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 16

Confidentiality and neutrality of review processes and discussions

Fair behaviour is the basis for the legitimacy of any judgement-forming process. Researchers who evaluate submitted manuscripts, funding proposals or personal qualifications are obliged to maintain strict confidentiality with regard to this process. They disclose all facts that could give rise to the appearance of a conflict of interest. The duty of confidentiality and disclosure of facts that could give rise to the appearance of a conflict of interest also applies to members of research advisory and decision-making bodies.

Explanations:

The confidentiality of third-party material to which a reviewer or committee member gains access precludes sharing the material with third parties or making personal use of it. Researchers immediately disclose to the responsible body any potential or apparent conflicts of interest, bias or favouritism relating to the research project being reviewed or the person or matter being discussed.

Breach of the GDPR, and disclosure to third parties of documents received for the purpose of review constituting an act of scientific misconduct

The unauthorised disclosure of proposal documents provided by the DFG for the purpose of review, including the personal data contained therein (curriculum vitae, project proposals, scientific projects, final reports by applicants), may constitute a violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In such a case, the institution where the reviewer in question works is obliged, as the data protection controller, to verify whether it is necessary to notify the supervisory authority pursuant to Article 33 of the GDPR or the data subject(s) pursuant to Article 34 of the GDPR.

Irrespective of any violation of the General Data Protection Regulation, the disclosure of such documents may constitute scientific misconduct according to the DFG’s Rules of Procedure for Dealing with Scientific Misconduct.

For this reason, if it is necessary to obtain expertise from third parties, it is advisable to ensure that they only receive the information about the planned research project that is absolutely necessary to answer the specific question. Should it be necessary from the point of view of a reviewer to obtain the expertise of a third person, the body that sent the documents for the purpose of the review must be consulted in advance. The compilation of a review is a highly personal matter and may not be delegated. The documents provided for review are to be treated as strictly confidential and may not be passed on. Even isolated personal data of the applicants may not be disclosed.

If a reviewer does determine that they should not be the person to review a proposal, they are obliged to inform the body that sent the documents for the purpose of the review and to immediately delete or destroy all documents sent to them in accordance with data protection law.

DFG – Rules of Procedure for Dealing with Scientific Misconduct (VerfOwF)

The comment belongs to the following categories:

GL16 (General)

Keywords:

review processdata protection/data privacyresearch misconduct

|