Preamble
As an internationally renowned research and study institute dedicated to European cultural history, the Herzog August Bibliothek (HAB) is aware of the particular responsibility it has to promote scholarly work and assure its quality. We expressly acknowledge the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation, DFG)’s Guidelines for safeguarding good research practice (code of conduct). The following legally binding set of rules formulates the HAB’s scholarly ethics. The aim is to raise awareness among staff and cooperation partners of issues relating to academic honesty and integrity as well as to offer guidance on responsible action in all areas of research activity. This policy also identifies procedures to be followed in cases of scientific misconduct. These guidelines enter into force upon their publication on the HAB homepage.
§1 General principles
(1) Scholars employed at the HAB commit to working on the basis of the recognised principles, methods and insights of their own specialist disciplines (lege artis). They regularly update their own knowledge of good scholarly practice and the status of research. Third-party materials, sources and research results used for research and for the development of knowledge as well as the applied methods of in-depth cataloguing and analysis are documented in reliable and verifiable form. To safeguard intellectual property rights, all research work is always precisely defined, and its origin and authorship are acknowledged by name.
(2) The HAB infrastructure and organisation provide the necessary requirements for good scholarly practice. The HAB guarantees the permanent securing and accessibility of research data and results in the projects it implements. For this purpose, the HAB has developed a research data management system.
(3) The HAB applies a strict equal opportunities policy when making staff appointments. It stands for gender equality and for diversity.
§2 Supporting academic staff
(1) The HAB creates apposite conditions for the development of relevant research questions and of appropriate research design as well as for conducting the subsequent research.
(2) Various event formats at the HAB – colloquia for scholarship holders, workshop discussions, research colloquia – facilitate exchange between experienced and young researchers.
(3) The HAB supports academic careers by means of a comprehensive scholarship programme and with employment positions for doctoral students and postdocs, as well as student and academic assistant positions. The HAB offers opportunities for staff to develop significant skills in organising events, publishing academic results, and in the use of the library’s historical collections.
(4) With its specialised fields of research, the HAB offers staff opportunities to gain advanced specialist skills, such as in palaeography and digital editorship. The HAB supports career planning for academic staff with opportunities for them to participate in further training programmes.
§3 Organisational responsibility of heads of the HAB and of heads of project units
(1) The HAB’s organisational structure ensures that tasks and responsibilities at management level, specialist supervisory duties, quality control and conflict resolution are all clearly assigned.
(2) The heads of the HAB are responsible for disseminating principles of good scholarly practice at the institution.
(3) Procedures for staff selection and staff development and for the promotion of young researchers are all defined in writing.
(4) The tasks and responsibilities of individuals involved in projects are all clearly defined. Regular meetings are held to ensure dialogue among project participants and to make required adjustments to tasks and responsibilities where necessary. The abuse of power and the exploitation of relations of dependency must be prevented by means of appropriate organisational actions both at the level of a specific academic unit and at the managerial level.
(5) Appropriate structures and concepts for the supervision of young academics have been established. Consultations are offered to academic staff and academic support staff on their present track and future career paths.
§4 Supervision and assessment
(1) Persons in positions of leadership at the HAB ensure that good scholarly practice is maintained in the projects they supervise.
(2) The working conditions are regularly assessed by the responsible heads of research projects. This reinforces good cooperation, supports academic performance and ensures individual career support. See §3 (5).
(3) In their assessment of academic staff, the head of a project may take into account other individual performance factors in addition to academic quality.
(4) Those in charge of reviewing and assessing performance are obliged to confidentiality and to transparency with regard to possible bias. In cases of bias or conflict of interest, the ombudsperson must be contacted.
§5 Ombudspersons
(1) An ombudsperson and a deputy ombudsperson are available to address issues concerning good academic practice and to respond to reports they receive of any suspected misconduct. They should be contacted in cases of possible conflict of interest. Staff may choose to contact the HAB internal ombudsperson or the national German Research Ombudsman. It is not possible to involve both of these simultaneously. Internal HAB ombudspersons are elected by HAB staff for a period of two years. Re-election is permitted. Details of the elected ombudspersons are published on the HAB noticeboard and in the HAB wiki.
(2) The ombudspersons are academic staff with leadership experience who advise as neutral contact persons on questions of good academic practice and in cases of suspected scientific misconduct, and as far as possible contribute to conciliatory solutions. During their period of office, ombudspersons may not be members of the HAB central management board.
(3) All consultations with ombudspersons are confidential for both sides.
