Good research practice

The Ombuds Office assists ombudspersons with their tasks and is the first point of contact for anyone looking for advice and for whistleblowers. Ombuds Office staff treat all queries and evidence with strict confidentiality.

Initial contact be made in writing via email(ombudsstelle"AT"uni-hamburg.de), by telephone (+49 40 42838-3564), or in-person by appointment. Those looking for advice have the opportunity to clarify all questions regarding the ombuds process before describing their specific concerns. If desired, the Ombuds Office can provide advice without involving an ombudsperson. However, ombuds proceedings that aim to clarify the circumstances of a matter and mediate in a conflict must involve an ombudsperson.

The Ombuds Office also offers support in terms of coaching, which is aimed at people who find themselves in an actual conflict situation (e.g., in the form of a doctoral project) but expressly do not want an ombudsperson to mediate.

In addition to its administrative and advising tasks, the Ombuds Office also offers information and further training on good research practice.

Anonymous advising is possible, both in person and per telephone. However, this does not allow a conflict to be mediated in the usual manner, as an ombudsperson cannot represent the person seeking advice.

In most cases, a violation of the rules on good research practice can be resolved through ombuds proceedings, and/or the parties involved can (ideally) mutually reach an agreement on how to deal with it in future.

For example, legitimate unrecognized authorship can be amended in an appropriate manner (erratum) by subsequently listing someone as an author. In contrast, classic research misconduct, such as data manipulation or plagiarism, generally cannot be corrected.

As a general rule, a mistake or an assumption made in good faith that turns out to be in error does not constitute research misconduct. Rather, mistakes and errors are part of everyday research life and, in the best case, serve to gain knowledge.

However, if an error is covered up or an existing error is presented as a justified assumption (e.g., by creatively changing the hypothesis), this is the first step toward research dishonesty, which could be classified as a breach of the rules or—depending on the extent and severity—as research misconduct. Disclosing errors and mistakes is good research practice.

Queries about conflicts or issues that are not directly related to the topic of good research practice or research misconduct are not primarily the responsibility of ombudspersons. These non-related issues concern labor law, complaints about possible discrimination or bullying in the workplace, communication problems, and the like. Those seeking advice are then informed about or referred to the advising services and points of contact at Universität Hamburg.

Furthermore, the Ombuds Office is not responsible for clarifying concerns related to bachelor’s or master’s students’ examinations or similar issues.

In the course of the ombuds proceedings, it may turn out that—when considering the matter as a whole—it is necessary to clarify whether and, if so, which other persons or points of contact at Universität Hamburg should be informed or involved. Generally, this is possible only with the explicit consent of the person seeking advice, to ensure the necessary confidentiality is observed.

Continuing education in good research practice covers the contents of the German Research Foundation’s regulations and Universität Hamburg’s bylaws and their practical application in everyday research. Teaching individual responsibility as part of research integrity serves to reduce research misconduct and questionable practices. This also includes the appropriate handling of conflicts and breaches of the rules of good research practice.

Continuing education courses

Ombudspersons’ primary duties are to advise on issues relating to good research practice and to mediate conflicts that may arise from a lack of compliance with the rules of good research practice. They also receive specific evidence of possible breaches of rules and suspected research misconduct. They examine and clarify the underlying facts and determine—ideally, together with the parties to the conflict—possible viable solutions to the matter.

Universität Hamburg has an Ombuds Committee that consists of 5 professors.

As a rule, one ombudsperson is in charge of an ombuds matter. The committee members discuss individual matters and exchange information on current cases at the quarterly ombuds meetings. They are able to represent each other if necessary in a specific case.

All ombuds work is conducted on the basis of ensuring confidentiality. Those seeking advice and whistleblowers can be sure that all matters will be handled with the strictest confidence and that the ombudspersons will use absolute discretion. All persons involved in an ombuds matter must always maintain confidentiality.

Ombudspersons are independent in their work and neutral toward all persons involved in a conflict. If the ombudsperson expresses bias or if such bias becomes apparent in the course of proceedings, another member of the Ombuds Committee will take over the handling of the matter.

The ombudsperson or Ombuds Office usually checks the documents submitted with regard to plausibility, specificity, and their relevance in relation to the suspicion raised and discusses the resulting options for further action with the whistleblower. If consent has been obtained, the person implicated in the evidence is asked for a statement. Depending on the outcome, the ombudsperson decides whether it is a case of conflict or a breach of the rules that can be resolved through mediation and by working out a solution that the parties agree on.

If it becomes clear at the beginning or in the course of the proceedings that there is a valid suspicion of research misconduct that cannot be resolved, the ombudsperson will end their mediation efforts and refer the matter to the Standing Committee of Experts. This investigative committee is responsible for in-depth examination of such cases of suspicion.

