Skip to main content
Maintainers -ImageDr. Harry van der Weijde

This is a controlled document

In line with Open Energy Transition regulatory obligations, changes to Controlled documents must be approved and merged by a code maintainer. All contributions are welcome and encouraged.

Regulation on Safeguarding Good Research Practice

Adopted by the OET shareholders on $insert date$

  1. This Regulation implements, in a form adapted to Open Energy Transition gGmbH (OET), Guidelines 1 to 19 and their explanations in version 1.2 of the DfG Code of Conduct for Safeguarding Good Research Practice.
  2. The OET shareholders adopt this Regulation pursuant to OET Articles of Association. OET shall take any further steps needed to make it legally binding on OET management and on everyone conducting or supporting research under OET's auspices, including contractual incorporation where required.
  3. This Regulation applies to OET management, employees, contractors, consultants, affiliates and research support personnel insofar as they conduct, support, supervise, review or disseminate research for or under the auspices of OET. Relevant obligations shall be included in agreements with external collaborators where necessary.
  4. For the purposes of this Regulation, research means a systematic investigation whose primary purpose is to generate, test, validate or materially extend knowledge, understanding, methods or techniques through scientific or scholarly inquiry. Research may produce publications, reports, policy briefs, datasets, software, models, analyses, presentations or other public or non-public outputs. The production of any such output does not, by itself, make an activity research.
  5. This Regulation does not apply to ordinary commercial or professional services whose primary purpose is to meet the specific operational or commercial needs of a client through the application of established knowledge, methods or tools. This may include routine analysis, consultancy, software development or implementation, data processing, technical assistance, training, maintenance, project management and the production of client-specific deliverables, provided that the activity is not intended to generate, test or materially extend knowledge, methods or techniques.
  6. Whether an activity constitutes research shall be determined by its substance and purpose, not by its source of funding, contractual form, client involvement or type of output. Client-funded work may constitute research, while grant-funded or internally funded work may constitute non-research activity.
  7. For projects combining research and non-research activities, this Regulation applies only to the research components. The project lead shall document the classification at project initiation. The Head of Research and Market Development shall decide cases of uncertainty, and the classification shall be reviewed if the purpose or methods of the project materially change.
  8. Exclusion from this Regulation does not exempt an activity from other applicable OET policies, professional standards, contractual obligations or legal requirements.
  9. Compliance with this Regulation is mandatory. Applicable law and binding contractual obligations prevail where they impose stricter or conflicting requirements. Any such conflict shall be documented and referred to the responsible OET decision-maker before the affected work proceeds.
  10. The Regulation shall be reviewed at least every three years and when the DFG Code or relevant law changes. Researchers and research support personnel shall be given a meaningful opportunity to comment on proposed substantive amendments before adoption.

Part I: Principles of good research practice​

Section 2: Guideline 1, commitment to the general principles​

  1. OET shall establish, maintain, communicate and regularly review binding rules and procedures for good research practice, with the participation of its researchers and research support personnel.
  2. OET shall ensure that everyone within the scope of this Regulation is made aware of the Regulation and related policies and receives information and training appropriate to the type of research they undertake.
  3. Each person is individually responsible for ensuring that their conduct complies with good research practice.
  4. Research shall be conducted lege artis, honestly, transparently, accountably, fairly and with due care. Researchers shall accurately attribute their own contributions and those of others, rigorously question findings and permit and promote critical research discourse.

Section 3: Guideline 2, professional ethics​

  1. Researchers shall put the fundamental values and norms of research into practice and advocate for them in their work and professional interactions.

  2. Education in good research practice shall begin when a person first undertakes research or research support work at OET, including during onboarding, and shall continue throughout their engagement with OET.

  3. Researchers at every career level shall regularly update their knowledge of:

    1. good research practice and research integrity;
    2. applicable legal, contractual and ethical obligations;
    3. relevant scientific, technical and methodological standards; and
    4. the current state of the art in their field.

  4. Experienced and early-career researchers shall support one another through continuous mutual learning, dialogue, mentoring, peer review and appropriate training.

