natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Vedrørende anklagen om redaktørens undladelse af at følge almindeligt kendte principper om høring (kontradiktion) ved fastsættelsen af sanktionen om to års publikationsforbud anførte ad hocudvalget følgende:
As regards the accusation about the editor's failure to observe generally known principles about consultation (contradiction) when fixing the sanction involving a two-year ban on publication, the ad hoc committee stated the following:
Redaktøren skal i tilfælde af mistanke om brud på god publikationspraksis straks underrette forfatteren herom og bede om svar på præcist formulerede anklager.
In the event of a suspected breach of good publication practice, the editor shall immediately notify the author to this effect and request a reply to precisely worded accusations.
Forfatteren skal have ret til at svare på disse anklager.
The author shall be entitled to reply to these accusations.
Der bør ikke foretages yderligere sanktioner, før svar er modtaget, og redaktøren har bedømt, om der er behov for yderligere brevveksling.
No further sanctions should be undertaken until a reply has been received and the editor has assessed whether there is a need for additional correspondence.
Redaktøren kan også vælge at indhente ekspertevaluering af anonymiseret materiale.
The editor can also elect to obtain an expert evaluation of depersonalized material.
Forfatteren skal underrettes om de supplerende skridt i proceduren og skal have ret til at fremkomme med yderligere oplysninger.
The author shall be notified of such supplementary stages in the procedure and shall have the right to produce additional information.
I tilfælde af mindre forseelser mod god publikationspraksis, såsom dobbeltpublikation eller overflødig publikation, kan redaktionskomitéen træffe afgørelse i sagen og vedtage om eventuelle sanktioner.
In the event of minor offences against good publication practice, such as duplicate or redundant publication, the editorial committee can make a ruling in the case and adopt sanctions to be taken, if any.
I tilfælde af alvorlige brud på god publikationspraksis, såsom plagiat, må redaktøren og redaktionskomitèen træffe afgørelse om eventuelt at involvere arbejdsgiveren (f.eks. dekanen) eller en institution som f.eks. UVVU.
In the event of a severe breach of good publication practice, such as plagiarism, the editor and the editorial committee must decide whether or not to involve the employer (e.g. the head of faculty) or an institution such as DCSD.
Disse muligheder skal også anvendes, hvis sagen synes at kræve yderligere undersøgelse, som normalt vil ligge uden for redaktørens sfære.
These options shall also be resorted to if the case appears to require additional investigation that would normally be outside the editor's domain.
I den konkrete sag kom ad hoc-udvalget til det resultat, at redaktionskomitèen ikke havde iagttaget den fornødne høringsprocedure, før dommen blev fastsat og iværksat.
In this particular case the ad hoc committee reached the conclusion that the editorial committee had failed to observe the requisite consultation procedure before the judgement was fixed and implemented.
Over for ad hoc-udvalget medgav redaktøren, at hans anklage om modstridende data måtte karakteriseres som ikke værende velbegrundet.
The editor admitted to the ad hoc committee that his accusation of conflicting data could only be characterized as not well founded.
Den indklagede bemærkede dog, at hverken han eller redaktionskomitèen havde til hensigt at ødelægge klagerens rygte.
The defendant adduced nothing about the proportionality between this reasoning for the editorial board and the severity of the judgement.
På baggrund af gennemgangen af sagsforløbet og de indsendte sagsakter kom ad hoc-udvalget til følgende konklusion:
The defendant did note, however, that neither he nor the editorial committee had any intention of destroying the complainant's reputation.
Den indklagede havde på sin side
with the article published to such an
I overensstemmelse hermed traf UVVU følgende afgørelse:
• misunderstood the results in the complainant's manuscript, and
Klageren har ikke produceret modstridende forskningsresultater og har ikke foretaget dobbeltpublikation af sine resultater.
• fixed and implemented sanctions against the complainant and his co-author without observing generally known principles of law.
Den indklagede har på sin side fejlagtigt anklaget klageren for at producere modstridende forskningsresultater og har på dette fejlagtige grundlag fastsat og iværksat sanktioner mod klageren uden iagttagelse af forudgående høring.
By failing to inform the editor of the defendant journal about the previous article, the complainant has offended against the journal's Advice to Authors, which is in keeping with generally accepted principles for informing editors about other works closely related to the manuscript submitted.
