Country Report Denmark

National Research Integrity Landscape

Denmark has a national board for research integrity with investigatory and opinion-making authority, the Danish Board on Research Misconduct (hereafter: Board). Under the Act on Research Misconduct of 2017, the Board shall handle all cases of research misconduct whereas the remaining instances of questionable research practices will be handled by the research institution in question.

Danish Committee on Research Misconduct

From 1 July 2017, with the enforcement of the Act on Research Misconduct of 2017, a national body, the Board on Research Misconduct (Board) was established, replacing the previous Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty. The Board is supported by a secretariat. It is financed by the state budget and is part of the administrative agency under the Ministry of Higher Education and Science, however, operates independently of this Ministry.

Assessment framework

The Board is governed by the Danish Act on Public Administration, the Act on Research Misconduct of 2017 and the Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity that was drawn up by a working group under the Ministry of Higher Education and Science and Danish Universities. The latter holds guidelines on good scientific practice.

Missions and tasks

The Board’s tasks are processing individual cases on questions of whether research misconduct has occurred and guiding research institutions. It does not give or organize trainings. Its members may contribute to knowledge transfer by giving lectures in (inter) national symposia.

Authority

The Board’s organisation

The Board consists of a chairperson and 8 to 10 academic members with different scientific disciplines. For each member there is an alternate who can enter the Board in case absence or when otherwise relevant. All permanent members have voting rights. If one of the permanent members does not have a voting right, e.g. because of a conflict of interest, then its alternate gets this voting right. The chairperson is a high court judge and appointed by the Minister following a nomination from the Danish courts for a 4-years-term to a maximum of 6 years. In exceptional circumstances, the Minister for Higher Education and Science may extend this period. All other members are recognized scientists who are appointed for a 4-years-term to a maximum of 6 years by the Danish Minister for Higher Education and Science, following an open call and consultation with the Independent Research Fund Denmark.

Scope and remit

Anyone may raise a case concerning research misconduct with the research institution where the research was conducted. In the event that (i) the research was not conducted at a Danish research institution, or (ii) the case is raised by the research institution where the research was conducted, the notification can be submitted directly to the (secretariat of the) Board. The idea is that all Danish cases of research misconduct are handled by the Board and all cases of questionable research practices by the research institutions. A research institution shall submit a notification with the Board if there is a reasonable suspicion that a specific case at the research institution involves research misconduct covered by the Board ’s authority. In the event that the Board assesses that a case may involve issues concerning questionable research practices not considered to constitute research misconduct, the Board may refer such issues to the relevant research institution for further consideration. It is within the jurisdiction of the Board to deal with cases (i) concerning public funded research and (ii) research carried out at a public Danish research institution. If the case concerns privately funded research, the Board can deal with the case if the private company consents. It may reject examination of cases when (i) the case is not covered by the Board’s authority (ii) the case is deemed to be manifestly ungrounded (iii) costs of processing the case are disproportionate in relation to the significance of the case, or (iv) the case has very little connection with Denmark. The Board does not handle alleged research misconduct cases of students on bachelor- or master level: these are handled at the institutional level. The Board only handles cases concerning researchers (PhD students, persons with a PhD degree or similar qualifications).

Procedure

For the Board to begin an investigation of an allegation of research misconduct (1) the allegation must relate to a scientific product, for example a scientific paper, a PhD thesis or similar; (2) the case must concern a researcher who has contributed to the scientific product; (3) the case must concern research misconduct. Research misconduct shall not include (i) cases of fabrication, falsification and plagiarism which have only had minor importance when planning, performing or reporting on the research (ii) questions about scientific disagreements, and (iii) questions on the quality of research. When a complaint is handed at the relevant research institution, it assesses whether or not the information listed above is present in the case. If so, the institution must compose a report on the facts of the case and send the case and the report to the Board which will open an investigation based on the material from the institution. As part of the investigation, the Board must ensure that the case is adequately informed and obtain all necessary further information required for the Board’s decision in the matter. This means that the Board has to carry out consultations in accordance with the Danish Act on public administration giving the accused a chance to provide a statement. The Board may obtain (external) expert advice. The Board reaches decisions at meetings by majority voting. In the event of parity of votes, the chairperson shall have the casting vote.

Definition of research misconduct (and questionable research practice)

For the Board, in concluding whether research misconduct has occurred, the Act on Research Misconduct of 2017 is decisive, together with the Danish Code on Research Misconduct which must be followed by researchers and research institutions. The Act on Research Misconduct of 2017 defines research misconduct as: “Fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism committed wilfully or with gross negligence when planning, performing, or reporting on research. Fabrication: Undisclosed construction of data or substitution with fictitious data. Falsification: Manipulation of research material, equipment or processes as well as changing or omitting data or results, thus making the research misleading. Plagiarism: Appropriation of others people’s ideas, processes, results, texts or specific concepts without giving due credit.” It defines questionable research practice as “Violation of generally accepted standards for responsible research practices, including those of the Danish code of conduct for Research Integrity, and other applicable institutional, national and international practices and guidelines on research integrity.”

Opinions and appeal

In handling cases, the Board must give an opinion on whether research misconduct has, or has not, occurred. Cases that are not accepted for examination shall be rejected by no later than 3 months after the Board received the case. Cases that are accepted shall be completed by no later than 12 months after the Board received the case or has decided at its own initiative to process the case. This 12-month time limit can be extended if special circumstances apply. The decisions of the Board are sent directly to the parties involved in the case, that is in general the accused researcher and the research institution involved. The reporter only receives the decision, if he/she is party to the case and he/she does not get the status of party by reporting the alleged research misconduct. The reporter is party to a case, e.g. when his/her work has been plagiarized by a researcher. The Board’s opinions are binding including the decision it may give (i) that the researcher be requested to withdraw the scientific product (ii) that the affected research institution(s) be informed of the research misconduct (iii) that the researcher’s employer be informed of the research misconduct (iv) that the editor publishing the scientific product be informed of the research misconduct, possibly with a requirement that the editor withdraw this or take similar measures, or (v) that any foundation which has provided full or partial funding for the research carried out, be informed of the research misconduct. The Board’s decisions cannot be appealed to any other administrative authority.

Follow-up and monitoring

The Board has to publish an annual report on questionable research practice in Denmark based on annual reporting from the institutions to the Board. In this respect, the Board works toward strengthening the credibility of Danish research, prevents research misconduct and supports the effort on research integrity as expressed in the Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. The Minister for Higher Education and Science supervises compliance with the Act of Research Misconduct of 2017. The monitoring of whether measures are actually taken, takes place by the Board or research institutions, dependent on who decided on the measures.

Transparency

The decisions of the previous Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty were made available in anonymous form on its page on the website of the Ministry of Higher Education and Science. Also, the Board publishes its decisions in this form, and its annual reports, in Danish on its page of this website.

For illustrative cases in English, see: https://ufm.dk/en/research-and-innovation/councils-and-commissions/The-Danish-Committee-on-Research-Misconduct/decisions?set_language=en&cl=en

For further information, see: ufm.dk

For questions, e-mail to: Secretariat for the Board on Research Misconduct(nvu@ufm.dk)

Last update: May 2024