natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Som forslag til forbedring af de nuværende eksempler på uredelighed, jf. UVVUbekendtgørelsens § 3, vil arbejdsgruppen foreslå, at ordet "uoplyst" tilføjes, idet nogle af de anførte handlinger kan være redelige for så vidt de oplyses i forbindelse med resultatets fremlæggelse, jf. foran bemærkningerne om konstruktion af data.
As a proposal for improvements to the present examples of dishonesty, cf. Section 3 of the DCSD Order, the working group wishes to suggest that the word “undeclared” be added, as some of the actions set out can be honest provided they are declared in connection with the presentation of the results, cf. the comments above on the construction and fabrication of data.
I konsekvens af ovenstående foreslås følgende let ændrede formulering af UVVU-bekendtgørelsens § 3:
As a consequence of the above, the following, slightly altered wording of Section 3 of the DCSD Order is proposed:
3. Uoplyst vildledende anvendelse af statistiske metoder.
3. Undeclared misleading use of statistical methods.
4. Uoplyst forvredet fortolkning af resultater og forvridning af
4. Undeclared misinterpretation of results and distortion of
6. Groft fordrejet gengivelse af andres resultater.
6. Grossly misrepresented rendering of others' results.
Der har i UVVU igennem lang tid været udøvet en praksis, hvorefter UVVU påtaler afvigelse fra god videnskabelig skik i sager, hvor der ikke kan konstateres uredelighed.
At DCSD the practice followed has long been for DCSD to call attention to any deviation from good scientific practice in cases where dishonesty cannot be ascertained.
Denne praksis fremgår af indledningen til UVVU's årsberetninger og de afgørelser, der er refereret sammesteds.
This practice is set out in the introduction to DCSD's annual reports and the rulings minuted therein.
Der er imidlertid ikke hjemmel i de gældende regler for denne praksis.
There is no authorisation for this practice in the current rules, however.
Det må herved erindres, at en "dom" for uredelighed er alvorlig og kan være ødelæggende for den pågældendes karriere, hvorfor uredelighed kun skal statueres, hvis der ikke er skyggen af tvivl i sagen.
Thus, it must be borne in mind that a “verdict” of dishonesty is serious and may be devastating to the person in question's career, for which reason dishonesty must only be found if the case allows of no shadow of a doubt.
Imidlertid bør en påtale for afvigelse af god videnskabelig skik være indeholdt i udtalelsens præmisser, ikke i konklusionen.
However, any indictment on the grounds of deviation from good scientific practice should be included in the premises of the statement, not in the conclusion.
Arbejdsgruppen har drøftet et antal konkrete og tænkte tilfælde med henblik på eventuelt at fastlægge en mere præcis grænse for uredelighedsbegrebets anvendelse end gjort ovenfor, men må konstatere,
The working group has discussed a number of specific and imaginary cases with a view to possibly laying down a more precise limit for the use of the dishonesty concept than that adopted above, but must note
• at der gælder forskellig praksis inden for de forskellige videnskabsgrene f.eks. med hensyn til peer review, forfatter- og referenceangivelser
• that varying practice applies within the different branches of science, e.g. with regard to peer review, and acknowledgement of authors and references
• at kritisabel adfærd, uanset om den er uredelighed eller ej, kan blive opfanget og sanktioneret af andre regler, f.eks. de straffe- eller ansættelsesretlige regelsæt
• that censurable conduct, whether or not it constitutes dishonesty, can be picked up on and sanctioned by other rules, e.g. the body of rules governing criminal or employment law matters
UVVU's hidtidige praksis, hvorefter der i afgørelsens konklusion påtales dårlig videnskabelig praksis, kunne være udtryk for, at der - efter UVVU's opfattelsevar tale om en glidende overgang.
DCSD's practice to date, according to which attention is called to poor scientific practice in the conclusion of the ruling, might reflect the existence of such a continuum, in the opinion of DCSD.
Arbejdsgruppen har imidlertid ovenfor lagt vægt på at få indføjet kravet om, at forskeren vidste eller burde vide, at han optrådte uredeligt, hvilket taler for synspunktet om, at der er tale om adskilte grupper handlinger.
However, the working group has emphasised above the importance of embodying the requirement that the researcher knew or ought to have known that he or she was acting dishonestly, advocating the view that different groups of actions are involved.
Arbejdsgruppen finder ikke, at begrebet uredelighed kan gradbøjes, men sanktionen kan naturligvis gradueres efter karakteren af uredeligheden.
