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 27 March 2026)

Section 1 – Purpose and Scope​

  1. This Regulation safeguards good research practice within OET. It implements the 19 guidelines of the DfG Code of Conduct for Safeguarding Good Research Practice.
  2. It applies to all research activities conducted under the auspices of Open Energy Transition (OET), including publications, reports, analyses, software deliverables, and public outputs.
  3. Compliance is mandatory for all employees, contractors, and affiliates engaged in research or research-related dissemination.

Part I – Principles of Good Research Practice​

Section 2 – General Principles​

  1. Open Energy Transition (“OET”) shall establish, maintain, and regularly review rules and procedures relating to good research practice. OET shall ensure that all employees and associated personnel involved in research activities are informed of all applicable guidelines, policies, legal requirements, and professional standards relevant to their work and shall require compliance with these standards in a manner appropriate to the nature of the research conducted.
  2. All researchers and employees involved in research activities are individually responsible for ensuring that their conduct adheres to the principles of good research practice.
  3. Researchers shall conduct research lege artis, with honesty, integrity, transparency, accountability, fairness, and due care in the design, execution, documentation, review, and dissemination of research activities and outputs.
  4. Researchers shall critically assess their own work and that of others and shall engage responsibly, respectfully, and constructively in peer review, scholarly discourse, collaboration, and professional debate.

Section 3 - Professional Ethics​

  1. Researchers and employees involved in research activities at OET are responsible for upholding, promoting, and actively advocating for the fundamental values and standards of good research practice and professional ethics within OET and in external professional engagements. It is the binding duty for all researchers to keep their knowledge of good research practice and the current state of the art up to date.
  2. Research activities shall be carried out with respect for colleagues, stakeholders, research participants, the environment, and the broader public interest.
  3. Researchers shall regularly maintain and update their knowledge of:
  • principles of good research practice and research integrity;
  • applicable legal, regulatory, contractual, and ethical obligations;
  • current scientific, technical, and methodological standards relevant to their field; and
  • developments relevant to the energy transition, sustainability, climate, and environmental sectors.
  1. OET shall support continuous professional development through appropriate measures, including:
  • Annual reviews by Team leads and HoD’s
  • Mentoring by Team leads and HoD’s
  • Workshops to design goals/activities to address any gaps
  • internal knowledge-sharing initiatives, and
  • periodic performance and development discussions (eg. annual team meet-ups for formal internal training events on good research practice)
  1. Managers and team leaders shall encourage ongoing learning and identify appropriate measures to address knowledge gaps relating to research integrity, professional ethics, methodologies, and sector-specific developments.
  2. Where the necessary expertise is not available within the project team, OET shall take reasonable steps to obtain appropriate support, training, peer review, supervision, or external expertise.
  3. Experienced researchers and employees shall support junior colleagues and new team members through mentorship, guidance, collaboration, and constructive knowledge exchange in order to foster a culture of continuous learning, accountability, and ethical research conduct throughout OET

