natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Formanden for bedømmelsesudvalget oplyste, at der var større tekstsammenfald mellem afhandlingen og et appendiks til artiklen end tekstsammenfald med selve artiklen.
e chairman of the adjudication committee stated that there was greater textual overlap between the thesis and an appendix to the article than there was with the actual article.
Det fremgår af bekendtgørelse nr. 668 af 28. juni 2005 om Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed § 2, at der ved videnskabelig uredelighed forstås en forsætlig eller groft uagtsom adfærd i form af forfalskning, plagiering, fortielse eller lignende, der indebærer en utilbørlig vildledning om egen videnskabelige indsats og/eller videnskabelige resultater.
According to Danish Executive Order No. 668 of 28 June 2005 on the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, Section 2, scientific dishonesty is understood to mean intentional or grossly negligent conduct in the form of falsification, plagiarization, concealment, non-disclosure or suchlike, bringing about undue misrepresentation of one's own scientific efforts and/or scientific results.
Der var i UKSF enighed om, at forskeren som anført af bedømmelsesudvalget havde gjort sig skyldig i plagiering.
ere was consensus on UKSF that the researcher, as adduced by the adjudication committee, had been guilty of plagiarization.
UKSF lagde til grund, at plagieringen var sket fra appendikset til artiklen, hvilket for så vidt kunne betragtes som uacceptabelt.
UKSF based its argument on the fact that the plagiarization had taken place from the appendix to the article, which as such could be viewed as unacceptable.
Det var imidlertid UKSF's opfattelse, at plagieringen vedrørte de beskrivende afsnit i forskerens afhandling.
However, it was UKSF's opinion that the plagiarization concerned the descriptive sections in the researcher's thesis.
Navnlig på den baggrund mente UKSF ikke, at plagieringen var af en sådan karakter, at den med fornøden sikkerhed kunne siges at have indebåret en utilbørlig vildledning om forskerens egen videnskabelige indsats.
With this in mind, in particular, UKSF did not think that the nature of the plagiarization was such that it could be said with the necessary certainty to have brought about undue misrepresentation about the researcher's own scientific efforts.
UKSF fandt derfor ikke grundlag for at statuere videnskabelig uredelighed.
UKSF therefore found no basis for upholding scientific dishonesty.
En professor rettede i september 2006 henvendelse til UVVU, idet han
In September 2006 a professor contacted DCSD, as he wished to be
ønskede at blive renset for påstande om videnskabelig uredelighed, som var blevet fremsat i en tjenstlig indberetning fra en dekan til rektor på det universitet, professoren var ansat.
cleared of allegations of scientific dishonesty put forward in an official report from a dean to a vice-chancellor at the university where the professor was employed.
Professoren blev i den tjenstlige indberetning til rektoren i en række kritikpunkter beskyldt for at have udvist groft uagtsom adfærd på en måde, der medfører en utilbørlig vildledning om egen videnskabelig indsats og resultater.
In the official report submitted to the vice-chancellor the professor was accused on a number of critical counts of having displayed grossly negligent conduct in such a way as to bring about undue misrepresentation of his own scientific efforts and results.
Indberetningen havde baggrund i en rapport fra det sagkyndige udvalg på universitetet.
e report was based on a report from the expert committee at the university.
I præmisserne for sagens behandling er det understreget, at UVVU ikke er klageinstans for universitetet.
In the premisses laid down for considering the case, it was emphasized that DCSD is not the appeal agency for the university.
I afgørelsen skitseres personalesagen i hovedtræk.
e ruling outlines the bare bones of the personnel-related case.
De forhold, der gav anledning til kritik af professoren, var følgende:
e factors that gave rise to criticism of the professor were as follows:
1) Kritik af de anvendte metoder, herunder statistiske beregningsmetoder.
1) Criticism of the methods used, including statistical methods of computation.
2) Kritik af professorens omgang med data.
2) Criticism of the professor's treatment of data.
I en lang periode var der usikkerhed om præcis hvilke datasæt, der var lagt til grund for bestemte beregninger og deraf følgende konklusioner.
For a long period there was uncertainty as to exactly which data sets had been used as the basis for particular calculations and the ensuing conclusions.
3) Kritik af at professoren, da han offentliggjorde sine resultater, ikke gjorde beregningsgrundlaget tilgængeligt på en sådan måde, at resultaterne kunne efterprøves, og at han ved flere lejligheder undlod at efterkomme opfordringer til at fremlægge det i fuldt omfang.
