natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Indklagede, som fik forelagt klagerens anmodning om genoptagelse, erkendte, at der ved en fejl var opgivet et forkert tal i ph.d.-afhandlingen, og at det korrekte tal fandtes i en anden afhandling, han havde lavet.
On being presented with the complainant's request for resumption, the defendant acknowledged that a wrong figure had been accidentally given in the PhD thesis and that the correct figure could be found in another thesis he had done.
Indklagede anførte, at fejlen ikke havde betydning for de konklusioner, der blev draget i afhandlingen, og at han ikke var opmærksom på fejlen ved forsvaret af afhandlingen i august 1996.
The defendant stated that the mistake was of no significance to the conclusions drawn in the thesis, and that he had not been alert to the error when defending the thesis in August 1996.
UVVU's bemærkninger
DCSD's comments
Som nævnt i den tidligere afgørelse bemærkede UVVU, at det skulle kunne dokumenteres, at forskeren havde handlet forsætligt eller udvist grov forsømmelighed, for at en adfærd kunne beskrives som videnskabelig uredelighed, jf. § 3, stk.
As mentioned in the previous ruling, DCSD noted that it had to be possible to substantiate that the researcher had acted deliberately or exercised gross negligence in order to describe conduct as scientific dishonesty, cf. Section 3, subs.
2 i bekendtgørelse nr. 933 af 15. december 1998.
2 of Order No. 933 of 15 December 1998.
UVVU fandt, at det lå uden for UVVU's beføjelser at vurdere kvaliteten i forskning.
DCSD found that it lay outside DCSD's powers to evaluate the quality of research.
Udvalget bemærkede imidlertid, at den undladte kontrol af talmaterialet måtte karakteriseres som værende i strid med god videnskabelig praksis.
The Committee did note, however, that such failure to check the statistical material could only be characterized as running counter to good scientific practice.
Fejlen måtte betragtes som væsentlig, da den ikke fremtrådte som åbenbar set i lyset af andre oplysninger i publikationen.
The mistake had to be regarded as substantial, given that it did not appear obvious in the light of other data in the publication.
Sag om postuleret uberettiget tilegnelse af klagerens arbejde (Sag 6 i UVVU's beretning 2000).
Case of postulated misappropriation of the complainant's work (Case 6 in DCSD's 2000 report).
UVVU's Udvalg for samfundsvidenskabelig og humanistisk forskning modtog i juni 2000 en klage, hvori klageren bad udvalget tage stilling til, hvorvidt en del af klagerens videnskabelige arbejde var blevet misbrugt i en endnu ikke offentliggjort artikel, der var skrevet af indklagede.
In June 2000 DCSD's Committee for Social Science and the Humanities received a complaint in which the complainant asked the Committee to take a position on whether part of the complainant's scientific work had been misused in an as yet unpublished article that had been written by the defendant.
Udvalget for samfundsvidenskabelig og humanistisk forskning nedsatte et ad hoc-udvalg.
The Committee for Social Science and the Humanities formed an ad hoc committee.
Ad hoc-udvalget anså det for godtgjort, at ideen om at skrive en videnskabelig artikel var kommet fra indklagede.
The ad hoc committee regarded it as having been proved that the idea of writing a scholarly article had come from the defendant.
Udvalget fandt ikke belæg for at betvivle, at indklagede efterfølgende havde gennemført sine egne
The Committee found no support for questioning that the defendant had subsequently performed his own data searches.
Der var for begge arbejders vedkommende tale om forholdsvis gængse problemstillinger, der søgtes belyst med velkendte standardteknikker.
Both pieces of work involved relatively common problem issues which they sought to elucidate using well-known standard techniques.
Disse teknikker var i betydeligt omfang tidligere blevet benyttet af indklagede og dennes medarbejdere og var blevet videreudviklet af disse.
To a substantial extent, these techniques had previously been used by the defendant and his co-workers and further developed by them.
En gennemgang af de seks punkter i klagerens præcisering af klagen viste, at det ikke kunne udelukkes, at indklagede gennem læsning af klagerens tekst var blevet påvirket i sin gennemførelse af undersøgelsen med hensyn til valg af data og præsentationsformer, men disse mulige påvirkninger kunne ikke at gælde originale videnskabelige ideer.
An examination of the six points in the complainant's qualified complaint showed that there was no way of ruling out that, by reading the complainant's text, the defendant had been influenced in his execution of the investigation with regard to choice of data and forms of presentation, but these possible influences could not be said to hold true for original scientific ideas.
