Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quality management for biomedical research in Germany

  • Published:
Theory in Biosciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Biomedical research is characterized by a tremendous expansion of knowledge in recent years. Alongside, biomedical research is in the focus of public inerest. Hence, highest quality standards are required to meet the expectations of the scientific community and of the public. A panel of instruments of quality management helps to strenghthen productivity of biomedical research, i.e. 1. improved institutionalization of research; 2. productivity-oriented distribution of ressources; 3. evaluations and 4. quality standards for the performance of research. Quality management is a matter of a vivid discussion in Germany and professors and junior faculty members alike are generally open-minded towards quality management activities to improve output-oriented research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, J. (1998) Benchmarking international research. Nature 396: 615–618.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Deutscher Hochschulverband (1998 a) Leistungsorientierte Besoldung. Resolution des Deutschen Hochschulverbandes vom 28. März 1998. Forschung und Lehre: 308.

  • Deutscher Hochschulverband (1998 b) Leitsätze zur Evaluation. Resolution des Deutschen Hochschulverbandes vom 28. März 1998. Forschung und Lehre: 237.

  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (1998 c) Vorschläge zur Sicherung guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis. www.dfg.de/aktuell/download/empf_selbstkontr.html

  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (1999) Klinische Forschung. Denkschrift. Wiley-VCH Verlag, Weinheim.

    Google Scholar 

  • EMNID im Auftrag von n-tv (1997) Auswahl und Kontrolle werden bevorzugt. Forschung und Lehre: 406.

  • Fischer, K. (2000) Die verborgenen Quellen des Neuen. Forschung und Lehre: 14–18.

  • Kieser, A. (1998) Das Idealbild der Evaluationskonstrukteure. Forschung und Lehre: 408–411.

  • Künze, R. (1997) Corporate identity bilden. Forschung und Lehre: 636–639.

  • Rothmund, M. (1997) Die Stellung der klinischen Forschung in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich. Dtsch. Med. Wschr. 122: 1358–1362.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gijn, J. (1996) Randomized trials. Lancet 237: 1234–1235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weule, H. (1999) Blick aus der Praxis. Forschung und Lehre: 516–519.

  • Winnacker, E.-L.; Markl, H. (1999) DFG und MPG Eckpfeiler der Forschung. Forschung und Lehre: 355–357.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Virtual Campus Rhineland-Palatinate, P. O. Box 43 80, 55033, Mainz, Germany

    Thomas Efferth Ph.D. (Assistant Professor)

Authors
  1. Thomas Efferth Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Efferth Ph.D..

Additional information

Contents of this paper have been given as lecture at the symposium “Quality management in phoniatries and pedaudiology” on the occasion of the 75th birthday of Prof. G. Kittel at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany (organization: Prof. U. Eysholdt and Asst. Prof. F. Rosanowski).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Efferth, T. Quality management for biomedical research in Germany. Theory Biosci. 120, 57–63 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12064-001-0032-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12064-001-0032-x

Key words

Search

Navigation