The DFG Code on Good Research Practice: What Its Authorship and Publication Guidelines Require

Scientific authorship carries credit and responsibility. In Germany, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), or German Research Foundation, sets these expectations in its Code of Conduct, the Guidelines for Safeguarding Good Research Practice, which underpin research integrity in Germany across disciplines. The Code works alongside law, institutional rules, disciplinary conventions and publisher policies, so journal requirements should not be attributed to the DFG.

The Code came into force on 1 August 2019 and contains 19 guidelines covering principles, institutional responsibilities, research conduct and procedures for suspected misconduct [1]. Universities and non-university research institutions must implement the guidelines in a legally binding way to receive DFG funding, and only institutions that have done so are eligible; the wording can be adapted, but the essentials must be kept [1].

Three guidelines matter most for publication:

• Guideline 13: providing public access to research results.
• Guideline 14: authorship, approval of the final version and shared responsibility.
• Guideline 15: choosing a publication medium.

Under the DFG authorship guidelines, Guideline 14 makes authorship depend on a genuine, identifiable contribution to the content of a research publication involving text, data or software [1]. Eligibility is judged case by case and in the context of the subject area. Job title, seniority or general involvement does not establish it. The Code’s examples of research-relevant contributions include:

• developing and conceptually designing the project;
• gathering, collecting, acquiring or providing data, software or sources;
• analysing or interpreting data and sources and drawing conclusions;
• drafting or revising the manuscript.

These are not a mechanical checklist. A contribution need not be the largest, but it must add to the research content; routine administration is not enough, and a leadership or supervisory function does not itself constitute co-authorship.

Guideline 14 requires all authors to agree to the final version. Unless stated otherwise, they share responsibility for the publication, which is the accountability that makes scientific authorship meaningful. Authors should also try to have their individual contributions identified by publishers or infrastructure providers where possible [1].

The DFG sets no universal formula for author order. Guideline 14 says order should be agreed in good time, normally no later than when the manuscript is drafted, using clear criteria that reflect disciplinary practice [1]. Authorship eligibility and order are separate decisions, so seniority, funding or supervision should not automatically decide position.

Contributions below the authorship threshold can be recognised in an acknowledgement, footnote or foreword. Honorary authorship is not permitted, and acknowledgement must not be used to sideline a qualifying author. Honorary and ghost authorship remain common in high-impact journals [2].

Among the DFG publication guidelines, Guideline 13 says researchers should, as a rule, contribute their results to scientific discourse, while deciding autonomously, with regard to disciplinary conventions, whether, how and where to publish [1]. Results that are made public should be described clearly and in full, and, where possible and reasonable, the underlying data, materials, methods and software should be made available.

That is not an obligation to release every dataset. Privacy, consent conditions, intellectual property and legal duties can limit sharing; explain the restriction rather than withholding everything [3].

Guideline 15 asks researchers to choose a publication medium carefully, considering its quality and visibility in the field, and stresses that a contribution’s scientific quality does not depend on where it appears [1]. The Code lists no approved journals. In practice, assess editorial governance, peer review, transparency and fit; predatory and legitimate journals can be hard to tell apart [4]. Fee and correction-policy checks are sensible due diligence, not a Guideline 15 checklist.

Responsible research publication means explaining how a manuscript relates to your earlier work and to others’ findings. The quality-over-quantity principle in the explanation to Guideline 13 discourages splitting research into inappropriately small publications and asks authors to limit repetition of their own published content to what readers need [1]. Reusing methods or publishing related studies is not improper in itself; misleading duplication distorts the evidence base, including systematic reviews [5].

Consider a team writing up a shared dataset. A senior researcher asks to be an author because they secured the funding and lead the group; a colleague says they contributed nothing to design, analysis, interpretation or writing.

Under DFG Guideline 14, funding acquisition or leadership alone does not establish authorship. Identify the senior researcher’s actual contribution to the research content; if it does not qualify, acknowledgement is the right route. If the disagreement persists, consult the institution’s ombudsperson, whom every institution must appoint under Guideline 6 [1]. A good-faith authorship dispute is not automatically research misconduct, but deliberate misrepresentation or fabrication is, and belongs in the formal procedure [6].

This checklist is a practical aid for journal submission, not an official DFG list.