What constitutes good academic practice? In this interview, Christiane Thiel, Vice President for Research and Transfer, talks about a good error culture and the responsibility that individuals and institutions bear.
Ms Thiel, since last autumn, the university has had new "Regulations on the principles for safeguarding good academic practice". What is it about?
The guidelines of the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the university's regulations are the foundation of scientific work. They define the right and wrong way to proceed. It is about scientific honesty and ensuring that we researchers collect, analyse and present data to the best of our knowledge and belief in accordance with the state of the art of research. The guidelines also describe the institutional conditions that are necessary to promote and guarantee the integrity of science.
The DFG first defined corresponding standards in 1998.
At that time, several high-calibre published studies had to be retracted because data had not been documented in a comprehensible manner or had even been manipulated. Since then, the guidelines have been repeatedly updated and universities and scientific institutions are required to implement the standards at their institutions. This is a prerequisite for receiving funding from the DFG in the future. Ultimately, it is about the credibility of science.
Which aspects of good academic practice are particularly important in your view?
As Vice President for Research and Transfer, open science, free access to scientific knowledge and the FAIR principles are at the top of my agenda. "FAIR" means "Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Re-Usable" - findability, accessibility, interoperability and reusability. This is about researchers making their data findable and publicly accessible and documenting it in such a way that others can reproduce a study - so that they can repeat it or find errors.
What framework conditions does the university need to create for this?
As an institution, we need to provide an infrastructure for managing data, for example. Repositories, digital infrastructures, make it possible for data to be easily found and documented for the long term. The university has been operating the "dare" research data repository since this year. Of course, there have been many subject-specific repositories and corresponding national and international initiatives for years. One example is the National Data Infrastructures (NFDI). The University of Oldenburg became a member of NFDI this year and last year, researchers from the university took the lead in acquiring the NFDI4Energy network.
Together with the sociologist Prof Dr Martin Heidenreich, the chemist Prof Dr Katharina Al-Shamery is the central contact person for the topic of good academic practice as an ombudsperson. What tasks does she fulfil in this role and why has the number of conflict cases increased in the past?
What responsibility do the researchers themselves bear?
The heads of scientific institutions in particular, 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 have to inform my staff about what good scientific work is, keep an eye on whether the standards are being implemented and introduce doctoral candidates to this responsibility. There are courses at the university that teach the basics of good academic practice. In such courses, doctoral candidates should be able to discuss various aspects, as there is not always a clear right or wrong. Such courses should be part of the degree programme, at the latest at the start of the Bachelor's thesis.
Is academic misconduct a significant problem?
I think the problem is gradual. The fact that someone falsifies or invents data is the exception rather than the rule. However, it is certainly more common for research data to be sloppily documented or for a data analysis to contain errors. This does not necessarily have to be misconduct. But you should talk about it openly and critically assess how and why the errors occurred.
What else can institutions and researchers do to raise awareness of good scientific work?
On the one hand, it is important to have a good error culture, to deal with errors openly and to address them when they are discovered. This should always be done in the work units first. In the final instance, there are ombudspersons. These are experienced researchers who work in complete confidentiality. On the other hand, the DFG guideline calls on institutions and managers not to cement power structures and thus prevent abuse. To a certain extent, doctoral candidates and employees are always dependent on the head of the working group, which can make it difficult to address mistakes. However, measures such as a more independent assessment of doctorates 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 assessed much more in terms of quality than before. Is there a change in academic culture?
For some time now, the DFG has been focussing more 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 receive funding was one of the triggers for scientific misconduct. Other criteria now apply, such as whether the FAIR principles are adhered to. This is a lever that the university can also use, for example when filling positions. According to the guideline, commitment to teaching or transfer can also be included in the assessment. Many things are still in their infancy, but will play an increasingly important role in the future.
Interview: Constanze Böttcher