OECD Global Science Forum Session 4a The first link in the chain: receiving and initial processing of an allegation Complexes of question which we want to discuss: Persons in first interaction? Nature of the allegation? Receiving person’s exact role? Handling of false accusations?

Complex 1: Persons in first interaction? Who is the person/organization to turn to with an allegation or suspicion?  ombudsman or other contact person Does the person receiving the allegation have special expertise or training?  persons receiving allegation are scientists with high personal integrity. Is the receiving office/officer at a level (e.g., dean of faculty, official of science ministry) that could discourage a student or other person who is in the lower ranks of the scientific hierarchy?  no formal officer should be Ombudsman/mediator Is there someone to consult with just within the case of a mere suspicion, without certainty or definitive evidence?  Ombudsman Is there adequate information e.g. generally accessible information on a web site.  Not enough only for informed people who intentional look for it.

Complex 2: Nature of the allegation? Can anyone come forward with an allegation?  everybody who works in scientific environment Are there requirements/restrictions on who can be accused (and be an accused)?  no, as long as he/she is working in the scientific environment Are there restrictions on substance (for example, work outside one’s academic field, work not published in a peer-reviewed journal, ‘opinion’-type work)?  the substance needs to be scientific Does work need to be published, versus presented in a conference, or mentioned in a conversation?  The work needs to be written somewhere (proof) Does the system accept anonymous allegations?  yes, e.g.in cases of plagiarism which can easily be seen.

Complex 3: Receiving person’s exact role? What is the receiving person’s exact role and authority? Does he/she play a mediator role, or just decide the merits of the allegation?  The receiving person should be rather informal – should be a mediator/ombudsperson – if there is suspicion of severe misconduct (FFP) the case should go to commission. Complex 4: Handling of false accusations? How does the system deal with frivolous or malicious accusations?  They can be recognized and need to be turned down Does bringing forward a false accusation itself constitute actionable misconduct, i.e., can the accuser become the accused?  yes, false accusation is misconduct

OECD Global Science Forum Session 4b Due process and fairness in an investigation. Confidentiality versus openness Complexes of question which we want to discuss: Confidentiality? What is the proof? Defense of the accused? Rights of appeal? Information about the investigation? Publication of the cases?

Complex 1: Confidentiality? What are the conditions and rules of confidentiality for accuser and accused?  Strict confidentiality is most important tp protect accuser and acused How can “whistle blower” be protected without generating too many spurious/frivolous allegations?  protection is difficult Complex 2: What is the proof? What is the “standard of proof” in a misconduct investigation (e.g., preponderance of evidence? Proof beyond a reasonable doubt)? Is there a presumption of innocence? How can validity of the proceedings be ensured, given that the investigators may be prominent scientists, but legal amateurs?  include legal expert What if the accused is doing “unpopular science” that draws the hostility of colleagues?  leave to scientific discussion In cases where intentional misconduct is hard to distinguish from unintentional carelessness, how do the Investigators establish intent?

Complex 3: Defense of the accused? How can the accused defend him/herself?  convincing argumentation Does he/she has access to documents, testimony?  partly Can the accused confront accusers and witnesses?  hearings with accuser and accused Can the accused have assistance, a lawyer (if so, who pays?)?  no – ombuds cases are no law proceedings Does the accused have a right to question the composition of the investigating entity?  yes – should have In general, how do the rights of the accused compare to those in a criminal or civil proceeding? Complex 4: Rights of appeal? What are the rights of appeal and review (by accuser or accused) at each step of the investigation?  bring further arguments To whom is an appeal made?  ombudsman / commission

Complex 5: Information about the investigation? Who gets notified of the progress of the investigation, and when?  only accuser ad accused How much detail is provided (e.g., to the funding agency)?  none Can the agency provide feedback, suggestions, informations?  no Can it play an even more active role during the investigation?  no  It should stay confidential until clear decision is there Complex 6: Publication of the cases? What are the conditions of access by journalists and the public to the outcomes and records of investigations?  only after final decision and if there is a public interest in the result When are names named (those of the accuser and accused, plus other persons involved in the investigations)?  only after final decision and in case of guilty for relevant misconduct