Use three levels, not instant labels
An honest error can occur despite reasonable care: a transposed column label, a transcription mistake or a misunderstood technical term. Negligence describes an avoidable failure of care, such as skipping a basic check or keeping source notes so poorly that ownership becomes unclear. Research misconduct is a formal category. DFG procedural guidance focuses in particular on intentional or grossly negligent misrepresentation, misappropriation of another person’s work and interference with another person’s research. The institution’s applicable policy ultimately defines its own process and findings.
The distinction matters because one visible problem may have several causes. A missing citation might result from a footnote deleted during formatting, careless note-taking or deliberate concealment. The finished paragraph rarely proves the writer’s state of mind. A fair preliminary review therefore starts with observable facts, records credible alternatives and keeps suspicion, evaluation and decision separate.
The same symptom can have different meanings
These examples are prompts, not automatic offences. Context may change an assessment: experience, training received, access to information, disciplinary convention and the consequence of the discrepancy all matter. For student work, it is also relevant whether a requirement was communicated clearly. Lack of knowledge does not excuse every failure, but it can be material when distinguishing mistake, ordinary carelessness and more serious culpability.
Responding when the error may be yours
Do not keep editing the only original files. Preserve a copy and record when you noticed the issue, which material is affected and what consequences may follow. Separate established facts from assumptions. Before submission, many problems can be corrected openly. After submission, contact the supervisor, examinations office or named integrity contact in accordance with local rules. A useful report gives the location, evidence, apparent reach and proposed correction; it avoids an amateur legal diagnosis or a dramatic confession that outruns the facts.
If you notice a possible problem in someone else’s work, maintain confidentiality. Do not accuse publicly, recruit outsiders or investigate protected data on your own. Retain only evidence you may lawfully access, then ask a neutral adviser about the correct route. Germany’s Research Ombudsman provides confidential advice on integrity concerns, including authorship and supervision disputes; an institutional ombudsperson may be best placed for local processes.
Why a proper procedure protects everyone
Procedures modelled on DFG guidance distinguish preliminary assessment from formal investigation, protect confidentiality and allow affected people to be heard. An initial suspicion is not a conclusion. Records are examined, statements requested and jurisdiction established. Consequences should never follow solely from an online text comparison or a software alert. A plagiarism check may identify passages for expert review; it cannot establish intention, culpability or research misconduct.
A fair five-sentence preliminary record
Write one sentence for each of the following: the observation, the potentially relevant rule, the supported circumstances, the unresolved alternative explanations and the next competent step. This small discipline prevents a suspicion from silently becoming “fact”. It also prevents a serious issue being dismissed as a mere accident without examination. Research integrity requires both: determined clarification and restraint until the evidence has been tested.