The University of Oslo (UiO) received an anonymous notification about possible self-plagiarism, duplication, and fabrication in four scientific articles. These articles shared overlapping themes and were based on surveys among students.
Some of the articles were prepared while the researcher was employed at UiO, and others while the researcher was in a new position. It was thus decided to conduct a joint assessment of the case in collaboration between the Research Ethics Committee at UiO (REC) and the integrity committee at the researcher’s new institution. In addition, an expert review was obtained.
REC based its assessment on the principle that scientific misconduct, according to The Norwegian Research Ethics Act, depends on two conditions: whether there indeed has been a violation of recognized research ethics norms, and whether the researcher can be blamed for this. There must be a clear preponderance of the evidence for this to be proven.
The committees found that one article contained reused text from another article without sufficient reference. This was a breach of recognized research ethics norms but was not considered severe enough to constitute scientific misconduct. Otherwise, the committees believed that the methodological and theoretical overlap of the articles was expected and natural.
Additionally, the committees determined that the four articles were sufficiently independent to be published separately. Each article had undergone peer review and was part of a comprehensive research project on an overarching theme. There were no indications of "salami-slicing."
It was also alleged that several of the empirical studies in the articles were fabricated. By comparing two of the articles, the committees found that they were based on two different surveys, even though some questions were identical. The researcher admitted that a failed copying of a table from the first article led to this and that she had forgotten to edit the table before publishing the second article. She documented that she had sent a correction to the journal immediately after discovering the error. This mistake could have been fabrication, despite the swift correction, but the committees concluded that the researcher did not act with gross negligence. Therefore, the conditions for scientific misconduct were not met.
Regarding the third and fourth articles, the committees also considered these to be based on two different surveys conducted among students from different cohorts at the same education programs and universities. The similarities in the questions were seen as natural, given the overarching theme of the surveys. Thus, there was no reason to consider this as fabrication.
The conclusion was that no scientific misconduct was detected after a thorough expert review, which was crucial for the committees' conclusion. No further corrections were needed, and no systemic failure was identified at the institutions.
The committees' conclusion in the case was unanimous.
References
- The Research Ethics Act (2017) § 8
The text has been translated and improved by UiO GPT.
More statements and summaries from the Research Ethics Committee at UiO