natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
1, at "Videnskabelig uredelighed omfatter handlinger eller undladelser, hvorved der i forskning sker forfalskning eller forvridning af det videnskabelige budskab eller grov vildledning om en persons indsats i forskningen".
1 that: "Scientific dishonesty includes actions or omissions in research whereby falsification or distortion of the scientific message takes place, or gross misrepresentation about a person's involvement in the research".
Det var UVVU's opfattelse, at den omhandlede artikel efter sin fremtrædelsesform ikke kunne begrunde en behandling efter videnskabelige kriterier.
It was DCSD's opinion that the article under discussion, to judge by the form in which it appeared, did not warrant being treated in accordance with scientific criteria.
UVVU måtte derfor for sit vedkommende afvise at forfølge denne sag nærmere.
DCSD for its part, therefore, had to decline to pursue the case.
I september 2001 anklagede en forsker en anden forsker ved et videnskabeligt institut for fabrikering af videnskabelige data i et abstract, som var indsendt forud for en international konference, der blev afholdt i september 1996.
In September 2001 a researcher accused another researcher at a scientific institute of fabricating scientific data in an abstract that had been submitted prior to an international conference held in September 1996.
I overensstemmelse med UVVU's forretningsorden blev klagen undergivet høringsprocedure hos den indklagede.
In accordance with DCSD's rules of procedure, the complaint was submitted to the hearing procedure at the defendant's.
På det således tilvejebragte grundlag tog UVVU's Udvalg for sundhedsvidenskabelig forskning på et møde stilling til, om sagen, uanset sin alder, skulle realitetsbehandles.
On the basis thus provided, DCSD's Committee for Health and Medical Science made a decision at a meeting as to whether the case, regardless of its age, should be considered on its merits.
Udvalgets konklusion blev, at klagen afvistes med henvisning til § 5, stk.
The Committee's conclusion was that the complaint was rejected with reference to Section 5, subs.
1, i Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udviklings bekendtgørelse om Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed (nr. 933 af 15. december 1998), hvorefter "en klage over videnskabelig uredelighed skal indgives i rimelig tid efter, at klageren har fået det nødvendige grundlag for at indgive klagen.
1 of the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation's Order on the Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (no. 933 of 15 December 1998), according to which "a complaint about scientific dishonesty shall be submitted within a reasonable period of time after the complainant has been given the necessary wherewithal for presenting the complaint.
Udvalgene kan kun i særlige tilfælde behandle forhold, der ligger mere end fem år tilbage i tiden."
Only in special cases can the Committees consider circumstances dating back more than five years."
Udvalget fandt efter en samlet vurdering ikke, at sagen indeholdt sådanne særlige grunde, som kunne begrunde, at den skulle undergives videregående behandling.
Following an overall evaluation, the Committee did not consider that the case contained such special grounds as to justify it having to undergo more extensive consideration.
Sagen blev herefter afvist uden nogen realitetsbehandling.
The case was subsequently rejected without any consideration of its substance.
Sag vedrørende en klage over et universitets behandling af en sag om en bog, som på en række punkter blev postuleret at være videnskabelig uredelig (Sag 13 i UVVU's beretning 2000).
Case concerning a complaint about a university's treatment of a matter regarding a book postulated to be scientifically dishonest in a number of respects (Case 13 in DCSD's 2000 report).
Sagen, der blev afvist, er refereret i UVVU's beretning 2000 (sag nr. 13).
The case, which was dismissed, was reported on in DCSD's 2000 report (case no. 13).
Afgørelsen blev truffet i 2001.
The ruling was delivered in 2001.
Efter modtagelse af Forskningsforums afvisning af at behandle sagen klagede forskeren herefter i januar 2001 til Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling.
After receiving a refusal to consider the case from the Board of the Danish Research Councils, the defendant researcher subsequently complained to the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation in January 2001.
2. Skal formuleringen "En klage … skal indgives i rimelig tid efter, at klageren har fået det nødvendige grundlag for at indgive klagen" under alle omstændigheder fortolkes i forhold til det tidspunkt, hvor klageren er blevet opmærksom på de påklagede forhold eller under ekstraordinære omstændigheder finder det nødvendigt at indgive klagen?
2. Must the wording "A complaint … shall be submitted within a reasonable period of time after the complainant has been given the necessary wherewithal for presenting the complaint" be construed under any circumstances relative to the time at which the complainant became aware of the situation being complained of or under extraordinary circumstances finds it necessary to file the complaint?
