Guidelines – Junior Management Science

Guidelines for Ensuring Good Scientific Practice

Preamble

The following regulation implements the Code of Conduct “Guidelines for Ensuring Good Scientific Practice” of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) as amended in August 2019. They are legally binding for all people who are active in research or research support at Junior Management Science e.V. (JUMS).

Section I: Principles of Good Scientific Practice

§ 1 Scope of this constitution

The principles of good scientific practice to be observed in accordance with these statutes will be published on the JUMS website. In addition, all academic staff with employment contracts or civil servants will be informed of the entry into force of this Statute by e-mail.
All scientific employees of JUMS are obliged and responsible for their conduct in accordance with the rules of good scientific practice.
Labor and civil service rights and obligations are not affected by this constitution.

§ 2 Principles of Good Scientific Practice
The principles of good scientific practice include in particular

working lege artis
maintaining strict honesty with regard to one’s own contributions and those of others
consistently questioning one’s own results, and
to allow and promote a critical discourse in the scientific community.

§ 3 Professional Ethics of Researchers

The teaching of the fundamentals of good scientific work begins as early as possible in scientific training (including teaching) and career.
Researchers stand for the fundamental values of scientific work.
Including all career levels, researchers undergo a continuous process of learning and training with regard to good scientific practice. They exchange information and support each other.

§ 4 Organizational Responsibility of the Executive Board of JUMS

The Executive Board of JUMS is responsible for ensuring that JUMS adheres to the principles of good scientific practice.
The Executive Board of JUMS creates the framework for scientific work in accordance with the rules by establishing an appropriate institutional organizational structure. In this way, the Board of Directors of JUMS creates the conditions for legal and ethical standards to be observed by those engaged in scientific work.
The selection of personnel by JUMS follows clear principles aimed at ensuring equal opportunity and integration of all employees, regardless of age, disabilities, biological and social gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or religion. In doing so, JUMS refers to guidelines such as Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of work and employment.

§ 5 Responsibility of the Heads of Research Units

The head of a research unit is responsible for the entire research unit.
The responsibility of the head of a scientific work unit includes, in particular, the obligation to provide individualized support for young researchers that is integrated into the overall concept of JUMS, to promote the careers of scientific and academic staff, and to impart the principles of scientific honesty.
Cooperation in the scientific work units shall be organized in such a way that the unit as a whole can fulfill its tasks, that the cooperation and coordination required for this purpose take place, and that all members are aware of their roles, rights, and duties.
Appropriate organizational measures are taken both at the level of the individual work units and at the level of the Executive Committee to prevent the abuse of power and the exploitation of dependencies.
Scientific employees shall enjoy a ratio of support and personal responsibility appropriate to their career level.

§ 6 Evaluation of scientific performance

The evaluation of scientific performance follows a multi-dimensional approach. An essential part of the evaluation is the scientific performance, which is primarily to be assessed according to qualitative criteria. Quantitative indicators can be incorporated into the overall evaluation in a differentiated and reflective manner. In addition to scientific performance, other aspects may be taken into account.

§ 7 Cross-Phase Quality Assurance

The researcher shall carry out each stage of the research process de lege artis. Continuous and cross-phase quality assurance takes place.
The origin of data, organisms, materials and software used in the research process shall be made known, citing the original sources, and it shall be stated which standards apply to their further use. If publicly available software is used, this must be documented persistently and cited with the source code, as far as this is possible and reasonable.
The nature and scope of research data generated during the research process shall be described.
It is an essential part of quality assurance that it is made possible for other scientists to reproduce results or findings.
If scientific findings are made available to the public (also by means other than publications), the applied mechanisms of quality assurance are always explained. If, in retrospect, inconsistencies or errors in such findings become apparent or are pointed out, these will be corrected.

§ 8 Participating actors, responsibilities, roles

The roles and responsibilities of the scientific actors involved in a research project must be defined in an appropriate manner and be clear at all times.
If necessary, the roles and responsibilities shall be adjusted.

