Good scientific practice
Download as PDF (opens in a new window)
Guidelines for Ensuring Good Scientific Practice and
for Handling Suspected Cases of Scientific Misconduct
at the Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences
dated March 5, 2025
Legal Notice / Disclaimer
This is a non-binding English translation of the "Richtlinie zur Sicherung guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis und zum Umgang mit Verdachtsfällen wissenschaftlichen Fehlverhaltens der Hochschule Neu-Ulm". In the event of any discrepancies or disputes between the English and German versions, the German original shall prevail and is the only legally binding version.
Rechtlicher Hinweis
Dies ist eine unverbindliche englische Übersetzung der Richtlinie. Im Falle von Abweichungen zwischen der englischen und der deutschen Fassung ist ausschließlich die deutsche Originalfassung rechtlich verbindlich.
Pursuant to Article 9, sentence 1, in conjunction with Article 21(1), sentence 2, of the Bavarian Higher Education Innovation Act (BayHIG) of August 5, 2022 (GVBl. p. 414, BayRS 2210-1-3-WK), as amended, the Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences (HNU) issues the following guideline:
Preamble
Scientific work is based on fundamental principles of methodical, systematic, and verifiable procedures that are consistent across all disciplines and apply equally on an international and intercultural level. Foremost among these is honesty toward oneself and others. It is the responsibility of higher education institutions to ensure quality and to articulate the principles of scientific integrity.
This guideline is based on:
- the Code of Conduct “Guidelines for Ensuring Good Scientific Practice” of the German Research Foundation (DFG) in the version dated August 2019,
- the model bylaws for ensuring good scientific practice and for handling suspected cases of scientific misconduct adopted by the 33rd General Assembly of the German Rectors’ Conference on May 10, 2022
Section I: Principles of Good Scientific Practice
§ 1 Scope of this Guidelines
- The principles of good scientific practice set forth in this Guidelines are published on the university’s website.
- This Guidelines is legally binding on all persons who conduct research or provide research support within the university and produce scientific results.
- Student theses constitute scientific results; therefore, students are subject to this Guidelines in this context.
(4) This Guidelines do not affect rights and obligations under labor and employment law.
§ 2 Specific principles of good scientific practice
The principles of good scientific practice include, in particular,
1. working in accordance with lege artis,
2. maintaining strict honesty regarding one’s own work and the contributions of others,
3. consistently questioning one’s own findings, and
4. allowing and encouraging critical discourse within the scientific community.
§ 3 Professional Ethics for Researchers
(1) The teaching of the fundamentals of good scientific practice begins as early as possible in scientific training (including teaching) and one’s career.
(2) Researchers at all career levels engage in a continuous process of learning and professional development with regard to good scientific practice. They exchange ideas and support one another in this regard.
§ 4 Organizational Responsibility of University Administration
(1) The university administration is responsible for ensuring compliance with good academic practice at the university.
(2) The university administration establishes the framework for research conducted in accordance with regulations by implementing an appropriate institutional organizational structure. In this way, the university administration creates the conditions necessary for researchers to comply with legal and ethical standards.
§ 5 Responsibilities of managers regarding research staff
- The responsibilities of a manager include, in particular, the obligation to provide individual guidance to early-career researchers.
- Measures are taken to prevent the abuse of power and the exploitation of positions of dependency at both the individual managerial level and the university administration level.
- Researchers enjoy a balance of support and autonomy appropriate to their career stage.
§ 6 Cross-phase quality assurance
(1) Researchers shall carry out every step of the research process in accordance with accepted standards. Continuous, cross-phase quality assurance shall be implemented.
(2) The origin of the data, organisms, materials, and software used in the research process is identified by citing the original sources, and the conditions governing their reuse are documented.
(3) The nature and scope of the research data generated during the research process are described.
(4) An essential component of quality assurance is ensuring that other researchers are able to replicate the results or findings.
(5) When scientific findings are made publicly available (including through channels other than publications), the quality assurance mechanisms used are always disclosed. In the case of publications that undergo a peer-review process, the first sentence is satisfied. If inconsistencies or errors in such findings are subsequently noticed or brought to light, they are corrected.
