natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
• 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
Ole Haagen Nielsen, Herlev Hospital, professor Mogens N. Pedersen, Institut for Statskundskab, Syddansk Universitet og overlæge, dr.med. 
Professor Mogens N. Pedersen of the Department of Political Science and Public Management at the
NYE VEJLEDNINGER I GOD VIDENSKABELIG PRAKSIS 
NEW GUIDELINES IN GOOD SCIENTIFIC PRACTICE
Hertil kommer de løbende ændringer af Vancouver-regelsættet, og ikke mindst at antallet af ph.d.-studerende vil stige markant i de kommende år, hvilket stiller øgede krav til forskningsvejledning og rådgivning. 
To this must be added the ongoing changes to the Vancouver Rules and, not least, the fact that the number of PhD students is set to rise markedly in the years ahead, making increasing demands of research supervision and counselling.
UVVU har ved flere lejligheder haft anledning til at drøfte og forholde sig til overgangen mellem god og mindre god videnskabelig praksis, og især til den vanskelige grænsedragning mellem egentlig videnskabelig uredelighed og dårlig praksis. 
On a number of occasions DCSD has had reason to discuss and take a position on the transition between good and less good scientific practice, and particularly on the difficult demarcation of borders between scientific dishonesty proper and poor practice.
En række medlemmer af UVVU og flere andre forskere har derfor i det forløbne år revideret og opdateret samlingen af vejledninger, som tilsammen dækker vigtige områder inden for god videnskabelig praksis. 
During the past year, therefore, a number of members of DCSD and several other researchers have revised and updated the collection of guidelines, which collectively cover important areas within good scientific practice.
Det er målsætningen, at danske forskere vil opfatte vejledningerne som en hjælp i arbejdetmed det overordnede formål at højne kvaliteten af forskningen. 
e aim is to have Danish researchers view the guidelines as an aid to their workwith the overall objective of enhancing the quality of the research.
De vejledninger, der nu er blevet revideret, har overvejende deres udspring i den lægevidenskabelige forskningsverden. 
e guidelines, which have now been revised, stem predominantly from the medical science research community.
Den videnskabelige arbejdsform varierer imidlertid en del på tværs af de videnskabelige discipliner, afhængigt af hvor faste paradigmer, der er gældende inden for disciplinerne, ligesom der inden for samme disciplin kan herske uenighed om normerne for god og hensigtsmæssig praksis. 
e scientific working method varies somewhat across the scientific disciplines, however, depending on how fixed the paradigms are that are current within those disciplines, just as disagreement can prevail within the same discipline around standards of good and appropriate practice.
Derfor kan man næppe i dag opstille et tilstrækkelig detaljeret og dermed operationelt normsæt med gyldighed for alle. 
Nowadays, therefore, it is scarcely possible to posit a sufficiently detailed, and hence operational set of standards with universal validity.
Især inden for de humanistiske og de samfundsvidenskabelige discipliner vil en del forskere kunne stille sig skeptiske til dele af vejledningerne. 
Particularly within the arts and social sciences, a number of researchers may well take a sceptical view of parts of the guidelines.
De første vejledninger om udformning af forsøgsprotokoller, datadokumentation og opbevaring af data for henholdsvis basal-, klinisk og klinisk/ epidemiologisk forskning udkom første gang i 1993. 
e earliest guidelines on the formulation of trial protocols, data documentation and storage of data for basic, clinical and clinical/epidemiological research, respectively, first appeared in 1993.
Sidstnævnte afsnit er nu blevet gennemgribende revideret og omdøbt til ”Vejledning omkring publiceringsforhold”. 
e latter section has now been radically revised and renamed ”Supervision in publishing matters”.
Desuden er der tilføjet to helt nye vejledninger: ”Vejledning om forskning i de matematiske fag - herunder statistik”, og ”Persondataloven og videnskabelige projekter”. 