3) Criticism of the fact that, when publishing his results, the professor did not make the computational basis available in such a way that the results could be verified, and that on a number of occasions he failed to comply with calls to present this in full.
Ad punkt 1 (Kritik af anvendte metoder) Kritikken vedrørte brugen af en bestemt statistisk formel, som det sagkyndige udvalg i rapporten vurderede ikke kunne begrunde en af professorens centrale konklusioner.
Re point 1 (criticism of methods used) e criticism concerned the use of a particular statistical formula, which the expert committee in the report did not consider able to justify one of the professor's central conclusions.
Det er i videnskabelige kredse et generelt spørgsmål, hvad man kan og ikke kan konkludere på baggrund af faktoranalyser under forskellige betingelser.
In scientific circles, what can and cannot be concluded on the basis of factor analyses under different conditions is a general issue.
UVVU påpeger i afgørelsen, at en kritisk ekspertgennemgang af statistiske metoder i ethvert større empirisk projekt med en vis sandsynlighed vil give anledning til diskussion, uden at det automatisk rejser spørgsmål om videnskabelig uredelighed.
In its ruling DCSD does stress that a critical expert review of statistical methods in any major empirical project will, with some probability, give rise to discussion, without automatically raising issues of scientific dishonesty.
Ad punkt 2 (Kritik af datahåndteringen) I det sagkyndige udvalgs rapport blev professoren kritiseret for, at der kunne påvises fejl i hans omgang med data, og at han ikke i sine publikationer havde gjort rede for de anvendte data på en måde, der umiddelbart tillod at gøre de gennemførte analyser efter.
Re point 2 (criticism of data management) In the expert committee's report the professor was criticized for the fact that errors could be detected in his treatment of data, and that in his publications he had not accounted for the data used in some immediately accessible way that enabled the analyses performed to be replicated.
UVVU fandt, at denne forsømmelighed kunne betragtes som uredelig, hvis den var forsætlig eller groft uagtsom og indebar en utilbørlig vildledning om egen videnskabelig indsats og/eller videnskabelige resultater.
DCSD considered that this negligence could be regarded as dishonest if it was deliberate or grossly negligent and brought about undue misrepresentation of his own scientific efforts and/or scientific results.
Det fremgik imidlertid af det sagkyndige udvalgs rapport, at de begåede fejl ikke på afgørende måde kunne ændre de konklusioner, som data i professorens konklusioner kunne begrunde - vel at mærke hvis man lagde de videnskabelige og metodiske præmisser til grund, som professoren var kendt for at gøre.
From the expert committee's report, however, it emerged that the errors committed could not decisively change the conclusions that data in the professor's conclusions were able to justify - that is, taking the scientific and methodological premisses which the professor was known for using as a basis.
Professoren påpegede, at frafald i længdeundersøgelser var et velkendt problem.
e professor pointed out that withdrawal in longitudinal studies was a well-known problem.
UVVU fandt det dog ikke tilstrækkeligt til at begrunde, at forholdet ikke blev diskuteret.
DCSD did not consider it sufficient, however, to justify the failure to discuss the fact.
• UVVU fandt ikke, at udeladelsen var så graverende, at den kunne karakteriseres som utilbørlig vildledning.
• DCSD did not find the omission so grave as to warrant characterizing it as undue misrepresentation.
Ad punkt 3 (Kritik af den manglende mulighed for efterprøvning) UVVU påpegede, at det er vigtigt, at såvel kontroversielle som forventelige resultater kan gøres til genstand for efterprøvning med mindst mulig forsinkelse.
Re point 3 (criticism of the lack of opportunity for verification) DCSD highlighted the importance of being able to make both controversial and predictable results subject to verification with the least delay possible.
Ved vurderingen af om professoren, ved ikke at efterkomme kravet om fuld fremlæggelse af datagrundlaget, havde gjort sig skyldig i grov uagtsomhed med vildledning til følge, lagde UVVU vægt på følgende:
In evaluating whether, by not complying with the requirement concerning full presentation of the data stock, the professor had been guilty of gross negligence, with resultant misrepresentation, DCSD attached importance to the following:
- at universitetet undlod at stille præcise krav om fremlæggelse, - at der ikke i dansk forskning foreligger regler om præcise frister for indlevering af data, - at professorens videnskabelige standpunkt var velkendt, og - at de spørgsmål, der ville rejse sig i forbindelse med offentliggørelsen, ikke var om vildledning, men om hvorvidt professorens videnskabelige modstandere ville kunne finde svagheder i den videnskabelige argumentation.