§ 7 Stakeholders, Responsibilities, Roles
(1) The roles and responsibilities of the researchers involved in a research project must be defined in an appropriate manner and be clear at all times.
(2) If necessary, the roles and responsibilities shall be adjusted.
§ 8 Research design
(1) Researchers shall take the current state of research into comprehensive account when planning a project. This generally requires careful research into research outputs that are already publicly available.
(2) The university administration shall ensure that the resources necessary for this research are available.
(3) Researchers shall apply methods to avoid bias in the interpretation of findings, to the extent that this is possible and reasonable.
§ 9 Legal and Ethical Framework for Research
- Researchers shall exercise the freedom of research granted to them under the Constitution in a responsible manner.
- If deemed necessary by the researchers, they shall obtain the necessary approvals and ethical reviews and submit them to the competent authorities.
- Researchers shall remain constantly aware of the risk of misuse of research results, particularly in the case of security-related research.
§ 10 Usage rights
(1) Researchers should enter into documented agreements regarding the rights to use data and results arising from the research project at the earliest possible stage.
(2) The right to use data and results shall be granted in particular to those researchers who collected the data, as well as to all authors of scientific publications in which the collected data were used.
(3) The authorized users shall establish guidelines regarding whether and how third parties may access the research data.
§ 11 Methods and Standards
(1) Research must be conducted using scientifically sound and transparent methods.
(2) When developing and applying new methods, researchers place particular emphasis on quality assurance and the establishment of standards.
§ 12 Documentation
(1) Researchers shall document all information relevant to the production of a research result in a manner that is as transparent as is necessary and appropriate in the relevant field, so that the result can be reviewed and evaluated and replicated. If specific technical recommendations exist for review and evaluation, researchers shall document the results in accordance with the respective guidelines. When developing research software, its source code is documented to the extent that this is possible and reasonable.
(2) Individual results that do not support the author’s hypothesis must also be documented. Selecting only certain results is not permitted.
(3) If the documentation does not meet the requirements set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2, the limitations and reasons for them must be clearly explained.
(4) Primary data used as the basis for publications must be stored on durable and secure data carriers at the institution where they were generated or at HNU for a period of ten years from the date on which they were made publicly available. HNU provides suitable storage facilities for this purpose. The HNU Data Center provides appropriate and suitable storage space for the storage, backup, and restoration of digital data. The primary author of the publication is responsible for ensuring that the data is stored correctly and completely within the infrastructure. Co-authors are required to cooperate.
(5) Documentation and research findings must not be manipulated.
§ 13 Making research results publicly available
(1) As a general rule, researchers contribute all their findings to the scientific discourse.
(2) In certain cases, there may be reasons not to make results publicly available. The decision to make results available should not, as a rule, depend on third parties; rather, researchers should generally decide on their own responsibility—and in accordance with the established practices of their respective fields—whether, how, and where to make their results publicly available. Exceptions are permitted, in particular, where the rights of third parties are affected, patent applications are pending, or the research involves contract research or security-related research.
(3) When results are made publicly available, they must be described in full and in a manner that allows for verification. This includes making available the research data, materials, and information underlying the results, as well as the methods and software used, to the extent that this is possible and reasonable. This should be done in accordance with the so-called FAIR principles: Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable. Exceptions are permitted in the context of patent applications or when dealing with confidential data.
(4) Software developed in-house is made available along with its source code, to the extent that this is possible and reasonable. Where applicable, a license is provided. Workflows are described in detail.
(5) All prior work, whether your own or that of others, must be fully and accurately cited. In exceptional cases, this requirement may be waived for your own results that are already publicly available, depending on the discipline. At the same time, the repetition of content from your own publications should be limited to what is necessary for understanding.
§ 14 Authorship
(1) An author is someone who has made a genuine and substantial contribution to the content of a scholarly publication, whether in the form of text, data, or software. Whether a contribution is genuine and substantial depends on the discipline-specific principles of scholarly work and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
(2) If a contribution is insufficient to justify authorship, the support provided may be appropriately acknowledged in footnotes, the preface, or the acknowledgments. Honorary authorship, where no sufficient contribution has been made, is just as impermissible as attributing authorship solely based on a managerial or supervisory role.
