Guidelines in the event of violations of research ethics standards

Guidelines for the consideration of matters relating to possible violations of recognised research ethics standards at MF, the Norwegian School of Theology, Religion and Society, as considered by the MF Research Committee (reference 32/20) on 27 August 2020.

This text is based on the indicative guidelines adopted by the joint Integrity Committee (Redelighetsutvalget - in Norwegian only) on 22 April 2020.

For detailed procedures, please go to chapter 2 of the guidelines.

1. General provisions

1.1 About the Integrity Committee and the purpose of the indicative guidelines

The Integrity Committee is an academically independent body that makes statements on potential violations of recognised research ethics standards at the Oslo School of Architecture and Design (AHO), the Oslo National Academy of the Arts (KHiO), MF Norwegian School of Theology, Religion and Society and the Norwegian Academy of Music (NMH) in accordance with the guidelines adopted by the individual institutions.

The Integrity Committee is chaired by an external chairperson with legal expertise. The Committee also comprises one member from each institution, as well as two candidate representatives. The Committee will comprise both scientific and artistic expertise.
The full terms of reference have been published on the MF web page on research ethics and privacy.

The institutions can adopt their own guidelines for the consideration of matters relating to possible violations of recognised research ethics standards. The indicative guidelines will serve as the basis for developing local guidelines. The individual institutions’ committees for research and development work will be the decision-making bodies for local guidelines, with the Head of Research having the main responsibility.

1.2 Underlying documents

The following documents form the basis for the indicative guidelines:
a) The Act on Ethics and Integrity in Research (Research Ethics Act)
b) The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity
c) Research Ethics Standards issued by national research ethics committees

1.3 Definitions

Recognised research ethics standards refer to generally accepted standards for good research practices as these are presented in the national and international guidelines and conventions applicable at any time. What constitutes recognised research ethics standards can therefore vary over time and between the different fields and will develop in line with societal developments. The national research ethics committees are crucial resources for the work on defining recognised research ethics standards and how these must be understood.

Scientific misconduct refers to falsification, fabrication, plagiarism and other serious violations of recognised research ethics standards that are committed wilfully or grossly negligently as part of the planning, implementation or reporting of research, cf. Section 8, second paragraph of the Research Ethics Act. Scientific misconduct can take place in both academic research and artistic development work.

1.4 The relationship between the Integrity Committee and the institutions

The institutions are responsible for considering matters relating to possible violations of research ethics standards, cf. Section 6, first paragraph of the Research Ethics Act.

The institutions are required to create and develop a culture that allows for all matters relating to ethical questions to be raised. The need for ethical discussions relating to both general research questions, specific topics and specific research projects (including the implementation thereof) must be accommodated. This is a prerequisite for developing a culture that prevents serious cases. Discussions relating to debatable research practices or “small-scale cheating” are also important in order to raise awareness of the specific content of good research ethics. Such questions are part of the continuous conversation relating to research ethics among the MF employee base and can be raised as matters for discussion by the Research Committee (RC).

At the same time, an allegation of misconduct may have serious consequences for individual researchers. There should therefore be a clear distinction between serious and less serious violations (general misconduct matters) of recognised research ethics standards. This should also be reflected in the process and consideration of matters.

Researchers can also have good intentions but make mistakes without this resulting in an allegation of misconduct. Especially if the act does not appear to be part of a pattern, but a standalone error, researchers who discover or are made aware of such errors should be given the opportunity to admit their mistake, correct it and ensure that the consequences are minimised.

The Integrity Committee should therefore primarily consider matters relating to scientific misconduct and other serious violations of recognised research ethics standards. Less serious matters (general misconduct matters) should be discussed and attempted to be resolved at institution level without the matters being submitted to the Integrity Committee for a statement.

This does not reduce the institutions’ responsibility for also raising, discussing and making decisions on less serious individual matters.

Nevertheless, matters should always be attempted to be resolved at the lowest possible level and as early as possible. They should ideally be resolved before the matter turns into a “case”. Even serious matters can be resolved amicably. Good management and good systems for follow-up are crucial.

