Investi­gation

The Commission for Scientific Integrity promotes

compliance with the rules of good scientific practice

Approach

The Commission for Research Integrity

  • becomes active on request of member organizations
  • advises members in cases of suspected research misconduct with due attention to international developments
  • may be called upon by any individual who is affected by research misconduct connected to Austria

How does the Commission work?

Confidential

The Commission for Research Integrity constitutes an independent body of the association Austrian Agency for Research Integrity (OeAWI). It deals with cases of (alleged) research misconduct connected to an Austrian institution or to a researcher working in Austria. One of the Commission’s most important principles is confidentiality in protecting both the complainants’ and the accused persons’ identities.

Independent

It is central to the work of the Commission that its independence is preserved as guaranteed in the statutes.

The Commission’s members, who are researchers from different fields of expertise, are non-Austrian citizens to guarantee independence from the Austrian research system. Only the member with expertise in Austrian law may be affiliated with an Austrian research institution; this member does not have any voting rights.

Objective

Unrestricted objectivity is an essential institutional provision to guarantee that allegations of research misconduct can be evaluated in a neutral and fair way.

Procedures
1

Inquiry initiated by a complainant

Who can initiate an inquiry?

  • Full members of the OeAWI
  • Any individual who is affected by research misconduct (connected to Austria)
How are inquiries to be initiated?
  • in written and digital form
  • short description of facts and specification of the accusation (ca. 2-3 pages)
2

Determining the responsibility by the Commission

Factually:

  • Suspicion of breaches of the OeAWI Guidelines for Good Scientific Practice (Article 3 and 4)

Geographically:

  • • Strong connection to an Austrian institution
  • Strong connection to a researcher working in Austria

Possible rejection:

  • When the alleged misconduct happened more than ten years before the charge is presented
  • If a procedure regarding the alleged misconduct is pending at another affected institution (no parallel proceedings)
3

Investigation by the Commission

  • Obtaining of opinions, statements, and other documents
  • If a sufficient assessment of the facts is not possible, the Commission may obtain expert opinions and/or hold a hearing with the parties involved
  • in justified cases: arbitration procedure with the support of a mediator

When other procedures (e.g. civil, criminal or disciplinary procedures) have been initiated in connection with the case in question, the Commission may decide to suspend the case at any stage of the procedure.

4

Assessment by the Commission

Final statement containing the following:

  • Summary of investigation results
  • Assessment of investigation results
  • Recommendation of further actions

The Commission’s opinion is to be conveyed to the person or institution affected. It is up to the institution concerned to take further measures and apply sanctions.

Former Members of the Commission

Prof. Dr.
Eveline Baumgart-Vogt

From November 2017 to October 2019

At that time working at the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology II, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf

Prof. Dr.
Beatrice Beck Schimmer

From September 2014 until December 2020

From September 2020 to December 2020 iterimistic chairperson

During this time active at the Physiological Institute and Zurich Center for Integrative Human Physiology, (ZIHP) of the University of Zurich.

Prof. Dr.
Ulrike Beisiegel

From June 2009 to December 2010 Chairwoman

During this time working at the Institute of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology II University Hospital Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

Prof. Dr.
Andreas Diekmann

From January 2016 to September 2021

During this time active at the Department of Humanities, Social and Political Sciences, ETH Zurich

Prof. Dr.
Pieter C. Emmer

From June 2009 to December 2015 

At that time working at the Institute for History, Leiden University

Prof. Dr.
Michael Hagner

From October 2015 until October 2019

During this time active in science research, ETH Zurich

Prof. Dr.
Joachim Heberle

From May 2021 to April 2023

During this time active at the Freie Universität Berlin, Department of Physics

Alexandra Kemmerer
LL.M. eur.