The working group does not find that the concept of dishonesty can be graduated, but the sanction can be graded according to the nature of the dishonesty involved, of course.
Implementeringen af begrebet kan i praksis fortolkes af UVVU, der må foretage et konkret skøn i hver enkelt sag.
In practice, implementation of the concept can be interpreted by DCSD, which has to make a hands-on assessment on a case-by-case basis.
1) Design og metodologi.
1) Design and methodology.
2) Dataindsamling, datahåndtering og dataopbevaring.
2) Data collection, data management and data storage.
4) Beskyttelse af ophavsret.
4) Protection of copyright.
6) Udnævnelse til akademiske positioner.
6) Appointment to academic positions.
Arbejdsgruppen anbefaler, at fremtidigt arbejde med formulering af normer for god videnskabelig praksis tager udgangspunkt i ESF's kategoriseringer og synspunkter.
The working group recommends that future work on the formulation of standards of good scientific practice be based on ESF's classifications and views.
Arbejdsgruppen konstaterer, at den videnskabelige arbejdsform varierer en hel del på tværs af de videnskabelige discipliner.
The working group notes that the scientific approach varies rather a lot across the scientific disciplines.
Jo fastere paradigmer, der gælder, jo lettere er det at tale om faste og explicitte normer.
The more fixed the paradigms that apply, the easier it is to talk of fixed and explicit standards.
Det må ligeledes konstateres, at der inden for samme videnskabsdisciplin kan herske forskellige normer for god videnskabelig praksis.
Similarly, it should be noted that within the same scientific discipline, different standards of good scientific practice can prevail.
Derimod vil arbejdsgruppen anbefale, at der på de enkelte institutioner udarbejdes lokalt afpassede normer for god videnskabelig praksis.
On the other hand, the working group will recommend that locally adapted standards of good scientific practice be drawn up at the individual institutions.
Forskningsrådenes mulige rolle i forbindelse med formulering af praksisnormer.
The Research Councils' possible role in formulating practice norms
For at sikre et vist minimumsniveau for praksisnormer og for at opfange forskere, der ikke kan holde sig til et lokalt regelsæt vil arbejdsgruppen anbefale, at de statslige (frie) forskningsråd anmodes om at overveje at udarbejde og vedligeholde overordnede praksisnormer inden for det pågældende råds fagområde.
In order to ensure a certain minimum standard for practice norms and to pick up on researchers who cannot adhere to a local set of rules, the working group will recommend that the government (free) Research Councils be requested to contemplate drafting and maintaining overall practice norms within the relevant council's specialist field.
Rådene er sammensat af anerkendte aktive forskere, der kan sikre kendskabet til state of the art inden for de forskellige videnskabsgrene og dermed sikre kvaliteten og legitimiteten af de overordnede praksisnormer, der som ovenfor nævnt kan suppleres på den enkelte forskningsinstitution.
The council members are active researchers of high standing who can guarantee their knowledge of the state of the art within the various sciences and hence assure the quality and legitimacy of the overall practice norms which, as mentioned above, can be supplemented at the individual research institution.
God praksis bør læres gennem uddannelsen
Good practice should be learned through training
Arbejdsgruppen finder det væsentligt, at der finder en forebyggende indsats sted.
The working group considers it essential that preventive action be taken.
Man kunne forestille sig, at der allerede på bacheloruddannelserne blev undervist i "forskningens spilleregler" i mere generel forstand.
Teaching in the “ethical rules of research” in the more general sense might be envisaged as early on as bachelor degree courses.
Herved kunne man øge bevidstheden om etiske problemstillinger hos kandidaterne og måske undgå en del af den uredelighed, der vitterligt forekommer i forbindelse med eksaminer.
In so doing, awareness of the ethical problems could be raised in graduates, possibly avoiding some of the dishonesty which it is common knowledge occurs in connection with examinations.
Arbejdsgruppen er vidende om, at der i mange forskeruddannelser og forskerskoler allerede foregår en sådan aktivitet.
The working group is aware that in many researcher programmes and research schools such activity already takes place.
Disse tiltag bør støttes aktivt.
These initiatives should be actively supported.
4. HVAD OG HVEM KAN DER KLAGES OVER - OG AF HVEM?
4. WHAT AND WHO CAN BE COMPLAINED ABOUT?-AND BY WHOM?
Den gældende bekendtgørelse siger meget lidt om hvem, der kan klage, og hvem der kan klages over.
The current executive order says very little about who can complain and who can be complained about.
Det fremgår af UVVU's forretningsorden, at en sag kan rejses af enhver ved klage.