Problemstillinger af den type, klageren havde behandlet, var i rigt mål repræsenteret i litteraturen, herunder i den indklagedes tidligere arbejder.
Problems of the type the complainant had treated were amply represented in the literature, including the defendant's previous projects.
Ad hoc-udvalget fandt derfor ikke belæg for, at den indklagede havde gjort sig skyldig i videnskabelig uredelighed.
The ad hoc committee therefore found no evidence to show that the defendant had been guilty of scientific dishonesty.
UVVU fandt i det hele at kunne tiltræde ad hoc-udvalgets redegørelse for sagen og de anlagte vurderinger.
Overall, DCSD felt able to endorse the ad hoc committee's account of the case and the evaluations adopted.
UVVU's afgørelse gik derfor ud på, at indklagede ikke havde gjort sig skyldig i videnskabelig uredelighed.
DCSD's decision therefore read that the defendant had not been guilty of scientific dishonesty.
Sag om postuleret vildledning af det videnskabelige budskab gennem forvridning af resultater og konklusioner, citatfusk og manipulation med citater (Sag 7 i UVVU's beretning 2000).
Case of postulated misrepresentation of the scientific message in the form of distortion of results and conclusions, misquotation and manipulation of quotations (Case 7 in DCSD's 2000 report).
UVVU's Udvalg for humanistisk og samfundsvidenskabelig forskning modtog i juni 2000 en klage fra en forsker over et afsnit i en bog, som en kollega havde skrevet.
DCSD's Committee for Social Science and the Humanities received a complaint in June 2000 from a researcher about a section in a book that a colleague had written.
Klageren gjorde gældende, at der i det afsnit i den indklagedes bog, hvor klagerens undersøgelse var refereret, var sket en forvridning af det videnskabelige budskab i klagerens ph.d.-afhandling.
The complainant asserted that in the section of the defendant's book referencing the complainant's study, there had been a distortion of the scientific message in the complainant's PhD thesis.
Klageren anførte, at indklagedes gennemgang af hendes afhandling ikke alene forvred resultater og konklusioner, men også indeholdt citatfejl og manipulation med citater.
The complainant stated that the defendant's review of her thesis not only distorted results and conclusions but also contained misquotations and manipulation of quotations.
Det var udvalgets opfattelse, at der i faglige diskussioner som den foreliggende må gives et betydeligt spillerum for alternative og kritiske fortolkninger af et videnskabeligt værk, både af konkrete tekststeder og af bagvedliggende positioner.
It was the Committee's view that in specialist discussions such as the one in hand, considerable leeway must be given for alternative and critical constructions of a scientific work, both of concrete passages and of underlying positions.
En kommentator er heller ikke forpligtet til at godtage en forfatters eget signalement af sin videnskabelige position og har lov til undertiden at forholde sig kritisk og problematiserende til dette signalement.
Nor is a commentator obliged to sanction an author's own description of his or her scientific position, being sometimes allowed to take a critical and problematizing approach to that description.
Som det er tilfældet med andre tekster, kan en læser af en videnskabelig tekst undertiden se sammenhænge i og konsekvenser af en tekst, eller konflikter og modsætninger deri, som forfatteren ikke er bevidst om.
As is the case with other texts, a reader of a scientific text can sometimes see the correlations and consequences of a text, or inherent conflicts and oppositions of which the author is unaware.
Læseren har lov til at fremføre dette alternative synspunkt.
The reader is at liberty to adduce this alternative point of view.
Dette kan give anledning til problematisering ikke alene af forfatterens konklusioner, men også af korrektheden af forfatterens redegørelse for sin egne bagvedliggende standpunkter og holdninger.
This can give rise to the problematization not only of the author's conclusions but also of the authenticity of the author's account of his or her own underlying standpoints and views.
En sådan "dybdehermeneutisk" læsning kan ikke i sig selv karakteriseres som videnskabelig uredelighed.
Such a "depth-hermeneutic" reading cannot per se be characterized as scientific dishonesty.
Ethvert referat indebærer en forenkling af det refererede og ethvert citat en udvælgelse inden for en teksthelhed.
Every summary implies a simplification of that being referenced, and every quotation a selection within a textual entity.
For at en fortolkning eller et citat skal kunne karakteriseres som uredelig, kræves det yderligere, at det må anses for godtgjort, at der er tale om bevidst fordrejning af en andens resultat.
