natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Forslag til ny formulering 2.4. 
Proposal for rewording 2.4.
Implikationer af den foreslåede formulering 2.5. 
Implications of the proposed wording 2.5.
Afgrænsning af begrebet 
Delimitation of the concept
3. FRA UREDELIGHED TIL GOD PRAKSIS 
3. FROM DISHONESTY TO GOOD PRACTICE
God praksis har mange aspekter/dimensioner 3.3. 
Many aspects/dimensions to good practice 3.3.
God praksis kan variere mellem videnskabsdisciplinerne 3.4. 
Good practice can vary between scientific disciplines 3.4.
Uredelighed knytter sig til et produkt 4.3. 
Dishonesty relates to a product 4.3.
Forskeren er producenten 
The researcher is the maker
Bør der være adgang til sagsbehandling i andre tilfælde end ved 
Should there be facilities for having a case heard in instances
Udvalgenes antal og sammensætning 5.2. 
The composition and number of the Committees 5.2.
Formanden og hans rolle 5.3. 
The chairperson and his role 5.3.
Om delegation til underudvalg 
About delegating to subcommittees
Der er derfor al grund til at, at behandlingen af sager om videnskabelig uredelighed foregår på en sådan måde, at der ikke kan rejses tvivl om processens rimelighed og retfærdighed. 
There is every reason, then, to ensure that cases concerning scientific dishonesty are considered in such a way that no doubts can be raised about the reasonableness and fairness of the process.
Det må for den enkelte forsker og for forskersamfundet ideelt stå helt klart, hvad der forstås ved videnskabelig uredelighed, hvilke konkrete forhold, der kan give anledning til, at der rejses en uredelighedssag, og under hvilke betingelser en forsker kan kendes uredelig. 
Ideally, for the individual researcher and the research community, it must be perfectly plain what is understood by scientific dishonesty, which specific factors can give rise to a case of dishonesty being able to be raised and under what conditions a researcher can be held to be dishonest.
Proceduren ved behandlingen af sagerne må være så gennemsigtig som mulig og omgærdet af højst mulig retssikkerhed for den indklagede forsker. 
The procedure surrounding the treatment of such cases must be as transparent as possible and couched in the utmost due legal process possible for the researcher indicted.
Det må være klart, hvilke forskere der kan omfattes af en uredelighedssag, og hvem der har påtaleret. 
It must be clear which researchers can be embraced by a dishonesty case, and who has the right to action proceedings.
Konkret vil arbejdsgruppen anbefale: 
More specifically, the working group wishes to recommend:
• en ændret definition af uredelighed 
• a change in the definition of dishonesty,
• at der lokalt udarbejdes definitioner af god videnskabelig skik 
• drafting of local definitions of good scientific practice,
• styrkelse af undervisning i god videnskabelig skik på bachelor-, kandidat- og 
• consolidation of teaching in good scientific practice on Bachelor, Master and
• at en aktiv forsker beklæder formandsposten, og at formandens opgaver 
• that an active researcher hold the chairpersonship and that the chairperson's
• at der etableres mulighed for afgivelse af dissens og i øvrigt opstilles klare 
• that the opportunity be created for voicing dissent and otherwise establishing
regler for afgørelsernes indhold 
clear rules for the substance of rulings,
• at der skabes direkte hjemmel til renselsessager. 
• that direct provision be made for name-clearing cases.
Denne afgørelse gav anledning til en massiv meningsudveksling blandt forskere, politiske beslutningstagere mfl., især om grundlaget for afgørelsen. 
This ruling set off a large-scale exchange of opinions among researchers, political decision-makers etc., particularly concerning the basis for the ruling.
Afgørelsen blev endvidere genstand for forholdsvis stor opmærksomhed i udlandet, herunder i den udenlandske presse. 
The ruling was also the subject of relatively great attention abroad, including in the foreign press.
Forskningsstyrelsens direktør besluttede på den baggrund at nedsætte en arbejdsgruppe. 
On this basis the Danish Research Agency's director decided to set up a working group.
♦ Professor Mogens N. Pedersen, Institut for Statskundskab, Syddansk Universitet (formand for udvalget) 
Professor Peter Gundelach, Department of Sociology, University of Copenhagen, nominated by the Research Councils.
Da der ikke foreligger en alment gældende definition af god videnskabelig skik har arbejdsgruppen ikke fundet, at der var mulighed for under de givne betingelser at give et entydigt svar på dette spørgsmål. 
