A professor at UiO was reported to the Research Ethics Committee at UiO (REC) with allegations of "self-plagiarism" and plagiarism in his new popular science non-fiction book about a Norwegian philosopher. The book was neither an ordinary scientific publication nor entirely within the professor's primary field of expertise. Therefore, the Committee first assessed whether they should dismiss or process the case.
REC decided to process the case because they considered the book to be "other research-related activities" under Section 4 of the Norwegian Research Ethics Act. The reasoning included that the professor's work as a researcher at UiO was relevant to the content, reception, and marketing of the book. There was some overlap in the academic interests of the professor and the philosopher, and the professor's academic status was likely to lend weight and authority to his views in the book. The fact that it was presented in a popular science publication with a personal narrative style was not decisive.
Next, REC conducted a substantive assessment of the allegations in the case. They started by evaluating whether there had been breaches of recognized research ethical norms in the work on the book.
REC's first question was whether there had been "improper reuse of own text," a term they thought was more adequate than "self-plagiarism." The professor had acknowledged some reuse of his own text without citation, but REC deemed this not to be improper. It was relevant that the book was not a common scientific text, where the requirements for citation would have been stricter, and that the professor did not gain undue academic advantages from it. As a non-fiction author, the professor had some leeway to prioritize a reader-friendly text and consider the lower expectations of the audience regarding the number and precision of citations.
Regarding possible plagiarism of an article author, REC concluded that the article author had been sufficiently acknowledged by the professor as a source for the book. REC believed the professor could have provided clearer citations to where the article author's text was used, but this was far from a breach of research ethics.
The conclusion was thus that there were no breaches of recognized research ethical norms, and consequently no misconduct, systemic errors, or recommendations for corrections or retractions.
REC's conclusion was unanimous.
References
- The Norwegian Research Ethics Act (2017) §§ 4, 6, and 8
- The draft bill of The Norwegian Research Ethics Act (Prop. 158 L (2015-2016))
- Bj?rn L. Zwilgmeyer, "Commentary on the Research Ethics Act," in Norwegian Law Commentary, Gyldendal Rettsdata (2024), note 5
- The Norwegian National Committees for Research Ethics (FEK): General guidelines (2014) Section 8
- Guidelines for the processing of cases of possible violations of recognized norms in research ethics at UiO (2023) Sections 2, 4, 5.1.1
- Standard for Research Integrity at UiO (2021)
The text has been translated and improved by UiO GPT.
More statements and summaries from the Research Ethics Committee at UiO