  5. OET shall provide or facilitate suitable training and shall obtain external expertise where the necessary competence is not available internally.

Part II: Organisational responsibility and governance​

Section 4: Guideline 3, organisational responsibility of OET leadership​

  1. The CEO and OET leadership are responsible for creating and maintaining the organisational framework needed to safeguard and promote good researchpractice.
  2. Leadership shall ensure that responsibility for supervision, quality assurance, career support, conflict management and research integrity is clearly allocated and communicated in a manner appropriate to OET's size and structure.
  3. OET shall maintain transparent written rules for staff selection, evaluation, development and promotion. These processes shall give due consideration to equality and diversity and shall avoid implicit bias as far as possible. Assessment shall use transparent criteria and primarily qualitative judgement.
  4. OET shall provide suitable supervision and support for early-career researchers and research support personnel, including honest career advice, training opportunities and mentoring.
  5. OET shall provide the resources, infrastructure, access to information and organisational support reasonably necessary for researchers to comply with legal, ethical and professional standards.
  6. Policies referenced as part of this Regulation must be current, complete, accessible to the persons bound by them and approved through the governance process applicable to those policies.

Section 5: Guideline 4, responsibility of heads of research work units​

  1. Each Head of Department, team lead or other person heading a research work unit is responsible for the unit as a whole within the scope of their authority.
  2. Work shall be organised so that necessary cooperation and coordination can take place and all participants understand their roles, rights, duties, decision authority and reporting lines.
  3. Heads of research work units shall provide adequate individual supervision, skills development, research support and career development, particularly for early-career researchers.
  4. The size and organisation of each work unit shall permit its leadership and supervisory duties to be performed appropriately. Where they do not, the responsible Head of Department shall escalate the resource or structural issue to the CEO.
  5. OET and the heads of department and team leads shall take suitable measures to prevent abuse of power, exploitation, discrimination, harassment and inappropriate dependency relationships.
  6. Researchers and research support personnel shall receive a balance of support and personal responsibility appropriate to their career level, together with corresponding participation rights and progressively greater autonomy.

Section 6: Guideline 5, dimensions of performance and assessment criteria​

  1. OET shall assess research performance multidimensionally and primarily by qualitative measures. Quantitative indicators may be considered only with appropriate differentiation, contextualisation and reflection.
  2. Assessment may recognise, in addition to research findings, contributions to training, research governance, public engagement, open-source communities, knowledge and technology transfer and the wider public good.
  3. Openness to new findings, responsible risk-taking and the quality of the research process may be considered.
  4. Where voluntarily disclosed, relevant individual circumstances and the protected characteristics specified in the German General Equal Treatment Act shall be considered fairly. Appropriate allowance shall be made for absences or delays arising from personal, family or health circumstances, extended qualification phases and non-linear career paths.

Section 7: Guideline 6, ombudspersons​

  1. OET shall have at least one independent ombudsperson and one designated deputy. The shareholders appoint each person for a term of three years. One further term is permitted.

  2. A person eligible for appointment must be a person of integrity, possess relevant management or mediation experience and have sufficient knowledge of research practice. An ombudsperson may not simultaneously be a member of OET's central governing or executive decision-making bodies.

  3. The ombudsperson and deputy act independently as neutral and qualified contacts. They advise on good research practice, receive concerns about suspected misconduct and, where appropriate, support solution-oriented mediation.

  4. OET shall give the ombudspersons the time, information, administrative assistance, training, resources and organisational support required to carry out their duties. They may obtain independent external advice where needed.

  5. Ombudspersons shall keep consultations confidential. Disclosure is permitted only with the affected person's consent, where required by law, or where this Regulation requires referral of a sufficiently substantiated allegation. The affected person shall be informed before disclosure wherever legally and practically possible.

  6. An ombudsperson who has advised or mediated for a party in a matter shall not serve as an investigator, committee member or decision-maker in that matter. Neither the ombudsperson nor the deputy shall serve on the formal investigating committee for a matter they have received or assessed.

  7. Members of OET may freely choose whether to contact an OET ombudsperson or the German Ombuds Committee for Research Integrity (OWID). Prior contact with OET staff is not required.

