Processing suspected misconduct
Allegations and suspicion of scientific misconduct at ÐÒÔË·Éͧ¼Æ»® must be processed in a responsible and satisfactory manner. 
Main content
The aim of ÐÒÔË·Éͧ¼Æ»®â€™s processing of suspected scientific misconduct is to clarify the facts of the case. The processing must also take into account both the person or persons who is/are under suspicion and the person or persons who have reported the case.  Ìý
In the interests of all involved, such cases should be dealt with as quickly as possible. The proceedings must comply with relating to relating to decisions, and the statutory provisions as far as they are appropriate. Ìý
A clear preponderance of evidence is required for someone to have acted in a scientifically fraudulent manner (scientific misconduct). This burden of proof applies both to the facts of the case and to the researcher’s gross negligence or intent ( and .)   Ìý
Attempts must first be made at the faculties to resolve cases of possible violations of recognised research ethics norms. If the faculties are unable to resolve these cases, they are submitted to the Research Ethics Committee at ÐÒÔË·Éͧ¼Æ»® for processing. Ìý
However, the processing of reports assumes that the case in question: Ìý
- is affiliated with scientific activities at ÐÒÔË·Éͧ¼Æ»®, or Ìý
- involves or affects one or more researchers at ÐÒÔË·Éͧ¼Æ»®â€¯Ìý
ÐÒÔË·Éͧ¼Æ»®â€™s case processing must follow the guidelines, which are laid down by the University Board.Ìý
The Research Ethics Committee at ÐÒÔË·Éͧ¼Æ»®
The Research Ethics Committee has a twofold mandate and must: Ìý
- contribute to promoting knowledge about research ethics and preventing research misconduct. Ìý
- process cases concerning suspected violations of recognised research ethics norms. Ìý
The committee shall process cases concerning possible serious violations of recognised research ethics norms. The committee may also verify the faculties’ statements when cases are closed at faculty level. The committee may also review the conclusion of faculty statements, raise matters on its own initiative, and thereby ask a faculty to investigate a relevant case. Ìý
Central Research Ethics Committee members Ìý
The committee is chaired by the Vice-Rector for Research and International Relations, and has members with expertise in research, research ethics and law. The committee has one member who is not employed at the institution. Ìý
Members: Ìý
- Vice-Rector Benedicte Carlsen, Chairperson Ìý
- Professor Lise ØvreÃ¥s, Department of Biological Sciences Ìý
- Professor Nina Øyen, Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care Ìý
- Associate Professor Torger Kielland, Faculty of Law Ìý
- Senior Researcher Inge Amundsen, CMI Ìý
Deputy members: Ìý
- Professor Rasmus Tore Slaattelid, Centre for the Study of the Sciences and the Humanities (deputy for internal members) Ìý
- Associate Professor Liliia Oprysk, Faculty of Law (deputy for lawyer) Ìý
- Professor Knut Ims, Norwegian School of Economics (deputy for external member) Ìý
Secretariat: Ìý
- Silje Haaskjold Sætre, University Director’s OfficeÌý
- Helge Gismarvik Høvik, University Director’s OfficeÌý
Procedural processÌý
Faculty processing Ìý
All faculties have a local research ethics committee that investigates and processes individual cases. Local research ethics committees may reject or close a case, or submit a case to the Research Ethics Committee at ÐÒÔË·Éͧ¼Æ»® for further processing. The faculty must ensure that adequate information is provided about the case. Cases that are closed at the faculty must be reported to the Research Ethics Committee. Ìý
Cases of a serious nature – involving suspected scientific misconduct – must be submitted to the Research Ethics Committee for processing. Ìý
Research Ethics Committee processing Ìý
The Research Ethics Committee must ensure that adequate information is provided about the case before it can take it into consideration. The committee may also verify the faculties’ statements when cases are closed at faculty level. The committee may also review the conclusion of faculty statements, raise matters on its own initiative, and thereby ask a faculty to investigate a relevant case. Ìý
Right of appeal  Ìý
In cases where the Research Ethics Committee at ÐÒÔË·Éͧ¼Æ»® concludes that a researcher has acted in a scientifically fraudulent manner (scientific misconduct), the researcher may appeal to the National Commission for the Investigation of and Ìý. The Research Ethics Committee is responsible for processing the appeal. Ìý
Reporting to the National Commission for the Investigation of Research Misconduct Ìý
ÐÒÔË·Éͧ¼Æ»® must report to the regarding cases concerning possible serious violations of recognised research ethics norms  .ÌýÌý
The content of the case, not the conclusion of the case, determines whether the case should be reported. The duty to report applies regardless of whether the case was resolved at a faculty or processed by ÐÒÔË·Éͧ¼Æ»®â€™s Central Research Ethics Committee. This committee is responsible for the above mention reporting.  Ìý
Impartiality Ìý
The Public Administration Act’s general rules on impartiality apply to the processing of cases concerning suspected violations of recognised research ethics norms. The rules on which persons are qualified to prepare the basis for a decision or to make any decision in an administrative case are found in . Ìý
Public disclosure and access Ìý
As a general rule, information in cases concerning possible violations of recognised research ethics norms is exempt from public disclosure until the case has been finally decided by the institution and .   Ìý
Information about which ÐÒÔË·Éͧ¼Æ»® has a duty of confidentiality will be exempt from public disclosure even after the case has been decided.  Ìý
Support after wrongful accusationsÌý
In cases where there is no violation of recognised research ethics norms, or only a less serious violation of them, the Research Ethics Committee must, according to ÐÒÔË·Éͧ¼Æ»®â€™s guidelines, assess whether there is a need to implement measures in order to restore the reputation of the researcher/researchers. This must be done in dialogue with the researcher and the faculty.    Ìý