DCSD's rules of procedure state that a case can be raised by anyone lodging a complaint.
Udvalget kan kun undtagelsesvis behandle anonyme klager, hvis der foreligger væsentlige samfundsmæssige interesser.
The committee can only deal with anonymous complaints on an exceptional basis if there are substantive and essential societal interests at stake.
Arbejdsgruppen er enig i, at en klage bør kunne rejses af enhver, ligesom arbejdsgruppen bifalder den nugældende praksis, hvorefter sagen er unddraget offentligheden, så længe den verserer.
The working group agrees that a complaint should be able to be lodged by anyone, just as the working group approves the practice currently in force, according to which the case is withheld from the public for as long as the case is pending.
Nok så væsentligt er det, at der stort set intet siges om den genstand eller handling, som uredelighedspåstanden knytter sig til.
It is equally essential that virtually nothing be said about the object or action to which the dishonesty allegation relates.
Dog siges det eksplicit, at “Sagen skal have betydning for dansk forskning” (§ 2, stk.
However, it is explicitly said that “The case shall be of importance to Danish research” (Section 2, subs.
2), og der er hermed også givet hjemmel til at afvise perifere eller åbenbart grundløse klager.
2), thereby also providing authorisation to dismiss peripheral or patently baseless complaints.
Arbejdsgruppen er enig i denne begrænsning.
The working group agrees with this restriction.
Arbejdsgruppen er endvidere enig i, at der kun kan behandles klager over videnskabelig uredelighed, men ikke klager, der alene angår fravigelse af god videnskabelig praksis.
The working group further agrees that only complaints about scientific dishonesty can be dealt with, not complaints pertaining solely to deviation from good scientific practice.
Arbejdsgruppen vil anbefale, at klager kan indgives af enhver mod enhver, hvis klagen er konkret og gælder forhold, der er omfattet af definitionen af uredelighed
The working group wishes to recommend allowing complaints to be submitted by anyone and against anyone if the complaint is a concrete one and applies to circumstances covered by the definition of dishonesty
For at uredelighed skal kunne komme på tale, må der for offentligheden foreligge et produkt.
In order to qualify for consideration as dishonesty, a product must be available to the public.
“Produktet” kan antage mange former, som dog alle har skriftlig form.
The “product” can take on many shapes, all of which have a written form, however.
b. Ansøgninger og andre materialer i forbindelse med patentsager.
b. Applications and other materials in connection with patent cases.
c. Abstracts og “Posters”. d. Anmeldelser.
c. Abstracts and “posters”. d. Reviews.
e. Mere formløst udgivne “working papers” o. lign., der ikke er
e. More informally published “working papers” and suchlike, which are not
klausulerede med citatforbud. f. Enhver form for afhandlinger placeret på en internet-adresse.
subject to any clause banning quotations. f. Any form of thesis located at an Internet address.
Om en afhandling er registreret i en institutions årsberetning er ikke afgørende for, om den kan karakteriseres som et forskningsprodukt.
Whether or not a thesis is registered in an institution's annual report is not crucial to determining whether it can be characterised as a research product.
Forskere deltager - og bør deltage - i den offentlige debat.
Researchers do-and should-take part in the public debate.
UVVU har i en enkelt sag ( 2001, sag nr. 15) afvist at tage stilling til en forskers klart plagierende adfærd i forbindelse med en kronik under henvisning til, at kronikken “efter sin fremtrædelsesform ikke kunne begrunde en behandling efter videnskabelige kriterier”.
In a single case (2001, case no. 15), DCSD declined to take a stance on the clearly plagiaristic conduct of a researcher in connection with a feature article, with reference to the fact that the feature “according to the form in which it appeared, was unable to warrant consideration in accordance with scientific criteria”.
Arbejdsgruppen er nået til den opfattelse, at det med den her foreslåede definition af begrebet videnskabelig uredelighed vil være rimeligst, om ethvert skriftligt “produkt” fra en forskers hånd, uanset dets fremtrædelsesform, skal kunne underkastes en prøvelse for uredelighed.
The working group has come to the view that, with the definition of the scientific dishonesty concept suggested here, it would be most reasonable if any written “product” produced by a researcher, irrespective of the form in which it manifests itself, could be subjected to scrutiny for dishonesty.
Til gengæld bør UVVU være yderst tilbageholdende med at bedømme en forskers indlæg i og bidrag til den offentlige debat i pressen.
Conversely, DCSD should be extremely reticent about assessing a researcher's writings in and contributions to the public debate in the press.