Part II – Organisational Responsibility and Governance​

Section 4 – Responsibilities of Leadership​

  1. The CEO and leadership of OET are responsible for establishing and maintaining the organisational framework necessary to support and safeguard good research practice, professional ethics, and research integrity throughout the organisation.
  2. OET shall maintain clear written policies and procedures relating to:
  1. These policies and procedures shall be communicated to employees and applied transparently and consistently.
  2. OET shall ensure that staff selection, evaluation, supervision, and development processes are conducted fairly and with due consideration to gender equality, diversity, inclusion, and the prevention of implicit bias, in alignment with OET’s applicable equality and workplace policies. Measures may include: ● Transparent evaluation criteria and structured interviews. ● Gender-neutral language in job descriptions. ● Diverse hiring panels. ● Monitoring applicant pools, shortlists, and appointment outcomes by sex, where possible. ● Equal access to professional development and training. ● Mentoring and sponsorship programmes, as applicable. ● Clear, transparent promotion criteria and processes. ● Regular review of pay structures and corrective measures to address any recognized gender pay gaps.
  3. OET has a formal process for every role, across all teams, whereby we conduct an Annual Feedback Session. This is a 1:1 opportunity for OETers to meet with their managers to discuss their role, celebrate wins, receive constructive feedback, and celebrate their wins. It involves documented notes, feedback about the team and company from the person whose AFS it is, and also involves polling numerous team members for their thoughts, to remove bias in the process. Our People Department manages the process, and ensures fairness and consistency.
  4. The CEO shall ensure that appropriate organisational structures, supervision standards, quality assurance processes, and conflict-management mechanisms are in place to enable researchers and employees to comply with applicable legal, ethical, contractual, and professional obligations. 7 Heads of Department and team leaders shall be responsible for:
  • clearly allocating and communicating roles, responsibilities, and reporting lines within teams and departments;
  • ensuring adequate supervision, mentorship, and support for researchers and employees, particularly early-career researchers;
  • promoting opportunities for peer learning, continuous professional development, and constructive feedback;
  • supporting compliance with good research practice and professional ethics;
  • addressing workplace conflicts and concerns in a timely, fair, and confidential manner; and
  • implementing reasonable measures to prevent abuse of power, exploitation, discrimination, and inappropriate dependency relationships.
  1. Leadership responsibilities shall be exercised in a manner proportionate to the size, structure, and nature of the relevant research activities and departments. Heads of Department and team leaders shall be responsible for the timely identification, management, and escalation of interpersonal, professional, ethical, or research-related conflicts arising within their team. This includes:
  • promoting open and respectful communication within teams;
  • addressing concerns or disputes fairly, confidentially, and without retaliation;
  • taking reasonable steps to prevent abuse of authority, discrimination, harassment, or dependency relationships;
  • escalating unresolved or serious concerns to the appropriate organisational level where necessary; and
  • ensuring that employees are aware of available reporting and support mechanisms.
  1. More details on conflict management can be found in the Conflict Resolution Policy
  2. OET shall support the progressive development of researchers and employees by providing increasing levels of responsibility, participation, and professional autonomy appropriate to their experience, competencies, and career stage.
  3. Heads of Department and supervisors shall encourage employees and early-career researchers to progressively develop independent judgement, technical expertise, leadership capability, and ownership of their work, while continuing to provide appropriate guidance and oversight. Researchers shall be provided with an appropriate level of participation, access to relevant information, and involvement in project-related discussions and decisions proportionate to their responsibilities and contributions.
  4. Researchers and employees shall be provided with appropriate opportunities to contribute to project planning, decision-making, stakeholder engagement, problem-solving, and professional development activities in order to support long-term career growth and professional independence.

Section 5 - Dimensions of performance and assessment criteria​

To assess the performance of researchers, a multidimensional approach is called for; in addition to academic and scientific achievements, other aspects may be taken into consideration. Performance is assessed primarily on the basis of qualitative measures, while quantitative indicators may be incorporated into the overall assessment only with appropriate differentiation and reflection. Where provided voluntarily, individual circumstances stated in curriculavitae as well as the categories specified in the German General Equal Treatment Act (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz) – are to be taken into account when forming a judgement. In addition to the generation of and critical reflection on findings, other aspects of performance are taken into consideration in the evaluation process. Examples include involvement in teaching, academic self-governance, public relations, and knowledge and technology transfer; contributions to the general good of society may also be recognised. An individual’s approach to research, such as an openness to new findings and a willingness to take risks, is also considered. Appropriate allowance is made for periods of absence due to personal, family or health reasons or for prolonged training or qualification phases resulting from such periods, and for alternative career paths or similar circumstances.