(3) All authors must approve the final version of the work to be published; they share joint responsibility for the publication, unless otherwise explicitly stated. Consent to publication may not be withheld without sufficient cause. Rather, any refusal must be justified by verifiable criticism of the data, methods, or results.
(4) Researchers should agree in a timely manner—generally no later than when drafting the manuscript—on who should be listed as the author of the research findings. This agreement must be based on transparent criteria and take into account the conventions of each discipline.
§ 15 Publications
(1) If a researcher classifies a contribution as academic, these guidelines apply regardless of the chosen publication medium. In addition to publications in books and academic journals, specialist, data and software repositories, as well as blogs, are also included.
(2) Authors carefully select the publication, taking into account its quality and visibility within the relevant field of discourse.
(3) Anyone who assumes an editorship shall carefully check the publication organs for which this is done.
§ 16 Confidentiality and impartiality in expert assessments and consultations
(1) Integrity is the foundation of the legitimacy of the decision-making process.
(2) Researchers who assess, in particular, manuscripts, funding applications or the expertise of individuals are bound to strict confidentiality in this regard. They must immediately disclose to the relevant body any facts that could give rise to concerns about bias.[1]
(3) Confidentiality entails that content accessed in the course of performing one’s duties must not be disclosed to third parties or used for personal purposes.
(4) Paragraphs 1 and 2 apply mutatis mutandis to members of academic advisory and decision-making bodies.
Section II: Ombudsman Service
§ 17 Ombudsmen
(1) There are two ombudspersons and an equal number of deputy ombudspersons at HNU. The deputies are appointed if there is a concern regarding the impartiality of an ombudsperson who would otherwise be responsible, or if the ombudsperson is prevented from performing their duties. The question of whether there is a risk of bias is assessed in accordance with Section 21 of the Bavarian Administrative Procedure Act (BayVwVfG). In cases of doubt, the Investigative Commission shall decide in accordance with Section III.
(2) Ombudspeople and their deputies shall be drawn from the ranks of HNU’s professors or academic staff. When appointing them, due consideration should also be given to the academic disciplines represented at HNU. During their term of office, ombudspeople and their deputies may not be members of the Investigative Commission, the University Management or the Senate, nor may they hold the position of dean.
(3) The appointment is made by the University Management following a selection by the University Senate.
(4) The term of office of an Ombudsperson or Deputy Ombudsperson is five years. A single re-election is permitted.
(5) Ombudsmen and their deputies shall receive the necessary substantive support and acceptance from the HNU management in the performance of their duties.
§ 18 Ombudsman services
(1) The ombudspersons and their deputies shall perform their duties independently, in particular free from instructions or informal, case-specific influence by the university administration and other university bodies. The ombudsman’s duties shall be performed confidentially, i.e., with due regard for confidentiality.
(2) The ombudspersons prepare an annual report for the university community and report to the Senate.
(3) All members and affiliates of HNU may contact the ombudspersons regarding issues of good scientific practice, as well as suspected scientific misconduct. Alternatively, members and affiliates of HNU may contact the national ombuds committee, the “Ombuds Committee for Scientific Integrity in Germany.”
(4) The university administration shall ensure that the local ombudspersons and their deputies are known at HNU. The identities and contact information of the current ombudspersons shall be made public.
(5) Ombudspeople serve as neutral and qualified points of contact for questions regarding good scientific practice and in cases of suspected scientific misconduct. To the extent possible, they contribute to solution-oriented conflict mediation.
(6) Ombudspeople and their deputies handle inquiries confidentially and, if necessary, refer suspected cases of research misconduct to the appropriate office at HNU in accordance with Section III.
Section III: Procedures for Addressing Research Misconduct
§ 19 General Principles for Handling Suspected Cases of Research Misconduct
(1) All units at HNU that investigate suspected research misconduct within their jurisdiction shall take appropriate measures to protect both the whistleblower and the person(s) subject to the allegations (the accused). The competent bodies are aware that the conduct of proceedings and the possible imposition of sanctions at the conclusion thereof may constitute a significant infringement of the accused’s legal rights.
