OTF – Orientation for Handling Transnational Cases

Guidance regarding questions on integrity in cross-border investigations

Introduction

What does OTF offer?

When cases of alleged research misconduct have a transnational dimension, this usually adds considerable complexity to the investigation, for example because of differences in legal frameworks, regulations and guidelines of (funding) institutions. Moreover, access to information relevant to the case and to appropriate contact persons may be difficult to obtain when institutions from several countries are involved.

 

The growth in international research collaborations increases the importance of guidance on how to investigate transnational cases of alleged research misconduct. The aim of “Orientation for Handling Transnational Cases ” (OTF) is to provide practical guidance for those actively involved in handling cases of alleged research misconduct with a transnational dimension.

This website is intended to support research integrity officers, ombudspersons, confidential advisors and staff at research and higher education institutions when they are confronted with cases involving parties from more than one country, arising in the context of international projects or concerning individuals with affiliations in different countries.

 

 

Currently, the scope of the guidance provided on this website is limited to German-speaking countries. Institutions from Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Luxembourg were involved in the preparation of the documents and content of this website. Despite the limited scope and relative similarity of the countries covered, it has already become apparent that regulations and approaches can vary significantly.

Resources

The example cases give an impression of what transnational cases can look like.

The decision tree presents a model process for investigating a transnational case and links to questions in the catalogue below that may be relevant to investigators at the respective stages of the process.

The catalogue of questions offers case handlers support in systematically navigating through the investigation process by answering typical questions at each stage of the procedure.

 

The download section contains more detailed information on the legal basis and infrastructure for research integrity in specific countries.
The glossary provides definitions of key terms and related terms that are used synonymously with the key terms in other countries.

Contact with the institutions and individuals involved in OTF is possible via the network partners or Contact (footer) sections.

Examples

Example Cases

Note: all names of persons and the facts described are fictitious.

'Dial P for Plagiarism'

Ms F. is a master’s student in business administration at the University of Graustadt (Germany). She reports :

Learn more

'Yours, Mine and Ours: Authorship'

The ombudsperson at the University of Birgg (Switzerland) receives

Learn more

'Follow the Funding Application'

Mr G. holds a postdoctoral position at the Institute for Transformation)

Learn more

'Picture Perfect'

In March 2025, the ombudsperson at the University of Mirstadt (Germany) received the following anonymous report by email:

Learn more
Decision Tree

Decision Tree
Case Handling

Handling transnational cases – a catalogue of questions

First, a review of competency should be carried out: In particular, competency in regard to the object of the report, and the geographic, institutional, and legal jurisdiction of one’s own institution must be clarified.

The following questions will typically arise in this context:

  1. Does the report provide sufficient grounds to constitute a credible allegation of research misconduct?
  2. Does the report refer to members of your institution?
  3. Has the report also been submitted elsewhere?
  4. Does the report refer to individuals or groups from institutions in more than one country?
  5. If so, in which country and at which institution is/are the accused person(s) based?
  6. Where was/were the accused person(s) employed or affiliated at the time when the alleged research misconduct occurred? Where are they currently employed and/or affiliated?
  7. Is there an agreement for the research project, such as a grant or cooperation agreement (or other documents/agreements) that regulates competency?
  8. Does the research project have a project lead? If so, at which institution and in which country is the project lead based?
  9. Do further (jurisdictional) obligations arise as a result of the source of funding for the research project?
  10. Are there any special requirements for the processing of anonymous reports?

The next step is to decide whether additional persons or institutions should be involved. It must be ascertained whether other institutions concerned can be informed directly by the body handling the case. Alternatively, the person(s) who submitted the report can be asked to also submit the report to those institutions directly. If the competency check shows that the report concerns only, or partially, matters not related to research misconduct, the contact information of responsible bodies should be provided (where possible) to the whistleblower(s).

If several institutions or countries are involved, legal restrictions apply in Europe related to the transfer of personal data, particularly due to data protection requirements and regulations on the protection of confidentiality. Investigating such a case of alleged research misconduct requires clarification of how the case can be handled and, whether and to what extent coordination is possible. The following questions provide guidance on possible courses of action and procedures.