Part III – Research Conduct and Quality Assurance​

Section 6 – Research Design and Methods​

  1. Research projects shall be designed and conducted in a manner that seeks to minimise conscious and unconscious bias, distortion, selective interpretation, and inappropriate influence in the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of findings.
  2. To support objective and reliable research outcomes, OET shall, where appropriate to the nature of the work, apply methods including:
  • peer review and internal quality-assurance checks;
  • review and validation of data sources, calculations, assumptions, models, and analytical methodologies;
  • transparent documentation of methodologies, limitations, assumptions, and uncertainties;
  • use of multiple data sources or comparative analyses where reasonably practicable;
  • separation of drafting, review, and approval responsibilities where appropriate;
  • consideration and documentation of alternative interpretations, scenarios, or outcomes;
  • declaration and management of conflicts of interest; and
  • project proposal, initiation, or risk-assessment processes that identify and address potential sources of bias, distortion, or undue influence.
  1. Project leads and supervisors shall ensure that these considerations are integrated into project planning, research methodologies, quality-assurance activities, and review processes in a manner proportionate to the scale and nature of the work.
  2. Where relevant to the nature of the work, researchers and project teams shall assess whether gender, diversity, socioeconomic, geographic, environmental, stakeholder, or other contextual dimensions may materially affect the research objectives, methodologies, work programmes, analysis, implementation, or applicability of findings.Where appropriate, such considerations shall be integrated into project planning, proposal development, data collection, stakeholder engagement, modelling assumptions, analytical methodologies, risk assessments, and reporting processes.
  3. Researchers shall interpret and communicate research findings, analyses, and technical outputs with due consideration to the context in which the work was conducted.This includes, where relevant:
  • consideration of methodological limitations,
  • assumptions,
  • regional or sector-specific conditions,
  • data constraints,
  • stakeholder influences,
  • regulatory frameworks that may affect the interpretation, reliability, transferability, or applicability of findings.
  1. Where appropriate, reports, publications, models, and technical outputs shall clearly document material assumptions, uncertainties, limitations, and contextual factors relevant to the work.

Section 7 - Legal and ethical frameworks, usage rights​

  1. Researchers and employees shall conduct research and related activities in compliance with applicable legal, regulatory, contractual, ethical, confidentiality, data-protection, and information-security requirements.
  2. Where required by law, regulation, contractual obligation, organisational policy, client requirements, or the nature of the work, researchers and project teams shall identify, obtain, document, and maintain all necessary approvals, permissions, ethics statements, authorisations, consents, or review outcomes prior to commencing the relevant activities.
  3. Such approvals may include, where applicable:
  • ethics approvals or ethics-review outcomes;
  • client or stakeholder authorisations;
  • permissions relating to confidential or restricted information;
  • data-use or data-sharing approvals;
  • regulatory or legal approvals;
  • interview, survey, or stakeholder-engagement consent requirements; and
  • approvals relating to the use of third-party data, software, methodologies, or intellectual property.
  1. Ethical assessment considerations may include, where relevant:
  • the use of personal, confidential, restricted, or sensitive information;
  • stakeholder interviews, surveys, workshops, or consultation activities;
  • impacts on affected communities, vulnerable groups, or public interests;
  • conflicts of interest or undue influence;
  • environmental, social, or governance-related impacts;
  • use of artificial intelligence, automated analysis, or modelling tools;
  • dual-use, security-sensitive, or potentially harmful applications of research or technical outputs;
  • contractual, regulatory, or jurisdictional obligations; and
  • risks relating to fairness, bias, discrimination, exclusion, or misuse of findings.
  1. Researchers and employees shall retain appropriate records of approvals and ethics-related documentation and shall provide such records where required for quality assurance, audit, compliance, client, contractual, or research-integrity purposes.
  2. Researchers maintain a continual awareness of the risks associated with the misuse of research results. Their responsibility is not limited to compliance with legal requirements but also includes an obligation to use their knowl- edge, experience and skills such that risks can be recognised, assessed and evaluated. As part of the ISO certification process, OET has developed a Data Protection Policy
  3. Where research projects involve external collaborators, clients, contractors, partner organisations, consultants, shared datasets, or multi-institution participation, the rights and obligations relating to the use, ownership, storage, access, retention, sharing, publication, confidentiality, and continued use of project data, research outputs, methodologies, software, and results shall be clearly defined and documented.
  4. Where appropriate, such arrangements shall be governed through applicable contractual, project, data-processing, confidentiality, intellectual-property, or collaboration agreements, including Data Processing Agreements (“DPAs”) or equivalent project documentation.
  5. Documented agreements shall, where relevant, address:
  • rights of access and use;
  • ownership and licensing arrangements;
  • confidentiality and information-security obligations;
  • publication and disclosure permissions;
  • restrictions on reuse or onward sharing;
  • responsibilities relating to retention and deletion of data

