Contents
- Purpose
- Scope
- Definitions
- Responsibility
- Processing of cases
- Completion of internal and external follow-up
1. Purpose
UiO should facilitate good and responsible practise in a way so that questions on research ethics are discussed and clarified between colleagues in the research environment or in the administrative line, in accordance with the Research ethics Act. The ombudsman for science may provide guidance in questions on research ethics.
Notifications of possible violations on recognized norms of research ethics should undergo justifiable and safe processing. The handling of cases should follow general principles in administrative law, regarding impartiality, contradiction and the right of access for each party. Violations of recognized norms of research ethics may only be concluded after a written statement has been provided by the Commission on Research Ethics.
2. Scope
These guidelines apply to cases of possible violations of recognized norms of research ethics which involve persons who have or have had an association with UiO, with the exception of research at the Department of clinical medicine which should follow separate guidelines in their cooperation with Akershus university hospital HF and Oslo university hospital HF.
3. Definitions
| Recognized norms of research ethics: | General and specific guidelines of good scientific practice as these at any time are described by current national and international guidelines and conventions. Of special importance in this connection are the general and specific guidelines prepared by the Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees. |
| Violations of recognized norms of research ethics: | Violations of general and specific guidelines of good scientific practice, especially important in this connection are general and specific guidelines prepared by The Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees. |
| Scientific misconduct: | Forgery, fabrication, plagiarism and other severe violations of recognized norms of research ethics committed intentionally or with gross negligence in the planning, execution or reporting of research, ref. the Research Ethics Act § 8, second section |
| The National Commission for the Investigation of Research Misconduct (the Commission - GRU) |
The appeal body in cases in which the institutions have concluded that scientific misconduct has taken place, and may also initiate an investigation at its own authority. The statements of the commission are final and may not be appealed. |
4. Responsibility
The Rector has superior responsibility for and the management of the activities of UiO and shall make sure that:
- research at UiO is being conducted in compliance with recognized norms of research ethics
- system errors which may lead to violations on recognized norms of research ethics are prevented, and are corrected in the event of their appearance. This involves among other things making sure that:
- necessary training in recognized norms of research ethics are given to candidates and employees
- anyone who conducts or participates in research is familiar with recognized norms of research ethic
- cases on possible violations on recognized norms of research ethics are treated justifiably
- a commission on investigation of misconduct is established, with relevant expertice for the evaluation of possible violations of recognized norms of research ethics at the UiO
- guidelines are established for the notification and processing of cases on possible violations of recognized norms of research ethics at the UiO. In the handling of such cases, a statement should be obtained from the Commission which should decide
- whether the researcher has committed scientific misconduct or not
- whether there are system errors at the institution and
- whether the scientific work should be corrected or withdrawn.
- The UiO reports cases of possible serious breaches on recognized norms of research ethics to the GRU.
The individual dean at the faculties, the director at museums or centres subject to the board shall as the representative of rector at their unit:
- facilitate for the research to be conducted according to recognized norms of research ethics
- make sure that necessary training in recognized norms of research ethics is provided to candidates and employees at their own unit
- make sure that everyone conducting or participating in the research are familiar with recognized norms of research ethics
- report possible violations of recognized norms of research ethics to the Commission if a case has affiliation to its own unit and make sure that the case is submitted to FEU with a description of the contents of the case as well as the documents of the case for further processing.
The Director of the University shall
- report to GRU when a case concerning a possible violation of recognized norms of research ethics has been processed to completion at the UiO.
The Ombudsman for Science is employed by the Director of the University following a public announcement and has as his/her task to
- provide guidance and advice to scientific employees who may find themselves in a difficult situation with regard to research ethics
- provide independent, impartial information and handle inquiries and cases in confidence
The Research Ethics Committee is a professionally independent organ established by the Rector as the Commission on the Investigation of Research Misconduct in order to
- provide statements in cases pertaining to research ethics in line with these guidelines for the handling of cases on possible violations of recognized norms of research ethics
- provide statements in cases which have an affiliation with all units at the UiO with the exception of the Department of Clinical Medicine
- be the advisory organ of the University for work in research ethics
The Research Ethics Committee cannot be instructed.
The head of auditing at the unit of internal auditing - EIR reports directly to the board of the university and:
- is responsible for keeping an overview of audits performed by external supervisory authorities
- is responsible for the implementation of internal audits
5. Processing of cases
5.1 Introductory processing of cases
5.1.1 Submission
Mediation in the cases of possible violations on recognized norms on research ethic are submitted in writing on a separate form to the Research Ethics Committee
The Research Ethics Committee may in its meetings address any case on its own authority. The secretariat will obtain the necessary documents. Otherwise the processing of the cases is done as in other cases.
5.1.2 Reception
On reception a case is created in UiO’s system for case processing. Case processing is exempt from publicity from the moment of receipt of a notification until a statement in the case is available.
The secretariat for the Research Ethics Committee will provide the notifier with a message that the notification has been received.
The Research Ethics Committee will then perform an introductory evaluation of the notification to establish any further processing of the case.