- that the university failed to lay down precise requirements concerning presentation, - that there are no rules in Danish research about precise deadlines for submission of data, - that the professor's scientific viewpoint was well-known, and - that the questions that would be raised in connection with publication were not about misrepresentation but about whether the professor's scientific opponents would be able to find weaknesses in his scientific line of argument.
• UVVU fandt, at det derfor var et spørgsmål om videnskabelig holdbarhed/ kvalitet, men ikke om uredelighed.
• DCSD therefore found that it was a question of scientific tenability/ quality, but not one of dishonesty.
Professoren blev renset for uredelighedspåstandene, da der ikke kunne fastslås at være tale om utilbørlig vildledning om egen videnskabelig indsats.
e professor was cleared of the dishonesty allegations, since evidence of undue misrepresentation about his own scientific efforts could not be established.
I oktober 2006 modtog UVVU en henvendelse fra en borger, som
In October 2006 DCSD received an enquiry from a citizen, stating that
oplyste, at der i en brochure udgivet af en sundhedsvidenskabelig forening, var ukorrekte oplysninger om en sygdoms behandlingsmuligheder.
a brochure published by a medical science association contained incorrect information about the therapeutic options available for a particular disorder.
Idet klageren ikke opfyldte kravet i § 4 i bekendtgørelse nr. 668 af 28. juni 2005 om Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed om partsstatus, ønskede han, at UVVU skulle tage sagen op af egen drift.
Since the complainant failed to meet the requirement in Section 4 of Danish Executive Order No. 668 of 28 June 2005 on the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty concerning party status, he wished for DCSD to take on the case of its own accord.
UVVU afviste sagen med den begrundelse, at den omtalte brochure ikke var et videnskabeligt produkt, og at UVVU derfor ikke havde kompetence til at behandle sagen.
DCSD rejected the case on the grounds that the brochure in question was not a scientific product, and that DCSD did not have the authority to consider the case.
UVVU fandt i øvrigt ikke at have kompetence til at vurdere, om officielle anbefalinger vedrørende fødevarer burde ændres.
Furthermore, DCSD did not consider that it had the authority to assess whether official recommendations concerning foods should be changed.
I januar 2007 henvendte en person sig til UVVU, fordi det var hendes
In January 2007 a person contacted DCSD because it was her opinion
opfattelse, at en forsker havde handlet videnskabeligt uredeligt ved i en publiceret artikel om sammenhængen mellem cancer og mobiltelefoni at have foretaget en vildledende anvendelse af statistiske metoder samt en forvredet fortolkning af egne resultater og konklusioner.
that a researcher had acted in a scientifically dishonest way, having made misleading use of statistical methods and distorted the interpretation of his own results and conclusions in a published article on the link between cancer and mobile telephony.
UVVU fandt heller ikke at kunne tage sagen op af egen drift, idet der ikke forelå en begrundet formodning om videnskabelig uredelighed.
Nor did DCSD consider that it was able to take up the case of its own accord, as there was no justified supposition of scientific dishonesty.
UVVU lagde ved vurderingen af artiklen vægt på, at den tydeligt angav hvilke statistiske oplysninger, der dannede baggrund for konklusionerne.
In its evaluation of the article DCSD stressed that it clearly set out the statistical information that formed the background to the conclusions.
I afvisningen af klagen oplyste UVVU endvidere klageren om, at UVVU ikke kan behandle sager, der vedrører videnskabelige teoriers holdbarhed eller sandhed eller sager, der vedrører forskningskvaliteten af et videnskabeligt produkt.
In its rejection of the complaint DCSD further informed the complainant that DCSD cannot consider cases relating to the tenability or truth of scientific theories, or cases concerning the research quality of a scientific product.
I februar 2007 rettede en klager henvendelse til UVVU med angivelse
In February 2007 a complainant approached DCSD, stating that two
Da UVVU ikke kan behandle sager, der vedrører videnskabelige metoders holdbarhed eller sandhed samt sager vedrørende forskningskvalitet, fandt UVVU, at sagen måtte afvises.
Since DCSD cannot deal with cases concerning the tenability or truth of scientific methods and cases concerning research quality, DCSD found that the case could only be rejected.
UVVU fandt derudover ikke, at det påklagede faldt ind under videnskabelig uredelighed, idet det ikke efter UVVU's opfattelse var påvist, at de indklagede havde udvist en adfærd, der kunne betegnes som forsætlig eller groft uagtsom vildledning.
