For Plagiarism of Text, Publications Or Other Documents Where Plagiarism Has Been Found
1. What the suspicion concerns (place a cross against what the case concerns):
Falsification
Fabrication
Plagiarism
Wrongful statement of authorship
False information in applications or similar
Other serious breaches of good research practice (state what):
2. Who is suspected of research misconduct?
Name / Position / Institution/enterprise
3. In what context is there suspicion of research misconduct and in what time period is this assumed to have occurred?
Planning of research / Time period:
Conducting of research / Time period:
Reporting of research forskningforskningKollegavurdering / Time period:
Other / Time period:
4. In which scientific publications or other documents is there suspicion of misconduct? (list up to four)
1.
.jfh
2.
3.
4.
Is there suspicion of misconduct in more publications and/or unpublished works? (describe the extent of this):
5. Who is the sender of this report to the National Commission for the Investigation of Research Misconduct?
Name / Position / Institution/
enterprise / Tel. / E-mail
Whether and how the person(s) reporting are affected by the alleged misconduct:
The undersigned has previously reported his/her suspicions to (institution/enterprise, contact person, and when):
The undersigned is aware that the persons named above as being suspected of misconduct, the institutions/enterprises where they work and possibly others whom the Commission may find to be under suspicion, or whom the Commission engages to investigate the case, may have access to all documents relating to the case which the undersigned passes on to the Commission. The undersigned is also in agreement that all documents relating to the case that come into the possession of the Commission for the Investigation of Research Misconduct will be publicly available (except where confidentiality applies) by the time the Commission has completed its consideration of the case, pursuant to the acts and regulations which apply to the Commission.
Accepted (put a cross in the box):
Date:
Signature(s):
The completed and signed form with attachments should be sent to: or Granskingsutvalget, 0152 Oslo Telephone enquiries should be directed to +47 23 31 83 00
Page 2
Detailed description of the suspicion of research misconduct (maximum one page):Others who may have information relevant to the case:
Name / Position / Institution / Tel. / E-mail
Page 3
List of attachments1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
For plagiarism of text, publications or other documents where plagiarism has been found should be attached with the plagiarised sections marked, as well as the publications or other documents that are plagiarised from, with the plagiarised sections indicated. If there is a large quantity of text, a selection can be made and a short commentary on the remainder be made in the description on page 2.
For falsification, publications or other documents where there is suspicion of falsification should be attached with marking/indication of the assumed falsified data or similar. The grounds for suspicion should be given in the description on page 2.
For fabrication, publications or other documents where there is suspicion of fabrication et al. should be attached with marking/indication of the assumed fabricated data or similar. The grounds for suspicion should be given in the description on page 2.
For an allegation of wrongful statement of authorship, relevant publications or other documents should be attached. A short statement regarding why any of the authors is wrongfully stated as a co-author or why any persons have wrongfully not been included as authors should be given in the description on page 2.
For false information in applications, the relevant applications should be attached. The grounds for suspicion should be given in the description on page 2.
For other circumstances the documentation that is regarded as relevant should be attached. Circumstances that do not constitute serious breaches of good scientific practice will not be considered.
Page 4
Information on procedure and publication of cases reported to the National Commission for the Investigation of Research Misconduct
The National Commission for the Investigation of Research Misconduct shall consider cases of alleged research misconduct. The Commission shall consider specific reports from institutions/enterprises which conduct research, or from private individuals. It may also take up cases on its own initiative. The Commission itself assesses whether a report gives grounds for further investigation or not.
The activity of the Commission is rooted in the Act on ethics and integrity in research (Act no. 56/2006 on the treatment of ethics and conduct in research). Research misconduct is here defined as "falsification, fabrication, plagiarism and other serious breaches of good scientific practice that have been committed wilfully or through gross negligence when planning, carrying out or reporting on research". The guidelines enacted by the National Committees for Research Ethics and other relevant Norwegian or international guidelines form the basis in assessing what constitutes a breach of good scientific practice.
The Commission shall consider cases that apply to research under private or public aegis that is conducted in Norway, by researchers outside of Norway who have a Norwegian employer, or if a substantial part of the research funding stems from Norway.
Most breaches of good scientific practice are outside the definition of research misconduct as stated in the Act on ethics and integrity in research, and are deemed as carelessness, questionable practice, poor work etc. The Commission will not investigate such cases – the institutions/enterprises involved have a responsibility to consider such cases themselves.
The responsibility of the National Commission for the Investigation of Research Misconduct is limited to serious cases where there may be reference to research misconduct in the legal sense. In serious cases the Commission will partly constitute an independent addition to institutions/enterprises, and partly a cooperation partner for these. In the normal course of events the institution/enterprise will consider the case. As a rule the Commission will refer the report to the institution/enterprise concerned for local consideration, if the case is not already being handled locally. The Commission is not a complaints body for cases considered locally, but itself determines whether there are grounds for investigation by the Commission. The National Commission for the Investigation of Research Misconduct may also decide that a report should be investigated immediately by the Commission, without being considered locally. The institution/enterprise in question and the person/persons against whom the action is brought will, as a rule, be asked first to comment on the content of the complaint. The Commission has around six meetings per year, so that the case will normally be given initial consideration by the Commission at the most three to four months after the report is received by the secretariat. In particularly serious and special cases the Commission may hold an extraordinary meeting to consider the case as quickly as possible.
When the report form is received by the Commission’s secretariat, it will be a public document subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act confidentiality and the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act regarding availability. The Commission will, as a rule, exclude the case from public access until it has completed its deliberations, but the Commission may also decide during the process to make it public.
It is recommended that the person bringing a case before the Commission should consult with the Commission’s secretariat on what is relevant for the Commission to consider and how the report should be compiled. Reports to the Commission should not in principle be put forward anonymously, but may be put forward through the lawyer, employee representative, ethics or safety representative of the person reporting the case.
The Commission’s case procedure and decision may be appealed against to the Ministry of Education and Research. The deadline for appeal is three weeks, cf. § 29 of the Public Administration Act.