ForewordPreamble

Principles

Guideline 1: Commitment to the general principlesGuideline 2: Professional ethicsGuideline 3: Organisational responsibility of heads of research institutionsGuideline 4: Responsibility of the heads of research work unitsGuideline 5: Dimensions of performance and assessment criteriaGuideline 6: Ombudspersons

Research Process

Guideline 7: Cross-phase quality assuranceGuideline 8: Stakeholders, responsibilities and rolesGuideline 9: Research design

 

Guideline 10: Legal and ethical frameworks, usage rightsGuideline 11: Methods and standardsGuideline 12: DocumentationGuideline 13: Providing public access to research resultsGuideline 14: AuthorshipGuideline 15: Publication mediumGuideline 16: Confidentiality and neutrality of review processes and discussionsGuideline 17: Archiving

Non-Compliance with Good Research Practice, Procedures

Guideline 18: Complainants and respondentsGuideline 19: Procedures in cases of alleged research misconductImplementation of the Guidelines
ForewordPreamblePrinzipienGuideline 1: Commitment to the general principlesGuideline 2: Professional ethicsGuideline 3: Organisational responsibility of heads of research institutionsGuideline 4: Responsibility of the heads of research work unitsGuideline 5: Dimensions of performance and assessment criteriaGuideline 6: OmbudspersonsForschungsprozessGuideline 7: Cross-phase quality assuranceGuideline 8: Stakeholders, responsibilities and rolesGuideline 9: Research designGuideline 10: Legal and ethical frameworks, usage rightsGuideline 11: Methods and standardsGuideline 12: DocumentationGuideline 13: Providing public access to research resultsGuideline 14: AuthorshipGuideline 15: Publication mediumGuideline 16: Confidentiality and neutrality of review processes and discussionsGuideline 17: ArchivingNichtbeachtung guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis, VerfahrenGuideline 18: Complainants and respondentsGuideline 19: Procedures in cases of alleged research misconductImplementation of the Guidelines
Keyword Index
Back to last page
| Print

Comment on:

The following comment refers to this/these guideline(s)

Guideline 13

Providing public access to research results

As a rule, researchers make all results available as part of scientific/academic discourse. In specific cases, however, there may be reasons not to make results publicly available (in the narrower sense of publication, but also in a broader sense through other communication channels); this decision must not depend on third parties. Researchers decide autonomously – with due regard for the conventions of the relevant subject area – whether, how and where to disseminate their results. If it has been decided to make results available in the public domain, researchers describe them clearly and in full. Where possible and reasonable, this includes making the research data, materials and information on which the results are based, as well as the methods and software used, available and fully explaining the work processes. Software programmed by researchers them- selves is made publicly available along with the source code. Researchers provide full and correct information about their own preliminary work and that of others.

Explanations:

In the interest of transparency and to enable research to be referred to and reused by others, whenever possible researchers make the research data and principal materials on which a publication is based available in recognised archives and repositories in accordance with the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable). Restrictions may apply to public availability in the case of patent applications. If self-developed research software is to be made available to third parties, an appropriate licence is provided.

In line with the principle of “quality over quantity”, researchers avoid split- ting research into inappropriately small publications. They limit the repetition of content from publications of which they were (co-)authors to that which is necessary to enable the reader to understand the context. They cite results previously made publicly available unless, in exceptional cases, this is deemed unnecessary by the general conventions of the discipline.

FAIR access to research software

According to Guideline 13, research software that has been used to generate and make research results publicly available should always be included in scientific discourse. Making research software accessible through recognised repositories supports the verifiability of scientific results, enables follow-up research on related questions, and promotes reuse of the findings.

Researchers remain responsible for deciding whether, how and where to make their research software publicly accessible, taking into account the standards and practices of their discipline. In line with the FAIR4RS principles, efforts should be made to ensure that research software is as easily findable as possible for machines and that it is released under an appropriate licence for use in research so as to enable reuse, particularly with a view to further developing the software. This generally also includes transparent, verifiable documentation and provision of such elements as the source code, together with the underlying algorithms where applicable, the functionality of the research software, and its architecture (including compilers used, operating systems, information on data, rights management systems and governance structures, where relevant).

If research software developed in-house is to be made available not only to ensure the verifiability of research results but also for use or reuse by third parties, the rights holder of the research software may grant usage rights under an appropriate licence (see also Struck et al., 2020). However, in individual cases there may be reasons that prevent the public release of the research software including its source code, or the granting of usage rights under a licence. Generally speaking, in view of various facets of Article 5(3) of the German Basic Law (freedom of research) – such as the right not to publish – there may be reasons that justify limiting public access. These include ongoing publication processes that have not yet been completed, novelty-destroying disclosure with regard to intellectual property rights, conflicting third-party rights in connection with commissioned research, and ethical considerations in the context of security-related research.

  • There may be valid reasons for imposing an embargo period on the publication of source code or executable files in order to safeguard legitimate interests, such as allowing the developers themselves to reuse or further develop the research software.
  • Additionally, there may be reasons for only making compiled software publicly available – for instance to enable replication or reproduction of research results generated using the software – without requiring public release of the source code.
  • It might also make sense to differentiate between the underlying algorithms and the source code.
  • In addition, it is conceivable that access to certain content may only be granted to a limited group of individuals, or, in certain cases, to specific persons on request.

See also

Quality assurance in the development of research software
Handling of Research Software in the DFG’s Funding Activities
Barker, Chue Hong, Katz et al. (2022): Introducing the FAIR Principles for research software,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01710-x
Struck, A., Loewe, A., Achhammer, E., Rack, F., Bach, F., Löffler, F., Seemann, G., Anzt, H., Funk, M., Unger, S., Druskat, S., & Friedl, S. (2020). A Guide for Publishing, Using, and Licensing Research Software in Germany. Zenodo.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4327148

The comment belongs to the following categories:

GL13 (General)

Keywords:

FAIR principlesresearch software

|