§ 9 Research Design

When planning a research project, the researcher shall take the current state of research into account and acknowledge it. As a rule, this presupposes a careful search for already publicly accessible research results.
The Executive Board of JUMS shall ensure the necessary framework conditions for this research within the scope of its financial possibilities.
Researchers shall use methods to avoid (even unconscious) bias in the interpretation of results, as far as this is possible and reasonable.
Researchers shall examine whether and to what extent gender and diversity may be relevant to the research project.

§ 10 Legal and ethical framework of research

Researchers shall use the freedom of research granted to them by the constitution in a responsible manner.
The Executive Board of JUMS is responsible for ensuring that the conduct of the members and affiliates of JUMS conforms to the rules and promotes such conformity through appropriate organizational structures.
In their conduct, Researchers shall observe their rights and duties, in particular those arising from legal provisions and from contracts with third parties.
Researchers obtain approvals and ethics opinions, if necessary, and submit them to the responsible bodies.
Researchers shall be constantly aware of the risk of misuse of research results, particularly in the case of security-relevant research. The consequences of research shall be carefully assessed, and the ethical implications of research shall be evaluated.

§ 11 Rights of Use and Archiving

The Researchers shall, at the earliest possible time, conclude documented agreements on the rights of use to the data and results arising from the research project.
The right to use data and results shall be granted in particular to the researcher who collected the data.
The parties entitled to use the data shall agree on whether and how third parties are to be granted access to the research data.
The researcher shall store the research data and results as well as all underlying materials and the research software used in accordance with the relevant professional standards in the online archive provided by JUMS. The research data to be archived shall be secured as raw data.
The retention period is governed by paragraph (4) and begins with the establishment of public access to the respective research data and results and is generally ten years, depending on the subject area.
If there are justifiable reasons not to retain certain data or to retain them for a shorter period of time, the researcher shall state these reasons in a comprehensible manner.
The management of JUMS shall ensure that appropriate archiving can be guaranteed and that the necessary infrastructure is in place.

§ 12 Methods and Standards

Research shall be conducted using scientifically sound and comprehensible methods.
In the development and application of new methods, the scientific staff shall pay particular attention to quality assurance and the establishment of standards.

§ 13 Documentation

The Research Participant shall document all information relevant to the generation of a research result in such a comprehensible manner as is necessary and appropriate in the relevant field in order to be able to verify and evaluate the result and to enable replication. To the extent that there are specific technical recommendations for verification and evaluation, the researcher shall document in accordance with the relevant specifications. In the case of the development of research software, the source code shall be documented to the extent that this is possible and reasonable.
Even individual results that do not support one’s own hypothesis are always documented. A selection of results is inadmissible.
If the documentation does not meet the requirements gem. Abs. 1 and 2, the limitations and reasons for them shall be explained in a comprehensible manner.
Documentation and research results must not be manipulated. They are to be protected as best as possible against manipulation.

§ 14 Provision of public access to research results

In principle, researchers shall contribute all their results to the scientific discourse.
In individual cases, there may be reasons not to make results publicly accessible. In principle, the decision to make results publicly accessible should not depend on third parties; rather, scientists and scholars decide on their own responsibility whether, how, and where to make their results publicly accessible, taking into account the customs of the respective discipline. Exceptions are permitted in cases where the rights of third parties are affected, patent applications are pending, or the research is contract research or security-related research.
If results are made publicly accessible, they shall be described in a complete and comprehensible manner. This also includes making available the research data, materials and information on which the results are based, the methods used, and the software employed, insofar as this is possible and reasonable. This is done according to the so-called FAIR principles: Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Re-Usable. Exceptions are permitted in the context of patent applications.
Self-programmed software will be made available with its source code, as far as this is possible and reasonable. A license may be granted. Procedures will be described in detail.
Own and third-party preliminary work is to be documented completely and correctly, unless this can be dispensed with in exceptional cases in the case of own results that are already publicly accessible. At the same time, the repetition of the contents of one’s own publications shall be limited to the extent necessary for understanding.