DCSD did not find, moreover, that the grievance complained of came under the heading of scientific dishonesty, since in DCSD's view it had not been demonstrated that the defendants had displayed conduct that could be characterized as intentionally or grossly negligent misrepresentation.
Sagen syntes i stedet at indicere en faglig uenighed, som UVVU ikke kan efterprøve.
Instead, the case seemed to be indicative of professional disagreement, which DCSD is unable to verify.
I maj 2007 rettede tre personer henvendelse til UVVU.
In May 2007 three people contacted DCSD.
indklagede gruppen tre forfattere af en rapport om placeringen af et forskningscenter for videnskabelig uredelighed i form af forfalskning, forvridning og skjult kassation af uønskede resultater.
group lodged a complaint against three authors of a report on the siting of a research centre, on the grounds of scientific dishonesty in the form of falsification, distortion and surreptitious discarding of undesirable results.
UVVU fandt ikke at kunne behandle sagen, da klagen ikke vedrørte et videnskabeligt produkt i UVVU-bekendtgørelsens forstand.
DCSD did not feel able to consider the case as the complaint did not relate to a scientific product in the sense of the DCSD Executive Order.
UVVU har kun kompetence til at behandle klager, såfremt det produkt, som klagen retter sig imod, er omfattet af begrebet ”forskning”.
DCSD is only authorized to deal with a complaint if the product addressed by the complaint is covered by the concept of ”research”.
UVVU foretog en konkret vurdering af rapporten, for at afgøre om den kunne anses som forskning.
DCSD undertook a concrete evaluation of the report in order to decide whether it could be regarded as research.
Ved vurderingen lagde UVVU navnlig vægt på følgende:
In its evaluation DCSD particularly stressed the following:
• Rapportens formål og karakter.
• e purpose and nature of the report.
Af rapportens indledende kapitel fremgik, at den var en indledende undersøgelse af vilkår for placeringen af forskningscentret på et bestemt sted.
e introductory chapter to the report showed that it was a preliminary study of conditions governing the siting of the research centre in a particular place.
Den var baseret på en række interviews med forskellige interessenter samt faglitteratur på området.
It was based on a series of interviews with various stakeholders and specialist literature in the field.
• Rapporten var en udredning med deraf følgende anbefalinger.
• e report was a fact-finding account, complete with resultant recommendations.
• Rapporten var et resultat af en rådgivningsopgave for et ministerium.
• e report was the result of a consultancy assignment for a ministry.
• Rapporten var efter indklagedes egen opfattelse ikke forskning.
• e report was not, in the defendant's own view, research.
UVVU tog ikke stilling til, om klagegruppen havde partsstatus i forvaltningslovens forstand.
DCSD did not take a stance on whether the complainant group had party status in the sense of the Danish Public Administration Act.
I juni 2007 modtog UVVU henvendelse fra en forsker, der klagede over
In June 2007 DCSD received an enquiry from a researcher complai
en anden forskers anvendelse af data i en artikel fra 1999 i et naturvidenskabeligt tidsskrift, idet han anså de data, som indklagede havde baseret artiklen på, for at være fabrikerede.
ning about another researcher's use of data in an article from 1999 in a natural science journal, as he considered the data on which the defendant had based the article to be fabricated.
I 2003 havde UVVU truffet afgørelse i en lignende sag mellem parterne.
In 2003 DCSD had made a ruling in a similar case between the parties.
UVVU fandt ikke anledning til at optage den i maj 2007 rejste klage til behandling.
DCSD did not find reason to resume the complaint raised in May 2007 for consideration.
Ved overvejelserne om at behandle klagen, lagde UVVU vægt på følgende:
In its deliberations whether to consider the complaint, DCSD stressed the following:
• Ved afgørelsen i 2003 udtalte UVVU, at indklagede havde optrådt videnskabeligt uredeligt ved i 1998 i hvert fald delvist at have konstrueret data, og at de resultater, som var gengivet i en artikel af indklagede, på væsentlige punkter ikke gengav autentiske målinger.
• In its ruling from 2003 DCSD pronounced that the defendant had acted in a scientifically dishonest way, having, in 1998 at least partly manipulated data, stating that the results reproduced in an article by the defendant did not reproduce authentic measurements in essential respects.
• De i juni 2007 påklagede forhold syntes at have relation til samme emnekreds som den tidligere klage.
