2013

Decision of 18 December 2013 on manipulation of graphical material (case no. 1)

DCSD found the Defendant guilty of scientific dishonesty in four scientific articles because of manipulation of graphical material. The Defendant was particularly deeply involved in drafting graphics and therefore had particular responsibility for this material. DCSD rules therefore that the Defendant was guilty at the very least of gross negligence by overlooking the manipulation of graphical material.

Decision of 18 December 2013 on insufficient description of test subject, etc. (case no. 2)

DCSD found the Defendant and her co-authors not guilty of any scientific dishonesty in this case. One of the articles included a serious breach of good scientific practice because the description of methodology did not contain significant information about the test subjects. However, the Defendant was found not guilty of gross negligence because the failure to provide information was due to an error made during the editing of the article. 

Decision of 18 December 2013 on selection of test subject, re-use of biopsy material, research protocol, image manipulation, etc. (case no. 3)


14 February 2014

DCSD has received new information in the case regarding re-use of biopsy material in three of the articles forming part of the decision of 18 December 2013. Based on this new information, DCSD has decided to reopen the case.

28 August 2014:

DCSD have issued a ruling in the reopened case


In six of the 12 articles covered by the complaint, DCSD found the Defendant guilty of scientific dishonesty in the form of:

  • Lack of information about the selection of test subjects in one article
  • Lack of information about biopsy material in six articles entailing that the interrelationship between the results in two articles and a selection of test subjects in four articles was concealed from the reader
  • Lack of information in one article about the fact that a group of test subjects was subject to a different research protocol than the one described in the article
  • Joint responsibility for image manipulation in article

DCSD found that the Defendant had acted intentionally in relation to the lack of information about biopsy material. In addition DCSD found that the Defendant had acted grossly negligently in relation to the lack of information about selection of test subjects and the research protocol for a group of test subjects. Furthermore DCSD found the Defendant joint responsible for the image manipulation as the Defendant had acted gross negligently as leading author of the article by failing to respond to the image manipulation.

  • Decision in pdf (the decision has been removed due to DCSD's reopening of the case)

Decision of 28 October 2013 on authorship and misleading referece to data

The DCSD found that the defendant had committed scientific dishonesty by appearing as the sole author of an article and by including a reference which did not support the data it indicated to support.

Decision of 22 October 2013 on methods for chemical analysis, etc.

The DCSD declined to take the case under further consideration as certain claims were outside the scope of the DCSD and part of the complaint was manifestly unfounded.

Decision of 3 September 2013 on 'scientific product'

The chairman of the DCSD declined to take the case under consideration as the complaint did not concern a scientific product and thus was not within the scope of the DCSD.

last modified Dec 15, 2015