Section 8 - Standards and Methods​

  1. Research methods, analytical tools, software, models, and technical methodologies shall be applied only by personnel with appropriate qualifications, expertise, training, or supervision relevant to the nature of the work.
  2. Where specialised expertise is required and is not available within the project team, OET shall ensure appropriate support through collaboration, peer review, supervision, training, or external specialist involvement where necessary.

Section 9 – Documentation and Archiving​

  1. All research activities and results, including negative or inconclusive outcomes, shall be documented according to disciplinary norms. In general, this also includes documenting individual results that do not support the research hypothesis. The selection of results must be avoided. Where subject-specific recommendations exist for review and assessment, researchers create documentation in accordance with these guidelines. If the documentation does not satisfy these requirements, the constraints and the reasons for them are clearly explained. Documentation and research results must not be manipu- lated; they are protected as effectively as possible against manipulation.
  2. Primary data and materials underlying findings shall be archived for a minimum of ten years from the date of public dissemination, unless a shorter retention period is justified in writing. Where possible, this archive should be open-source and hosted on a public platform such as Zenodo. Where confidentiality conditions make this impossible, data and materials shall be archived on the OET internal file sharing system.
  3. Whenever possible, researchers make the research data and principal materials on which a publication is based available in recognised archives and repositories in accordance with the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable). Restrictions may apply to public availability in the case of patent applications.
  4. In accordance with the principle of prioritising quality over quantity, researchers shall avoid unnecessarily fragmenting research findings across multiple publications or outputs. Repetition of previously published content shall be limited to what is reasonably necessary to provide context and clarity. Researchers shall appropriately acknowledge and cite previously published or publicly available work, including their own prior contributions, unless this is not required under accepted professional or disciplinary conventions.
  5. If self-developed research software is to be made available to third parties, an appropriate licence is to be provided. The OET Internal & Third-Party Security Management Policy provides further detail on this process.
  6. To support transparency, traceability, and reproducibility, OET shall maintain clear and appropriate documentation relating to research and technical activities, including relevant data sources, methodologies, analytical processes, modelling assumptions, calculations, and evaluation steps necessary to understand and review the work performed. Citations, references, and supporting materials shall be recorded clearly and consistently to support verification and quality assurance.
  7. Where software, scripts, models, or automated workflows are developed or modified as part of project activities, the relevant source code and technical documentation shall be appropriately maintained in accordance with OET’s documentation, version-control, quality-assurance, and information-security procedures. archived materials shall also include research software, scripts, dependencies, configurations, and related technical environments necessary to understand or reproduce the work.

Part IV – Authorship, Publication, and Dissemination​

Section 9 – Authorship​

  1. Appropriate quality assurance measures shall be applied throughout all phases of the research process, including planning, data collection, analysis, interpretation, and dissemination.
  2. Authorship requires a clear, identifiable contribution to conceptualization, analysis, interpretation, or writing.
  3. Authorship order shall be agreed in advance of publication. All authors must agree on the final version and share responsibility for the publication.
  4. Authors seek to ensure that, as far as possible, their contributions are identified by publishers or infrastructure providers such that they can be correctly cited by users.
  5. Honorary authorship and undisclosed ghost authorship are prohibited and a leadership or supervisory function does not itself constitute co-authorship.
  6. Researchers may not refuse to give their consent to publication of the results without sufficient grounds. Refusal of consent must be justified with verifiable criticism of data, methods or results.