• e circumstances complained of in June 2007 seemed to bear some relation to the same group of topics as the previous complaint.
• Klagen havde relation til forhold af ældre dato.
• e complaint bore some relation to the older set of circumstances.
• Nærmere behandling af klagen stod ikke i et rimeligt forhold til de omkostninger, som måtte anvendes ved sagens belysning.
• More detailed consideration of the complaint would not be in reasonable proportion to the costs needing to be spent on elucidating the case.
UVVU tog ikke stilling til, om klager kunne anses for at være part i forvaltningslovens forstand.
DCSD did not take a stance on whether the complainant could be considered a party in the sense of the Danish Public Administration Act.
I august 2007 henvendte en person sig til UVVU, idet han anmeldte
In August 2007 a person approached DCSD to report an expert
Det var klagerens opfattelse, at rådets anbefalinger vedrørende en nærmere angiven fødevare ikke var i overensstemmelse med international litteratur.
It was the complainant's opinion that the council's recommendations concerning a specifically detailed foodstuff did not tally with the international literature.
Det var i øvrigt klagerens opfattelse, at rådets anbefalinger vedrørende kost øgede dødeligheden væsentligt.
Moreover, it was the view of the complainant that the council's recommendations concerning diet increased mortality considerably.
UVVU fandt ikke at kunne behandle klagen.
DCSD did not consider itself able to deal with the complaint.
UVVU lagde ved bedømmelsen af klagen vægt på, at anbefalingerne fra rådet ikke kunne betegnes som et videnskabeligt produkt.
In its assessment of the complaint, DCSD stressed that the recommendations from the council could not be characterized as a scientific product.
UVVU fandt i øvrigt ikke at have kompetence til at vurdere, om officielle anbefalinger vedrørende kost er sundhedsskadelige eller lignende, da UVVU udelukkende behandler sager om påstået videnskabelig uredelighed i konkrete videnskabelige produkter.
DCSD, furthermore, did not consider it within its jurisdiction to evaluate whether official recommendations concerning diet are detrimental to health or suchlike, since DCSD deals exclusively with cases of alleged scientific dishonesty in concrete scientific products.
Uafsluttede sager i 2007
Incomplete cases in 2007
I august 2006 klagede en person til UVVU.
In August 2006 a person complained to DCSD.
En navngiven person
In a journal a named
Klager mente, at indklagede ikke havde henvist til hendes afhandling, og at han fremstillede indholdet af artiklen som sit eget.
e complainant thought the defendant had not made reference to her dissertation and was making the contents of the article out to be his own.
Indklagede oplyste, at der ikke var tale om plagiering, idet de oplysninger, han havde anvendt i artiklen, var hentet fra praksis på et nærmere angivet område og derudover fandtes i andre kendte værker.
e defendant stated that this was not a case of plagiarization, as the items of information he had used in the article had been sourced from practice in a specified field and, moreover, were to be found in other, familiar works.
Indklagedes opfattelse var således, at de oplysninger, han havde benyttet, ikke var resultatet af klagers selvstændige forskningsarbejde i forbindelse med hendes afhandling.
e defendant's view was thus that the information he had utilized was not the result of the complainant's independent research work in connection with her dissertation.
I februar 2007 indbragte en forsker en klage over en anden forsker ved den institution, som de begge var ansat på.
In February 2007 a researcher submitted a complaint about another researcher at the institution at which they were both employed.
Det var klagerens opfattelse, at indklagede havde handlet videnskabeligt uredeligt under arbejde med den databehandling, som lå til grund for en nærmere angiven artikel.
It was the complainant's view that the defendant had acted in a scientifically dishonest way when working with the data processing on which a specified article was based.
I april 2007 rettede en forening henvendelse til UVVU.
In April 2007 DCSD was approached by an association.
sen indklagede foreningen en gruppe af sundhedsvidenskabelige forskere.
approach the association lodged a complaint against a group of medical researchers.
Baggrunden for klagen var, at forskergruppen i to artikler ifølge klageren havde forvredet det videnskabelige budskab ved udlægning og fortolkning af det datagrundlag, som forskergruppen havde lagt til grund for artiklernes konklusion.
e backdrop to the complaint was that the research group, according to the complainant, had distorted the scientific message in two articles, in its construction and interpretation of the data stock which the research group had used as a basis for its conclusion to the articles.
NYE VEJLEDNINGER I GOD VIDENSKABELG PRAKSIS
NEW GUIDELINES IN GOOD SCIENTIFIC PRACTICE