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

Keyword index

6 results for the keyword "conflict of interest/bias/favouritism"

Neutrality of review processes and discussions

03.09.2025 – Neutrality is a fundamental prerequisite for fair and reliable scientific review processes and discussions. The consistent disclosure of conflicts of interest, bias or favouritism protects not only individual procedures but also the credibility of science ...

Comment on: GL16 (General)

FAQ on confidentiality and neutrality of review processes and discussions

23.04.2021 – 

Comment on: GL16 (faq)

Confidentiality and neutrality in reviews and consultations in the life sciences

03.12.2020 – Research results in the life sciences can relate directly to socially relevant aspects such as prevention, disease, nutrition and environmental issues. Conscientious, prudent handling of the information contained in project proposals as well as the ...

Comment on: GL16 (Life sciences)

Deputising for an ombudsperson in the event of bias / conflict of interest or absence

03.12.2020 – If an institution provides for only one ombudsperson, the deputy performs the ombudsperson’s duties to the full extent in the event of bias, a potential or actual conflict of interest or in cases of absence.

Comment on: GL6 (General)

Case study: Lack of confidentiality in the review process

03.12.2020 – Scientific misconduct by a reviewer

Comment on: GL16 (Practical examples)

Identity of the reviewer

03.12.2020 – Confidentiality and neutrality in review and consultation are the basis of any honest assessment process and are an inextricable part of the reviewer’s or adviser’s own identity.

Comment on: GL16 (General)

|