§ 15 Authorship

The author is the person who has made a genuine and comprehensible contribution to the content of a scientific text, data or software publication. Whether a genuine and comprehensible contribution has been made depends on the professional principles of scientific work and is to be assessed in each individual case.
If a contribution does not suffice to establish authorship, the support may be appropriately acknowledged in footnotes, in the preface, or in the acknowledgements. An honorary authorship for which no sufficient contribution has been made is inadmissible, as is the derivation of an authorship solely on the basis of a leadership or supervisory function.
All authors must agree to the final version of the work to be published; they bear joint responsibility for the publication, unless expressly stated otherwise. Consent to publication may not be withheld without good reason. Rather, the refusal must be justified by verifiable criticism of the data, methods or results.
Researchers shall agree in good time – usually at the latest when the manuscript is being drafted – on who is to be the author of the research results. The agreement shall be based on comprehensible criteria and shall take into account the conventions of the respective discipline.

§ 16 Publication organs

The scientific quality of a contribution does not depend on the publication medium in which it is made publicly accessible. In addition to publications in books and specialist journals, specialist repositories, data and software repositories and blogs are also suitable.
Authors shall carefully select the publication medium, taking into account its quality and visibility in the respective field of discourse. A new publication organ will be checked for its seriousness.
Whoever takes over the editorship of a publication will carefully check for which publication this is done.

§ 17 Confidentiality and Neutrality in Evaluations and Consultations

Impartiality is the basis of the legitimacy of an evaluation process.
Academics who assess manuscripts, applications for funding or the eligibility of persons are obliged to maintain strict confidentiality. They shall disclose without delay to the body responsible for such matters all facts which may give rise to a suspicion of partiality.
Confidentiality means that contents to which access is gained within the scope of the function may not be passed on to third parties and may not be used for one’s own purposes.
Paras. 1 and 2 shall apply mutatis mutandis to members of scientific advisory and decision-making bodies.

Section II: Ombuds System

§ 18 Ombudspersons

JUMS shall have an ombudsperson and a deputy ombudsperson, both of whom shall have management experience. The deputy ombudspersons are provided for in the event that an ombudsperson is suspected of being biased or is prevented from performing his or her duties. The question as to whether there is a suspicion of partiality shall be determined in accordance with § 21 of the Administrative Procedure Act (VwVfG) of the State of Bavaria. In case of doubt, the investigative commission shall decide in accordance with Section III.
Independent scientists may be appointed as ombudspersons or deputies. The appointment should also take into account the disciplinary cultures represented at the JUMS. The ombudspersons and their deputies may not be members of the JUMS Investigation Commission or the JUMS Board of Directors during their term of office.
The appointment is made by the Board of JUMS after election by the General Assembly of JUMS. The election shall be preceded by a proposal by the Board of JUMS.
The term of office of an ombudsperson or deputy ombudsperson shall be 4 years. They may be re-elected once.
The ombudspersons and their deputies shall receive the necessary support and acceptance from the Board of JUMS in the performance of their duties. In order to improve the functioning of the ombuds service, measures shall be taken to relieve the current ombudspersons and their deputies.

§ 19 Activities of the ombudsperson

The ombudspersons and their deputies shall perform their ombudsman duties in accordance with § 18 in an independent manner, in particular without being subject to instructions or informal influence by the board of JUMS or other bodies of JUMS. The work of the ombudsman shall be confidential, i.e. under observance of secrecy.
All members and associates of JUMS may contact the ombudspersons in matters of good scientific practice or suspected scientific misconduct. Alternatively, members and associates of JUMS have the possibility to contact the national ombudsman “Ombudsgremium für die wissenschaftliche Integrität in Deutschland”.
The Board of JUMS shall ensure that the local ombudspersons and their deputies are known to JUMS. The identity and contact details of the respective persons will be made known by e-mail.
The ombudspersons act as neutral and qualified contact persons in matters of good scientific practice and in cases of suspected scientific misconduct. As far as possible, they contribute to solution-oriented conflict mediation.
The ombudspersons or their deputies receive inquiries confidentially and, if necessary, forward cases of suspected scientific misconduct to the JUMS office responsible in accordance with Section III.

