natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
UKSF lagde endvidere til grund, at der var tætte berøringsflader mellem indholdet af afhandlingen og indklagedes artikel.
UKSF furthermore took into account that there were close areas of contact between the contents of the thesis and the defendants article.
Det relativt snævre emneområde, som afhandlingen og artiklen omhandlede, var behandlet i faglitteratur og praksisbeskrivelser, som måtte antages at være begge parter særdeles godt bekendt.
The relatively narrow subject area processed by the thesis and the article was processed in scientific literature and practice descriptions which were to be considered very well known by both parties.
Uanset afhandlingens begrænsede offentliggørelse fandt UVVU det beklageligt, at indklagede i sin artikel ikke fandt anledning til at foretage en henvisning eller forholde sig til klagers afhandling.
Irrespective of the limited publishing of the thesis, the DCSD found it regrettable that the defendant in his article did not consider it necessary to refer to or relate to the complainant s thesis.
UVVU fandt imidlertid ikke at undladelsen kunne medføre, at indklagede ved udgivelse af artiklen havde udvist en adfærd, der kunne anses som uredelig i bekendtgørelsens forstand.
However, the DCSD did not find the omission of the defendant in publishing the article as being dishonest in terms of the executive order.
UVVU fandt således ikke, at der nogetsteds havde været foretaget afskrift.
Accordingly, the DCSD did not find that copying had been performed in any place.
Der var ikke grundlag for at betvivle, at indklagede havde udført et selvstændigt arbejde med sin artikel.
There were no grounds for doubting whether the complainant had performed an independent piece of work on his article.
I april 2007 rettede en forening henvendelse til UVVU.
In April 2007, an association addressed the DCSD.
Klager var af den opfattelse, at denne konklusion ikke kunne underbygges af det af forfattergruppen anvendte datamateriale.
According to the complainant, this conclusion was not supported by the data materials applied by the group of authors.
Ved en gennemgang af de to artikler kunne USF imidlertid ikke tiltræde klagers opfattelse.
By review of the two articles, however, the USF did not agree in the complainant s opinion.
USF fandt ikke, at forfattergruppens artikel og konklusion indeholdt påstande om, at der var foretaget retsstridige begrænsninger i publikationsrettigheder.
The USF did not find that the article and conclusion of the group of authors contained allegations of wrongful restrictions of publication rights having been made.
Artiklernes indhold var en faglig diskussion af, hvorvidt der forelå mulighed for, at sponsorer kan begrænse publikationsrettigheder.
The contents of the articles were a professional discussion of whether there was a possibility of sponsors limiting publication rights.
USF bad klager om at præcisere klagen.
The USF asked the complainant to specify the complaint.
Klager henviste i sit svar til, at datagrundlaget i undersøgelsen var ufuldstændigt.
In his response, the complainant referred to the data basis of the study being incomplete.
Det fremgik imidlertid af artiklerne, at de var baseret på et nærmere angivet antal forsøgsprotokoller, der var sammenlignet med efterfølgende publikationer.
However, it appeared from the articles that they had been based on a more closely specified number of trial protocols which had been compared to subsequent publications.
Forfattergruppen havde endvidere beskrevet det datamateriale, der var lagt til grund for undersøgelsen.
The group of authors had furthermore described the data materials forming the basis of the study.
UVVU fandt derfor ikke anledning til en nærmere vurdering af indholdet i datamaterialet.
The DCSD accordingly did not find reason for a more specific assessment of the contents of the data materials.
UVVU fandt ikke, at forfattergruppen havde handlet videnskabeligt uredeligt i henhold til § 2.
The DCSD did not find the actions of the group of authors scientifically dishonest under section 2.
I februar 2007 indbragte en forsker en klage over en anden forsker ved den institution, hvor de begge var ansat.
In February 2007, a scientist filed a complaint against another scientist at the institution where they were both employed.
Sagen blev behandlet i Udvalget vedrørende videnskabelig uredelighed for natur-, teknik- og produktionsvidenskabelig forskning (UNTPF).
The case was processed in the Committee on Scientific Dishonesty for Research in Natural, Technical and Manufacturing Science (UKSF).
UNTPF behandlede klagen på baggrund af den konkrete indsigelse mod den nærmere angivne tabel, jf. § 2, nr. 1.
The UNTPF processed the complaint on the basis of the concrete protest against the more closely defined table, cf. section 2, no. 1.