  1. Which of the (research) institutions involved in the case should be included in the investigation (e.g. universities or non-university research institutions, government agencies, funding bodies, international bodies)?
  2. Who or which bodies are responsible for handling cases of alleged research misconduct in the other countries and institutions involved? Which body can be contacted for a general, anonymised exchange on procedural issues? Who are the contact persons?
  3. What regulations (e.g. legal rules, rules of procedure or other guidelines) apply to/are in force at the institutions involved? Are the institutions involved public or private bodies?
  4. Are there bodies at your own institution and the other institutions involved that are responsible for international or cross-border matters who might be able to provide support regarding a possible coordinated process?
  5. What responsibilities and roles do the institutions involved have in investigating alleged research misconduct, and are these regulated in an official document?
  6. Is there a national body in (any of) the countries involved for reporting allegations of research misconduct, or conducting or coordinating procedures for investigating alleged research misconduct?
  7. Are there any special agreements concerning the handling of cases of alleged research misconduct in the context of a transnational cooperation?
  8. Is there a binding legal agreement or other regulatory basis for a coordinated transnational investigation?
  9. Who is authorised or (legally) entitled to communicate with institutions or bodies in other countries regarding the specific case?

If a coordinated process is possible and is being considered, it is necessary to define how the institutions will communicate and what data can be shared. Furthermore, the question whether different rules of procedure must be respected needs to be answered.

  1. Do all institutions involved have defined rules of procedure for the investigation?
  2. Are the rules of procedure and procedural steps for investigating cases of alleged research misconduct comparable and compatible?
  3. Do the institutions involved have different definitions of the various types of research misconduct?
  4. Under what conditions may information from one’s own investigations be shared with institutions abroad? Do the institutions involved have different regulations regarding confidentiality, information sharing and data protection? Are declarations of consent (e.g. from those affected) necessary?
  5. Who will be the members of the investigation commission? Can a joint investigation commission be appointed? If so, who is responsible for its appointment? What rules govern the commission’s composition? What rules will govern the work of the investigatory body?
  6. How will the institutions communicate with each other and the parties involved in the case? Are there any deadlines (including statutes of limitations) that must be observed during the investigation? What is the expected timeframe for the investigation to be concluded?
  7. What are the rights and obligations of the accused persons at the various institutions involved? How is the involvement of legal representatives/lawyers regulated?
  8. What are the rights and obligations of the reporting persons at the various institutions involved?

In the case of a coordinated investigation, a decision must be taken at the end of the process as to whether and in what form the investigation results can and should be shared between the institutions involved. If the investigation results are to be published or shared, it is also necessary to clarify whether pertinent requirements differ between the institutions involved. If this is the case, a coordinated solution must be found.

  1. Are investigations concluded with an investigation report? Is it possible to prepare a joint investigation report (possibly in addition to the institutional reports and/or shorter than the institutional reports)?
  2. Who are the recipients/addressees of the report?
  3. Are there any guidelines or regulations regarding the preparation and recipients of the investigation report? Is there an obligation or option to provide information to one or more of the following parties: accused persons, reporting persons, affected research groups, research funders, other institutions, journals, members of the research institutions involved or the public?
  4. In addition to an investigation report, is there another format for communicating the investigation results? (e.g. summary of the report, excerpt from the minutes of the decisions on the results of the investigation)
  5. Is an anonymised version of the investigation report available?
  6. Is it possible to create an information cascade and a joint timetable for the conclusion of the investigation and the communication of the findings?
Downloads

Information,
Links & Downloads

Glossary

Glossary

Network Partners

Network Partners

8 Members
ombudsstellen-logo-weiss

Austrian Student Ombuds Office

oeawi-logo-en-420x420

Austrian Agency for Research Integrity (OeAWI)

oeawi-mitglieder-universitaeten-universitaet-wien

University of Vienna

dfg_logo_schriftzug_blau_4c

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)

ombudsgremium_logo_2025_witheBG@medium420x420

Ombuds Committee for Research Integrity in Germany (OWID)

eth_logo_kurz_pos420x420

ETH Zurich

logos-kwis-en-420x420

Swiss Competence Centre for Scientific Integrity (KWIS)