From October 2019 until November 2021

From December 2020 to November 2021 Vice Chairwoman

During this time working at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law

Prof. Dr.
Paul Kleihues

From June 2009 to June 2012 

At that time working at the Department of Pathology, University Hospital Zurich

Prof. Dr.
Daniela N. Männel

From January 2011 until October 2017

During this time active at the Institute for Immunology, University of Regensburg

Prof. i. R. Dr.
Gerd Müller

From November 2015 until August 2020 From January 2019 to August 2020 Chairman

Univ.-Prof. Dr.
Robert Rebhahn

From June 2009 until April 2012

During this time active at the Institute for Labor and Social Law, University of Vienna

Prof. Dr.
Stephan Rixen

From June 2012 until December 2018

From October 2015 to December 2018 Chairman

During this time active at the Faculty of Law and Economics, University of Bayreuth

Prof. Dr.
Kerstin Schneider

From May 2018 until April 2022

During this time active at the Wuppertal Institute for Research in Economics of Education Wuppertal

Prof. Dr.
Elisabeth Staudegger

From May 2018 until October 2020

During this time active at the Faculty of Law, Karl-Franzens-University Graz

Prof. Dr.
Gerhard Wegner

From June 2009 until October 2015

During this time working at the Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research Mainz

Prof. em. Dr.
Peter Weingart

From June 2009 until September 2015

from January 2011 to September 2015 Chairman

During this time, active at the Institute for Science and Technology Research, Bielefeld University

Prof. Dr.
Barbara Wollenberg

From June 2012 until October 2014

During this time working at the Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Plastic Surgery at the University of Lübeck

Rules of Procedure

Rules of
Procedure

The Commission for Research Integrity is an organ of the association Austrian Agency for Research Integrity. The Commission shall conduct activities for association members and advise them in all matters related to research integrity, in particular, in cases of suspected research misconduct.

In addition to the regulations contained in the statutes, the Rules of Procedure govern all procedural principles and processes of the Commission for Research Integrity. The Rules also provide information that helps to determine issues of responsibility and procedural steps of a given investigation.

Rules of Procedure
(effective Feb. 2019)

Under Art. 17 of the Statutes of the Association, the Commission for Research Integrity is an organ of the association known as the “Austrian Agency for Research Integrity”:
The Commission for Research Integrity is to promote adherence to the rules of good scientific practice and to ensure an independent investigation in cases of alleged scientific misconduct. The Commission for Research Integrity shall conduct activities for Association members and advise them in all matters related to research integrity, in particular in cases of suspected scientific misconduct, with due attention to international developments.

Commission members shall have the following duties and powers:

  • Investigation of relevant facts in cases of suspected scientific misconduct
  • Experts from Austria and/or abroad may be called in
  • Execution of arbitration procedures in cases of suspected scientific misconduct
  • Preparation of opinions on the basis of fact-finding investigations in cases of suspected scientific misconduct
  • Advising of members on the establishment of procedures for handling cases of suspected scientific misconduct
  • Regular reporting of evidence regarding problems with research integrity in the Austrian science and research system in consultation with the Chairperson of the Association.
  • Development of measures to prevent scientific misconduct.

The Commission shall report on its activities to the Board once per year. By invitation of the Chairperson of the Commission, members of the Board may take part in Commission meetings in an advisory capacity. Upon request, the Commission shall inform the Chairperson of the Association of the initiation of a procedure due to suspected scientific misconduct. This does not apply to cases in which the Commission considers it a higher priority to protect the party accused of scientific misconduct. Once the procedure has been completed, the Commission shall inform the Association’s Chairperson of the result of the procedure. The Chairperson is obliged to maintain confidentiality.  In accordance with Section 16 Par. 4 of the Association’s Statutes, the Chairperson of the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity shall be responsible for disseminating information on ongoing and completed procedures to the public in agreement with the Chairperson of the Commission for Research Integrity.

With regard to ongoing procedures, the fact that a procedure has been initiated and the expected duration of the procedure will be reported in any case.

