German International University (Berlin) AI Policy

“(1) An author is defined as someone who has made a genuine and identifiable contribution to the content of a scientific text, data, or software publication. Whether a contribution qualifies as genuine and identifiable depends on the specific principles of scientific work within the respective discipline and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

(2) A genuine and identifiable contribution is considered to have been made, particularly if a scientific individual has contributed in a scientifically significant way to:

• Design and development of the specific research activities described and evaluated in the publication (not: merely applying for or acquiring funding for overarching framework projects, institutional units, or equipment, or simply holding a leadership or supervisory position within the research institution), or

• Independent acquisition and processing of data, sourcing of materials, or programming of software (not: merely performing technical routine tasks or implementing predefined data collection formats), or

• Independent analysis, evaluation, or interpretation of data, sources, or results (not: merely listing data or compiling sources), or

• Development of conceptual approaches or argumentative structures (not: merely advising on others' drafts or providing general suggestions), or

• Drafting the manuscript (not: merely making editorial adjustments or language corrections).

(3) If a contribution does not meet the criteria for authorship, the support can be acknowledged appropriately in footnotes, prefaces, or acknowledgments. Honorary authorship, where no sufficient contribution has been made, is prohibited, as is attributing authorship solely based on a leadership or supervisory position.

(4) All authors must approve the final version of the work to be published and share joint responsibility for the publication unless explicitly stated otherwise. Approval for publication must not be unreasonably withheld; any refusal must be substantiated with verifiable criticism of the data, methods, or results.”

“(2) The origin of data, organisms, materials, and software used in the research process must be clearly indicated by citing the original sources, along with documentation of the conditions for reuse. If publicly available software is utilized, it must be persistently and citable, with the source code documented, where feasible and reasonable.

(3) The type and scope of research data generated during the research process must be described.

(4) An essential component of quality assurance is ensuring that other scientific staff can replicate results or findings.”

“(1) In research, scientifically sound and transparent methods must be applied.

(2) When developing and applying new methods, scientific staff must place particular emphasis on quality assurance and the establishment of standards.”

“(1) Scientific staff must document all information relevant to the development of a research result in a manner that is as transparent as required and appropriate for the respective discipline. This ensures that results can be reviewed, evaluated, and replicated. If specific professional recommendations exist for review and evaluation, scientific staff must prepare the documentation according to these guidelines. In the development of research software, its source code must also be documented where feasible and reasonable.

(2) Individual results that do not support the original hypothesis must also be documented as a rule. Selective reporting of results is prohibited.”

“(3) When results are made publicly accessible, they must be described comprehensively and transparently, avoiding overly fragmented publications. This also includes making the underlying research data, materials, information, methods used, and software available, where feasible and reasonable. This is done according to the FAIR principles: Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Re-Usable.”

“(2) The university leadership ensures that the actions of members and affiliates of the university comply with regulations and promotes compliance through appropriate organizational structures. The university leadership has established the following binding principles for research ethics:

• GIU establishes an ethics committee to regulate key principles of research ethics.

The committee's role is to review proposed or ongoing research studies to protect the dignity, rights, safety, and well-being of all actual or potential research participants, as well as those who may be affected by the research outcomes.”

“(4) Scientific staff must obtain necessary approvals and ethical clearances, where required, and submit them to the appropriate authorities.

(5) Scientific staff must remain continuously aware of the risk of misuse of research findings, particularly in safety-relevant research. They must thoroughly assess the potential consequences of their research and evaluate its ethical implications.”

“(2) False information includes:

d) Providing incorrect scientific information in funding applications or within reporting obligations,”

“Any concrete suspicion of scientific misconduct will be promptly investigated, and appropriate measures will be taken if the suspicion is confirmed.”

“(2) The origin of data, organisms, materials, and software used in the research process must be clearly indicated by citing the original sources, along with documentation of the conditions for reuse.”

“(5) When scientific findings are made publicly accessible (including through means other than publications), the mechanisms of quality assurance applied must always be disclosed.”

“(3) If the documentation does not meet the requirements under paragraphs 1 and 2, the limitations and reasons for this must be clearly explained.”

“(5) Both one’s own and third-party prior work must be fully and accurately cited, unless disciplinary conventions allow exceptions in the case of one’s own previously publicly accessible results.”

“(3) If a contribution does not meet the criteria for authorship, the support can be acknowledged appropriately in footnotes, prefaces, or acknowledgments.”

“Any concrete suspicion of scientific misconduct will be promptly investigated, and appropriate measures will be taken if the suspicion is confirmed.”

“(4) Ombudspersons act as neutral and qualified points of contact for issues of good scientific practice and cases of suspected scientific misconduct. Where possible, they assist in solution-oriented conflict mediation.

(5) Ombudspersons and their deputies handle inquiries confidentially and, if necessary, refer cases of suspected scientific misconduct to the investigation commission at GIU, as outlined in Section III.”

“(1) Scientific misconduct occurs when a person engaged in scientific activity at GIU, in a context relevant to science, deliberately or through gross negligence provides false information, improperly appropriates the scientific work of others, or impairs the research activities of others.”

“(2) False information includes:

a) Fabricating scientific data or research results,

b) Falsifying scientific data or research results, particularly by suppressing or deleting data or findings obtained during the research process without disclosure, or by distorting representations or illustrations,

d) Providing incorrect scientific information in funding applications or within reporting obligations,”

“(3) Improper appropriation of the scientific work of others occurs in the following cases:

a) Unattributed use of third-party content without proper citation (plagiarism),

b) Unauthorized use of research approaches, findings, or scientific ideas (theft of ideas),

c) Unauthorized sharing of scientific data, theories, or findings with third parties,”