A former researcher at the Faculty of Medicine was the corresponding last author on a scientific article. Another researcher claimed that he had been plagiarized and excluded as a co-author in this article. He also argued that the timing of the publication was inappropriate, given two other unpublished manuscripts he was working on. Therefore, the researcher reported potential breaches of recognized research ethics norms to the Research Ethics Committee at UiO (REC).
The notified UiO researcher never responded to REC’s inquiries about the case. Consequently, the assessment relied heavily on the comparison of the scientific works.
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.
REC first assessed whether the article contained method plagiarism of the other researcher’s unpublished material and dissertation. They concluded that the researcher had not developed a new method but rather improved a classical method in the field, an approach that had indeed benefited and inspired the published article. REC therefore recommended a correction where the researcher’s contribution would be clearly acknowledged. However, this did not constitute plagiarism.
The committee then assessed whether the researcher should have been included as a co-author on the published article. REC’s view was that his scientific contribution did not meet the criteria for authorship. However, they believed it would have been reasonable to offer him an opportunity to participate in the research project at an earlier stage.
It was unclear why one of the manuscripts had not been sent for publication, and there were indications that the UiO researcher was the cause of the delay. A possible scientific justification for the delay was not communicated well enough to the involved collaborators.
The committee concluded with two recommendations: the researcher’s methodological contribution should be acknowledged in the published article, and the research group should convene to complete and publish the two remaining manuscripts. The scientific value of the manuscripts’ content had not diminished, and they could still be published.
Since most of the researchers were affiliated with a foreign university, it was not relevant to assess systemic failure.
The REC’s conclusion in the case was unanimous.
References
- The Research Ethics Act (2017) § 8
- The Norwegian National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology (NENT): Guidelines for Research Ethics in Science and Technology (2015) Section 4
- The draft bill of The Research Ethics Act (Prop. 158 L (2015-2016) Chapter 5.2.2
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors (‘the Vancouver Recommendations’) Section 2
- The Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research
The text has been translated and improved by UiO GPT.
More statements and summaries from the Research Ethics Committee at UiO