In addition, two entirely new guidelines have been added: ”Supervision of research in the mathematical subjectsincluding statistics” and ” e Personal Data Act and scientific projects”.
Som tidligere har UVVU også lagt vægt på at revidere og udbygge vejledningerne af retssikkerhedsmæssige og forebyggelsesmæssige grunde. 
As previously, DCSD has also attached importance to revising and expanding the guidelines for preventive and legal rights reasons.
Det har siden grundlæggelsen af UVVU været evident, at UVVU har måttet arbejde inden for et område med meget få klart udtrykte regler og en begrænset lovgivning. 
Since being founded, it has been evident that DCSD has had to work in an area with very few clearly expressed rules and limited legislation.
UVVU har derfor i sin stillingtagen til de sager, der er blevet rejst, måttet henholde sig til normer, som UVVU har anset for at være alment accepterede i forskerverdenen og som ikke har kunnet læses eksplicit. 
In its stance on the cases that have been raised, therefore, DCSD has been forced to rely on standards which DCSD has taken to be generally accepted in the research world, and which it has not been possible to read explicitly.
UVVU har grund til at tro, at dets afgørelser og normgrundlag, som har været publiceret i årsberetninger, i fag- og dagspresse og i talrige møde- og undervisningssammenhænge, helt overvejende har været i overensstemmelse med forskerverdenens uskrevne normer. 
DCSD has reason to believe that its rulings and basic value set - which have been published in annual reports, the specialist and daily press, and numerous conference and educational contexts - have been predominantly in keeping with the unwritten norms of the research community.
UVVU har alligevel følt det rigtigst at opdatere den skrevne formulering af det normgrundlag, som der arbejdes efter. 
Nonetheless, DCSD has felt it only right and proper to update the written wording of the basic standards by which it operates.
Formålet har ved hjælp af klare formuleringer været at skabe tydelighed og synlighed, idet der selv inden for en ret homogen forskerkultur kan være divergerende opfattelser, der måske er baseret på mangel på et klart formuleret udgangspunkt for eventuelle drøftelser af forholdene. 
With the aid of clear formulations, the purpose has been to create clarity and visibility, as even within the most homogenous research culture there can be divergent opinions, which may be based on the lack of a clearly formulated point of departure for any discussion of such matters.
UVVU har nu fungeret i mere end femten år. 
DCSD has now been functioning for more than fifteen years.
Selv om det årlige sagsantal er begrænset, har udvalgene alligevel høstet en ganske stor erfaring med hensyn til, hvilke problemstillinger der giver anledning til konflikter imellem forskere - og dermed sommetider til mistanke om og anklager vedrørende videnskabelig uredelighed. 
Although the annual number of cases is limited, the committees have nevertheless gleaned immense experience with regard to which issues give rise to conflicts between researchers - and hence sometimes to suspicion and accusations of scientific dishonesty.
Hertil kommer, at det i stigende grad er blevet klart, især gennem amerikanske undersøgelser, at god videnskabelig praksis (responsible conduct of research) har forbløffende svært ved at slå rod der, hvor det betyder noget, nemlig i de enkelte forskermiljøer. 
In addition, it has become increasingly clear, particularly as a result of American studies, that good scientific practice (responsible conduct of research) has a staggeringly hard time getting rooted where it matters, namely in the individual research environments.
Man har i mange år vidst, at der mellem ukritisabel forskningsudøvelse og videnskabelig uredelighed ligger en gråzone af fænomener, som underminerer forskningens troværdighed (afvigelser fra god videnskabelig praksis). 
For many years now a grey zone of phenomena has been known to exist between uncriticizable exercise of research and scientific dishonesty, which undermines the credibility of research (departures from good scientific practice).
Der er derfor blevet igangsat en bevægelse med det formål at harmonisere definitionerne af videnskabelig uredelighed og god videnskabelig praksis på et globalt plan og at få forskningsinstitutionerne til mere aktivt at implementere sådanne retningslinier. 
