Country Report Sweden

National Research Integrity Landscape

The landscape governing research integrity changed in Sweden in January 2020. A new law came into force, the Swedish Act (2019:504) on responsibility for good research practice and the examination of research misconduct (“The Act” below). At the same time the Swedish National Board for Assessment of Research Misconduct (Npof) was established with the remit to investigate and assess research misconduct.

The Act and the Board came into being to promote continued high confidence in Swedish research. The legislator decided to appoint a central government agency, Npof, rather than the actual entities responsible for research, to perform the investigation and assessment concerning research misconduct. In doing so, the legislators’ intention was to enhance legal security for the reported researchers; to safeguard equal treatment; and to reduce the risks of conflicts of interest that might exist when the entities responsible for research investigated their own employees. The Act also enabled researchers found guilty of misconduct to appeal against these decisions, which had not been possible before.

The Act states that every researcher is responsible for following good research practice. It also states that each entity responsible for research has overarching responsibility for research being conducted in accordance with good research practice. (Section 4, 5)

Research misconduct is defined in the Act as “a serious deviation from good research practice in the form of fabrication, falsification or plagiarism that is committed intentionally or through gross negligence when planning, conducting or reporting research.” (Section 2)

There are other authorities with other remits relating to ethics in research in Sweden, shortly described below.

The Swedish Ethical Review Authority

The remit of The Swedish Ethical Review Authority (EPM) is to protect participants involved in research. They do so by examining applications for ethical review of research on humans, but also of research on biological samples and sensitive personal data.

Read more about the Ethical Review Authority.

The Swedish Ethics Review Appeal Board

The Swedish Ethics Appeal Review Board (ÖNEP) is responsible for reviewing applications for ethical review approval that have been submitted and/or appealed. The Board also exercises supervision of compliance with the Swedish Act (2003:460) on ethical review of research involving humans (the Ethical Review Act).

Read more about ÖNEP.

Entities responsible for research

Each entity responsible for research has overarching responsibility for research being conducted in accordance with good research practice (Section 5).

Breaches of good research practice, falling outside the definition of research misconduct, are examined by the entities responsible for research (see, for example, Chapter 1, Section 17 of the Swedish Higher Education Ordinance, 1993:100). They have an obligation to report what cases they have assessed to the Board once a year.

The entity responsible for research is the party that chooses which measures to take, pursuant to Npof’s decision. This applies both when Npof finds one or more researchers innocent and when someone is found guilty. Such measures may relate not only to the specific researcher(s) but also to training inputs or altered routines for the entity responsible.

The entity responsible must, within six months, report what measures have been implemented in response to a “guilty” decision by the Board. The same applies if Npof has found that the matter has involved plagiarism, falsification or fabrication and a serious breach of good research practice, but the breach did not take place with intent or due to gross negligence.

The Swedish National Board for Assessment of Research Misconduct (Npof)

Establishment

The Swedish National Board for Assessment of Research Misconduct (Npof) was established on 1 January 2020 as a central government agency subordinate to the Ministry of Education and Research.

Assessment framework

As mentioned above the remit of Npof is to investigate and assess research misconduct under the Swedish Act (2019:504) on responsibility for good research practice and the examination of research misconduct.

Another central legal framework when it comes to research ethics is the Ethical Review Act (2003:460), lagen om etikprövning av forskning som avser människor.

Mission(s) and tasks

The Board has one task; to investigate and assess whether research misconduct has taken place.

The Board investigates only what is defined as “research misconduct”. Other breaches of good research practice are investigated by the actual entitles responsible for research (see, for example, Chapter 1, Section 17 of the Swedish Higher Education Ordinance, 1993:100).

Every year the Board publish a report that summarizes the Board´s cases and which cases of “other deviations from good research practice” that have been handled by the entities responsible for research. Annual report

It is not a task for the Board to give training or mediate. The Board has no sanctioning powers.

 Authority

The remit for the Board is to investigate and assess whether research misconduct has taken place. The Board has no sanctioning powers. The entities responsible for research decide on sanctions.

Composition

The Board comprises a Chair and ten members appointed by the Government for four years at a time. The Chair and the other members have research expertise in a range of areas, and experience of work on issues relating to good research practice. The Chair must be a judge.

Scope and remit
Se above.

Procedure

The procedure is an administrative law process, meaning that the process is done in writing. The process is regulated in the Administrative Act. The course of case management may vary, depending on the complexity of the matters addressed and how much new material the Office needs to obtain. The flowchart illustrates the procedure adopted in most cases .

Definition of research misconduct

In Section 2 of the Act, “research misconduct” is defined as “a serious deviation from good research practice in the form of fabrication, falsification or plagiarism that is committed intentionally or through gross negligence when planning, conducting or reporting research.”

Accordingly, the Board examines fabrication, falsification and plagiarism only. These terms are defined not in the Act but in the preparatory work

Read more about how to interpret the law in the preparatory work for the Act, Government Bill 2018/19:58, introducing a new set of rules to promote good practice and deal with research misconduct.

 

Decisions and appeal

Decisions by the Board can be appealed to the Administrative Court. This Court’s judgment may be appealed to the Administrative court of appeal (Kammarrätten) in Stockholm and the latter court’s judgment, in turn, is appealed to Sweden’s Supreme Administrative Court (Högsta Förvaltningsdomstolen).

Follow-up and monitoring

The entities responsible for research have an obligation to report what cases they have assessed to the Board once a year. (see Chapter 1, Section 18 of the Swedish Higher Education Ordinance, 1993:100).

Each entity must also, within 6 months, report what measures have been implemented in response to a “guilty” decision by the Board. The same applies if the Board has found that the matter has involved plagiarism, falsification or fabrication and a serious breach of good research practice, but the breach did not take place with intent or due to gross negligence. Under the same circumstances the entity is obliged to inform the relevant research funders, authorities, scientific journals and others concerned about the decision, as soon as possible after the decision has been made. The entity must also inform that the decision may be appealed.

Every year the Board publish a report that summarizes the Board´s cases and which cases of “other deviations from good research practice” that have been handled by the entities responsible for research. In the report the Board also describes what measures have been implemented in response to the Boards decisions according to the above. The report is a government assignment.

Transparency

Decisions by the Board are sent to the respondent and the person that filed the allegations to the Board. The entity responsible for reseach is always informed about the case and the decision.

The legal publicity and secrecy rules govern who is permitted to receive information and copies of the case documents. See Chapter 24, Section 7a of the Swedish Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act.

Most information in cases concerning research misconduct is public. Secrecy applies to information about an individual’s personal circumstances, unless the information obviously can be disclosed without any adverse impact on the person or anyone close to him or her. Secrecy also applies to details of an individual’s financial circumstances, if disclosing the information may be assumed to be detrimental to the person.

Secrecy does not apply to information about who has raised the misconduct issue or the identity of the person against whom the allegation is directed. Neither does secrecy apply to case decisions.

When a decision is made, it is published on the Board´s website, but with names removed. The purpose of publishing decisions is so that others can learn from them, those responsible for research can work on preventive measures etcetera.

 

For illustrative cases in English, see: https://npof.se/en/decisions/
For further information, see: https://npof.se/en/

For questions, send an e-mail: registrator@npof.se

 

Last update: October 2024