An international doctoral candidate participated in an exchange program at the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences in collaboration with a professor. The research work focused on improvements within technology and included a manuscript intended for the candidate’s doctoral dissertation.
The COVID-19 pandemic led to practical challenges, including limited access to the university’s facilities and infrequent physical meetings between the collaborators. There was also a disagreement regarding the methodological approach while working on the manuscript, which created growing distrust and conflict between the candidate and the professor.
This was exacerbated by the actions of other researchers. Two other researchers, another doctoral candidate at UiO and the candidate’s foreign supervisor, also contributed to the manuscript. The foreign supervisor submitted the manuscript to a scientific journal without the approval of the other authors. The professor at UiO objected and got the publication halted. Shortly thereafter, the foreign supervisor registered the manuscript in an "open access" archive, that the UiO professor could not halt and consequently reported as a breach of research ethics to the foreign university.
Meanwhile, the UiO professor and the other doctoral candidate worked on a separate manuscript on the same topic but from a different methodological angle, with different calculations and results. The international doctoral candidate declined an offer of co-authorship on this manuscript, an offer that was withdrawn. This manuscript was later published in the same scientific journal that the foreign supervisor had previously contacted, but without mentioning the candidate.
Later, the candidate reported the UiO professor to The Research Ethics Committee at UiO (REC). The report concerned faulty authorship, offensive behavior, and accusations of racism. However, REC did not have the authority to assess the allegations of offensive behavior and racism.
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 primary factual issue in the case was if the UiO professor’s omission of the candidate from the authorship list in the published article constituted "other serious breaches" of research ethical norms.
REC concluded that the authorship dispute had arisen due to misunderstandings and differing expectations, intensified by disagreements on scientific method, views on working hours, deadlines, and roles. The COVID-19 restrictions further contributed to the breakdown of trust and of the cooperation. Nonetheless, REC believed that the candidate’s contribution to the article should have been acknowledged, even though he did not meet the criteria for co-authorship.
The case, according to REC, underscored the importance of specific and detailed project planning and open and adequate communication, especially when researchers with different backgrounds and expectations collaborate. The university hosting guest researchers, in this case, UiO, bears the primary responsibility for ensuring this.
Consequently, REC found breaches of research ethical norms, but these were not classified as scientific misconduct, and no systemic failures were identified.
REC’s conclusion was unanimous.
References
- The Norwegian Research Ethics Act (2017) Section 8
- The draft bill of The Norwegian Research Ethics Act (Prop. 158 L (2015-2016)) page 35
- The Norwegian National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology (NENT): Guidelines for Research Ethics in Science and Technology (2015), especially Sections 4 and 5
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors (‘Vancouver Recommendations’) (2023), especially Section 2
- All European Academies (ALLEA): European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2023) Section 2.6
- The Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research, especially the preamble, Sections 15 and 18
- Standard for Research Integrity at UiO (2021) Section 3.10
- Guidelines for the processing of cases of possible violations of recognized norms in research ethics at UiO (2023)
The text has been translated and improved by UiO GPT.
More statements and summaries from the Research Ethics Committee at UiO