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
The Code of Conduct
| Print

Keyword index

21 results for the keyword "replication/reproduction"

Academic publishing as a foundation and area of leverage for research assessment

25.11.2022 – The DFG has responded to developments in the field of academic publishing with its position paper “Academic Publishing as a Foundation and Area of Leverage for Research Assessment”.

Comment on: GL13 (Statements)

DFG statement on the replicability of research results

03.06.2022 – Replication, is only one of many different procedures for assuring the quality of results in fields of science that use empirical-quantitative methods.

Comment on: GL7 (Statements)

Guidelines for quality-promoting aspects in medicine and biomedicine

06.07.2021 – An orientation for applicants, reviewers and committee members.

Comment on: Preamble (Life sciences) , Preamble (Statements) , GL7 (Life sciences) , GL7 (Statements) , GL9 (Life sciences) , GL9 (Statements) , GL11 (Life sciences) , GL11 (Statements) , GL12 (Life sciences) , GL12 (Statements)

Handling research software – case studies

03.12.2020 – Based on practical examples, the handling of research software is explained in the fields of theoretical chemistry and theoretical physics.

Comment on: GL13 (General) , GL13 (Practical examples)

Methods and standards in the life sciences

03.12.2020 – Many methods used in life science projects are subject to limitations. When selecting a method, it is important to consider its strengths and weaknesses; this should be documented and compensated for by means of the appropriate controls. Research in the ...

Comment on: GL11 (Life sciences)

Scientific achievement and evaluation criteria in the life sciences

03.12.2020 – The rapid availability of methods has greatly accelerated research in many areas of the life sciences. Intense competition, combined with the enormous pressure to publish, is difficult to reconcile with high quality standards. Quantitative publication ...

Comment on: GL5 (Life sciences)

Research design in the life sciences

03.12.2020 – There is a relatively high risk of (unconscious) bias in the interpretation of results or in the selection of certain results due to the complex nature of the subjects of study in the life sciences. At the same time, research carried out on living ...

Comment on: GL9 (Life sciences) , GL13 (Life sciences)

Handling research data in the humanities and social sciences

03.12.2020 – Research data in humanities and social science projects are as diverse as the wide range of subjects and methods and form an integral part of the research results. A conscious approach to the documentation, maintenance, archiving and provision of data for ...

Comment on: GL5 (Humanities and social sciences) , GL7 (Humanities and social sciences) , GL10 (Humanities and social sciences) , GL12 (Humanities and social sciences) , GL13 (Humanities and social sciences) , GL17 (Humanities and social sciences)

Sex, gender and diversity in research

03.12.2020 – In some research projects, the consideration of sex, gender and diversity dimensions can lead to the avoidance of "blind spots" and thus increase the scientific quality of the results. Therefore, reflection on sex, gender and diversity should be part of ...

Comment on: GL9 (General)

Documentation in the life sciences

03.12.2020 – In the life sciences, an increasing quantity of data is generated that is exclusively available in digital form. For this reason, the use of electronic documentation facilities such as electronic laboratory notebooks is recommended. Data security and ...

Comment on: GL12 (Life sciences)

Overarching quality assurance in the life sciences

03.12.2020 – In the life sciences, quality assurance in a research project begins with thorough research into the state of knowledge and a clear definition of where there are gaps in knowledge. Researchers are expected to use contemporary analytical methods for ...

Comment on: GL7 (Life sciences) , GL13 (Life sciences)

Notes on documentation when using computer-assisted algorithmic or data-driven procedures in research

03.12.2020 – A description of the extent of documentation to be expected when using computerised algorithmic or data-driven processes, including tracking processes or machine learning, is provided.

Comment on: GL11 (General) , GL12 (General)

Archiving in the life sciences

03.12.2020 – Information and research data that is important to understanding the published results should ideally be archived for at least ten years for the purpose of verifiability. In some cases, it may be more expedient to hold the central samples for re-analysis ...

Comment on: GL17 (Life sciences)

Making Research Results Accessible in the Life Sciences

03.12.2020 – The aim should always be to publish a full set of results, since correct correlations and new insights can be gained more effectively and efficiently based on a comprehensive overview of previously elaborated research outcomes. When evaluating results, ...

Comment on: GL13 (Life sciences)

What is the correct interpretation of the sentence: “Software programmed by researchers themselves is made publicly available along with the source code”?

03.12.2020 – The sentence “Software programmed by researchers themselves is made publicly available along with the source code” is intrinsically linked to the concept of enabling public availability as introduced in Guideline 7 (“Cross-phase quality ...

Comment on: GL7 (General) , GL10 (General) , GL13 (General)

Further links relating to research design

03.12.2020 – Collection of external links on the subject

Comment on: GL9 (Link list)

Reproducibility of research results in medicine and biomedicine

03.12.2020 – This statement was prepared in 2018 by the DFG Permanent Senate Commission on Key Questions in Clinical Research in consultation with the DFG Permanent Senate Commission on Animal Protection and Experimentation and the DFG Permanent Senate Commission on ...

Comment on: GL7 (Statements) , GL9 (Statements) , GL12 (Statements)

Documentation concept

03.12.2020 – Even in the planning phase of a research project, it is important to consider conceptual questions regarding data management as well as the documentation of project progression, methods and results.

Comment on: GL12 (Engineering/engineering sciences) , GL12 (Natural sciences)

Use of standards in the geosciences

03.12.2020 – It is always preferable to use standards that have been developed in the relevant subject areas.

Comment on: GL7 (Natural sciences) , GL11 (Natural sciences) , GL12 (Natural sciences)

Publication media in the life sciences

03.12.2020 – In the life sciences, results are often published in specialist journals and there is a peer review process for this purpose. Prompt availability and open access to published content is vital to scientific progress in the life sciences: this helps ensure ...

Comment on: GL15 (Life sciences)

Further links on protagonists, responsibilities and roles

03.12.2020 – Sammlung externer Links zum Themenkomplex.

Comment on: GL8 (Link list)

|