Section III: Procedures for Dealing with Misconduct in Research

§ 20 General principles for dealing with cases of suspected scientific misconduct

All offices of the JUMS that investigate suspected scientific misconduct within the scope of their responsibilities shall take appropriate measures to protect both the person providing the information and the person(s) affected by the allegations (the accused). The competent bodies are aware that the conduct of a proceeding and the final, possible imposition of sanctions may constitute a significant encroachment on the legal interests of the accused.
The investigation of allegations of scientific misconduct must at all times be carried out in accordance with legal principles, fairly and under the presumption of innocence. The investigation shall also be confidential. Investigations shall be conducted without regard to the person, and decisions shall be made without regard to the person.
The report by informants must be made in good faith. The person making the report must have objective evidence that standards of good scientific practice may have been violated. If the person making the report is unable to verify the facts on which the suspicion is based, or if there are uncertainties regarding the interpretation of the guidelines for good scientific practice pursuant to Section I, the person making the report shall contact the persons named in Section 19 (1) and (2) in order to clarify the suspicion.
Neither the person providing the information nor the person accused/investigated shall suffer any disadvantages in their scientific or professional career as a result of providing the information. This applies to the accused person until misconduct has been proven and established. In the case of persons in the early stages of their careers, the report should not lead to delays in their qualification. The preparation of dissertations and doctoral theses should not be adversely affected. The same applies to working conditions and possible contract extensions.
The informant shall be protected even if no misconduct is proven in the proceedings. This shall only apply if the allegation was made in good faith.
All parties involved in the proceedings shall endeavor to conduct the entire proceedings as expeditiously as possible. They shall take the necessary steps to complete each stage of the procedure within a reasonable period of time.
A report of suspicion in which the person making the report does not disclose his or her identity (anonymous report) shall be investigated if the person making the report provides substantiated and sufficiently specific information to permit an investigation with reasonable effort.
If the identity of the person providing the information is known to the competent authority, the competent authority shall treat the identity confidentially and shall not disclose it to third parties without the consent of the person providing the information. The consent shall be given in text form. Disclosure may also be made without consent if there is a legal obligation to do so. In exceptional cases, disclosure may also be made if the accused person would otherwise be unable to defend himself/herself in an appropriate manner because the identity of the person providing the information is relevant. Before the identity of the informant is revealed, the informant will be informed of the intended disclosure. The person may then decide whether to withdraw the report. If the report is withdrawn, it will not be disclosed, unless there is a legal obligation to do so. The investigation may nevertheless be continued if a weighing of interests shows that this is in the interest of scientific integrity in Germany or in the legitimate interest of JUMS.
The confidentiality of the procedure is restricted if the person reporting the suspicion contacts the public. The body responsible for the investigation shall decide in each individual case how to deal with the breach of confidentiality by the person providing the information.

