A postdoctoral fellow at the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences claimed that her supervisor had plagiarized parts of a project the postdoc had presented during the hiring process. The plagiarism was allegedly done in the supervisor’s application to the European Research Council. Furthermore, the postdoc alleged that the supervisor misused their position by pressuring her into collaboration and false co-authorship.
After presenting the case at faculty level, the postdoc requested a further assessment of the research ethics dilemmas, and the case was referred to the Research Ethics Committee at UiO (REC).
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 supervisor can be blamed for this. There must be a clear preponderance of the evidence for this to be proven.
The supervisor explained to REC that the intention was to give the postdoc control over the disputed part of the application if the project was realized and to establish an interdisciplinary collaboration. However, the postdoc noted that the project would extend beyond her UiO employment period.
REC obtained two external experts in the postdoc’s field to assess the plagiarism allegations. They concluded that the application did not copy the postdoc’s specific ideas or methods, but only showed an overlap of interests and long-term ambitions between the supervisor’s and the postdoc’s research proposals.
In light of NENT Article 4, which describes plagiarism as presenting others' research or ideas as one's own, and based on the experts’ conclusions, REC concluded that there was no plagiarism in the supervisor’s application.
Additionally, REC assessed whether the supervisor had misused their position and found that the supervisor had, in fact, followed the joint plan for the postdoc project. Nevertheless, REC criticized the supervisor for not clarifying the expectations for the postdoc’s career development, but this did not constitute a breach of research ethics rules.
REC also concluded that the postdoc’s reporting was mostly handled according to UiO’s internal guidelines and that an initial error did not negatively impact either party.
No signs of scientific misconduct or breaches of research ethics norms were found, and REC therefore did not propose any measures such as correcting or retracting the scientific work.
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 Regulations of Employment Conditions for Scientific Engagement § 1-2
- The draft bill of The Norwegian Research Ethics Act (Prop. 158 L (2015-2016) Chapter 5.2.1
- The Norwegian National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology (NENT): Guidelines for Research Ethics in Science and Technology (2015) Section 4
- Guidelines for the processing of cases of possible violations of recognized norms in research ethics at UiO
The text has been translated and improved by UiO GPT.
More statements and summaries from the Research Ethics Committee at UiO