Indklagede oplyste, at der var tale om nogle regnefejl i nogle af de standardafvigelser, der var gengivet i tabellen.
The defendant explained that the issue was some errors of calculation in some of the standard deviations repeated in the table.
Indklagede havde udgivet et erratum i et fagligt tidsskrift vedrørende tabellen.
The defendant had published an erratum in a specialist journal relating to the table.
For at oplyse sagen gennemgik UNTPF en række specialer, som indklagede havde været vejleder på.
In order to enlighten the case, the UNTPF reviewed a number of theses for which the defendant had been supervisor.
UNTPF fandt imidlertid ikke, at specialerne kunne belyse sagen.
However, the UNTPF did not find the theses applicable for enlightening the case.
UNTPF bad derpå indklagede kommentere på nogle konkrete klagepunkter vedrørende standardafvigelserne i tabellen.
Then the UNTPF asked the defendant to comment on some concrete points of complaint relating to the standard deviations of the table.
UNTPF fandt forklaringen, som indklagede gav for fejlene i tabellen utilfredsstillende.
The UNTPF found the explanation provided by the defendant about the errors in the table unsatisfactory.
UNTPF var imidlertid enig i indklagedes påpegning af, at der også var begået fejl i standardafvigelser af samme kategori publiceret af andre forfattere ved brug af en forkert formel.
However, the UNTPF agreed to the defendant s point that errors had also been committed in standard deviations of the same category published by other authors by use of an incorrect formula.
Imidlertid kunne fejlene i den pågældende tabel, med undtagelse af de værdier som var citeret fra en nærmere angiven reference, ikke tilbageføres til brugen af en forkert formel.
However, the errors in the relevant table, with the exception of the values quoted from a more closely specified reference, could not to be attributed to the use of an incorrect formula.
For at oplyse sagen nærmere udarbejde UNTPF en analyse af tabellen, som indklagede blev bedt om at kommentere.
In order to enlighten the case in further detail, the UNTPF performed an analysis of the table which the defendant was asked to comment.
Indklagede gjorde rede for, hvorledes standardafvigelserne i tabellen var beregnet.
The defendant explained how the standard deviations of the table had been calculated.
Derpå forsøgte UNTPF at reproducere tallene i tabellen, men fandt fortsat uoverensstemmelser.
Then, the UNTPF tried to reproduce the figures of the table, but still found discrepancies.
UNTPF konstaterede, at hovedparten af de angivne totale standardafvigelser i en bestemt spalte i tabellen var klart lavere, end det kunne forklares ud fra tallene i to andre spalter i tabellen, ud fra hvilke tallene blev påstået at være beregnet.
The UNTPF stated that the majority of the stated total standard deviations of a specific column of the table were clearly lower than could be explained by the figures in two other columns of the table on which basis the figures had allegedly been calculated.
UNTPF havde i mangel af adgang til rådata ikke mulighed for at bestemme de præcise værdier.
In lack of access to raw data, the UNTPF was not able to determine the precise values.
I to tilfælde var det dog muligt ved et algebraisk bevis at vise, at de opgivne tal ikke kunne være resultatet af en beregning.
In two events, however, it was possible by an algebraic proof to show that the figures provided could not be the result of a calculation.
UNTPF var enige i indklagedes påpegning af, at der kan foreligge en vis korrelation mellem måleværdier i de enkelte kolonner.
The UNTPF agreed to the defendant s point that a certain correlation existed between the measurement values of each column.
En sådan korrelation anfægtede imidlertid ikke gyldigheden af det algebraiske bevis for, at de opgivne tal ikke kunne være resultat af en beregning, og derfor måtte tallene være manipulerede.
Such correlation, however, did not contest the fact that the validity of the algebraic proof of the figures stated were not the result of a calculation, and accordingly, the figures had to have been manipulated.
Konkret havde klager fremsat påstand om, at en betydelig mængde rådata ikke var medtaget i databehandlingen.
Concretely, the complainant had claimed that a considerable amount of raw data had not been included in the data processing.
UNTPF havde ikke mulighed for konkret at afprøve denne påstand uden at rekvirere et omfattende sæt rå måledata.
The UNTPF was not able to concretely test this allegation without requesting a comprehensive set of raw measurement data.
Dette afstod UNTPF fra blandt andet i betragtning af, at indklagede ikke længere var ansat ved den pågældende institution.
