What constitutes good academic practice? In this interview, Christiane Thiel, Vice-President for Research and Knowledge Transfer, discusses a healthy culture of error and the responsibilities borne by individuals and institutions.
Ms Thiel, since last autumn the University has had a new ‘Regulation on the Principles for Ensuring Good Academic Practice’. What is this about?
The guidelines of the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the University’s regulations form the foundation of academic work. They define what constitutes correct and incorrect practice. It is about scientific integrity and ensuring that we researchers collect, analyse and present data to the best of our knowledge and belief, ‘lege artis’, in line with the current state of research. The guidelines also describe the institutional conditions necessary to promote and safeguard the integrity of science.
The DFG first defined these standards in 1998.
This was prompted at the time by several high-profile published studies that had to be retracted because data had not been documented in a verifiable manner or had even been manipulated. Since then, the guidelines have been updated regularly, and universities and research institutions are required to implement these standards within their organisations. This is a prerequisite for continuing to receive funding from the DFG in the future. Ultimately, it is a matter of the credibility of science.
Which aspects of good academic practice do you consider to be particularly important?
As Vice-President for Research and Transfer, Open Science, open access to scientific knowledge, and the FAIR principles are at the top of my agenda. ‘FAIR’ stands for ‘Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Re-Usable’ – findability, accessibility, interoperability and reusability. The aim here is for researchers to make their data discoverable and publicly accessible, and to document it in such a way that others can understand a study – either to replicate it or to identify any errors.
What framework does the university need to put in place to achieve this?
As an institution, we need to provide an infrastructure for data management, for example. Repositories and digital infrastructures ensure that data is easily discoverable, well documented and preserved in the long term. Since this year, the university has been operating the research data repository ‘dare’. Of course, there have been many subject-specific repositories, as well as corresponding national and international initiatives, for years. One example is the National Data Infrastructures (NFDI). The University of Oldenburg became a member of the NFDI this year, and last year researchers from the university played a leading role in securing funding for the NFDI4Energy consortium.
Together with the sociologist Prof. Dr Martin Heidenreich, the chemist Prof. Dr Katharina Al-Shamery serves as the ombudsperson and is the central point of contact for matters relating to good academic practice. What responsibilities does she have in this role, and why has the number of disputes increased in recent years?
What responsibility do researchers themselves bear?
Above all, the management of research institutions, but also the heads of research units, must implement structures that ensure good academic practice. The new guidelines address this aspect even more clearly. As a manager, I have a duty of care. I must inform my staff about what constitutes good academic practice, ensure that the standards are being implemented, and, for example, introduce PhD students to this responsibility. The university offers courses that teach the fundamentals of good academic practice. In such courses, PhD students should be able to discuss various aspects, as there isn’t always a clear right or wrong. During their degree programme, a course on this subject should form part of their training by the time they start their Bachelor’s thesis at the latest.
Is research misconduct a significant problem?
I believe the problem is one of degree. It is rather the exception for someone to falsify or fabricate data. However, it is certainly more common for research data to be documented sloppily, for example, or for a data analysis to contain errors. This does not necessarily constitute misconduct. But we should talk openly about it and critically assess how and why these shortcomings arose.
What else can institutions and researchers do to raise awareness of good scientific practice?
On the one hand, a healthy culture of error is important – one in which mistakes are dealt with openly and addressed when they are discovered. This should always take place within the research units first. Ultimately, there are the ombudspersons. These are experienced researchers who work in strict confidence. On the other hand, the DFG guidelines call on institutions and senior staff not to entrench power structures, thereby preventing abuse. Doctoral candidates and staff are, to a certain extent, always dependent on the leadership of their research group, which can make it difficult to raise issues regarding misconduct. However, measures such as a more independent assessment of doctoral theses or better preparation for leadership roles can help to prevent potential abuse.
The DFG guidelines and the university’s regulations reflect another aspect – namely, that academic achievements are being assessed on the basis of quality to a far greater extent than before. Is there a shift taking place in academic culture?
For some time now, the DFG has been placing greater emphasis on the content of research rather than the number of publications. This is because the pressure to publish as much as possible in order to secure funding was one of the triggers for research misconduct. Further criteria now apply – such as compliance with the FAIR principles. This is a lever that universities can also utilise, for example when filling posts. According to the guidelines, commitment to teaching or to knowledge transfer can also be factored into the assessment. Much of this is still in its infancy, but will play an increasingly important role in the future.
Interview: Constanze Böttcher