university of copenhagen

d e pa rt m e n t o f f o o d a n d r e s o u r c e e c o n o m i c s

RCR – A Danish textbook

for courses in Responsible
Conduct of Research
Fourth Edition
K a r s t e n K l i n t J e n s e n , M a r t i n M a rc h m a n A n d e r s e n ,
Louise Whiteley and Peter Sandøe (eds.)
RCR – A Danish textbook
for courses in Responsible
Conduct of Research
RCR – A Danish textbook for courses
in Responsible Conduct of Research

Editors: Karsten Klint Jensen1, Martin Marchman Andersen1,

Louise Whiteley2,3 and Peter Sandøe1,4

1 Section for Consumption, Bioethics and Governance, Department

of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen
2 Medical Museion, Department of Public Health, University
of Copenhagen
3 Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research
(CBMR), University of Copenhagen
4 Section for Animal Welfare and Disease Control, Department
of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen

4th edition May 2020

Updated June 2020
The book can be downloaded here
ISBN: 978-87-93768-19-2
Design: Peter Waldorph / peterwaldorph.dk

Department of Food and Resource Economics

University of Copenhagen
Rolighedsvej 25
DK 1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
www.ifro.ku.dk/english/

4 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

Contents

1. About this book / 8

1. Introduction / 9
2. Why RCR teaching? / 9
3. The scope and limits of the book / 10
4. The content and structure of the book / 11

2. General introduction to responsible conduct of research / 12

Summary / 13
1. Introduction / 13
2. What is research misconduct? / 14
3. The competitive nature of today’s science / 18
4. Questionable research practices / 21
5. Research integrity / 22
6. Test yourself questions / 25
References / 25

3. How are breaches of RCR handled in Denmark? / 28

Summary / 29
1. Introduction / 29
2. The Danish Committee on Research Misconduct – Outline of the system / 29
3. The Lomborg case and the establishment of the Practice Committee at the University of Copenhagen / 33
4. Recent developments / 35
5. How to handle RCR issues / 38
6. Test yourself questions / 38
References / 38

4. Authorship and other publication issues / 40

Summary / 41
1. Introduction / 41
2. Requirements for authorship / 41
3. Undeserved and ghost authorships / 46
4. Negative impacts of undeserved authorships / 47
5. Other publication issues / 48
6. How to manage your publications as a PhD student / 51
7. Test yourself questions / 52
References / 52

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 5

5. Research Data Management / 54
Summary / 55
1. Introduction / 55
2. Planning research projects / 57
3. Collecting and processing physical materials and research data / 60
4. Storing research data and materials during the project / 62
5. Sharing research data outside the project / 64
6. Preserving research data after the project / 67
7. Conclusion / 68
8. Test yourself questions / 69
9. Getting help with research data management / 69
References / 69
Appendix: Examples of Data Management Plans / 71

6. Commercialization of research results and intellectual property rights / 76

Summary / 77
1. Introduction / 77
2. Technology transfer / 77
3. Intellectual property rights / 78
4. How does technology transfer work at the University of Copenhagen? / 81
5. Further information and sources of assistance / 85
6. Test yourself questions / 85
References / 85

7. Conflicts of interest / 86
Summary / 87
1. What is a conflict of interest and what is the problem? / 87
2. Conflicts of interest and cognitive biases / 89
3. Conflicts of interest arising from payed public speaking / 90
4. Conflicts of interest arising from moral, political and religious views / 91
5. When should we disclose a conflict of interest? / 92
6. How should we handle conflicts of interest? / 94
7. Test yourself questions / 96
References / 96

8. Public science communication / 98

Summary / 99
1. What is public science communication? / 99
2. Public science communication as part of the responsible conduct of research / 101
3. Benefits of public science communication / 102
4. Whose responsibility is it to communicate? / 105

6 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

 5. How to communicate responsibly / 107
6. Practical advice / 111
7. Test yourself questions / 111
References / 112

Appendix 1: Key guidelines, policies, and legislation / 116

Appendix 2: A short introduction to GDPR / 118

What is GDPR? / 119
Which data count as personal? / 119
Personal data in research? / 119
What must a researcher do to comply with GDPR? / 119

Appendix 3: What to remember and consider when you submit your PhD thesis
and papers to scientific journals / 124
1. The right journal / 125
2. Issues of plagiarism and self-plagiarism / 125
3. Open Access Issues / 126
4. Authorship Issues / 126
5. Conflicts of interest / 126
6. (Ethical) Permissions / 127
7. Data Management / 127
8. Other issues / 128

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 7

1.
About this book
Peter Sandøe, Karsten Klint Jensen, Louise Whiteley
and Martin Marchman Andersen *

* The authors gratefully acknowledge economic support for the production

of the book from the Department of Food and Resource Economics
and from the Danish Council for Independent Research (through grant
DFF – 1319-00157). We are also grateful to Paul Robinson for his help
in improving the English language of the chapters drafted by authors who
do not have English as their first language, and to Sara V. Kondrup for
editioral assistance.

8 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

1. Introduction the textbook, and finally we will say a little about the book’s
The Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, issued structure and use.
in 2014, recommends that all researchers receive teaching and
training in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). Since 2. Why RCR teaching?
2011 it has in fact been mandatory for all new PhD students at The University of Copenhagen was the first university in
the University of Copenhagen to take a course in RCR. PhD Denmark to introduce RCR courses for all PhD students.
students in the Faculty of Science and the Faculty of Health The immediate cause of this was a scandal in 2010 involving
and Medical Sciences have attended courses with the same Professor of Biomedicine Milena Penkowa and centred on
content and roughly the same structure. For the first few years, alleged research misconduct dating back about 10 years. It led
course participants were given a compendium of texts to read. to criticisms and complaints alleging that senior management
This involved inevitable overlaps and a lack of terminological at the University and in the Faculty of Health and Medical
consistency. In addition, many of the texts originated in the Sciences had not responded in a timely and adequate manner
US, where the regulatory framework on RCR differs from to a number of warnings over the years (read more about this
that found in Denmark. A number of the people involved case in Chapter 3).
in teaching the two courses have therefore joined forces to
produce a more complete, consistent and concise text. This Following the scandal, a number of initiatives were taken,
book, which now is in its fourth edition, is the result. first at the University of Copenhagen and later nationally,
to prevent research misconduct and promote RCR. The first
The aims of this book are to present the RCR course content of these initiatives was to require courses in RCR for future
in an accessible form; to set out and encourage the use of clear researchers, i.e. PhD students. Due to national guidelines, the
and consistent terminology; and to describe the way RCR is requirements for RCR teaching have later been expanded to
dealt with in Denmark and at the University of Copenhagen. cover PhD supervisors and students at BA and Master’s level.
The intended readers are from two faculties where the great
majority of research projects fall under the umbrella of the This raises the questions: Are mandatory courses in RCR
natural sciences, broadly construed. The book therefore deals effective in combating research misconduct? Will they prevent
with ‘research’ as it is typically understood and practiced in cases like that of Milena Penkowa in the future? The short
the natural sciences. Researchers from the social sciences and answer is “no”. Cases of serious research misconduct seem to
humanities may not always feel comfortable with the way have occurred at regular intervals historically and are often
we describe research, but we hope that the book will enrich closely linked to the personalities and specific circumstances
the reflections of students from all disciplines – many of the of the researchers involved. There is every reason to think that
issues are shared across disciplines, and in any case identifying such cases will continue to occur.
interdisciplinary differences can be illuminating. We also hope
that PhD supervisors and other researchers will find the book What then is the point of the course? First, it may provide
useful as a common meeting point for discussion between knowledge and tools to deal in a more timely way with
students and their supervisors. cases of serious misconduct when they occur. Although
mandatory courses in RCR would have been unlikely to
So we had a course that needed a textbook, but why have prevent the Penkowa case, they might have enabled university
the course in the first place? In other words, what do we management and concerned fellow scientists to effectively
hope to achieve by teaching the subjects presented here? investigate and deal with the case at a much earlier stage.
This is the first question we will address in this brief Secondly, it is important to underline that although a case
introductory chapter. We will then consider the scope of of serious research misconduct was the immediate reason

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 9

for establishing the course, RCR also focuses on wider and paper. But in many instances we cannot give clearly defined
much more common issues in the grey zone between research answers as to the right way to behave. This is not because we
misconduct and acceptable scientific practice – in other are uninformed or vague; rather it is because there are grey
words, on everyday issues that all researchers face. zones where rules and established norms do not give clear
answers. For example, as will become clear in Chapter 4,
For instance, authorship issues are very important in RCR, there is no precise, objective and universally applicable rule
but only in serious cases would they lead to cases of research setting out what contribution one must have made to qualify
misconduct. Questions about authorship include: Who should as a co-author. Minimum requirements are set out, e.g. in
be co-authors of a publication? How should the order of the University of Copenhagen’s Code for Authorship, that
the authors be decided? Who should be the corresponding relies on both national and international guidelines. Here it is
author? In what ways should co-authors be consulted before stated that to qualify as co-author you must make a significant
the final version of a paper is submitted for publication? What (substantive) contribution to the content, but what it means
kind of information and/or documentation about the relative for a contribution to be "significant" or "substantive" is itself
contributions of the respective authors should be provided? It is difficult to define and differs across disciplines, institutions,
important for all PhD students to be clear about the answers to and research groups.
these questions, particularly those whose theses are composed
of journal articles. If authorship issues are not managed well, Where clear rules and guidelines cannot be given, we instead
they could lead to authorship disputes, delays in publication aim to enable the reader to become better at reasoning about
or detraction from scientific quality. However, most issues of the issues; to find her or his own stance. This is a critical part
these kinds amount to questionable research practices (QRP, see of learning to be a scientist, but it is often conducted ad hoc,
Chapter 2) rather than serious research misconduct. in private, and alone. We hope to promote a growing climate
of openness about what it is to be a responsible researcher,
It is our hope that the course's teaching sessions, together and about the boundary between acceptable shortcuts and
with this textbook, will help young scientists to maintain high irresponsible conduct.
standards of research integrity in their early career; that they
will become better at dealing with authorship issues as well The demands of RCR are not static – quite the contrary.
as other key areas where questionable research practices can What is considered good practice is constantly shifting. Take,
arise, such as data management, intellectual property rights, for example, data management. Until recently there were no
conflicts of interest, and communication with the wider rules about how researchers at the University of Copenhagen
society. It should also be noticed that Danish researchers should keep and share research data. Now GDPR regulates
are not alone in having to learn about RCR. Researchers in the processing of personal data relating to individuals in EU
countries such as the US have for some years had to pass Member States. Various faculties are developing detailed
exams in RCR to hold federal grants and to be appointed rules and policies, and international norms regarding data
to faculty positions. Moreover, an understanding of RCR sharing are developing rapidly. Another aim of the course
principles, reflection, and regulation are increasingly required and this textbook is therefore to inform researchers about
as a precondition of international research collaboration. recent developments, whilst also encouraging them to keep
themselves up to date.
3. The scope and limits of the book
In some cases, there are clear principles of responsible conduct It should be noted that some subjects that are typically
that students should know: for example, that you must obtain covered by RCR courses in other countries are not covered
the explicit consent of all co-authors before submitting a here. In particular, ethical issues raised by the use of human

10 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

subjects and animals in research are not part of the RCR In Chapter 7 we discuss conflicts of interest. As researchers
courses in Denmark. we should attempt to be objective and value-free, ignoring
personal factors in our scientific conduct. But sometimes our
4. The content and structure of the book interests in other matters, such as our financial interests, seem
Following this introductory chapter, two chapters provide a to conflict with responsible conduct of research and when
general framework for understanding RCR, and how it has they do there is a conflict of interest. However, some conflicts
developed and been institutionalized. of interest are unavoidable and some are even harmless.
But some conflicts of interest, particularly those regarding
Chapter 2 explains how interest in RCR has developed since financial interests, are a serious threat to responsible conduct
the 1980s, starting in the US and then spreading across the of research and should therefore be taken very seriously.
world. Key terminology in RCR is then set out and defined.
Most importantly, we explain the distinction between research In the final chapter we look at communication between
misconduct and questionable research practice. The former science and the wider society, discussing why, when, and how
is fraudulent research behaviour involving falsification, public science communication work should be undertaken.
fabrication and plagiarism. The latter covers the many ‘grey This subject may seem a little remote for some PhD students,
zone’ issues that are ubiquitous in scientific life. and it is true that it is primarily the responsibility of the
institution rather than the individual researchers. However,
In Chapter 3 we describe how the regulation of RCR has even PhD students who decide not to get involved in public
developed in Denmark and specifically at the University communication are required to write a popular article based
of Copenhagen. We explain how a series of dramatic cases on their thesis which may be quoted by media sources.
of research misconduct led to the development of new
institutions and codes, including the Danish Committee Each chapter starts with a summary. Information about rules,
on Research Misconduct, the Practice Committee at the institutions and cases appear in text boxes, and links to useful
University of Copenhagen, the Named Person, and the documents and further reading are provided. Finally, at the
Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. We conclude end of each chapter there are “test yourself questions”, which
the chapter with an overview of how to handle issues in in some cases remind you of the key points and in others
responsible research conduct. encourage you to consider complexities which may not have a
simple answer.
The remaining five chapters cover a number of specific issues
that we consider likely to be of relevance to young researchers. Finally, we add an appendix of key guidelines, policies, and
Thus, in Chapter 4 we look at issues regarding publication legislation (9), a short introduction to GDPR (10), and a list
and authorship which are often a young researcher’s first of what to remember and consider when you submit your
explicit encounter with questions of research integrity. In PhD thesis and papers to scientific journals (11).
Chapter 5 we deal with another dimension of RCR that most
readers will need to understand: data management. In what The subjects covered by this book are developing all the
way, and for how long, should we store research materials and time. We therefore foresee regular updates to the present text,
data, and when and how should we share them with other and we hope that our readers will offer feedback that can be
researchers? Chapter 6 examines an issue that is a mandatory used to improve future versions. Comments can be sent to
part of the course but will be relevant only to some readers, Karsten Klint Jensen at [email protected], Martin Marchman
namely patenting and other methods of commercialization of Andersen at [email protected], Louise Whiteley at lowh@
research results. sund.ku.dk and to Peter Sandøe at [email protected].

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 11

2.
General introduction to responsible
conduct of research
Karsten Klint Jensen and Mickey Gjerris *

* This text grew out of a draft by Hanne Andersen (“Responsible Conduct

of Research: Why and How?”, RePoSS: Research Publications on Science
Studies, 29, Aarhus: Centre for Science Studies, Aarhus University
(2014)). The authors are grateful to Hanne Andersen for permitting her
text to serve as source for the present version with the minor overlaps
this might involve. Thanks are also due to Peter Sandøe, Louise Emma
Whiteley and Mathias Willumsen for valuable comments. Finally, thanks
are due to Teresa D´Altri from the Office of Science and Innovation at
The University of Copenhagen for contributing with the section and case
box on Image Integrity.

12 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

Summary of not using a product, after being exposed to fraudulent
This chapter describes how the field of research misconduct claims about negative effects, again made in the name of
management developed, first in the US and later elsewhere in science. In the bigger picture, the worry is that science as an
the world, driven by a number of spectacular cases. It goes on institution may lose credibility, and as a consequence diminish
to ask why researchers engage in misconduct, and this leads in importance, leaving society vulnerable to more irrational
to a short discussion of the modern institution of science. decision-making.
The competitive nature of contemporary science incentivizes
not only serious misconduct, but also much more widespread Following several spectacular cases of research misconduct,
questionable research practices. The chapter concludes by there has been a gradually increasing focus on promoting
describing recent initiatives to promote research integrity, responsible conduct of research (RCR). This development started
internationally as well as in Denmark in the US, but has now spread across the world. Most countries
have set up regulatory mechanisms for institutions to deal
1. Introduction with cases of research misconduct, a category generally defined
In Denmark, research integrity has been summarized internationally by the three notions of fabrication, falsification,
under the headline features of honesty, transparency and and plagiarism (FFP, see more below). Within the scientific
accountability (see the Danish Code of Conduct for Research community the importance of promoting responsible conduct
Integrity (Ministry of Higher Education and Science, 2014), of research has also been increasingly acknowledged, with
and see more in Section 5 below). the goal of discouraging less serious but far more widespread
questionable research practices, which may not amount to
Research misconduct may have serious consequences for serious misconduct but nevertheless threaten the integrity of
patients or consumers, who may experience harmful effects science. Thus a number of international and national codes for
from a treatment or a marketed product which is made research integrity have been formulated.
available on the basis of false and misleading information
in the name of science. Alternatively, as happened in the RCR and its failure, i.e. research misconduct and questionable
Wakefield case (see Box 1) individuals may suffer as a result research practices, have become notions which no researcher

BOX 1: WAKEFIELD AND THE VACCINATION SCARE

In 1998, the British medical doctor Andrew Wakefield together with 12 co-authors published a study in the journal The Lancet of 12
children with diagnoses of developmental disorders including autism or autistic spectrum disorder, in which they suggested a possible
link between the triple MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) inoculation and what they identified as developmental regression and bowel
disease. Before the paper was published Wakefield called for the suspension of the MMR vaccination programme at a press conference.
This fuelled an MMR vaccination scare, which was followed by a decline in vaccination rates in the US, the UK and Ireland. The paper,
and Wakefield’s later warnings, also seemed to produce more general mistrust of childhood vaccination. However, other studies failed to
reproduce Wakefield’s findings. In 2007 a hearing began to examine charges of misconduct against Wakefield and two of his co-authors,
and in 2010 the 1998 paper was declared dishonest because it involved deliberate falsification of data. This led to a retraction of the
paper by The Lancet. Although he claimed to be innocent, Wakefield was then barred from practicing in the UK. However, he continued
to do research in the US, and to this day he defends his claims and continues to warn against the MMR vaccine. It is believed that the
vaccination scare is responsible for serious illness and deaths in thousands of children.
Main sources: Godlee et al. (2010), Editors of The Lancet (2010).