1.5 Basic principles for the consideration of matters

The following principles will apply to the consideration of matters (both at the institution and by the Integrity Committee):
a) All matters must be resolved at the lowest possible level.
b) All matters must be considered at the institution before being submitted to the Integrity Committee.
c) Consideration must be fair, thorough and as effective as possible.
d) Anyone who is accused of scientific misconduct must be considered innocent until a final decision that scientific misconduct has taken place is made. A clear balance of probabilities to assume that the accused has committed misconduct is required.
e) Anyone participating in the consideration of misconduct matters must consider their own impartiality prior to considering matters.
f) The consideration of the matter must lead to a conclusion.
g) Chapters II, III, IV and V of the Public Administration Act will apply to the consideration of misconduct matters as appropriate, regardless of whether the matter is being considered by the institution or the Integrity Committee.
h) All misconduct matters may be exempted from public disclosure while the consideration of the matter is ongoing, cf. Section 11 of the Research Ethics Act. Internal documents may be exempt from public disclosure. When a statement is available, the statement will be public, with the exception of any confidentiality information and subject to the framework set out by the Personal Data Act. The same applies to any documents included in the underlying materials for the consideration of the matter.

When matters are being considered by MF, the institution may, as needed, obtain statements from the Research Committee (RC), which constitutes the research ethics committee at MF.

1.6. Information for the board

The Board at the institution shall be kept informed of the Integrity Committee’s work. The Integrity Committee’s annual report shall be presented to the Board of MF for informational purposes.

1.7 Protection of whistleblowers and the accused

The institution shall contribute to ensuring that whistleblowers are not subjected to retaliation.
The institution shall ensure that anyone who is accused but found not to have committed scientific misconduct does not experience any risk to their name and reputation. In consultation with the individual concerned, the institution will draw up information that will be shared through relevant academic forums and the workplace.

2. Consideration of individual matters (notifications/whistleblowing reports)

2.1 Reporting a matter

2.1.1 Is this a genuine matter?

Before a complainant adopts the formal process for the consideration of misconduct matters, the specific matter should be discussed with a superior or another employee that the complainant trusts. Advice can also be sought from the national research ethics committees.
If the conclusion is that the matter relates to unethical research practices, the following procedures must be followed.

2.1.2 Who to report to and how?

All matters must be reported to the Rector using an online form. Please use the link at the top of this page.

In cases where Rector may be partial, you may report directly to MFs Director via the alternative online form.

The chairperson of the Integrity Committee may also be consulted, cf. Section 2.2.1 below.

Written report. Any allegation of violations of recognised research ethics standards made against employees at MF should preferably be reported to the Rector in writing.
The Rector shall consider the basis for the allegation without undue delay. The Rector may seek assistance from a legal professional and/or experienced academic employees.

Verbal allegations of scientific misconduct shall be investigated by the Rector at their own initiative. Such investigations shall be conducted without undue delay and, if necessary, with the assistance of a legal professional and/or experienced academic employees.

2.1.3 Who can make a report?

Anyone can report a possible matter relating to academic/artistic employees at the institution, including internal and external individuals and/or groups.

2.2 Preparatory proceedings and any decisions shall take place at institution level

2.2.1 Preparation

The person who receives a report about a possible matter, shall initiate further investigation of the matter without undue delay.

The report shall be submitted to the Rector via an online form.

In cases where Rector may be partial, you may report directly to MFs Director via the alternative online form.

It is the chairperson of the Integrity Committee who will determine whether or not the Rector is impartial in accordance with the principles set down in Section 6 of the Public Administration Act.

If the Rector is found to be impartial, the matter will be returned to the Rector for preparatory consideration and any decision relating to the matter. If the Rector is found not to be impartial, the Integrity Committee will assume responsibility for the continued proceedings. The chairperson of the Integrity Committee may request administrative assistance from the institution. The principles set out in Sections 2.2.2 to 2.2.5 shall apply to the extent appropriate.

2.2.2 Institutional consideration

Chapter IV of the Public Administration Act shall apply and means that the parties to the matter shall be notified and given the opportunity to make a statement (Section 16 of the Public Administration Act) and the Rector shall ensure that the matter is illuminated as well as possible (Section 17 of the Public Administration Act).

According to Section 2 litra e) of the Public Administration Act, a party is “an individual to which the decision relates or that the matter otherwise directly concerns”. The suspected individual in matters relating to violations of research ethics standards will, according to this provision, be considered a party to the matter. Reporting a matter will generally not mean that the reporter will be considered a party to the matter. Nevertheless, depending on the circumstances, the reporter may have party status, e.g. in the event that they must be considered a victim. A reporter who is party to a matter will have the same party rights under Chapter IV and V of the Public Administration Act as the accused.

Facts shall be obtained through interviews/meetings with the accused, the individual making the allegation and others, by obtaining documents and by taking any necessary and appropriate measures to shed light on the matter. The Rector shall be given access to all necessary materials for proper consideration of the matter.

