Report on recent preliminary evaluations at ETH Zurich

At the end of 2020, ETH President Joël Mesot asked the ETH Board to commission an independent report to clarify whether ETH Zurich had adhered to the university’s existing rules of procedure during their preliminary evaluations conducted in recent years into allegations of scientific misconduct. “The expert report was commissioned in response to a number of voices criticising our communication of individual cases of suspected scientific misconduct. With the report, the Executive Board wanted to verify whether we had acted correctly and where we needed to make improvements,” Joël Mesot says, outlining the reasons for requesting the review.

No evidence of dereliction of duty or gender discrimination

The ETH Board has now published the results of the review. In their report, the independent experts concluded that there was no evidence of dereliction of duty or even wilful misconduct in the preliminary evaluations. The responsible entities had always acted to the best of their knowledge and belief. Their intention had always been to resolve any conflicts fairly, and wherever possible with the direct involvement of the parties concerned. At the same time, the team of experts found no indication of bias, conflicts of interest or gender discrimination.

Suggestions for improvement from the experts

In fact, the investigations undertaken during the preliminary evaluations were in some cases more extensive than provided for under the rules of procedure. In this respect, the experts identified potential for improving the existing rules. In particular, they found there was a need for a clear separation of the persons involved in an initial informal mediation and plausibility review by the confidants and any subsequent investigation by a permanent investigation body. The decisions as to which sanctions should be applied if evidence of scientific misconduct is found should continue to rest with the ETH Executive Board.

Revision of the rules of procedure

“The expert report provides us with valuable suggestions for improvement that tie in with our own analysis and have already been taken up by Vice President Detlef Günther in the ongoing revision of the Procedure to Address Allegations of Research Misconduct,” says Joël Mesot. After the revision of the ETH Zurich Guidelines on Scientific Integrity was completed at the end of 2021, the revised rules of procedure are due to come into force in 2023 following extensive consultation within ETH. “The report also shows that the Executive Board needs to define the tasks of the confidants more clearly in future and support them more effectively in their work,” Mesot notes.

Excellent work by the confidants

A look at the figures shows the importance of the work carried out by the confidants: over the period 2016 to 2020 they dealt with a total of 151 allegations, most of which were successfully resolved following consultation or mediation. “The fact that almost all the cases reported could be settled smoothly – and with the direct involvement of the parties concerned – highlights the excellent work carried out by the confidants. On behalf of the Executive Board, I would like to thank them for their sterling efforts,” Joël Mesot adds.

A number of misleading conclusions

In addition to what ETH Zurich considers to be many extremely useful findings, however, the report also contains various statements that the ETH Executive Board sees in a different light and cannot relate to. Since the report has been compiled solely on the basis of written documents, and no feedback (verbal or written) was requested from the responsible vice president, the Executive Board believes a number of misleading conclusions have been drawn. These include the experts’ criticism of the Vice President for Research’s understanding of his role. “This criticism relates to a single case and is not justified in the Executive Board’s opinion. In all the cases investigated by the team of experts, our Vice President for Research has provided the Executive Board with full and timely information and has done an excellent job in dealing with the cases, some of which were disputed,” Joël Mesot concludes.