Section 10 – Publication Standards​

  1. High-quality research shall be assessed in accordance with criteria specific to the relevant discipline. In addition to the generation of and critical engagement with research findings, the evaluation of performance may take into account other contributions, including teaching, academic self-governance, public engagement, and knowledge or technology transfer. Contributions to the broader public good may also be recognised. An individual’s approach to research, including openness to new insights and a willingness to pursue innovative or higher-risk approaches, may likewise be considered in the assessment process.
  2. All OET publications must be factually accurate, evidence-based, and supported by transparent documentation of sources, data, assumptions, and methods.
  3. Researchers decide autonomously with due regard for the conventions of the relevant subject area – whether, how and where to disseminate their results. If it has been decided to make results available in the public domain, researchers describe them clearly and in full.
  4. Publications must reflect independent analysis and shall not be influenced by external funders or stakeholders. Researchers who perceive undue external influence shall raise the issue with the Head of Research and Market Development. Any funding potentially leading to conflict of interest shall be disclosed in writing in the publication after Acknowledgments and before References.
  5. All publications must undergo review by at least one qualified colleague not directly involved in the writing process. If concerns arise during this review process, authors must address them and record how concerns were resolved.
  6. For potentially controversial publications or those likely to attract media attention, additional review by the relevant Head of Department and either the Head of Research and Market Development or the CEO is required.
  7. Authors shall coordinate planned publications with the OET communications team well in advance of release. Authors should always follow the OET external communications policy.
  8. Publications using an OET template must conform to the OET style guide.
  9. OET shall be listed as an affiliation when OET resources (time, data, tools) are used.
  10. Contributions from external collaborators shall be acknowledged appropriately.
  11. Publications should be made open access wherever reasonably possible. Project budgets should account for any necessary open access fees.
  12. Final publication files shall be stored on the OET internal file sharing system. Two versions shall be maintained: one immutable PDF and one editable source document.
  13. Publishing in predatory or non-reputable outlets is prohibited. If in doubt about venue quality, authors shall consult the Head of Research and Market Development. Authors select the publication medium carefully, with due regard for its quality and visibility in the relevant field of discourse.
  14. The scientific/academic quality of a contribution does not depend on the medium in which it is published.
  15. In addition to formal reports, publications, and journals, OET researchers and employees may make use of appropriate digital and professional platforms, including repositories, software and data-sharing platforms, technical documentation sites, and organisational communication channels such as GitHub or blogs, where suitable for the nature of the work. Before using new or unfamiliar publication or communication platforms, reasonable consideration shall be given to their credibility, reliability, transparency, information-security implications, and alignment with recognised standards of good research practice and professional conduct, including whether the platform or publication medium maintains its own guidelines or standards relating to good research practice.

Section 11 - Confidentiality and neutrality of review processes and discussions​

  1. Fair and professional conduct shall form the basis of all review, evaluation, and decision-making processes within OET.
  2. Employees and researchers involved in reviewing research outputs, project proposals, funding applications, recruitment processes, performance evaluations, or professional qualifications shall maintain strict confidentiality regarding all non-public information obtained through these processes.
  3. Documents, data, and other materials accessed during reviews or evaluations may not be shared with unauthorised persons or used for personal advantage or purposes unrelated to the relevant process.
  4. Any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest, bias, favouritism, or dependency relationships that could affect impartial judgement shall be disclosed without delay to the appropriate responsible person or body. Appropriate measures shall then be taken to manage or avoid such conflicts in accordance with OET’s applicable policies and procedures.

Part V – Research Misconduct and Complaint Procedures​

Section 12 – Definitions and Scope​

  1. Researchers carry out each step of the research process lege artis. When research findings are made publicly available (in the narrower sense of publication, but also in a broader sense through other communication channels), the quality assurance mechanisms used are always explained. This applies especially when new methods are developed.
  2. OET shall apply quality assurance measures throughout all phases of research activities involving software, digital platforms, data-processing tools, models, scripts, automated workflows, or other technical systems used in research, analysis, and operational activities.
  3. Where software or digital tools are introduced, developed, procured, modified, or integrated into research or operational processes, appropriate review and approval procedures shall be followed in accordance with OET’s Information Security Management System (“ISMS”), secure software development procedures, and applicable information-security policies.
  4. Quality assurance measures may include, where appropriate: assessment of information-security, licensing, compatibility, and data-protection risks; testing, validation, and peer review of software, scripts, models, and automated processes; version control and change-management practices; maintenance of secure and controlled repositories for source code and configurations; documentation of software dependencies, methodologies, and configurations; and procedures for backup, reproducibility, traceability, and recovery of research-related digital assets.
  5. The OET Incident Management Policy and Secure Software Development Policy provides further detail on managing information security incidents.
  6. OET shall ensure, where reasonably practicable and appropriate to the nature of the work, that research findings and technical outputs are documented in a manner that enables independent review, verification, replication, or confirmation by other suitably qualified personnel (Eg. Shared repositories, document version control).