The UNTPF refrained from doing so, among other things, as the defendant was no longer employed at the relevant institution.
UNTPF fandt dog ikke indklagedes stillingtagen til beskyldningen konkret nok til, at UNTPF kunne afvise den.
However, UNTPF did not find the defendant s attitude towards the allegations sufficiently concrete for the UNTPF to be able to reject it
UNTPF fandt hverken i indklagedes erratum eller sagskorrespondancen en forklaring på, hvordan de totale standardafvigelser i tabellen var fremkommet.
Neither in the defendant s erratum nor in the case correspondence did the UNTPF find an explanation of how the total standard deviations of the table had appeared.
Efter UNTPF s efterprøvning af standardafvigelserne, måtte det konkluderes, at mindst to af de i tabellen rapporterede tal ikke kunne være resultat af en beregning.
After the UNTPF s testing of the standard deviations, it was to be concluded that at least two of the figures reported in the table could not be the result of a calculation.
UNTPF s kritik rettede sig imidlertid imod det faktum, at der var indføjet tal, der ikke stammede fra hverken målinger eller beregninger.
The critique of the UNTPF, however, aimed at the fact that figures had been added which did not result from neither measurements nor calculations.
Indklagede havde endvidere forklaret, at forskellen mellem forventede tal og de tal, der var anført i tabellen, var så lille, at fejlen nemt kunne overses.
The defendant had also explained that the difference between the expected figures and the figures indicated in the table was so small that the error was easily overlooked.
Imidlertid var det forventede tal betragteligt højere end det, der var anført i det omtalte erratum, og fejlen var derfor ikke til at overse.
However, the expected figures were considerably higher than the figures indicated in the said erratum, and therefore, the error could not be overlooked.
UNTPF fandt på baggrund gennemgangen og beregningerne af sagsmaterialet, at indklagede ved udgivelse af tabellen havde udvist forsætlig eller groft uagtsom videnskabelig uredelig adfærd, som den defineres i § 2 i bekendtgørelsen om UVVU, navnlig i form af uoplyst konstruktion af data eller substitution med fiktive data, jf. § 2, nr. 1, hvilket havde medført en utilbørlig vildledning om egen videnskabelig indsats.
On the basis of the review and the calculations of the case materials, the UNTPF found that, by publishing the table, the defendant had performed wilful or grossly negligent scientific dishonesty as defined in section 2 of the executive order on the DSCD, especially in the form of undisclosed construction of data or substitution by fictitious data, cf. section 2, no. 1, which had resulted in improper misguidance of own scientific efforts.
I sine henvendelser kritiserede klager endvidere en række udtalelser fra forskellige navngivne personer vedrørende behandling af den nærmere angivne sygdom med det nærmere angivne lægemiddel, herunder en artikel om forebyggelse af den pågældende sygdom skrevet af en navngiven professor.
In his inquiry, the complainant also criticised a number of statements from different named persons relating to treatment of the more closely defined decease with the more closely defined pharmaceutical, including an article on prevention of the said decease written by a named professor.
Henvendelserne drejede sig ikke om anmeldelse af videnskabelig uredelighed i et konkret videnskabeligt produkt, som begrebet er defineret i § 2 i bekendtgørelsen om UVVU.
The inquiries did not concern report of scientific dishonesty in a concrete scientific product as the concept has been defined in section 2 of the executive order on the DCSD.
UVVU havde i øvrigt ikke kompetence til at vurdere holdbarheden af generelle råd og anbefalinger om kost og sundhed.
The DCSD has no jurisdiction to assess the validity of general advice and recommendations about food and health.
UVVU bemærkede endvidere, at UVVU ikke havde kompetence til at tage stilling til afslag på optagelse i det nærmere angivne sundhedsfaglige selskab.
The DCSD furthermore noted that the DCSD has no competence to decide upon rejections of acceptance in the more closely defined health care society.
Personen oplyste i sin henvendelse, at han ikke var videnskabeligt uddannet inden for det fagområde, artiklen vedrørte.
The accusations had been made in connection with a cultural scientific article which the relevant person had printed in a journal.
I forbindelse med personalesagen havde klager tidligere henvendt sig til UVVU for at blive renset for beskyldninger om videnskabelig uredelighed i forbindelse med hans forskningsprojekt.