Under hensyn til, at redaktionskomitèen i forbindelse med fastsættelsen af sanktioner
basis, fixed and initiated sanctions against the complainant without paying heed to the prior consultation.
ikke har handlet i overensstemmelse med anerkendte forvaltningsprocedurer, henstiller UVVU, at redaktionskomitèen genoptager sagen og på det nu oplyste grundlag træffer en ny afgørelse.
Bearing in mind that, in fixing sanctions, the editorial committee has failed to act in accordance with recognized administrative procedures, DCSD recommends that the editorial committee resume the case and, on the documentary basis now provided, rule anew.
UVVU sender en kopi af denne afgørelse til det tidsskrift, som har publiceret den første artikel.
DCSD will be sending a copy of this judgement to the journal that published the first article.
Afgørelsen er udfærdiget på både dansk og engelsk.
The judgement has been drawn up in both Danish and English.
I maj 2001 henvendte en fagforening sig til Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed (UVVU) og bad om at få oplyst, med hvilken hjemmel UVVU behandlede sager om overtrædelse af god videnskabelig skik.
In May 2001 a trade union approached the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) asking to be informed with what authority DCSD dealt with cases concerning the violation of good scientific practice.
UVVU besvarede henvendelsen i således:
DCSD replied to the enquiry in the following terms:
Vedtægterne for det tidligere "Udvalget Vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed" indeholdt - lige så lidt som bekendtgørelsen vedrørende de nye Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighedbestemmelser om UVVU's kompetence vedrørende bedømmelse af handlinger i strid med god videnskabelig skik.
The statutes for the former "Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty" contained - just as little as the Order on the new Committees on Scientific Dishonesty - provisions about DCSD's competence to assess actions at variance with good scientific practice.
Som det fremgår af artiklen, viste erfaringen imidlertid, at det ved behandlingen af de efter vedtægterne indbragte sager i et vist omfang tillige fandtes nødvendigt også at arbejde med en norm for god forskningspraksis.
As the article points out, however, experience showed that when dealing with cases presented in accordance with the statutes, it was also felt necessary to work on a standard for good research practice to some extent.
I det daværende UVVU's årsberetning for 1997 findes endvidere en evaluering af det norske uredelighedsudvalg, foretaget af Daniel Andersen og Hans Henrik Brydensholt (se s. 19 ff).
In the then DCSD's annual report for 1997 there is also an evaluation of the Norwegian National Committee for the Evaluation of Dishonesty in Health Research, undertaken by Daniel Andersen and Hans Henrik Brydensholt (p. 19ff).
Desuden omtales den uheldige virkning af, at man i det norske udvalg i sin konklusion alene havde taget stilling til uredelighedsspørgsmålet (side 21 n. - 22 ø.).
Discussion is also given over to the adverse effect of the Norwegian committee having taken a position purely on the issue of dishonesty in its conclusions (pp. 21-22).
Det vides, at man i det norske udvalg nu også konstaterer, om der i en sag foreligger andre former for afvigelse fra god forskningsskik.
It is known that the Norwegian committee now notes whether other forms of departure from good research practice are present in a case too.
Det fremgår af årsberetningen for 1999 fra de nye Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed, at der har været enighed om fortsat at anvende normen for god videnskabelig skik.
The annual report for 1999 from the new Committees on Scientific Dishonesty indicate that there has been a consensus to continue using the standard of good scientific practice.
Dette er, som det fremgår af referatet i denne beretningssag nr. 1, også sket i praksis.
This has happened in practice, too, as indicated by the minutes of case no. 1 in this report.
Der henvises i øvrigt til de nævnte artikler i UVVU's beretninger for 1995 og 1997.
Reference is also made to the articles mentioned in DCSD's 1995 and 1997 reports.
Begæring om aktindsigt (Sag 4 i UVVU's beretning 2000).
Request for access to documents (Case 4 in DCSD's 2000 report).
Det tidligere Udvalg Vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed, der var nedsat af Statens Sundhedsvidenskabelige Forskningsråd, fulgte den praksis ikke at give aktindsigt i sager, der var under behandling i udvalget.
The former Committee on Scientific Dishonesty, which had been set up by the Danish Medical Research Council, held with the practice of not granting access to documents in cases being considered by the Committee.
Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed besluttede at følge det hidtidige udvalgs praksis på området, og anmodningen blev derfor afvist.
The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty decided to adhere to the former Committee's practice in the area, and the request was therefore dismissed.