Upon nomination by the Austrian Science Board, established researchers shall be appointed to the Commission for Research Integrity by the General Assembly for a term of two years. Commission members may be re-appointed twice. The members of the Commission shall perform their duties completely independently. Commission members may also decide to investigate cases of suspected scientific misconduct on their own initiative after informing the management of the institution in question.

The Commission for Research Integrity shall choose one member of the Commission to serve as Chairperson and one member to serve as Deputy Chairperson of the Commission. The duties of the Chairperson of the Commission for Research Integrity shall include convening meetings of the Commission, external scientific representation, and advisory membership in the Association’s Board.

The Commission for Research Integrity shall take decisions by a simple majority of votes. The Commission shall be subject to the existing Rules of Procedure, which must be approved by the General Assembly of the Agency for Research Integrity.

1.1     The Commission for Research Integrity shall comprise at least six members nominated by the Austrian Science Board and appointed by the General Assembly for a term of two years in accordance with the Statutes of the Agency for Research Integrity. Commission members may be re-appointed twice.

1.2     The members of the Commission shall represent the following disciplines: humanities, social sciences, natural sciences and technology, life sciences, medicine and law.

1.3     Persons affiliated with Austrian universities or research institutions may not be appointed to the Commission. Only the member representing the discipline of law may be affiliated with an Austrian research institution; this member does not have the right to vote.

1.4     The voting members of the Commission shall choose one member to serve as Chairperson and one member to serve as Deputy Chairperson of the Commission. The duties of the Chairperson of the Commission for Research Integrity shall include convening meetings of the Commission, external scientific representation, and advisory membership in the Association’s Board.

1.5     The Commission shall be convened whenever necessary. The Chairperson may announce a Commission meeting along with the accompanying agenda at any time. The Chairperson of the Commission is to convene a Commission meeting without delay if a member of the Commission submits a request for such a meeting along with a draft agenda.

1.6     At least three voting members of the Commission must be in attendance in order to constitute a quorum. Resolutions shall be taken by a simple majority of votes. Where voting results in a tie, the Chairperson of the Commission shall have the casting vote.

1.7     If necessary, the Commission may also make decisions in the form of circular resolutions. Such motions are to be sent to all members of the Commission in writing or electronically along with the specification of a deadline for responses at least one week in the future. A motion is considered approved if the required majority of Commission members vote in favour of the motion within the specified period. However, a resolution shall not be considered approved in cases where one or more Commission members request a discussion of the motion at the next meeting.

1.8     The identification of scientific misconduct as a violation of the rules of good scientific practice shall be based on the criteria described in Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.

1.9     The procedures of the Commission shall not be public; in particular, the parties involved in procedures shall not have the right to inspect the Commission’s written records or documents.

1.10   Confidentiality is to be maintained in order to protect all persons involved.

1.11   The results of meetings are to be recorded in the minutes.

1.12   The results of Commission investigations are to be conveyed to the persons involved.

2.1     The Commission may be called upon by any legal person or organisation which is an full member of the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity and is affected by scientific misconduct, or by any physical person who is affected by scientific misconduct with a connection to Austria. Such inquiries/reports must be submitted in writing to the Commission’s administrative office with due indication of the specific facts in the case and the alleged misconduct.

2.2     Under Art. 8 Par. 3 of the Association’s Statutes, full members of the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity are obliged to ensure extensive cooperation with the Association in cases where a procedure is initiated, in particular by making the required information available, and to report severe cases of suspected scientific misconduct in their fields to the Agency for Research Integrity.

2.3     The Commission may also act on its own initiative without the conditions pursuant to Section 2 being met.

3.1     The Commission shall begin all activities with an examination of whether the case falls within the scope of the Commission’s material and geographical competence.

3.2     The Commission is materially competent in cases where, on the basis of the available evidence, the suspicion of scientific misconduct appears sufficiently justified in accordance with the criteria listed in Annex I to the Rules of Procedure. Other forms of misconduct in connection with research work, especially mobbing and sexual harassment, do not constitute grounds for the material competence of the Commission.