  8. Current appointments and accessible contact details shall be communicated during onboarding and maintained in the Handbook and internal staff directory. At the date of adoption of this Regulation they are:

    1. Ombudsperson: Dr Will Usher, appointed from 27 March 2026 to 26 March 2029.
    2. Deputy: Dr Measrainsey Meng, appointed from 27 March 2026 to 26 March 2029.
    3. External alternative: German Ombuds Committee for Research Integrity

  9. Updating paragraph 8 to reflect a valid appointment changes the operational schedule only and does not amend the substantive rules in this Regulation.

Part III: The research process​

Section 8: Guideline 7, cross-phase quality assurance​

  1. Researchers shall conduct every stage of the research process lege artis and apply suitable quality assurance continuously from planning through collection, processing, analysis, interpretation, documentation, review and dissemination.

  2. Quality assurance shall include, as relevant to the work:

    1. compliance with subject-specific standards and established methods;
    2. validation of data sources, assumptions, calculations, models and results;
    3. appropriate collection, processing and analysis of research data;
    4. careful selection, validation and use of research software;
    5. review, testing, version control and documentation of software developed or modified by OET;
    6. peer review or independent checking;
    7. calibration of equipment and laboratory or equivalent electronic records, where relevant; and
    8. measures supporting traceability, replication and confirmation.

  3. When findings are made publicly available through publications or other channels, the quality assurance mechanisms used shall be explained. This is especially important when new methods are developed or used.

  4. If researchers later identify material inconsistencies or errors in publicly available findings, they shall correct them promptly. If correction or retraction by a publisher, repository or infrastructure provider is warranted, they shall promptly request it and ensure, as far as possible, that the correction or retraction is clearly identified. The same duty applies when credible inconsistencies or errors are brought to their attention by third parties.

  5. The origin of data, materials and software shall be disclosed, reuse shall be identified and original sources shall be cited. The nature and scope of data generated shall be described and handled in accordance with relevant disciplinary standards.

  6. Publicly available research software shall have source code that is persistent, citable and adequately documented.

  7. Where confidentiality agreements and other relevant legal restrictions allow this, OET shall make it possible for suitably qualified third parties to replicate or confirm findings, including through adequate descriptions of data, materials, assumptions, methods, software and workflows.

Section 9: Guideline 8, stakeholders, responsibilities and roles​

  1. The roles, responsibilities, rights, reporting lines and decision authority of researchers and research support personnel shall be clear and documented at every stage of a project.
  2. Project participants shall communicate regularly about their respective roles and responsibilities.
  3. Roles and responsibilities shall be reviewed and updated when project scope, staffing, methods, deliverables or an individual's focus changes.
  4. The project lead is responsible for ensuring that this allocation is made, communicated and kept current.

