Post sponsored by NewzEngine.com

MIL OSI Translation. Region: Germany / Deutschland –

Source: German Research Foundation Main Committee resolves written complaints and other measures

The German Research Foundation (DFG) again draws conclusions from the scientific misconduct of funded researchers or researchers involved in funding activities. The main committee of the largest research funding organization and central self-governing body for science in Germany decided on Thursday, December 10, 2020, in five cases, written complaints and other measures in accordance with the DFG’s rules of procedure for dealing with scientific misconduct. Two of the five proceedings were concerned the allegation of plagiarism. In the first case, a scientist took over text parts from five publications in a funding application to the DFG. In addition to the applicant acting as senior or corresponding author, other authors were involved in these, but their contributions to the publications were not specified in the funding application. In the second case of plagiarism, two scientists copied several text passages from a publication by a third party in a joint funding application without correctly marking the corresponding passages as citations. The DFG committee to investigate allegations of scientific misconduct assessed both as scientific misconduct and suggested that the main committee issue a written complaint as appropriate and appropriate measures. This was followed by the main committee in its meeting, which was again held digitally because of the coronavirus pandemic. In two further proceedings, incorrect information was found in funding applications. In the first case, a scientist had incorrectly stated the duration of a stay abroad as part of a research grant, namely longer than actually carried out. Since this was relevant for the assessment of the applicant’s scientific identification, the incorrect information was assessed as scientific misconduct and also received a written complaint. In the second case, an applicant had given titles in their résumé for a funding application that they had actually not formally acquired. This information was also important for the assessment of the application and was therefore also assessed as scientific misconduct. On the recommendation of the committee to investigate allegations of scientific misconduct, the main committee decided to issue a written complaint and, because of the role model function of the applicant for researchers in early career phases, also a one-year exclusion from the eligibility to apply The review of a funding application delegated to the DFG office is delegated to a person working at his chair. The committee for the investigation of allegations of scientific misconduct determined that the protection of the review system and of scientific ideas require a personal review. On the recommendation of the committee, the main committee also decided in this case to issue a written complaint and also the one year non-recourse to the scientist as a reviewer for the DFG.

MIL OSI

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is a translation. Apologies should the grammar and / or sentence structure not be perfect.

MIL Translation OSI