PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (Denmark)”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

15 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2000

The legal basis for the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty.

The author, a High Court Judge, has chaired the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) since its establishment in 1992. The Committee has worked in the health sector, but from 1999 the scope has been broadened to cover all fields of science. The article describes how the work is organised and the experiences gained. It is stressed, that the difficulty in connection with scientific dishonesty is, first and foremost, to organise a system suitable for investigating cases effectively, professionally, and with proper respect to the fundamental legal rights of the parties involved. The Committee has also spent much effort in determining what can be termed scientific dishonesty and what falls outside this category but which may, nevertheless, be characterised as breaching of good scientific practice. It is emphasised that these rules are not arbitrarily established by the Committee, but formulated in accordance with norms general accepted by opinion leaders in the scientific community.

Denmark↗
PubMed2000

From case management to prevention of scientific dishonesty in Denmark.

In 1992, The Danish Medical Research Council established a national committee on scientific dishonesty with the twofold task of handling cases of scientific misconduct and taking preventive initiatives. Scientific dishonesty was proven in only five cases, but in another nine cases lesser degrees of deviations from good scientific practice were found. The experiences from a total of 24 treated cases indicated that three key areas were at the basis of most of the accusations and the deviations from good practice: uncertainty about 1) authorship, about 2) rights and duties to use scientific data and about 3) agreements at the initiation of joint studies. As a consequence guidelines on good practice have been issued on these key subjects.

Authorship↗
PubMed1999

Guidelines for good scientific practice.

The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) has existed for five years. As a preventive measure two sets of guidelines for the presentation of experimental reports and data documentation have been issued. Experiences from 24 cases of suspected scientific dishonesty have proven a need for further guidelines covering a wider range of scientific practice. Three key areas susceptible to conflicts between researchers and often resulting in subsequent accusations of scientific misconduct have been localized. Guidelines have, therefore, been prepared for these three areas: 1) Agreements at the start of cooperative research projects. 2) Rights and duties in storing and using research data. 3) Authorship. It is hoped that they will be helpful in prevention of conflicts and deviations from good scientific practice, and that they will be useful in the education of young researchers. The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty. The Ministry of Research and Information Technology, Copenhagen.

Denmark↗
PubMed1999

Handling of scientific dishonesty in the Nordic countries. National Committees on Scientific Dishonesty in the Nordic Countries.

Despite a widely recognised need, most countries still have no coherent system to deal with scientific misconduct. Committees have been established by the national medical research councils in Denmark (1992), Norway (1994), and Sweden (1997), and by the Ministry of Education in Finland (1994), to deal with scientific misconduct--ie, to initiate preventive measures, to investigate alleged cases, or both. Each committee includes both scientifically and legally qualified members. The employing institutions are responsible for possible sanctions or punishments. So far, 47 cases have been accepted for investigation, the majority (25) being Danish. Disputed authorship was the most frequent reason for investigation. Junior researchers made complaints in only three of the investigated cases. Investigations have been completed in 37 cases; in nine cases, dishonesty was revealed--two of them were related to the same researchers. Cooperation between the four Nordic committees has shown close agreement on specific issues and cases, despite minor differences in definitions, organisation, and procedures.

Advisory Committees↗
PubMed1993

Scientific dishonesty: a Danish proposal for evaluation and prevention.

The term scientific dishonesty covers the wide scope from consciously fraudulent actions to gross negligence and refers both to character trait and to actions. Scientific dishonesty may occur in any country, but reactions in Europe have been slow to emerge. On the basis of a thorough review, the Danish Medical Research Council therefore has made recommendations on how to handle and how to prevent scientific dishonesty. Suspected cases must be referred directly to a national committee chaired by a High Court judge. An ad hoc investigatory committee may be appointed in each case. If dishonesty is established, the institution then is asked to implement appropriate sanctions and to report on the actions taken to the national committee. Prevention of scientific dishonesty forms an essential part of good scientific practice and must have an impact on research training, requirements for data storage, guidelines for scientific publication, and criteria for evaluating grant proposals and promotions.