(2) The investigation of allegations of research misconduct must at all times be conducted in accordance with the principles of the rule of law, fairly, and in accordance with the presumption of innocence. The investigation shall also be conducted confidentially. Investigations shall be conducted without regard to the individual involved, and decisions shall be made without regard to the individual involved.
(3) Reports submitted by whistleblowers must be made in good faith. Whistleblowers must have objective grounds for believing that standards of good scientific practice may have been violated. If the whistleblower is unable to verify the facts underlying the suspicion on their own, or if there is uncertainty regarding the interpretation of the rules of good scientific practice set forth in Section I with respect to an observed incident, the whistleblower should contact the persons specified in § 17, paragraphs 1 and 2, to clarify the suspicion.
(4) Neither the person making the report nor the accused or affected person shall suffer any disadvantages to their own academic or professional advancement as a result of the report. For the accused person, this applies until misconduct has been proven and established. For individuals in the early stages of their careers, the report should, as far as possible, not lead to delays in their professional development. The completion of theses and doctoral dissertations shall not be adversely affected. The same applies to working conditions and potential contract extensions.
(5) The whistleblower must be protected even if misconduct is not proven during the proceedings. This does not apply if the allegation was made knowingly and falsely.
(6) All bodies involved in the proceedings shall endeavor to conduct the entire process as promptly as possible. They shall take the necessary steps to complete each stage of the proceedings within a reasonable period of time.
(7) A report of suspected wrongdoing in which the person making the report does not disclose their identity (anonymous report) will not be investigated.
(8) The competent authority shall treat the identity of the whistleblower as confidential and shall not, as a general rule, disclose it to third parties without the whistleblower’s consent. Such consent must be provided in text form. Disclosure may occur even without consent if there is a corresponding legal obligation to do so. In exceptional cases, disclosure may also be made if the accused person would otherwise be unable to mount an adequate defense because the identity of the informant is essential to that defense. Before the identity of the informant is disclosed, the informant shall be notified of the intended disclosure. She may then decide whether to withdraw the report of suspected misconduct. If the report is withdrawn, the information will not be disclosed unless there is a legal obligation to do so. The investigation may nevertheless continue if a balancing of interests determines that this is necessary in the interest of scientific integrity in Germany or in the legitimate interest of HNU.
(9) The confidentiality of the proceedings is compromised if the whistleblower goes public with their allegations. The body responsible for the investigation shall decide, on a case-by-case basis and in accordance with its professional judgment, how to address the breach of confidentiality by the whistleblower.
§ 20 Forms of research misconduct
(1) Research misconduct occurs when a person engaged in research at HNU, in a context relevant to research, intentionally or through gross negligence makes false statements, intentionally or through gross negligence improperly claims credit for the research achievements of others, or intentionally or through gross negligence impairs the research activities of others. The specific provisions set forth in paragraphs 5 through 8 remain unaffected.
(2) Misrepresentation includes
a) the fabrication of scientifically relevant data or research results,
b) the falsification of scientifically relevant data or research results, in particular by suppressing or discarding data or results obtained during the research process without disclosing this, or by falsifying a representation or illustration,
c) the inconsistent presentation of an image and the accompanying statement,
d) providing inaccurate scientific information in a grant application or in connection with reporting requirements
e) claiming authorship or co-authorship of another person’s work without that person’s consent.
(3) The following cases constitute the unauthorized appropriation of another person’s scientific work:
a) The unattributed use of third-party content without the required citation (“plagiarism”),
b) The unauthorized use of research approaches, research results, and scientific ideas (“theft of ideas”),
c) Unauthorized disclosure of scientific data, theories, and findings to third parties,
d) Claiming or making an unfounded assertion of authorship or co-authorship of a scientific publication, particularly if no genuine, verifiable contribution was made to the scientific content of the publication,
e) Falsification of the scientific content,
f) Unauthorized publication and unauthorized disclosure to third parties, as long as the scientific work, finding, hypothesis, theory, or research approach has not yet been published.
