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

Comment on:

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

Guideline 12

Documentation

Researchers document all information relevant to the production of a research result as clearly as is required by and is appropriate for the relevant subject area to allow the result to be reviewed and assessed. In general, this also includes documenting individual results that do not support the research hypothesis. The selection of results must be avoided. Where subject-specific recommendations exist for review and assessment, researchers create documentation in accordance with these guidelines. If the documentation does not satisfy these requirements, the constraints and the reasons for them are clearly explained. Documentation and research results must not be manipulated; they are protected as effectively as possible against manipulation.

Explanations:

An important basis for enabling replication is to make available the information necessary to understand the research (including the research data used or generated, the methodological, evaluation and analytical steps taken, and, if relevant, the development of the hypothesis), to ensure that citations are clear, and, as far as possible, to enable third parties to access this information. Where research software is being developed, the source code is documented.

Further links on the subject of documentation

Disclaimer: The selection of links provided here does not claim to be exhaustive. They are examples. The editors welcome suggestions for the inclusion of further examples.

Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing

The Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association has issued its Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. There are no “white lists” or “black lists”, and quite deliberately so: the principles, of which there are 16 in all, are intended as a checklist for publication media against which they can measure themselves. Lack of transparency with regard to one or more of the principles is an initial indication of doubt as to the integrity of a publication medium.
Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing

FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship

The FAIR principles provide guidelines for good practice in making digital data available and accessible in a research context. They cover the aspects of findability, accessibility, interoperability and reuse of digital assets.
FAIR Principles

Study on the publication of reproducible research results by Knowledge Exchange

This study by Knowledge Exchange focuses on the publication of reproducible research results. In addition to benefits such as quality assurance and better reuse of research data and research software, it also addresses challenges and describes different stakeholders as well as infrastructural aspects and the costs of reproducibility.
The Art of Publishing Reproducible Research Outputs: Supporting Emerging Practices through Cultural and Technological Innovation

Guidelines on the Handling of Research Software

The development of standards for handling research software is currently the subject of intense debate. A general overview of the questions that arise in the development and use of research software as well as the solutions currently being pursued is provided in the document “Recommendations on the Handling of Research Software” published as part of the Alliance’s Digital Information Initiative.
Guidelines on the Handling of Research Software (2018) (available in German only)

Maintaining Storage Capacity

Positive example: German Climate Computing CentreNational Research Data InfrastructureDFG – National Research Data Infrastructure

Maintaining Storage Capacity in the Geosciences

Registry of Research Data RepositoriesIntegrated Climate Data CenterData Publisher for Earth & Environmental Science

Laboratory Journals and Field Books in the Geosciences

TU Freiberg – Laboratory journal – For documentation of the experiments and results (available in German only)

Use of Standards in the Geosciences

ACTRIS Data CentrePractical example of the utilisation of older databases: Project Group ROHSA 3

Appropriate accessibility is important in terms of the verifiability of research work in mathematics where self-developed software and data have a key role to play.

GitHubZenodo

Notes from the field of the life sciences

Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (Tierexperimentelle Forschung)Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (Biomedizinische Forschung)Guide for quality-promoting aspects in medicine and biomedicine

The comment belongs to the following categories:

GL12 (Link list)

Keywords:

archivingauthorshipdocumentationFAIR principlesresearch datapublication

|