Rules for handling individual cases related to scientific misconduct

a) Allegations and suspicions of breaches of recognised research ethics standards and scientific misconduct shall be subject to proper and thorough handling in accordance with the Public Administration Act and other relevant regulations.

b) The processing of cases shall be conducted in a manner that ensures proper progress and handling of each case, and protects both the respondent and the complainant in accordance with reasonable considerations for privacy. Before the case has been fully processed by the faculty/centre as described in point 4, no OsloMet body may express that the respondent has committed a breach of norms.

c) A person who is suspected of, accused of, or reported for scientific misconduct shall be notified of this. The individual shall be given the right to access the basis of the case and the right to respond, including the opportunity to refute any allegations made (the principle of contradiction).

e) Documents in a case concerning possible breaches of recognised research ethics standards or scientific misconduct may be exempt from public disclosure under Section 24, second paragraph of the Freedom of Information Act, cf. Section 11 of the Research Ethics Act. The secretary of the Research Ethics Committee shall be informed upon receipt of a request for access at the faculty/centre.
The case documents will be made available for access once the case has been fully processed at OsloMet. Upon opening for access, documents will be redacted in accordance with applicable law in dialogue with the parties involved.

f) Only the respondent is considered a party to the case with the rights that follow under the Public Administration Act, not the person who reports the case.

g) Case processing follows the usual rules of disqualification (cf. Section 6 of the Public Administration Act).

h) An employee at OsloMet who reports a research ethics case is protected against retaliation under the Working Environment Act (Act of 17 June 2005 No. 62 relating to working environment, working hours and employment protection, etc.) Section 2 A–4.

a) Any complaint or allegation of possible breaches of recognised research ethics standards and scientific misconduct at OsloMet may be made against the following individuals:

• An employee at OsloMet.

• An applicant for a position at OsloMet.

• A person admitted to a doctoral program at OsloMet.

• A person who has been awarded or is to be awarded a doctoral degree at OsloMet.

b) The report must be submitted in writing, using a designated reporting form[SJ1]  to either: i) The dean/head of research centre at the faculty/centre where the individual in question is employed. The research leader must be available for consultation before the complaint is submitted to the dean/head of research centre.
ii) Directly to the Research Ethics Committee via the committee’s secretary. If a case is reported directly to the Research Ethics Committee, it must be justified why the case cannot be handled by the relevant faculty/centre.

c) It is possible to report a research ethics case anonymously. If it is important for the case that the 

a) Any complaint or allegation of possible breaches of recognised research ethics standards and scientific misconduct at OsloMet may be made against the following individuals:

• An employee at OsloMet.

• An applicant for a position at OsloMet.

• A person admitted to a doctoral program at OsloMet.

• A person who has been awarded or is to be awarded a doctoral degree at OsloMet.

b) The report must be submitted in writing, using a designated reporting form[SJ1]  to either: i) The dean/head of research centre at the faculty/centre where the individual in question is employed. The research leader must be available for consultation before the complaint is submitted to the dean/head of research centre.
ii) Directly to the Research Ethics Committee via the committee’s secretary. If a case is reported directly to the Research Ethics Committee, it must be justified why the case cannot be handled by the relevant faculty/centre.

c) It is possible to report a research ethics case anonymously. If it is important for the case that the 

reporter identifies themselves, they should be encouraged to do so. An anonymous report may limit the possibility of follow-up and any sanctions against the reported individual. Furthermore, information must be provided about the respondent’s right to access the complaint and to know who submitted it.

d) The recipient must, without undue delay, notify the Rector, the Chair of the Research Ethics Committee, and the Director of Research that a report has been received in accordance with item 2b.

e) If the report is sent to the dean/head of research centre, they must, without undue delay and no later than two weeks after receiving the written report, assess the basis of the report. The dean/head of research centre shall be assisted in this assessment by two experienced academic staff members from the faculty/centre. If the dean/head of research centre is disqualified, the Rector shall appoint a substitute dean/head of research centre. If the reported matter involves multiple units, the Rector shall designate the responsible unit for the case.

f) If the report is sent directly to the Research Ethics Committee, the Chair of the Committee shall, without undue delay and no later than two weeks after receiving the written report, assess whether there is sufficient reason for the dean/head of research centre not to handle the complaint as the first instance.
The complainant’s trust in impartial handling shall carry significant weight in the Chair’s assessment. Before the Chair decides that the case should be forwarded to the dean/head of research centre for first-instance handling, the Chair must give the complainant an opportunity to elaborate on why this would not be appropriate. The Chair’s decision shall be communicated to the complainant and the Rector. 

a) Gathering of facts as the basis for decision-making
The dean/head of research centre must ensure that the case is as well-informed as possible before making a decision. Facts must be obtained in written form through interviews/conversations with the complainant, the respondent, and others, by obtaining expert assessments within the relevant academic field, or by other means. The dean/head of research centre and case officer shall have access to all materials necessary for a proper evaluation of the complaint.
If the dean/head of research centre sees a need to urgently halt a publication or inform editors, collaborators, funding sources, or co-authors that an investigation into possible breaches of recognised research ethics standards or scientific misconduct is underway, the rector must be informed immediately.