(4) Research activities of others are considered to be impaired in the following cases in particular:
a) Sabotage of research activities (including the damage, destruction, or tampering with experimental setups, equipment, documents, hardware, software, chemicals, or other items required by others for research purposes),
b) Falsification or unauthorized removal of research data or research documents,
c) Falsification or unauthorized destruction of research data documentation.
(5) Research misconduct by researchers at HNU may also result—in cases of intent or gross negligence—from
a) co-authorship of a publication that contains false statements or improperly appropriated third-party scholarly work,
b) neglect of supervisory duties, where another person has objectively committed scientific misconduct as defined in paragraphs 1 through 4, and such misconduct could have been prevented or significantly impeded through the necessary and reasonable exercise of supervision.
(6) Research misconduct also arises from intentional participation (in the sense of incitement or aiding and abetting) in the intentional misconduct of others that constitutes a violation under this Directive.
(7) Scientific misconduct on the part of experts or members of HNU committees occurs when they, either intentionally or through gross negligence,
a) misuse scientific data, theories, or findings to which they have gained access in the course of their work as an expert or committee member for their own scientific purposes without authorization,
b) in the course of their activities as an expert or committee member, disclose data, theories, or findings to third parties without authorization, thereby violating the confidentiality of the proceedings,
c) fail to disclose to the competent authority, in the course of their duties as an expert or committee member, any facts or circumstances that could give rise to concerns about bias.
(8) Research misconduct also occurs when an expert or a member of an HNU committee, in the course of their duties and with the intent to gain an advantage for themselves or another person, fails to disclose facts—against their better judgment—that indicate research misconduct on the part of the other person as defined in paragraphs 1 through 5.
(9) Treating allegations of research misconduct lightly—and especially making knowingly false allegations—also constitutes a form of research misconduct. Allegations must not be made without proper investigation and sufficient verification of the facts.
§ 21 Investigative commission
HNU maintains a standing investigative committee to conduct investigations into allegations of research misconduct.
The investigative commission consists of:
- one professor from each faculty of HNU. The professors are elected by their respective faculty councils, along with one alternate each,
- one research assistant from among the research assistants at HNU. The HNU Senate elects this person and their alternate. The representative of the research assistants on the Senate submits a slate of candidates to the Senate for this purpose,
- the legal counsel of HNU or his or her deputy.
The voting members of the commission referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, as well as their alternates, are appointed by the university administration following an election by the Senate/Faculty Council. The term of office for the individuals referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 is five years, with the possibility of reelection.
Members of the university administration and the deans of HNU are not eligible for election to the commission. The investigative commission elects a chairperson and a vice chairperson from among its members. It makes decisions by a majority vote of its members entitled to vote.
The following serve as advisory, non-voting members of the Commission:
- the ombudspersons,
- a student representative from the Senate, provided that student interests (particularly those of students facing charges) are involved.
The investigative commission may, at its discretion, appoint as additional members with an advisory role, within the scope of the formal investigation, expert witnesses in the field of the scientific matter under review, as well as experts in handling such cases. This may include, among others, mediation consultants.
(2) In the event of a conflict of interest or if a commission member is unable to perform their duties for more than a short period of time, their alternate shall assume their duties. Sections 22 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply mutatis mutandis to conflicts of interest. A conflict of interest may be raised by any commission member with voting rights, by the university’s ombudspersons, or by the accused. The Commission shall decide on the matter, excluding the person against whom the challenge is directed. Procedural steps that cannot be postponed may still be taken.
(3) All voting members of the commission have equal voting rights. Decisions are made by a simple majority; in the event of a tie, the chairperson has the deciding vote. The commission has a quorum only if at least four people are present and eligible to vote.
(4) The members of the commission and their alternates shall perform their duties independently, in particular free from instructions or informal, case-specific influence by the university administration and other university bodies. Their work shall be conducted confidentially, i.e., with due regard for confidentiality.
