Germany’s system for safeguarding research integrity rests on two linked but distinct instruments: the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft’s (DFG) Guidelines for Safeguarding Good Research Practice code of conduct, which sets the substantive standards every DFG-funded institution must adopt, and the Ombuds Committee for Research Integrity in Germany (Ombudsgremium für die wissenschaftliche Integrität in Deutschland, or OWID), the national advisory and mediation body researchers can turn to with questions or suspected violations. Understanding how the two fit together matters for anyone administering research at a German institution, collaborating with one, or benchmarking Germany’s model against the United States’ Office of Research Integrity (ORI), the Netherlands’ LOWI, or other national research-integrity systems.
What is the DFG Code of Conduct?
The Guidelines for Safeguarding Good Research Practice is the DFG’s code of conduct on research integrity. It was approved by the DFG’s General Assembly on 3 July 2019 and entered into force on 1 August 2019, replacing the DFG’s earlier 1998 memorandum Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice (itself supplemented and updated in 2013). The code comprises 19 guidelines, each stated as a standard of good practice and accompanied by a practice-oriented explanation, covering the research process, responsibilities of researchers and institutional leadership, and how institutions must respond to suspected misconduct.
The code is not merely advisory. Implementing the 19 guidelines and their explanations in a legally binding form — typically through an institution’s own statutes or bylaws — is a condition of eligibility for DFG funding. Institutions that had been operating under the 1998 memorandum were given a transition period to adopt the new code; DFG treats non-adoption as grounds for exclusion from funding. In practical terms, this means every German university or research organisation that applies for or holds DFG grants must have codified its own good-practice rules, and must have designated at least one local ombudsperson or ombuds body to whom researchers can bring concerns — the institutional layer that OWID sits above.
What is OWID, the Ombuds Committee for Research Integrity in Germany?
OWID is the nationwide ombuds committee for research integrity in Germany. It is financed by the DFG and operates under the trusteeship of the Alliance of Science Organisations in Germany (Allianz der Wissenschaftsorganisationen), with a supporting association, OWID e.V., formally registered in 2024. The Committee’s deliberations are grounded in the DFG’s 19 guidelines described above.
The Committee itself has five members, appointed by the OWID e.V. general assembly and serving voluntary four-year terms; decisions are made jointly, and members operate independently of the supporting association, whose members receive no information about individual proceedings. A Berlin-based office of roughly seven staff — a head, a deputy head, several research integrity advisors, and administrative personnel — serves as the first point of contact, checking incoming written submissions for completeness and requesting clarifying documentation before a case reaches the Committee.
Researchers can approach OWID either directly or through their own institution’s local ombudsperson. The Committee treats every inquiry with what it describes as neutrality, fairness, and strict confidence, protecting both the person raising a concern and the person it concerns. Its role is advisory and mediatory: it provides assessments and works toward solution-oriented conflict resolution in disputes over good research practice, including where a suspicion of research misconduct has been raised. It does not conduct formal misconduct investigations, does not adjudicate findings, and does not impose sanctions — that authority remains with the researcher’s own institution, consistent with the DFG code’s requirement that each institution maintain its own investigative procedure.
How the institutional and national layers work together
The DFG code of conduct and OWID form a two-tier structure rather than a single body:
- Institutional layer. Every DFG-eligible institution must have codified good-practice rules and appointed its own ombudsperson(s), who are typically the first point of contact for a concern raised by a researcher at that institution, and who lead any formal inquiry or investigation the institution’s own procedure requires.
- National layer. OWID exists alongside — not above — that institutional structure. It gives researchers a route to independent advice and mediation, which is particularly useful where a case crosses institutions, where a researcher is uncomfortable raising a concern locally, or where an institution has no local ombudsperson available.
This mirrors, in structure though not in mechanics, the two-tier pattern seen elsewhere: the United States separates institutional and federal jurisdiction in misconduct cases handled under the ORI process, while the Netherlands’ LOWI provides a national second-opinion mechanism that reviews an institution’s own findings on request rather than replacing the institutional investigation. OWID’s role is closer to the German institutional ombudsperson’s own function, scaled to the national level, than to LOWI’s appellate second-opinion role or ORI’s oversight-and-enforcement role — it advises and mediates rather than reviewing or overturning an institutional decision.
Why this matters for research administrators
For research administrators outside Germany working with German co-investigators, partner institutions, or DFG-funded consortia, three practical points follow from this structure. First, DFG funding eligibility is conditioned on an institution’s own codified good-practice rules and ombuds arrangements being in place — a German partner institution’s research-integrity infrastructure is not optional or informal, it is a funding prerequisite. Second, a German co-investigator’s first port of call for a good-practice question or concern is normally their own institution’s ombudsperson, not OWID directly, though OWID remains available as a national, independent alternative. Third, because OWID’s role is advisory and mediatory rather than adjudicative, a case involving formal misconduct findings, sanctions, or funding consequences is handled by the relevant German institution (and, where DFG-funded, potentially by DFG’s own procedures) rather than by OWID itself.
Administrators benchmarking research-integrity frameworks across jurisdictions may also find it useful that Germany’s ombuds system, like its Dutch and other European counterparts, participates in the European Network of Research Integrity Offices (ENRIO), the cross-border forum where national research-integrity offices exchange practice and coordinate on cases that cross national lines.
Frequently asked questions
What does OWID stand for?
OWID is the German-language abbreviation for Ombudsgremium für die wissenschaftliche Integrität in Deutschland — the Ombuds Committee for Research Integrity in Germany. It is sometimes referred to in English simply as the German Research Ombuds Committee.
Is OWID a court, and can it issue binding rulings or sanctions?
No. OWID provides advice and solution-oriented mediation in matters of good research practice and suspected misconduct. It does not conduct formal investigations, make binding findings, or impose sanctions; those remain the responsibility of the researcher’s own institution under its own good-practice procedure.
What happens if a German institution doesn’t implement the DFG Code of Conduct?
Implementing the 19 guidelines in a legally binding form is a prerequisite for DFG funding eligibility. An institution that fails to codify and implement the code risks losing eligibility to receive DFG funding.
How does a researcher contact OWID?
Researchers can approach OWID directly through its Berlin-based office (by phone or written submission) or via their own institution’s local ombudsperson, who can refer a matter onward. The office reviews submissions for completeness before a case is brought to the five-member Committee for joint deliberation.
Does the DFG Code of Conduct apply outside Germany?
The code is binding on institutions in Germany as a condition of DFG funding. It is not a legal or regulatory instrument outside Germany, though international collaborators working with DFG-funded German partners will typically encounter its requirements indirectly, through the partner institution’s own good-practice statutes.
How is OWID different from an institution’s own ombudsperson?
Every DFG-eligible German institution is required to designate its own local ombudsperson(s) as the first point of contact for good-practice concerns arising there. OWID operates at the national level, alongside that institutional layer, giving researchers an independent avenue for advice and mediation — particularly where a case crosses institutions or a researcher prefers not to raise a concern locally.