Since there is no generally applicable definition of good scientific practice available, the working group did not find there to be any way of providing a clear-cut answer to this question under these particular conditions.
Arbejdsgruppen henviser til de anbefalinger, man har givet i denne rapport om fastlæggelse af god videnskabelig skik. 
The working group refers to the recommendations given in the present report concerning the establishment of good scientific practice.
Uredelighed er i bekendtgørelse nr. 933 af 15. december 1998 om Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed (herefter benævnt bekendtgørelsen) defineret således: 
Dishonesty is defined as follows in Danish Executive Order No. 933 of 15 December 1998 on the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (hereinafter referred to as the Executive Order):
6. Plagiering af andres resultater eller publikationer. 
6. Plagiarisation of others' results or publications.
Arbejdsgruppen finder det uhensigtsmæssigt, at der i § 3, stk. 
The working group considers it inappropriate that Section 3, subs.
Det virker endvidere uheldigt med uklare begreber som "det videnskabelige budskab" og "forvridning". 
Moreover, an unfortunate impression is created by fuzzy concepts like “the scientific message” and “distortion”.
Arbejdsgruppen har fundet, at der blandt de anførte eksempler på uredelig adfærd mangler en indikation af, at urigtig angivelse af arbejdssted kan være uredeligt. 
The working group has found that among the examples of dishonest conduct cited there is nothing to indicate that miscitation of place of work can be dishonest.
Der hersker ikke i litteraturen enighed om uredelighedsbegrebets omfang og afgrænsning. 
There is no consensus in the literature about the scope and delimitation of the concept of dishonesty.
Arbejdsgruppen har diskuteret et mindre antal af de kendte definitioner: 
The working group has discussed a small number of the known definitions:
a) Fra "Håndtering av uredelighet i forskningen", en indstilling fra maj 2001 til Norges Forskningsråd, side 36: "Med vitenskapelig uredelighet menes brudd på god vitenskapelig praksis i planleggning, gjennomføring, kollegavurdering og rapportering av forskning som kan bidra til å villede om forskningens resultater. 
a) From Håndtering av uredelighet i forskningen [“Handling Dishonesty in Research﻿ , a recommendation from May 2001 to the Research Council of Norway, page 36: “Scientific dishonesty is taken to mean violation of good scientific practice in the planning, implementation, peer review and reporting of research that may be instrumental in misleading people about the results of research.
Vitenskapelig uredelighet omfatter ikke utilsiktede feil eller faglig uenighet." 
Scientific dishonesty does not include inadvertent errors or professional disagreement.” [translated from Norwegian]
b) Citat fra den under (a) nævnte publikation side 12, hvorefter USA's Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) i 1999 har foreslået følgende definition: "Misconduct in science is defined as fabrication, falsification or plagiarism, in proposing, performing, or reporting research results. 
b) Quote from the publication mentioned under (a), page 12, according to which the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) proposed the following definition in 1999: “Misconduct in science is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, in proposing, performing, or reporting research results.
Arbejdsgruppen vil foretrække, at der anvendes en kort, præcis og dog forholdsvis åben definition, der så kan illustreres med eksempler. 
The working group would prefer a brief, succinct yet relatively open definition to be used, which can then be illustrated with examples.
Arbejdsgruppen foreslår med udgangspunkt i den ovenfor under d) nævnte definition følgende formulering: 
The working group proposes the following formulation, based on the definition set out above under d):
Denne definition udpeger de alvorligste former for uredelighed i forskerverdenen. 
This definition singles out the gravest forms of dishonesty in the research world.
Den er forholdsvis åben (jf. "lignende grov måde"), og den lægger vægt på, at uredelighed som hovedregel beror på en bedragerisk hensigt. 
It is comparatively open (cf. “similarly gross fashion”) and emphasises the fact that dishonesty generally hinges on fraudulent intent.
Det må dog være muligt for UVVU i særlige tilfælde at kende en adfærd uredelig, selv om det ikke er muligt at bevise et forsæt hos den indklagede. 
In special instances, however, it must be possible for DCSD to deem conduct dishonest despite the impossibility of proving intent on the part of the defendant.
Der bør således kunne statueres uredelighed, hvis den indklagede har handlet klart uden for et anerkendt adfærdsmønster eller i strid med alment kendte forskrifter. 
It ought to be possible, then, to uphold dishonesty if the defendant has acted clearly outside of a recognised pattern of behaviour or at odds with generally familiar regulations.
Der skal derfor være tale om forhold, som den indklagede helt klart efter de for situationen gældende normer burde vide, men som der af forskellige grunde ikke kan føres bevis for, at han/hun vidste. 