Journalisten indbragte herefter UVVU's afvisning til Folketingets Ombudsmand, hvis afgørelse ikke forelå ved udgangen af år 2000.
The journalist subsequently brought DCSD's dismissal before the Danish Parliamentary Ombudsman, whose ruling was still pending at the end of 2000.
Ministeriet tog Folketingets Ombudsmands afgørelse til efterretning og behandlede journalistens klage over UVVU.
The Ministry took the Parliamentary Ombudsman's judgement under advisement and dealt with the journalist's complaint about DCSD.
Sagen vedrørte, som det fremgår, en journalists ønske om at få aktindsigt i en sag, hvor der endnu ikke er truffet afgørelse.
As will be seen, the case pertained to a journalist's wish to gain access to documents in a case in which no ruling has yet been made.
Med hensyn til klagers og indklagedes stilling er det uden videre klart, at UVVU gennem sin høringsprocedure sørger for, at de har fuld indsigt i sagen.
With regard to the complainant's and the defendant's position, it is clear prima facie that, through its consultation procedure, DCSD ensures that it has full access to files in the case.
UVVU har ikke midler til at hindre, at en af parterne går til pressen, mens sagen er under behandling.
DCSD does not have the means to prevent one of the parties going to the press while the case is being considered.
Men UVVU har hidtil, når man påbegyndte behandlingen af en sag, henstillet til parterne, at de iagttager diskretion, indtil en afgørelse foreligger.
To date, however, whenever consideration of a case was under way, DCSD has recommended that the parties observe discretion until such time as a ruling becomes available.
I forbindelse med sit svar til ombudsmanden pegede Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling på, at det ville være mere hensigtsmæssigt, hvis UVVU rettede henvendelse til indklagede med henblik på en afklaring af behovet for en hemmeligholdelse, inden man gav en sådan henstilling.
In connection with its reply to the Ombudsman, the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation pointed out that it would be more appropriate if DCSD approached the defendant with a view to clarifying the need for secrecy before issuing such a recommendation.
UVVU kan se nytten af en sådan procedure, der vil sikre udvalget et mere nuanceret grundlag for sin stillingtagen til, hvorvidt man skal anmode parterne om at afvente udvalgets afgørelse, inden de informerer pressen.
DCSD can see the benefit of such a procedure, which will provide the Committee with a more subtle basis for taking its position on whether to ask the parties to wait for the Committee's judgement before informing the press.
Sag om en konfliktsituation, som medførte forbud mod publicering af en videnskabelig artikel (Sag 10 i UVVU's beretning 2000).
Case of a conflict situation resulting in a ban on the publication of a scientific article (Case 10 in DCSD's 2000 report).
Sagen havde været afsluttet, men blev på ny taget under behandling i beretningsåret.
The case had been completed, but was taken under renewed consideration during the year under review.
UVVU's Udvalg for sundhedsvidenskabelig forskning besluttede at nedsætte et ad hoc-udvalg, der fik til opgave at udarbejde en redegørelse for sagen til UVVU.
DCSD's Committee for Health and Medical Science decided to form an ad hoc committee, which was given the task of compiling a report on the case for DCSD.
Redegørelsen blev i oktober 2001 sendt til sagens parter med henblik på en eventuel kommentering af faktuelle forhold.
In October 2001 the report was sent to the parties in the case with a view to obtaining any comments on the factual aspects.
Klageren har svaret, at han ikke har bemærkninger til redegørelsen, mens de indklagede har meddelt, at svar først kan foreligge i 2002.
The complainant has answered that he has no comment to make on the report, while the defendants have stated that no reply will be available until 2002.
Sagen kan derfor ikke afsluttes i beretningsåret, men overføres til år 2002.
The case cannot be completed during the year under review, therefore, but will be carried forward to 2002.
Sag om begæring om aktindsigt i en sag, som var under behandling, men endnu ikke var afsluttet (Sag 11 i UVVU's beretning 2000).
Case concerning a request for access to documents in a case that was under consideration but still pending (Case 11 in DCSD's 2000 report).
En speciallæge rejste i 1999 over for UVVU tvivl om bæredygtigheden af det materiale, der førte til godkendelse af et lægemiddel.
In 1999 a medical specialist raised doubts with DCSD concerning the soundness of the material that led to the approval of a drug.