3.3     The Commission is geographically competent when a case exhibits a strong connection to an Austrian institution or to a researcher working in Austria.

3.4     If a procedure regarding the alleged misconduct is pending with another affected institution, the Commission may refuse or discontinue the handling of the case.

3.5.    The Commission may also refuse to handle allegations in case where the alleged misconduct lies more than ten years in the past.

3.6     On the basis of its preliminary review, the Commission may take the following resolutions:

  1. Assignment of the case to the Commission member whose area of expertise is most closely related to the case (referred to below as the “member leading the investigation”);
  2. Non-initiation of a procedure, with appropriate justification;
  3. Suspension of the case, for example until a procedure previously initiated by another institution has been completed.

The persons to which a report refers shall be informed of the resolutions listed above after a review and assessment by the Commission. Moreover, the Chairperson of the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity is to be informed of resolutions upon request. The Chairperson shall be obliged to maintain confidentiality in this regard.

3.7.    The Commission is generally obliged to inform all affected full members of the Agency for Research Integrity about resolutions pursuant to Section 3.6. without delay. In justified exceptional cases, however, the Commission may decide to fulfil its obligations to inform members at a later point in time. In such cases, the Commission must weigh the legitimate interests of the member in question against the legitimate interests of the other parties involved.

4.1     With the support of the administrative office, the Commission member leading the investigation shall first obtain opinions and statements from the persons to whom an allegation refers. If necessary, the Commission may also request additional documentation.

4.2     If a sufficient assessment of the facts is not possible on the basis of the materials submitted, the Commission may hold a hearing with the parties involved and obtain expert opinions from specialists in the relevant field.

4.3     At the suggestion of the Commission member leading the investigation, the Commission may, in justified cases, initiate an arbitration procedure with the support of a mediator. In cases where a thorough assessment of the facts is not possible on the basis of the information obtained, the Commission member leading the investigation may, in concert with the other Commission members, appoint experts for the specific subject area in question to investigate the allegations in greater depth.

4.4     In cases where other procedures (e.g. civil, criminal or disciplinary procedures) have been initiated in connection with the case to be investigated, the Commission may resolve to suspend the case at any stage of the procedure.

Attachment 1:
GWP Guidelines of the ÖAWI
(as of April 2015).

The quality of research is a valuable asset for any society. Social progress, economic value creation, social living conditions and a generation-appropriate shaping of the future are inconceivable without reliable scientific knowledge. Ensuring its quality is, in principle, the task of science itself. Because scientific research is specialized and complex, and because there are many links between science, politics, business and other social actors, scientific self-regulation can only succeed if it is also formalized and institutionalized. As an institution that Austria’s research institutions have given themselves, the Austrian Agency for Scientific Integrity (ÖAWI) makes an important contribution to the effective self-regulation of the Austrian science system.

ÖAWI raises awareness of the standards of good scientific practice among scientists and the general public. It contributes to the identification and elimination of violations of the standards of good scientific practice. It strengthens the scientific ethos and advocates compliance with the code of conduct derived from it. Clarification and prevention of scientific misconduct – not its sanctioning – are at the center of its activities. Since violations of standards of good scientific practice are not necessarily also violations of applicable law, the ÖAWI carries out its task in addition to the legal system, not in competition with it. Science-related law, principles of research ethics and standards of good scientific practice equally ensure a high level of scientific integrity.

Following the example of international declarations on scientific integrity, basic principles of scientific integrity and the resulting basic obligations are named below. Then, requirements for the behavior of scientists (standards of good scientific practice) that conform to these principles and basic obligations are defined, as well as important forms of scientific misconduct. Here, too, the ÖAWI is guided by the international state of discussion on scientific integrity, because the internationality of science also influences the standards of its integrity.