The conditions involved must therefore be ones which ought clearly to be known to the defendant according to the standards applicable to the situation but which, for various reasons, he/she cannot be demonstrated to have known.
Den gældende opdeling med en konstatering af en "objektiv" uredelighed (§ 3, stk. 
The current division into ascertainment of “objective” dishonesty (Section 3, subs.
1), og et "subjektivt" uredelighedsforsæt (§ 3, stk. 
1) and “subjective” intent to act dishonestly (Section 3, subs.
2), som har givet anledning til adskillig forvirring og misforståelser, kan - og bør - herved undgås. 
2), which has given rise to no little confusion and misunderstanding, can-and should-be avoided.
Definitionen gør fortielser til en mulig form for uredelighed. 
The definition makes non-disclosure a possible form of dishonesty.
Den inddrager også det forhold, at uredelighed kan optræde i kollektiv form, og det kan derfor også tænkes, at sanktioner bør rettes mod forskergrupper eller -miljøer. 
It also takes into consideration the fact that dishonesty can occur in a collective form, and it is therefore also conceivable that sanctions should be directed at research groups or environments.
Som forslag til forbedring af de nuværende eksempler på uredelighed, jf. UVVUbekendtgørelsens § 3, vil arbejdsgruppen foreslå, at ordet "uoplyst" tilføjes, idet nogle af de anførte handlinger kan være redelige for så vidt de oplyses i forbindelse med resultatets fremlæggelse, jf. foran bemærkningerne om konstruktion af data. 
As a proposal for improvements to the present examples of dishonesty, cf. Section 3 of the DCSD Order, the working group wishes to suggest that the word “undeclared” be added, as some of the actions set out can be honest provided they are declared in connection with the presentation of the results, cf. the comments above on the construction and fabrication of data.
I konsekvens af ovenstående foreslås følgende let ændrede formulering af UVVU-bekendtgørelsens § 3: 
As a consequence of the above, the following, slightly altered wording of Section 3 of the DCSD Order is proposed:
3. Uoplyst vildledende anvendelse af statistiske metoder. 
3. Undeclared misleading use of statistical methods.
4. Uoplyst forvredet fortolkning af resultater og forvridning af 
4. Undeclared misinterpretation of results and distortion of
6. Groft fordrejet gengivelse af andres resultater. 
6. Grossly misrepresented rendering of others' results.
Der har i UVVU igennem lang tid været udøvet en praksis, hvorefter UVVU påtaler afvigelse fra god videnskabelig skik i sager, hvor der ikke kan konstateres uredelighed. 
At DCSD the practice followed has long been for DCSD to call attention to any deviation from good scientific practice in cases where dishonesty cannot be ascertained.
Denne praksis fremgår af indledningen til UVVU's årsberetninger og de afgørelser, der er refereret sammesteds. 
This practice is set out in the introduction to DCSD's annual reports and the rulings minuted therein.
Der er imidlertid ikke hjemmel i de gældende regler for denne praksis. 
There is no authorisation for this practice in the current rules, however.
Det må herved erindres, at en "dom" for uredelighed er alvorlig og kan være ødelæggende for den pågældendes karriere, hvorfor uredelighed kun skal statueres, hvis der ikke er skyggen af tvivl i sagen. 
Thus, it must be borne in mind that a “verdict” of dishonesty is serious and may be devastating to the person in question's career, for which reason dishonesty must only be found if the case allows of no shadow of a doubt.
Imidlertid bør en påtale for afvigelse af god videnskabelig skik være indeholdt i udtalelsens præmisser, ikke i konklusionen. 
However, any indictment on the grounds of deviation from good scientific practice should be included in the premises of the statement, not in the conclusion.
Arbejdsgruppen har drøftet et antal konkrete og tænkte tilfælde med henblik på eventuelt at fastlægge en mere præcis grænse for uredelighedsbegrebets anvendelse end gjort ovenfor, men må konstatere, 
The working group has discussed a number of specific and imaginary cases with a view to possibly laying down a more precise limit for the use of the dishonesty concept than that adopted above, but must note
• at der gælder forskellig praksis inden for de forskellige videnskabsgrene f.eks. med hensyn til peer review, forfatter- og referenceangivelser 
• that varying practice applies within the different branches of science, e.g. with regard to peer review, and acknowledgement of authors and references
• at kritisabel adfærd, uanset om den er uredelighed eller ej, kan blive opfanget og sanktioneret af andre regler, f.eks. de straffe- eller ansættelsesretlige regelsæt 
• that censurable conduct, whether or not it constitutes dishonesty, can be picked up on and sanctioned by other rules, e.g. the body of rules governing criminal or employment law matters
UVVU's hidtidige praksis, hvorefter der i afgørelsens konklusion påtales dårlig videnskabelig praksis, kunne være udtryk for, at der - efter UVVU's opfattelsevar tale om en glidende overgang. 
