A long-term research collaboration between two researchers eventually ended in an irresolvable conflict. The conflict originated when the younger researcher received funding for a project on a topic that both were interested in. The more experienced researcher later started his own parallel project on the same topic, which led to a publication where he was co-author. The younger researcher accused him of plagiarizing his ongoing research project and of breaching several other recognized research ethical norms. The Research Ethics Committee at UiO (REC) looked into the case.
The basis for REC’s assessment was that scientific misconduct according to the Norwegian Research Ethics Act depends on two conditions: Whether there has been a breach of recognized research ethical norms, and whether the researcher has acted sufficiently negligently. There must be a clear preponderance of the evidence for this to be proven.
It was central in the plagiarism assessment that both researchers worked in the same field and with similar research questions. Occurrences of plagiarism, therefore, depended on specific ideas or designs that could be traced back to the younger researcher’s project, and that was within the younger researcher's information flow control. Additionally, any reuse of such elements by the older researcher had to be done in a grossly negligent manner. REC found no evidence of such identifiable scientific innovations in the younger researcher’s project. Consequently, there was no instances of plagiarism detected, although REC did not rule out that the older researcher was inspired by the younger’s work.
REC interpreted the term "scientific misconduct" to also include actions that damages the fundamental and indispensable trust that exists in research collaboration. They questioned if the older researcher’s work and the subsequent publication violated the younger researcher’s expectations of recognition and inclusion.
Such expectations were echoed in principles from NENT, ALLEA, and in the Montreal Statement, and REC considered them by comparing the relevant works and an assessing both researchers’ behaviour.
REC identified three significant differences between the younger researcher’s project description and what was presented in the published article. These were reflected in different scientific assessments. REC also found that the older researcher had tried to respect the younger’s project by offering collaboration and co-authorship, as well as by limiting information flow between the projects.
Nevertheless, REC criticized the older researcher for not doing enough to resolve the conflict, despite several concerned emails from the younger researcher about the similarities between the projects. This responsibility was embedded in the mentor role. At the same time, the younger researcher also failed as project leader by not clarifying expectations and obligations to his collaborators.
REC pointed out that clear and updated collaboration agreements could have prevented the conflict. The case also illustrated the importance of the guidelines in the Montreal Statement – specifically to have open and clear communication about what are common questions and resources within a research field, and what is project-specific, original content.
In its final conclusion, REC stated that there had been no breach of recognized research ethical norms, and therefore no scientific misconduct or systemic failures at the institution. No form of correction to the published article was suggested.
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)) Section 5.2.2.3 and page 33
- The Norwegian National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology (NENT): Guidelines for Research Ethics in Science and Technology (2015) Section 4
- All European Academies (ALLEA): European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2023) Sections 2.2 and 2.6
- The Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research, especially Section 14
- Standard for Research Integrity at UiO (2021) Section 3.10
The text has been translated and improved by UiO GPT.
More statements and summaries from the Research Ethics Committee at UiO