natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Men da rapporten havde status som et arbejdsdokument på den pågældende institution, bedømtes forseelsen - også under hensyn til, at de pågældende ikke selv havde henledt opmærksomheden på forholdet - som en mindre alvorlig afvigelse fra god videnskabelig praksis. 
But since the report had the status of a working document at the institution in question, the misdemeanour was adjudged - also with reference to the fact that the persons concerned had not drawn attention to it themselves - a minor departure from good scientific practice.
Manuskriptet blev ikke antaget til publikation. 
The manuscript was not accepted for publication.
Først lang tid efter, at manuskriptet var blevet afvist, blev klagerne klar over, at de havde været medforfattere. 
Only long after the manuscript had been rejected did the complainants realize they had been co-authors.
Ad hoc-udvalget fandt det godtgjort, at klagerne sammen med de indklagede måtte betragtes som en forskergruppe, der i fællesskab gennemførte det projekt, som blev dokumenteret i den interne rapport. 
The ad hoc committee considered it to have been established that the complainants, together with the defendants, should be regarded as a researcher group that was conducting the project documented in the internal report jointly.
Publikationer, som bygger på fælles datamateriale, burde derfor planlægges og aftales i fællesskab. 
Publications which are based on shared data material should therefore be planned and agreed jointly.
• ved ikke at have sikret sig klagernes kommentarer 
• by taking on board a third party with
Ad hoc-udvalget kunne, som sagen forelå oplyst, ikke med sikkerhed afgøre, om de indklagede havde haft til hensigt at vildlede med hensyn til klagernes indsats. 
As the facts of the case were available, the ad hoc committee was unable to decide with any certainty whether the defendants had intended to mislead with regard to the complainants' contributions.
Ad hoc-udvalget kunne heller ikke med sikkerhed afgøre, om de indklagede havde haft til hensigt at vildlede med den urigtige forfattererklæring, men fandt, at de indklagedes handlinger var så groft forsømmelige, at de havde overskredet grænsen for videnskabelig urede 
Nor could the ad hoc committee decide with any certainty whether the defendants had intended to mislead with the incorrect authors' declaration, but it found that the defendants' actions were so grossly negligent that they had overstepped the limit of scientific dishonesty.
UVVU's Udvalg for sundhedsvidenskabelig forskning fandt i det hele at kunne tiltræde ad hoc-udvalgets redegørelse for sagen og de anlagte vurderinger og traf følgende afgørelse: 
Altogether, DCSD's Committee for Health and Medical Science found that it was able to endorse the ad hoc committee's account of the case and the evaluations adopted, and made the following ruling:
Der er af sagens parter begået en mindre alvorlig fravigelse fra god videnskabelig praksis ved ikke at anføre de indklagede som medforfattere til den interne rapport. 
The parties to the case have committed a relatively minor departure from good scientific practice by failing to cite the defendants as co-authors of the internal report.
Sager indkommet i 2001 
Cases received in 2001
Sag om bevidst plagiering af en anden forskers manuskript og publicering af plagiatet i et videnskabeligt tidsskrift. 
Case of deliberate plagiarization of another researcher's manuscript and publication of the plagiarism in a scientific journal.
Det fremgik af sagen, at en arbejdsgruppe bestående af europæiske forskere skulle opsamle viden om et specielt sundhedsvidenskabeligt problem. 
It emerged from the case that a working party consisting of European researchers was supposed to gather know-how about a special health science problem.
Klageren havde på det tidspunkt foretaget litteratursøgninger og skrevet om dele af emnet i forbindelse med en arbejdsopgave på et videnskabeligt institut. 
At that point in time the complainant had retrieved information from the literature and written about parts of the subject in connection with a work assignment at a scientific institute.
Det blev vedtaget, at dette arbejde skulle danne udgangspunkt for det fælles projekt, og der blev samtidig vedtaget en forfatterrækkefølge. 
It was agreed that this work should form the reference point for the joint project, and a sequence of authors was simultaneously adopted.
Både klageren og den indklagede udenlandske forsker skulle være medforfattere til den endelige artikel. 
Both the complainant and the defendant, a foreign researcher, were to be co-authors of the final article.
Artiklen blev færdigskrevet i februar 2001 og herefter rundsendt til alle medlemmer af arbejdsgruppen. 
The article was completed in February 2001 and subsequently circulated to all members of the working party.
Alle medlemmer af arbejdsgruppen underskrev. 
All members of the working party signed.
Artiklen blev sendt til et videnskabeligt tidsskrift, som kvitterede for modtagelsen i marts 2001. 
The article was sent to a scientific journal, which acknowledged receipt in March 2001.
I april 2001 opdagede klageren ved en tilfældighed, i forbindelse med søgning efter litteratur i en database, en artikel skrevet af indklagede med en titel, som virkede bekendt. 
In April 2001, when searching for literature in a database, the complainant chanced upon an article with a familiarsounding title written by the defendant.