Examples of research misconduct can be found in Section 3 paragraph 2 of the bylaws (PDF).

First of all, it must be emphasized that evidence of a specific breach of the rules of good research practice must always be verifiable. A mere assumption—however well-founded it may appear—is not sufficient for an in-depth clarification by an ombudsperson. Only an initial intensive consultation can take place in such cases.

Expressions of suspicion of research misconduct must always be done in good faith. Determining how a suspicion of research misconduct can be substantiated in a way that enables the ombudsperson to take action can differ greatly and sometimes be quite difficult. Evidence can include emails, any kind of documentation (laboratory logs, protocols, written agreements), manuscript versions, publications (own and/or those of others), supervision agreements, and so forth. What evidence is required and sufficient to investigate a suspicious case must be discussed and decided on a case-by-case basis.

In practice, it is not uncommon for whistleblowers to describe situations or conversations for which there is no evidence. In such cases, summarizing such incidents in writing after the fact can be helpful; however, the subsequent minutes must then be marked clearly.

In a specific conflict situation, regular and prompt note-taking is generally advisable.

There are ombuds matters or specific suspicions involving individuals from different institutions that raise the question of which ombudsperson is then responsible. In such cases, we recommend contacting the German Research Ombudsman, based in Berlin.

This national committee is available to all researchers who have questions regarding good research practice or wish to provide a nonlocal ombudsperson with evidence of possible research misconduct. Those seeking advice may choose to contact either a local ombudsperson or a national ombudsperson and are not required to justify their decision to anyone.

However, it must be remembered that only one ombudsperson can act on the same matter at the same time or in succession. Thus, it is important to find out about the various ombudspersons’ or ombuds committees’ approaches at an early stage and, if possible, before a specific cause arises.

In principle, the German Research Ombudsman and the Universität Hamburg ombudspersons have virtually the same assignment; however, their areas of responsibility differ. In the case of the ombudspersons and Universität Hamburg Ombuds Committee, this is limited to current and former members of Universität Hamburg, as defined in Section 1 of the bylaws (PDF). In contrast, the German Research Ombudsman is active nationwide and is available to all researchers who have questions on good research practice or require information on possible research misconduct.

The German Research Ombudsman’s procedure in a specific case of suspected research misconduct is also comparable to that of the Universtität Hamburg committee. However, there is a significant difference when a matter has to be referred to the relevant investigative committee due to a valid suspicion of research misconduct. If there is a DFG connection—for example, if someone working on a DFG-funded project is suspected of manipulating data—the German Research Ombudsman will forward the matter to the Committee of Inquiry on Allegations of Scientific Misconduct at the DFG’s head office in Bonn. Take note of the information on the DFG’s procedure in cases of suspected research misconduct.

If there is no connection to a DFG-funded project, the German Research Ombudsman will return the case to the investigative committee of the research institution in question—here, that would be the Standing Committee of Experts.

Ideally, the whistleblower and the ombudsperson should jointly decide whether or not to initiate proceedings. In addition to evaluating the documents at hand, the advantages and disadvantages of such proceedings must also be carefully weighed up. Particularly in matters where there is a relationship with an obvious one-sided dependency, the whistleblower should be advised of the potential ramifications. In some cases, before starting ombuds proceedings, it may be reasonable to wait until, for example, an ongoing doctoral project has been completed.

If a whistleblower decides not to initiate an ombuds proceeding, that decision will be respected and no proceeding initiated. One possible exception may be if the presented and documented suspicion of research misconduct makes an investigation absolutely necessary—for example, if people have been or could be harmed or if considerable damage could result for the University as a whole. In such a case, special consideration to ensure the protection of the whistleblower must be provided.

According to the Universität Hamburg bylaws, participation in ombuds proceedings is mandatory for University members, and no one may decline to cooperate. Specifically, this means, for example, that a request from the Ombuds Committee for an opinion on a specific matter or an invitation to a meeting with an ombudsperson may not go unanswered.

As a rule, the individual seeking advice decides whether the matter should be dealt with in ombuds proceedings. However, if such proceedings have been initiated, the ombudsperson is responsible for the course of the proceedings and also for deciding whether they should be concluded.

Ombuds proceedings are usually concluded when all the parties involved have found and agreed to a solution to the existing conflict. This could be, for example, a written agreement that details the points that have been agreed and/or need to be settled. Sometimes, a conflict that has been reported can also be resolved in a joint discussion with the parties involved, and then the ombuds proceedings can be ended directly. The ombudsperson or the Ombuds Office will inform the parties involved about the final decision on the conclusion of the proceedings.

If one of the parties actively refuses to resolve the conflict or attempts to prevent a resolution, the matter may be referred to the Standing Committee of Experts. This particularly applies if there are clear indications that the whistleblower has been or will be disadvantaged as a result of referring the matter to the ombudsperson.