DCSD's practice to date, according to which attention is called to poor scientific practice in the conclusion of the ruling, might reflect the existence of such a continuum, in the opinion of DCSD.
Arbejdsgruppen har imidlertid ovenfor lagt vægt på at få indføjet kravet om, at forskeren vidste eller burde vide, at han optrådte uredeligt, hvilket taler for synspunktet om, at der er tale om adskilte grupper handlinger. 
However, the working group has emphasised above the importance of embodying the requirement that the researcher knew or ought to have known that he or she was acting dishonestly, advocating the view that different groups of actions are involved.
Arbejdsgruppen finder ikke, at begrebet uredelighed kan gradbøjes, men sanktionen kan naturligvis gradueres efter karakteren af uredeligheden. 
The working group does not find that the concept of dishonesty can be graduated, but the sanction can be graded according to the nature of the dishonesty involved, of course.
Implementeringen af begrebet kan i praksis fortolkes af UVVU, der må foretage et konkret skøn i hver enkelt sag. 
In practice, implementation of the concept can be interpreted by DCSD, which has to make a hands-on assessment on a case-by-case basis.
1) Design og metodologi. 
1) Design and methodology.
2) Dataindsamling, datahåndtering og dataopbevaring. 
2) Data collection, data management and data storage.
4) Beskyttelse af ophavsret. 
4) Protection of copyright.
6) Udnævnelse til akademiske positioner. 
6) Appointment to academic positions.
Arbejdsgruppen anbefaler, at fremtidigt arbejde med formulering af normer for god videnskabelig praksis tager udgangspunkt i ESF's kategoriseringer og synspunkter. 
The working group recommends that future work on the formulation of standards of good scientific practice be based on ESF's classifications and views.
Arbejdsgruppen konstaterer, at den videnskabelige arbejdsform varierer en hel del på tværs af de videnskabelige discipliner. 
The working group notes that the scientific approach varies rather a lot across the scientific disciplines.
Jo fastere paradigmer, der gælder, jo lettere er det at tale om faste og explicitte normer. 
The more fixed the paradigms that apply, the easier it is to talk of fixed and explicit standards.
Det må ligeledes konstateres, at der inden for samme videnskabsdisciplin kan herske forskellige normer for god videnskabelig praksis. 
Similarly, it should be noted that within the same scientific discipline, different standards of good scientific practice can prevail.
Derimod vil arbejdsgruppen anbefale, at der på de enkelte institutioner udarbejdes lokalt afpassede normer for god videnskabelig praksis. 
On the other hand, the working group will recommend that locally adapted standards of good scientific practice be drawn up at the individual institutions.
Forskningsrådenes mulige rolle i forbindelse med formulering af praksisnormer. 
The Research Councils' possible role in formulating practice norms
For at sikre et vist minimumsniveau for praksisnormer og for at opfange forskere, der ikke kan holde sig til et lokalt regelsæt vil arbejdsgruppen anbefale, at de statslige (frie) forskningsråd anmodes om at overveje at udarbejde og vedligeholde overordnede praksisnormer inden for det pågældende råds fagområde. 
In order to ensure a certain minimum standard for practice norms and to pick up on researchers who cannot adhere to a local set of rules, the working group will recommend that the government (free) Research Councils be requested to contemplate drafting and maintaining overall practice norms within the relevant council's specialist field.
Rådene er sammensat af anerkendte aktive forskere, der kan sikre kendskabet til state of the art inden for de forskellige videnskabsgrene og dermed sikre kvaliteten og legitimiteten af de overordnede praksisnormer, der som ovenfor nævnt kan suppleres på den enkelte forskningsinstitution. 
The council members are active researchers of high standing who can guarantee their knowledge of the state of the art within the various sciences and hence assure the quality and legitimacy of the overall practice norms which, as mentioned above, can be supplemented at the individual research institution.
God praksis bør læres gennem uddannelsen 
Good practice should be learned through training
Arbejdsgruppen finder det væsentligt, at der finder en forebyggende indsats sted. 
The working group considers it essential that preventive action be taken.
