Good scien­tific practices

1. False declarations

• the inven­tion of data;
• falsi­fying data, for example
• by selec­ting and rejec­ting unde­sired results without disclo­sing it,
• by mani­pu­la­ting a repre­sen­ta­tion or illustration;
• provi­ding incor­rect infor­ma­tion in a letter of appli­ca­tion or grant appli­ca­tion (inclu­ding
• misre­pre­sen­ta­tion of the publi­ca­tion organ and publi­ca­tions in print).

2. Infrin­ge­ment of intellec­tual property rights

• in rela­tion to a copy­righted work created by another person or to essen­tial know­ledge, hypo­theses, teachings or rese­arch approa­ches origi­na­ting from others:
• unaut­ho­rised explo­ita­tion under presump­tion of author­ship (plagia­rism),
• the explo­ita­tion of rese­arch approa­ches and ideas, in parti­cular as a reviewer 
• (theft of ideas),
• the presump­tion or unfounded accep­tance of scien­tific author­ship or co-authorship,
• the falsi­fi­ca­tion of the contents,
• the unaut­ho­rised publi­ca­tion and unaut­ho­rised making available to third parties, as long as 
• the work, know­ledge, hypo­thesis, teaching or rese­arch approach has not yet been 
• are published.

3. Clai­ming the (co-)authorship of another without his or her consent

4. Sabo­tage of rese­arch activities

5. Elimi­na­tion of primary data

Co-respon­si­bi­lity for miscon­duct may arise from, among other things

• active parti­ci­pa­tion in the miscon­duct of others,
• Know­ledge of coun­ter­feiting by others,
• Co-author of forged publications,
• gross neglect of the duty of supervision.