Lari - Logo - Black - Logotype420x420

Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity (LARI)

otf-farbe-02

Meldung 1

Frau F. ist Master-Studentin in BWL an der Universität Graustadt (D). Sie erstattet bei der Ombudsstelle ihrer Universität Meldung folgenden Inhalts:


Auf einem Kongress in Wien hatte sie einen Vortrag über Agiles Management in mittelständischen Unternehmen, das Thema ihrer Masterarbeit, gehalten. Im Anschluss wurde sie von Prof. G. von der Universität Haust (A) auf ihren Vortrag angesprochen. Prof. G. arbeitete schon länger auf dem Gebiet Agiles Management und zeigte sich sehr interessiert an der Fragestellung zur Umsetzungspraxis im Mittelstand, mit der er sich bisher noch nicht beschäftigt hatte. Am Ende des Gesprächs bot Prof. G. ihr eine Fortsetzung des Austauschs an und fragte Frau F., ob sie ihm das Manuskript ihrer Masterarbeit zusenden würde. Frau F. schickte das Manuskript umgehend per E-Mail an Prof. G., verbunden mit der Bitte um sein kritisches Feedback. Nachdem sie mehrere Wochen keine Reaktion von Prof. G. erhalten hatte, legte sie diesen Kontakt für sich ad acta. Kurz bevor sie ihre Masterarbeit abschliessen und einreichen wollte, wurde sie von einer Mitstudentin auf einen Artikel eines Professors aus Haust aufmerksam gemacht, der sich mit dem gleichen Thema wie dem ihrer Masterarbeit beschäftigen würde. Frau F. stellte beim Lesen des Artikels fest, dass dieser inhaltlich mit ihrer Masterarbeit weitgehend identisch und der Autor Prof. G. war. Ihr Name oder ihr Masterarbeitsentwurf wurde in dem Artikel an keiner Stelle erwähnt. Versuche von Frau F., mit Prof. G. Kontakt aufzunehmen blieben unbeantwortet. Daraufhin entscheidet sie sich, eine Meldung bei der Ombudsstelle der Universität Graustadt einzureichen.

otf-farbe-02

Meldung 2

Die Vertrauensperson der Universität Birgg (CH) erhält von Dr. W., PostDoc am Institut für Astrophysik der Universität Birgg, folgende Meldung:


Ein Konsortium mit Mitgliedern aus einigen EU-Staaten und der Schweiz betreibt gemeinsam eine für die Sammlung und Auswertung astrophysikalischer Daten ausgelegte digitale Plattform. Dr. W., Mitglied des Konsortiums, hat durch die Entwicklung eines sehr effizienten Algorithmus ermöglicht, dass die durch die Konsortiumsmitglieder erhobenen Daten in einem Bruchteil der bisher notwendigen Zeit aggregiert werden können. Das Projekt wurde dadurch enorm vorwärtsgebracht. In weiterer Folge hatte Dr. W. beim Konsortium beantragt, die vom Konsortium erhobenen Daten für die Entwicklung weiterer Algorithmen nutzen zu können. Dies wurde vom Konsortium abgelehnt, da diese von Dr. W. geplanten Algorithmen nicht mit den vereinbarten Projektzielen übereinstimmen würden. Über diesen Dissens kam es zum andauernden Zerwürfnis zwischen Dr. W. und den anderen Konsortiumsmitgliedern, sodass Dr. W. letztlich das Konsortium verliess. Ein Jahr nach ihrem Ausschieden erschien im New European Journal for Astrophysics eine Publikation von Prof. S. der TU Bronnig (D), einem Mitglied des Konsortiums, in dem unter Verwendung des von Dr. W. entwickelten Algorithmus Daten ausgewertet werden, die mit den Projektzielen des Konsortiums nichts zu tun haben. In dem Artikel wird der Algorithmus mittels eines kryptischen Verweises auf eine öffentlich nicht zugängliche Datenbank des Konsortiums referenziert. Der Name von Dr. W. wird an keiner Stelle erwähnt. In ihrer Meldung an die Vertrauensperson der Universität Birgg beschuldigt Dr. W. Prof. S. des Plagiats und Ideendiebstahls.