Section 10: Guideline 9, research design​

  1. When planning research, researchers shall comprehensively identify, consider and acknowledge the current state of research and relevant work already in the public domain.
  2. Research questions shall be informed by careful and proportionate searches for relevant existing research, data, methods and software. OET shall provide reasonable access to the information resources, tools and time needed for this work.
  3. Researchers shall use appropriate measures to avoid conscious and unconscious distortion in the design, analysis and interpretation of findings.
  4. Researchers shall assess whether gender, diversity, socioeconomic, geographic, environmental or other contextual dimensions are relevant to the questions, methods, work programme or objectives and shall incorporate relevant dimensions into the design.
  5. Findings shall be interpreted in the context in which the research was conducted, including material assumptions, uncertainties, limitations, data constraints and regional, sectoral, stakeholder and regulatory conditions.
  1. Researchers shall exercise freedom of research responsibly. They shall comply with applicable law, contracts, ethical standards, confidentiality, data protection, information security and intellectual property obligations.
  2. Required approvals, permissions, consents and ethics statements shall be obtained and documented before the relevant activity begins and presented when required. Records of Processing Activities and associated templates are available in OET's Data Security Management System.
  3. Researchers shall assess the reasonably foreseeable consequences and risks of their work, including potential misuse, dual use, security, environmental and societal impacts and risks to affected or vulnerable groups. These risks form part of the project risk assessment and should be documented in the project's risk register.
  4. The Head of Research and Market Development shall, when applicable, designate one or more qualified Research Ethics Reviewers and publish their contact details. A project lead shall refer a project for review before work begins where it involves human participants, personal or sensitive data, vulnerable groups, material dual-use or security risks, significant potential harm or another issue requiring independent ethical assessment. A conflicted reviewer shall recuse themselves and be replaced. The review, decision, conditions and reasons shall be documented.
  5. Where possible and practicable, documented agreements on rights to use data, software, methods and results shall be concluded at the earliest possible stage, normally before relevant data or outputs are generated. OET has a preference for the use of open-source licenses.
  6. Usage agreements shall address, as relevant, ownership, licences, access, storage, retention, deletion, confidentiality, publication, onward sharing and continued use after a researcher or partner leaves a project or institution.
  7. Subject to law, contracts and third-party rights, a researcher who collects or generates data is entitled to use them for legitimate research purposes, including after changing institution where this has been agreed.
  8. During a project, the persons holding the relevant usage rights shall decide whether third parties may access the data, subject to data protection, confidentiality, security and other legal requirements.

Section 12: Guideline 11, methods and standards​

  1. Researchers shall use scientifically sound, comprehensible and appropriate methods to answer research questions.
  2. New or materially adapted methods shall be subject to documented validation, quality assurance and, where appropriate, the establishment of standards before conclusions are placed in reliance on them.
  3. Methods, analytical tools, software and models shall be used only by persons with appropriate expertise, training or supervision. Necessary competence may be secured through suitably close collaboration or external expertise.
  4. OET shall promote appropriate standards for methods, software, research data collection and the description of results to support the comparability and transferability of research outcomes.

Section 13: Guideline 12, documentation​

  1. Researchers shall document all information relevant to the production of a result as clearly and comprehensively as required by the relevant field to permit review and assessment.
  2. Documentation shall include, as relevant, research questions or hypotheses, data used or generated, sources, assumptions, methods, software, configurations, dependencies, analytical and evaluation steps, decisions, limitations and quality assurance measures.
  3. Individual results that do not support the research question or hypothesis, including negative and inconclusive results, shall be documented. Selective omission of results is prohibited.
  4. Subject-specific documentation standards shall be followed. If complete documentation is not possible or appropriate, the limitation and reasons shall be recorded clearly.
  5. Citations and references shall be complete and unambiguous. Access to the information needed to understand and, as far as possible, reproduce the work shall be provided subject to legitimate restrictions.
  6. Research software source code shall be documented. Documentation and results shall not be manipulated and shall be protected against alteration through appropriate technical and organisational measures, for instance, through GitHub's version control mechanisms.

Section 14: Guideline 13, public access to research results​

  1. As a rule, researchers shall bring all research results that are relevant the the wider community into scientific and professional discourse through an appropriate public channel.
  2. A specific legal, contractual, ethical, security, data protection, intellectual property or other compelling reason may justify not making a result publicly available. The reason and decision shall be documented. The decision shall be made autonomously by the researchers responsible, with due regard to disciplinary conventions, and shall not be dictated by a funder's, client's or other third party's preference to suppress an otherwise publishable result.
  3. Publicly disseminated results shall be described clearly, completely and comprehensibly.
  4. Where possible and reasonable, the underlying research data, central materials and information, methods, software and workflows shall also be made publicly accessible. Research data and central materials shall be deposited in recognised repositories in accordance with the FAIR principles.
  5. Software developed by researchers for the research shall be made publicly accessible with its source code and an appropriate open-source licence, unless a documented exception under paragraph 2 applies.
  6. Researchers shall provide complete and accurate information about relevant prior work by themselves and others and shall cite previously disseminated results unless disciplinary convention exceptionally makes this unnecessary.
  7. Researchers shall prioritise quality over quantity, avoid inappropriate fragmentation of research into small outputs and limit repetition of earlier content to what is necessary for understanding.
  8. OET publications should be open access wherever reasonably possible, and project plans and budgets should provide for this where relevant.
  9. All OET publications shall be factually accurate, evidence based and supported by transparent documentation. At least one qualified colleague not directly involved in drafting shall review each formal publication.
  10. Additional internal review may be required for legally, ethically or methodologically sensitive outputs or outputs likely to attract substantial public attention. Internal review and communication coordination may not suppress or alter scientifically valid findings for commercial, reputational or political reasons. Any objection to dissemination must be based on verifiable concerns about law, contractual obligations, ethics, data, methods or results and shall be documented.
  11. Funding and material conflicts of interest shall be disclosed in the output in an appropriate location.