§ 21 Acts of scientific misconduct

Scientific misconduct shall be deemed to have occurred if a person working at JUMS in a scientific capacity intentionally or grossly negligently makes false statements in a scientific context, makes unauthorized use of other people’s scientific work or interferes with the research work of others. The special cases in accordance with paragraphs 5 to 8 shall remain unaffected.
False statements are
1. the fabrication of scientifically relevant data or research results
2. the falsification of scientifically relevant data or research results, in particular by suppressing or eliminating data or results obtained in the course of research without disclosing this fact, or by falsifying a presentation or image
3. the incongruent presentation of an image and the statement associated with it
4. inaccurate scientific statements in a grant application or in the context of reporting obligations
5. claiming the authorship or co-authorship of another person without the latter’s consent.
Unauthorized appropriation of another person’s scientific work occurs in the following cases
1. Unauthorized use of third-party content without the required indication of source (“plagiarism”),
2. Unauthorized use of research approaches, research results, and scientific ideas (“theft of ideas”),
3. Unauthorized disclosure of scientific data, theories, and findings to others,
4. Misrepresentation or unjustified assumption of authorship or co-authorship of a scientific publication, especially if no genuine, verifiable contribution to the scientific content of the publication has been made,
5. Falsification of scientific content,
6. Unauthorized publication and unauthorized disclosure to third parties as long as the scientific work, the finding, the hypothesis, the doctrine or the research approach has not yet been published.
Impairment of the research work of others shall be deemed to exist in particular in the following cases
1. Sabotage of research activities (including damaging, destroying or manipulating experimental designs, equipment, documents, hardware, software, chemicals or other items that others need for research purposes),
2. Falsification or unauthorized removal of research data or records,
3. Falsification or tampering with documentation of research data.
Scientific misconduct on the part of JUMS scientific staff also results – in the case of intent or gross negligence – from
1. Co-authorship of a publication that contains false information or inadmissibly makes use of the scientific work of others,
2. neglect of supervisory duties, if another person has objectively committed the act of scientific misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs 1 to 4, and this would have been prevented or made considerably more difficult by the necessary and reasonable supervision.
Scientific misconduct is also defined as intentional participation (in the sense of instigation or aiding and abetting) in the intentional misconduct of others which is a criminal offence under this statute.
Scientific misconduct on the part of persons providing expert opinions or serving on the boards of JUMS shall be deemed to have occurred if they intentionally or grossly negligently
1. make unauthorized use for their own scientific purposes of scientific data, theories or findings of which they have gained knowledge in the course of their activity as an expert or member of a committee,
2. to disclose data, theories or findings to third parties in violation of the confidentiality of the proceedings within the scope of their activity as an expert or member of a committee without authorization
3. failing to disclose to the competent body, within the framework of their activities as experts or members of bodies, facts or circumstances which could give rise to a suspicion of partiality.
Scientific misconduct also exists if an expert or a member of a body of JUMS fails to disclose facts from which scientific misconduct of the other person within the meaning of paragraphs 1 to 5 could result, against his/her better knowledge and with the intention of gaining an advantage for him/herself or for another person.

§ 22 Initiation of an investigation

Persons providing information shall address a report of suspicion to an ombudsperson or a representative pursuant to § 19. A report of suspicion shall be made in writing. It may also be made orally; in this case, a record shall be made by the receiving body. If persons providing information contact a member of the investigative commission directly with their report of suspicion, the member shall forward the report of suspicion to a competent ombudsperson.
Notwithstanding § 18 paragraph 1 of these statutes, §§ 22 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis to ombudspersons in their role in the procedure according to section III. The investigative commission decides in accordance with § 24 of these statutes.
The competent ombudsperson or deputy shall examine confidentially whether there are sufficiently concrete indications that a person has committed an offence pursuant to § 21 in a prosecutable manner. In this context, the ombudsperson may conduct preliminary investigations; § 23 paragraph 2 shall apply mutatis mutandis thereto.
If the public defender of rights arrives at the conclusion that there are sufficiently concrete grounds for suspicion in accordance with subsection 3, he shall initiate a preliminary investigation.