(4) The HAB ensures the support and acceptance of ombud work.
§6 Documentation
(1) To ensure that the research results are transparent, the project participants document the process by which they were obtained. This is undertaken in accordance with the standards of the specialist disciplines. Should the documentation of research results not meet the appropriate standards (of the discipline in question), then any reservations and the reasons for these are explained with full transparency.
(2) If software is developed for projects, then the source code is documented and made available for future use.
§7 Usage rights
(1) The rights to the use of research data developed, established, or collected by academic staff during a project lie expressly with the team in question. These data must also be made available to the head of the relevant department for the purposes of quality assurance and project management.
(2) Upon completion of a project, all research data and the rights of use thereof become the property of the HAB. The HAB ensures that these research data are archived and made permanently accessible. In the case of electronic data, the HAB guarantees that these are stored in reliable repositories. In some cases, periods of limitation may be agreed to protect personal rights. This is stipulated in detail in each project’s data management plan.
(3) The research results produced by project participants are considered their own intellectual property. The head of the project ensures that the associated rights and responsibilities are respected for all project participants.
(4) When research data and results are published, all existing rights of third parties must be respected.
§8 Authorship
(1) An author is deemed to be whoever has made a genuine and transparent contribution to the contents of a scholarly publication.
(2) If a contribution is not sufficient to justify authorship, it may be appropriately acknowledged in footnotes, in a foreword or in acknowledgements.
(3) Honorary authorship is not permissible.
(4) A managerial or supervisory function alone does not justify co-authorship.
(5) Scholars agree among themselves who is to be named as the author(s) of research results. They agree in a timely fashion on the order in which their names are listed – as a rule, at the latest when a manuscript is drafted – drawing on transparent criteria and the relevant conventions of their specific field.
(6) Any required permission to publish research results may not be denied without good reason. Refusal to permit publication must be backed up by a critique of data, methods and results that is open to scrutiny.
§9 Publication of research results
(1) Authors of research results obtained within the scope of a project shall appropriately introduce these into the scholarly discourse. Decisions on making research results publicly accessible shall not be dependent on third parties.
(2) All actual authors are to be identified by name.
(3) Authors are responsible for the relevance and quality of their contributions. The head of the project ensures that the requisite frameworks for quality assurance are in place. Any errors in published material discovered after publication shall be corrected.
(4) In cases where project applications contain no agreements concerning publication formats, project participants may select these themselves. Publication media with their own standards on good academic practice are preferred.
(5) In addition, the HAB supports publishing projects through its own publications department and the journal Zeitschrift für digitale Geisteswissenschaften (ZfdG).
(6) In future, the HAB will increasingly support the open-access publication of research results.
§10 Scientific misconduct
(1) Scientific misconduct in a scholarly context occurs when, deliberately or through gross negligence, an individual presents the work of others as their own without permission or compromises the research activities of others. Any suspected scientific misconduct must be immediately reported to the ombudsperson or the deputy ombudsperson, see §5.
(2) The investigating body treats the names of the persons reporting scientific misconduct confidentially and does not pass these on to third parties without express consent. The only case in which this does not apply is when there is a legal provision ruling otherwise or the persons suspected of scientific misconduct cannot defend themselves appropriately without the names in question. The reporting persons are also to be protected in the case of the scientific misconduct not being substantiated, unless the report is shown to have been made against their better knowledge.
(3) Anonymous reports are not investigated.
(4) In every case innocence is presumed. Where misconduct is suspected, the personal rights of the individual or individuals under suspicion shall be respected. All statements concerning this are to be treated in confidence.
(5) The ombudsperson ensures that the reporting persons suffer no personal or professional disadvantage as a result of their report.
(6) The HAB directors establish a five-person commission to investigate cases in which suspicion is substantiated. This commission consists of the administrative director or their deputy, the ombudsperson or the deputy ombudsperson, a member of the staff council and two further academic staff members who are appointed by the director. The members of the commission are obliged to disclose any information that may lead to concerns of bias. In cases of bias, conflict of interest or other hindrance, deputies are provided.
(7) The suspected and the reporting persons shall be given the opportunity to make statements at every phase of the procedure.
(8) If the commission establishes scientific misconduct in the course of their joint consultations, the director decides on the consequences for the individuals concerned. Depending on the nature and severity of the misconduct, these may include written reprimands, official warnings, demands that the persons concerned withdraw any incriminated publications or correct false data, and notification of the DFG and/or the funding body. In this case, the sanctions imposed by the funding body apply.