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 13

can afford to ignore. Thus, in the wake of the Penkowa case, The need for open discussion and teaching in RCR is
the University of Copenhagen found it necessary to focus underpinned by the fact that in many cases it is not clear
more energetically on how to deal with deviations from RCR. where the line should be drawn. Between the clear-cut
Among other things, it set up mandatory courses for PhD cases of responsible conduct, on the one side, and research
students and senior researchers. A similar tightening up has misconduct, on the other, there is a grey zone within which
occurred in universities all over the world, and many journals questionable research practices remain a problem, and this zone
are now enforcing stricter requirements which their authors has vague boundaries. It is therefore necessary for researchers
must meet. to understand the concepts which lie on either side of, and
delineate, this grey zone, and to reflect on the implications for
their personal practice.

BOX 2: THE SOMAN CASE The remainder of this chapter introduces the key concepts
In 1978, Helena Wachslicht-Rodbart submitted a manuscript for RCR. It defines and describes the concepts of research
to New England Journal of Medicine. One reviewer, Professor misconduct and questionable research practice through a series of
Philip Felig of Yale, passed on the paper to his junior, Vijay illustrative cases, and explains the concepts of responsible conduct
Soman, and they recommended rejection. However, two of research and research integrity, and places them all in context.
other reviewers recommended acceptance subject to revision.
During her work on the revision Wachslicht-Rodbart was 2. What is research misconduct?
asked by The American Journal of Medicine to review a paper The Soman case (Box 2) illustrates several aspects of research
written by Soman and Felig. The paper looked very similar to misconduct. For one thing, there appears to be a great
her own. Some paragraphs and an equation were identical, unwillingness to accept that a scientist has intentionally
and it appeared that the authors had been the very people to engaged in fraud. The prestige attached to certain persons or
recommend rejection of her own paper. Wachslicht-Rodbart their positions, and efforts that have been made to promote
complained about plagiarism to New England Journal of certain researchers or results, typically add to this difficulty.
Medicine, and she also expressed doubts to Yale about whether In addition, the case demonstrates that research misconduct
Soman and Felig had conducted a study at all. However, no concerns not only the individual researchers involved, but also
investigations were initiated. On the contrary, all parties seemed the institutions at which they work, and the journals in which
to prefer a quiet cover-up; even Wachslicht-Rodbart’s superior, they publish. There might be a temptation to conceal a case of
who happened to be an old friend of Felig’s, tried to silence research misconduct, to make light of its importance, or even
her and threatened to dismiss her. The Soman-Felig paper was to shoot the whistleblower, in order to shield the university or
published, but new problems with the paper appeared, and journal from negative publicity. However, this is a gamble, as
finally an investigator was appointed. Soman then admitted once a cover up is revealed the university or journal is likely to
to having fabricated the data and agreed to resign. Further lose even more credibility.
investigations uncovered fraud in 12 other papers by Soman,
on most of which Felig was a co-author. Felig was fired from Universities were traditionally viewed as self-regulating
a prestigious new position at Columbia, but returned later to academic communities, and until the 1980s it was more or
Yale. Wachslicht-Rodbart decided to leave research. less left to universities themselves to deal with cases of research
Main source: Hunt (1981). misconduct and questionable research practice. No universities
had formal systems for doing this. Even in a very serious case,
like the Soman incident described in Box 2, it was often a long
while before the university involved reacted by setting up ad

14 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

hoc investigations; and whistleblowers were often put under
pressure to dismiss their case or even threatened with sanctions BOX 3: US OFFICE OF RESEARCH INTEGRITY

– in the Soman case the whistleblower was a young scientist DEFINITION OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

without a permanent position. Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification,

or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research,
During the 1970s and 1980s, several spectacular cases of or in reporting research results.
misconduct in the US painted a picture of widespread (a) Fabrication is making up data or results and recording
incidents similar to the Soman case. The perception was that or reporting them.
in many cases institutions were closing their eyes in the face (b) Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment,
of fraud to protect old friends and discredit whistleblowers. or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such
Where investigations were initiated, they appeared to be that the research is not accurately represented in the
dragged out over very long periods and not to reach clear research record.
verdicts; and in many cases perpetrators were able to continue (c) Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas,
in their questionable practices at other institutions. The cases processes, results, or words without giving appropriate
appeared to show the public that the scientific community credit.
was unable to deal effectively and convincingly with research Research misconduct does not include honest error or
misconduct itself. differences of opinion.
(Source: Office of Research Integrity, n.d.)
In 1981 the first of a series of congressional hearings threw
light on the problems and put more pressure on institutions to
set up systems to deal with research misconduct, and to teach
staff and students norms of responsible conduct of research. In
the late 1980s, despite protests from the scientific community, definition, because it focuses on Fabrication, Falsification and
the US was the first country to implement regulations that Plagiarism (see Box 3).
required universities receiving public funding to establish clear
policies and procedures for handling misconduct. Of course, the US was not the only country to encounter
problems with research misconduct which called for
Hence, a system developed in the US in which the main regulation. Similar developments have occurred in many
universities and other leading research institutions set up rules other countries and have spread from the medical and natural
for RCR and appointed people to deal with offences. At the sciences to social sciences and the humanities.
same time, large public funding agencies like the National
Institute of Health and the National Science Foundation The Hwang Woo-Suk case (Box 4) emphasizes the
set up offices, including the Office of Research Integrity, to international character of much research and demonstrates
monitor and coordinate action. During this period the leading that misconduct may have consequences all over the world. It
journals in medicine and science also gradually developed also shows, like the Wakefield case, how hype about expected
codes of conduct for responsible authorship practices and results can create strong expectations among not only patients
started to retract papers based on documented research and other potential beneficiaries, but also among funders.
misconduct (see the Wakefield case described in Box 1). Strong expectations can create incentives to cheat in order
to meet those expectations. And experience of success and
Thus, the first definition of misconduct was developed in hero status can sometimes seem to impair scientists' ability to
US regulation. The current definition is known as the FFP maintain a critical perspective on the integrity of their practice.

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 15

The Stapel case (Box 5) is an example from the social sciences. which procedures are transparent and there is ample space for
It shows the importance of openness in the handling of data questions and critique.
and in particular allowing others access to raw data. Once
again in this case, a senior researcher’s success and status The Annette Schavan case (Box 6) is an example from the
were instrumental in silencing critical questions for a very humanities. It is a case with many ironies. A person who
long time. Maybe there is an indication here that the fear writes about the way conscience is formed, and its necessity in
of losing one’s status may be an even stronger temptation to education, does not appear to have been troubled by her own
cheat than the original gain of advantage without costs. The conscience when it came to plagiarizing the work of others.
case also illustrates the importance of an environment in Also, as a government minister Schavan was responsible for

BOX 4: THE HWANG WOO-SUK CASE BOX 5: THE DIEDERIK STAPEL CASE
Hwang Woo-Suk is a South Korean researcher who became Diederik Stapel is a former Dutch Professor in social psychology.
known as the King of Cloning. He appeared to be the answer At the height of his career he was famous for several
to the South Korean hope of achieving industrial progress outstanding publications on human behaviour and considered
though biotechnology in spite of limited investment and a a star member of faculty at Tilberg University. However, in 2011
rather narrow scientific base. Following his claim to have three young researchers started to develop doubts about his
cloned some cows (without providing verifiable data), media activities, and eventually a committee was set up to investigate
hype about the great promise of his research developed. He his work at three universities in The Netherlands. He was
became a central figure in South Korean science governance suspended in 2011.
and attracted a lot of Government funding. After Hwang’s A final report (Tilburg Univerity, 2012) concluded that
team claimed to have obtained stem cells from one out of Stapel had fabricated or manipulated data in at least 55
thirty human embryos (published in Science 2004), and later, publications, dating back to as early as 2004. Early in his career,
that it had established 11 embryonic stem-cell lines derived he manipulated data, but later he simply pretended to have
from the skin cells of individual patients (published in Science run experiments and sent processed data to colleagues or PhD
2005), Hwang became the pride of South Korea. When the students for further analysis. No one was ever allowed to see
Bioethics and Biosafety Act came into force on 1 January 2005 the raw data. In all 19 PhD theses were prepared with data
it contained a clause that effectively exempted Hwang from the from Stapel, but the investigators advised that the PhD degrees
regulation. should not be retracted, because Stapel had acted alone in the
Ironically, Hwang was charged with unethical conduct fraud.
for having used eggs from paid donors and a junior member In 2013, Stapel agreed to perform 120 hours of community
of his team. He admitted this and resigned, but he intended service and to return income from his former position (at 1.5 x
to continue his research. Then the Seoul National University annual salary) in order to avoid further criminal prosecution.
opened an investigation into his research which concluded that Main source: Tilburg University (2012).
both Science papers were based on fraudulent data. Science
retracted the two papers, and Hwang was later sentenced
to two years in prison (suspended) for embezzlement and
bioethical violations. Apparently, he is still active as a researcher.
Main source: Gottweis & Triendl (2006).

16 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

research integrity across the entire country, with her own correct image processing and became a pillar in the field.
integrity somewhat impaired. Finally, research misconduct did Subsequently, several journals have implemented guidelines
not damage Schavan’s standing as a Catholic, and in particular for authors, describing image handling standards and rules
her capacity to represent Germany to the Catholic Church itself. to be followed in preparing images for publication (Rossner,
2012). Fraudulent manipulation refers to alteration of images
Not just text, but also images, are susceptible to research that affects the interpretation of the data. Inappropriate
misconduct, because images are interpretations of data. manipulation refers to adjustments that violate the guidelines
Rossner & Yamana (2004) highlighted the image-related but do not affect the interpretation of data. Several journal
misconduct problem and described general rules for editors stress that such problems should be spotted before

BOX 6: THE ANNETTE SCHAVAN CASE BOX 7: THE CATHERINE VERFAILLIE CASE
Annette Schavan is a German politician and member of Catherine Verfaillie was a researcher at the University of
the Christian Democratic Union. She studied education, Minnesota when she in 2002 published a widely celebrated
philosophy and catholic theology, earning her doctorate at paper in Nature, where her group described a new type of
Düsseldorf University with a dissertation entitled Person and pluripotent cells. Some years later, reporters found problems
Conscience. In 1995-2005 she was Minister for Culture, Youth related to some of the images contained in several of her
and Sport in Baden-Wüttenberg, and in 2005-2013 she was publications. Some image panels were duplicated – the same
federal Minister for Education and Research. images were used multiple times while claimed to represent
In 2012, a blog (Schavanplag, n.d.) claimed that 94 pages separate results obtained from independent experiments.
of Schavan’s 325-page dissertation were copied without The University of Minnesota conducted an investigation and
reference to sources. Schavan asked the university to examine concluded that Verfaillie’s graduate student had committed
the allegation. In an interview, Schavan said that she could not research misconduct, while Verfaillie herself was blamed
claim never to have made mistakes out of carelessness, but she for insufficient oversight. Some of her publications were
refuted the claim that she had plagiarized or cheated. However, retracted, while the famous Nature paper only had to undergo
the faculty concluded in 2013 that, throughout the dissertation, corrections.
she had wilfully committed fraud by plagiarism, and her degree Despite the controversy about her work, Verfaillie continued
was revoked. Schavan announced immediately that she would her career as a prestigious researcher and today she is member
file a complaint over the verdict to the Court of Administration of several editorial and advisory boards and since 2005 the
(Verwaltungsgericht). A few days later, she stepped down from director of the Stem Cell Institute at the Catholic University
her post as a federal minister. of Leuven (Belgium). However, more concerns have recently
Her complaint was rejected by the Court of Administration been expressed about at least 10 additional papers from
in 2014. But in the same year she received an honorary Verfaillie’s group as other images appear to be manipulated
doctorate from the University of Lübeck, and later in 2014 she and/or re-used. A total of 18 papers from 1997 to 2014 have
became German ambassador to the Vatican. been questioned. Remarkably, the student who was accused of
Main source, which among other things contains all the official research misconduct in the Minnesota University investigation
documents: Schavanplag (n.d.). is author of only a minority of them. The case is gaining new
media coverage, especially in Belgium, even though no new
investigation has been opened up to date.

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 17

the publication level and efforts should be done to possibly cases of misconduct, but also to look at the causes. Perhaps
prevent them. unsurprisingly, the usual motive behind research misconduct
is self-interested pursuit of an advantage over others in the
Initially, the US definition of misconduct contained, in competition for funding, positions and overall recognition
addition to fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, a fourth “without incurring the cost of effort” (Fang & Casadewall,
clause: “other practices that seriously deviate from those that 2013).
are commonly accepted within the scientific community”.
However, this clause was criticized by many scientists and Back in 1942, the sociologist of science Robert K. Merton
scientific bodies, including the National Academy of Science, tried to describe the values adhered to by the scientific
because the formulation was so vague that it could be used to community (Merton, 1973). He identified what later
accuse honest researchers pursuing creative or novel science of became known as the CUDOS norms: Communalism
research misconduct. It was therefore later removed, leaving us (new results are the common property of the scientific
with FFP. community), Universalism (scientists can all contribute
to science regardless of their race or gender or social
The fact that research misconduct does not include differences background), Disinterestedness (scientists are not driven by
of opinion has been explicitly confirmed in Denmark. This personal interests in their pursuit of science), and Organized
happened as a result of the case against Bjørn Lomborg (see Skepticism (scientific claims are critically scrutinized by
Chapter 3). However, in contrast with the US definition, the scientific community before being accepted). Merton’s
which only mentions FFP and excludes “honest error” description was influential for the scientific community’s
from research misconduct, Denmark, like many other perception of itself.
countries in Europe, and like Australia, previously adopted
a wider definition. The Danish definition (termed ‘scientific Interestingly, Merton did not attribute the norm of
dishonesty’) was open-ended; it included a clause on “other disinterestedness to the scientific community because he
serious violations of good scientific practice” and also believed scientists to be morally better than ordinary people;
included acts that are “grossly negligent”. However, the new rather, he found that the frequency of severe fraud in science
law (Ministry of Higher Education and Science (2017), see was lower than that in other areas of human endeavour
Chapter 3) has adopted the FFP definition. It should be noted and concluded that an institutional norm actively deters
that aligning national definitions and regulation is a difficult scientists from research misconduct. Outside of explicit
task, as different traditions have developed in different countries research misconduct, Merton also considered that the norm
concerning e.g. what is considered a rightful authorship. of disinterestedness could be violated by misusing science for
Nonetheless it is an important task as science becomes various political purposes (e.g. in making claims about race or
increasingly globalized, thus leaving researchers in international history not driven by the pursuit of truth).
collaborations in muddled waters.1
At the end of the twentieth century the physicist John M.
3. The competitive nature of today’s science Ziman described the institution of science rather differently
Why do people engage in misconduct? The many spectacular using the PLACE norms (Ziman, 2000): Proprietary (results
cases of misconduct have forced the scientific community are proprietary rather than communal), Local (researchers
not only to set up institutions and procedures to handle focus on local puzzles rather than general understanding),
Authority (there is a hierarchical structure of authority
1 The account in this section is mainly based on LaFolette (2000) rather than the equality implied by Merton’s universalism),
and Steneck (1994). Commissioned (research is often commissioned and therefore

18 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

not disinterested), and Expert (scientists are valued as experts scientists. Public funding agencies have thus been created in
who can give advice on action rather than for their originality; many countries, and across national borders, most notably
Merton later included ‘originality’ in the CUDOS norms). perhaps in the EU. Governments then expect returns from
Clearly, the shift from CUDOS (Merton, 1973) to PLACE their investment. In order to optimize quality and the efficient
(Ziman, 2000) signals a dramatic development in the use of resources, many governments allocate large parts of
perception of how science works, how it is organized and how public research funding through free competition between
it relates to society. This raises questions about how science applicants. Many, moreover, have encouraged collaboration
can retain its integrity if its traditional norms, as described by and co-funding between universities and industry, hoping to
Merton, are indeed this deeply challenged. However, a closer see greater economic returns from research investment. As
look at the actual development of science between the 1940s a result, researchers have become much more dependent on
and today gives a more nuanced picture. proving scientific success, not least in terms of publications,
and they increasingly collaborate with the private sector,
One aspect of the development of science is the sheer increase where financial and other interests may conflict with the
in volume. Already in 1963, the historian of science Derek traditional values of academic freedom and disinterestedness
John de Solla Price had argued in his book Little Science – (see Chapter 7).
Big Science that the amount of scientific activity, measured
by the number of journals and results etc., had been growing Another development, sometimes described as the move
exponentially, doubling every 10-15 years (De Solla Price, from Mode 1 to Mode 2 Research,2 is the funding of
1963). Solla Price warned that this growth could not proceed large, temporary, interdisciplinary projects designed to
indefinitely, but the expansion still continues. A more recent address specific problems. These problems are defined
follow-up study of the number of journals (Olesen Larsen & not by academia (as in Mode 1), but by a wider group of
von Ins, 2010) has concluded that “[t]here are no indications stakeholders in society, often including representatives of
that the growth rate has decreased in the last 50 years” (p. 600). industry. Contemporary research is also characterized by
greater internationalization. This is typically encouraged by
Another aspect is the increasingly prominent role in society funding agencies in the hope that synergies across borders will
that science has gained during the twentieth century and the increase the quality of outputs and promote capacity building.
first years of the twenty-first century. Following WWII, it In order to meet the evolving demands of governments and
became clear to politicians and the general public alike that other funders, it has been necessary to organize science in
science-based inventions and technologies had the potential increasingly large units with a high degree of specialization
to create prosperity and solve problems for society on a and division of labour.
large scale (whilst of course also raising anxieties about the
destructive potential of science and technology). Society has Science has no doubt over the years developed higher scientific
come to expect that ‘expert’ scientific knowledge will guide standards and more rigorous methods. Current requirements
governments, public and private bodies, and individual on clinical trials and statistical rigor are important examples of
citizens in making informed decisions on almost any issue in this. Also, the increasing demands for openness and accuracy
modern life, from dietary choice and medical treatment to in reporting across large, often international consortia have
energy saving initiatives and computer safety. halted some of the research misconduct practices that big
scientific names in the past managed to get away with.
With high expectations about the advances science can bring,
governments all over the world allocate substantial amounts
of money to scientific research and to the education of 2 These terms were coined in A. Gibbons et al. (1994).