Section 15: Guideline 14, authorship​

  1. An author is a person who has made a genuine and identifiable contribution to the research content of a text, data or software publication.

  2. Whether a contribution justifies authorship shall be assessed case by case according to the relevant field. A genuine contribution may consist in research-relevant participation in:

    1. developing or conceptualising the research;
    2. gathering, collecting, acquiring or providing data, software or sources;
    3. analysing, evaluating or interpreting data or sources and the conclusions drawn from them; or
    4. drafting the publication.

  3. A contribution insufficient for authorship shall be acknowledged appropriately, for example in a note, foreword or acknowledgement. Honorary authorship and undisclosed ghost authorship are prohibited. A leadership or supervisory role does not itself justify authorship.

  4. Collaborators shall agree who will be an author and the order of authors in good time, normally no later than when drafting begins. The decision shall use transparent criteria reflecting relevant disciplinary conventions.

  5. Every author shall approve the final version and, unless explicitly stated otherwise, share responsibility for the publication.

  6. Authors shall seek to have their contributions identified by publishers or infrastructure providers in a way that permits correct citation.

  7. Consent to publish results may not be withheld without sufficient grounds. Refusal must be supported by verifiable criticism of the data, methods or results or by a documented legal or ethical impediment.

Section 16: Guideline 15, publication medium​

  1. Authors shall select publication media carefully, considering their quality, credibility and visibility in the relevant field of discourse.
  2. Researchers acting as editors shall carefully assess the publication media for which they undertake that role.
  3. The quality of a research contribution does not depend on the type of medium in which it appears. Suitable media may include journals, books, recognised research, data and software repositories, technical documentation and blogs.
  4. A new or unfamiliar medium shall be assessed for seriousness, transparency, permanence and information security. A key consideration is whether it has established rules on good research practice.
  5. Publication in a predatory or demonstrably non-reputable outlet is prohibited. Researchers shall seek advice from the Head of Research and Market Development if there is reasonable doubt about a venue.

Section 17: Guideline 16, confidentiality and neutrality of review processes​

  1. Fair and professional conduct is the basis of every review, evaluation and decision-making process.
  2. Anyone reviewing manuscripts, research outputs, proposals, funding applications or personal qualifications, or serving on a research advisory or decision-making body, shall keep all non-public information strictly confidential.
  3. Materials obtained through a review may not be shared with unauthorised persons or used for personal advantage or any purpose unrelated to the review.
  4. Actual, potential or apparent conflicts of interest, bias, favouritism or dependency shall be disclosed immediately to the responsible person or body. The affected person shall recuse themselves where impartiality may reasonably be questioned, and an unconflicted replacement shall be appointed.

Section 18: Guideline 17, archiving​

  1. Research data and results made publicly available, the central materials on which they are based and the research software used shall be secured and retained by adequate means according to relevant disciplinary standards.
  2. As a rule, underlying research data, including raw data where relevant, central materials and research software shall be archived for ten years from the date the results are made publicly available. They shall be accessible and identifiable at OET or in a recognised external repository.
  3. A shorter retention period or a decision not to archive particular material requires a compelling reason. The reason, affected material, responsible decision-maker and applicable period shall be documented clearly and comprehensibly before deletion or non-archiving.
  4. Confidential or restricted material shall be archived in an appropriately protected OET system rather than omitted from archiving, unless archiving is itself prohibited.
  5. OET shall maintain appropriate archiving infrastructure, access controls, backups, integrity protections, retention controls and assigned ownership.
  6. Final publications shall be retained in an immutable form together with an editable source version where available.

