Science drives progress for the well-being of humankind, society, and the environment. It has such an impact that it is essential to preserve the credibility of scientific research and instruction resulting from it. This requires the preservation of the integrity of researchers^[1].

The vast majority of researchers carry out their work in a selfless manner for the greater good of humanity, and to extend the frontiers of scientific knowledge.

In return, researchers are entitled to the protection of their work and recognition for their efforts. Respect for integrity extends to the rigorous citation of the sources at the origin of research and on which university instruction is based.

Increasing competition in scientific research worldwide, and rising pressure on researchers to achieve results quickly or to obtain funding, increase the risk of breaches of the principles of integrity.

Preventing and sanctioning conduct contrary to integrity requires the formulation of explicit norms of protection and implementation of specific procedures for cases of suspected breach of integrity.

Since respect for integrity can hardly be enforced by the national legal and judicial system, the world of science must establish its own rules in this area.

The University of Geneva is responsible to society for the integrity of its affiliated researchers and instructors, and has chosen to put in place, through these guidelines, a framework for assuring the greatest possible integrity in science and teaching.

Together with 450 other universities, the University of Geneva has subscribed to the “Magna Charta Universitatum” signed in Bologna in 1988. It affirms adhesion to the fundamental principles of responsibility to society, independence from any external power, whether economic or ideological, and critical autonomy.

The University of Geneva also adheres to the principles of the “European Charter for Researchers and Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers”^[2], which specifies the roles, responsibilities, and reciprocal prerogatives of researchers and their employers or sponsors.

Based on the guidelines of the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences for scientific integrity^[3], these guidelines are intended for all persons actively engaged in research and instruction, with whom the University of Geneva aims to share these values of ethics and integrity.

These guidelines apply to all research and teaching activities carried out at the University of Geneva (hereinafter: the University).

These guidelines have five objectives:

1. To guarantee integrity in scientific research and instruction.
2. To promote quality research and instruction.
3. To ensure uniformity of conditions for scientific research and instruction conducted at the University.
4. To sensitize researchers and instructors to the risks of conflicts of interest.
5. To establish a procedure to follow in the event of a suspected breach of integrity.

Behavior consistent with integrity requires compliance not only with legal standards but also with the generally accepted standards of due diligence within the scientific and academic communities, as well as with the specific requirements of each scientific field.

When their work is funded by third parties, researchers and instructors must familiarize themselves with any additional requirements set by the third party regarding scientific integrity and must comply with those requirements as well.

The following rules of conduct are not exhaustive. They constitute minimum standards, knowledge of which must be incorporated into the training provided to the next generation of scientists and academics.

2.1    Planning research

For each research project, a project lead must be appointed. In particular, they are responsible for ensuring that other project participants uphold integrity.

Even if the results of research projects are unpredictable, researchers must carefully plan their research and employ rigorous methodology. The research plan must be clear and intelligible, also to third parties who may wish to monitor progress made and results of the research. The research plan and any later amendments thereto must be made in writing.

The plan must provide information about project leads and all persons involved in the research, its funding, sources of financing, and handling of raw data.

If the research project is financed by outside funding, detailed information must be provided explaining to what extent a potential sponsor might have an influence on the research (planning, realization, assessment, and publication).

2.2    Priority of quality over quantity

Priority must be given to the quality of research projects. Quality is evaluated primarily based on the originality of the research question, the reliability of the raw data and results, and a rigorous and comprehensive interpretation of those results. These criteria take precedence over the speed with which results could be obtained and distributed, or the number of anticipated publications.

Projects with clearly unrealistic objectives, those lacking scientific merit, or those that raise unfounded expectations among third parties should also be avoided.

2.3    Valorization of research work

If the research project generates results that may be patented or protected by another law of intellectual property, any rights and/or obligations stemming from the valorization of results must be resolved as soon as possible.

UNITEC^[4] is available for researchers faced with such questions.

2.4    Transparency concerning conflicts of interest

Both the research project lead and their collaborators must disclose all interests, notably financial interests and of intellectual propriety, linked to their research as well as any financial interests of members of their families.

All information from researchers concerning the cases outlined above must be included in a letter addressed to the Dean, who will forward it to the Rectorate.

The Rectorate must also be informed of any consultancy work.

The Rectorate may object to the research lead and their collaborators being owners, associates, members of a board of administration, or major shareholders of a business that manufactures or distributes the product being researched, or provides advice in this domain.