§ 23 Preliminary examination

In the course of the preliminary investigation, the ombudsperson shall immediately request the accused person in writing to comment on the allegation. In doing so, the ombudsperson shall present the accused person with the relevant facts and evidence. A deadline for the response shall be set, which shall normally be four weeks. The deadline can be extended. The statement shall be made in writing or in text form. Accused persons are not obliged to accuse themselves.
Within the scope of the preliminary inquiry, the public defender of rights may carry out investigations necessary for the clarification of the facts of the case, provided that such investigations are permitted by higher-ranking law. The ombudsperson may, for example, request, obtain and examine documents, obtain and secure other evidence, obtain statements or, if necessary, obtain external expert opinions. All persons involved shall be requested to treat the request confidentially.
The records shall show the steps taken to investigate the matter.
Upon completion of the factual investigation and evaluation of all relevant evidence, including the statement of the accused person, the competent ombudsperson shall decide without delay on the further course of the proceedings. The decision shall be based on whether, on the basis of the facts of the case, it appears more likely that the investigative commission will establish scientific misconduct than that the proceedings will be discontinued (sufficient grounds for suspicion). If there is no reasonable suspicion of scientific misconduct, the ombudsperson shall discontinue the proceedings. If there is sufficient suspicion, the ombudsperson transfers the preliminary investigation to a formal investigation, which is conducted by the investigative commission.
If the case is dismissed, the decision shall first be communicated in writing to the person providing the information. The essential reasons leading to the decision shall be stated. The person giving the information shall be granted the right to appeal against the decision within a period of two weeks. The remonstration may only be addressed to the Ombudsperson. In case of a timely remonstration, the decision will be reviewed again.
If the remonstration period has expired without result or if a remonstration has not led to a different decision, the complainant shall be notified in writing of the decision on the complaint, stating the essential reasons for the decision.
If the case is transferred to the formal investigation, the decision shall be communicated in writing to the person providing the information and to the person accused. If the accused person has denied the allegation, a brief statement shall be made as to why the allegation could not be refuted.

§ 24 Investigation Commission

JUMS shall have an ad hoc investigative commission for the purpose of conducting formal investigations, which shall be appointed by the Board of Directors and elected by the General Assembly. The Investigation Commission consists of 3 members plus the chairperson. The members of the commission should be chosen to reflect the different cultures represented in the JUMS. For each member of the Commission, except the Chairperson, there is an additional deputy. The Chairperson shall conduct the business of the Investigation Commission and exercise house and meeting privileges during meetings. The investigative commission shall elect one of its members as deputy chairman.
The members of the Investigation Commission with voting rights and their deputies shall be appointed by the Board of Directors of JUMS on a case-by-case basis after election by the General Meeting of JUMS. In individual cases, the Investigation Commission may call in up to two non-voting experts from the field of the scientific matter to be evaluated as additional members for consultation.
If a member of the Commission is suspected of being biased or is prevented from attending for more than a short period, his deputy shall take his place. Articles 22 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis to the fear of bias. Fear of bias may be raised by any member of the Commission with the right to vote, by a JUMS ombudsperson, or by an accused person. The Commission shall decide on the matter, excluding the person against whom the objection has been raised. Unconditional procedural steps may continue to be taken.
All members of the Commission entitled to vote shall have the same right to vote; the chairperson shall also have the right to vote. Resolutions shall be passed by simple majority; in the event of a tie, the person presiding shall have the casting vote. The Commission is only competent to pass resolutions if at least 4 persons are present and can validly vote.
The members of the Commission and their deputies shall carry out their work independently, in particular independent of instructions or informal influence in individual cases by the Executive Board of JUMS or other JUMS bodies. The work shall be carried out confidentially, i.e. under observance of secrecy.
The Investigation Commission shall work and meet confidentially and in private.
In the event that an ad hoc commission is set up for a specific reason, the current composition of the commission can be obtained from the President of JUMS.