In connection with the staff case, the complainant had previously addressed the DCSD to be cleared of accusations of scientific dishonesty in connection with his research project.
UVVU havde ikke fundet grundlag for at betegne hans arbejde som værende videnskabeligt uredeligt.
The DCSD had found no basis for indicating his work as being scientifically dishonest.
UVVU havde taget stilling til tre konkrete klagepunkter vedrørende hans forskning, som var indeholdt i personalesagen.
The DCSD had decided on three actual points of complaint relating to his research which were included in the staff case.
UVVU tog ikke stilling til personalesagen, da UVVU ikke har kompetence til at behandle sådanne sager og heller ikke fungerer som klageinstans for klager i personalesager.
The DCSD did not decide on the staff case as the DCSD has no jurisdiction to process such cases and does not serve as complaint instance for complaints in staff cases.
Det fremgik af den nye henvendelse, at klageren ønskede at klage over A og B dels for uacceptabel overfladiskhed og faglig uduelighed i forbindelse med den faglige indrapportering på institutionen og dels for en dertil relateret offentlig misinformation.
It appeared from the new inquiry that the complainant wanted to complain about A and B partly for unacceptable superficiality and scientific incompetence in connection with the scientific reporting at the institution and partly for related public misinformation.
I relation til A anførte klager endvidere, at A offentligt havde antydet, at klageren sympatiserede med nogle nærmere angivne ekstreme grupper.
In relation to A, the complainant also indicated that A had publicly suggested that the complainant sympathised with some more closely defined extreme groups.
Endvidere var det klagers opfattelse, at A i en redegørelse til en leder på institutionen i forbindelse med personalesagen havde udvist groft uagtsom adfærd, der indebar utilbørlig vildledning om andres videnskabelige indsats, og at redegørelsen var utroværdig og værdiløs.
Furthermore, according to the complainant, in a statement to a manager of the institution in connection with the staff case, A had acted in a grossly negligent manner which implied improper misguidance about the scientific efforts of others and the statement was unreliable and worthless.
Klager anså det endvidere for en skærpende omstændighed, at A angiveligt havde gjort sig bekendt med klagers fortrolige projektprotokol.
Furthermore, the complainant believed that, by public press statements, A did not meet the requirements of due care, objectivity and quality you would generally expect of a scientific report.
I relation til B fremførte klager, at B havde misinformeret og udvist videnskabelig uredelighed i forbindelse med offentlige udtalelser om brugen af forskningsmateriale fra et forskningsprojekt.
In relation to B, the complainant stated that B had misinformed and displayed scientific dishonesty in connection with public statements about the use of research materials from a research project.
Klager anførte blandt andet, at det var hans opfattelse, at B (til dels sammen med A) havde handlet videnskabeligt uredeligt ved utilbørligt at have vildledt offentligheden om klagers forskningsprojekt blandt andet i en kronik og en artikel i dagspressen.
The complainant indicated, among other things, that according to him, B (partly in company with A) had acted scientifically dishonest by improperly having misguided the general public about the complainant s research project, among other places, in a feature article and in an article in the daily press.
Det var endvidere klagers påstand, at B havde udvist alvorlige svigt i sit virke ved institutionen ved ikke at opfylde de krav til omhu og kvalitet, som man i almindelighed kan forvente af en videnskabelig rapport, og at B havde givet utilbørlig vildledning til institutionens leder, UVVU og offentligheden.
Furthermore, the complainant claimed that B had displayed serious neglect in his position at the institution by not meeting the requirements of due care and quality which you would generally expect from a scientific report, and that B had given improper misguidance to the manager of the institution, the DCSD and the general public.
I forbindelse med klagen over C henviste klager til, at C gennem mange år systematisk og groft havde misinformeret om klagers forskning samt fordrejet og mistænkeliggjort hans internationale kollegaers faglige virke og faglige fora via hjemmesider med referencer til institutionen.
In connection with the complaint about C, the complainant referred to the fact that, for many years, C had systematically and grossly misinformed about the complainant s research as well as having distorted and thrown suspicion on his international colleagues' professional activities and professional fora via websites with references to the institution.
Det var endvidere klagers opfattelse, at C gjorde sig skyldig i strafbare injurier.
Furthermore, the complainant believed that C was guilty of punishable slander.