(1) Scientific research is work committed to the standards of good scientific practice with the aim of gaining knowledge. All persons engaged in research are committed to scientific integrity. Scientific integrity includes, in particular, transparent and honest communication with other scientists as well as between scientists and clients of research projects, a high degree of reliability in the implementation of joint research projects, impartial judgment and inner independence, the willingness to face professional criticism and to deal with it in an argumentative manner, as well as responsible and fair treatment, especially of junior scientists. Scientific integrity also includes honest, comprehensible and transparent communication with the general public that does justice to the complexity of scientific research.

(2) All persons working in research must observe the standards of good scientific practice relevant to their field of scientific activity, clarify any doubts about the relevant standards on their own responsibility, refrain from scientific misconduct and promptly correct any misconduct detected.

(3) The sponsoring organizations of scientific research and the individual organizational units in which research is conducted (e.g. university or non-university departments and institutes, working groups, centers) ensure that the communication of the standards of good scientific practice is permanently guaranteed; in this context, attention must also be drawn to the risk of scientific misconduct. The responsible managers of the supporting organization and the respective organizational unit ensure through suitable and appropriate organizational measures that the responsibilities for communicating and enforcing the standards of good scientific practice, including the clarification of doubts, are clearly defined, communicated, and then actually exercised; this also includes the clear assignment of supervisory duties. The managers shall ensure that an infrastructure is in place that enables the standards of good scientific practice to be observed; this applies in particular to the storage of data, preparations or other objects and materials used for or originating from research. The management must ensure that the contact details of the persons and bodies responsible for enforcing the standards of good scientific practice and investigating allegations of scientific misconduct at the respective research institution are known and can be easily located at all times.

(4) Whoever supervises a research project, in particular a project within the framework of a diploma, master or doctoral program, shall ensure that the researchers are instructed in the standards of good scientific practice; in doing so, a research environment shall be provided which enables junior researchers in particular to comply with the standards of good scientific practice.

Supervision of a research project, namely in the context of a doctoral program, does not release the researcher from the obligation to regularly inform him/herself about how the relevant discipline as well as the relevant scientific institution understands the Standards of Good Scientific Practice. Statements of international or national bodies on the standards of good scientific practice, e.g. of the relevant scientific societies, are to be taken into account in the sense of an interpretation aid. The requirements of multi-, inter- and transdisciplinary scientific work are to be taken into account in the handling of the Standards of Good Scientific Practice.

(5) If there are no indications that researchers disregard the standards of good scientific practice, the supervisor of the research project may trust that the research project will be conducted in accordance with the standards of good scientific practice (principle of trust).

(1) Standards of Good Scientific Practice include, in particular, the following:

1. The exact logging and documentation of the scientific procedure as well as the results, which ensures that the repeatability of the investigations is guaranteed; this includes the collection of primary and original data (processed raw material), which can be traced by third parties, is logged and documented without gaps; these data and documents (B. These data and documents (B. laboratory journals), if they serve as the basis for publications, must be stored on durable and secure data carriers at the scientific institution where they were generated, in compliance with the relevant time limits in the respective field of research, insofar as this is necessary for the purpose of verifying the selected method and the results obtained.

2. In the context of scientific work, but also of grant applications, the transparent and comprehensible handling of ideas, texts, data and other sources originating from others, in particular by observing meaningful citation rules that avoid misunderstandings; plagiarism violates the standards of good scientific practice and must therefore be refrained from (cf. 3 para. 2 item 3).

3. Failure to republish a text or parts of a text already published by the author without a reference to the previous publication.

4. Maintaining strict honesty with regard to the research contributions of others, especially in grant applications or in the publication of research results, naming persons who have made their own scientific or significant other contribution as co-authors and, as far as possible, identifying their contribution; mere technical assistance in data collection alone, the provision of funding and infrastructure with the help of which the research was carried out, cannot establish co-authorship; the same applies to merely proofreading the manuscript without helping to shape its content.