Furthermore, in order to be able to characterize an interpretation or quotation as dishonest, it needs to be taken as read that it involves conscious distortion of another person's conclusion.
Udvalget bemærkede imidlertid, at undladelse af citatkontrol og fejlcitering er i strid med god videnskabelig skik.
The Committee did note, however, that failure to check quotations and misquotation are at odds with good scientific practice.
Citatfejlen burde derfor ikke være forekommet.
The quotation error should not have occurred, therefore.
At forlaget efterfølgende var villig til at rette fejlen for indklagede, kunne ikke føre til nogen anden vurdering.
The fact that the publishers were subsequently willing to correct the error for the defendant could lead to no other judgement.
Afgørelsen gik derfor ud på, at der ikke kunne gives klageren medhold i, at indklagede havde gjort sig skyldig i videnskabelig uredelighed.
The ruling was therefore that the complainant could not be upheld in his accusation that the defendant had been guilty of scientific dishonesty.
Derimod havde indklagede handlet i strid med god videnskabelig skik ved den manglende citatkontrol og fejlcitering.
Conversely, the defendant had acted at odds with good scientific practice by failing to check quotations and perpetrating misquotation.
Sag om uretmæssig anvendelse af data indsamlet i forbindelse med et kvalitetssikringsstudie og forsømmelighed vedrørende medforfatterskab ved publicering af artikel i et fagligt tidsskrift (Sag 8 i UVVU's beretning 2000).
Case involving wrongful use of data collected in connection with a quality assurance study and negligence relating to co-authorship when publishing an article in a scientific journal (Case 8 in DCSD's 2000 report).
Ad hoc-udvalget bemærkede i sin redegørelse, at UVVU i juni 2000 modtog en anmodning fra chefredaktøren for et videnskabeligt tidsskrift om at undersøge en tvist mellem klageren og de indklagede.
In its report the ad hoc committee noted that in June 2000 DCSD received a request from the editor-in-chief of a scientific journal to investigate a dispute between the complainant and the defendant.
(Se sag nr. 16 i UVVU's beretning 2000.)
(See case no. 16 in DCSD's 2000 report.)
Klagen blev herefter rejst i september 2000, hvor klageren anmeldte de indklagede for uretmæssigt at have anvendt data i den omtalte videnskabelige artikel i det faglige tidsskrift.
The complaint was subsequently filed in September 2000, when the complainant reported the defendants for having wrongfully used data in the aforesaid scientific article in the scientific journal.
Ad hoc-udvalget præciserede i sin redegørelse, at sagen drejede sig om retten til at råde over data i et projekt, formuleret, initieret, styret og gennemført af klagerne (en styringsgruppe) med de indklagede som projektdeltagere.
In its report the ad hoc committee specified that the case revolved around the right to access data in a project formulated, initiated, controlled and conducted by the complainants (a steering group) with the defendants as project participants.
Som resultat af kvalitetssikringsprojektet blev der udarbejdet en intern rapport alene med klagerne som forfattere.
As a result of the quality assurance project, an internal report was drafted with the complainants as sole authors.
Adhoc-udvalget fandt, at de indklagede også burde have været medforfattere.
The ad hoc committee found that the defendants should also have been co-authors.
Men da rapporten havde status som et arbejdsdokument på den pågældende institution, bedømtes forseelsen - også under hensyn til, at de pågældende ikke selv havde henledt opmærksomheden på forholdet - som en mindre alvorlig afvigelse fra god videnskabelig praksis.
But since the report had the status of a working document at the institution in question, the misdemeanour was adjudged - also with reference to the fact that the persons concerned had not drawn attention to it themselves - a minor departure from good scientific practice.
Manuskriptet blev ikke antaget til publikation.
The manuscript was not accepted for publication.
Først lang tid efter, at manuskriptet var blevet afvist, blev klagerne klar over, at de havde været medforfattere.
Only long after the manuscript had been rejected did the complainants realize they had been co-authors.
Ad hoc-udvalget fandt det godtgjort, at klagerne sammen med de indklagede måtte betragtes som en forskergruppe, der i fællesskab gennemførte det projekt, som blev dokumenteret i den interne rapport.
The ad hoc committee considered it to have been established that the complainants, together with the defendants, should be regarded as a researcher group that was conducting the project documented in the internal report jointly.
Publikationer, som bygger på fælles datamateriale, burde derfor planlægges og aftales i fællesskab.
