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

10 results for the keyword "review process"

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)

Mitigating Bias in Scientific Evaluation and Decision-Making Processes

19.06.2023 – Judgements and discussions (including one’s own) should be critically examined for potential bias.

Comment on: GL3 (General) , GL4 (General) , GL5 (General) , GL16 (General)

Guidelines for quality-promoting aspects in medicine and biomedicine

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

Comment on: GL7 (Life sciences)

FAQ on confidentiality and neutrality of review processes and discussions

23.04.2021 – 

Comment on: GL16 (faq)

Neutrality of assessment

03.12.2020 – Among other things, neutrality of assessment means not pursuing self-interest.

Comment on: GL16 (General)

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)

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)

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)

Individual performance assessment and exclusion of discrimination

03.12.2020 – The academic evaluation of persons may only be based on their individual academic performance. In addition to avoiding legally prohibited discrimination, this also serves to ensure a purely qualitative selection.

Comment on: GL5 (General)

|