b) Gathering of information
The dean/head of research centre shall personally conduct conversations with the complainant and the respondent, accompanied by two experienced academic staff members from the faculty/centre. Written minutes must be taken from these conversations. Both the complainant and the respondent may bring a representative to the meetings.
Conversations may also be held with other employees and individuals outside the university who have knowledge of the case, as well as with individuals possessing special expertise in the research field in question. Information may also be obtained by other means, such as written statements from relevant informants.
All correspondence, minutes, notes, and other written materials must be treated confidentially.
Personal data must be processed in accordance with the provisions of the Personal Data Act.

c) Access for complainant and respondent
Regardless of the confidentiality mentioned in point b, the complainant and the respondent must be given access to the material, including minutes from conversations, that the dean/head of research centre will base their assessment on, and be given the 

opportunity to respond to or supplement it.

d) The facts of the case must be documented in a written report. The case documents shall be attached to the report.

e) If the dean/head of research centre, after a concrete overall assessment based on the facts of the case (allegations and evidence) documented in the written report, finds that there is not a preponderance of probability that a breach of recognised research ethics standards or scientific misconduct has occurred, they may decide to close the case without forwarding it to the Research Ethics Committee.
The dean/head of research centre may also decide to conclude the case without forwarding it to the committee if such forwarding is clearly unnecessary—for example, if the respondent acknowledges the breach, or if the alleged actions clearly do not constitute a breach or are of a trivial nature.
A report on the case shall be sent to the Research Ethics Committee via its secretary, and to both the respondent and the complainant.
The respondent and the complainant may appeal the decision to the Research Ethics Committee.

f) The rector shall assess, in consultation with the chair and secretary of the Research Ethics Committee, whether it is sufficient to send a notification to the committee as per point e. If the rector finds this insufficient, the case shall be prepared for the committee.

g) The case shall be prepared for the Research Ethics Committee if the dean/head of research centre, after a concrete overall assessment based on the facts of the case (allegations and evidence) documented in the written report, finds that the case is of such seriousness that it may be considered scientific misconduct under Section 8, second paragraph of the Research Ethics Act.
The case shall also be prepared for the committee if, based on an appeal from the respondent or complainant under point e, the committee finds that the case should be reviewed.

h) The respondent and the complainant shall be informed of the decision to forward the case to the Research Ethics Committee. When forwarding from the faculty/centre to the committee via the secretary, a case summary must be provided that gives a clear overview of the case. A timeline and a document list must be included, as outlined on pages 2 and 3 of the reporting form.

a) In the event of disqualification of a member of the Research Ethics Committee, a deputy shall be called in to replace the member. If the majority of members and deputies are disqualified and the committee is not quorate, a substitute committee shall be appointed.

b) The Research Ethics Committee decides whether a received case should be acknowledged, substantively reviewed, or dismissed. If the case is dismissed, it is returned to the faculty/centre with a justification for the dismissal.

c) If the committee finds that the conditions for substantive review are met, it will base its assessment on the investigation and questions provided by the faculty/centre.

d) If the case has already been reviewed by the dean/head of research centre, the committee may, if it finds the case sufficiently informed, make a decision based on the material submitted by the dean/head of research centre. However, the committee may choose to gather additional information.

e) The rules outlined in point 3 apply to the committee’s information gathering, as far as they are relevant.

f) After a conscientious review of the available case material, the committee shall conclude whether 

the respondent has breached recognized research ethics standards or acted with scientific misconduct. The committee shall also assess whether there are systemic failures within the institution and whether the scientific work should be corrected or retracted, cf. Section 8, first paragraph of the Research Ethics Act.

g) The committee’s assessment and conclusion shall be documented in a written report. The report shall include an overview of the case documents, a summary of the relevant facts the committee has relied upon, and the conclusions drawn based on those facts.

a) The report containing the committee’s assessment, conclusion, and necessary documentation shall be sent to the relevant faculty/centre and the Rector. The Rector decides whether the received case should be acknowledged or returned to the Research Ethics Committee. If returned, a justification must be provided.

b) If the case is acknowledged, the committee’s assessment, conclusion, and an overview of the necessary documentation shall be sent to the respondent and the complainant. A report shall also be sent to the National Commission for the Investigation of Research Misconduct, cf. Section 6, fourth paragraph of the Research Ethics Act.

c) The respondent may appeal the committee’s statement to the Investigation Committee in cases where the committee concludes that the respondent has acted with scientific misconduct, cf. Section 6, fifth paragraph of the Research Ethics Act.

d) The case shall be opened for access, cf. point 1f above

The Rector, in consultation with the dean/head of research centre at the faculty/centre to which the respondent is affiliated, shall assess further follow-up actions. This includes any employment-related measures against the respondent and the correction of any systemic failures or deficiencies in the teaching of research ethics that the case may have revealed. The Research Ethics Committee shall be informed of such follow-up.

In cases where the allegations against the respondent are considered refuted, the dean/head of research centre shall assess whether additional measures are needed beyond the committee’s conclusion to clear the respondent’s name.

Any individual decisions made by the employer based on the report may be appealed in accordance with the Public Administration Act.