persons involved and work towards an amicable conclusion to the proceedings.

If an amicable settlement of the conflict cannot be reached, the ombudsperson shall inform the directly involved parties about the formal procedure, establish a commission together with the deputy, and forward the results of their investigation to the commission.

§ 23 Investigation Commission

At SWP, an ad hoc investigation commission (hereinafter referred to as the com-mission) is established to investigate allegations of scientific misconduct. The commission's activities are limited to the period until a finding is submitted to the institute's management.

After identifying a relevant case, the ombudsperson shall appoint the commission in such a way that its members cannot have a conflict of interest due to close cooperation with, or superiority over, the respondent. The commission shall always include two heads of research divisions and either one additional research associate or a member of a research support unit. When selecting members, the aim is to strike a balance between the greatest possible proximity to the research area of the respondent and the greatest possible organizational distance. In the event of bias or incapacity of commission members, substitute members may be appointed. The commission appoints a chairperson at its constituent meeting. Allegations of scientific misconduct are pre-examined. In the preliminary examination, a decision is made on whether to initiate a formal investigation.

The chairperson shall decide which commission member shall act as investigator and examine the allegations as part of the preliminary examination. 

The respondent and the complainant are each given the opportunity to be heard at each stage of the process. The respondent may call in a trusted person to assist them. Both the complainant and the respondent must always be protected in proceedings concerning scientific misconduct. The results of the preliminary investigation shall be presented to the commission by the investigator. A majority vote decides on how to proceed.

If the majority votes against a reasonable allegation of scientific misconduct, the chair of the commission shall inform the complainant and the respondent of the result. There is no right of appeal.  Should research misconduct not be proven, the complainant must continue to be protected, assuming that the allegations cannot be shown to have been made against his or her better judgement. If the allegation of scientific misconduct is pursued, the commission shall proceed to a formal investigation. It may question further persons and obtain expert opinions. All evidence collected shall be evaluated within the framework of the free assessment of evidence. All persons involved in or informed of the investigation may contact the commission.

The institution ensures that the entire process is conducted as promptly as possible and implement the steps necessary to complete each stage of the procedure within an appropriate time frame. If, after completion of the formal investigation, the committee considers scientific misconduct to have been proven by a majority vote, it shall inform the director.

The confidentiality of the process is limited if the complainant makes his or her suspicion public. The Commission decides on a case-by-case basis how to handle the breach of confidentiality on the part of the complainant. All bodies involved in the procedure shall submit their documents to a central location for documentation purposes. The documents relating to the formal investigation shall be kept at the SWP for ten years.

§ 24 Conclusion of the procedure and possible sanctions and measures

The institute's management shall decide, on the basis of the commission's recommendation, whether to discontinue the proceedings or whether scientific misconduct has been proven.

The decision and its main reasons shall be communicated in writing to the complainant and the respondent. The parties shall only be entitled to the legal remedies granted by law against the decision.

If misconduct is proven, the institute's management shall decide on the appropriate measures. These include, for example:

• requesting the accused person to retract or correct incriminating publications or to refrain from publishing incriminating manuscripts;
• temporary exclusion from management activities;
• measures under labor law, such as a warning, ordinary termination, termination of contract, extraordinary termination;
• filing a criminal complaint with the police or the public prosecutor's office;
• the assertion of civil law claims.

The decision shall also be communicated to the scientific organizations concerned and to third parties with a legitimate interest in the decision.

§ 25 Final provisions

These guidelines will take effect by resolution of the Executive Board, and shall be communicated to all employees.