GOOD MANAGEMENT & scientific integrity
The University of Twente sides with all other Dutch universities in support of the compliance with the 'Good Management' Code of Conduct, as has been agreed together with the Association of Universities of the Netherlands (VSNU). On this page you will find links to all relevant information regarding this. In addition, this page contains information on the other codes of conduct agreed upon with the Association of Universities of the Netherlands (VSNU), for example about using laboratory animals, as well as links to our Administration and Management Regulation, the students' charter and guidelines on scientific integrity.
Performing ancillary activities, such as external advising or management work, generally has a positive effect on the connections that a scientist makes with society. This type of activities therefore perfectly fits with the entrepreneurial attitude that the University of Twente wants to encourage amongst her academic staff. In order to make clear agreements about this and guarantee the scientific integrity, the UT has drawn up an Ancillary activities scheme that is in keeping with the Dutch code of conduct. Transparency is of paramount importance in this: for that reason this site includes an overview of the UT Professors and their ancillary activities that is as complete and current as possible.
- Ancillary activities Executive Board (Dutch)
- Ancillary activities professors
The University of Twente subscribes to the guidelines for scientific integrity, as specified in the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Academic Practice. The European code of conduct and the Singapore statement on research integrity are also relevant. In addition, we draw attention to the advice of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences on providing proper citation (in Dutch) and the worldwide guidelines and codes of conduct on all aspects of publication ethics established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
The Executive Board established the Scientific Integrity Complaints Procedure in order to protect and guarantee scientific integrity. This procedure provides a system for reporting and dealing with possible violations of scientific integrity. This procedure is consistent with the national LOWI regulations (in Dutch).
POINT OF CONTACT for the complainant
The first point of contact is the university's confidential adviser for scientific integrity (for the complainant), Prof.dr.ir. Olaf Fisscher. Possible violations of scientific integrity as well as any follow-up steps can be discussed with him in all confidence. Prof. Fisscher can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Actual reports about (possible) violations of scientific integrity are dealt with by the appropriate committee, comprised of:
- Prof. dr B.R. (Bärbel) Dorbeck-Jung (emeritus), chair
- Prof. dr. ir L. (Leon) Lefferts, TNW Faculty
- Prof.dr.ir. P. (Piet) Bergveld (emeritus)
- Prof.dr. S.J.M.H. (Suzanne) Hulscher, CTW Faculty
There are also two substitute committee members: Prof. dr. J.M. (Jules) Pieters and Prof.dr.ir. A. (Alfred) Stein.
Complaints should be addressed to the secretary of the committee, dr.ir. Haico te Kulve, e-mail email@example.com.
Support for the accused
Staff members of the UT who have faced a complaint with regards to their integrity can, if they so desire, be assisted by the independent university's confidential adviser for the accused, Prof. Dr Ariana Need, email firstname.lastname@example.org. The confidential adviser for the accused knows the rules and procedures and can support the accused. The accused can share his or her doubts and concerns with this confidential adviser and this confidential advisor can also provide aftercare services.
Within the UT, during the years up until 2012, none of the reported complaints about possible violations of the scientific integrity were declared valid. However, three cases (in Dutch) were investigated. In 2013, 2 cases (in Dutch) were investigated, of which one was declared invalid and one was declared valid. In 2014 the committee received no complaints. In 2015 four complaints were filed, of which one was not admissible. The other three were admissible and have been examined. In 2016 en 2017 the three complaints (in Dutch) that were filed in 2015 have been examined. Two were declared invalid and one was declared valid.