Folketingets Ombudsmand fremkom i april 2001 med sin udtalelse vedrørende spørgsmål om rekursadgang til ministeriet.
In April 2001 the Ombudsman issued his statement on issues of rights of appeal to the Ministry.
Sammenfattende var det ombudsmandens vurdering, at Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling var klageinstans for afgørelser af retlige sagsbehandlingsspørgsmål truffet af UVVU.
To summarize, it was the Ombudsman's considered judgement that the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation was the appellate authority for rulings on legal caseworking issues made by DCSD.
Ministeriet tog ombudsmandens afgørelse til efterretning og svarede klageren i maj 2001.
The Ministry took the Ombudsman's decision under advisement and replied to the complainant in May 2001.
Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling gav udtryk for følgende:
The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation voiced the following:
1: om den politiske hensigt vedrørende UVVU's kompetence efter Bkg. 933 til at træffe afgørelse i spørgsmål vedrørende videnskabelig uredelighed og spm.
1: on the political intent relating to DCSD's competence under Order 933 to make a decision in questions regarding scientific dishonesty and qu.
Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed (UVVU) har som retsgrundlag bekendtgørelse om Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed (nr. 933 af 15. december 1998), hvor der blev fastsat regler for tre udvalg vedrørende uredelighed i dansk forskning, jf. bekendtgørelsens § 1, stk.
The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) take as their legal basis the Danish Executive Order on the Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (no. 933 of 15 December 1998), which lays down the rules for three committees relating to dishonesty in Danish research, cf. Section 1, subs.
1. Tilsvarende kan en person begære en sag behandlet for at blive renset for verserende rygter, jf. § 2, stk.
1. Similarly, a person can request that a case be considered in order to be cleared of rumours in circulation, cf. Section 2, subs.
Dvs. at UVVU ikke frit kan afvise en klage f.eks. blot med henvisning til administrativ konveniens.
I.e. DCSD is not at liberty to dismiss a complaint merely with reference, say, to administrative convenience.
UVVU's sagsbehandling må heller ikke basere sig på vilkårlighed i valg og afvejning af kriterier.
Nor must DCSD's consideration of a case be based on arbitrariness in its selection and weighing of criteria.
Hvis det på det foreliggende grundlag findes nærliggende, at der er sket en fejl, der emnemæssigt falder inden for UVVU's kompetenceområde, jf. § 2 og § 3, bør sagen behandles.
If, on the available basis, it is deemed obvious that there has been a mistake that falls within DCSD's sphere of competence in terms of the subject, cf. Sections 2 and 3, the case should be considered.
Da det ville være en tjenesteforseelse, hvis en person med forskningspligt udfører sit forskningsmæssige arbejde uredeligt, vil institutionen også selv kunne sanktionere forholdet tjenstligt.
Since it would constitute misconduct if a person with a duty to research were to perform his or her research work dishonestly, the institution itself would also be able to sanction the circumstance officially.
Samtidig bemærkede ministeriet, at sager om videnskabelig uredelighed spænder over et meget bredt felt.
At the same time the Ministry noted that cases of scientific dishonesty range over a very wide field.
I simple sager om afskrift, hvor forholdet er ob
In simple cases of copying, where the particulars are objec
jektivt konstaterbart, vil institutionenselv kunne prøve forholdet, men i mere komplicerede sager skal UVVU ses som et tilbud om, at et sagkyndigt organ kan prøve forholdet, hvor institutionslederen måske ikke selv finder sig kompetent.
tively ascertainable, the institution willbe able to test things itself, but in more complex cases DCSD should be viewed as an offer to have an expert body examine matters in which the actual head of the institution may feel out of his or her jurisdictional depth.
Det vil dog altid være arbejdsgiveren, der skal vurdere spørgsmålet om eventuelle tjenstlige sanktioner, mens UVVU alene kan udtale sig om, hvorvidt en given adfærd efter UVVU's opfattelse må betegnes som videnskabelig uredelig, jf. bekendtgørelsens § 6.
However, it will always be the employer who has to evaluate the question of any official sanctions, whereas DCSD can only give its views on whether a particular conduct should, in the opinion of DCSD, be labelled as scientifically dishonest, cf. Section 6 of the Order.
2 - Spørgsmålet om klagefrist
2 - The question of time-limits for complaints.
Ifølge bekendtgørelsens § 5, stk.
According to Section 5, subs.
