The Research Ethics Committee at the University of Oslo (REC) received an anonymous notification via The Science Ombud about a researcher at the Faculty of Medicine. The notification concerned two scientific publications included in the researcher’s doctoral work, with allegations of two types of plagiarism: method plagiarism and figure plagiarism.
REC based its assessment on the principle that scientific misconduct, according to The Norwegian Research Ethics Act, depends on two conditions: whether there indeed has been a violation of recognized research ethics norms, and whether the researcher can be blamed for this. There must be a clear preponderance of the evidence for this to be proven.
The committee first investigated the alleged method plagiarism, where the researcher’s system for evaluating and comparing research results was claimed to be almost identical to an earlier method without sufficient reference. The researcher argued that references were included in the article, that the methods had several differences, and that the new system represented an advancement of the older method.
After thorough evaluation, REC found that method plagiarism had not occurred, as the newly developed method was described as an advancement of the previous one, used on a different patient group and with a different approach to data collection. Nonetheless, the REC noted that the references made barely met the standards for proper citation practices.
Next, REC examined the alleged figure plagiarism, involving two illustrations that bore a remarkable resemblance to two older illustrations from the same source as the disputed method. The researcher admitted that the earlier illustrations should have been cited but argued that the new figures were not direct photocopies. REC, however, assessed plagiarism based on the similarity of the figures, regardless of the reproduction method. Given the significant resemblance, REC concluded that it was objectively a case of plagiarism. REC also considered the researcher’s failure to cite the original illustrations as highly criticisable, especially since the researcher had previously been trained in proper citation practices. This was judged to be scientific misconduct.
REC further determined that there was no systemic failure but thought the researcher had not been adequately integrated into the scientific community. This could have improved his scientific work. REC recommended that the article with the omitted figure citation was corrected.
The role of the co-author was not evaluated by REC because she did not have the necessary affiliation with UiO, and therefore the university did not have the authority to assess her under the Research Ethics Act. However, the co-author was informed about the process in REC.
The REC’s conclusion in the case was unanimous.
References
- The Research Ethics Act (2017) §§ 6 and 8
- The Public Administration Act (1967) §§ 2 and 16
- The Regulations of the Law to The Research Ethics Act (2018) § 7 last paragraph
- The draft bill of The Research Ethics Act (Prop. 158 L (2015-2016) Chapter 5.2.2.4
- The Norwegian National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology (NENT): Guidelines for Research Ethics in Science and Technology (2015) Sections 4 and 5
- All European Academies (ALLEA): European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2019) Section 3.1
- Mandate for the Research Ethics Committee at the University of Oslo (UiO)
The text has been translated and improved by UiO GPT.
More statements and summaries from the Research Ethics Committee at UiO