Under behandlingen af sagen begærede en journalist aktindsigt i ad hocudvalgets redegørelse.
While the case was under consideration, a journalist requested access to documents in the ad hoc committee's report.
Anmodningen blev afslået med den begrundelse, at Udvalget for sundhedsvidenskabelig forskning ønskede at følge den praksis, som det tidligere Udvalget Vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed havde fulgt, dvs. ikke at give aktindsigt i sager, der var under behandling i udvalget.
The request was dismissed on the grounds that the Committee for Health and Medical Science wished to adhere to the practice that had been followed by the former Committee on Scientific Dishonesty, i.e. that of not granting access to documents in cases under consideration by the Committee.
Begæringen blev derfor afslået.
The request was therefore rejected.
Sagen blev herefter indbragt for Folketingets Ombudsmand, som ved udgangen af 2000 endnu ikke havde afsluttet behandlingen af sagen, jf. UVVU's beretning 2000, sag nr. 11.
The case was subsequently brought before the Danish Parliamentary Ombudsman, who had not yet completed his consideration of the case by the end of 2000, cf. DCSD's 2000 report, case no. 11.
Folketingets Ombudsmand traf i april 2001 endelig afgørelse i denne sag.
In April 2001 the Parliamentary Ombudsman made a final ruling in this case.
Folketingets Ombudsmand mente derfor ikke, at ministeriet burde have afvist klagen over UVVU's afslag på aktindsigt.
The Ombudsman did not feel, therefore, that the Ministry should have dismissed the complaint about DCSD's rejection to grant access to documents.
Ministeriets afgørelse af dette spørgsmål forelå ikke ved beretningsårets udløb.
The Ministry's decision in this question was not yet available at the end of the reporting year.
Sagen overføres derfor til UVVU's beretning 2002.
The case will therefore be carried forward to DCSD's 2002 report.
Sagen bør i øvrigt sammenholdes med sag nr. 8, der er beskrevet ovenfor.
Moreover, the case should be compared with case no. 8, outlined above.
Sag om en henvendelse om mulig videnskabelig uredelighed i form af mulig manipulation med data (Sag 12 i UVVU's beretning 2000).
Case concerning an approach about possible scientific dishonesty in the form of possible manipulation of data (Case 12 in DCSD's 2000 report).
UVVU modtog i 2000 til orientering kopi af en korrespondance, som blev ført mellem en forsker og et videnskabeligt tidsskrift.
In 2000 DCSD received, for information purposes, a copy of correspondence being conducted between a researcher and a scientific journal.
Som svar på henvendelsen meddelte UVVU, at UVVU ikke havde mulighed for at tage sager op af egen drift, men alene kan behandle sager, der rejses ved klage.
By way of reply to the enquiry, DCSD stated that it was not able to review cases on its own initiative but can only deal with cases filed in the form of a complaint.
I 2001 blev henvendelsen afløst af en formel klage.
In 2001 the enquiry was superseded by a formal complaint.
Sag om klage over en udenlandsk forsker, som uden tilladelse har plagieret andres videnskabelige artikler.
Case of a complaint about a foreign researcher who has plagiarized others' scientific articles without permission.
UVVU modtog i september 2001 til orientering en kopi af et brev fra ledelsen af et institut ved et dansk universitet med en klage over, at en udenlandsk gæsteforsker ved det danske institut efter sin hjemkomst til sit eget land havde publiceret mindst to videnskabelige artikler om eksperimentelle data, som hidrørte fra instituttet.
In September 2001 DCSD received, for information purposes, a copy of a letter from the heads of a department at a Danish university containing a complaint about a foreign visiting researcher at the Danish institute following his return to his home country, having published at least two scientific articles on experimental data stemming from the department.
Heraf havde den udenlandske forsker produceret visse data under sit ophold i Danmark, mens en anden del omhandlede forskningsaktiviteter, som den udenlandske forsker ikke havde deltaget i, og som var blevet publiceret af det danske institut i tidsskrifter i 1998.
The foreign researcher had generated some of these data during his stay in Denmark, while another portion related to research activities in which the foreign researcher had not taken part and which had been published by the Danish department in journals in 1998.
Institutledelsen anklagede på denne baggrund den udenlandske forsker for plagiat og uretmæssigt forfatterskab, idet data og artikler var kopieret uden tilladelse fra de danske forskere og uden reference til de danske forskeres arbejder.