A movement has therefore been set in motion with the purpose of harmonizing the definitions of scientific dishonesty and good scientific practice at global level, and getting research institutions to implement such guidelines more actively.
Der er således en række grunde til opdateringen af vejledningerne, selv om det står klart for UVVU, at mange danske forskere og forskergrupper efterlever god videnskabelig praksis og næppe har brug for skrevne vejledninger. 
us there are a number of reasons for updating the guidelines, although it is clear to DCSD that many Danish researchers and research groups do abide by good scientific practice and scarcely need written guidelines.
Men det står samtidigt klart, at der er forskere og forskergrupper, som kan undgå trivsel af gråzonefænomener, og givetvis også konflikter, hvis de aktivt forsøger at implementere god videnskabelig praksis i deres dagligdag. 
At the same time, though, there are evidently researchers and research groups that can prevent grey-zone phenomena, and certainly also conflicts, from flourishing if they actively attempt to implement good scientific practice in their day-to-day work.
De færreste, og slet ikke novicer i forskningsverdenen, vil dog uden videre kunne ekstemporere på hele dette område. 
Yet only very few, and certainly no novices to the world of research, will immediately be able to ad-lib their way through this field.
Vejledningerne kan således nyttiggøres som udgangspunkt for drøftelser i de enkelte forskergrupper og kan sikkert også finde anvendelse i den formaliserede undervisning af ph.d.-studerende. 
e guidelines can thus be turned to useful account as a point of departure for discussions in individual research groups and will almost certainly be able to find applications in the formalized teaching of PhD students.
En del forskere vil formentlig opfatte, at vejledningerne i mange henseender udsiger det selvfølgelige, hvilket er en konsekvens af, at UVVU udtrykker sig i overensstemmelse med principper, der råder konsensus om i forskerverdenen. 
A number of researchers will presumably view the guidelines as stating the obvious in many respects, which is a consequence of DCSD voicing its views in accordance with principles on which there is consensus in the research community.
UVVU har dog erfaring fra adskillige sager, som har vist, at den fælles, underforståede opfattelse af rimelig praksis fortaber sig, når der opstår konfliktsituationer, hvilket understreger, at principperne ikke har slået rod i disse miljøer. 
However, DCSD has experience from a number of cases showing that the collective, implicit perception of reasonable practice is lost when conflict situations arise, accentuating the failure of such principles to take root in these environments.
Amerikanske undersøgelser viser, at dette gælder for en stor fraktion af selv højt respekterede forskningsmiljøer, hvor man derfor må arbejde med at identificere årsagerne og dæmpe deres effekt dels i egen interesse og dels for generelt at hæve kvaliteten af forskningen og styrke den offentlige tillid hertil. 
American studies show that this applies to a large fraction even of highly respected research environments, where work therefore has to be done on identifying causes and cushioning their effect, partly in people's own interest and partly to raise the quality of the research and strengthen public confidence in it generally.
I USA har Office of Research Integrity (ORI) i samarbejde med National Institutes of Health (NIH) igangsat et enestående forskningsprogram, som nu begynder at give særdeles konkret og nyttig viden på feltet (1,2,3). 
In the USA the Office of Research Integrity, in collaboration with the National Institute of Health (NIH), has instituted a unique research programme that is now beginning to yield particularly concrete and useful knowledge in the field (1,2,3).
Desuden er der en del forhold vedrørende forfatterskab, som ikke nævnes i Vancouver-reglerne, men som er medtaget i UVVU's vejledninger fx om publikation i andre medier end videnskabelige tidsskrifter eller bøger. 
In addition, there are a number of factors relating to authorship that are not mentioned in the Vancouver Rules but are included in DCSD's guidelines, e.g. on publication in media other than scientific journals or books.
Eftersom et stigende antal projekter er multinationale, kan det måske blive vanskeligere fuldt at efterleve de danske retningslinier, fordi regler og normer kan variere i forskellige lande. 