The University guidelines on conflicts of interest apply in all other respects.

2.5    Contractual relationships with third parties

Any contract involving funding of a project carried out at the University by a third party (person or legal entity, private or public) must be finalized using the University’s guidelines regarding the signing of a contract with a third-party.

2.6    Raw data

Data on research progress and results of the original experiments (“raw data”) should be clearly and precisely documented in accordance with regulations prevailing for each discipline, so as to avert as far as possible any damage or loss or any targeted manipulation. This also applies to electronic data (data saved on CD-ROM, etc.) as well as to original documentation of research projects mentioned in the research protocol.

These documents must be worded so as to establish a clear distinction between the raw data and how the data are interpreted.
Only authorized persons have access to this raw data.

Before each research project commences, it is decided who will retain access to the raw data even after the researchers’ collaboration in the project or research institute has ended, and for what purpose researchers are entitled to use this data.

The project lead must ensure that the raw data are kept secure for at least five years after the research is completed. In the event that the project lead leaves the University, they must ensure that the raw data continues to be properly stored within the University.

2.7    Communicating information

Participants in a research project have a duty of confidentiality. However, within the project group, participants must share with each other any information that may be relevant to the progress of the research.

When the research group deems it necessary to disclose certain information to individuals who are not part of the group for the successful completion of the project, or when it has been agreed with the third party funding the project that certain information would be provided to that party, the scope of what may be disclosed must be determined in advance.

Once the project is completed and the results are published, the information necessary to replicate and/or verify the experiments should be made available, in accordance with standard practice, to any third parties who wish to do so.

As far as possible, material acquired during the experiments and which is necessary to reproduce them is also made available insofar as this material is not available on the market and is still in stock at the University.

2.8    Incidents occurring during the research project

Any specific incidents observed during the research, as well as their potential impact on the original research plan, must be documented. Any unusual events that could lead to errors – particularly misinterpretations – must also be documented.

As soon as these incidents are recorded or as rapidly as possible thereafter, the raw data must be evaluated in its entirety or by sampling in order to identify any errors or the presence of exceptional external influences at the earliest opportunity and to enable corrective action to be taken.

2.9    Conflicts of interest and duty of discretion regarding expertise

Anyone commissioned by third parties, including editorial offices, publishers, research sponsors, or appeals committees, to provide an opinion as an expert or peer reviewer on research works or projects that compete with their own work, is required to decline the assignment or to disclose the conflict of interest to the requesting party, leaving them free to engage another expert.

The role of expert or peer reviewer requires that the information contained in the works in question be treated as strictly confidential. No use can be made of the information without the prior authorization of its authors.

2.10    Interpretation of results

The interpretation of research results must adhere to the principles of accuracy and transparency. The research project participants must exercise self-criticism and self-discipline and take particular care in ensuring that:

• the desired and undesired effects of a product or procedure are discussed critically and factually;
• the profit/cost ratio linked to practical application of the research is presented as objectively as possible when there is a certain public scope;
• a well-balanced and objective comparison is made with other results;
• any conflict of interest is reported.

2.11    Scientific publications

The standard practice must be to publish research findings. Delaying publication is acceptable when it is necessary for the valorization of research findings.

The author of a scientific publication is the person who through their personal work has made a meaningful scientific contribution to the research during the planning, implementation, interpretation, or monitoring stages. The mere fact of holding a management position at the research institute, or of providing financial or organizational support for a project, does not entitle anyone to claim authorship. The position of honorary author does not exist.

Before submitting a manuscript for publication, the project lead must ensure that all authors have given their consent. Similarly, no one participating in a research project may submit a manuscript for publication without the agreement of the project lead.

The project lead is responsible for the accuracy of the publication’s content in its entirety. The other authors are responsible for the truthfulness of the statements that their position within the research project has enabled them to verify.

The authors will refrain from duplicating the knowledge in a variety of publications with the exclusive motivation of increasing the quantity of publications, and from taking other similar steps.

Laboratory protocols as well as any publications that might derive from them must be sufficiently documented so that other researchers are able to reproduce the same results.

When research is financed by a third party, any related publication must mention the origin of these funds.

2.12    Respect for the veracity of sources

Researchers and instructors must comply with the rules and guidelines specific to their discipline, the University, their publisher, and/or the journal with which they are collaborating, regarding publication and citation.

They must strictly distinguish between the results of their own activities and those previously published by third parties.