Denmark↗
PubMed1999

Misconduct in clinical research--the Scandinavian experience and actions for prevention.

The Nordic countries, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland, started relatively early with the establishment of national committees dealing with scientific misconduct within the health sciences. They originally included slightly different parts of the dishonesty spectrum, when launching their independent control bodies, but have since then converged, with the end result that all four countries now include all aspects of the spectrum. In other words, the ranges now cover alleged fabrication and plagiarism on one side, and quarrels about authorship and terms of procedure within cooperating groups of scientists on the other. The Nordic experiences have made it possible to estimate a prevalence rate of 1-2 presented cases per million inhabitants, of which only approximately 1/5 is serious. The preventive actions have been publications of guidelines for: scientific co-operation; raw data storage; authorship. Further, educational initiatives include postgraduate courses for senior scientists; postgraduate courses for junior scientists; influence via inquiries and investigations. The Nordic experiences point strongly to the necessity of an independent national control body.

Humans↗
PubMed2000

Sociology and psychology within the scope of scientific dishonesty.

A survey is undertaken based on qualitative analyses of the cases of scientific misconduct from the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty's first five years of collecting data, with additional information from selected international sources, in which underlying psychological motivations can be judged.

Denmark↗
PubMed1993

Scientific dishonesty and good scientific practice.

Scientific dishonesty has been the subject of much public interest in recent years. Although the problem has had a low profile in Denmark, there is no reason to believe that it is non-existent. Several preconditions known to be important prevail here as well as in other countries, such as pressure to publish and severe competition for research grants and senior academic positions. The Danish Medical Research Council (DMRC) decided to respond to this problem by preparing a report on scientific dishonesty with suggestions to the research institutions on rules for good scientific practice and procedures for investigation of suspected dishonesty. To this end, an investigatory system was suggested. The system should consist of two regional committees and one national committee. They should be headed by high court judges and experienced health sciences researchers as members. The committees will investigate cases reported to them and conclude on whether dishonesty has been established and on whether the scientific work should be retracted. Sanctions shall remain the task of the institutions. Preventive measures comprise open access to and a long storage period for scientific data.

Denmark↗
PubMed1996

Gastroenterology in the last decennia and initiatives in medical ethics: coincidence or linkage?

A quarter of a century ago ethics was an esoteric term, known to theologians and philosophers, but unknown as a discipline to the majority of doctors. Since then, however, ethics has become a substantial part of clinical medicine and health research. Ethics as an area of interest for Danish gastroenterologists appeared from several foci in the early days. One angle was an almost revival-like interest in research methodology and its ethical dimensions. Other angles were derived from Danish gastroenterologists' experiences transferred from other disciplines before the birth of Danish gastroenterology. From the time of these early incentives Danish gastroenterologists have constituted a platform for the implementation of the basic principles, lying behind medical ethics, now in collaboration with other parts of the medical profession. The topics are reflected in a number of publications and in the various practical diversions. An interest in information of patients appeared at an early stage. Publication ethics as a subdiscipline involved Danish gastroenterologists and has led to contributions within the framework of the International Group of Medical Journal Editors. Research ethics, a central topic throughout all years, has led to such important initiatives as the Second Helsinki Declaration and the establishment of a national control system for medical research in man. A further ramification of ethics is scientific dishonesty and good clinical practice. Here a recent initiative has led to the establishment of a national Committee on Scientific Dishonesty. Under the auspices of the OMGE (Organisation Mondiale de Gastroentérologie) Danish gastroenterologists have investigated transnational and transcultural differences in gastroenterologists' attitudes to information of patients and relatives and have unmasked considerable and important differences throughout the world. Medical ethics has, together with scientific methodology, to some extent reunited the sub-specialized fragments of the mother disciplines medicine and surgery and in this way has acted as partes pro toto.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