Since a growing number of projects are multinational, it may become more difficult to comply fully with the Danish guidelines, because rules and standards can vary in different countries.
Det må dog antages, at der i betydelig grad råder international enighed om de mere overordnede og principielle holdninger, og at forskelle fortrinsvis vil gøre sig gældende i detaljerne. 
However, it must be assumed that a considerable degree of international agreement prevails as to the more overarching and fundamental views, and that any differences presenting
Det er derfor vigtigt, at internationalt sammensatte forskergrupper på forhånd gør sig klart hvilke eventuelle forskelle, der findes mellem de forskellige lande. 
It is important, therefore, that research groups with an international make-up realize beforehand what differences, if any, exist between the various countries.
En fælles gennemgang af de danske vejledninger og konkrete beslutninger om, hvorledes man forholder sig til eventuelle forskelle, vil være en enkel fremgangsmåde til at afdække og forebygge gråzonefænomener og potentielle konflikter. 
A joint review of the Danish guidelines, and concrete decisions about how to relate to any such differences, will be one simple procedure for pinpointing and preventing grey-zone phenomena and potential conflicts.
Det vil blive påskønnet, hvis brugere af vejledningerne i god videnskabelig praksis løbende fremsender forslag til forbedringer og korrektioner til UVVU's sekretariat. 
It would be appreciated if users of the guidelines in good scientific practice submit their proposals for improvements and corrections to DCSD's secretariat on an ongoing basis.
// NYE VEJLEDINGER I GOD VIDENSKABELIG PRAKSIS // 19 
// NEW GUIDELINES IN GOOD SCIENTIFIC PRACTICE // 19
Af dr. Alexis-Michel Mugabushaka, 
By Dr Alexis-Michel Mugabushaka,
Af dr. Alexis-Michel 
By Dr Alexis-Michel
e Swedish Research Council's ethics Committee published in 2005 the “Good Research Practicewhat it is?” 
e Swedish Research Council's ethics Commitee published in 2005 the “Good Research Practicewhat it is?”
Bekendtgørelse nr. 668 af 28. juni 2005 om Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed 
Executive Order on the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (No. 668 of 28 June 2005)
VI MARGRETHE DEN ANDEN, af Guds Nåde Danmarks Dronning, gør vitterligt: 
To strengthen the quality, coordination and internationalization of
Rådet har alene en rådgivningsfunktion, jf. § 3. 
e Council shall have a purely advisory function, cf. Section 3.
Rådet har til hovedformål at støtte konkrete forskningsaktiviteter baseret på forskernes egne initiativer og give forskningsfaglig rådgivning i tilknytning hertil, jf. §§ 7 og 8. 
e main purpose of the Councils shall be to support specific research activities based on the initiatives of the researchers themselves, and to provide scientific research advice in this regard, cf. Sections 7 and 8.
Rådet har til hovedformål at støtte forskning inden for politisk prioriterede og tematisk afgrænsede forskningsområder og give forskningsfaglig rådgivning i tilknytning hertil, jf. §§ 17 og 18. 
e main purpose of the Council shall be to support research within politically prioritized and thematically demarcated areas of research, and to provide scientific research advice in this regard, cf. Sections 17 and 18.
4-6 skal tilsammen sikre, at alle statslige forskningsbevillinger, der ikke er basisbevillinger knyttet til bestemte institutioner, uddeles i åben konkurrence og efter en forskningsfaglig kvalitetsvurdering. 
4-6 in combination shall ensure that all state research grants, with the exception of basic grants associated with particular institutions, are allocated in open competition following scientific assessment of their quality.
I denne lov forstås ved: 
For the purposes of this Act,
1) Anerkendte forskere: Personer, der i en årrække på videnskabeligt plan aktivt har beskæftiget sig med forskning, og som er på mindst lektoreller seniorforskerniveau. 
1) Recognized researchers shall mean: persons who have engaged in active scientific research for a number of years who are of at least associate professor or senior research fellow standard.