On this basis the departmental heads accused the foreign researcher of plagiarism and wrongful authorship, data and articles having been copied without permission from the Danish researchers and with no allusion to the Danish researchers' work.
Da det danske institut efter tre måneder ikke havde modtaget nogen reaktion fra det udenlandske institut, bad instituttet i december 2001 UVVU om at indtræde i sagen.
Since the Danish department had not received any response from the foreign institute three months later, in December 2001 the department asked DCSD to enter into the case.
Sag om klage over krænkelse af god videnskabelig praksis på et dansk universitet.
Case of a complaint about violation of good scientific practice at a Danish university.
En forsker klagede i marts 2001 over krænkelse af god videnskabelig praksis på et universitet.
In March 2001 a researcher complained about violation of good scientific practice at a university.
Med henvisning til § 3 i bekendtgørelse om Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed (nr. 933 af 15. december 1998) gjorde UVVU opmærksom på, at UVVU kun kan behandle sager, hvor der blev indgivet klage mod nogen for videnskabelig uredelighed.
With reference to Section 3 of the Danish Executive Order on the Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (no. 933 of 15 December 1998), DCSD pointed out that it can deal only with cases in which a complaint has been lodged against someone for scientific dishonesty.
På denne baggrund var det umiddelbart UVVU's opfattelse, at klagerens sag faldt uden for UVVU's sagsområde, hvorfor udvalget alene af den grund måtte afstå fra at behandle sagen.
Against this background it was DCSD's view that, on the face of it, the complainant's case fell outside of DCSD's purview, for which reason the Committee had no choice but to refrain from considering the case on those grounds alone.
I maj 2001 bad klageren imidlertid UVVU om igen at se på klagen, idet klageren nu havde præciseret de punkter, hvor der efter dennes opfattelse forelå forvridning af det videnskabelige budskab og grov vildledning om en persons indsats.
In May 2001, however, the complainant asked DCSD to reconsider the complaint, as the complainant had now qualified the points which in his opinion involved a distortion of the scientific message and gross misrepresentation about a person's involvement.
Der var i udvalget enighed om, at det ikke kunne antages, at problemet i sagen vedrørte videnskabelig uredelighed.
The Committee reached a consensus that the problem in the case could not be accepted as relating to scientific dishonesty.
Klagen måtte derfor afvises.
The complaint therefore had to be dismissed.
Sag om klage over en forskers antividenskabelige holdninger.
Case of a complaint about a researcher's antiscientific attitudes.
UVVU meddelte klageren, at klagen over forskerens uvidenskabelige holdninger ikke kunne antages at være rettet mod en adfærd, der kunne betegnes som videnskabelig uredelighed jf. definitionen af dette: § 3, stk.
DCSD informed the complainant that the complaint about the researcher's unscientific attitude could not be assumed to be directed towards conduct describable as scientific dishonesty, cf. the definition of this: Section 3, subs.
1 i Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udviklings bekendtgørelse nr. 933 af 15. december 1998 om Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed, som er grundlaget for UVVU's arbejde.
1 in the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation's Executive Order No. 933 of 15 December 1998 on the Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, which forms the basis of DCSD's work.
Sagen blev derfor afvist som følge af bekendtgørelsens § 2, stk.
The case was therefore dismissed by dint of Section 2, subs.
I august 2001 klagede en forsker til UVVU over, at den indklagede havde gjort sig skyldig i videnskabelig uredelighed ved at have plagieret klagerens publikation i en kronik i et landsdækkende dagblad uden klagerens samtykke og viden og uden henvisning til klagerens artikler.
In August 2001 a researcher complained to DCSD that the defendant had been guilty of scientific dishonesty by having plagiarized the complainant's publication in a feature article in a nationwide newspaper without the complainant's consent and knowledge and without reference to the complainant's articles.
Der blev desuden klaget over, at den indklagede havde krænket klagerens ophavsret, og klageren krævede en erstatning på mindst 50.000 kr.
A further grievance was that the defendant had violated the complainant's copyright, and the complainant demanded compensation of at least DKK 50,000.
UVVU fandt, at sagen ikke kunne afgøres af UVVU, uanset om det efter den målestok, der anvendes vedrørende videnskabelige publikationer, måtte fastslås, at der forelå plagiat.
DCSD found that the case could not be decided by DCSD, despite having to acknowledge plagiarization according to the yardstick used for scientific publications.