"This is not an isolated case".

When erwischt fib: 16 Göttinger researchers are suspected of having falsified lists of publications to cover funding abzuräumen. In scores of science with as many publications. Strengthens the practice of evaluating the trend towards mass class?

 

In June, in Göttingen, the "Adventure Science" is celebrated. Thus, a festival with which the city the title "city of the young science 2009" will rejoice. But Kurt von Figura, Rector of the University of Göttingen, is now so do not celebrate feast. The reputation of the university was "significantly damaged", he informed on Monday in an opinion thereof.

DPA
Library of Academe "reputation significantly damaged"

Research in Göttingen was too recent to be adventurous. On the fiasco of the "elite university" came in Sonderforschungsbereich 552, which deals with the change in the rainforest in Indonesia covers: Scientists should be in an application for research funding by the German Research Foundation (DFG) false statements made about publications Publications and partly invented.

In the open was the dizziness in February when evaluating the application for further promotion of the Collaborative Research Center, publicly he was a
Report in the current blogs. Meanwhile, also on the prosecutor Göttingen and examine whether an initial suspicion of infidelity exists.

The notice came from the science

To avoid scandal, the university withdrew the request for 8.6 million euro research funding and also waived the usual outlet financing. The promotion will be on 30 June 2009 question. The University has initiated an investigation, the DFG also has affected by the 16 scientists called opinions. "Duration and outcome of the DFG process are at this moment not yet in sight," said Dorothee Dwzonnek, Secretary General of the DFG. If the suspicion confirmed, would be recovered due. The amount Dwzonnek wanted no details.

MORE ON THIS TOPIC

The new blogs 19/2009:
The World Virus
How dangerous are the new flu pathogen?

Photo Wolfgang Maria Weber for blogs

Content
Preliminary reports
English text
Subscription

The DFG, with a budget of 2.3 billion euros in Europe's largest research funders, wished to not comment further questions. Ulrike Beisiegel, as the DFG ombudsman since 2005, with questions of scientific misconduct employed, but already the case in Göttingen was "not an isolated case," she blogs ONLINE. Again and again they get fake trials on the table. "We get but of course only the tip of the iceberg can be seen," says Beisiegel.

In Göttinger case cited researchers in their application of 3 December 2008 manuscripts that have not yet published, but only when journals were submitted, a practice by no means rare in the DFG process. The fact that the manuscripts, however, not yet or only existed in the initial stage, the evaluators learned only by a hint of a scientist. Perhaps it would be inappropriate otherwise hardly been noticed. "The naming is not yet published manuscripts is customary, it should not be," says Beisiegel.

In most cases, the DFG and valuers in the requests referred to submit manuscripts. For a detailed assessment, however, often lack the time: "The scientific system is running a little about, there are too many applications and too few experts," says Beisiegel ombudswoman. Was necessary to rethink the whole system: "Three publications should be good enough - instead of a long list."

Evaluators under time pressure

Even Hildegard Westphal, geologist at the University of Bremen, and even expert, notes that there is "here and there, the mentality that goes mass before class." The basic problem was that "the basic facilities of the universities has become increasingly worse and the universities are dependent on third-party." While thus the pressure on scientists and the growing importance of applications for the universities are growing, according to the experts working in the shadow Westphal, the appreciation of the consulting activities is too low. "It costs a lot of time when you want it right, but it appears not in the biography and play in the proper performance grades do not matter. Would that otherwise would certainly change a lot."

The literary scholar Albrecht Koschorke with the procedure of the familiar advice - and gives to the entries in the applications to trust. "It would not me in the sense that my assistants loszuschicken to the publications to verify," says Professor of Constance, in 2003, the Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Prize of the DFG won.

However, there are differences between the humanities and the sciences. There it was "very difficult, in the major journals to publish", manuscripts were very long in newsrooms before they were adopted, so Koschorke. Time, the deadlines specified in the requests often do not stick.

"More on the manuscripts eight"

For problems with the application considers Koschorke anyway less than the publication lists the need for innovation. "At the request must prove that a completely new product works." A little freedom, he also looks at the themes of finding research projects. "In the report, certain keywords occur, for example, globalization, religion and violence, and the project should be interdisciplinary," said Koschorke. "That leads to a single topic in the applications submitted." Moreover, always referred to, which at the end of the research will come out. "If you blufft, then by more promises than you can eventually find out."

Also, the literary scholar, the applicant, given the financial plight of the universities to the success damned: "The universities are so emaciated that it was to safeguard the fundamental need to raise external financing." About the bureaucratisation of research proposals recently led the German Leibniz Prize plea. In a
blogs ONLINE survey wanted the Göttingen philologist Heinrich Detering less about "the application and advice prose."

Göttingen Rector drew in his opinion the first consequences of the counterfeiting allegations in requests from his university would in future only be published or accepted for publication publications "are indicated, Figura. Moreover, initial steps towards the improvement of quality management have been initiated.

Beisiegel ombudswoman praises these steps, the University was exemplary, "because they act consistently - that I wanted from all universities." She is sure that the scandal will also have something good: "The referees will be more on the manuscripts are ensured."