The University of Aarhus's rules of 29 June 2000 to safeguard good scientific practice

Established according to Section 4, Subsection 1 of Act no. 1089 of 23 December 1992 on Universities and other Institutions of Higher Education ( The University Act ), cf. Order no. 1177 of 22 December 1999.

Rules

Section 1 . Scientific work at the University of Aarhus must be carried out in keeping with good scientific practice , cf. Subsections 2 and 3.

Subsection 2 . Good scientific practice requires scientific integrity . In other words, there must be no display of behaviour which can be characterised as being "scientifically dishonest", as this notion is defined in the Danish Ministry of Research and Information Technology's Order no. 933 of 15 December 1998 concerning the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty ( Redelighedsbekendtgørelsen ) Section 3. Here, scientific dishonesty concerns actions or omissions which are characterised by:

1. Falsification or distortion of the scientific message having taken place during research, or grossly misleading information or actions regarding a person's efforts within the research, and
2. The person concerned having acted with intent or gross negligence regarding the activities under consideration.

Subsection 3 . Furthermore, good scientific practice requires good research conduct . This, in other words, means that scientific work must be carried out with due respect for the generally recognized methods and any scientific codes of ethics that may apply to the area(s) of research in question, as well as in accordance with the protection of the personal and professional integrity of the person or persons concerned. Actions and omissions contrary to good scientific practice might, for example , be:

1. Negligence, which cannot be described as gross, but the consequences of which must, however, be considered as having serious implications for the research.
2. Deliberate misrepresentation of research results or being misleading about one's own or another person's role in the research, even though the extent and consequences of the unlawfulness cannot in themselves be considered as serious.
3. Conduct which is not in keeping with the guidelines concerning good scientific practice that apply to the field in question which may be issued by official and/or professionally acknowledged organisations (e.g. applicable experimental protocols, IT, documentation, authorship, private funding, etc.)
4. Participation in scientific work where personal or financial interests in the course of the work and its results can give reason for reasonable doubt being cast upon the impartiality of the person in question.

Subsection 4 . Finally, good scientific practice requires loyal collegiate conduct , which respects generally recognized standards for the presentation of and comment on both one's own scientific efforts and those of others.

Subsection 5 . The requirement for good scientific practice is not a requirement for "political correctness" or a requirement about restraint concerning professional and objective criticism of other people's scientific work or of current professional theories.

Committee

Section 2 . The Rector appoints an internal, advisory committee for the handling of matters concerning possible breaks with good scientific practice in connection with research at the University of Aarhus (the Practice Committee). The committee consists of a chairman and a representative from each faculty. The committee can, on an ad hoc basis, supplement its members with one or two people with special insight into a particular subject or area of research.

Section 3 . The task of the committee is to consider cases of the kind mentioned in Section 2, which are:

1. raised through a written complaint to the committee,
2. submitted to the committee by the Rector, or
3. taken up by the committee on its own initiative or following a request from a person who wishes to be cleared of circulating rumours and allegations.

Subsection 2 . Any person may file a complaint according to Subsection 1, item 1. The committee does not consider complaints which have been submitted anonymously.

Subsection 3 . The committee can only in special cases deal with a complaint which is not presented to the committee within a reasonable period of time after the complainant has or ought to have the necessary assumptions for presenting the complaint.

Subsection 4 . The committee can dismiss a case when the complaint is clearly deemed to be groundless, or when the case is not considered to be of appreciable significance to the research.

Subsection 5 . Only in special cases will the committee consider cases concerning activities dating back five years or more.

Subsection 6 . Complaints concerning scientific dishonesty which have been submitted or can be submitted before one of the three Danish committees on scientific dishonesty which have been established by the Board of the Danish Research Councils according to Order no. 933 of 15 December 1998 concerning the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty can be dismissed, or the action temporarily suspended, until a decision has been made by the committee on scientific dishonesty in question. The committee can also choose to submit a case on its own accord before one of the aforementioned committees on scientific dishonesty.

Subsection 7 . The committee cannot make binding decisions in a case, but can only offer its evaluation of the case and come forward with a reasoned recommendation to the Rector about possible sanctions, etc., see Sections 6 and 9.

Subsection 8 . The committee presents a report each year to the Rector about its work.

Procedures

Section 4 . After a case has been brought before the committee in accordance with Section 3, Subsection 1, items 1 or 2, the committee decides to what extent the case should be considered, or whether the case should be dismissed or temporarily suspended in pursuance of Section 3, Subsections 2-6. If the committee has decided to consider a case in accordance with Section 3, Subsection 1, item 3, the committee shall correspondingly take a decision about this in accordance with Section 3, Subsections 4-6.

Subsection 2 . The committee can in special cases decide that a case that has previously been dismissed or concluded must be reopened. This applies especially in the event of new and conclusive evidence.

Section 5 . The committee itself considers a given case and endeavours to establish the facts of the case as best possible in accordance with the usual hearing of evidence. Here, the committee is able to invite the opinion of specialists with relevant knowledge about the subject in question. Moreover, the Danish Public Administration Act applies to the handling of the case.

Subsection 2 . A case is normally handled in writing, but the committee can, depending on the circumstances, decide on an oral presentation. The parties involved in a case which is being dealt with orally by the committee can be assisted by experts.

Section 6 . When a case has been finalised, the committee prepares a written report in which it gives its reasons for its conclusions as well as its recommendation concerning possible sanctions. The report, etc., is submitted to the Rector and sent to the parties involved in the case.

Section 7 . The recommendation of the committee must state whether the recommendation has the support of all members of the committee. If the committee has not been unanimous, the recommendation of the committee must also include the opinion of the those in the minority.

Section 8 . If the case has been previously considered by the committees on scientific dishonesty mentioned in Section 3, Subsection 6, and if it has been stated that scientific dishonesty has taken place in a specific case, the committee can settle for a statement about the choice of sanctions.

Sanctions

Section 9 . If a committee concludes that the conduct shown is in conflict with good scientific practice, the committee can, on the basis of the seriousness and clarity of the matter in hand, propose to the Rector:

1. that the individual concerned be informed about the criticisable conduct (reprimand/warning);
2. that the Rector consider the employment of the individual concerned;
3. that the scientific work in question be withdrawn;
4. that any injured party be informed;
5. that any private or public cooperation partners be informed;
6. that other relevant public authorities involved with the field in question be informed;
7. that if it is deemed that it is a case involving a punishable offence, the matter be reported to the police;
8. that the relevant committee on scientific dishonesty - which has been established in pursuance of the Order concerning the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty - be requested to state its position concerning a possible choice of sanctions.

Confidentiality

Section 10 . The members of the committee are held to the same degree of confidentiality as for public functions concerning any information gained in their capacity as members of the committee.

Effective date

Section 11 . The rules take effect on 1 July 2000.

The University of Aarhus, 29 June 2000

Henning Lehmann
Rector

Per Møller Madsen
Head of Department

www.au.dk/en/rules/2000/au9