Klageren rekvirerede artiklen og opdagede herved, at indklagedes artikel var en ordret afskrivning af det manuskript, klageren havde udarbejdet som basis for samarbejdet, bortset fra abstract, summary, 22 linier i indledningen og 20 linier i diskussionen. 
The complainant requested the article and in the process discovered that the defendant's article was a verbatim copy of the manuscript the complainant had drafted as a basis for the collaboration, save for the abstract, the summary, 22 lines of the introduction and 20 lines of the discussion.
Foreholdt dette tilstod indklagede over for klageren i juni 2001 at have tilegnet sig klagerens artikel og publiceret indholdet i eget navn. 
Confronted with this, the defendant confessed to the complainant in June 2001 that he had usurped the complainant's article and published the contents under his own name.
UVVU's Udvalg for sundhedsvidenskabelig forskning behandlede sagen på et møde i august 2001. 
DCSD's Committee for Health and Medical Science dealt with the case at a meeting in August 2001.
På det foreliggende grundlag fandt udvalget det godtgjort, at indklagede helt bevidst havde tilegnet sig klagerens forslag til artikel og publiceret denne i et tidsskrift i eget navn. 
On the available basis the Committee considered it proven that the defendant had usurped the complainant's draft for the article with full intent and published it in a journal under his own name.
Den indklagede havde dermed begået videnskabelig uredelighed, jf. § 3, stk. 
The defendant had thus committed scientific dishonesty, cf. Section 3, subs.
Udvalget traf herefter følgende afgørelse: 
Accordingly, the Committee made the following ruling:
Indklagede har begået videnskabelig uredelighed, jf. § 3, stk. 
The defendant has committed scientific dishonesty, cf. Section 3, subs.
Afgørelsen blev affattet både på dansk og på engelsk og sendt til den indklagedes arbejdsgiver og til det videnskabelige tidsskrift, hvor plagiatet var offentliggjort. 
The ruling was worded in both Danish and English and sent to the defendant's employer and to the scientific journal in which the plagiarized piece had been published.
Sag om en tidsskriftsredaktions misfortolkning af en forskers videnskabelige resultater, fejlagtig anklage for at have produceret uoverensstemmende forskningsresultater og forbud mod at publicere i tidsskriftet for en periode af to år uden iagttagelse af forudgående høring. 
Case of misinterpretation of a researcher's scientific results by a journal's editorial board, erroneous accusation of having produced conflicting research results and a ban on publishing in the journal for a period of two years without paying heed to a prior hearing.
I maj 2001 indbragte en forsker en klage til UVVU mod redaktionen for et internationalt videnskabeligt tidsskrift, repræsenteret ved tidsskriftets hovedredaktør. 
In May 2001 a researcher lodged a complaint with DCSD against the editorial board of an international scientific journal, represented by the journal's general editor.
UVVU nedsatte et ad hoc-udvalg, hvori et fremtrædende udenlandsk medlem indgik. 
DCSD set up an ad hoc committee, which included a prominent foreign member.
Ad hoc-udvalget baserede sin bedømmelse af anklagen om dobbeltpublikation på principperne i Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. 
The ad hoc committee based its assessment of the accusation of duplicate publication on the principles in Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals.
Ved dobbeltpublikation forstås, at to artikler er næsten identiske. 
Duplicate publication is understood to mean that two articles are virtually identical.
Ved overflødig publikation forstås, at forfatteren har publiceret flere artikler end nødvendigt for at præsentere sine videnskabelige resultater optimalt. 
Redundant publication means that the author has published more articles than necessary in order to gain ideal exposure for his or her scientific results.
Da der imidlertid var tale om to artikler i stedet for én, og da disse artikler blev sendt til forskellige tidsskrifter, havde forskeren forset sig mod god publikationspraksis ved at søge at opnå en overflødig publikation. 
Since it was a question of two articles instead of one, however, and since these articles were sent to different journals, the researcher had offended against good publishing practice by attempting to secure redundant publication.
Vedrørende anklagen om modstridende data og vildledning af det videnskabelige samfund fandt ad hoc-udvalget ikke, at der var tale om modstridende data i de to artikler. 
As regards the accusation about conflicting data and misleading the scientific community, the ad hoc committee did not find that the two articles involved conflicting data.
Det var ikke mærkeligt, at redaktionen blev forvirret, da forskeren ikke selv forklarede, hvordan de to artikler hang sammen. 
It was no wonder that the editorial board became confused when the researcher himself failed to explain how the two articles were interconnected.
Udvalget konkluderede, at anklagen mod klageren for at have publiceret modstridende resultater ikke holdt. 
The committee concluded that the accusation against the complainant of having published conflicting results did not hold water.
Der var ikke basis for anklagen om, at klageren havde vildledt det videnskabelige samfund. 
There was no basis for the accusation that the complainant had deceived the scientific community.
Udvalget fandt, at klageren havde gjort sig skyldig i undladelse af at efterkomme denne instruktion og derved krænket almindeligt kendte principper i Vancouver-reglerne. 
The committee found that the complainant had been guilty of failing to comply with this instruction and had thus offended against generally known principles of the Vancouver rules.
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.