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

25 results for the keyword "research software"

Archiving of research software

24.04.2025 – The requirement to archive research software covers a range of aspects. Practical guides issued in connection with the NFDI provide support in this area.

Comment on: GL17 (General)

Research software documentation

24.04.2025 – When the development of research results shall be fully documented, this more often includes the research software used.

Comment on: GL12 (General)

FAIR access to research software

19.03.2025 – Research software used to generate and publish research results should be incorporated in scientific discourse. Researchers themselves decide how to publish their research software.

Comment on: GL13 (General)

Quality assurance in the development of research software

19.03.2025 – Quality assurance has a key role to play in the development of research software. The DFG has established five guiding principles for this purpose.

Comment on: GL7 (General)

Diverse (digital) publication options in the humanities and social sciences

23.04.2021 – In the humanities and social sciences, a variety of formats in different media are suitable for publishing research results in the humanities, which should be carefully assessed prior to publication. Important criteria here include the reputability of the ...

Comment on: GL15 (Humanities and social sciences)

Preamble – Life Sciences

20.04.2021 – Characteristics of life science research and associated requirements for quality-promoting measures

Comment on: Preamble (Life sciences)

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)

Software development and handling research data in mathematics

03.12.2020 – Appropriate accessibility is important in terms of the verifiability of research work in mathematics where self-developed software and data are key factors.

Comment on: GL7 (Natural sciences) , GL12 (Natural sciences) , GL13 (Natural sciences) , GL17 (Natural sciences)

Development of research software and its archiving

03.12.2020 – Appropriate version management systems should be used in the development and archiving of research software.

Comment on: GL17 (General)

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)

Further links on the subject of methods and standards

03.12.2020 – Sammlung externer Links zum Themenkomplex.

Comment on: GL11 (Link list)

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: GL7 (Humanities and social sciences) , GL12 (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)

Public access to the source code in the case of self-programmed software in connection with mathematical projects

03.12.2020 – The results of publicly funded research projects should be fully accessible to the public.

Comment on: GL13 (Natural sciences)

Restrictions on the publication of source codes

03.12.2020 – Restrictions on making source code publicly available may exist for copyright reasons. It can be useful to differentiate between the underlying algorithms and the source code.

Comment on: GL13 (General)

Electronic laboratory journal and repository in chemistry

03.12.2020 – An electronic laboratory journal in conjunction with a repository are described as an example in the field of chemistry.

Comment on: GL7 (Natural sciences) , GL12 (Natural sciences) , GL13 (Natural sciences) , GL17 (Natural sciences)

Authorship in the life sciences

03.12.2020 – The attribution and origin of published contributions or findings must be clearly recognisable based on details of the individuals involved. This applies to both publications and research proposals. Due to the variety of research questions as well as ...

Comment on: GL14 (Life sciences)

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)

Enabling the availability of primary data and archiving it

03.12.2020 – Numerical simulations can generate very large quantities of data, so it is not always expedient to make the direct results – i.e. the primary data – available in full for the purpose of verifiability and reuse.

Comment on: GL7 (Natural sciences) , GL13 (Natural sciences) , GL17 (Natural 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) , GL13 (General)

Further links on making research results publicly accessible

03.12.2020 – Sammlung externer Links zum Themenkomplex.

Comment on: GL13 (Link list)

The role of software developers in publications

03.12.2020 – Software developers can be named as authors, providing the publication was only possible with their active participation.

Comment on: GL14 (General)

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)

|