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 19

Clearly, however, the developments describes above raise Conflicts of interest are discussed in more detail in Chapter
some challenges. The modern scientist has left the ivory tower 7. Increasingly, patents are the expected outcome of today’s
and has become a member of ordinary society, subject to its collaborations, which means that some scientific results are no
demands and trends in a way that may conflict with the pure longer common property as Merton (1973) insisted. The issue
pursuit of scientific knowledge. Funders of research make of intellectual property rights (IPR) is discussed in Chapter 6.
strong demands on researchers, and obtaining funds from
a variety of sources places the modern scientist in a field of Again, scientists are not only providing the public good of
competition and conflicting interests that have to be managed. shared knowledge; they are also involved in fierce competition

FIGURE 1: A TABLE INDICATING THE PREVALENCE OF VARIOUS BEHAVIOURS IN THE US

(FROM MARTINSON, ANDERSON, & DE VRIES (2005))

Percentage of scientists who say that they engaged in the behaviour listed within the previous three years (n=3,247)
Top ten behaviours All Mid-career Early-career
1. Falsifying or 'cooking' research data 0.3 0.2 0.5
2. Ignoring major aspects of human-subject requirements 0.3 0.3 0.4
3. Not properly disclosing involvement in firms whose products are based 0.3 0.4 0.3
on one's own research
4. Relationsships with students, research subjects or clients that may be 1.4 1.3 1.4
interpreted as questionable
5. Using another's ideas without obtaining permission or giving due credit 1.4 1.7 1.0
6. Unauthorized use of confidential information in connoection with one's own research 1.7 2.4 0.8***
7. Failing to present data that contradict one's own previous research 6.0 6.5 5.3
8. Circumventing certain minor aspects of human-subject requirements 7.6 9.0 6.0**
9. Overlooking others' use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data 12.5 12.2 12.8
10. Changing the design, methology or results of a study in response to 15.5 20.6 9.5***
pressure from a funding source

Other behaviours
11. Publishing the same data or results in two or more publications 4.7 5.9 3.4**
12. Inappropiately assigning authorship credit 10.0 12.3 7.4***
13. Witholding details of methodology or results in papers or proposals 10.8 12.4 8.9**
14. Using inadequate or inappropriate research designs 13.5 14.6 12.2
15. Dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling 15.3 14.3 16.5
that they were inaccurate
16. Inadequate record keeping related to research projects 27.5 27.7 27.3

Note: Significance of X2 tests of differences between mid- and early-career scientists are noted by **(P<0.01) and *** (P< 0.001)

20 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

for funding and positions. With such keen competition, data handling and management (Chapter 5) and conflicts
researchers are highly dependent on proving their continued of interest (Chapter 7), as well as within image handling as
success. Since most funders employ various bibliometrics mentioned above. To the extent that questionable research
(e.g. journal rankings and citation indices) as a measure of practices are much more widespread, they may have serious
quality in scientific performance, researchers often feel they consequences for both the reliability of scientific results and
are under increasing pressure to publish as much as possible, public trust in them.
as quickly as possible, and in as high-ranking journals as
possible. The competitive environment provides an incentive Some people wish to bring failure to live up to accepted
for each individual to gain advantages relative to others; and standards for scientific methodology under the umbrella
in this climate some people are likely to be tempted into of questionable research practices. For instance, there has
misconduct. Or, as stated in an editorial in Infection and recently been a debate over reproducibility that evolved in the
Immunity: “It is not difficult to surmise the underlying causes medical sciences, but it is likely to spread to other areas.
of research misconduct. Misconduct represents the dark There is evidence to suggest that much basic and clinical
side of the hyper-competitive environment of contemporary research does not meet the fundamental requirement of
science, with its emphasis on funding, numbers of reproducibility (e.g. see Begley & Ioannidis (2015) and
publications, and impact factor. With such potent incentives The Lancet, (2014) for further discussion). Failure of
for cheating, it is not surprising that some scientists succumb reproducibility is, of course, a very serious problem. But
to temptation.” (Fang et al., 2011, p. 3857) whether it should be counted as a questionable research
practice, as these are described above, is controversial. There is
4. Questionable research practices a distinction between being in good faith but failing to live up
Just how widespread is research misconduct? Clearly, this is to standards (because these have developed), and failing to live
difficult to assess accurately, in part because underreporting up to standards with the intent of cheating. Clearly, scientific
is highly likely. Martinson et al. (2005) (see more below) standards develop over time, so it is arguable that historical
estimate that 1%-2% of all scientists have been engaged in research that would now be conducted differently need not
misconduct. These figures indicate that very many cases go have involved wilfully breaches of honesty, transparency or
undetected when compared to the number of reported cases. accountability. Hence, these questions are kept apart in this
Thus, institutions and procedures need to be in place to bring chapter.
cases to light and handle them when they do occur. Moreover,
universities need to develop a culture which provides access On the basis of a meta-analysis of available studies of the
and protection for whistleblowers and at the same time offers prevalence of research misconduct, Fanelli (2009) found that
protection from false accusations, which may also be part of a almost 2% of researchers admitted to having “fabricated,
competitive environment. falsified or modified data or results at least once” (p. e5738),
while a much larger proportion, 33.7%, admitted to other
Compared to the more serious cases of research misconduct, questionable research practices. When participants were
questionable research practices are much more widespread asked about the behaviour of their colleagues, the numbers rose,
(Martinson et al., 2005; Fanelli, 2009). Such practices are and 14% reported that they had witnessed colleagues engaging
defined as research which undermines research integrity in falsification and 72% reported that they had witnessed
– breaching principles of honesty, transparency, and colleagues engaging in questionable research practices.
accountability – without amounting to research misconduct,
and commonly arise within some of the areas discussed later One of the studies include in Fanelli’s (2009) meta-analysis
in this book, like authorship and publication (Chapter 4), was the survey by Martinson et al. (2005), which was

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 21

completed by over three thousand US researchers (see Figure It is worth noting that questionable research practice (and
1). The “top ten behaviours” in their table are behaviours that misconduct) is not just a matter of individuals with “bad
are likely to be sanctionable. The “other behaviours” are less traits”, or of local contexts (departments, laboratories) with
serious or careless. a “bad culture”. Widespread questionable research practice
appears to be associated with general institutional and
Martinson and his colleagues found that 0.3 % of the structural features of the research environment. As outlined
scientists who replied to the survey had, by their own above, recognition of this distribution of responsibility for
admission, engaged in the falsification of data, and that 1.4 both good and bad scientific practice has gradually led to a
% had used the ideas of others without obtaining permission stronger focus on research integrity.
or giving due credit (plagiarism). However, a number of
behaviours in the domain of questionable research practices 5. Research integrity
had far higher frequencies. Of the respondents, 6% reported The notion of responsible conduct of research refers to conduct
that they had failed to present data that contradicted their conforming with published rules or guidelines. This notion
own previous research, 12.5% had overlooked others’ use of looks at behaviour from the outside, so to speak: did the
flawed data or questionable interpretation of data, and 15.5 individuals perform the right actions? Did they, for example,
% had changed design, methodology or results in response report findings accurately and objectively?
to pressure from a funding source. Bias in the face of pressure
from funding is examined in more detail in Chapter 7, author- Research integrity is a notion which expresses, and emphasizes,
ship and publications issues are examined in Chapter 4, and the importance of the underlying values and norms of
the handling and storage of data is discussed in Chapter 5. research – norms which the whole research community should
not only display through their behaviour, but internalize as
These behaviours can make research results look more credible ideals they believe in. The hope is that when researchers sign
than they really are. Policymakers, companies, clinicians or up to norms in this way, they become motivated to comply
other stakeholders who make decisions on the basis of this with rules and guidelines, and to take responsibility for the
kind of exaggerated credibility may then end up making trustworthiness of their and colleagues’ research.
unwarranted and in some cases damaging decisions. Scientists
who base their research on misplaced confidence in others’ As will become apparent throughout this book there are many
results may waste their time, and are at risk of producing grey zones where one can stay within “the letter of the law”,
further connected errors. but move against “the spirit of the law”. For instance in cases
of authorships and conflict of interests. If the motivation to
One of the drivers of questionable research practices is the act responsibly is to avoid punishment or other repercussions,
intense competition for funding, positions, and so on, with one can ask the question: “What can I get away with”?
researchers under constant pressure to ‘improve’ their CVs. Research integrity on the other hand implies that one is
Martinson et al. (2005) suggest that bad practice by some motivated to act responsibly out of an understanding of the
researchers trying to ‘get ahead’ may in turn encourage wider intention behind the various codes and rules. The question is
adoption of questionable practices, because people who see not: What can I get away with? It is rather: How can I realize
others appearing to get away with such practices without the values underlying the relevant codes and rules?
sanction (and who therefore see a skewed distribution of
positions, publications and funding) may follow suit so as not Within the last decade, agencies around the globe have
to lose out in a competition perceived as unfair. worked towards international dialogue on how to understand

22 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

and promote research integrity, and how to eventually are fundamental to the integrity of research wherever it is
harmonize standards and regulations. undertaken”. These are summarized as:

A series of World Conferences on Research Integrity, from • Honesty in all aspects of research
2007 onwards, has been prominent in this work. The • Accountability in the conduct of research
2nd World Conference in 2010 produced the Singapore • Professional courtesy and fairness in working with others
Statement on Research Integrity (World Conferences on • Good stewardship of research on behalf of others
Research Integrity, 2010). This international statement
outlines “the principles and professional responsibilities that

BOX 8: PRINCIPLES OF RESEARCH INTEGRITY IN THE DANISH CODE OF CONDUCT FOR RESEARCH INTEGRITY
Honesty
To ensure the trustworthiness of research, researchers should be honest when reporting objectives, methods, data, analysis, results,
conclusions, etc.
This requires accurate and balanced reporting when:
• presenting and interpreting research
• making claims based on findings
• acknowledging the work of other researchers
• applying for research funding
• reviewing and evaluating research

Transparency
To ensure the credibility of scientific reasoning, and to ensure that academic reflection is consistent with practice in the relevant field of
research, all phases of research should be transparent.
This requires openness when reporting:
• conflicts of interest
• planning of research
• research methods applied
• results and conclusions

Accountability
To ensure the reliability of research, all parties involved should be accountable for the research carried out.
This requires that researchers and institutions accept responsibility for the research they are conducting, in terms of:
• accuracy and reliability of research results
• adherence to all relevant regulations
• fostering and maintaining a culture of research integrity through teaching, training, and supervision
• taking appropriate measures when dealing with breaches of responsible conduct of research

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 23

This statement was followed, at the 3rd World Conference, All existing Danish guidelines refer to these international
by the 2013 Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in statements. In a collaborative operation initiated in 2013,
Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations (World Conference the Ministry of Higher Education and Science and the
on Research Integrity, 2013). This outlines the responsibilities organization Universities Denmark worked together on The
of individual and institutional partners in cross-boundary Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (Ministry of
research collaborations, including general collaborative Higher Education and Science, 2014), which was published in
responsibilities, responsibilities in managing collaboration 2014. This Code now serves as the primary point of reference
and in collaborative relationships, and responsibilities for the for researchers working in Denmark. It will of course need to
outcomes of research. The statements acknowledge that there be implemented by the universities, at which point it will be
are many national and disciplinary differences in the way elaborated in more detailed local policies. According to the
research is organized and conducted, but they nonetheless seek Code, three basic values should guide all research, inspired by
to formulate basic principles and professional responsibilities the Singapore Statement (see Box 8):
that are fundamental to the integrity of science in general
terms. Detailed interpretation of the general principles and The Code goes on to specify in detail the responsibilities
their specific legal implications are often spelled out, however, of individuals and institutions across a wide range of
in national and local regulations. areas, including research planning and conduct, data

BOX 9: HOW TO HANDLE SUSPICION OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT?

You learn that a senior colleague has discarded several observations from a data set that you both use as they do not support his
hypothesis. When you ask him about it you are presented with a rather unsatisfactory explanation on why he has done this and you
strongly suspect him of falsifying the data to strengthen his paper. What do you do?

A: Nothing – this is somebody else´s problem.

B: Confront him again and go deeper into the discussion to show him that you suspect something – but leave it up to him to decide what
to do.
C: Without informing him, you inform the professor who is supervising you both and leave it to her to do something.
D: Confront him with your suspicions at the next internal seminar in front of the whole group.

It seems obvious that A is not an expression of research integrity as part of being a good researcher is to intervene when others conduct
research misconduct or questionable research practices. B is to address the problem without escalating the conflict unnecessarily and
keeping the option open that you might be mistaken. But if you are still suspicious, you probably ought to move on to C, and possibly
inform your colleague that this is what you will do. If C results in you still being suspicious as it seems to you the professor is part of the
falsification, D is an option. But D could carry costs for you – both if you are right and if you wrong. An option not mentioned is to contact
“the named person” (see chapter 3) for anonymous advice before moving into D.
As can be readily seen it is not easy to find your way in such a situation, both because it is under-described here, but also because
doing the right thing, having research integrity, might entail problems for you depending on the culture that you work in.

(Case based on Erasmus University Rotterdam (2016))

24 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

management, publication and communication, authorship, Begley CG and Ioannidis JPA (2015). Reproducibility in
collaborative research, and conflicts of interest. It also science: improving the standard for basic and preclinical
outlines principles for research integrity in teaching, research. Circulation Research 116: 116-126.
training and supervision. Finally, it states: “Institutions
and researchers share a responsibility for addressing and De Solla Price DJ (1963). Little Science, Big Science. New
taking appropriate measures when encountering breaches of York: Columbia University Press.
responsible conduct of research”, and this includes research
misconduct as well as the broader range of questionable Editors of The Lancet (2010). Retraction - Ileal-lymphoid-
research practices. nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive
developmental disorder in children. The Lancet 375: 445.
It seems appropriate to end this chapter with the statement:
“Researchers and institutions are responsible for creating Erasmus University Rotterdam (2016): Dilemma Game
and maintaining an environment where it is acceptable Scientific Integrity (no. 72). Retrieved from https://
to bring forward well-founded suspicions of breaches of www.eur.nl/sites/corporate/files/24708_integriteitsspel_
responsible conduct of research in good faith.” This helps to interactief_2016.pdf
bring out the idea of a shared, personal and institutional,
duty to create an environment for research in which the Fanelli D (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify
incentives to indulge in questionable practices are research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data.
minimized because individuals regard the system as fair, PLoS ONE 4: 1-11.
and because it is hard to gain an unfair advantage without
cost to oneself. In Chapter 3, we move on to discuss how Fang FC and Casadevall A (2013). Why we cheat. Scientific
breaches of responsible conduct of research are handled in American Mind 2013: 32-37.
Denmark.
Fang FC, Casadevall A & Morrison RP (2011): Retracted
6. Test yourself questions science and the retraction index. Infection and Immunity,
• How do “research misconduct” and “questionable vol. 79 (10): 3855-59.
research practices” differ?
• What are the main reasons why people engage in Gibbons A, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott
scientific misbehaviour? P and Trow M (1994). The new production of knowledge:
• How do “responsible conduct of research” (RCR) the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies.
and “research integrity” differ? London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage.
• What are the basic values underlying research
integrity? Godlee F, Smith J and Marcovitch H (2011). Wakefield’s
article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent.
BMJ 342: 64-66.

References Gottweis H and Triendl R (2006). South Korean policy failure

Aldhous P & Reich ES (2007): Flawed stem cell data and the Hwang debacle. Nature Biotechnology 24(2): 141-143.
withdrawn. NewScientist (February 14). Retrieved from
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325915-200- Hunt M (1981). A fraud that shook the world of science.
flawed-stem-cell-data-withdrawn/ New York Times 11 January.

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 25

Lancet (2014). Research: increasing value, reducing waste. Rossner M (2012): Digital images and misconduct, in
Retrieved from http://www.thelancet.com/series/research. Council of Science Editors: White paper on publication
ethics (chapter 3.4). Retrieved from https://www.
LaFollette MC (2000). The evolution of the “Scientific councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/
Misconduct” issue: an historical overview. Experimental white-paper-on-publication-ethics/3-4-digital-images-and-
Biology and Medicine 224: 211-215. misconduct

Martinson BC, Anderson MS and De Vries R (2005). Rossner M & Yamada KM (2004): What's in a picture? The
Scientists behaving badly. Nature 435: 737-738. temptation of image manipulation. Journal of Cell Biology,
vol. 166(1): 11-15.
Merton RK (1973). The normative structure of science.
In The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Schavanplag (n.d.). Schavanplag. Dokumentation von
Investigations (pp. 265-278). Chicago: Chicago University Plagiaten in der Dissertation von Annette Schavan. Retrieved
Press. from https://schavanplag.wordpress.com/

Ministry of Higher Education and Science (2014). Danish Steneck NH (1994). Research Universities and Scientific
Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Retrieved from http:// Misconduct: History, Policies, and the Future. The Journal of
ufm.dk/publikationer/2014/filer-2014/the-danish-code-of- Higher Education 65: 310-330.
conduct-for-research-integrity.pdf
Tilburg University (2012). Flawed science: The fraudulent
Ministry of Higher Education and Science (2017). Act no. research practices of social psychologist Diederik Stapel.
383 of 26 April 2017 on research misconduct etc. Retrieved Retrieved from https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/
from https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710. upload/3ff904d7-547b-40ae-85fe-bea38e05a34a_Final%20
aspx?id=188780. report%20Flawed%20Science.pdf

Nature (2008): Manipulated' stem-cell paper faces retraction. World Conference on Research Integrity (2010). Singapore
Nature, vol. 445: 849. Statement on Research Integrity. Retrieved from http://www.
singaporestatement.org/downloads/singpore%20statement_
Offord C (2019): KU Leuven Investigates Whether Stem A4size.pdf
Cell Scientist Falsified Data. The Scientist (December 10).
Retrieved from https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/ World Conference on Research Integrity (2013). Montreal
ku-leuven-investigates-whether-stem-cell-scientist-falsified- Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research
data-66835 Collaborations. Retrieved from http://www.researchintegrity.
org/Statements/Montreal%20Statement%20English.pdf
Office of Research Integrity (n.d.). Definition of Reseaech
Misconduct. Retrieved from http://ori.hhs.gov/definition- Ziman J (2000). Real Science: What it is, and what it means.
misconduct Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Olesen Larsen P and von Ins M (2010). The rate of growth in

scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by
Science Citation Index. Scientometrics 84(3): 575-603

26 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 27
3.
How are breaches of RCR
handled in Denmark?
Peter Sandøe and Mathias Willumsen *

* The authors gratefully acknowledge input to a previous version of the

chapter from Hanne Andersen, Nils Axelsen, Mickey Gjerris, Jørn
Hounsgaard, Karsten Klint Jensen, Thomas Riis, and Bo Jellesmark
Thorsen.

