Training, networking, and support infrastructure for ombudspersons for good research practice: A survey of the status quo in the Berlin research area

Figures & data

Table

Q1: How many ombudspersons are currently working at your institution?
1	20.3%
2	50.8%
>2	28.8%

Table

Q3: How long have you been working in this function?
<6 months	3.4%
6 months−2 years	33.9%
>2 years	62.7%

Table

Q4: Generally speaking: How often are you contacted in your capacity as an ombudsperson per year on average?
0–2 times	42.6%
3–5 times	27.7%
6–10 times	14.9%
10–20 times	10.6%
>20 times	4.3%

Table

Q5–6: How many of these contacts are open inquiries (e.g., request for advice or general questions in the area of good research practice)/cases (e.g., cases of suspected misconduct or conflicts)?
Frequency	Inquiries	Cases
0–2	57.6%	59.3%
3–5	22%	20.3%
6–10	11.9%	13.6%
10–20	3.4%	3.4%
>20	3.4%	1.7%

Table

Q9: How much time does your work as ombudsperson, commission member, or similar take?
barely noticeable (1)	18.6%
multiple hours in irregular, rare intervals (2)	44.1%
multiple hours per month (3)	22%
multiple hours per week (4)	5.1%
almost daily (5)	5.1%
not applicable	5.1%
overall average (translated into a number on a scale from one to five)	2.30
	(SD: 0.99)

Table

Q10: How often do you feel like your ombuds work collides in terms of timing with your other responsibilities in teaching, research, and administration?
never (1)	30.5%
rarely (2)	45.8%
sometimes (3)	0%
regularly (4)	11.9%
often (5)	3.4%
always (6)	0%
not applicable	8.47%
overall average (translated into a number on a scale from one to six)	2.04
	(SD: 1.13)

Table

Q7: In your work, how often do you deal with the following topics?
Topic	Average^19	SD
Authorship conflicts	2.75	1.25
General inquiries on issues of good research practice	2.68	1.18
Power abuse	2.51	1.24
Plagiarism	1.97	1.08
So-called “questionable research practices” (QRPs)^20	1.75	0.88
Falsification and manipulation of research data	1.53	0.80
Fabrication of research findings	1.31	0.56

Table

Q8: On a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (absolutely), how competent do you feel in dealing with these topics?
Topic	Average	SD
General inquiries on issues of good research practice	4.10	0.74
Authorship conflicts	3.85	0.78
Fabrication of research findings	3.64	1.01
Plagiarism	3.54	0.97
Power abuse	3.37	1.03
Falsification and manipulation of research data	3.36	1.03
So-called “questionable research practices”	3.14	1.04

Table

Q11: Generally speaking: Are you interested in receiving more training?
yes	37.3%
yes, but I do not have the time	28.8%
no	33.9%

Table

Q12–13: Which offers of support do you/would you wish to receive from your institution?
Support offer	Received	Wished
Further training in the form of workshops or training courses	42.4%	23.7%
Active referral to useful networks, materials or other supportive offers on the topic of good research practice	42.4%	13.6%
Advice or support from other offices within own institution	35.6%	1.7%
Support from a local ombuds office	27.1%	8.5%
Relief from other responsibilities (e.g., through a reduction of the teaching load)	6.8%	13.6%
Support from a secretary or student assistants	3.4%	8.5%
none of the above	22.0%	50.8%
not applicable	6.8%	8.5%

Table

Q14: To which degree did you cooperate with members of other institutions in the context of your work?
I was in general exchange with other institutions on questions of good research practice	50.8%
I have cooperated with other institutions in the context of particular inquiries or cases	30.9%
I have participated in external workshops or trainings on good research practice	30.9%
I also work in other functions on the issue of good research practice (e.g., as editor for a journal, as reviewer for the DFG, etc.)	37.3%
None of the above	18.6%