5.1.3 Rejection
The case is rejected in a meeting
- If it is obviously unjustified, ie. It does deal with questions of possible violations on recognized norms on research ethics
- if the notification on possible violations on recognized norms of research ethics lacks a factual basis
- if the notification has been submitted to the wrong institution
5.1.4 The competence of the chair of the Committee
The chair of the Research Ethics Committee may reject a case before it is presented for handling in the Committee if it is considered to lie outside the factual and institutional area of activities of the commission.
In cases dealing with several institutions, the chair of the commission following a discussion with the corresponding Commissions of Research Ethics at these institutions, make a decision as to which commission should handle the case.
5.1.5 Impartiality
The members of the Research Ethics Committee will evaluate their own impartiality within each case.
The same goes for any deputy members who may have been summoned.
5. 1. 6. The distinction between cases pertaining to research ethics and whistleblowing/notification
In the cases where the Research Ethics Committee is informed of a whistleblowing case has been established, the commission should not receive information on matters associated with the evaluations pertaining to labour law which have been made by the Department of Human Resources. The background for this is that the own evaluations of the members associated with a notification of possible violations of recognized norms of research ethics should not be influenced by the whistleblower case. Cases pertaining to research ethics should be kept separate from Human Resource and whistleblower cases.
5. 1. 7. Experts
The Research Ethics Committee will evaluate the need for external expertise if potentially the need for an ad-hoc commission established with members from the Research Ethics Committee and the Commission for the Investigation of Research Misconduct for the Department of Clinical Medicine at the Faculty of Medicine, the University of Oslo, Oslo University Hospital HF and Akershus University Hospital HF in the handling of the case.
5.2 Preparation of a case and decisions on further processing
The Research Ethics Committee will send a formal response to the inquiry to the notifier with an invitation to a conversation. The Research Ethics Committee will send a written advance notice to the notified that the commission has received a notification of a possible violations of recognized norms for Research Ethics, and that the case will be admitted for processing, the letter should contain the notification and an invitation to a conversation with the commission.
The notifier and the notified will themselves decide whether to meet for a conversation.
The notifier and the notified have the right to bring supporting persons to the meeting.
If the contents of the case so indicates, the Research Ethics Committee may decide that the entire commission will not take part in the meeting.
5.3 Processing in the the Research Ethics Committee
The conversations will be conducted with the notifier and the notified and minutes of the meeting will be prepared. The parties will have an opportunity to comment on the written draft of the minutes concerning their own conversation. A deadline for this is normally fixed at two weeks.
The comments will thereafter be evaluated by the Research Ethics Committee before final minutes are prepared and which are sent collectively to both the notifier and the notified.
If the notifier or the notified does not wish to attend a conversation, the processing of the case is conducted in writing as far as they are concerned.
The Research Ethics Committee will evaluate the total collected information in the case and will prepare its statement. The Research Ethics Committee will make a decision on whether a violence has occurred of one or several recognized norms of Research Ethics which should be adhered to at the University of Oslo and to evaluate the degree of severity. This includes the serious breaches fabrication, forgery and plagiarism. It will also be decided whether the breach has been done intentionally (on purpose) or grossly negligent (marked deviation from justifiable behaviour).
A clear preponderance of probability of the factual circumstances which are the basis is required in order that the behaviour may be characterized as scientific misconduct.
The statement should always take into account:
- whether the researcher has behaved scientifically dishonest or not
- whether system errors are present at the institution
- whether the scientific work should be corrected or withdrawn
Drafts of a statement from the Committee will be prepared and sent to the notifier and the notified with a possibility to make a statement. The Committee will prepare the final written statement.
5.5 Statement from the Research Ethics Committee
The final statement will be sent to the notifier and the notified with a copy to the Rector and the most superior manager at the unit in question.
The final statement from the Research Ethics Committee will be published in an anonymized form.
5.6 Right of appeal
If the Research Ethics Committee finds that scientific misconduct has occurred, the researcher shall be informed that the decision may be appealed to GRU.
Only the researcher receiving the statement that this person has committed misconduct, has the right of appeal to the GRU. The deadline for appeal is three weeks from receipt of the statement. This should be stated in the statement from the Research Ethics Committee.
A notifier, who is not successful in the allegation that scientific misconduct has been committed, does not have the right of appeal. There is also no right of appeal against statements that violations of recognized norms on research ethics have occurred, that are not covered by the concept of “scientific misconduct”, or the further follow-up of these cases.
6. Completion of internal and external follow-up
When the final statements is available from the The Research Ethics Committee, the case may be followed up in the way that appears most appropriate for the contents of the case.
Where no violations on recognized norms on research ethics have occurred:
If the case has entailed unjust harm on the reputation, the university management, together with the dean, museum director or centre subject to the board of the university, initiate suitable steps in order to minimize the harm.
Where breaches on recognized norms on research ethics have occurred:
The dean, the director of the museum or centre subject to the board of the university may request that the researcher submit an “Errata” to the journal or withdraw the article or initiate another suitable reaction. If the researcher does not complies with this, the dean, the director of the museum or centre subject to the board of the university themselves will need to make sure that this is completed.
System error:
If the statement from the Research Ethics Committee points to substantial system errors in the case, this will be presented to the Rector for follow-up.
Notification to the GRU:
The Director of the University will submit a report on the institution’s handling of the case to the GRU.
Follow up by Human Resources:
Potential follow-up by the Department of Human Resources will be initiated and completed by the management in the usual manner.