28 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

Summary Copenhagen, there are two Named Persons appointed at the
This chapter describes Danish procedures for handling Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences and at the Faculty of
breaches of RCR as they have developed over the years Science, and there is one for each of the other faculties.
and explains how researchers encountering problems with
RCR can navigate in the system. The following institutions, In the following sections we describe the Danish system for
regulations, and official recommendations are covered handling violations of RCR, as it has developed over the
by the chapter: the Danish Committe on Research years. We give some key pieces of information and pointers
Misconduct (DCRM) – until 2017 called the Danish to help researchers who are facing problems with RCR to
Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD), the Practice use the system. We begin by looking at the DCRM, the
Committee at the University of Copenhagen, Named Person central national committee handling Danish cases of research
arrangements, and the Danish Code of Conduct for Research misconduct. The body from which the Committee developed
Integrity. was first established in 1992, and the Committee is still the
backbone of the system for handling cases of alleged research
1. Introduction misconduct in Denmark.
What can and should you do if you come across colleagues
or collaborators who engage in scientific practices you find 2. The Danish Committee on Research
problematic? If you decide that you need to act, what are Misconduct – Outline of the system
the possibilities and where can you seek guidance? The The committee system grew out of an initiative taken by the
answers to these questions to a large extent depend on Danish Research Council for Medical Sciences. In 1992, an
answers to the following questions, to be addressed initial committee of eight members was established, including
in this chapter: What systems are set up in Denmark to seven medical scientists and a high court judge as Chair. This
deal with research misconduct and questionable research committee covered health and medical sciences only and was
practice? And what official rules and norms apply within established as a temporary initiative. In many ways it served to
these systems? define the later terms and workings of the system.

Over the last few decades, following the developments in In 1998 a permanent system with a committee system
the US as described in Chapter 2, most Western countries covering the full spectrum of scientific enquiry was established
have set up systems to deal with research misconduct. Most by an executive order issued by the Minister of Higher
countries have followed a model in which the primary Education and Science. (This system is currently based on
responsibility for investigating and dealing with allegations Lov om videnskabelig uredelighed m.v. (Research Misconduct
of research misconduct lies with the individual research etc.), Act no. 383 of 26 April 2017 passed by the Danish
institution. However, in Denmark, a system for dealing parliament). This meant that from 1998 onwards the
with cases of research misconduct at the national level was committee system was founded on Danish legislation, and
developed from the start of the 1990s. This system was later that the definition of research misconduct was now laid down
supplemented with institutional procedures for dealing in law. For a reference to the current rules, see Box 1 and Box
with less serious cases of questionable research practice 2; and for a description of the 1998 rules see the 1999 report
at the university level. Since 2012 this has been further (in Danish) issued by the DCSD (2000).
supplemented with so-called Named Persons who serve as the
point of contact for researchers and students who are unsure The Committee is chaired by a high court judge and the other
about how to handle alleged cases of research misconduct 8-10 members must be recognized scientists representing
or questionable research practice. At the University of different research areas. All the scientific members of

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 29

the Committee are appointed by the Minister of Higher the Committee if there is a grounded suspicion of research
Education and Science, based on an open call followed by a misconduct committed at the institution in question. So
consultation with the Independent Research Fund Denmark. the managament of the University of Copenhagen is under
the legal obligation to pursue and report cases of research
The starting point of a case is normally that someone files a misconduct. The name of the person who makes the
written complaint. Complaints can be filed by an individual complaint will be issued to the person(s) complained about:
or an institution. With the procedural setup introduced by the system does not allow for anonymous whistleblowers.
the new law from July 2017 all individual complaints must be
filed at the relevant research institution. The institution will When someone makes a complaint it will in most cases be
then screen the case to see if some formal requirements are about alleged research misconduct by another researcher.
met (is there a scientific product, is the person complained
about a researcher, and does the compliant concern research
misconduct) and forward the case to the Committee for BOX 2: THE DANISH DEFINITION OF
processing. The Committee can raise cases at its own RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

initiative, but typically cases rely on someone being willing to Lov om videnskabelig uredelighed m.v. (Act on Research
come forward and make the complaint. Here it is important Misconduct etc.), Act no. 383 of 26 April 2017, § 3:
to notice that according to the law, every Danish university
or other public research institution is obliged to raise cases for "3.-(1) For the purposes of this Act:
1) Research misconduct shall mean: Fabrication, falsification
and plagiarism committed wilfully or with gross negligence
when planning, performing or reporting on research.
BOX 1: THE DANISH COMMITTEE ON 2) Fabrication shall mean: Undisclosed construction of data or
RESEARCH MISCONDUCT substitution with fictitious data.
The Danish Committee on Research Misconduct is a national 3) Falsification shall mean: Manipulation of research material,
committee consisting of a high court judge and 8-10 equipment or processes as well as changing or omitting data
recognised researchers and it operates under the Ministry of or results, thus making the research misleading.
Higher Education and Science. 4) Plagiarism shall mean: Appropriation of other people’s ideas,
The Committee deals with written complaints about processes, results, texts or specific concepts without giving
research misconduct. It cannot punish offenders but may due credit."
inform the institutions to which an offender is attached and the
institutions may then invoke disciplinary actions. A complaint Excluded from the definition are
cannot normally be sent directly to the Committee but must be 1) cases of fabrication, falsification and plagiarism which have
sent to your own research institution which will then pass it on. only had minor importance when planning, performing or
At the University of Copenhagen a complaint about research reporting on the research;
misconduct should be sent to the Practice Committee at the 2) matters relating to the validity of scientific theories; and
University of Copenhagen (see box 5). 3) matters relating to the research quality of a scientific product.
You can read more about the Commitee on its webpage
(DCRM, 2017a) where it is also possible to read anonymized According to the remarks of the law authorship issues and
decisions taken by the Committee. You can also find an so-called self-plagiarism are not normally considered cases of
overview of the current regulatory framework (DCRM, 2017b). research misconduct.

30 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

However, sometimes cases are raised by researchers who want enterprise etc. consents. A number of formal requirements
to be cleared of allegations of research misconduct against must then be satisfied. First, the case must concern a scientific
themselves. For example, in 1994 the newly elected rector3 of product, i.e. a product generated by means of scientific
the University of Copenhagen, Kjeld Møllgård filed a case to methods applied in research typically in the form of a
exonerate himself of allegations of research misconduct going research paper or funding application. Secondly, the person
back more than 20 years. In this case the Committee, based concerned must be a researcher which is defined as any person
on a report from a subcommittee with external members, who is a PhD student or who has a PhD degree or similar
concluded that the allegations were baseless. qualifications.

The wording describing what counts as research misconduct For the Committee to deal with a case it must be one of
has changed since the rules for the first committee were alleged research misconduct, not just scientific disagreement.
defined, but the substance is more or less the same – see Box 2 From the beginning, the committee system has drawn a
for the latest version. distinction between scientific disagreement over the validity
of scientific theories or the quality of the research being
When a case is presented to the Committee, the first thing conducted, and claims about research misconduct. The
it should do is to decide whether or not to deal with the Committee only deals with the latter. Disagreements about
case. For the Committee to accept a case, it must fall under what constitutes good science and the validity of specific
its remit, as defined by the rules set out in Box 2, i.e. by scientific claims are left for the scientific community itself
concerning “fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in to deal with through peer review and via public critique of
planning, performing or reporting research”. The case also others’ work.
has to concern research conducted with full or partial Danish
public funding or research conducted at a public research Many of the cases put before the committee system so far
institution in Denmark. If the research in question is strictly have been rejected during the initial phase, typically because
privately funded and does not involve a public research they do not concern a scientific product. For example, if a
institution the Committee can only deal with the case if the researcher engages in a public debate and makes claims that
are not supported by facts, this is usually not covered by the
3 These were the days when rectors were elected by university staff and rules.
students.
If a case is complicated and requires expertise not found
among the members of the Committee, it may decide to
obtain expert assistance as specifically required, e.g. by
BOX 3: REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET FOR including an external expert in the Committee's processing
THE ACTIONS OF A RESEARCHER TO BE DEEMED A of the case. In other cases, the Committee may obtain an
CASE OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT: external statement from an expert giving an opinion on (parts
1) It must be a case of falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism. of ) the case.
2) It must be done wilfully or with gross negligence.
3) It must be about a researcher's product brought forward by When the Committee finds that a case meets the formal
means of scientific methods as part of research. requirements and therefore should be taken under active
4) It must be about research related to a Danish public consideration in the Committee, the next step is to procure all
institution or based on public funding. relevant information for processing the case. This will always
involve a hearing of the person subject to the complaint, so

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 31

that she/he gets a chance to bring forward his view on the This case was simple. Others are much more complicated
matter in question. – they have often been protracted and prolonged as a result
of numerous hearings and complaints from the parties. As
After this, the case is investigated by the Committee. In the a result, one of the ideas behind the procedural setup in the
process of investigation additional material going beyond that new law is to give the research institutions a bigger role in
originally submitted by the complainant, the relevant research treating individual cases while simultanously diminishing the
institution, and the person being complained about may be role of the person bringing forward the complaint and not
asked for. If the material contains factual information, the automatically make this person a party to the case.
person subject to the complaint will be given an opportunity
to comment on this information. In recent years there has been, on average, around one case
a year where a researcher has been found guilty of research
In Box 4 below is a sketch of a case dealt with by the misconduct. The Committee is not able to punish offenders,
committee system. but it can do a number of things which may have serious
consequences for a researcher who is found to have acted
dishonestly. The most important thing it can do is inform the
researcher’s employer. Using this information, the employer
BOX 4: A CASE OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT may choose to apply sanctions, the most drastic of which
HANDLED BY THE DANISH COMMITTEE SYSTEM would be to terminate the researcher’s employment. Also, if
The committee system was contacted by a Danish university the case concerns an application for a grant from a public
which filed a plagiarism complaint. A member of a hiring funding body, the Committee may inform the funding body.
committee, set up for recruiting candidates for a scientific The Committee may also inform the editor of a scientific
position, suspected that an applicant had enclosed an article paper or book about its decision.
which they had not written. The hiring committee confirmed its
suspicion by tracking down the original article. In the case described in Box 4 the effects on the convicted
During the hearing of the facts in the case, the respondent researcher are likely to have been minimal. Since the decision
admitted having enclosed an article which he had not written is only made public in an anonymous form, the name of the
although he had supplied it under his own name. The researcher will not be publicly announced, and the case will
respondent then stated that the plagiarized article should be therefore not affect the person’s possibility to apply for future
regarded as a test of whether the university was sufficiently jobs. However, the activities of the Committee fall under
thorough in its processing of applications for scientific Danish legislation on access to public information, so the press
positions. and other interested parties may seek access to non-anonymized
The Committee did not find the respondent’s argument to versions of the Committee's decisions. The researchers most
be credible and found the respondent to exhibit misconduct by affected by a verdict of research misconduct are those who
intentionally plagiarizing the results of others and wrongfully already have a strong public profile, and hence a reputation that
alleging to be the author of a scientific publication which the can be badly damaged. A bad reputation may, among other
respondent had not written … things, affect the researcher’s ability to attract funding and
The case can be retrieved from the 2009 annual review of obtain invitations to give lectures at conferences and the like.
the activities of the DCSD (2010).
So it is no small thing for an established researcher to
be found guilty of research misconduct. This is why the
Committee is headed by a high court judge, and why

32 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

safeguards based on public administrative law are in place. In the Scientific American invited four experts to comment
many cases the Committee reaches a conclusion that research on different aspects of The Skeptical Environmentalist, and
misconduct has not occurred, either owing to lack of evidence Lomborg then provided responses to these commentaries.
or because the practice involved, although questionable, does A number of the frustrated scientists also reacted in the
not qualify as research misconduct. beginning of 2002 by filing three separate complaints against
Lomborg to the committee system. Here it was claimed
During their first ten years, the committee system would that in The Skeptical Environmentalist Lomborg was guilty
adjudicate on both research misconduct and questionable of, among other things, falsification of data, deliberately
research practices. In other words, they could reach misleading use of statistical methods, and deliberately
the conclusion that a person was not guilty of research skewed representations and reports of other people’s scientific
misconduct, but was still open to criticism for questionable findings.
research practice. In this way the system was to some extent
able to deal with the grey zones lying just beyond the borders From the start, the allegations gave rise to disagreement
of what had been defined as research misconduct. However, among the members of the committee system. Some members
this came to a dramatic end in 2003 following the case of believed the case should be rejected at the initial phase
Bjørn Lomborg. because, as they saw it, The Skeptical Environmentalist was not
a research publication and therefore did not meet the third
3. The Lomborg case and the establishment of the three requirements listed in Box 3. Other members
of the Practice Committee at the University of disagreed, and in the end a decision was made to establish an
Copenhagen ad hoc working group to review the case.
In 1998 Bjørn Lomborg, who was then Associate Professor
at the Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, The working group delivered its report in September 2002.
published a series of short pieces in the Danish newspaper The report presented the strongly critical comments on The
Politiken, in which he accused many of the scientists dealing Skeptical Environmentalist made by other scientists in Scientific
with environmental risks, not least concerning global American and indirectly used these as evidence. It also referred
warming, of overstating the case and creating unnecessary to a number of highly defamatory statements about Lomborg
fear. He also claimed that many of the solutions offered to made by prominent scientists in an issue of Time Magazine.
deal with environmental problems were not optimal from a Furthermore, it criticized Lomborg for not submitting
cost-benefit perspective. Later he turned his ideas into a book his controversial claims to international journals for peer
entitled The Skeptical Environmentalist, published in English review. The report claimed that it was not in accordance
by the prestigious academic publisher Cambridge University with the norms of good scientific practice for a researcher to
Press. His claims and arguments had a wide uptake both communicate research results to a wider public before these
in Denmark, where in 2002 he was made director of the results have been reviewed by scientific peers.
newly established Environmental Assessment Institute, and
internationally. On the question of whether The Skeptical Environmentalist
could be considered a research publication, the working
Many of the scientists accused of scaremongering by group delivered a divided decision. This disagreement
Lomborg were unhappy, and some of them reacted by writing continued when the report from the group was discussed in
critical responses to Lomborg’s claims and arguments. Thus the commitee system. However, an agreement was reached
Lomborg’s views gave rise to a huge debate which took place that the complaints should not be dismissed simply on the
both in popular media and in scientific circles. For example, grounds that the work complained about was not a scientific

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 33

publication (see Chapter 9 for further discussion about the with peer review – which was one of the points of criticism
relationship between scientific and popular publication). underlying the decision.

In the final decision, which was accepted unanimously, it Lomborg himself complained to the Ministry. It was not
was decided that Lomborg satisfied the first of the three possible to appeal the full decision of the Committee, but it was
requirements of research misconduct (at the time called possible for him to complain that the relevant legal procedures
'scientific dishonesty') in that his book misrepresented the had not been complied with. Some of his key points were: a)
scientific content of the studies reviewed to such a degree that ‘Objective dishonesty’ cannot be treated as a separate entity in a
it could be classified as a case of falsification. However, the decision from the Committee. b) The Committee cannot base
committee members also agreed that it was not possible to its assessment of research misconduct simply on the decisions
prove that the falsification was wilful or grossly negligent – in of others, as it did here by referring to the papers in Scientific
other words, that they could not prove that Lomborg had American, but must assess the publication in question itself.
intended to falsify results, and thus the second requirement c) The Committee cannot make a decision on violations of the
for a case to count as one of research misconduct was not norms of good scientific practice (as distinguished from research
fulfilled. At the same time the Committee chose to leave the misconduct). d) The book was not a scientific publication, as
question whether The Skeptical Environmentalist should be defined by the law, and it therefore did not fall under the remit
classified as a research product unanswered. of the Committee to assess it.

On this basis the Committee decided on the following The Ministry accepted Lomborg’s complaint on all four
wording of its decision: counts and made it clear that the Committee should only
consider the scientific activities of scientists, not their
“Objectively the publication falls under the concept scientific communication with the wider public. The Ministry also said
dishonesty. Viewed in light of the subjective requirements that the assessment must be undertaken by the Committee,
regarding wilfulness or gross negligence Bjørn Lomborg’s possibly with the help of expert members of ad hoc groups,
publication cannot be said to fall under this term. However, and that the Committee’s decisions should only conclude
the publication is clearly seen to violate the norms of good whether or not an accused scientist is guilty of research
scientific conduct.” (DCSD, 2003) misconduct in the full sense of the word; it may not draw
conclusions on the issue of whether an acquitted scientist
Although Lomborg was formally acquitted of research is nonetheless guilty of improper or questionable research
misconduct, in practice the Committee’s conclusion could practice.
be, and was, viewed as a serious attack on his scientific
credentials. The decision was controversial and divided the Following the Ministry’s decision, the Committee decided
scientific community, with strong reactions from groups of not to re-consider the case. But after the Lomborg case
Danish researchers who were both for and against the decision the committee system changed its practice, and it no longer
made by the committee system. On the critical side, there was includes possible violations of the norms of good scientific
an outcry among many social scientists, who felt that norms practice that do not strictly qualify as research misconduct
of good scientific conduct originating in medical science were in its decisions – something which has also been written
being superimposed on social science and the humanities. into the latest version of the legislation regulating the
Thus many argued that it is common practice in large parts committee system where the Committee now has explicit
of social sciences and humanities to publish books without legal basis for refering such matters to the relevant research
basing these on prior publications in international journals institution.