Any form of plagiarism is prohibited. Plagiarism is the use of any word, sentence, passage, image, chapter, idea, or analysis from another author’s work and passing it off as one’s own. Plagiarism is either the active appropriation of past work or the omission of the correct citation.

These guidelines must be respected by the researcher and/or instructor in all of their work, in both a scientific and a private context.

3.1    Principles

In addition to any behavior that violates a legal norm, a breach of integrity is any act or omission that violates a duty of diligence and illustrates dishonesty or an infringement upon the scientific community or society.

Persuading an individual, particularly a subordinate, to commit a breach of integrity or consciously allowing behavior contrary to the principles of integrity constitutes a breach.

A list of breaches of integrity is given in section 3.2 of the present guidelines. This list is not exhaustive. 

3.2    Breaches of integrity

The following constitute breaches of integrity in the scientific domain and in instruction:

3.2.1    With regard to obtaining scientific knowledge

Fabrication of research results.
Intentional falsification of raw data, intentionally misleading presentation and processing of research findings, arbitrary evaluation of data, withholding of data from the record without specifying the reason.
Removal of recorded raw data before the allotted time frame for data preservation has expired or after learning of a third party’s wish to consult the data.
Hiding of data.
Denying authorized third parties access to the raw data.
Hiding conflicts of interest, financial arrangements or collaboration procedures that, if known, might influence the evaluation of scientific findings.
Accepting agreements that do not safeguard the researcher’s independence of judgment, restrict their freedom to publish (in particular negative results) or impose a right to review their publications that goes beyond what is reasonably necessary.
Accepting sources of funding or assignments that the University has previously designated as ethically incompatible with the role of a researcher or instructor.
Non-objective presentation of diverging opinions.

3.2.2    With regard to research

Copying the raw data and other data without the explicit agreement of the authorized project lead (data piracy).
Interfering with or hindering other researchers’ work, whether or not they are part of the same research group, namely by withholding and rendering unusable in a targeted manner research material, equipment, raw data, and other recorded information.
Violating the duty of discretion.
Neglecting the duty of supervision.
Using research or discoveries made by third parties without their authorization or without citing authors and sources, or any other form of breach of intellectual property rights.

3.2.3    With regard to distribution and publication

Plagiarism.
Intentionally erroneous quotes taken from real or purported work by third parties.
Being listed as a co-author of a publication without having made a substantial contribution to the work, or granting that status to someone who is not legitimately entitled to it.
Deliberate omission of the names of people who have made meaningful contributions to the project.
Deliberate omission of meaningful contributions by other authors on the same subject.
Incorrect information concerning the stage of publication of one’s own work (for example, stating “manuscript submitted” when no manuscript has been submitted; or “publication pending” when the manuscript has not yet been accepted).

3.2.4    In the case of scientific evaluation of third-party services

Deliberately remaining silent regarding conflicts of interest.
Breach of confidentiality and the duty of discretion.
Erroneous criticism, knowingly or through negligence, of projects, programs, or manuscripts.
Making unfounded statements for the purpose of obtaining personal benefits or benefits for third parties.

4.1    General information

The purpose of this procedure is to determine whether suspicions of a breach of integrity are well-founded and, if so, to impose sanctions on the perpetrator.

Only fraudulent behavior is punished, being breaches of integrity resulting from an intentional or negligent act or omission.

Any eventual retaliatory measure taken against the whistleblower or any other person implicated in the procedure is considered a breach of service obligations.

Legal action may be taken in cases where the breach of integrity also violates a legal provision.

Each faculty appoints an integrity delegate (hereinafter: the Delegate) appointed by the College of the Professors from among the full professors. The Delegate’s mandate is a two-year renewable term.

The Faculty Council also appoints a secondary delegate from among the professors, also named for a two-year renewable term.

4.2    Denunciation

Any person suspecting a breach of scientific integrity must report it to the Rectorate. They may consult the Delegate of their faculty to learn about the procedure before submitting an official denunciation.

The denunciation is comprised of a detailed report stating any indication or fact discovered and should be accompanied by any useful evidence. It must be signed and its author must be identified.

Once these requirements have been met, the Rectorate forwards the denunciation as soon as possible to the Dean or the Director of the center or interfaculty institute, respectively, for transmission to the Delegate.

The relevant Delegate is the one from the faculty to which the person in question belongs.

When the person belongs to an interdisciplinary center or institute, the relevant Delegate is the one who belongs to the faculty most closely connected to the person against whom allegations have been made and the scientific domain that they work in. In case of doubt, the question is definitively answered by the Rectorate.