otf-farbe-02

Meldung 3

Herr G. hat eine PostDoc-Stelle am Institut für Transformation der Fakultät für Sozialwissenschaften an der TU Lems (A) inne und reicht im dortigen Online-Hinweisgebersystem folgende Meldung ein:


In der Abschlussphase seiner Dissertation an der Wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Rayan (CH) hatte Herr G. eine Projektidee entwickelt und hierzu zusammen mit Herrn F., einem Senior Scientist derselben Fakultät, einen Förderantrag beim SNF eingereicht. Gemäß Zeitplan hätte das Projekt nach Abschluss der Dissertation von Herrn G. starten sollen. Der Projektantrag wurde jedoch vom SNF abgelehnt. Kurz darauf erhielt Herr F. einen Ruf an die Universität Larweg (D). Dort angekommen, reichte er umgehend das vom SNF abgelehnte Projektvorhaben bei der DFG ein, ohne aber die massgebliche Entwicklung der Projektidee durch Herrn G. zu erwähnen. Dieser Projektantrag wurde von der DFG bewilligt. Herr G. hatte in der Zwischenzeit eine Stelle als PostDoc an der TU Lems angetreten und den von ihm erarbeiteten Projektplan bei der FFG eingereicht. Im Zuge der Begutachtung durch die FFG wies ein Gutachter darauf hin, dass ein identisches Projektvorhaben bereits bei der DFG eingereicht und bewilligt worden sei: Dies sei ihm bekannt da er von der DFG ebenfalls als Gutachter einbezogen worden war. Die FFG lehnte daraufhin den Antrag von Herrn G. ab und informierte ihn zur Einleitung einer Untersuchung zu mutmasslichem Plagiieren eines Projektantrags. Daraufhin reicht Herr G. eine Meldung bei der TU Lems ein.

otf-farbe-02

Meldung 4

Bei der Ombudsperson der Universität Mirstadt (D) geht im März 2025 folgende anonyme Meldung per E-Mail ein:


Die Meldung berichtet von deutlichen Hinweisen zu Bilddatenmanipulation, die sich aus einer wissenschaftlich ausführlichen und sachlich gehaltenen Diskussion, geführt in mehreren Posts auf der Plattform pubpeer.com, ergeben. Diese Posts beziehen sich auf mehrere Publikationen aus den Jahren 2014 – 2019 im Bereich Immunologie mit Prof. S. jeweils als Letzt- oder Erstautorin. In der anonymen Meldung wird sie aufgrund ihrer Stellung als Letzt- bzw. Erstautorin für die Datenmanipulation verantwortlich gemacht. Prof. S. ist seit 2021 an der Universität Mirstadt und war zuvor an der Universität Leuer (CH) als Senior Scientist tätig. Die beanstandeten Publikationen hatte sie dort zusammen mit mehreren Mitarbeitenden dieser Forschungsgruppe erstellt. Aus den Beschreibungen zu den jeweiligen Contributions aller (Co-)Autor*innen dieser Publikationen geht deutlich hervor, dass für die Erhebung und Bereitstellung der Bilddaten ausschliesslich der Mitautor Dr. L., damals PostDoc in der Gruppe, verantwortlich gewesen war. Dr. L. ist nach wie vor in der Gruppe an der Universität Leuer, inzwischen als Senior Scientist.

