Advisory Group for freedom of research and the responsible conduct of research
It is perhaps not widely known that Aarhus University has an advisory group that assists researchers who expe-rience pressure on their academic freedom or unacceptable conditions related to research practice.
Read more about the group here.
Each AU-faculty is represented in the advisory group by two advisors. For TECH, these are Anne Winding from the Department of Environmental Science and Microbial Ecology, and the undersigned.
More specifically, our task is to provide confidential and objective advice and sparring to other researchers, university managers, or technical–administrative staff on matters related to research integrity, academic freedom, and responsible research practices. The advisors are bound by confidentiality and operate independently of management, meaning they are not required to inform management unless the reporting person is a member of management. The purpose is to ensure that employees can safely contact an advisor about any issues they may experience without fear of reprisals.
Typical Cases
In practice, we receive inquiries on a wide range of issues, and a classic example concerns disputes over co-authorship and author order. These cases often involve younger researchers — typically PhD students — who feel pressured by established researchers (senior staff at the associate professor or professor level).
The campaign “Please, do not steal my work” highlighted such issues, including cases where senior researchers plagiarize substantial research ideas or results, pressure their way onto author lists without contributing, or where peer reviewers pressure first‑time authors to cite the reviewer’s own publications. As advisors, we ask clarifying questions about the supervisor’s role and contribution to the complainant’s scientific work; for articles, this is assessed based on the Vancouver rules. We evaluate whether a problem exists and, if so, how it might be resolved.
Other types of cases include:
a) inappropriate use of data from stakeholders in connection with syntheses and advisory work;
b) misconduct related to research applications;
c) procedures for archiving ethical consent forms;
d) pressure from industry partners concerning the execution of research and publication;
e) “theft” of research ideas.
The Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity
The Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity contains descriptions of principles and standards for good research practice and conduct. The code was recently revised, and the new version is now available online (Det danske kodeks for integritet i forskning — Uddannelses- og Forskningsstyrelsen). For us as advisors, the code is a valuable tool, although it only describes overarching principles. Individual researchers can, of course, also benefit from the code when planning and carrying out their research.
When the Practice Committee Becomes Involved
In some cases, issues may be of a particularly serious nature, and the complainant may request that the case be referred to the Research Practice Committee. Advisors may also themselves involve the committee and, in fact, have an obligation to take initiative (as stated in §7(4) of the regulations for advisors):
“When there is suspicion of a breach of the conduct of research which, notably due to its nature, is of particularly serious character, has been committed repeatedly, or involves several individuals acting together, the advisor must, if necessary and after informing the complainant, submit the case to the Research Practice Committee.”
Such a referral constitutes an escalation, as the committee typically concludes its cases by issuing a statement to the rector. The statement consists of an account of the case and, if relevant, recommendations for sanctions or other actions. The complainant must justify and document the suspicion raised. At times, cases must be dismissed because no scientific product exists (e.g., an article or report), or because the case is insufficiently documented.
When the Real Issue Is the Working Relationship
Unfortunately, we frequently encounter cases that should rightfully have been handled by local management. The matter may have originated from disputes over research practice or academic freedom, but the “problem” and its potential solution have become stuck due to a poor working environment or bad chemistry between the involved parties. In such cases, we try to guide the complainant as best as possible, but due to confidentiality we cannot approach management directly unless the complainant wishes it.