Da UVVU ikke er klageinstans for hverken personalesagen eller institutionen, hvor klager var ansat, kan UVVU ikke tage stilling til den rapport, som et udvalg på institutionen havde udarbejdet, og som dannede grundlag for en indberetning fra en afdelingsleder til lederen af institutionen.
Since the DCSD is not a complaint instance for neither the staff case nor the institution where the complainant was employed, the DCSD is unable to decide on the report which a committee in the institution had prepared and which formed the basis of a reporting from a head of department to the manager of the institution.
Klagen over A henviste endvidere til presseudtalelser, der blev fremsat i forbindelse med personalesagen, og klagen over B henviste til en kronik og en artikel i dagspressen.
The complaint about A furthermore referred to press statements made in connection with the staff case, and the complaint about B referred to a feature article in the daily press.
Da presseudtalelserne og de omhandlede indlæg i dagspressen ikke kan betragtes som videnskabelige produkter, kunne UVVU ikke behandle sagen, jf. § 1 i bekendtgørelsen om UVVU.
As the press statements and the involved contributions in the daily press cannot be considered scientific products, the DCSD was unable to process the case, cf. section 1 of the executive order on the DCSD.
Klagen over C henviste til indlæg og artikler på hjemmesider og i andre populærmedier, der omhandlede klagers forskning.
The complaint about C referred to contributions and articles at websites and in other popular media concerning the complainant's research.
Da der ikke var tale om videnskabelige produkter, kunne UVVU ikke behandle klagen.
As these were not scientific products, the DCSD was unable to process the complaint.
Det var endvidere klagers påstand, at C gjorde sig skyldig i strafbare injurier, hvilket UVVU ikke har kompetence til at behandle.
The complainant furthermore claimed that C was guilty of punishable slander which the DCSD has no jurisdiction to process.
Klageren indbragte sagen på vegne af to navngivne kunstnere.
The complainant brought the case on behalf of two named artists.
Klager klagede over, at indklagede og museet havde behandlet de to kunstnere uetisk og uredeligt i en universitetssammenhæng i forbindelse med afviklingen af det angivne projekt, blandt andet fordi de to kunstnere ikke var nævnt i en invitation til udstillingen.
The complainant complained about the defendant and the museum having treated the two artists in an unethical and dishonest manner in university relations in connection with the said project, among other things, because the two artists had not been mentioned in an invitation to the exhibition.
Klager anførte, at den ene kunstner ikke var blevet nævnt i en radioudsendelse om udstillingen, som indklagede havde deltaget i.
The complainant indicated that one artist had not been mentioned in a radio show about the exhibition which the defendant had participated in.
Endvidere anførte klager, at den ene kunstner, som havde udlånt et antal kunstværker, ikke var nævnt, hvorimod to andre kunstnere, repræsenteret med hver et kunstværk, begge blev takket for udlån.
Furthermore, the complainant stated that one of the artists, who had lent a number of works of art, had not been mentioned whereas two other artists each represented by one work of art had both been thanked for the loan.
Endelig anførte klager, at der havde været samarbejdsproblemer mellem de to kunstnere og indklagede i forbindelse med blandt andet ferniseringen af udstillingen, foruden at den ene kunstner og dennes projektoplæg ikke var nævnt i referencer til udstillingen.
Finally, the complainant indicated that there had been difficulty in cooperation between the two artists and the defendant in connection, among others, with the private view of the exhibition, besides from one of the artists and his project presentation not having been mentioned in references to the exhibition.
Klagen over indklagede og museet rettede sig mod udstillingen og en bog, der blev udgivet i forbindelse med projektet.
The complaint about the defendant and the museum addressed the exhibition and a book published in connection with the project.
Det tilsvarende gjorde sig gældende i relation til omtalen i henholdsvis invitationen og radioudsendelsen.
Correspondingly applies in relation to the mentioning in the invitation and the radio show, respectively.
ERASynBio åbner nu for ansøgninger til opslaget med titlen: "ERASynBio 2nd joint call for transnational research projects - Building Synthetic Biology capacity through innovative transnational projects".
ERA-SynBio now opens for applications to the call entitled: “ERASynBio 2nd joint call for transnational research projects - Building Synthetic Biology capacity through innovative transnational projects”.
Opslaget vil støtte forskningsområder inden for syntesebiologi.
The joint call will support research areas within Synthetic Biology.
For mere information herom refereres til opslagsteksten (se link nedenfor).
For more information please see the call text documents (see link below).