Part IV: Non-compliance and procedures​

Section 19: Guideline 18, complainants and respondents​

  1. Allegations shall be examined in strict confidence and under the presumption of innocence. OET shall protect both the complainant and the respondent from unfair disadvantage.
  2. A complainant shall act in good faith and have objective grounds for a suspicion. Knowingly false or malicious allegations may themselves constitute misconduct.
  3. A person who is uncertain about the facts or the application of this Regulation should seek confidential advice from an OET ombudsperson or OWID before making a formal allegation.
  4. Until misconduct is established, the respondent shall not suffer professional disadvantage merely because an allegation is being examined.
  5. Good-faith complainants shall not suffer retaliation, adverse working conditions, loss of opportunities, harm to career development or unjustified effects on contract renewal or qualification activities.
  6. Anonymous allegations may be examined when they contain sufficiently concrete and credible facts to permit an investigation.
  7. A known complainant's identity shall be kept confidential and shall not be disclosed without consent unless disclosure is legally required or is exceptionally necessary to permit a fair defence. The complainant shall be informed in advance and may withdraw the allegation before disclosure, subject to any independent legal duty of OET to proceed.
  8. If a complainant makes the allegation public, the investigating body shall decide case by case how the resulting limitation of confidentiality affects the procedure. If misconduct is not established, the complainant remains protected unless the allegation was knowingly false or malicious.

Section 20: Guideline 19, alleged research misconduct​

  1. OET shall apply the procedure in Annex I to every allegation within the scope of this Regulation. It supplements applicable higher-ranking law and binding contractual rules.
  2. Research misconduct is an intentional or grossly negligent breach listed in Annex I. Ordinary error, a reasonable difference in scholarly judgement and simple negligence do not constitute research misconduct, although they may require correction, training or other proportionate action.
  3. The procedure shall identify responsibility for every stage, provide for the impartial assessment of inculpatory and exculpatory evidence, regulate substitution and conflicts of interest, give both parties an opportunity to be heard at every material stage and observe confidentiality, the presumption of innocence and other principles of procedural fairness.
  4. The process shall be completed as promptly as possible. Measures shall be proportionate to the seriousness of established misconduct.

Section 21: Entry into force and review​

  1. This Regulation enters into force on $insert date$

Annex I: Procedure for handling allegations of research misconduct

1. Definitions of research misconduct​

  1. Subject to Section 20(2), research misconduct includes:

    1. fabricating data, sources, observations or results;
    2. falsifying data, sources, methods, images, software, analyses or results, including through manipulation, selective omission or misleading presentation;
    3. plagiarism or the unauthorised appropriation of another person's ideas, text, data, software, methods or other research contribution;
    4. claiming unjustified authorship, accepting honorary authorship, concealing ghost authorship or improperly denying another person's justified authorship;
    5. materially misrepresenting one's own contribution or that of another;
    6. destroying, withholding, manipulating or removing research data, documentation, materials or software contrary to a legal, contractual or regulatory duty;
    7. materially obstructing another person's research without legitimate reason;
    8. breaching the confidentiality or neutrality of a review process or intentionally concealing a relevant conflict of interest;
    9. failing to correct or seek retraction of a known material error where this failure seriously misleads users of the research;
    10. participating in, directing, concealing or knowingly facilitating another person's research misconduct;
    11. grossly neglecting supervisory duties where that neglect enables misconduct; or
    12. knowingly making a false or malicious allegation of research misconduct.

  2. A finding shall identify the specific provision breached and explain why the conduct was intentional or grossly negligent.