Section 13 – Stakeholders, responsibilities and roles​

  1. The roles, responsibilities, reporting lines, and decision-making responsibilities of employees, researchers, consultants, and research support personnel involved in research, analytical, technical, or project-related activities at OET shall be clearly defined, communicated, and documented at all stages of a project or engagement.
  2. Project participants shall maintain regular communication and collaboration throughout the lifecycle of the project to support effective coordination, quality assurance, accountability, and responsible research conduct.
  3. Roles and responsibilities shall be assigned in a manner appropriate to the nature, scale, and complexity of the relevant work and shall be reviewed and updated where necessary, including where project scopes, deliverables, methodologies, staffing arrangements, or areas of responsibility change during the course of the work.
  4. Project leads and Heads of Department shall ensure that employees understand their respective responsibilities relating to research activities, technical outputs, stakeholder engagement, quality assurance, information security, documentation, and compliance with applicable organisational policies and procedures.

Section 14 – Investigation and Adjudication​

  1. The origin of all data, organisms, materials, and software used in the research process shall be disclosed, and any reuse of existing data shall be clearly indicated. Original sources shall be properly cited and acknowledged. The nature and scope of research data generated during the research process shall be appropriately described and managed in accordance with the standards and requirements of the relevant discipline. Where software is made publicly available, its source code shall be preserved in a persistent, citable, and adequately documented form.
  2. Allegations shall be handled confidentially and promptly under procedures that respect due process, and presumption of innocence.
  3. Both the complainant and respondent shall be given appropriate opportunities to be heard and to provide relevant information at each material stage of the procedure.
  4. Appendix 1 outlines the misconduct procedure.
  5. Any investigative processes and processes followed in cases of misconduct will be carried out in keeping with OET's overall misconduct policy, which can be found in this same Handbook.

Part VI – Ombudspersons​

Section 15 – Appointment and Role​

  1. Higher education institutions and non-higher education research institutions shall appoint at least one independent ombudsperson to whom members and employees may turn with questions concerning good research practice or in cases of suspected research misconduct. Institutions shall take appropriate measures to ensure that the identity and role of the ombudsperson are widely communicated and easily accessible. A designated deputy or substitute shall be appointed for each ombudsperson to act in cases of conflict of interest or where the ombudsperson is unable to perform their duties.
  2. As neutral and qualified contact persons, they advise on issues relating to good research practice and in suspected cases of scientific misconduct and, where possible, contribute to solution-oriented conflict mediation. Ombudspersons maintain confidentiality in dealing with queries and, if necessary, notify the responsible body, normally an investigating committee, in the event of suspected cases of misconduct.
  3. OET has one independent ombudsperson and one substitute. Current ombudspersons are listed in this OET handbook.
  4. Ombudpersons are appointed by OET’s shareholders for a term of three years, which may be extended by an additional three years once. Current ombudspersons are Dr Will Usher and Dr Measrainsey Meng (deputy), appointed for a term of 27 March 2026-26 March 2029)
  5. An appropriate mediator will be appointed within the team as required on a case by case term.
  6. Ombudspersons shall be accessible, impartial, and not hold central governance roles during their term.
  7. Researchers may alternatively consult the German Ombudsman Committee for Research Integrity (OWID). However, it is recommended that the OET Ombudsperson is the first point of contact.
  8. The ombudsperson shall maintain strict confidentiality in relation to all consultations, advice, disclosures, discussions, mediation processes, complaints, and records received in the course of performing their duties, except where disclosure is required by law or authorised under applicable misconduct procedures.
  9. All information relating to ombudsperson consultations, advice, mediation, and suspected misconduct shall be classified and handled as highly confidential information in accordance with OET’s Information Security Management System (“ISMS”), confidentiality obligations, and applicable information-security procedures.
  10. Ombudspersons, investigators, reviewers, and members of any investigation involved in misconduct procedures shall act independently and free from conflicts of interest. A conflict of interest may include personal, professional, financial, supervisory, or other relationships or circumstances that could impair, or reasonably appear to impair, objective and impartial judgement.
  11. Any individual involved in a misconduct procedure who identifies an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest shall disclose it without delay and shall recuse themselves from the relevant matter where appropriate. Where a conflict of interest exists, an alternate ombudsperson, investigator, or decision-maker shall be appointed in accordance with OET’s applicable procedures.

