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