The Research Ethics Committee at UiO (REC) notes: Notified appealed the case to the National Commission for the Investigation of Research Misconduct (Granskingsutvalget - GRU), which concluded that there was no breach of research ethical norms. Thus, there was no scientific misconduct, no systemic errors, and no scientific publications were recommended to be corrected or retracted. GRU made an institutional recommendation concerning the relationship between HR and research ethics. Their case number is 2023/105.
The statements of REC are generally public, and REC will therefore nevertheless explain its assessment of the case:
A former PhD candidate at the Faculty of Medicine reported her former supervisor for possible violations of recognized research ethical norms. The former candidate is hereafter referred to as "Notifier", and the former supervisor as "Notified".
REC thoroughly reviewed the case and highlighted multiple aspects of research ethical integrity. The most central guidelines concerned collegiality, respect, responsibility, proper citation practices, determination of authorship, and the significance of power imbalance in research collaboration. REC stated that experienced researchers should act in a trustworthy manner when collaborating with newly recruited researchers, and that leaders of international research collaborations have an obligation to exercise professional courtesy.
The core of the dispute was a manuscript included in Notifier's PhD dissertation. This manuscript was a result of an international research collaboration with several co-authors, and Notifier was listed as the first author when she defended her dissertation.
Notified was Notifier's PhD supervisor, immediate administrative leader, leader of the research group, project leader, recipient of the project funding, and corresponding author of the manuscript. Notifier’s engagement in the research group and UiO ended after she defended her dissertation, but she wanted to continue at the university in the same group and applied for a postdoctoral position there. Notified had authority in the relevant job application process.
The manuscript was rejected by several scientific journals, and ambiguities arose regarding roles and responsibilities during the revisions. When the manuscript was finally published, the authorship order was changed so that Notifier was listed as the third author instead of the first. Notifier had approved this change shortly before the final manuscript was submitted.
Not long after publication, Notifier brought the case to the Research Ethics Committee at UiO (REC). Notifier claimed she had been excluded from the revision work and restricted from accessing her own research data. Therefore, she did not have a genuine opportunity to make the necessary changes to the manuscript and thus defend her position as first author. Notified’s view, on the other hand, was that Notifier had not made substantial contributions during the revision work, that the change in the authorship order correctly reflected the contributions at the time of publication, and that Notifier herself had approved the change.
REC’s assessment was based on two factual questions: Whether the process leading up to the change in the authorship order was conducted in accordance with relevant ethical norms and whether the change itself was ethically sound. The central evidences in the case was the parties' explanations to REC, copies of correspondence between them and the co-authors, and a total of six different versions of the manuscript.
The legal question REC had to address was whether the potential breaches of relevant research ethical norms constituted scientific misconduct according to Section 8 of the Norwegian Research Ethics Act. The assessment was based on the norms in several research ethical documents that apply to all researchers at UiO. REC identified several norm breaches that collectively amounted to scientific misconduct according to the alternative "other serious breaches" in Section 8, Second Paragraph.
In assessing the process leading up to publication, REC emphasized Notified's lack of respect for Notifier. This was evident through the gradual exclusion of Notifier from the revision process, the fact that Notified effectively took over the leadership of the process, creating confusion around Notifier's responsibility and role, and generally, a strict and unfriendly communication style. In addition, Notifier's specific questions about accessing research data and contacting co-authors remained unanswered. REC believed that Notified's behaviour was incompatible with research ethical principles for good leadership and that Notified should have taken into account her superior role and the imbalance in power, authority, and academic status.
In assessing the change in the authorship order, REC meant that Notifier's contributions to the manuscript remained significant in the version that was published. At the same time, REC believed that an authorship collective is free to determine the order of authorship themselves, given that it is collectively discussed according to good integrity practice. Notifier had indeed sent a written approval of this, but later claimed that the consent was invalid and given under pressure. REC found no reason to doubt Notifier’s presentation of facts.
Regarding the question of subjective guilt, REC believed that Notified had acted with gross negligence in her inadequate fulfilment of ethical obligations. REC did not find it proven that Notified intentionally violated these norms, but they found she lacked knowledge of the content and significance of the norms she is obligated to follow as a researcher at UiO. This was characterized as gross negligence by an experienced researcher.
REC recommended the published article to be corrected back to the original authorship order with Notifier as the first author. In addition, REC believed that Notifier should be credited as corresponding author and that Notified should lose this credit.
Furthermore, REC criticized UiO for a lack of follow-up of the research group, which was organized across faculties. REC was also critical that the same person had personnel responsibility, was the leader of the research group and the externally funded project, in addition to having the role of the main supervisor. This posed a risk of dysfunctional dependencies and isolation of newly recruited researchers.
Notified in this case is the same person as the notified person in case 2022/40054.
REC’s conclusion in the case was unanimous.
References
- The Norwegian Research Ethics Act (2017) §§ 6 and 8
- The Regulations of the Law to The Norwegian Research Ethics Act (2018) § 7 Last Paragraph
- The Draft Bill of The Norwegian Research Ethics Act (Prop. 158 L (2015-2016)) Chapter 33
- Standard for Research Integrity at UiO, especially Section 3.8
- The Norwegian National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology (NENT): Guidelines for Research Ethics in Science and Technology (2015), especially Section 5
- Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (2010), especially the introductory paragraph.
- Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations (2013), especially Sections 2, 5, 12, 14, and 18
- ALLEA: European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2017), especially The Principle of Respect and Sections 2.4, 2.6, and 3.2
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors (Vancouver Recommendations) (2022), Section 2
- Guidelines and resources from the Committee on Publication Ethics Guidelines (COPE), and from the relevant scientific journal
The text has been translated and improved by UiO GPT.
More statements and summaries from the Research Ethics Committee at UiO