(5) The Investigation Commission works and meets confidentially and in closed session.
(6) Information on the current membership of the investigative commission can be obtained from the following office: Legal Affairs Office.
§ 22 Initiation of an investigation
(1) Whistleblowers should submit a report of suspected misconduct to an ombudsperson or their designate in accordance with § 18. A report of suspected misconduct must be submitted in writing and in good faith. If a whistleblower submits a report of suspected misconduct directly to a member of the investigative commission, that member shall forward the report to the appropriate ombudsperson based on jurisdiction.
(2) With regard to concerns about the impartiality of ombudspersons in their role in proceedings under Section III, Sections 22 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis, notwithstanding Section 17(1) of this Directive. The Investigative Commission shall decide in accordance with Section 23 of this Directive.
(3) The competent ombudsperson or their designate shall conduct a confidential review to determine whether there is sufficiently concrete evidence that a person has committed an offense under § 20 in a manner that warrants prosecution. In this context, the ombudsperson may conduct a preliminary investigation; § 22(2) applies mutatis mutandis.
(4) If the ombudsperson concludes that there are sufficiently substantiated grounds for suspicion as described in paragraph 3, the ombudsperson shall initiate a preliminary investigation.
§ 23 Preliminary review
(1) First, the ombudspersons conduct a preliminary review.
The ombudspersons first discuss the allegations of research misconduct among themselves. If an initial suspicion cannot be dispelled beyond a reasonable doubt, the whistleblower and the accused are heard regarding the facts of the case, separately and in strict confidence.
The ombudspersons independently review the allegations, assessing their specificity and significance, potential motives, and the possibilities for resolving the allegations.
The ombudspeople strive at all times to mediate between the parties involved in the proceedings. If the mediation efforts lead to an amicable resolution of the allegations, the proceedings are discontinued and archived by the ombudspeople.
If at least one ombudsperson considers it sufficiently likely that research misconduct has occurred, the Investigative Commission is tasked with conducting a final investigation into the matter, Sections 23(2) and 24.
If the ombudspersons conclude that no research misconduct has occurred, the proceedings shall be terminated, and the decision shall be communicated to the complainant in writing, with a clear and comprehensible explanation of the reasoning. If the accused has already been consulted, he or she shall also be informed of the decision.
If the whistleblower does not agree with the ombudspersons’ decision, he or she has the right to request a new hearing within fourteen days.
(2) Preliminary review by the investigative commission
The person accused of misconduct shall be given the opportunity by the investigative commission to respond without delay, with the commission setting forth the incriminating facts and evidence. The deadline for submitting a response is four weeks. The name of the whistleblower shall not be disclosed to the accused during this phase without the whistleblower’s consent.
Upon receipt of the statement from the accused or after the deadline has expired, the investigative commission shall, within two weeks, decide whether the preliminary investigation —with notification of the reasons to the accused and the whistleblower(s)—should be terminated because the suspicion has not been sufficiently substantiated or because the alleged misconduct has been fully clarified, or whether the case should be referred to the formal investigation procedure.
If the whistleblower disagrees with the decision to close the investigation, he or she has the right to request a hearing before the investigative commission within two weeks, which will review its decision.
Proceedings may be discontinued on the grounds of minor misconduct if the investigative committee determines that the misconduct was of a minor nature and the accused—who has contributed significantly to the investigation—offers to take corrective action themselves (such as issuing an erratum) or has already taken steps to remedy any damage caused. This decision will be communicated to the whistleblower.
§ 24 Procedure for the formal investigation
- The chair of the investigative committee shall notify the university administration of the initiation of the formal investigative proceedings.
- The investigative commission shall deliberate in a closed oral session. It shall determine, based on its independent assessment of the evidence, whether scientific misconduct has occurred. The accused, who is alleged to have committed misconduct, shall be given an appropriate opportunity to present their case. He or she shall be heard orally upon request and may call upon a person of his or her choice to assist him or her. Other individuals who are to be heard may also bring along a trusted person to assist them.