I denne forbindelse må det præciseres, at forskeres deltagelse i TV- og radioindslag, interviews o. lign bør betragtes som - mundtlige - handlinger, der kun yderst sjældent falder ind under det område, hvor det er rimeligt at prøve for uredelighed.
A qualification should be added in here, to the effect that researchers' participation in TV and radio spots, interviews and so on should be regarded as acts-verbal acts-which only with extreme rarity will fall within the domain where testing for dishonesty is reasonable.
Uanset, at der efter foranstående betragtninger foreligger et produkt, kan der være tilfælde, der bør undtages.
Notwithstanding the existence of a product in keeping with the considerations above, there can be cases that merit exception.
Bør der være adgang til sagsbehandling i andre tilfælde end ved klager?
Should there be facilities for having a case heard in instances other than complaints?
Denne mulighed er imidlertid ikke medtaget i forlaget til ny lov om forskningsrådgivning, til trods for, at der i bemærkningerne er oplyst, at lovforslaget svarer til den gældende bestemmelse, jf. bemærkningerne til lovforslagets § 31.
However, this option has not been included in the draft of the new Act on Research Advice, despite the explanatory notes having stated that the bill corresponds to the current provision in force, cf. the notes on Section 31 of the draft bill.
Arbejdsgruppen finder, at denne opgave er meget vigtig og bør løses af UVVU, og arbejdsgruppen vil derfor anbefale, at der skabes udtrykkelig hjemmel i de nye regler for behandling af sådanne typer sager.
The working group considers this task very important and feels that it should be performed by DCSD; the working group therefore wishes to recommend that express provision be made in the new rules to allow the consideration of such types of cases.
I praksis er medlemmer og suppleanter ofte rådsmedlemmer eller tidligere rådsmedlemmer, og suppleanterne deltager i praksis i udvalgenes møder mv.
Appointments are made for four years, as for members of the Danish Research Councils, with the option of reappointment for a term of two years.
Efter bekendtgørelsen - og forslaget til ny forskningsrådslov - beskikker ressortministeren en fælles formand for de tre udvalg.
According to the Executive Order - and the proposal for a new Research Advice Act - the responsible minister appoints a joint chairperson for the three committees.
Formanden skal ifølge bestemmelserne være landsdommer, og han har efter lovforslaget til opgave alene at træffe afgørelse i retlige spørgsmål (§ 31, stk.
Under the provisions the chairperson must be a high court judge and under the bill his mandate will be to rule solely on matters of law (Section 31, subs.
Efter den nugældende forretningsorden er det endvidere tillagt formanden
According to the rules of procedure currently in force, the duty is also vested in the chairperson to
• at afvise sager, der åbenbart skal afvises (§ 7, stk.
• reject cases patently worthy of rejection (Section 7, subs.
• at bestemme skriftlig votering (§ 7, stk.
• determine that any deliberation be made in writing (Section 7, subs.
• at tillade parterne foretræde for udvalget (§ 7, stk.
• grant the parties an audience with the Committee (Section 7, subs.
De i forretningsordenen beskrevne opgaver for formanden svarer formentlig til de opgaver, der påhviler formænd for andre kollegiale organer, og det må antages at udvalgene til enhver tid kan ændre delegationen ved en ændring af udvalgenes forretningsorden.
The chairperson's tasks described in the rules of procedure are presumably in line with the tasks incumbent on the chairmen of other collegiate bodies, and it must be assumed that the Committees can change the delegation at any time by changing the Committees' rules of procedure.
Det er imidlertid ikke efter arbejdsgruppens opfattelse almindeligt, at en formand via loven tillægges kompetence til alene at træffe afgørelse i en udefineret gruppe af "retlige spørgsmål".
In the opinion of the working group, however, it is not normal for a chairperson to be vested in law with the authority to make a ruling on his own in an undefined group of “matters of law”.
Arbejdsgruppen har diskuteret, om ikke formanden burde være en aktiv forsker i stedet for en landsdommer.
The working group has discussed whether the chairperson should be an active researcher instead of a high court judge.
Begrundelsen for, at formanden skal være landsdommer er ifølge bemærkningerne til lovforslaget "at sikre den juridiske ekspertise i UVVU, hvis sanktionskompetencer kan have store konsekvenser for den enkelte forsker".
The rationale for the chairperson having to be a high court judge, according to the explanatory notes to the bill, is “to assure the legal expertise at DCSD, whose disciplinary sanctioning powers can have great consequences for the individual researcher”.
