Regulations concerning honesty
Regulations for assessing scientific misconduct in the NHH group; which consists of NHH, the Institute for Research in Economics and Business Administration (SNF) and the Administrative Research Foundation (AFF)
The regulations for the assessment of scientific misconduct in the NHH group, (NHH, AFF and SNF) are applied in the event of allegations of breaches of scientific honesty and accepted scientific practice at NHH, and are intended to ensure that cases are dealt with fairly. A research ethics committee will be established, which will comment in cases of suspected breaches of scientific honesty. Cases may be sent to the committee by the rector/pro-rector at NHH and the managing directors of AFF and SNF, or they may be raised by the committee itself. The research ethics committee does not have the authority to make decisions, but it may make recommendations on how cases are to be handled.
Members of the Research Ethics Committee at NHH:
Court of Appeal Judge Kjell Frønsdal (CHAIR)
Deputy chair: Court of Appeal Judge Margareth Christophersen
Associate professor Katarina Østergren, IRRR
Deputy for Østergren: Professor Ingrid Simonnæs, FSK
Professor Knut Ims, SOL
Deputy for IMS: Stein Ivar Steinshamn, SNF
Professor Jan Tore Klovland, SAM
Internal deputy: Professor Anna Mette Fuglseth, SOL
External expert member: Professor Jan Erik Askildsen, UiB
External deputy: Professor Frode Mellemvik, Bodø Graduate School of Business
---------------------
Regulations concerning honesty
1. The Research Ethics Committee at NHH; responsibility and scope
a. The Research Ethics Committee is the NHH group’s advisory body on research ethics. The committee shall consider and comment on individual research ethics cases involving suspected breaches of scientific honesty and accepted scientific practice in the NHH group.
Individual research ethics cases may be referred to the committee by the rector/pro-rector at NHH, the managing director of SNF/ the managing director of AFF, (referred to as the pro-rector/managing director hereinafter), with the approval of the rector.
The committee shall process and comment on general research ethics issues submitted to the committee by the rector.
The committee may itself initiate cases on the basis of allegations or suspicions.
All statements issued by the committee shall be made in writing and shall specify the grounds for its assessment. The committee can recommend sending cases to the National Commission for the Investigation of Scientific Misconduct (Nasjonalt Utvalg for Granskning av Uredelig Forskning), or recommend that a decision be made within the institution.
b. The committee shall consist of five members. One of the external members must be a lawyer who has experience as a judge (chair). Other members should have broad research backgrounds. One of these members must be external. The internal members must have experience from key, internal or external management bodies with relevance to research. A deputy must be elected for each member.
During the processing of individual cases relating to research ethics, the committee can be augmented by the category of position relevant to the case.
The committee’s members and deputy members are appointed by the board for a term of four years, and they may be re-appointed.
c. The committee shall produce an annual report about its activities. The committee's activities shall be subject to public access, within the framework for protection of privacy.
2. Scientific misconduct
By scientific misconduct is meant falsification, fabrication, plagiarism and other serious breaches of accepted scientific practice in the planning of research, committed either with intent or through gross negligence. This includes breaches of research ethics and accepted research practice that clearly deviate from acceptable practice in the discipline.
3. Basic principles for processing individual cases relating to scientific misconduct
a. Allegations of and suspected scientific misconduct shall be dealt with in a fair and proper manner.
b. A person accused of scientific misconduct is innocent until the board has reached a decision that he/she is guilty of scientific misconduct. If there is any doubt in relation to the evidence on which the misconduct allegation is based, the accused shall be given the benefit of the doubt.
c. Cases shall be processed in a manner that ensures reasonable progress in each individual case. The committee is subject to the rules and duty of confidentiality laid down in the Public Administration Act. Special consideration shall be given both to the accused and, if relevant, the notifier. The purpose of this is to prevent violations of the right to privacy and reputation of the person concerned.
d. Persons accused of scientific misconduct shall be notified and given access to the grounds for the case. They are also entitled to comment on and refute the allegations that have been made, cf. the Public Administration Act sections 16 to 21.
e. The NHH group is obliged to help to restore the good name and reputation of persons who have been unjustly accused of scientific misconduct, through, for example, announcements in the media or via other appropriate channels.
In the event of procedural errors, the invalidity provisions of section 41 of the Public Administration Act's shall apply.
4. Assessment of the basis for initiating a case concerning a breach of research ethics and accepted scientific practice (scientific misconduct)
a. All allegations of breaches of research ethics and accepted research practice made against an employee in the NHH group shall be submitted in writing to the pro-rector/managing director.