- It may be necessary to disclose the name of the whistleblower if the accused would otherwise be unable to defend themselves adequately, for example because the whistleblower’s credibility and motives are relevant to the allegation of possible misconduct. The investigative commission shall decide on the disclosure of the name upon request by the accused.
- If the investigative commission finds that misconduct has not been proven, the proceedings are discontinued. If the investigative commission finds that misconduct has been proven, it submits the results of its investigation to the university administration for a decision and further action, including a proposal regarding the protection of the rights of others; such action may, for example, be of a labor law, higher education law, disciplinary, or other nature.
- The principal reasons for discontinuing the proceedings or referring the matter to the university administration must be communicated in writing without delay to the accused, the whistleblower, and the president.
- There is no internal appeals process against the decision of the investigative commission.
- At the conclusion of a formal investigation, the chair of the investigative committee identifies all persons who are (or were) involved in the case. He/she instructs the ombudspersons to advise all individuals—particularly early-career researchers and students—who have been involved in cases of research misconduct through no fault of their own, with regard to safeguarding their personal and academic integrity. In this context, it is important to reiterate the need to maintain confidentiality.
§ 25 Conclusion of the proceedings
- The university administration shall, in accordance with its discretionary authority, determine whether the accused has committed research misconduct and whether, and if so, which sanctions and measures shall be imposed on the accused. If the revocation of an academic degree is under consideration as a measure, the relevant authorities shall be consulted.
- The records of the formal investigation shall be retained for 30 years.
- Individuals named in connection with a case of research misconduct are entitled to request that the ombudspersons issue a notice (exonerating them) within the retention period.
- In particularly justified cases, the university administration may, upon request by the accused, publish the findings of the investigative committee. The investigative committee shall determine whether a case is justified.
Individuals who report suspected scientific misconduct shall not suffer any adverse consequences for their own academic or professional advancement as a result. The ombudspersons, the members of the investigative committee reviewing the allegations, and the university administration must take appropriate measures to ensure this protection.
§ 26 Possible sanctions and measures
(1) If the university administration determines that research misconduct has been proven, it may, within the bounds of proportionality, impose the following sanctions and/or take the following measures, either alternatively or cumulatively:
a) Requiring the accused person to retract or correct the publications in question or to refrain from publishing the manuscripts in question,
b) Revoking funding decisions or terminating funding agreements, to the extent that the decision was made by the university or the agreement was entered into by the university, including, where applicable, a demand for the return of funds,
c) Temporary suspension from serving as an expert or committee member at the university,
d) Against university employees: a written warning under labor law, ordinary termination, termination of contract, extraordinary termination,
e) Against university civil servants: initiation of disciplinary proceedings under civil service law, including the measures provided for therein, such as interim measures,
f) Filing a criminal complaint with the police or the public prosecutor’s office,
g) Filing a report of an administrative offense with the competent authority,
h) Asserting civil claims—including through interim legal remedies—in particular for damages, restitution, or removal/cease and desist,
i) Assertion of any claims under public law, including through interim legal remedies,
j) Initiation of proceedings to revoke an academic degree or recommendation to initiate such proceedings.
(2) Sanctions and measures other than those referred to in paragraph 1 may be imposed only if they are proportionate in light of the legal interests and legitimate interests of the accused person.
§ 27 Transitional provisions
(1) The acts of research misconduct listed in §21 apply only to acts committed after this Guidelines had already entered into force.
(2) The procedural provisions of this section apply only to reports received after this Directive enters into force. Preliminary investigations, preliminary examinations, and investigations already underway at the time this Directive enters into force shall be completed in accordance with the procedural rules previously in force.
Section IV: Entry into Force
§ 28 Entry into Force
This Guidelines shall enter into force on April 1, 2025, and supersedes the bylaws dated April 18, 2023.
Issued pursuant to the resolution of the Senate of the Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences dated December 10, 2024, and approved by the President on March 5, 2025.
Neu-Ulm, March 5, 2025
Prof. Dr. Uta M. Feser
President
Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences
The Guidelines was posted on the website of the Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences on March 11, 2025.
[1] e.g. the relevant body for third-party funding: the funding body; for journals: the publisher