Som retsgaranti for de juridiske aspekter burde fastholdes en mulighed for at påklage de retlige spørgsmål til ministeriet.
As a guarantee of due process for the legal aspects involved, some channel should be retained for making complaints to the ministry on points of law.
Efter de gældende regler kan det enkelte udvalg beslutte, at det ved undersøgelsen af en sag skal bistås af en eller flere eksterne sagkyndige (bekendtgørelsens § 9, stk.
According to the current rules, the individual committee can decide that it is to be assisted by one or more external experts in its examination of a case (Section 9, subs.
Dette er udfoldet i den gældende forretningsorden, hvorefter der kan indgå eksterne sagkyndige i de samme sted nævnte ad hocudvalg.
This is expanded in the current rules of procedure, according to which external experts can be recruited to the ad hoc committees mentioned in the same place.
Et ad hoc-udvalg kan efter forretningsordenen udrede og forberede sagen, herunder udarbejde en redegørelse, der forelægges udvalget med henblik på sagens afgørelse.
Under the rules of procedure, an ad hoc committee can elucidate and prepare the case, which includes drafting a report to be presented to the committee with a view to ruling on the case.
Arbejdsgruppen finder, at der er tale om en vidtgående delegation af udvalgets behandling af sagen.
The working group considers this to involve extensive delegation of the committees' treatment of the case.
Såfremt denne delegation skal være mulig, bør der være direkte hjemmel hertil.
If such delegation is to be possible, there should be direct authorisation for doing so.
Det fremgår ikke af de gældende regler - eller af referatet af de sager, der har været forberedt af ad hoc-udvalg - hvor mange udvalgsmedlemmer og hvor mange eksterne parter, der indgår i de nedsatte ad hoc-udvalg.
The current rules-or the minutes of the cases that have been prepared by ad hoc committees-do not show how many committee members and how many external parties are involved in the ad hoc committees formed.
6. UVVU'S BESLUTNINGER OG DERES IMPLEMENTERING
6. DCSD'S DECISIONS AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION
Da det både for klager og den indklagede er belastende, at en sag verserer, bør det prioriteres meget højt, at der sker en effektiv og hurtig sagsbehandling.
As it is onerous for complainant and defendant alike to have a case pending, top priority should be assigned to having cases dealt with fast and efficiently.
Hvad enten UVVU's beslutning går ud på at kende forskning uredelig eller at frikende for uredelighed, kan såvel klageren som den indklagede forvente, at beslutningen er vel begrundet.
Whether DCSD's decision involves adjudging research dishonest or acquitting the defendant of dishonesty, both complainant and defendant are entitled to expect the decision to be well grounded.
Det kræver, at konklusionen er en entydig og logisk korrekt følge af de anvendte præmisser og deres anvendelse på de fremfundne faktiske oplysninger.
This calls for the conclusion to be a clear-cut and logically correct consequence of the premises applied and of their application to the factual information retrieved.
En forskers handlinger må kun kunne karakteriseres som uredelige, såfremt handlingerne lader sig indordne under de i definitionen opstillede generelle kategorier.
It must only be possible to characterise a researcher's actions as dishonest if those actions are classifiable under the general categories listed in the definition.
En eventuel stillingtagen til god videnskabelig skik kan anføres i afgørelsens præmisser.
Any stance taken on good scientific practice can be stated in the premises of the ruling.
Det anbefales, at der opstilles regler for afgørelsens indhold, der efter arbejdsgruppen som minimum må indeholde:
It is recommended to establish rules governing the content of the ruling; according to the working group, these must contain a minimum of:
• resumé af den indgivne klage og eventuelle andre partsindlæg,
• summary of the complaint lodged and any other pleas by either party,
• oplysning om, hvilke skridt UVVU har taget til undersøgelse,
• information as to the steps taken by DCSD in the investigation,
• resumé af indstilling fra eventuelt ad hoc udvalg,
• summary of recommendations from the ad hoc committees, if any
• redegørelse for eventuelle eksterne vurderinger i sagen med tydelig
• report on any external evaluations in the case, clearly stating sources and
• udvalgets præmisser og udvalgets afgørelse
• the committee's premises and the committee's ruling.
Enstemmighed, flertalsbeslutning og dissens
Unanimity, majority decision and dissent
4 opstiller enstemmighed som idealet for UVVU's beslutninger.
4 of the Executive Order sets forth unanimity as the ideal for DCSD's decisions.
Heri kan arbejdsgruppen erklære sig enig.
The working group concurs in this.