The protection of the whistleblower is guaranteed by the Dean or the Director.

4.3    Proceedings before the delegate

The Delegate performs a preliminary assessment of the denunciation received by the Dean or the Director within a reasonable time period.

The Delegate must hear the whistleblower who alleges harm to their personal interests (hereinafter: the potentially wronged whistleblower). They may hear testimony from both the potentially wronged whistleblower and the person against whom allegations have been made.

The Delegate will then choose one of the following options:

1. If the complaint is clearly unfounded, the Delegate recommends that it be closed to the Dean or the Director in a detailed report.
2. They may seek an amicable settlement with the parties involved (namely, primarily the person against whom allegations have been made and the potentially wronged whistleblower) and finalize such a settlement when the following conditions are met: 

   The infringement of any public interests is of minor significance, and the person against whom allegations have been made’s actions cannot be considered a criminal offense, and the agreement does not provide for the payment of any financial compensation.

   The Delegate informs the Dean or the Director as well as the Rectorate of the signing of the agreement and the end of the proceedings.

3. If a more extensive investigation is required, the Delegate appoints the Fact-Finding Commission.

4.4     The Fact-Finding Commission

4.4.1    The appointment of the Fact-Finding Commission

The Fact-Finding Commission (hereinafter: the Commission) is an ad hoc committee appointed by the Delegate. In principle, its membership changes for each case.

It is composed of at least three members including a chairperson appointed by the Delegate.

Once the members have accepted their appointments, the composition of the Commission is submitted to the Dean or the Director, respectively, who has five days to request changes.

After having been approved by the Dean or Director, either directly or by lack of appeal within five days, the membership of the Commission is communicated simultaneously to the person against whom allegations have been made and to the potentially wronged whistleblower.

They may utilize their right to request recusal according to paragraph 4.8.

4.4.2    Investigations by the Commission

The Delegate submits all the documents in the case file to the Commission, which then conducts the necessary investigations to establish the facts within a reasonable time.

The Commission notifies the person against whom allegations have been made and the potentially wronged whistleblower of the investigative measures it orders and the witnesses it decides to hear.

It provides the person against whom allegations have been made and the potentially wronged whistleblower with the opportunity to submit supporting documentation and to request, within reasonable limits, that additional investigative measures be taken.

If plagiarism is suspected, the Commission verifies the texts in question using similarity-detection software.

If necessary, the Commission may consult an independent scientific expert.

4.4.3    Hearings with the Commission

The Commission gives both the potentially wronged whistleblower and the person against whom allegations have been made the opportunity to be heard.

The person against whom allegations have been made has the right to be present during the examination of witnesses, subject to the provisions under article 42.5 of Geneva’s Administrative Procedural Code.

At the beginning of the hearing, all individuals appearing before the Commission are informed that their statements will be recorded in the minutes and included in the case file.

4.4.4    The Commission’s report

Upon completion of its investigation, the Commission prepares a detailed report that includes, in particular, a list of all documents submitted to it, a list of investigations conducted, original transcripts of interviews, and, where applicable, results obtained through the use of similarity detection software.

The report contains the Commission’s conclusions regarding whether or not fraudulent conduct occurred. The report is submitted to the Dean or Director.

4.4.5    Further investigations

If the Dean or the Director requires any further investigations, the Commission proceeds in accordance with articles 4.4.2 through 4.4.4.

4.5     The Dean or Director

4.5.1    The Dean or Director’s general responsibilities

Throughout the proceedings, the Dean or Director ensures the protection of the whistleblower and any member of the university community involved in the proceedings.

Within the scope of their authority, they ensure that the procedure does not interfere with ongoing research and teaching. They take measures that may reduce the risk of similar breaches so that they do not happen again.

If necessary, the Director consults with the dean(s) of any relevant faculties to ensure that the aforementioned requirements are met.

4.5.2    Proceedings before the Dean or Director

If the Delegate proposes to dismiss the case:
If the Dean or the Director also believes that the complaint is unfounded, they recommend to the Rector’s Office that the case be closed.

If, on the other hand, they determine that an investigation is warranted, they return the complaint to the Delegate with instructions to form a Commission in accordance with paragraph 4.4.1.

In case of referral to the Commission:
Upon receipt of the Commission’s report, the Dean or Director forwards the entire report to the person against whom allegations have been made and to the potentially wronged whistleblower, and gives them 10 days to submit their comments in writing.