34 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

This left a hole in the system. It meant that the Committee spectacular case, involving the University of Copenhagen: the
could no longer adjudicate on matters lying in the grey Penkowa case. This case led to general strengthening of the
zone between responsible conduct of research and research mechanisms supporting RCR, including mandatory courses
misconduct. To rectify this situation, it was decided by the for PhD students, as mentioned in Chapter 1. It also led
Minister that questionable research practices should be dealt to the establishment of Named Person arrangements at the
with at university level, and indeed it was written into the University of Copenhagen. Around the same time, a Danish
contracts between the Ministry and the universities that Code of Conduct for Research Integrity was issued. The latter
universities should ensure that good scientific practice is appears to have influenced recent efforts to limit and clarify the
promoted and protected. As a consequence of this, in 2004 remit of the committee system, and to draw a clear distinction
the University of Copenhagen established a Committee between research misconduct and questionable research
for Good Scientific Practice, also known as the Practice practice resulting in the new law on research misconduct etc.
Committee. This additional Committee was set up to deal
specifically, and only, with potential cases of questionable Milena Penkowa received her degree as medical doctor at the
research practice. (For more details of the remit of the Practice University of Copenhagen in 1998 and then began a stellar
Committee, see Box 5.) The new law on research misconduct research career at the same university. She received her PhD
from July 2017 specifically obliges research institutions to degree in 2000, and less than a year later she handed in her
have a system in place and published guidelines for handling doctoral thesis (a thesis for a second doctoral degree beyond
questionable research practice at the institution. With the law
the Danish research misconduct system has a clear distinction
of task: All cases of research misconduct are handled at the
central level by the DCRM and all cases of questionable BOX 5: THE PRACTICE COMMITTEE AT THE

research practice are handled at the institutional level. UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN

The Practice Committee was first established in 2004.

Another outcome of the Lomborg case was a change in It consists of associate and full professors at the University of
the regulatory framework which made the decisions of the Copenhagen who are appointed by the academic councils, with
DCRM final, i.e. not subject to appeal to the Ministry. The two from each of the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences
reasoning was that the committee members are experienced and the Faculty of Science, and one from each of the other
and recognized researchers led by a High Court judge as faculties.
chairman. With this level of legal and academic expertise, The Committee deals with written complaints about
it was felt that there was no need to allow decisions to be failure to adhere to good scientific practice (questionable
appealed at ministerial level. research practice). It does not deal with complaints about
research misconduct, which should be referred to the DCRM
In its first decade the Practice Committee examined one or (see Box 1).
two cases a year, but since 2014 the number of cases has gone The Committee is also responsible for helping to clarify
up. Most cases have involved disputes over authorship (see the existing norms of good scientific practice, and it may
Chapter 4). propose rules and guidance. Finally, the Committee takes
steps to ensure public discussion of different aspects of good
4. Recent developments scientific practice, typically by means of a yearly meeting for all
Since 2010 there have been significant changes in the employees and students at the University of Copenhagen.
handling of RCR in Denmark and at the University of
Copenhagen. These changes were made in response to a

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 35

the PhD). However, this doctoral thesis was rejected, and despite a number of warnings and signs that there were
suspicions were raised about research misconduct. After an problems, things had been allowed to go on. So there was a
internal review, part of which was conducted by the then feeling, both at the University of Copenhagen and nationally,
Dean of the Medical Faculty and later Rector of the University that more needed to be done to prevent research misconduct
of Copenhagen, Ralf Hemmingsen, it was concluded that and to deal with issues of questionable research practice.
there was no basis for raising a case about research misconduct
at the committee system. Two of the many initiatives taken in the wake of the Penkowa
affair have had a direct impact on the way breaches of RCR
Penkowa continued her career at the University of Copen- are handled and should therefore be mentioned here.
hagen. She became associate professor in neuroanatomy in The first is that new arrangements in which so-called Named
2004, and later the same year she submitted a revised version Persons are nominated were established at the University of
of her doctoral thesis on the basis of which she received Copenhagen, in the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences
her doctoral degree. In 2009 she received the prestigious in 2012, and then in the other faculties in 2014. The Named
EliteForsk Prize from the Ministry of Research, and later that Person is a professor or associate professor in the relevant
year she was given the title of full professor. faculty to whom employees or students at the university can
apply for advice and help, and for mediation in disputes. The
However, in 2010 Penkowa was suspended following a Named Person is not part of the management, and she or he
conviction for financial fraud. Around the same time, and in does not take initiatives alone. Rather, the main role of the
large part as the result of investigations pursued by a journalist Named Person is to assist people who are concerned about
from the national newspaper Weekendavisen, it became activities in their faculty which may involve questionable
clear that Penkowa had probably been involved in research research practice or research misconduct.
misconduct dating back to her doctoral thesis of 2001. A
series of investigations were conducted at the University of There are small differences between the Named Person systems
Copenhagen, and a number of cases concerning research in different faculties; we shall describe the system as it works in
misconduct were presented to the committee system. In some the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences. Here, whenever
of these cases Penkowa was convicted of research misconduct; the Named Person is contacted, she or he must make a record
in others it was not possible to prove misconduct. In 2016 of the contact. If allegations are raised about a specific person,
Penkowa was acquitted of ‘document forgery of a serious that person must be informed. When contacting the Named
nature’. The High Court judges deciding the case agreed Person, it may therefore be advisable not to mention any
that documents had been forged, but only three of the names initially and start by describing the problem in general
judges considered it document forgery of a serious nature. terms. If it turns out there is no reason to pursue the issue,
The remaining three judges held that the conduct, though the accused person will not know about it. But if a name is
questionable, could not be considered document forgery of mentioned, the individual in question may be informed about
a serious nature. This meant that the case was subject to the the inquiry even if it doesn’t lead any further.
statutory period of limitation regarding less serious forgery
and statute-barred. Since Penkowa could not be convicted of If accusations relate to issues that fall within the mandate
document forgery of a serious nature she was acquitted. of the DCRM or the University of Copenhagen Practice
Committee, the Named Person can advise the complainant
The conclusion of the Penkowa case was that research on how to present a case there. However, in reality many cases
misconduct and other forms of fraud had taken place, that concern matters which can be dealt with through mediation,
this had been going on for more than a decade, and that and here the Named Person plays a central role.

36 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

The current (in May 2020) Named Person at the Faculty of the organization of Danish Universities decided, in 2013, to
Health and Medical Sciences Nils Billestrup reports that from develop a Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity
October 2016 to April 2020 he has received a total of 303 (Ministry of Higher Education and Science, 2014) (see also
inquiries from scientist at SUND by phone or email. The Chapter 2). A working group led by a representative of the
majority (50-60 %) dealt with authorship issues asking for advice Ministry and with representatives from major Danish research
about authorship requirements or the order of authorship. In institutions drafted the Code. After revisions based on a broad
about 40 of these cases the Named Person acted as a mediator in hearing process the Code was published in November 2014.
order to solve conflicts. Many inquiries dealt with data ownership The main aim of the Code is “to support a common
in addition to authorship issues. In about 20 cases advice understanding and common culture of research integrity in
concerning how to report suspicion of research misconduct or Denmark”. The Code is intended to guide both individual
questionable research practice was requested. In the majority researchers and institutions. Institutions are expected not only
of these cases he was engaged in many discussions with the to promote the principles and standards of RCR found in the
person making the accusations and other relevant stakeholders. Code, but also to develop policies that will integrate these
principles and standards in their daily work.
The second development following the Penkowa case was that
the Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science and

BOX 6: THE NAMED PERSON BOX 7: DANISH CODE OF CONDUCT FOR

Since 2012 there has been a Named Person in the Faculty of RESEARCH INTEGRITY

Health and Medical Sciences, and since 2014 there have been The Code sets out principles of research integrity and makes
Named Persons in all faculties in the University of Copenhagen. recommendations on the standards defining RCR. It is not a
The role of the Named Person is to serve as an advisor and legally binding document, but it aims to provide a framework
point of contact for people who are concerned about possible within which institutions and researchers can further promote
research misconduct or questionable practice at their faculty. research integrity.
The Named Person must inform the individual accused if she
or he is named. However, it is possible to obtain advice from The Code outlines standards in the following six areas:
the Named Person on the basis of a general description of a 1. Research planning and conduct. 2. Data management.
case in which no names are provided. 3. Publication and communication. 4. Authorship.
The Named Person can advise on the procedure for passing 5. Collaborative research. 6. Conflicts of interest.
on cases to the relevant Committee, but she or he is also
authorized to mediate in less serious cases. Together these standards address the most common areas where
The Named Person also promotes awareness of RCR in her questionable research practice may arise. In most cases the Code
or his faculty. recommends that more specific policies must, where relevant,
be defined by universities and other research institutions.
For more information about the Named Person in the Faculty
of Health and Medical Sciences you can visit the faculty’s web The Code also gives advice on teaching, training and
page. supervision relating to RCR, and it emphasises the need for a
For more information about the Named Person in the system to handle research misconduct and breaches of RCR.
Faculty of Science you can visit the faculty’s web page. (Ministry of Higher Education and Science, 2014)

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 37

The Code has received widespread support throughout the So the key to dealing properly with issues regarding RCR is to
research community. All universities, including the University seek information and help in deciding where, when, and how
of Copenhagen, all of the major public and private foundations, to bring forward your concerns.
and all research councils and institutions have signed up to
the Code. These signatories are in the process of implementing 6. Test yourself questions
the Code’s recommendations by defining policies on various • What requirements must be satisfied if the actions of a
aspects of RCR. At the University of Copenhagen, the Practice researcher are to amount to a case of research misconduct?
Committee assists University management in developing such • In a collaborative project you become aware that a colleague
policies. The policies will eventually cover most of the issues reporting results has omitted a number of data points
presented in the following chapters of this book. A final which, if they were retained, would affect the statistical
development worth emphasizing is the new Danish law on validity of the study. How should you handle this situation?
research misconduct etc. which came into effect on July 1. • Can you approach the Named Person with allegations
2017. The new law aims to create a Danish system with an about a colleague and remain anonymous?
adequate and effective framework for handling both cases of • If a case similar to the Soman case (see Chapter 2) were to
research misconduct but also questionable research practice. occur today in Denmark, how would the Danish system
for handling violations of RCR make a difference?
5. How to handle RCR issues
When a researcher at the University of Copenhagen has
questions about research, and is in doubt as to how to behave,
or about the behaviour of colleagues or students, there are a References
number of things she or he can and should do: Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD).
(2000). Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed.
1) A good starting point would be to look at the Danish Code Beretning 1999. (Committees on Scientific Dishonesty. Report
of Conduct (see Box 7), to look through the present book, 1999). Copenhagen, Denmark: Author
and to consult the web-page of the Practice Committee, for
guidance. Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD).
2) If doubts remain, a logical next step would be to contact (2003). Afgørelse af klagerne mod Bjørn Lomborg (Decisions
the Named Person in the relevant faculty. The Named of complaints made against Bjørn Lomborg). Unpublished
Person can give advice, and in cases of disagreement she or document, Sagsnr. 612-02-0001, dated 6 January 2003.
he can try to mediate. It is also possible to seek advice from
colleagues, the head of section or head of department. Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD).
3) If the case concerns questionable research practice, and (2010). Annual Review 2009. Retrieved from http://ufm.dk/
if the Named Person is not able to mediate, the next step en/publications/2010/files-2010/the-danish-committees-on-
may be to file a written complaint to the University of scientific-dishonesty-annual-review-2009.pdf
Copenhagen Practice Committee.
4) Finally, if the case is about research misconduct a Danish Committee on Research Misconduct. (2017a). Danish
complaint should be submitted to the Practice Committee, Committee on Research Misconduct. Retrieved from http://ufm.
cf. Box 1. For younger researchers, it may be a good idea dk/en/research-and-innovation/councils-and-commissions/
to ask a senior colleague, the head of section or the head of The-Danish-Committee-on-Research-Misconduct
department, to file the complaint.

38 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

Danish Committee on Research Misconduct. (2017b).
Regulation for the DCRM. Retrieved from http://ufm.dk/
en/legislation/prevailing-laws-and-regulations/research-and-
innovation/scientific-dishonesty

Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences. (n.d.). Named

Person. Retrieved from http://healthsciences.ku.dk/research/
responsible-conduct-of-research

Faculty of Science. (n.d.). Specially Appointed Named Persons.

Retrieved from http://www.science.ku.dk/english/research/
good-scientific-practice/named-persons_/

Ministry of Higher Education and Science. (2014) Danish

Code of Coduct for Research Integrity. Retrieved from http://
ufm.dk/publikationer/2014/filer-2014/the-danish-code-of-
conduct-for-research-integrity.pdf

Practice Committee (n.d.). Practice Committee. Retrieved from

http://praksisudvalget.ku.dk/english/

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 39

4.
Authorship and other
publication issues
Mickey Gjerris and Karsten Klint Jensen *

* We should like to thank Hanne Andersen for her editing of a previous

version of the text. We should also like to thank Peter Sandøe, Louise
Whiteley, Mathias Willumsen and Steffen L. Lauritzen for valuable
comments.

40 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

Summary Hopefully, you have not been in a situation like the one
In this chapter we describe the Vancouver Recommendations’ described in Box 1. But crediting authorship to someone
requirements for authorship in detail. We also mention who does not qualify as an author is unfortunately not a rare
some alternative guidelines and address some of the issues practice. In this chapter, we shall present the most influential
authorship raises. After this, we discuss various ways in international and Danish guidelines on authorship and
which authorship can be wrongly claimed. We explain the explain in detail what they mean for researchers. We also
consequences of different forms of undeserved authorship, discuss various other publication issues of importance for the
indicate how widespread they are, and highlight some PhD student. In the final section, we discuss what one can do
other publication issues. The chapter concludes with some to avoid engaging in questionable authorial practices.
recommendations to PhD students on how to manage
publications and minimize problems and conflicts. 2. Requirements for authorship
2.1 The Vancouver Recommendations
1. Introduction There are no globally accepted rules on academic
In most scientific fields peer-reviewed publications are the authorship; different disciplines and different cultures have
primary means of communicating research results. It is varying perspectives and traditions. However, in 1978 an
fundamental to science that new findings are shared with influential group of editors of medical journals known as the
the scientific community, both to enable critical assessment International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
and, if the findings stand up to scrutiny, so that others can (ICMJE) met in Vancouver and formulated a set of
learn from them and build on them in their own research (see recommendations now widely known as the “Vancouver
Chapter 2 and Chapter 9 for more discussion). At the same Recommendations” (ICMJE, 2015). Originally, these
time, publications have become one of the primary measures recommendations were called Uniform Requirements for
by which scientists are ranked – e.g. when they apply for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and
positions or for research funding. Scientists are compared via Editing for Biomedical Publication. They have been updated
bibliometric measures based on the individual researcher’s several times since, most recently in 2018. The official title
number of publications and citations The commonly used is Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing,
phrase “publish or perish” reflects how crucial this is to and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical journals, but
scientists careers, meaning that they are always striving are widely known as the "Vancouver Recommendations"
competitively to have the most, and the most influential, (ICMJE, 2018).
publications.

BOX 1

Imagine that you are about to finish the first article for your PhD thesis. Together with your main supervisor and one of your co-
supervisors, who works at another university, you decided on the subject area and methodology.. You gathered the data, though a
postdoc at the other university performed some measurements for you. You wrote the first draft of the paper, and you have discussed
possible interpretations of the data with your supervisors. Both have commented in detail on the first draft. Having revised the manuscript,
you have circulated it again, and then received an e-mail from your co-supervisor who declares it ready for submission – but who also
requests that you add the postdoc as a co-author. You ask your supervisor what to do, and he advises you to do as requested, as the co-
supervisor is coordinator on a research application that your research group needs to be involved in if they are to obtain a share of the
grant. Declining the request will just antagonize the co-supervisor, whom your main supervisor knows very well.

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 41

Although the Vancouver Recommendations were formulated in section 4.1: “Attribution of authorship should in general
in the medical sciences, the principles they express are widely be based on criteria adapted from the Vancouver guidelines”
adopted today across the natural sciences and, to a lesser (Ministry of Higher Education and Science, 2014). Further,
extent, beyond. In Denmark, they have become highly the University of Copenhagen – Code for Authorship
influential because various guidelines refer to them. Thus developed by the Practice Committee reiterates The Danish
The Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity states Code of Conduct for Research Integrity by stating that:
“Attribution of authorship should generally be based on
criteria a‐d from the Vancouver rules and all persons that
BOX 2: THE VANCOUVER RECOMMENDATIONS satisfy these criteria should be acknowledged as an author”
(ICMJE, 2015, P. 2) (University of Copenhagen, 2017).
The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the
following 4 criteria:4 We shall now discuss each of the four Vancouver requirements
1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the in more detail.
work; OR the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data
for the work; AND 1) Contributions to the research process
2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important The first requirement is to have provided a substantial
intellectual content; AND contribution to the research process, anywhere from the
3. Final approval of the version to be published; AND conception of the idea to the analysis of the data. As the term
4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ‘substantial’ is vague and open to interpretation the ICMJE list
ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity a number of examples of contributions that are not sufficient to
of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and merit authorship: acquisition of funding, general supervision
resolved. of a research group, and general administrative support.
In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he
or she has done, an author should be able to identify which co- The Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity also lists
authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In a number of contributions that are insufficient for authorship.
addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the In section 4.1 it says: “Participation solely in the acquisition
contributions of their coauthors. of funding, in the collection of data, or in general supervision
All those designated as authors should meet all four criteria of the research group does not justify authorship.” (Ministry
for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be of Higher Education and Science, 2014) It is worth noting
identified as authors. Those who do not meet all four criteria that here “collection of data” is included as it is in many fields
should be acknowledged […]. a practice that sharing of data is followed by a co-authorship.
These authorship criteria are intended to reserve the The University of Copenhagen – Code for Authorship
status of authorship for those who deserve credit and can takes this into consideration when stating that: “The most
take responsibility for the work. The criteria are not intended important factor in describing authorship is for the author
for use as a means to disqualify colleagues from authorship to have provided a significant (substantive) contribution
who otherwise meet authorship criteria by denying them the to the research on which a publication is based. When
opportunity to meet criterion #s 2 or 3. Therefore, all individuals establishing the criteria for this factor, the traditions of the
who meet the first criterion should have the opportunity to individual scientific areas must be respected.” (University of
participate in the review, drafting, and final approval of the Copenhagen, 2017)
manuscript.
4 We have used capital-lettering to emphasize the logical connectives.

