The Research Ethics Committee at UiO (REC) notes: Notified appealed the case to the National Commission for the Investigation of Research Misconduct (Granskingsutvalget - GRU), which also concluded that scientific misconduct had occured. GRU made an institutional recommendation concerning the relationship between HR and research ethics. Their case number is 2023/143.
The statements of REC are generally public, and REC will therefore explain its assessment of the case:
A PhD candidate at the Faculty of Medicine worked on a manuscript planned as a central part of his PhD dissertation. The candidate was originally listed as the first author. The manuscript was submitted for publication, and during the subsequent revision, his supervisor changed the authorship order twice. First, the candidate was demoted to second author and then credited only under "Acknowledgements."
The final change was made just before the manuscript was resubmitted to the relevant journal. When the editor asked if the candidate had approved being removed from the authorship list, the candidate answered no. The candidate contacted the Science Ombud at UiO and then reported the case to REC.
The PhD candidate is hereafter referred to as "Notifier" and the supervisor as "Notified". The relevant manuscript has a third co-author who is not part of the case and will hereafter be referred to as "Co-author".
Notified was Notifier's PhD supervisor, immediate administrative leader, leader of the research group, project leader, recipient of the project funding, and corresponding author of the manuscript.
It was undisputed that Notifier deserved the original credit as the first author, partly because he had conducted the experiments. First authorship is of significant academic merit in scientific and medical research and is often used for the person who has contributed most to the article.
REC divided the case into two factual questions, one for each of Notified’s two changes to the authorship order.
The legal question REC had to address was whether the potential breaches of relevant research ethical norms constituted scientific misconduct according to Section 8 of the Norwegian Research Ethics Act. The assessment was based on the norms in several research ethical documents that apply to all researchers at UiO. REC identified several norm breaches that collectively amounted to scientific misconduct according to the alternative "other serious breaches" in Section 8, Second Paragraph.
The first change in the authorship order, where Notifier was demoted to second author, was justified by Notified by stating that Notifier had not contributed sufficiently to the article's revision.
REC acknowledged Notified's efforts but referred to the COPE guidelines, which indicate that the threshold for changing the authorship order due to revision contributions is high. REC also found that Notifier still contributed significantly and actively in the revision, both scientifically and intellectually. This was based on an assessment of the two versions of the manuscript, and of emails between Notifier and Co-author. Furthermore, REC believed that Notified's contribution during the revision was a natural part of the supervisory role and of a scope not suitable to change the authorship order. The fact that Notified decided the change on her own was also a breach of the Montreal Statement, which says this should happen collectively. The decision to change the authorship order the first time was thus contrary to several research ethical norms.
The second change in the authorship order was when Notified removed Notifier entirely as an author. Notified justified this by stating that she had sent several requests to Notifier to approve the revised manuscript – the one with the first authorship change from first to second author. When Notifier failed to respond, Notified interpreted the Vancouver Recommendations to mean that Notifier had to be removed entirely as an author and instead be acknowledged as a contributor. REC considered this a serious and disrespectful misuse of the Vancouver Recommendations Section 2 about authorship determination. REC also emphasized that the criteria for co-authorship in the Vancouver Recommendations are not intended to exclude contributors who otherwise have a legitimate claim to authorship.
Notified also put forth that Notifier had the opportunity to fulfill the Vancouver Recommendations criterion 3, that is, to approve the revised version with Notifier as the second author. However, REC believed that these requests was associated with significant underlying pressure and lacked a genuine invitation to reach a common understanding. Notified's requests were therefore ethically insignificant. Using Section 2, Number 3 to bypass a contributor who otherwise met the criteria for authorship was thus clearly contrary to the Vancouver Recommendations.
REC also believed that the relationship and power imbalance between the parties were significant. As the main supervisor, Notified was ethically obligated to consider her superior role, be aware that newly recruited researchers might be reluctant to speak up and defend their case, and take responsibility for creating trust in the research collaboration. It was a clear breach of ethical duties of a supervisor to omit her own PhD candidate from the authorship list, especially since he had contributed significantly to the manuscript all along.
REC therefore believed that Notified had breached several recognized research ethical norms during the revision of the manuscript. REC believed the evidence indicated that the Notified thought she was following the Vancouver Recommendations when she changed the authorship order, while she actually used them to exclude a co-author with a legitimate claim. It was an aggravating factor that Notified failed to reconsider her view when Notifier refused to accept the changes, or when the journal editor asked for an explanation. This lack of understanding was grossly negligent for an experienced researcher.
REC recommended that the Dean of the Faculty should ask the journal to resume the work on publishing the manuscript while the authorship order is changed back with Notifier as first author.
Furthermore, REC criticized UiO for a lack of follow-up of the research group, which was organized across faculties. REC was also critical that the same person had personnel responsibility, was the leader of the research group and the externally funded project, in addition to having the role of the main supervisor. This posed a risk of dysfunctional dependencies and isolation of newly recruited researchers.
Notified is the same person as the notified person in case 2022/40488.
REC's conclusion in the case was unanimous.
References
- The Norwegian Research Ethics Act (2017) §§ 6 and 8
- The Regulations of the Law to The Norwegian Research Ethics Act (2018) § 7 last paragraph
- The draft bill of The Norwegian Research Ethics Act (Prop. 158 L (2015-2016)) Chapter 33
- Standard for Research Integrity at UiO, especially Section 3.6
- Ethical guidelines for supervisory relationships at UiO
- The Norwegian National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology (NENT): Guidelines for Research Ethics in Science and Technology (2015), especially Section 5
- Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (2010)
- Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations (2013), especially Sections 8, 12, 17, and 18
- ALLEA: European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2017), especially The Principle of Honesty and Section 3.1
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors ('Vancouver Recommendations') (2022), especially Section 2
- Guidelines and resources from the Committee on Publication Ethics Guidelines (COPE), and from the relevant scientific journal.
The text has been translated and improved by UiO GPT.
More statements and summaries from the Research Ethics Committee at UiO