OTF_Logo

Kontakt

Österreich 🇦🇹

Österreichische Agentur für wissenschaftliche Integrität (ÖAWI)

office@oeawi.at

 

Ombudsstelle für Studierende

info@hochschulombudsstelle.at 

Deutschland 🇩🇪

Ombudsgremium für die wissenschaftliche Integrität in Deutschland (OWID)

office@ombudsgremium.de

 

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)

WI@dfg.de

 

Schweiz🇨🇭

ETH Zürich

integrity@ethz.ch

 

Luxemburg 🇱🇺

Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity (LARI)

secretarygeneral@lari.lu

 

otf-farbe-02

Report 1

Ms F. is a master’s student in business administration at the University of Graustadt (Germany). She reports the following to her university’s ombuds office:

 

At a conference in Vienna, she gave a presentation on agile management in medium-sized companies, the topic of her master’s thesis. Afterwards, Prof. G. from the University of Haust (Austria) approached her about her presentation. Prof. G. had been working in the field of agile management for some time and was very interested in the question of implementation in medium-sized companies, which he had not previously worked on. At the end of the conversation, Prof. G. offered to continue the exchange and asked Ms F. if she would send him the manuscript of her master’s thesis. Ms F. immediately sent the manuscript to Prof. G. by email, asking for his feedback. After receiving no response from Prof. G. for several weeks, she decided to put this interaction behind her. Shortly before she was about to complete and submit her master’s thesis, a fellow student drew her attention to an article by a professor from Haust that dealt with the same topic as her master’s thesis. Upon reading the article, Ms F. realised that its content was largely identical to her master’s thesis and that the author was Prof. G. Neither her name nor her master’s thesis draft were mentioned anywhere in the article. Ms F.’s attempts to contact Prof. G. went unanswered. She then decided to file a report with the ombuds office at the University of Graustadt.

otf-farbe-02

Report 2

The ombudsperson at the University of Birgg (Switzerland) receives the following report from Dr. W., a postdoctoral researcher at the Institute of Astrophysics at the University of Birgg:

 

A consortium consisting of members from several EU countries and Switzerland jointly operates a digital platform designed for the collection and evaluation of astrophysical data. Dr W., a member of the consortium, has developed a highly efficient algorithm that enables the data collected by consortium members to be aggregated in a fraction of the time previously required. This has greatly advanced the project. Dr W. subsequently requested permission from the consortium to use the data collected by the consortium to develop further algorithms. This was rejected by the consortium on the grounds that the algorithms planned by Dr W. did not correspond to the agreed project objectives. This disagreement led to ongoing discord between Dr W. and the other consortium members, ultimately resulting in Dr W. leaving the consortium. One year after Dr. W.’s departure, a publication by Prof. S. of the Technical University of Bronnig (Germany), a member of the consortium, appeared in the New European Journal for Astrophysics, in which data unrelated to the consortium’s project objectives were evaluated using the algorithm developed by Dr. W.. The article references the algorithm by means of a cryptic reference to a consortium database that is not publicly accessible. Dr W.’s name is not mentioned anywhere. In her report to the ombudsperson at the University of Birgg, Dr W. accuses Prof. S. of plagiarism and theft of ideas.

otf-farbe-02

Report 3

Mr G. holds a postdoctoral position at the Institute for Transformation in the Faculty of Social Sciences at the Technical University (TU) Lems (Austria) and submits the following report to their online whistleblower system:

 

In the final phase of his dissertation at the Faculty of Economics at the University of Rayan (CH), Mr G. had developed a project idea and, together with Mr F., a senior scientist at the same faculty, submitted a funding application to the SNSF. According to the schedule, the project should have started after Mr G. had completed his dissertation. However, the project application was rejected by the SNSF. Shortly afterwards, Mr F. was offered a professorship at the University of Larweg (Germany). Once there, he immediately submitted the project proposal rejected by the SNSF to the DFG, without mentioning Mr G.’s significant contribution to the development of the project idea. This project application was accepted for funding by the DFG. In the meantime, Mr G. had taken up a postdoctoral position at TU Lems and submitted the project plan he had developed to the FFG. During the FFG’s review process, one reviewer pointed out that an identical project proposal had already been submitted to and approved by the DFG: he was aware of this because he had also been involved as a reviewer for the DFG. The FFG then rejected Mr G.’s application and informed him that an investigation into alleged plagiarism of a project application had been initiated. Mr G. then submitted a report to the TU Lems.

otf-farbe-02

Report 4

In March 2025, the ombudsperson at the University of Mirstadt (Germany) received the following anonymous report by email:

 