1, 1. punktum, skal en sag vedrørende videnskabelig uredelighed indgives inden for en rimelig tid efter, at den pågældende har fået det nødvendige grundlag for at indgive sagen.
1, clause 1 of the Order, a case concerning scientific dishonesty must be submitted within a reasonable period of the person in question having been given the necessary wherewithal to submit the case.
Efter ministeriets opfattelse løber fristen for forældelse i § 5, stk.
In the view of the Ministry the limitation period in Section 5, subs.
1, 2. punktum fra det tidspunkt, hvor de faktiske forhold har fundet sted.
1, clause 2 runs from the time the actual circumstances took place.
Ministeriet fandt det vanskeligt at give et udtømmende svar på spørgsmålet om tidsperspektivet i begrebet "rimelig tid", der må indgå som en del af en helhedsvurdering, især forståelsen af "det nødvendige grundlag".
The Ministry found it difficult to provide an exhaustive reply to the question of the time-frame encapsulated in the term "reasonable period of time", which has to form an integral part of a holistic evaluation - particularly in construing "the necessary wherewithal".
Som eksempel nævnte ministeriet plagiering, jf. bekendtgørelsens § 3, stk.
By way of example, the Ministry mentioned plagiarism, cf. Section 3, subs.
UVVU har afgivet udtalelser i sagen.
requisite documentation no longer being obtainable.
Sag om uberettiget afvisning af en sag behandlet af UVVU (Sag nr. 3 i UVVU's beretning 1999).
Case of unjustified dismissal of a case considered by DCSD (case no. 3 in DCSD's 1999 report).
I 1999 modtog UVVU's Udvalg for sundhedsvidenskabelig forskning en klage fra en pensioneret overlæge, der anklagede en forsker, han tidligere havde samarbejdet med, for at have foretaget konstruktion af data.
In 1999 DCSD's Committee for Health and Medical Science received a complaint from a retired doctor and consultant, who accused a researcher with whom he had previously collaborated of having fabricated data.
Som dokumentation fremsendte klageren et dokument, der i sin form fremstod som en patentansøgning.
By way of documentation the complainant sent a document whose appearance suggested a patent application.
Sagen blev behandlet på et møde i Udvalget for sundhedsvidenskabelig forskning.
The case was dealt with at a meeting of the Committee for Health and Medical Science.
Under sagen blev det oplyst, at den af klageren anfægtede metode ikke var tænkt anvendt i samarbejdsprojektet, der af andre grunde aldrig blev sat i gang.
During the case it was stated that the method being contested by the complainant had not been intended for use in the collaborative project, which for other reasons was never set in train.
Udvalget fandt herefter ikke sagen egnet til videre behandling.
Accordingly, the Committee did not consider the case suitable for further consideration.
Se endvidere Sag nr. 3 i UVVU's beretning 1999.
See also case no. 3 in DCSD's 1999 report.
Sagen er på dette grundlag taget op af Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling.
On this basis the case has been taken up by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation.
UVVU har afgivet udtalelser i sagen.
DCSD has submitted statements in the case.
Ministeriet havde ved beretningsårets udløb endnu ikke truffet afgørelse i sagen, som derfor overføres til 2002.
By the end of the reporting year the Ministry had not yet made a decision in the case, which is therefore being carried forward to 2002.
4, i lov om forskningsrådgivning mv., jf. lovbekendtgørelse nr. 676 af 19. august 1997, fastsættes:
4 of the Danish Act on Research Advice etc., cf. Consolidation Act No. 676 of 19 August 1997, the following provisions apply:
Forskningsforum opretter tre udvalg vedrørende videnskabelig uredelighed inden for dansk forskning: Et udvalg for naturvidenskabelig, jordbrugs- og veterinærvidenskabelig og teknisk-videnskabelig forskning, et udvalg for sundhedsvidenskabelig forskning og et udvalg for samfundsvidenskabelig og humanistisk forskning.
The Board of the Danish Research Councils shall create three committees on scientific dishonesty within Danish research: a committee for research in natural science, agricultural & veterinary science and technical science, a committee for research in health and medical science, and a committee for research in social science and the humanities.
Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed har til opgave at behandle sager vedrørende videnskabelig uredelighed, der rejses ved klage til udvalgene.
The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty are mandated to consider cases of scientific dishonesty lodged with the Committees in the form of a complaint.
En person kan anmode om at få en sag behandlet med henblik på at blive renset for verserende rygter.
