-
Decision of 26 June on a number of points of scientific dishonesty in 15 scientific articles
The DCSD found the defendant not guilty of scientific dishonesty in this case, which covered a range of issues of scientific dishonesty in 15 scientific articles. The DCSD decided that part of the complaint was outside the scope of the DCSD as it concerned the research quality of a scientific product or the validity or truth of scientific theories. After an overall assessment of the parts of the complaint within the scope of the DCSD, it was found that it could not be shown with sufficient certainty that the respondent researcher had acted scientifically dishonest in connection with the execution and reporting of research in the 15 scientific articles.
-
-
Decision of 26 June 2015 on the construction of data, etc. in a scientific article
21 August 2015:
DCSD's assessment in the case is solely related to Figure 1 as the complaint only was limited to this figure. As such the conclusion in the decision and views of the DCSD expressed below only concern Figure 1 in the article.
The DCSD found the defendant not guilty of scientific dishonesty in this case, which concerned misrepresentation of information in a scientific article about the species and number of animals used and the construction of data illustrated in a figure. The DCSD found after an overall assessment of the information available, that it cannot be established with sufficient certainty that the respondent researcher has not been in possession of and has conducted experiments on the number of animals indicated in the scientific article. The DCSD also found that it was an error when the animals were stated to be a different species. Regarding the construction of data the DCSD found that there was a lack of source data for zero values, which should have been listed, but that this could not justify suspicion of scientific misconduct.
-
Decision of 21 April 2015 on use of previously used research material
The DCSD declined to take the case under further consideration. The committee based its decision on the fact that the complaint involved more than 40 researchers and more than 20 scientific articles, and that it was unikely that the committee would reach a decision of scientific dishonesty in the case.
Decision of 18 May 2015 on failure to declare Conflict of Interest, one-sided and erroneous references, and wrongful declaration of authorship
DCSD declined to take the case under further consideration as the complaints concerning failure to declare Conflict of Interest, unilateral references, and wrongful indication of authorship were considered manifestly unfounded, while the complaint concerning erroneous references was not within the scope of the DCSD.
Decision of 9 March 2015 on plagiarism in apatent application
The DCSD found the Defendant not guilty of scientific dishonesty in regard to a patent application. The DCSD considered that there was no basis to conclude that figures or datapoints had been plagiarized.