The Dean or Director may interview the person against whom allegations have been made and the whistleblower (potentially wronged or not) if they find it necessary.

They may also return the case file to the Commission for further investigation. In this case article 4.4.5 applies. The Dean or Director must inform the person against whom allegations have been made and the potentially wronged whistleblower.

After having received the Commission’s complementary report, the Dean or the Director sends a copy of the report to the person against whom allegations have been made and to the potentially wronged whistleblower and gives them a period of 10 days to submit any remarks in writing.

4.5.3    The Dean or Director’s report

Upon completion of the proceedings before the Dean or the Director, the latter forwards the entire file to the Rector’s Office, along with their own detailed, documented report.

The report should include the Dean or Director’s opinion on:

The presence or absence of fraudulent conduct (intentional act or gross negligence) and, if applicable, its level of severity; The next steps in the procedure, in other words:

• a. Dismissal of the case if the complaint appears unfounded, if the investigation has not, in their opinion, established the existence of fraudulent conduct, or if they consider the case to be minor;
• b. The measures or sanctions to be taken against the perpetrator of the fraudulent conduct.

4.6    The Rectorate

Upon receipt of the report from the Dean or Director, the Rectorate may dismiss the complaint or take one or more of the following measures:

1. Imposing disciplinary sanctions against the perpetrator of the breach laid down by the personnel guidelines of the University and according to the law on public education (LIP) (in French) and/or the law on cantonal administrative personnel, judicial power, and public medical establishments (LPAC) (in French).
2. Taking all measures necessary to rectify the lack of integrity, such as: informing the publishing house or periodical that the publication is affected by a violation of scientific integrity; notifying the authorities and the scientific and academic community of the breach; publicly recognizing the contribution of a third party for the publication or discovery.
3. Ordering the reduction, suspension, or withdrawal of research funds given by the University when the violation fell within the framework of a project supported by the University, and/or deciding upon guidance or surveillance measures for the perpetrator’s work.

The decision to dismiss the case is communicated to the person against whom allegations have been made and to the person against whom the complaint was filed, provided that the latter has been informed of the existence of the complaint.

Any other decision made by the Rectorate is communicated to the person against whom allegations have been made and to the potentially wronged whistleblower. The Rectorate informs the Dean or Director, the Delegate and the Commission.

4.7    Confidentiality

As a general rule, all proceedings are conducted confidentially. The University, in general through the Rectorate, determines the form and the content of any publication of the facts and findings of the proceedings.

The right to confidentiality is granted to the whistleblower and to all persons involved in the proceedings.

4.8    Recusal

The person against whom allegations have been made or the potentially wronged whistleblower may request the recusal of any authorities they are involved with (Delegate, members of the Commission, Dean, Director, members of the Rectorate).

The request for recusal must be submitted to the body against which the recusal is sought, within five days of becoming aware of the composition of the relevant bodies. It must be substantiated.

Any person who could be considered potentially biased due to family ties or conflicts of interest (e.g. close friendships, financial or organizational dependence) in relation to the accused person or the whistleblower must recuse themselves. This also applies to any other circumstance likely to cast doubt on the impartiality of a member of one of the investigating bodies.

When the recusal is accepted:
The Delegate is replaced by his/her second, appointed according to article 4.1;
The recused Commission member is replaced by a person chosen according to the methods in article 4.4.1;
The Dean is replaced by the Associate Dean;
The Director is replaced by the Assistant Director or, failing that, the Delegate who belongs to the faculty most closely connected to the person against whom allegations have been made and the scientific domain that they work in;
The recused member of the Rectorate is not replaced. The Rectorate makes the decision without their presence.

When a decision has been reached, as stipulated in Article 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act (in French), any person affected by the decision and who has an interest worthy of protection that wishes the decision to be modified or annulled may file an objection with the Rectorate.

The Rules on Appeals at the University of Geneva (RIO-UNIGE) apply (in French).

These guidelines were approved by the Rectorate at its meeting on 5 March 2012 and entered into force on 12 April 2012.

 

^{[1] Throughout these guidelines in French, the masculine form used to refer to University of Geneva staff members refers to both women and men.
[2] European Commission Recommendation of 11 March 2005, EUR 21620
[3] Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences (2021): Code of Scientific Integrity
[4] UNITEC is the University of Geneva’s office for the transfer technology and expertise.}