§ 25 Procedure of the formal investigation

The investigative commission shall schedule a meeting in due time. The accused person shall be given the opportunity to comment on the charges orally (hearing) or in writing in due time before the meeting. § Section 23 paragraph 1 sentence 6 shall apply mutatis mutandis. The accused person will also be given the opportunity to make a statement. If the accused person waives the right to make a further statement, this alone shall not be considered to his disadvantage. The decision shall then be made on the basis of the record.
The Commission may take the oral testimony of other persons whose testimony it deems useful for the proceedings. The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis to any right to refuse to testify.
Any person heard by the Commission may be assisted by a person of his or her confidence. The Commission shall be informed in due time.
The investigative commission shall examine whether, in its opinion, scientific misconduct has been proven in accordance with the established rules of free evidence. A finding of scientific misconduct can only be made if a majority decision has been reached within the commission. The deliberations are subject to the deliberation secret. This does not affect the Commission’s authority to discontinue the proceedings due to lack of sufficient evidence or due to minor misconduct. In the event of a dismissal, the person providing the information is not required to make a statement.
Section 20 (8) and (9) shall apply mutatis mutandis to any disclosure of the identity of the whistleblower.
In the event of suspicion of violations of disciplinary or labor law, the proceedings shall be suspended.
The Investigation Commission shall promptly submit a final report to the Board of Directors of JUMS, including the Commission’s proposals for sanctions. The essential bases of the Commission’s decision shall be communicated.
The documents of the formal investigation will be kept by JUMS for 10 years.

§ 26 Conclusion of the proceedings

The Executive Board of JUMS shall decide at its own discretion whether scientific misconduct on the part of the accused is established and whether and which sanctions and measures are to be imposed on the accused. If the revocation of an academic degree is a possible measure, the competent authorities will be involved.
If the accused person is a member of the JUMS Board of Directors, the Board shall meet and decide without the accused person being present.
The decision and its essential reasons will be communicated in writing to the accuser and the accused person after the meeting. The parties have the right to appeal against the decision.
The decision shall also be communicated to the scientific organizations concerned and to third parties who have a justified interest in the decision. The Board of JUMS shall decide whether and in what manner this is the case. It shall also decide whether and in what manner the public is to be informed. Notifications under this paragraph may be accompanied by a statement of reasons.
If the revocation of an academic degree is being considered, the bodies responsible for this will be involved.

§ 27 Possible Sanctions and Measures

If the Executive Board of JUMS deems that scientific misconduct has occurred, it may impose the following sanctions and/or measures, alternatively or cumulatively, within the limits of reasonableness:
1. Written reprimand,
2. Request to the accused to retract or correct the offending publication or to refrain from publishing the offending manuscript,
3. Withdrawal of funding decisions or rescission of funding contracts, if the decision was made by JUMS or the contract was entered into by JUMS, including, if applicable, recoupment of funds,
4. Exclusion from serving as an evaluator or member of a committee of JUMS for a limited period of time,
5. Against employees of JUMS: employment warning, ordinary termination, termination of contract, extraordinary termination,
6. Against employees of JUMS: initiation of disciplinary proceedings with the measures provided for therein, including interim measures,
7. Reporting to the police or the public prosecutor’s office,
8. Reporting violations to the appropriate authorities,
9. Enforcement of civil claims, including by way of injunctive relief, in particular for damages, surrender or removal/obedience,
10. The assertion of any claims under public law, also by way of injunctive relief,
11. Initiation of proceedings for the revocation of an academic title or initiation of such proceedings.
Sanctions and measures other than those specified in subsection 1 may be imposed only if they are proportionate to the rights and legitimate interests of the accused person.
Measures under subsection 1 shall not be unlawful on the ground that they were not specified in the notice under section 26 subs. 3 have not been announced.

§ 28 Transitional Provisions / Application upon Leaving JUMS

The offences of scientific misconduct according to § 21 shall only apply to acts committed when this statute was already in force.
The procedural provisions of this section apply only to reports received after the effective date of this statute. Preliminary investigation, preliminary examination and investigation proceedings already in progress at the time of the entry into force of this Statute shall be concluded in accordance with the previously applicable procedural provisions.
An offence can also be prosecuted if the accused person is no longer a researcher at JUMS, but was at the time of the offence.

Section IV: Effective Date of this Statute

§ 29 Effective Date

This Statute shall enter into force on 20.11.2023.