42 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

Thus, the requirement of a significant (substantive) 4) Agreement to be accountable
contribution is not easy to interpret, even less when one The fourth requirement was added in 2013. The ICMJE
should further take into consideration the traditions of the (2013) explains it this way:
scientific field one works in. As discussed in chapter 2, this
points to the importance of the motivation for following the Authorship involves not only credit for the work but also
different codes. If one simply seeks to stay within the letter accountability. The addition of a fourth criterion was
of the law, the interpretation of “significant” will probably motivated by situations in which individual authors have
be more inclusive than if one seeks to incarnate the spirit responded to inquiries regarding scientific misconduct
behind the codes: That only those who have been part of the involving some aspect of the study or paper by denying
scientific part of a research project and made an intellectual responsibility (“I didn’t participate in that part of the study
contribution to this specific project should be merited with or in writing that part of the paper; ask someone else”). Each
an authorship. But what exactly counts as significant or author of a paper needs to understand the full scope of the
substantive is still up for discussion and should be so when work, know which co-authors are responsible for specific
assigning authorships, taking the traditions of the scientific contributions, and have confidence in co-authors’ ability and
field into account. This becomes even more important in integrity. When questions arise regarding any aspect of a study
interdisciplinary collaborations where different traditions or paper, the onus is on all authors to investigate and ensure
might clash. resolution of the issue. By accepting authorship of a paper,
an author accepts that any problem related to that paper is,
2) Contributions to the written text by definition, his or her problem. Given the specialized and
The second requirement states that all authors must have myriad tasks frequently involved in research, most authors
participated in producing the written text. This may be cannot participate directly in every aspect of the work. Still,
through participation in preparing a draft manuscript or ICMJE holds that each author remains accountable for the
through critical revisions of important intellectual content work as a whole by knowing who did what, by refraining
in the final text. As a minimum this will require a careful from collaborations with co-authors whose integrity or quality
reading of the manuscript where comments and suggested of work raises concerns, and by helping to resolve questions or
amendments are added. As examples of contributions that concerns if they arise.
are not sufficient to merit authorship, the ICMJE group lists:
writing assistance, technical editing, language editing, and The new element introduced here is the duty to help in
proofreading. resolving issues of potential misconduct if they arise. It is
not possible for an author to deny responsibility for this by
3) Approval of the final manuscript claiming that she or he is not responsible for the parts of the
To claim an authorship it is necessary that all authors have paper he or she did not participate in. A further implication
read and approved the final version of the manuscript. is that authors need to assess the integrity and trustworthiness
The formal way of claiming this is typically by signing a of all of their co-authors. This helps to ensure that authors
co-authorship statement required by the publishing journal. who engage in questionable practices will end up in a position
Often it will also be required to state which parts of the article where others refrain from collaborating with them on
the different authors are responsible for or have contributed publications.
to. By signing one confirms that the work to the best of one´s
knowledge fulfills the demands of responsible conduct of The Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (Ministry
research and is a valid scientific work. The importance of this of Higher Education and Science, 2014) states: “In addition
is further explicated in the fourth requirement. to being accountable for the parts of the work he or she has

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 43

done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors These requirements are less demanding than the Vancouver
are responsible for other specific parts of the work.” However, Recommendations. The crucial difference is that a co-author
it is later clarified that responsibilities may be variable among does not need to be involved in the actual writing of the text.
co-authors: In a large team, it is accepted that one or just a few authors
may do the writing. Moreover, taking part in the writing is
All authors are responsible for the content of the publication. considered a sufficient intellectual contribution, in line with
However, the responsibility of each author should be assessed the Vancouver Recommendations. However, the requirement
subject to their individual role in the research by considering of full transparency about the role of each author is more
their area of expertise, their experience and seniority, a possible demanding than the corresponding accountability rules in the
supervisory role, and other relevant factors. Thus, in some cases Vancouver Recommendations.
an author may have a wider responsibility than others for
ensuring the integrity of the publication or specific parts of the Since the Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity
publication. (Ministry of Higher Education and Science, 2014) refers
to the Vancouver Recommendations as its standard, one
2.2 Deviating Practices might think it would be a violation of the Code to follow
In some fields, particularly those involving very large teams Neurology’s authorship policy. However, the foreword of
of researchers, the Vancouver Recommendations are not the Code says: “The Recommendations of the Code should
considered adequate. Alternative guidelines, not least for these always be understood in accordance with established practices
areas, are used by the journal Neurology (2017) and have been predominant within the individual fields of research”.
accepted, among others, in an editorial in the British Medical This also echoes the previously quote from the University
Journal by Baskin and Gross (2011), and these also seem to be of Copenhagen - Code of Authorship that the traditions
echoed in The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity of individual fields should be respected. We see this as an
(ALLEA, 2017, 2.7). indication that substantiated reasons based on practices within
a certain research field may be justified as exceptions to the
general policy. The Vancouver Recommendations should
BOX 3: NEUROLOGY’S AUTHORSHIP POLICY therefore be seen as exactly that: Recommendations. They are
Criteria for qualification (intellectual contributions): not a set of rules that can be followed blindly, but guidelines
• Design or conceptualisation of the study that require interpretation.
• Or analysis or interpretation of the data
• Or drafting or revising the manuscript 2.3 Order of authors
All authors acknowledge all versions. When submitting a manuscript for publication, it is necessary
Those who do not qualify as authors are listed as co- to decide not only who is to be listed as authors, but also
investigators or contributors. the order in which order the authors should appear in the
Any paid medical writer who wrote the first draft or by-line. In some fields, authors are ordered according to
responded to the reviewers’ comments must be included in the the importance of their contributions, and special academic
author byline. merit is therefore indicated by the authorial positioning. The
All authors must complete and sign authorship forms with author listed first (the ‘first author’) is selected for having
roles and contributions, disclosure forms listing all sources contributed most significantly and for drafting the first
of potential bias, and copyright transfer agreements; author manuscript. The last position on the by-line (often referred
contributions and disclosures are published in the journal. to as the ‘senior author’) is reserved for the (typically senior)
principal investigator who had overall responsibility for the

44 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

project. The remaining authors are ordered according to as “the PhD Order”) specifies that where a dissertation
the estimated significance of their contributions. Both first includes articles written in collaboration with others, a
authorship and last authorship can be allocated to two people written declaration, or co-author statement, describing the
if their inputs were comparable; this should then be noted in PhD student’s contributions to the work must be submitted.
the paper and can later be recorded in an explanatory footnote Standard forms for these declarations can be found on Danish
in the authors’ CVs. However, again, these principles are not university websites. The co-author statements must be
observed universally. In some fields, often with large teams submitted with the dissertation, and if they are not completed
of researchers, authors are simply ordered alphabetically. correctly, the university may not accept the dissertation. At
See Marusic et al. (2011) for a review of the meaning and the University of Copenhagen, the Faculty of Science requires:
practices of authorship across different disciplines. “The co-author statement should always be signed by the
Typically, either the first author or the last author will be first author, the corresponding-/senior author and the PhD
responsible for internal communication among all authors. student. If there are two or three authors the statement must
Likewise, one of them will serve as the corresponding author always be signed by them all.” At the Faculty of Health and
who makes sure that the journal’s guidelines are properly Medical Sciences, where there are six co-authors or fewer,
followed and communicates with the journal about responses all must sign. If there are more than six, the corresponding
to referees’ reports and revisions of the manuscript. In some author, the senior author and the principal supervisor must
fields the senior author is normally expected to assume a sign as a minimum.
special responsibility for the validity of the work, and he
or she should therefore take extra care in reviewing the These co-author statements are not to be confused with the
contributions of the other authors. co-author statements that journals require researchers to fill
out when they are submitting papers for publication. Where
The ordering of authors in the by-line, especially where the the latter are concerned, specific requirements may differ from
positions of first and last author are concerned, can of course one journal to another.
create conflicts. It is therefore advisable to prepare a draft
statement when initiating a collaboration that specifically 2.5 Acknowledgements
addresses this issue (see Box 4). If other researchers have contributed to the article in ways
that do not merit co-authorship, their contribution can still
2.4 Authorship declarations be noted, and appreciated, in the acknowledgement section
As previously mentioned, an increasing number of journals of the article. Admittedly, there is limited formal academic
require all co-authors to submit a signed statement that they recognition in such an acknowledgement, but it nevertheless
have read and approved the final version of the manuscript serves important functions. First of all, it is a question of
before it will be considered for publication. Some journals also expressing gratitude where it is due and thus increasing the
require contribution statements that specify what each author likelihood that people will be willing to assist again in future.
has contributed, and some even ask to know what percentage In some institutions the ability to demonstrate that one has
of the work was done by each author. assisted in a piece of research, even if not as a co-author,
may itself be treated as a parameter of success. Finally,
For PhD students enrolled at a Danish university, the acknowledgements also help to make transparent who actually
Ministerial Order #1039 of August 27 2013 on The PhD contributed to the work presented in the paper.
Degree Programme at the Universities and Certain Higher
Artistic Educational Institutions (Ministry of Higher Acknowledgement does not imply responsibility for the
Education and Science (2013), sometimes referred to simply content of the publication, but it may still be seen as an

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 45

endorsement of the paper; and on some occasions a person Gift authorships are also sometimes swapped among researchers
who qualifies for acknowledgement may not want to be seen as as a way to artificially inflate their publication lists. But note
endorsing the work. The ICMJE group therefore recommends that, according to the Vancouver Recommendations, in receiving
that “[b]ecause acknowledgment may imply endorsement by a gift authorship one becomes accountable for work that one has
acknowledged individuals of a study’s data and conclusions, not been involved in – and may not even know about.
editors are advised to require that the corresponding author
obtain written permission to be acknowledged from all 3.2 Planted authorship
acknowledged individuals” (ICMJE, 2015, p. 3). A planted authorship is a gift authorship that the recipient was
not informed about. In such cases, the intention is normally
3. Undeserved and ghost authorships not to benefit the recipient, but to strengthen the impression
In cases of undeserved authorship, a paper’s author by-line that the article has a good pedigree (and perhaps also to
will name an individual whose contributions do not merit facilitate passage through the peer-review process) by including
authorial status. This questionable research practice can arise a highly ranked or well-known scientist as co-author. This is
in a number of ways. The Danish Code of Conduct for Research problematic for several reasons. First of all, it obviously gives
Integrity (Ministry of Higher Education and Science, 2014) a false impression of the real authorship, and thereby of who
states (4.1 viii): “Guest authorship (i.e. listing authors who is responsible for the content of the article. And, unknown
do not qualify as such) or ghost authorship (i.e. omitting to him or her, the recipient of the gift may end up being held
individuals who should have been listed as authors) should responsible for research which turns out to be of low quality
not take place.” or perhaps even an example of misconduct. To the extent
that journals require signed co-authorship statements from all
3.1 Gift authorship authors, planted authorships are likely to become extinct.
Gift authorship (also sometimes known as honorary
authorship, or, when asymmetric power relations are involved, 3.3 Ghost authorship
coerced authorship) is an authorship that has been granted to, Ghost authorship is the opposite of gift authorship. In it,
and accepted by, a person who does not fulfil the requirements despite deserving authorship, one or more authors are hidden
for authorship. The reasons for granting gift authorships vary. by being omitted from the by-line. This may be done to
At some institutions, and in some fields, the head or director hide a possible conflict of interest. A typical case is an author
of a unit (e.g. a department, laboratory or research group) has from a private company who fears that a paper will lose in
traditionally been added routinely as co-author of all articles credibility if she or he appears as author, thereby signalling
published by the unit. However, if he or she does not satisfy that the research involved a collaboration with industry.
the requirements of authorship described above, this is gift However, the Vancouver Recommendations state clearly that
authorship and therefore undeserved. authorship is not only a right, but also a duty. If a person
satisfies the criteria of authorship, she or he should figure as
Sometimes authorship is granted to a person who does not an author. More and more PhD projects are undertaken in
satisfy the requirements for authorship because one of the close collaboration with industrial partners who have a direct
other authors owes him or her a favour; or authorship may commercial interest in the results. In these cases, transparency
be granted in order to strengthen a relationship through the about authorship and funding is very important. For more on
exchange of a gift. Sometimes, however, this exchange can conflicts of interest, see Chapter 7.
involve coercion – e.g. when a lab whose assistance is needed
for some routine services request co-authorship in return, even A number of cases have been uncovered in which medical
though this is not merited by their contribution. companies have managed to get drug studies published with

46 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

the authorship of seemingly independent researchers who a questionnaire (anonymous self-reporting) on whether they
downplayed the risks or overstated the benefits of a drug, but had been involved in or heard of colleagues being involved
did not in fact participate in the research. This is of course in a number of behaviors expressing research misconduct or
highly questionable practice, as it makes someone responsible questionable conduct of research. 22% stated to have felt
for research they didn’t conduct and at the same time can hide an unethical pressure (within the past year) regarding the
commercial interests. Wislar et al. (2011) found that more inclusion or the order of authors. (Jensen et al., 2018)
than 20% of the articles in six high-impact medical journals
had gift authors, ghost authors, or both. Yank and Rennie (1999) examined contribution statements
published with articles in the medical journal The Lancet.
4. Negative impacts of undeserved authorships Analyzing descriptions of the contributions of individual
4.1 How widespread is undeserved authorship? authors, they found that 44% of authors did not satisfy the
According to the International Association of Scientific, Vancouver Recommendations.
Technical and Medical Publishers (Johnson et al., 2018), in late
2018 there were about 33,100 English-language (plus a further Focusing specifically on authorship, the study by Wislar et
9,400 non-English) journals in the fields of medicine, science, al. (2011) mentioned above surveyed six general medical
and technology. Together these journals were publishing more journals with high impact factors. Corresponding authors of
than 3 million peer-reviewed articles a year. It has also been a randomly selected sample of articles were asked about the
found that the number of authorships has increased at a much contributions and roles of all authors. On the basis of the
higher rate than the number of articles (Plume & van Weijen, replies, it was investigated whether all of the authors of each
2014). In the decade from 2003 to 2013, the number of articles article had complied with the Vancouver Recommendations
grew from 1.3 to 2.4 million; in the same period, the number on authorship. The results showed improper authorship
of authorships went from 4.6 to 10 million. affected 21% of the articles. Comparing the results to those
of a similar study from 1998 by Flanagin et al., which had
A study of research misconduct and questionable research found improper authorship in 29% of articles, Wislar et
practices in general (Martinson et al., 2005) based on al. concluded that increased efforts by both journals and
anonymous self-reporting by several thousand early- and academic institutions would be important for maintaining
mid-career researchers funded by grants from the US integrity in scientific publishing.
National Institute of Health (NIH) showed that 12.3% of
mid-career and 7.4% of early-career researchers had engaged Thus, although the Vancouver Recommendations are widely
in “[i]nappropriately assigning authorship credits” within accepted, authorship issues remain widespread. This is
the last three years. In another study, this time of German confirmed by the fact that most of the cases handled by the
universities, Böhmer et al. (2011) found that by far the most Practice Committee and the Named Persons in the University
common questionable research practices related to authorship. of Copenhagen’s Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences and
More than half of the respondents reported that they had Faculty of Science concern authorship issues.
experienced such issues.
4.2 What’s the problem?
A smaller Danish study recently looked at attitudes towards The reasons why undeserved authorship and ghost
and experiences with research misconduct among PhD authorships are considered a questionable research practice or,
students affiliated with the Department of Clinical Research in very serious cases, research misconduct relate to the impact
or Department of Regional Health Research at the University of these practices on colleagues, science as an institution, and
of Southern Denmark. 165 of 330 PhD students completed society.

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 47

For one thing, boosting your publication list with false to submit papers to a publicly accessible pre-publication
authorship gives you an unfair competitive advantage. You archive. For example, www.arXiv.org holds papers from
are simply cheating or, as it is sometimes put, participating physics, mathematics, computer science, quantitative
in “academic doping”. Secondly, incidents of guest, planted biology, quantitative finance and statistics. When the paper
and ghost authorship may harm science as an institution. is finally published, the author should notify arXiv; the arXiv
For one thing, they make it unclear who is responsible for publication should at this point be deleted from the author’s
what in the scientific literature. Knowing who is responsible publication list and give way to the journal version.
for what is important when questions or criticisms relating
to methods, data or the interpretation of results are raised. In complete contrast with this approach, many journals in other
Further, public knowledge of undeserved authorship fields will not publish results based on data that have already
practices damages the reputation of science and scientists, been presented publicly – e.g. in conference proceedings.
and may in the long run undermine society’s trust in This is especially common policy in biomedical sciences.
results. Finally, from the perspective of society, a practice of Before engaging in prepublication, it is therefore wise to check
crediting undeserved authorships, and not crediting qualified whether it would preclude later publication in the relevant
authorships, implies that resources may not be being allocated journals. It is also necessary to be careful about when and
optimally. Many countries invest a great deal in scientific where to present data and results at conferences. A PhD student
research in the hope that this will help us to solve the should check with his or her supervisor before presenting work
grand challenges facing the global community today (from in any public forum, to avoid problems of this kind.
climate change, to cancer, to famine), or simply to promote
economic competitive advantage. Since authorship is the most Secondary publications – republishing data in a different
important parameter for obtaining academic positions and journal – is generally considered an acceptable way of reaching
funding, its mis-representation means that the resources spent different audiences (e.g. a national audience, or researchers
on science will not necessarily end up with the best-qualified from different fields), but they normally require the agreement
scientists, but rather with those who are best at appearing to of both the original and secondary journal, and must be made
be strongly qualified, perhaps via undeserved authorship, false fully transparent by inserting a cross-reference to the original
citations and the like. version of the article. As a general principle, the Danish
Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (Ministry of Higher
Given these impacts of undeserved authorship, it is not Education and Science, 2014) states (3.1 ii): “Publishing
surprising that increasing attention is being given to it – both the same results in more than one publication should only
with respect to how authorship can be made more transparent occur under particular, clearly explained and fully disclosed
through better implementation of, for example, the Vancouver circumstances.”
Recommendations, and with respect to the question of how
to evaluate the qualifications of individual scientists more The guardians of the Vancouver Recommendations, the
accurately and thereby discourage the negative consequences ICMJE (2018), lists the following conditions:
of a “publish or perish” climate.
1. The authors have received approval from the editors of both
5. Other publication issues journals (the editor concerned with secondary publication
5.1 Prepublication must have access to the primary version).
Different disciplines operate very different practices of pre- 2. The priority of the primary publication is respected by a
publication. In physics, mathematics and related disciplines, publication interval negotiated by both editors with the
where peer-review may take several years, it is common authors.