A person can make a request to have a case considered with a view to being cleared of rumours in circulation.
Må det på forhånd anses for usandsynligt, at der kan gives klager medhold, afvises sagen.
Where the Committees are considered unlikely beforehand to find for the complainant, the case will be dismissed.
Videnskabelig uredelighed omfatter handlinger eller undladelser, hvorved der i forskning sker forfalskning eller forvridning af det videnskabelige budskab eller grov vildledning om en persons indsats i forskningen, og omfatter bl.
Scientific dishonesty includes actions or omissions in research which give rise to falsification or distortion of the scientific message or gross misrepresentation of a person's involvement in the research, and includes:
2. Selektiv og skjult kassation af uønskede resultater.
2. Selective and surreptitious discarding of undesirable results.
3. Substitution med fiktive data.
3. Substitution with fictitious data.
4. Bevidst vildledende anvendelse af statistiske metoder.
4. Consciously misleading use of statistical methods.
5. Bevidst forvredet fortolkning af resultater og forvridning af konklusioner.
5. Consciously distorted interpretation of results and distortion of conclusions.
6. Plagiering af andres resultater eller publikationer.
6. Plagiarization of others' results or publications.
7. Bevidst fordrejet gengivelse af andres resultater.
7. Consciously distorted reproduction of others' results.
8. Uretmæssig angivelse af forfatterrolle.
8. Inappropriate credit as the author or authors.
9. Ansøgninger med urigtige oplysninger.
9. Applications containing incorrect information.
Udvalget underretter den indklagede om klagen og om, hvorvidt det vil behandle klagen.
The committee shall notify the defendant of the complaint and of whether it intends to consider the complaint.
Klageren kan lade sig bistå af bisiddere, såfremt han/hun er part i sagen.
The complainant may be assisted by observers providing that he/she is a party to the case.
Udtalelsen meddeles sagens parter.
Parties to the case shall be advised of the statement.
En klage over videnskabelig uredelighed skal indgives i rimelig tid efter, at klageren har fået det nødvendige grundlag for at indgive klagen.
A complaint about scientific dishonesty must be submitted within a reasonable time of the complainant having been given the necessary wherewithal for submitting the complaint.
2. Henstille, at det pågældende videnskabelige arbejde trækkes tilbage.
2. Recommend that the scientific project concerned be withdrawn.
3. Foretage anmeldelse til vedkommende offentlige myndighed, som fører tilsyn med området.
3. Make a report to the relevant public authority supervising the area.
4. Foretage politianmeldelse, når der er tale om en strafbar lovovertrædelse.
4. Make out a police report where a punishable offence is involved.
Udvalgene offentliggør en årlig beretning om deres virksomhed.
The Committees shall publish an annual report detailing their activities.
I beretningen beskrives samtlige behandlede sager om videnskabelig uredelighed i ikke-personhenførbar form.
The report shall describe all cases of scientific dishonesty considered in non-personalized form.
Endvidere udpeges suppleanter for medlemmerne.
In addition, alternates shall be appointed for the members.
Formanden og medlemmerne beskikkes i deres personlige egenskab.
The chairperson and members shall be appointed in their personal capacity.
Medlemmerne og suppleanterne beskikkes af Forskningsforum efter høring af de statslige forskningsråd.
The members and their alternates shall be appointed by the Board of the Danish Research Councils following consultation with the government research councils.
Det enkelte udvalg kan beslutte, at det ved undersøgelsen af en sag skal bistås af en eller flere eksterne sagkyndige.
The individual committee can decide that it is to be assisted in its investigation of a case by one or more external experts.
Et dissentierende medlem kan forlange, at hans/hendes dissens fremgår af beslutningen.
A dissenting member can demand that his/her dissent be noted in the decision.
Forskningsstyrelsen varetager sekretariatsbetjeningen af udvalgene.
The Danish Research Agency shall provide secretariat services for the Committees.
Bekendtgørelsen gælder ikke for Færøerne og Grønland.
The Order shall not apply to the Faeroe Islands and Greenland.
Bekendtgørelsen træder i kraft den 1. januar 1999.
The Order shall enter into force on 1 January 1999.
Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling, den 15. december 1998.
Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, 15 December 1998.
I medfør af § 12, stk.
Pursuant to Section 12, subs.
2, i bekendtgørelse nr. 933 af 15. december 1998 om Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed fastsættes:
2 of Danish Executive Order No. 933 of 15 December 1998 on the Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, the following provisions apply:
Udvalgene - opgaver og formål
The Committees - tasks and objectives
Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed består af tre sideordnede udvalg, der hver især dækker et eller flere videnskabelige felter.