The accused and any complainant shall be given access to the materials the Rector uses as the basis for their opinion and shall be given the opportunity to respond to or supplement the materials (Section 18 onwards of the Public Administration Act).
This should preferably take place in writing. The right of access means that the party will generally have the right to know who the matter has been reported by. Anonymisation of the reporter may take place only in cases where there are special grounds to indicate that this information should not be disclosed, cf. Section 19-2 litra b) of the Public Administration Act . It must be specified that the right to know who the matter has been reported by pursuant to Section 19 of the Public Administration Act applies to the party.

The Rector shall conduct meetings with the individual who has made the allegation and with the accused. Written minutes shall be recorded from meetings. The individual who makes the allegation and the accused are both entitled to seek assistance from an advisor/lawyer.
Meetings may be conducted with other employees and external parties with knowledge of the matter, as well as with persons who possess expertise within the research field in which the matter has arisen.

In the event of serious or complex matters or if required for other reasons, a statement about the matter must be obtained from the Research Committee. The statement from the Research Committee will, among other things, include an assessment of whether or not the matter should be submitted to the Joint Integrity Committee.

After the Research Committee has made a statement on the matter, the Rector will determine whether the matter will be closed with a statement from the institution or whether it should be submitted to the Joint Integrity Committee for a statement and conclusion.

2.2.3 Decisions relating to the continued proceedings

When the matter has been adequately illuminated, the Rector will reach one of five possible conclusions:
a) The matter is rejected because it is considered to be an HR matter and is transferred to line management.
b) The matter is rejected as “clearly baseless”. The decision shall be made in writing and shall be justified and submitted to the parties in accordance with Chapter V of the Public Administration Act.
c) The matter is amicably resolved by involving the affected parties, managers and, if appropriate, elected representatives. The matter shall be closed if resolved. The institution shall submit a report to the Integrity Committee. Section 2.3.4 shall apply to the extent appropriate.
d) The matter will be settled by the Rector or the Head of Research as the person(s) responsible for considering the matter (less serious matters). The decision shall be made in writing and shall be justified and submitted to the parties and the Integrity Committee. Section 2.3.4 shall apply to the extent appropriate.
e) The matter is submitted to the Integrity Committee for further consideration.

2.2.4 Criteria for submitting matters to the Integrity Committee

The institution will submit the matter to the Integrity Committee if there are suspicions of serious violations of recognised research ethics standards (scientific misconduct) that cannot be amicably resolved or if the Rector, regardless of the severity of the matter, finds that there is a need for an independent statement.

The submission must include the facts of the matter, including copies of original documents, and shall constitute a written report. The report shall consider the following:

• whether the researcher is considered to have committed scientific misconduct,
• whether there are any systemic failings at the institution, and
• whether the scientific work needs to be corrected or withdrawn.

2.2.5 Appealing the institution’s rejection or decision

The parties may appeal the Rector’s rejection of the matter to the Integrity Committee. If the matter has been submitted directly to the chairperson of the Integrity Committee and the chairperson rejects the continued consideration of the matter, the parties may ask the National Investigation Committee to consider the matter.
The Investigation Committee has no duty to consider such a request.

Researchers may also appeal the Rector’s decision that there has been a less serious violation of recognised research ethics standards to the Integrity Committee.

2.3 Consideration by the Integrity Committee

2.3.1 Should the matter be rejected?

The chairperson of the Integrity Committee will determine whether a matter that has been received will be considered or rejected. Rejections shall be justified by the matter being considered to fall outside of the factual and institutional scope of the committee. If the matter is rejected, the matter shall be returned to the Rector with a justification of the rejection.

2.3.2 Independent proceedings

ven if the matter has been prepared by the institution, the Integrity Committee will have an independent responsibility to ensure that the matter is adequately illuminated before the committee makes a statement.

The preparations performed by the Integrity Committee shall largely be done in writing, but the chairperson of the committee may decide that the parties will be invited to oral negotiations or that the parties will be given the opportunity to present/elaborate on the matter orally. If oral presentations take place without both parties being present, written minutes must be taken so that the principle of contradiction can be upheld.

The Rector shall assist in obtaining further material as necessary or required to ensure the proper consideration of the matter.

2.3.3 Decisions

The Integrity Committee shall make its decision through a majority vote. The committee shall be considered to have a quorum when the chairperson and a minimum of two members/deputy members are present. In the event of disagreement/dissent, a
minimum of three votes shall be required to constitute a majority vote.

Considerations by the Integrity Committee shall be concluded by the committee making a written statement. The Integrity Committee shall determine whether the statement will be issued at a meeting or through written circulation.

The committee shall conclude whether there has been a violation of recognised research ethics standards, including whether the matter relates to scientific misconduct.