Part VII – Final Provisions​

Section 16 – Enforcement and Entry into Force​

  1. This Regulation enters into force on 27.03.2026.
  2. It supersedes prior internal provisions
  3. Non-compliance may result in corrective action, including but not limited to internal sanctions, reporting obligations to funders, and reputational management actions.

Annex I

Procedure for Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct​

Section 1 – Purpose​

This Annex defines the procedural steps, responsibilities, and timelines for handling allegations of research misconduct at Open Energy Transition

The procedure shall be conducted confidentially, under the presumption of innocence, and as promptly as possible

Part I – Submission and Preliminary Assessment

Section 2 – Submission of Allegations​

  1. Allegations of research misconduct shall be investigated in strict confidence and in accordance with the principle of the presumption of innocence. Information provided by the complainant shall be submitted in good faith. Knowingly false, misleading, or malicious allegations may themselves constitute misconduct. The submission and investigation of allegations shall not unfairly prejudice the research activities or professional standing of either the complainant or the respondent.
  2. Allegations may be submitted in writing to:
  • The Ombudsperson (or, in their absence, their Deputy), or
  • The designated Investigating Committee once one has been appointed.
  1. Allegations should include sufficiently concrete facts.
  2. Anonymous allegations may be investigated if supported by verifiable evidence.
  3. The identity of a complainant shall be treated as confidential and shall not be disclosed unless required by law or necessary to ensure a fair investigation process. Where disclosure of the complainant’s identity becomes necessary, the complainant shall be informed in advance and may choose to withdraw the allegation before disclosure takes place.

Section 3 – Preliminary Assessment​

  1. Within 14 calendar days of receipt, the Ombudsperson shall:
    • Confirm receipt to the complainant (if identifiable).
    • Conduct a plausibility assessment.
    • Determine whether the allegation falls within the scope of research misconduct.
  2. If the allegation is manifestly unfounded, the procedure shall be terminated with written justification.
  3. If sufficient grounds exist, the matter shall proceed to formal investigation.

Maximum duration of preliminary assessment: 4 weeks.

Part II – Formal Investigation

Section 4 – Initiation​

  1. An Investigating Committee shall be formally convened by the Ombudsperson (or, in their absence, their Deputy) within 14 days of referral. The Investigating Committee shall consist of the Ombudsperson and/or their Deputy, and at least one internal or external expert in a field of research relevant to the allegation.
  2. The respondent shall be informed in writing of:
    • The allegation.
    • The relevant evidence available at that stage.
    • Their rights in the procedure.
  3. The OET People Department shall be informed in writing of:
    • The process being undertaken, with all relevant context.

Section 5 – Rights of the Parties​

  1. The respondent shall:
    • Be given the opportunity to submit a written statement within 4 weeks.
    • Have the right to be heard in person.
    • Be permitted to submit exculpatory evidence.
  2. The complainant shall:
    • Be informed of the initiation of the investigation.
    • Be given the opportunity to provide further clarification.
  3. Both parties shall be protected against disadvantage resulting from participation in the procedure.