2. Responsible bodies​

  1. Ombudsperson or deputy: receives concerns, provides confidential advice, conducts or arranges the preliminary assessment and refers sufficiently substantiated cases for formal investigation.
  2. Investigating Committee: independently establishes the facts, evaluates the evidence, hears the parties, determines whether research misconduct is established and recommends measures.
  3. CEO: decides and implements institutional, contractual and employment measures after receiving the Committee's final report. If the CEO is the respondent, has a conflict of interest or was materially involved in the matter, the shareholders shall appoint an unconflicted external decision-maker.
  4. People Department: advises only on employment, safeguarding and personnel consequences and receives only information necessary for those functions.
  5. Shareholders: appoint the Committee and any substitutes and ensure an independent appointment or decision process where an ordinary responsible person is conflicted.

3. Submission and initial safeguards​

  1. An allegation may be submitted in writing to the ombudsperson or deputy. A person requiring assistance to put an allegation in writing shall be offered reasonable support.
  2. The allegation should identify the conduct, relevant persons, approximate dates and available supporting material. Lack of direct proof does not bar a good-faith report if there are objective and sufficiently concrete grounds.
  3. Receipt shall normally be acknowledged within seven calendar days if the complainant is identifiable.
  4. Information shall be shared strictly on a need-to-know basis. No person shall contact witnesses, preserve devices or take employment action outside this procedure unless authorised and necessary to protect evidence, people or legal rights.

4. Conflicts of interest and substitution​

  1. Every ombudsperson, investigator, adviser and decision-maker shall disclose any actual, potential or apparent conflict of interest immediately.
  2. A person shall recuse themselves whenever their impartiality could reasonably be questioned, including because of a personal, professional, financial, supervisory or adversarial relationship with a party or the work.
  3. The deputy replaces a conflicted or unavailable ombudsperson. If both are unavailable or conflicted, the shareholders shall appoint an independent external person to perform the preliminary function.
  4. When appointing the Investigating Committee, the shareholders shall appoint at least one substitute capable of replacing a conflicted or unavailable member. A replacement shall receive the complete case record and sufficient time to participate meaningfully.
  5. A party may raise a reasoned concern about impartiality. An unconflicted shareholder representative, or an independent external person if necessary, shall decide the concern in writing.

5. Preliminary assessment​

  1. The ombudsperson, deputy or external substitute shall conduct an initial plausibility and scope assessment and preserve relevant evidence. An ombudsperson who has previously advised or mediated for a party shall not conduct the assessment.

  2. The respondent shall be informed of the substance of the allegation and the available material and shall normally have two weeks to respond before the preliminary decision. Notification may be delayed only for as long as is strictly necessary to preserve evidence or prevent serious harm.

  3. The complainant shall be invited to clarify the allegation and, where fairness requires, comment on material new information.

  4. The assessment shall decide whether:

    1. the matter falls outside this Regulation;
    2. the allegation is manifestly unfounded;
    3. an informal resolution is appropriate and freely accepted by the parties; or
    4. there are sufficiently concrete grounds for a formal investigation.

  5. The preliminary decision and reasons shall be recorded. The complainant and respondent shall be informed, subject to necessary confidentiality.

  6. The preliminary assessment should normally be completed within four weeks. Any extension and its reasons shall be documented and communicated.

6. Appointment of the Investigating Committee​

  1. Where a formal investigation is required, the shareholders shall appoint an Investigating Committee within fourteen calendar days.

  2. The Committee shall have at least three voting members and shall include:

    1. a chair with suitable procedural or research integrity experience;
    2. at least one person with expertise relevant to the subject matter; and
    3. at least one further independent internal or external member.

  3. The composition should appropriately reflect the subject range and diversity relevant to the matter. External members shall be used where internal independence or expertise is insufficient.

  4. The ombudsperson and deputy shall not serve on the Committee for a matter they received, advised on or assessed. The respondent, complainant, their direct line managers and anyone with another conflict may not serve.

  5. The appointment decision shall name the chair, members and substitute and record that conflicts of interest were checked.