48 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

3. The paper for secondary publication is intended for a different may even be encouraged to ensure a precise and easily
group of readers; an abbreviated version could be sufficient. recognizable description of, for example, a technique.
4. The secondary version faithfully reflects the data and However, such recycling should be made transparent in a
interpretations of the primary version. cross-reference to the earlier article in which the material,
5. The secondary version informs readers, peers, and documenting method or technique was first described. Similarly, previous
agencies that the paper has been published in whole or in part work may be recycled to serve in the introduction to a new
elsewhere—for example, with a note that might read, “This article, but again such recycling should be made transparent
article is based on a study first reported in the [journal title, in cross-references.
with full reference]”—and the secondary version cites the
primary reference. 5.3 Manuscripts based on the same database
6. The title of the secondary publication should indicate that it is With regard to multiple publications based on the same
a secondary publication (complete or abridged republication or dataset, the ICMJE (2018) states that:
translation) of a primary publication.
Editors might consider publishing more than one manuscript
Undisclosed duplicate publication is in general discouraged, that overlap in this way because different analytical approaches
and is likely to be treated as questionable research practice may be complementary and equally valid, but manuscripts
(so-called “self-plagiarism”). It may distort the scientific record based upon the same dataset should add substantially to each
by giving undue weight to the results, as they are reported other to warrant consideration for publication as separate
several times. For example, if the same data from a study of papers, with appropriate citation of previous publications from
the side-effects of a medical treatment are published several the same dataset to allow for transparency.
times, review studies will be skewed and ultimately, this may
place patients at risk (see Tramer (1997) for a case study). Lack of transparency is problematic because readers can be
led to believe that the reported results derive from different
5.2 Inappropriate recycling of material studies or samples, distorting the scientific record.
When sections of the same text appear in several of an
author’s publications, this is referred to as “text recycling” Data fragmentation occurs when available data is partitioned
and is another form of self-plagiarism. Attitudes to text so as to produce multiple articles, where they could instead
recycling have developed within disciplines over time and vary have been published together. Sometimes, this is done
from field to field. Unfortunately, there is no well-defined deliberately with the purpose of creating more publications
boundary indicating when a textual overlap between two – a ploy known as “salami publiation”. In some cases, data
articles is so substantial as to be classified as a case of recycling. fragmentation is considered a questionable research practice
See, for example, Bretag and Mahmud (2009) as well as because it gives the author an unfair advantage in building
Bruton (2014) for more detailed discussions of the definition his or her list of publications and citations, and because it
of text-recycling. wastes time and resources, e.g. the time of the researchers who
peer review or revise the papers. However, it is difficult to
The Danish Code (Ministry of Higher Education and pin down exactly when the practice is dubious, because word
Science, 2014) has the following policy (3.1 iii): “Recycling limits and other restrictions imposed by journals may actually
or re-use of primary materials, data, interpretations or prohibit publication of the material in one paper. In all cases,
results should be clearly disclosed.” In some fields, a certain transparency and the ideal of contributing to the scientific
degree of recycling is difficult to avoid, especially in sections record with as much value as possible should be the guiding
such as methods and materials. In these cases, recycling principles.

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 49

5.4 Plagiarism versus proper attribution not have to go through a laborious research process to find
In science, researchers almost always draw on previous work out that your hypothesis is wrong, but could rather read
by others, whether data, results, or other text. Unless this that others had already provided the relevant disproof. In
work has become so established that it is considered common recognition of this, journals specifically aimed at publishing
knowledge, the use of another researcher’s work should always negative results have appeared, such as The Journal of Negative
be clearly attributed, and references to the original work Results in Biomedicine. Such journals are very valuable to the
should be sufficiently detailed to enable readers to find the scientific community, but usually they have a low impact
relevant passage. Verbatim text taken from the work of factor and are thus less attractive to publish in.
others must always be marked as quotation, and paraphrases
as well as translations must always be accompanied by a Plainly, failure to publish negative results may lead to
reference to the original. Failure to do this is plagiarism, publication bias. If it is easier to publish studies with positive
which may be considered a form of scientific misconduct than negative results, there is a risk that reviews of the literature
(see also Chapter 2). will show a false picture of the world, with the positive results
being given disproportionate weight. However, as is stressed
Authors writing in a language other than their native tongue in the Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (Ministry
may find it tempting to use phrases they have read in the of Higher Education and Science, 2014), researchers have a
publications of native speakers (see Yilmaz (2007), for such a responsibility to be transparent about their results, which must
case). However, while this may be a good strategy for language imply being open about negative results as well as positive.
learning in everyday conversation, it is a questionable practice
in academic publications, where it counts as plagiarism. 5.6 Predatory journals
Software developed to detect similarities between multiple As mentioned above, publishing papers is part and parcel of
texts, including programs that compare a submitted text to a career in the academic world and especially important early
all publications available in a particular corpus (e.g. arXiv, in your career. It can therefore be exciting to receive almost
MedLine abstracts, etc.), has revealed many cases of plagiarism daily offers to publish your work in your inbox. It can be very
in the literature (e.g. see VroniPlag (n.d.) or Déjà vu (n.d.)). flattering to hear that other researchers and editors find your
In addition, more and more journals are now running new work so interesting that they have written directly to promise
submissions through plagiarism detection software like you a smooth peer-review process and swift publication.
iThenticate or Turnitin. All PhD dissertations at the Faculty However, if you read the e-mails closely, you should become
of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, skeptical. Many of the offers are from journals whose titles
are routinely checked by iThenticate before being accepted for do not connect to your work, the name and address of the
further assessment. organization behind the sender does not ring any bells. If the
offer seems too good to be true, it probably is.
5.5 Publication of negative results
It can be difficult to get negative results published. To attract With a growing number of PhDs, and the “publish or perish”
readers, journals generally seek to publish new and exciting culture within academia, a number of so-called “predatory
findings, and grant-giving agencies and foundations have journals” have arrived. They are journals that pretend to be
a similar leaning, since they need to demonstrate that their outlets for academic research, but in reality are only interested
money is being well spent. This has led to an environment in money. They have no scientific merit, and publishing in
where positive results are much easier to publish than negative them will typically cost you money and bring no academic
ones, even though negative results can be of high scientific credit. It may be hard to figure out whether these invitations
value. Just imagine the time that you could save if you did are relevant for you and whether they come from a real, new

50 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

and upcoming journal that would be relevant for you. As with publications. However, most scientists also publish other
scams everywhere, some are very convincing. The library at kinds of writing, such as popular articles for the general
The University of Copenhagen have therefore developed some public. Often such non-academic publications are based on
guidelines to help you distinguish between predatory and real previously published academic papers.
journals. Here are the most important advices:
There are no formal academic guidelines for non-academic
• Check if the journal is indexed in Web of Science and/or publications, but the general rules and guidelines covering
Scopus. publishing apply to them – e.g. copyright regulations.
• Find the homepage of the publisher/journal and see if it Although the Vancouver Recommendations ignore non-
looks trustworthy. academic publications, it may still be wise to consult others
• Who are the editors, where do they work, and what is and discuss how their contributions should be recognized
their e-mail address? Can you find independent evidence when you are considering non-academic publication.
of these details online outside of the supposed journal
homepage, and are they based at credible institutions? 6. How to manage your publications
• How is the peer-review process structured, does it follow a as a PhD student
standard path? As a PhD student you will need to manage your authorship
• Is there a list of reviewers, and where do they work? Again, and publication issues yourself, since you cannot expect
can you find independent evidence of these details online anyone else to take responsibility. However, this may involve
outside of the supposed journal homepage, and are they difficult situations. On the one hand, you are responsible (in
based at credible institutions? part) for decisions about who is added as a co-author to the
• Look at a couple of recently published articles and assess by-line of your articles. On the other hand, you might work
their quality and the trustworthiness of the authors. in an environment where you come under pressure to accept
• Use Curis to check if other researchers from The University a questionable practice; and whistleblowing may give rise to
of Copenhagen have published in the journal. conflict with your collaborators.
• Check journal ranking, but be sure that it is a widely
accepted ranking. To minimize the risk of unpleasant conflict we suggest that
• Ask your supervisor or ask the library. you follow the advice given in the “Guide to minimizing
authorship issues” (see Box 4) below.
By following these guidelines you should be able to avoid
wasting your research and time publishing in a predatory If you ever come under pressure to grant co-authorships
journal, thereby securing that your research will be properly in return for access to technical equipment or routine
peer-reviewed and contribute positively to the scientific services, you should ask your supervisor to assist you in the
community. You can find the guidelines and additional negotiations. In the unfortunate circumstance that your
information on predatory journals at KUnet. supervisor turns out not to be helpful, you may contact the
Named Person designated for your faculty and seek advice.
5.7 Non-academic publications
The Vancouver Recommendations apply to academic In the last resort, after consulting the available guidance, the
publications only. These include peer-reviewed articles in question is: Do you want to make a complaint because you
journals, but also chapters in collections and monographs cannot agree to engage in a questionable practice? Or is the
published by academic publishers, as well as publications prospect of repercussions by making a complaint so serious
without peer-review that are nevertheless research that, under the circumstances, you would prefer to accept a

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 51

questionable practice? This is not an easy choice, since both • What should you do if someone requires to be a co-author
alternatives may lead to negative consequences. But in the end, of your paper?
only you can decide. • Who can you approach for help with conflicts over
authorship?
7. Test yourself questions • Should a researcher who participates in data acquisition
• What are the Vancouver Recommendations’ requirements and analysis, but who lacks the skills in English to engage
on authorship? in the writing process, be credited as a co-author?
• What should you do if you observe someone being credited
with unwarranted authorship?

References
BOX 4: GUIDE TO MINIMIZING AUTHORSHIP ISSUES All European Academies (ALLEA) (2017). The European
Arrange a meeting with your supervisor on publications Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: Revised Edition.
for your PhD. One of the items on the agenda should be Retrieved from http://www.allea.org/wp-content/
authorship issues. uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-
If it is relevant, make it clear that you intend to follow Research-Integrity-2017.pdf
the Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity or The
Vancouver Recommendations. Discuss at the meeting how you Baskin PK and Gross RA (2011). Honorary and ghost
will manage your publications in the light of these documents. authorship. British Medical Journal, 343:d6223
When you are initiating collaboration with others on an
article, always make a draft statement that specifies who is Böhmer S, Neufeld J, Hinze S, Klode C and
to be included as a co-author and how the workload will be Hornbostel S (2011). Wissenschaftler-befragung 2010.
distributed, and seek to ensure that the parties involved accept Forschungsbedingungen von Professorinen und Professoren an
and sign up to it. Encourage people seeking co-authorship to Deutschen Universitaten. IFQ-Working Paper No. 8. Berlin:
make suggestions as to how they can contribute to qualify as Institut für Forschungsinformation und Qualitätssicherung.
co-authors – this applies equally to heads of department and
fellow PhD students. Keep a record of agreements to consult Bretag H and Mahmud S (2009). Self-Plagiarism or Appro-
in cases of doubt. Of course, initial agreements may need priate Textual Re-use? Journal of Academic Ethics 7: 193-205.
to be revised as the work progresses, and initial agreements
may include a list of areas where the relative contributions are Bruton, SV (2014): Self-Plagiarism and Textual Recycling:
yet to be determined, but changes and clarifications should Legitimate Forms of Research Misconduct, Accountability
be recorded explicitly. Make sure to have the co-authorship in Research 21(3): 176-197.
statements that are required for submitting your dissertation
ready and signed by all relevant parties before submitting a Deja vu (n.d.). Archive.is webpage capture. Retrieved from
manuscript. http://archive.is/dejavu.vbi.vt.edu.
If a co-author wants to withdraw because of disagreements
over the final manuscript, the guiding value should be Flanagin, A, Carey LA, Fontanarose, PB, Philips, SG, Pace BP
transparency. For example, it might be advisable to briefly and Rennie D (1998). Prevalence of Articles with Honorary
explain the withdrawal in the acknowledgements. Authors and Ghost Authors in Peer-Reviewed Medical
See more in Richard et al. (2014) Journals, JAMA 280(3): 222-224.

52 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Neurology (2017). Authorship Criteria. Retrieved
(2013). The New ICMJE Recommendations. Retrieved from from http://www.neurology.org/site/misc/auth2.
http://www.icmje.org/news-and-editorials/new_rec_aug2013. xhtml#AUTHORSHIPREQUIREMENTS.
html.
Plume A and van Weijen D (2014). Publish or perish? The
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors rise of the fractional author…, Research Trends 38.
(ICMJE) (2018). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting,
Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Richard B, Primack RB, Cigliano JA and Chris Parsons C
Journals. Retrieved from http://www.icmje.org/icmje- (2014). Co-authors gone bad – how to avoid publishing
recommendations.pdf conflicts. Three scientific authors share their experiences and
solutions and ask you for yours (with a sample agreement for
Jensen LB, Kyvik KO, Leth-Larsen R & Eriksen MB (2018): co-authors). Elsevier webpost. Retrieved from https://www.
Research integrity among PhD students the University of elsevier.com/connect/co-authors-gone-bad-how-to-avoid-
Southern Denmark. Danish Medical Journal, 65(4), [A5469]. publishing-conflicts

Johnson R, Watkinson A & Mabe M (2018): The STM Tramer MR, Reynolds JM, Moore RA and McQuay HJ
Report. An overview of scientific and scholarly publishing. (1997). Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-
STM: International Association of Scientific, Technical and analysis: a case study, BMJ 315: 635-640.
Medical Publishers. Retrieved from https://www.stm-assoc.
org/2018_10_04_STM_Report_2018.pdf University of Copenhagen (2017): University of Copenhagen
‐ Code for Authorship. Retrieved from https://praksisudvalget.
Martinson B, Anderson M and de Vries R (2005). Scientists ku.dk/english/rules_guide/Kodeks_for_forfatterskab_ENG_
behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737-738. final.pdf

Marusic, A, Bosnjak, L and Jeroncic, A (2011). A Systematic VroniPlag (n.d.). VroniPlag Wiki – kollaborative
Review of Research on the Meaning, Ethics and Practices of Plagiatsdokumentation. Retrieved from http://de.vroniplag.
Authorship across Scholarly Disciplines, PLoS ONE 6(9): wikia.com/wiki/Home.
e23477.
Wislar JS, Flanagin A, Fontanarose PB and DeAngelis CD
Ministry of Higher Education and Science (2013). Ministerial (2011). Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact
Order on the PhD Programme at the Universities and Certain biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey, BMJ 343: d6128.
Higher Artistic Educational Institutions (PhD Order).
Retrieved from http://ufm.dk/en/legislation/prevailing-laws-and- Yank, V and D. Rennie (1999). Disclosure of Researcher
regulations/education/files/engelsk-ph-d-bekendtgorelse.pdf Contributions: A Study of Original Research Articles in
The Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine 130(8): 661-670.
Ministry of Higher Education and Science (2014). Danish
Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Retrieved from http:// Yilmaz, I. (2007). Plagiarism? No we are just borrowing
ufm.dk/publikationer/2014/filer-2014/the-danish-code-of- better English, Nature 444 (7163): 658.
conduct-for-research-integrity.pdf

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 53

5.
Research Data Management
Susanne den Boer, Falco Hüser, Lorna Wildgaard,
Lars Holm Rasmussen, Thea Drachen, Asger Væring Larsen,
Bertil Dorch and Peter Sandøe *

* The authors would like to thank Karsten Klint Jensen, Poul Halkjær
Nielsen, Allan Have Sørensen and Paula Martinez Lavanchy for their
valuable comments to earlier versions of this chapter.