The Committees on Scientific Dishonesty consist of three coordinated committees, each individually covering one or more scientific fields.
Udvalgene har en fælles formand.
The Committees have a joint chairperson.
De tre udvalg er: Et udvalg for naturvidenskabelig, jordbrugs- og veterinær videnskabelig og teknisk- videnskabelig forskning, et udvalg for sundhedsvidenskabelig forskning og et udvalg for samfundsvidenskabelig og humanistisk forskning.
The three committees are: a committee for research in natural science, agricultural & veterinary science and technical science, a committee for research in health and medical science, and a committee for research in social science and the humanities.
Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed har til opgave at behandle sager om videnskabelig uredelighed.
The Committees on Scientific Dishonesty are mandated to consider cases of scientific dishonesty.
Anonyme klager vil kun undtagelsesvis kunne behandles og kun, såfremt der foreligger meget væsentlige samfundsmæssige interesser.
Anonymous complaints will qualify for consideration only on an exceptional basis and only in the event that there are substantive and essential social interests at stake.
Målet søges nået ved udbredelse af kendskab til udvalgenes Årsberetning og ved undervisnings- og foredragsvirksomhed m.m.
It is attempted to achieve this goal by disseminating a knowledge of the Committees' annual report and by teaching and lecturing activities etc.
Sagernes forberedelse og afgørelse i de enkelte udvalg
Preparation and adjudgement of cases on the individual committees
Vedkommende udvalg undersøger selv klagen og tilvejebringer alle relevante oplysninger.
The pertinent committee shall itself investigate the complaint and provide all relevant information.
Udvalget kan til et ad hoc-udvalg udpege en eller flere eksterne sagkyndige.
The committee can appoint one or more external experts to an ad hoc committee.
Sagens parter orienteres om ad hoc-udvalgets sammensætning og kan inden for en frist på to uger fremkomme med eventuelle bemærkninger.
The parties to the case shall be informed of the ad hoc committee's composition and are free to offer any comments within a term of two weeks.
Parternes eventuelle bemærkninger sendes til ad hoc-udvalget.
Any comments by the parties shall be sent to the ad hoc committee.
Ad hoc-udvalgets redegørelse, parternes bemærkninger og ad hoc-udvalgets kommentarer hertil forelægges herefter udvalget med henblik på sagens afgørelse.
The ad hoc committee's report, the parties' comments and the ad hoc committee's remarks on these shall then be presented to the committee with a view to settling the case.
Udvalget henstiller til parterne, at en sag behandles fortroligt, indtil der foreligger en afgørelse.
The committee shall recommend to the parties that a case be dealt with in confidence until such time as a ruling is in place.
Udvalget vil, mens en sag behandles, ikke give udenforstående, herunder pressen, oplysninger om sagen.
While a case is in progress, the committee shall not supply information about the case to any third party, including the press.
a. til opgave at sikre ensartethed i sagsbehandlingen på tværs af udvalgene.
One of the chairperson's tasks is to ensure uniformity of the casework procedure across the Committees.
Er det åbenbart, at en sag skal afvises, kan afvisningen foretages af formanden på egen hånd.
If it is apparent that a case must be dismissed, dismissal can be effected by the chairperson on his or her own initiative.
2. Formanden kan i nærmere angivet omfang delegere kompetencen til sekretariatet.
2. To an extent to be further specified, the chairperson can delegate authority to the secretariat.
Forskningsstyrelsen varetager sekretariatsbetjeningen af udvalgene.
The Danish Research Agency provides secretariat services for the Committees.
Formanden orienteres samtidig om klagen.
The chairperson shall be concurrently advised of the complaint.
Sagens akter sendes samtidig i kopi til vedkommende udvalgs medlemmer.
A copy of the case documents shall simultaneously be sent to the members of the relevant committee.
Sekretariatet sender løbende høringssvar og andet sagsmateriale til formanden og udvalgets medlemmer.
The secretariat shall send regular consultation replies and other case-related material to the chairperson and members of the committee.
2. Indklagede orienteres om klagen med kopi af afvisningsskrivelsen.
2. The defendant shall be kept informed of the complaint by a copy of the letter of dismissal.
Møder i udvalgene
Meetings of the Committees
Mødet er ikke offentligt.
The meeting shall not be public.