Publications which are based on shared data material should therefore be planned and agreed jointly.
• ved ikke at have sikret sig klagernes kommentarer
• by taking on board a third party with
Ad hoc-udvalget kunne, som sagen forelå oplyst, ikke med sikkerhed afgøre, om de indklagede havde haft til hensigt at vildlede med hensyn til klagernes indsats.
As the facts of the case were available, the ad hoc committee was unable to decide with any certainty whether the defendants had intended to mislead with regard to the complainants' contributions.
Ad hoc-udvalget kunne heller ikke med sikkerhed afgøre, om de indklagede havde haft til hensigt at vildlede med den urigtige forfattererklæring, men fandt, at de indklagedes handlinger var så groft forsømmelige, at de havde overskredet grænsen for videnskabelig urede
Nor could the ad hoc committee decide with any certainty whether the defendants had intended to mislead with the incorrect authors' declaration, but it found that the defendants' actions were so grossly negligent that they had overstepped the limit of scientific dishonesty.
UVVU's Udvalg for sundhedsvidenskabelig forskning fandt i det hele at kunne tiltræde ad hoc-udvalgets redegørelse for sagen og de anlagte vurderinger og traf følgende afgørelse:
Altogether, DCSD's Committee for Health and Medical Science found that it was able to endorse the ad hoc committee's account of the case and the evaluations adopted, and made the following ruling:
Der er af sagens parter begået en mindre alvorlig fravigelse fra god videnskabelig praksis ved ikke at anføre de indklagede som medforfattere til den interne rapport.
The parties to the case have committed a relatively minor departure from good scientific practice by failing to cite the defendants as co-authors of the internal report.
Sager indkommet i 2001
Cases received in 2001
Sag om bevidst plagiering af en anden forskers manuskript og publicering af plagiatet i et videnskabeligt tidsskrift.
Case of deliberate plagiarization of another researcher's manuscript and publication of the plagiarism in a scientific journal.
Det fremgik af sagen, at en arbejdsgruppe bestående af europæiske forskere skulle opsamle viden om et specielt sundhedsvidenskabeligt problem.
It emerged from the case that a working party consisting of European researchers was supposed to gather know-how about a special health science problem.
Klageren havde på det tidspunkt foretaget litteratursøgninger og skrevet om dele af emnet i forbindelse med en arbejdsopgave på et videnskabeligt institut.
At that point in time the complainant had retrieved information from the literature and written about parts of the subject in connection with a work assignment at a scientific institute.
Det blev vedtaget, at dette arbejde skulle danne udgangspunkt for det fælles projekt, og der blev samtidig vedtaget en forfatterrækkefølge.
It was agreed that this work should form the reference point for the joint project, and a sequence of authors was simultaneously adopted.
Både klageren og den indklagede udenlandske forsker skulle være medforfattere til den endelige artikel.
Both the complainant and the defendant, a foreign researcher, were to be co-authors of the final article.
Artiklen blev færdigskrevet i februar 2001 og herefter rundsendt til alle medlemmer af arbejdsgruppen.
The article was completed in February 2001 and subsequently circulated to all members of the working party.
Alle medlemmer af arbejdsgruppen underskrev.
All members of the working party signed.
Artiklen blev sendt til et videnskabeligt tidsskrift, som kvitterede for modtagelsen i marts 2001.
The article was sent to a scientific journal, which acknowledged receipt in March 2001.
I april 2001 opdagede klageren ved en tilfældighed, i forbindelse med søgning efter litteratur i en database, en artikel skrevet af indklagede med en titel, som virkede bekendt.
In April 2001, when searching for literature in a database, the complainant chanced upon an article with a familiarsounding title written by the defendant.
Klageren rekvirerede artiklen og opdagede herved, at indklagedes artikel var en ordret afskrivning af det manuskript, klageren havde udarbejdet som basis for samarbejdet, bortset fra abstract, summary, 22 linier i indledningen og 20 linier i diskussionen.
The complainant requested the article and in the process discovered that the defendant's article was a verbatim copy of the manuscript the complainant had drafted as a basis for the collaboration, save for the abstract, the summary, 22 lines of the introduction and 20 lines of the discussion.
Foreholdt dette tilstod indklagede over for klageren i juni 2001 at have tilegnet sig klagerens artikel og publiceret indholdet i eget navn.