7. Formal investigation and evidence​

  1. The Committee shall investigate impartially and consider both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. It may inspect relevant records, data, software and communications, interview persons and obtain independent expertise, subject to law and proportionality.
  2. The respondent shall receive the allegation, the applicable provisions, the material evidence that can lawfully be disclosed and information about their procedural rights. They shall have at least four weeks to submit a written response, may be heard in person and may submit evidence and identify witnesses.
  3. The complainant shall be informed that a formal investigation has begun, may provide further information and shall be heard on material matters affecting the allegation.
  4. Each party shall have a reasonable opportunity to comment on material new facts before they are relied upon. Disclosure may be redacted where necessary to protect personal data, confidential information, witnesses or third-party rights, provided that the respondent retains a fair opportunity to answer the substance of the case.
  5. The Committee shall keep minutes and a reasoned record of its evaluation of evidence. No adverse inference shall arise merely from an allegation or from a person's lawful exercise of procedural rights.
  6. The Committee may decide by majority vote. In the event of a tie, misconduct is not established. Any dissent may be recorded.
  7. The formal investigation should normally be completed within three months. In a complex case, the Committee may extend this once by up to three months, recording and communicating the reasons.

8. Draft findings and determination​

  1. The Committee shall prepare draft findings setting out:

    1. the allegation and applicable provisions;
    2. established and disputed facts;
    3. the evidence considered and its evaluation;
    4. whether each alleged act occurred intentionally or with gross negligence;
    5. whether research misconduct is established; and
    6. any recommended corrective or institutional measures.

  2. The complainant and respondent shall each receive the parts of the draft necessary to understand the proposed findings and shall have two weeks to comment. Necessary redactions may be made consistently with paragraph 7(4).

  3. The Committee shall consider the comments and issue a final reasoned report, normally within four weeks. The Committee's determination shall state whether misconduct is established for each alleged act.

  4. If misconduct is not established, OET shall take reasonable steps to restore the respondent's reputation and protect the complainant, unless the complaint was knowingly false or malicious.

9. Measures following established misconduct​

  1. After consulting the People Department where employment consequences are possible, the CEO or substitute decision-maker shall issue a written decision on measures. Any departure from the Committee's recommendations shall be explained.

  2. Depending on seriousness, culpability and consequences, measures may include:

    1. correction, withdrawal or retraction of an output;
    2. a written warning or reprimand;
    3. required training, supervision or quality assurance;
    4. removal from particular research, review or supervisory functions;
    5. correction of authorship or acknowledgement;
    6. notification of affected collaborators, clients, funders, publishers, repositories or research organisations;
    7. repayment or other funding-related action;
    8. proportionate contractual or employment action under applicable law; and
    9. referral to a competent academic body where revocation of a degree may be considered.

  3. Measures shall be proportionate and shall take account of intent, severity, repetition, harm, cooperation, correction and relevant employment and contractual law.

  4. If degree revocation may be relevant, the body legally competent to consider it shall be involved. OET shall not purport to revoke a degree itself.

10. Notification, review and third parties​

  1. The complainant and respondent shall be informed in writing of the outcome and given sufficient reasons, subject to data protection and third-party rights.
  2. Either party may request procedural reconsideration within four weeks based on a material procedural error or significant new evidence that could not reasonably have been provided earlier. A person not previously involved shall decide whether reopening is warranted.
  3. After inquiries are complete, OET shall inform affected research organisations and third parties where legally required or where they have a justified interest in the decision. Disclosure shall be limited to what is necessary and proportionate.

11. Records and retention​

  1. The complete case record shall be stored securely with access limited to authorised persons.
  2. The retention period shall comply with applicable law and OET's approved retention schedule. A ten-year period may be used where misconduct is established or where continued retention is otherwise justified. Where it is not established, personal data shall be deleted as soon as legally and procedurally permissible.
  3. The record shall identify the applicable version of this Regulation, all appointments and substitutions, conflict decisions, evidence considered, hearings, findings, measures and notifications.

12. Standard timeline​

  1. Receipt acknowledged: normally within seven calendar days.
  2. Preliminary assessment: normally within four weeks.
  3. Committee appointed: within fourteen calendar days after referral.
  4. Respondent's formal statement: at least four weeks.
  5. Formal investigation: normally within three months, with one reasoned extension of up to three months.
  6. Comments on draft findings: two weeks.
  7. Final report: normally within four weeks after comments.
  8. Any material delay shall be documented and communicated to both parties.