Section 6 – Evidence and Review​

  1. The Investigating Committee shall:
    • Examine documentation and research data.
    • Interview relevant persons.
    • Seek further expert opinions if necessary.
  2. All proceedings shall remain strictly confidential.
  3. The investigating body will decide on a case-by-case basis how to handle the breach of confidentiality on the part of the complainant. Should research misconduct not be proven, the complainant must continue to be protected, assuming that the allegations cannot be shown to have been made against his or her better knowledge.

Section 7 – Duration of Investigation​

  1. The formal investigation shall normally be completed within 3 months of initiation.
  2. In complex cases, the period may be extended once by up to 3 additional months, with written justification.

Part III – Decision and Measures

Section 8 – Decision​

  1. The Committee shall prepare a written report containing:
    • Findings of fact.
    • Legal assessment.
    • Determination whether misconduct occurred.
    • Recommendation of measures, if applicable.
  2. The respondent shall be given the opportunity to comment on the draft findings within 2 weeks before final decision.
  3. A final decision shall be issued within 4 weeks after receipt of the respondent’s comments.
  4. Should research misconduct not be proven, the complainant must continue to be protected, assuming that the allegations cannot be shown to have been made against his or her better knowledge.

Section 9 – Possible Measures​

  1. If misconduct is established, consultation shall occur with OET's People Department, and measures may include, depending on severity:
  • Written reprimand
  • Retraction or correction of publications
  • Notification of affected partners or funders
  • Exclusion from specific research activities
  • Employment-related consequences under applicable contract terms and labour law
  • Referral to competent academic bodies in case of degree revocation consideration.
  1. Measures must be proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct.
  2. Procedures relating to suspected research misconduct shall be implemented and applied in accordance with applicable laws, contractual obligations, employment requirements, data-protection obligations, and OET’s internal governance framework, policies, and procedures. These procedures shall supplement, and not replace, any obligations arising under applicable law or regulatory requirements.

Part IV – Communication and Closure

Section 10 – Notification​

  1. Both complainant and respondent shall be informed in writing of the final decision.
  2. Relevant third parties shall be informed only where legally required or where a justified interest exists.
  3. OET's People Department will be informed of the outcome.

Section 11 – Documentation and Archiving​

  1. The complete case file shall be archived securely for 10 years, unless legal requirements require deletion earlier.
  2. If misconduct is not established, personal data shall be deleted when legally permissible.
  3. If misconduct is established, the facts thereof and any procedures undertaken in response to this shall be documented and securely stored by OET's People Department, in keeping with standard OET misconduct procedures.

Part V – Safeguards

Section 12 – Presumption of Innocence​

  1. Not every breach of good research practice constitutes research misconduct. Only intentional or grossly negligent violations, as defined in the applicable regulations, shall be considered research misconduct. Examples of such misconduct include, but are not limited to, the fabrication of data, falsification of data or results, and plagiarism. The regulations adopted by higher education institutions and non-higher education research institutions shall clearly define responsibilities for each stage of the investigative procedure, including the assessment of evidence, the appointment of substitutes for ombudspersons and members of investigation committees where necessary, the management of conflicts of interest, and adherence to principles of due process and the rule of law.
  2. No public disclosure shall occur before misconduct is formally established

Section 13 – Protection of Complainants​

  1. Good-faith complainants shall not suffer professional disadvantage.
  2. Knowingly false or malicious allegations may themselves constitute misconduct, triggering a separate investigation.
  3. Particular care shall be taken to ensure that employees, early-career researchers, interns, consultants, or other individuals in dependent or junior positions do not suffer professional disadvantage, retaliation, adverse working conditions, loss of opportunities, or negative impacts on career development as a result of raising concerns or reporting suspected misconduct in good faith.

Procedural Timeline Overview

  • Allegation received → Day 0
  • Preliminary assessment completed → Within 4 weeks
  • Investigation initiated → Within 2 weeks of referral
  • Respondent statement → Within 4 weeks
  • Investigation completed → Normally within 3 months
  • Draft findings comment period → 2 weeks
  • Final decision issued → Within 4 weeks

Maximum standard duration (without extension): approx. 6 months.