5. The observance of joint responsibility of co-authors for publications excluding so-called honorary authorship, i.e. authorship that is not in accordance with the requirements of Section 2 (1) (4).

6. The disclosure of possible conflicts of interest, e.g. in selection procedures or in the review of research projects and publications.

7. Transparency with regard to the funding of research projects, in particular by naming persons and/or institutions that have supported the projects through monetary or in-kind contributions, or by referring to economic interests associated with the research project.

(2) Even if scientists working at a research institution in Austria participate in international research projects, they must observe the standards of good scientific practice applicable in Austria.

(1) Scientific misconduct occurs when standards of good scientific practice (§ 2) are violated intentionally, knowingly or through gross negligence. A person acts intentionally if he or she considers a violation of the standards of good scientific practice to be possible and accepts it. A person acts knowingly if he or she believes that a violation of the standards of good scientific practice is not only possible but certain. Gross negligence is committed by anyone who conspicuously disregards the care required by the specific research context and therefore fails to recognize that he/she is violating the standards of good scientific practice to a high degree; this is the case, for example, if even the simplest, most obvious considerations are not taken into account and what should have been obvious to everyone in the given case is ignored. Critical statements in scientific discourse (“honest differences of opinions”) or errors made in good faith (“honest errors”) are not scientific misconduct.

(2) The following conduct in particular shall be regarded as scientific misconduct within the meaning of the first sentence of paragraph 1:

1. The invention of data (“fabrication”), e.g. the invention of research results (measured values, observational data, statistics).

2. The falsification of data (“falsification”), e.g., by manipulating the research process, altering or selectively omitting data that contradict the research thesis, or misleadingly interpreting data to obtain a desired result.

3. Plagiarism (“plagiarism”, cf. § 2 para. 1 no. 2); plagiarism occurs when texts, contents or ideas are taken over and passed off as one’s own. This includes in particular the appropriation and use of text passages, theories, hypotheses, findings or data by direct, paraphrased or translated copying without appropriate acknowledgement and citation of the source and the author. This also includes the use (including publication) of third-party research ideas or research concepts that have come to one’s knowledge in a confidential context (e.g., in the context of a peer review or other review process).

4. Unauthorized denial of access to primary and original data ( 2 par. 1 fig. 1) including the information on their extraction or their elimination before the expiry of the relevant deadlines (§ 2 par. 1 fig. 1).

5. Obstructing the research activities of other scientists as well as other dishonest attempts to diminish the scientific reputation of another scientist; this includes, in particular, anonymously expressed unspecific and unfounded accusations of violations of the standards of good scientific practice.

6. Sabotaging research activities, including but not limited to damaging or destroying experimental setups, equipment, records, hardware, software, chemicals, or other items needed by another scientist to conduct his or her research.

7. Incorrect information in a grant application that may disadvantage competing scientists.

8. Discrimination in career advancement, especially of junior scientists who have provided information about possible scientific misconduct (whistleblowers).

(1) Scientific misconduct (§ 3 para. 1 first sentence) may also be the participation in violations of standards of good scientific practice by others, e.g. active participation in the misconduct of others, co-authorship of publications containing falsifications or otherwise produced in violation of the standards of good scientific practice, or neglect of the duty of supervision. The duty of supervision (§1 para. 3) is neglected if the necessary supervisory measures have been omitted, taking into account the personal responsibility of the researcher as well as the principle of trust (§1 para. 5).

(2) Consent to be named as co-author of a publication leads to co-responsibility for ensuring that the publication complies with the standards of good scientific practice; § 3 para. 1 is to be observed. If individual scientists are named as co-authors in a publication without their consent and if they feel unable to give (subsequent) approval, they are expected to expressly object to their being named as co-authors vis-à-vis the person primarily responsible for the publication, the editorial office of the journal concerned or the publisher, and to work towards ensuring that the publication is not made under their name.

Downloads

Information,
Links & Downloads

Skip to content