Confronted with this, the defendant confessed to the complainant in June 2001 that he had usurped the complainant's article and published the contents under his own name.
UVVU's Udvalg for sundhedsvidenskabelig forskning behandlede sagen på et møde i august 2001.
DCSD's Committee for Health and Medical Science dealt with the case at a meeting in August 2001.
På det foreliggende grundlag fandt udvalget det godtgjort, at indklagede helt bevidst havde tilegnet sig klagerens forslag til artikel og publiceret denne i et tidsskrift i eget navn.
On the available basis the Committee considered it proven that the defendant had usurped the complainant's draft for the article with full intent and published it in a journal under his own name.
Den indklagede havde dermed begået videnskabelig uredelighed, jf. § 3, stk.
The defendant had thus committed scientific dishonesty, cf. Section 3, subs.
Udvalget traf herefter følgende afgørelse:
Accordingly, the Committee made the following ruling:
Indklagede har begået videnskabelig uredelighed, jf. § 3, stk.
The defendant has committed scientific dishonesty, cf. Section 3, subs.
Afgørelsen blev affattet både på dansk og på engelsk og sendt til den indklagedes arbejdsgiver og til det videnskabelige tidsskrift, hvor plagiatet var offentliggjort.
The ruling was worded in both Danish and English and sent to the defendant's employer and to the scientific journal in which the plagiarized piece had been published.
Sag om en tidsskriftsredaktions misfortolkning af en forskers videnskabelige resultater, fejlagtig anklage for at have produceret uoverensstemmende forskningsresultater og forbud mod at publicere i tidsskriftet for en periode af to år uden iagttagelse af forudgående høring.
Case of misinterpretation of a researcher's scientific results by a journal's editorial board, erroneous accusation of having produced conflicting research results and a ban on publishing in the journal for a period of two years without paying heed to a prior hearing.
I maj 2001 indbragte en forsker en klage til UVVU mod redaktionen for et internationalt videnskabeligt tidsskrift, repræsenteret ved tidsskriftets hovedredaktør.
In May 2001 a researcher lodged a complaint with DCSD against the editorial board of an international scientific journal, represented by the journal's general editor.
UVVU nedsatte et ad hoc-udvalg, hvori et fremtrædende udenlandsk medlem indgik.
DCSD set up an ad hoc committee, which included a prominent foreign member.
Ad hoc-udvalget baserede sin bedømmelse af anklagen om dobbeltpublikation på principperne i Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals.
The ad hoc committee based its assessment of the accusation of duplicate publication on the principles in Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals.
Ved dobbeltpublikation forstås, at to artikler er næsten identiske.
Duplicate publication is understood to mean that two articles are virtually identical.
Ved overflødig publikation forstås, at forfatteren har publiceret flere artikler end nødvendigt for at præsentere sine videnskabelige resultater optimalt.
Redundant publication means that the author has published more articles than necessary in order to gain ideal exposure for his or her scientific results.
Da der imidlertid var tale om to artikler i stedet for én, og da disse artikler blev sendt til forskellige tidsskrifter, havde forskeren forset sig mod god publikationspraksis ved at søge at opnå en overflødig publikation.
Since it was a question of two articles instead of one, however, and since these articles were sent to different journals, the researcher had offended against good publishing practice by attempting to secure redundant publication.
Vedrørende anklagen om modstridende data og vildledning af det videnskabelige samfund fandt ad hoc-udvalget ikke, at der var tale om modstridende data i de to artikler.
As regards the accusation about conflicting data and misleading the scientific community, the ad hoc committee did not find that the two articles involved conflicting data.
Det var ikke mærkeligt, at redaktionen blev forvirret, da forskeren ikke selv forklarede, hvordan de to artikler hang sammen.
It was no wonder that the editorial board became confused when the researcher himself failed to explain how the two articles were interconnected.
Udvalget konkluderede, at anklagen mod klageren for at have publiceret modstridende resultater ikke holdt.
The committee concluded that the accusation against the complainant of having published conflicting results did not hold water.
Der var ikke basis for anklagen om, at klageren havde vildledt det videnskabelige samfund.
There was no basis for the accusation that the complainant had deceived the scientific community.
Udvalget fandt, at klageren havde gjort sig skyldig i undladelse af at efterkomme denne instruktion og derved krænket almindeligt kendte principper i Vancouver-reglerne.
The committee found that the complainant had been guilty of failing to comply with this instruction and had thus offended against generally known principles of the Vancouver rules.