The pro-rector/managing director shall, without undue delay and within two weeks of the allegation being made at the latest, consider the basis for the allegation. The pro-rector/managing director shall be assisted in his/her assessment by a lawyer and two
members of the academic staff in the relevant entity.
b. The pro-rector/managing director shall also, on his/her own initiative, investigate
any diffuse verbal allegations concerning scientific misconduct. This shall be carried out without undue delay with the assistance of a lawyer and two experienced members of the academic staff in the relevant entity.
5. Processing of allegations
(The case processing pursuant to the regulations concerning scientific misconduct in the NHH group is shown in figure 5.1, as an appendix to the regulations)
a. Obtain facts to form a basis for a decision
The pro-rector/managing director shall ensure that there is as much information as possible prior to a decision being made in the case.
The facts shall be obtained through interviews with the person accused of misconduct, the person who has made the allegation, and others. Documentation may also be obtained by other means. The pro-rector/ managing director shall be given access to all the material necessary in order to make a fair assessment of the complaint.
b. Interviews
The accused shall be given access to the material that the pro-rector/managing director will submit as the basis for his/her assessment, and will be given an opportunity to refute or supplement it.
The pro-rector/managing director shall personally interview the person who has made the allegation and the person who has been accused. The interviews must be recorded in the form of written minutes. The person who has made the allegation and the person who has been accused are both entitled to legal assistance.
Other employees and people outside the NHH group with knowledge of the case may also be interviewed as well as people with special expertise in the research field in which the case has arisen
c. Written report
The facts of the case, with copies of original documents shall be included in a written report.
6. Further processing of the case
a. If the pro-rector/managing director finds that the facts of the matter as presented in the written report provide a basis for resolving the case in a manner that those involved can accept, the case is concluded and a report is sent to the Research Ethics Committee.
b. If the pro-rector/managing director does not find that the case can be resolved in a manner that those involved can accept, and finds that there are grounds to proceed with the case, the case will be prepared for submission to the Research Ethics Committee.
7. Case processing by the Research Ethics Committee
The Research Ethics Committee decides whether cases it receives are to be considered on their merits or rejected.
If a case is rejected, it is sent back to the pro-rector with the grounds for its rejection.
Members of the Research Ethics Committee who have a conflict of interest in relation to the case cannot participate in the processing of the case.
The question of conflict of interest shall be dealt with by the committee before the processing of the case begins. A decision about the extent to which a member of the committee has a conflict of interest shall be resolved by the committee without the participation of the member in question. The regulations of the Public Administration Act section 6 ff apply correspondingly.
The pro-rector/managing director shall help to obtain further material if this is necessary or required in order to ensure a fair assessment of the case. If necessary, the committee shall,
interview the person who has made the allegation, the person accused and others. The person who has made the allegation and the person who has been accused are both entitled to legal assistance during such interviews.
The person who has been accused shall be given access to the material that forms the basis for the committee’s assessment and shall be given an opportunity to refute it.
Following a conscientious review of the evidence, the committee shall decide whether there has been a breach of research ethics and accepted research practice (scientific misconduct). The committee’s assessment and conclusion shall be included in a written report.
The report shall include the following:
a) A summary of the case documents, diplomas and other material on which the committee has based its conclusion
b) The facts that the committee have found to be true and the conclusions the committee has drawn from these facts
c) Recommendations and further follow-up.
8. Case-processing after the presentation of the Research Ethics Committee's recommendations
a) If the committee concludes that no scientific misconduct has taken place, the rector shall decide and implement the measures that are necessary to restore the good name and reputation of the accused person.
The rector shall send a report to the National Commission for the Investigation of Scientific Misconduct.
b) If the committee concludes that scientific misconduct has taken place, the rector shall take all the necessary steps required, including informing the parties involved about the conclusion.
The committee’s assessment shall form the basis for decisions made by the NHH board/SNF board/AFF board. The following measures can be adopted:
I) to submit the case to the National Commission for further processing,
II) to withdraw or change the scientific work,
III) to correct source references,
IV) to impose a disciplinary sanction cf. the Norwegian Civil Service Act section 14,
V) to dismiss the employee with or without notice, cf. the Norwegian Civil Service Act sections 9, 10 and 15,
VI) to report any criminal offence to the police,
VII) to inform the general public.
The board in question, see above, shall send a report to the National Commission, if any of the measures specified in clauses 8b second section, letters b – g are adopted.
9. Information to the board
The Boards in the NHH group shall be kept up-to-date with the work of the Research Ethics Committee.
Appendix to the regulations
Figure 5.1 Case processing pursuant to the regulations concerning scientific misconduct in the NHH group