Man kunne forestille sig, at der allerede på bacheloruddannelserne blev undervist i "forskningens spilleregler" i mere generel forstand. 
Teaching in the “ethical rules of research” in the more general sense might be envisaged as early on as bachelor degree courses.
Herved kunne man øge bevidstheden om etiske problemstillinger hos kandidaterne og måske undgå en del af den uredelighed, der vitterligt forekommer i forbindelse med eksaminer. 
In so doing, awareness of the ethical problems could be raised in graduates, possibly avoiding some of the dishonesty which it is common knowledge occurs in connection with examinations.
Arbejdsgruppen er vidende om, at der i mange forskeruddannelser og forskerskoler allerede foregår en sådan aktivitet. 
The working group is aware that in many researcher programmes and research schools such activity already takes place.
Disse tiltag bør støttes aktivt. 
These initiatives should be actively supported.
4. HVAD OG HVEM KAN DER KLAGES OVER - OG AF HVEM? 
4. WHAT AND WHO CAN BE COMPLAINED ABOUT?-AND BY WHOM?
Den gældende bekendtgørelse siger meget lidt om hvem, der kan klage, og hvem der kan klages over. 
The current executive order says very little about who can complain and who can be complained about.
Det fremgår af UVVU's forretningsorden, at en sag kan rejses af enhver ved klage. 
DCSD's rules of procedure state that a case can be raised by anyone lodging a complaint.
Udvalget kan kun undtagelsesvis behandle anonyme klager, hvis der foreligger væsentlige samfundsmæssige interesser. 
The committee can only deal with anonymous complaints on an exceptional basis if there are substantive and essential societal interests at stake.
Arbejdsgruppen er enig i, at en klage bør kunne rejses af enhver, ligesom arbejdsgruppen bifalder den nugældende praksis, hvorefter sagen er unddraget offentligheden, så længe den verserer. 
The working group agrees that a complaint should be able to be lodged by anyone, just as the working group approves the practice currently in force, according to which the case is withheld from the public for as long as the case is pending.
Nok så væsentligt er det, at der stort set intet siges om den genstand eller handling, som uredelighedspåstanden knytter sig til. 
It is equally essential that virtually nothing be said about the object or action to which the dishonesty allegation relates.
Dog siges det eksplicit, at “Sagen skal have betydning for dansk forskning” (§ 2, stk. 
However, it is explicitly said that “The case shall be of importance to Danish research” (Section 2, subs.
2), og der er hermed også givet hjemmel til at afvise perifere eller åbenbart grundløse klager. 
2), thereby also providing authorisation to dismiss peripheral or patently baseless complaints.
Arbejdsgruppen er enig i denne begrænsning. 
The working group agrees with this restriction.
Arbejdsgruppen er endvidere enig i, at der kun kan behandles klager over videnskabelig uredelighed, men ikke klager, der alene angår fravigelse af god videnskabelig praksis. 
The working group further agrees that only complaints about scientific dishonesty can be dealt with, not complaints pertaining solely to deviation from good scientific practice.
Arbejdsgruppen vil anbefale, at klager kan indgives af enhver mod enhver, hvis klagen er konkret og gælder forhold, der er omfattet af definitionen af uredelighed 
The working group wishes to recommend allowing complaints to be submitted by anyone and against anyone if the complaint is a concrete one and applies to circumstances covered by the definition of dishonesty
For at uredelighed skal kunne komme på tale, må der for offentligheden foreligge et produkt. 
In order to qualify for consideration as dishonesty, a product must be available to the public.
“Produktet” kan antage mange former, som dog alle har skriftlig form. 
The “product” can take on many shapes, all of which have a written form, however.
b. Ansøgninger og andre materialer i forbindelse med patentsager. 
b. Applications and other materials in connection with patent cases.
c. Abstracts og “Posters”. d. Anmeldelser. 
c. Abstracts and “posters”. d. Reviews.
e. Mere formløst udgivne “working papers” o. lign., der ikke er 
e. More informally published “working papers” and suchlike, which are not
klausulerede med citatforbud. f. Enhver form for afhandlinger placeret på en internet-adresse. 
subject to any clause banning quotations. f. Any form of thesis located at an Internet address.
Om en afhandling er registreret i en institutions årsberetning er ikke afgørende for, om den kan karakteriseres som et forskningsprodukt. 
Whether or not a thesis is registered in an institution's annual report is not crucial to determining whether it can be characterised as a research product.
Forskere deltager - og bør deltage - i den offentlige debat. 
Researchers do-and should-take part in the public debate.