2.3.4 Reporting

The assessment and conclusion of the committee shall be set down in a written report. The report shall:
a) consider

• whether the researcher has committed scientific misconduct,
• whether there are any systemic failings at the institution, and
• whether the scientific work should be corrected or withdrawn,

b) include a summary of the documents relating to the matter, witness statements and other materials the committee has used as the basis for its conclusion,
c) include information about the facts the committee has found to have been proven, and the inferences/conclusions the committee has made on the basis of these facts.

2.3.5 Follow-up on the Integrity Committee’s decision and assessment

The Integrity Committee’s conclusion on the matter of whether there have been any violations of recognised research ethics standards shall be binding on the part of the institution and shall form the basis for its continued consideration of the matter.
Any recommendation from the Integrity Committee concerning the continued follow-up of the matter, including whether the scientific work should be corrected or withdrawn, shall not be binding on the part of the institution.

2.4 Right to appeal

Statements that conclude that a researcher has committed scientific misconduct, may be appealed to the Investigation Committee by the researcher. A party whose allegation of scientific misconduct is not upheld shall not be entitled to lodge an appeal. Nor shall there be any right to appeal any statements relating to violations of recognised research ethics standards that are not covered by the term “scientific misconduct” or the further follow-up of the matters. The Investigation Committee may, however, consider matters relating to violations of recognised research ethics standards at its own
initiative and parties who are not entitled to lodge appeals may make the Investigation Committee aware in the hope that the committee will take the initiative.

Chapter VI of the Public Administration Act relating to appeals and reversals shall apply to the extent appropriate and subject to the limitations arising from the Research Ethics Act and these guidelines. This means that the rules set down in the Public Administration Act concerning appeals deadlines (three weeks from being informed of the decision), requirements relating to preparation and other rules relating to proceedings, shall apply. The limitation that arises from the Research Ethics Act, primarily relates to who is entitled to appeal (only the accused individual), the matters that may be appealed (statements relating to something involving scientific misconduct) and the fact that the appeals body (Investigation Committee) may reverse a statement.

2.5 Conclusion/follow-up

2.5.1 Internal follow-up

If the Integrity Committee concludes that there has been no violation of recognised research ethics standards, the Rector shall determine and implement any necessary measures to restore the reputation of the accused. The Rector shall submit a report to the national Investigation Committee.
The Integrity Committee shall submit the committee’s statement to the parties and the institution. The submission to the parties shall explain the right of appeal and the appeals deadline. The institution shall be responsible for the internal follow-up of the statement, whether under the Government Employee Act or by following up in other ways, such as by restricting research time, withdrawing articles or similar.

Anyone who reports a matter, may also have whistleblower status in accordance with the Working Environment Act. Separate provisions shall apply to whistleblowing matters under the Working Environment Act.
If the committee concludes that there has been a violation of recognised research ethics standards, the Rector shall take all necessary steps that arise as a result of this, including informing all affected parties of the conclusion.
The committee’s assessment shall form the basis for decisions by the Institution Board. Decisions may be made, among other things, in relation to the following measures:

• withdrawal or changes to the scientific work,
• correction of any author statements,
• termination of employment, cf. Chapter 15 of the Working Environment Act,
• submitting a police report in relation to any criminal offences,
• training measures and
• information to the public.

The Rector, or someone authorised by the Rector, shall be the institution’s external spokesperson in matters relating to possible violations of recognised research ethics standards.

The Institution Board shall submit a report to the Investigation Committee and the Integrity Committee in the event of decisions relating to measures mentioned above.

2.5.2 External follow-up

The institutions shall report all matters relating to possible serious violations of recognised research ethics standards to the Investigation Committee. This means that serious matters shall be reported both in cases where it is concluded that scientific misconduct has occurred and cases where it is not. Less serious cases do not need to be reported.

The Investigation Committee may consider matters relating to possible violations of recognised research ethics standards at its own initiative. This means that the committee may consider matters that have not been appealed (for example because there is no right to appeal),and their right to make reversals shall not be subject to the limitations that otherwise arise from Section 35 of the Public Administration Act.

3. The Integrity Committee’s statements in matters of a general nature

The Rector may request that the Integrity Committee provide statements in matters of a general nature in order to clarify whether a practice (or potential practice) contravenes generally recognised research ethics standards. This shall apply regardless of whether the practice is considered to be a serious (scientific misconduct) or less serious violation of research ethics standards. This means that the institution may also receive statements from the Integrity Committee in matters that do not relate to a specific individual or situation. In such cases, the Rector’s submission to the Integrity Committee shall explain the practice and why there are doubts as to whether the practice contravenes recognised research ethics standards.