The submission reports clear evidence of image data manipulation, which emerged from a scientifically detailed and reasoned discussion conducted in several posts on the pubpeer.com platform. These posts refer to several publications from 2014 to 2019 in the field of immunology, with Prof. S. as the last or first author in each case. In the anonymous report, she is held responsible for the data manipulation due to her position as last or first author. Prof. S. has been at the University of Mirstadt since 2021 and previously worked as a senior scientist at the University of Leuer (Switzerland), where she produced the publications in question together with several members of her research group. The descriptions of the respective contributions of all (co-)authors of these publications clearly show that the co-author Dr. L., then a postdoc in the group, was solely responsible for collecting and providing the image data. Dr. L. is still in the group at the University of Leuer, now as a senior scientist.

OTF_Logo

Contact

Austria 🇦🇹

Austrian Agency for Research Integrity (OeAWI)

office@oeawi.at

Austrian Student Ombuds Office

info@hochschulombudsstelle.at 

Germany 🇩🇪

Ombuds Committee for Research Integrity in Germany (OWID)

office@ombudsgremium.de

 

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)

WI@dfg.de

 

Switzerland 🇨🇭

ETH Zurich

integrity@ethz.ch

 

Luxembourg 🇱🇺

Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity (LARI)

secretarygeneral@lari.lu

AM_quadrat
Law

Prof.
Regina E. Aebi-Müller

Deputy Chair of the Commission

Faculty of Law, University of Lucerne – Switzerland Regina E. Aebi-Müller graduated in law from the University of Bern and was admitted to the bar of the Canton of Bern in 1997. This was followed by a doctorate with a focus on family and inheritance law. In 2005, she completed her habilitation on the system of the protection of personality in civil law. Since the same year, she has been a full professor of private law and comparative private law at the University of Lucerne. Her research focuses on medical law, family law, the law of persons (capacity to act, protection of personality, law of associations and foundations) and the law of succession. She has authored numerous publications, partly in the context of externally funded research projects, and is a member of national and international professional societies. Since 2016, she has been co-editor of the renowned «Berner Kommentar». Regina E. Aebi-Müller has been a member of the Central Ethics Committee of the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences since June 2017 and a member of the Expert Committee of Alzheimer Switzerland since 2019. She was a Research Councillor at the Swiss National Science Foundation from 2014 to 2021 and Vice-President of this division from 2017 to 2021. She was also a member and Vice President of the Commission for Scientific Integrity of the Swiss National Science Foundation from 2017 to 2021. Since 2020, Regina E. Aebi-Müller has been Prorector for Personnel and Professorships at the University of Lucerne and, a spart of that position, President of the University Equal Opportunities Commission. Since 2011, she has been an investigator in cases of sexual harassment. From 2007 to 2011, she was Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Lucerne.
Elisabeth Haslinger-Baumann_420x420_watermarked_centered

FH-Prof. Mag. Dr. Elisabeth Haslinger-Baumann

Hochschule Campus Wien

Since 2022, Vice Rector for Research and Development and member of the executive board of Hochschule Campus Wien. Member of the ethics commission of Hochschule Campus Wien.

Between 2014 and 2022, she developed, implemented and managed the Competence Center for Applied Nursing Research at Hochschule Campus Wien, and taught in the Department for Applied Nursing Research. She developed the strategic direction of the research center and conceptualized and led application-focused and interdisciplinary projects in national and international contexts. Her research focuses are in the fields of Active and Assisted Living, Digitalization in health and nursing, as well as Theory-Practice-Transfer. From 1998 to 2013, she was part of the research institute of the Vienna Red Cross (which she led for 1.5 years) where she established nursing research with a focus on evidence-based nursing in mobile and inpatient care.

Haslinger-Baumann studied Philosophy with a focus on ethics as well as Political Science with a focus on social policy, both at the University of Vienna. She holds a Doctorate in Nursing Science with a focus on research applications from UMIT – Private University for health sciences, medical informatics and technology in Hall, Tyrol.

Many years of experience as certified health- and nursing professional in Austria (Vienna) and abroad (Nepal, India, Columbia, Ecuador) Married,
three children.
Skip to content