54 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

Summary research data exist, depending on the discipline, the format,
Good research data management is a crucial foundation the purpose for which the data are used, and the collection
of transparent, trustworthy research. Therefore, research method (e.g. via measurement, observation, simulation or
institutions, funding agencies, scientific journals and policy- aggregation from public or commercial sources).
makers – led by the European Commission – have been
investing increasingly in efforts to improve practices for the Besides producing or using research data, there are of course
management of research materials and data. But what is ‘good’ also other elements in a research project: the formulation of
research data management, and how do we define ‘research a research question, the reviewing of existing findings, and
data’ in the first place? In this chapter, we provide an overview critical discussion and dissemination of the results. However,
of research data management throughout the research process. if the research data are not in order, then all other components
We illustrate the various benefits of establishing best practice will usually have little scientific merit. Two of the three main
in research data management for the individual researcher, forms of research misconduct presented in Chapters 2 and 3
including higher levels of efficiency and security during the relate to the way researchers obtain, process and record their
project and improved visibility and impact of results. research data. Falsification and fabrication occur when data
are wholly made up, or partly supplemented with fictitious
1. Introduction information, or when some data are deliberately omitted
With a few exceptions – for example, mathematical and to skew the results. Here, the entire project or research
philosophical studies – almost all research activities revolve product must be deemed fraudulent. It is easy to see why
around the description, interpretation and analysis of some such practices are to be condemned and policed: they waste
kind of primary material or data, defined in The Danish Code precious time and funding, threaten to undermine the
of Conduct for Research Integrity as follows: reputation of science and the public’s trust in research, and
in some cases may even cause harm to those whose actions
Primary material is any material (e.g. biological material, are guided by spurious research findings (e.g. the Wakefield
notes, interviews, texts and literature, digital raw data, case, Chapter 2, Box 1). However, when it comes to setting
recordings, etc.) that forms the basis of the research. out exactly what good research data management looks like,
numerous questions present themselves. Such questions may
Data are detailed records of the primary materials that include: what permissions are required before the research data
comprise the basis for the analysis that generates the results. are collected? How will the data be recorded, and measured,
or compiled? What needs to be digitised, transcribed,
For an anthropologist, primary material could be videos translated or treated in a particular way? What information is
or interviews, and the corresponding data could be the needed to document data management methods? Where will
transcripts of these videos or interviews. For a geneticist, the physical material and digital data be stored, and who will
primary material could be tissue samples, while data could be responsible for them? How will access to data be secured?
be the digital DNA sequences obtained from these samples. What information will be shared with others, and when? How
Please note, that unless we specifically state otherwise, will valuable research data be archived and for how long?
we will collectively refer to the abovementioned primary
material and data as ‘research data’ (or in short: ‘data’) in The above questions are to a large extent methodological,
this chapter. Thus, research data will include any qualitative and most answers can be found within existing practices of
or quantitative information used for research purposes – for the relevant field of research. However, the questions also
example, transcriptions, translations, digitized copies, output touch upon wider ethical issues that go beyond a technical
from analyses and intermediate results. Countless types of discussion of methodology, as is for example evident when

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 55

it comes to sharing of data with the broader research discussion, and views on appropriate conduct will likely
community. A publication in Nature in 2019 observes that: continue to change. What today may be seen as part of a
burning cultural debate requiring seemingly unmanageable
Science is moving towards a greater openness, in terms of changes, may in the future be a normal part of what is taught
not just data but also publications, computer code and as responsible and ethical conduct of research.
workflows. Yet researchers who are learning to navigate the
open-science arena face a thicket of thorny issues. Many In the rest of this chapter, we will take a closer look at some of
scientists — especially early-career researchers who are building the main actions taken to manage research data. The chapter
a publication record — worry that sharing their data too is structured according to the ‘research data lifecycle’, which
early could lead to their getting scooped by a competitor. They illustrates the typical phases of a research project, shown
must also decide whether to spend valuable time curating and below in Figure 1. In short, we will discuss how to best plan
sharing data sets... your research data management, how to collect, process, store
However, opening up data can yield benefits: it can catalyse and secure your research data during the active phase of the
new collaborations, increase confidence in findings and research project, whether and how to share your data with
generate goodwill among researchers. (Popkin 2019) others after your project has concluded, what to consider
when preserving research data, and what documentation to
The example above, like others that could be given, illustrates generate and maintain along the way. The aim of this chapter
that data sharing is not necessarily straightforward. Despite is to outline general norms of good research data management
an increasing number of requirements imposed by funders, and to discuss the ways in which these norms can be
journals and institutions, data sharing practices and other implemented across disciplines.
aspects of research data management are clearly up for

FIGURE 1. THE RESEARCH DATA LIFECYCLE, ILLUSTRATING DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF RESEARCH DATA
MANAGEMENT THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF A RESEARCH PROJECT

56 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

2. Planning research projects rephrased a little – for example, to match more qualitative
Research data management starts before any research data are studies.
collected in the form of project planning. This is an essential
part of every research project; in this phase you define the You can design your own data management plan.
experimental design and set-up your protocols. You determine Alternatively, you can use an existing template for example
who has a right of access to the data you will generate one provided by the funder from which you have received
or collect during and after the project, and who will be or expect to receive funding, or by your own institution.
responsible for the data in the future (which may mean when To show you how a DMP might look, we have collected
you are no longer employed at the university). If you work information from three real plans, with the consent of their
with big data sets it is important to plan where you will store creators. Excerpts taken from these DMPs are presented in the
them; if you work with sensitive material or data, it is essential appendix at the end of the chapter, together with links to the
to plan how you will secure them. plans themselves.

2.1 Data Management Plans 2.2 Ethical and legal approvals

A good tool to help you plan your research project is a One part of the planning process involves obtaining approvals
data management plan (DMP). A DMP is a document in of various sorts. If you are working in a field where the
which you describe actions to be taken during all steps of collection of physical material and data, or other aspects of
the research data lifecycle (Figure 1), based on a number research data management, require ethical or legal approval,
of questions. Increasingly, DMPs are required by funders it is your obligation to acquaint yourself with the relevant
in Denmark and abroad (e.g. the European Commission) legislation and ensure that all of the required permissions
as a component of funding proposals, and more and more are obtained before you start the project. An overview of
institutions are asking their employees and students to approvals you may need is provided in Box 1. Please be aware
produce DMPs at the start of research projects. that this list is not exhaustive, and that the requirements
may change over time. Also, if you engage in international
If you are a PhD student, it is a good idea to discuss the collaborations, you should be aware that requirements may
DMP with your supervisor before you start collecting data, vary across countries.
to see whether your expectations align when it comes to
managing your research data. For example, it is important Ethical and legal approvals are most likely to be needed when
to know the answers to the following questions: Are there projects involve human subjects, human material and/or
any standards for data formats in your discipline? What personal data.
is your strategy for describing the research data, and for
preventing data loss? If you need to collect quantitative or • Personal data are defined as data relating to persons who
qualitative data in the ‘real world’, how can you store it can be identified directly or indirectly using those data.
securely whilst travelling? What should be done with any Examples are (references to) CPR numbers or other unique
physical material and data after your project has ended? identifiers. The management of personal data in research
Discussing all of these issues beforehand will save you time projects must comply with the General Data Protection
(and possibly trouble) once you have started the project. The Regulation (GDPR), and failure to comply with this could
process of making and discussing a DMP will likely be useful lead to economic penalties for the institution at which the
in any discipline that collects new research material, or reuses researcher is employed.
existing data, even if some of the questions in a DMP seem • Pseudonymous data (or pseudo-anonymous data) are data
not to be directly applicable to your project and have to be from which individuals can only be (re)identified indirectly

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 57

 BOX 1. CHECKLIST OF APPROVALS AND REGISTRATIONS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED BEFORE PROJECT START

Please note that the list may not be complete.

Does your study involve human participants? Does your research involve gene technology or therapy?
• Approval from the Regional or National Committee on • Approval by the Danish Working Environment Authority.
Health Research Ethics.
• Approvals from an institutional ethics committee at UCPH Does your research involve radiopharmaceuticals?
(institutional review boards) for projects that are not covered • Approvals by the Danish Medicines Agency.
by the Regional/National Committee. This can e.g. be a
requirement from journals for research including surveys and Does your study involve animal testing?
interviews. • Approvals by the Animal Experiments Inspectorate.
• Registration of your clinical trials in databases like • Evidence of the necessary qualifications in animal handling
clinicaltrials.gov. according to Danish law. For more information, see the
• Informed consent from study participants a) for their webpages of SUND Department of Experimental Medicine.
participation in research projects, and b) for the processing
of their personal data during and possibly after the project. Does your study involve personal data, including biobanks?
• Registration of your project at the university, via the
Does your clinical research project include test of drug(s) and/or Faculty Secretariat and with approval by the head of your
medical equipment? department.
• Approval from the Danish Medicines Agency.
Do you want to publish your research findings?
Is your research based on information from hospital records? • Evidence of approvals by the committees, boards, agencies,
• Approval from the Danish Patient Safety Authority. authorities listed above, at the request of the publisher.

using supplementary information, such as an ID key. As possibility that a combination of metadata or variables may
long as this supplementary information exists, even if it is potentially permit re-identification of individuals.
stored by a different organisation or a person who is not
associated with the research project, the data should be Box 2, and appendix 2 on GDPR at the end of this book,
treated as personal data, and extreme care should be taken provide an overview of the data management actions to be
to manage them in accordance with GDPR. However, taken, and of the considerations to be taken into account when
when personal data are fully anonymised, they can be you are planning and carrying out projects involving human
managed in the way any other non-sensitive data are. subjects, human material and/or personal data. For more
• Anonymous data are data where the individual is not, or information you should consult the University of Copenhagen’s
is no longer, identifiable, and could not be identified by intranet pages on personal data, or contact a member of
further processing of the data. In determining whether staff with expertise in supporting those conducting research
your data are anonymous, you should take into account the involving personal data, and human subjects or material.

58 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

BOX 2: OVERVIEW OF DATA MANAGEMENT ACTIONS IN PROJECTS THAT INCLUDE HUMAN SUBJECTS,
HUMAN MATERIAL AND/OR PERSONAL DATA

When working with human subjects, human material and/or personal data (including pseudonymous data) at the University of
Copenhagen, there are some additional actions to take and/or to consider. A summary of these actions is listed below and in appendix 2
at the end of the book. You can find more information on UCPHs intranet pages (Research Portal on KUnet), including details of who to
go to for support.

1. The requirements for the ethical and legal approvals necessary before project start are outlined in Box 1.

2. Whenever personal data and/or human material moves from one institution to another, this must be fixed in an agreement, for example:
• A data processing agreement: when data for which UCPH is responsible are to be processed by other institutions or by Master or
Bachelor students during the project.
• A data disclosure agreement: when data for which UCPH is responsible are to be transferred to others outside the university after the
project’s end. You will need permissions from the Danish Data Protection Agency if 1) personal data are to be sent to countries outside
the EU, 2) when human biological material is to be transferred, and 3) when personal data are to be published in scientific journals.
• A cooperation agreement and an agreement on shared responsibility for data protection: when UCPH shares responsibility for the data
with an external collaborator.

3. You must create an ID key as the only way of connecting the subject’s personal data or biological samples with his or her name or other
identifiers. The ID key should be stored separately from the data, and all other documents or biological samples, in order to restrict
access to the identity of the subjects.

4. You must anonymise data as soon as possible in the project. This includes destroying the ID key.

5. You must keep personal data, including pseudonymised data, ID keys, informed consent forms and any physical material in secure
locations and under lock and key. By default, digital files should be kept on your personal university drive, or on the S drive if you
collaborate with other UCPH employees.

6. Data should be anonymised when you share data with externals. If anonymization is impossible, pseudonymous data should be
encrypted before sending with secure solutions such as the Bluewhale plug in for email, or Microsoft OneDrive for Business.
The ID key must remain at UCPH.

7. At project end, either 1) anonymise data sets, 2) destroy data sets that cannot be anonymised and where (legal) obligations dictate
destruction, 3) transfer data sets to the Danish National Archives, or 4) transfer data to a secure database if the participants have
consented to this.

8. You must immediately report any breach of security (e.g. disclosure of personal data to unauthorised persons) to your department’s
information security representative, the IT Service Desk and Information Security Unit, and obtain guidance on how to respond to the
breach.

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 59

2.3 Rights to, and responsibilities for, physical material and data at the University of Copenhagen researchers must leave
Before starting a research project, you should clarify the a copy of their digital data sets at the university, unless
rights to, and responsibilities for, the data and materials legislation precludes it, or it has been otherwise agreed
collected or generated by the project. This helps you to upon.
prepare for, and ideally avoid, many of the issues that can
arise in collaborations. It also clarifies who will do what 3. Whether there are regulations that cover the above, and
with the research data during and after the project, and what disciplinary measure will be taken if the terms of these
can also help to avoid certain forms of authorship dispute. regulations are violated. For example, if you work with
Unfortunately, determining rights and responsibilities is not personal data, you should be aware of the rules concerning
always straightforward. For one thing, rights to research data data confidentiality and how these rules limit access to
are defined by a number of legal rules (e.g. personal data law, data by you, your collaborators, and others. How will you
law protecting patients, copyright law, design law, property ensure these rules are followed, and what penalties might
law, and general contract law). In this chapter, we cannot you expect if they are violated?
cover all of the relevant legislation. We therefore recommend
that you talk to your supervisor(s) and/or project collaborators 4. Intellectual property rights (see Chapter 6).
before embarking on your project, and as a starting point
determine: 5. All data management and sharing requirements of funding
bodies and partner organisations. For example, many funders
1. To what extent you will have access to, and be permitted to require data to be made publicly available at the end of the
obtain a copy of, the data and/or materials collected. For project (‘Open Access’ to data, also called ‘Open Data’).
example, if you obtain data and materials from other Check your funder’s requirements and recommendations
sources, it is important to know what you can and cannot carefully and discuss what they mean for your data
do. There may be agreements in place that regulate access, management.
such as material transfer agreements. If you work with
industry partners, there may be contracts with these 6. Any local regulations on rights to research data. It is
partners defining how materials and data can be used. important to note that the University of Copenhagen
has a policy on research data management. This must be
2. To what extent you may (re)use the materials and/or data – followed. Additional regulations and guidelines may exist
for example, in other projects and for other purposes. This within your faculty, department or research group. Also be
includes agreeing on which rules apply if you or your sure to check the (PhD) contract you signed at the start of
collaborators leave the project prematurely, when you your employment.
complete the project, or finish your employment at the
university. At that point, would it be acceptable for you to 3. Collecting and processing physical materials
use the data and/or materials in the new project even if you and research data
are working in a different team, lab, or university? Physical It is essential that you provide a thorough and clear
materials, such as tissue samples, geological samples description of the research data you collect, and the way they
and paper laboratory notebooks are subject to common are being, or were, processed. Doing this as you go along will
property rights, which means that by default they belong save you a lot of time and effort later on. Please note that
to the institution at which you are employed. Thus, you you should aim to provide records of your research that are
cannot remove them at the end of your employment or transparent to, and useable by, others; your supervisor may
project without seeking permission first. Please note, that wish to replicate your study, or one of your peers may be

60 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

enthused by your work and ask to use your sampling design or freezers and secure storage cabinets, and instructions on how
protocols in their own research. In the following section, we to use them. It is your responsibility to draw up a storage/
describe good practice and methodological consistency when documentation plan in collaboration with your supervisor
recording and processing research data. or project partners. This plan could be recorded in the DMP
and should describe informed decisions on what to keep in
3.1 What should you record storage, where, and for how long, in line with best practice
Your research plan in your field and in accordance with legislation, regulations
Apart from describing your data management in your DMP, and agreements. What is most important is that you provide
it is a good idea to set out the background of your research thorough records which allow data to be traced back to the
project in more detail in a research plan that is kept with physical material they were generated from. You should
the research data for the duration of the data’s existence. A therefore ensure that your physical materials are labelled
research plan may be referred to as the project ‘description’, properly (e.g. with a sample ID, date of collection, a short
‘proposal’, ‘protocol’ or ‘investigation plan’, and can be part description, the name of the person in charge of the project),
of your PhD plan. In the research plan, you outline what the and that this information is recorded in your data file together
project is about, the background, the aims, methods, research with your digital research data.
questions, expected results, any collaborations, time schedule,
resources, dissemination, risks and approvals. By describing Research data generated or collected
the background of your research project in detail, you will If you work in a laboratory, you will probably use a paper
be able to demonstrate the importance of your topic and or electronic lab notebook to record research data. These
the knowledge gap the research will address. It is important notebooks have been used as the basis of claims to intellectual
to be specific. Keep the plan relatively short, focus on the property (e.g. rights to patents), and to show who invented
major themes, and ensure the language is understandable to something first. They can be offered as evidence to defend
others. Be aware that different research fields, communities, against accusations of research misconduct (e.g. Nickla
institutions and funders may have templates for research plans and Boehm 2011, Ledford 2016). It is therefore important
and requirements for preregistration of these plans in specific that you use lab notebooks appropriately, by recording data
databases such as PROSPERO (health, welfare and social directly in a way that cannot be altered at a later stage, as
care), ClinicalTrials.gov (medicine), WHO registry Network well as adding dates to your records and signing the pages.
(health), AEA registry (economics) or EGAP (governance Researchers in other disciplines may not use a lab notebook.
& politics). The benefits of preregistration include the Instead they may use field notes, or code books and annotated
prevention of publication bias, ensuring that negative results files generated by software for statistics, or software for
and failed projects see the light of day, and committing qualitative and mixed methods research, such as Nvivo or
researchers to a fixed plan to make them think harder about a Altas.ti.
project before it begins (Kupferschmidt, 2018). Of course, a
summary of some of the research plan can be included in the Another consideration is the format of your digital data.
data management plan and vice versa. Here, a little repetition Data should be accessible and readable for a suitably lengthy
is unavoidable, but the one does not replace the other. period after the project ends. Is the data format you are using
accessible by others using standard programs and equipment?
The nature, quantity and location of research materials Is it reasonable to expect that the computer program you are
You should keep clear records of any materials used in your using will still be available ten years from now? If your data
project to generate research data. It is the duty of the research were generated, or processed, with specific software or code
institution to provide proper storage facilities, such as (e.g. a commercial Electronic Laboratory Notebook), you

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 61

should always keep information on these with the data, and specifications of the camera, resolution, shutter speed,
you should save an additional copy of the data in an accessible timestamp, location, and other recording information are
format (e.g..csv,.rtf,.tif,.mp3,.mp4,.pdf,.nvp,.gexf, or see the stored in the file properties. This ensures that the metadata
UK Data Services’ recommended formats). do not become separated from the digital file. Metadata can
also be supportive, which means stored in a separate file that
Once you start to gather and work with your data, they accompanies the data. Examples are lab books, ReadMe files,
can easily become disorganised. To prevent errors later on, interview guides, bibliographic data and catalogue data.
and to improve accessibility, create a logical and consistent
file structure from the start of the project, and be aware of Metadata can be divided into a number of categories (Riley
when these structures need updating. Useful file names are and Niso 2017):
consistent and meaningful, and allow you to find your data • Descriptive metadata describe the content and context of a
easily. Structure your folders hierarchically, starting from dataset or document for discovery and identification. This
broad topics and descending to more specific topics within includes elements such as title, creator/author, subject,
these folders. Think carefully about what will make most keywords, and description/abstract.
sense to you five years from now (e.g. Fig1B.ai versus the • Structural metadata indicate the internal structure of a
more explicit Fig1B_EffectSleeponMood_PeterPetersen_Jan16. dataset or document (e.g. page number, chapter, and
ai)? The same goes for versioning. Version control can avoid table of contents). Structural metadata can also tell you
duplication and accidental overwrite, and it ensures that your something about the relationship between elements (e.g.
data are backed up and that you are working in the most ‘Figure Z is part of Article B’ and ‘PhotoB_FilterX was
recent copy of the file. How will you keep track of multiple created using original PhotoA’).
versions, the changes made in these versions, and the members • Administrative metadata provide information needed to
of the team who made these changes? What titles will work manage a resource. Examples are creation date, file type,
best: for example, Finaltext.doc, absolutelyfinaltext.doc, copyright permissions, software required to manage the
reallyabsolutelyfinaltext.doc, or 2020-1-16_tabacco exp__V1_ data, provenance (history) and information on who can
Susanne.doc and 2020-1-22_tabacco exp_V2_Asger.doc? Assess access the data.
your files regularly, and at the end of the project, to ensure
that you are not hoarding data needlessly. A range of resources Ask yourself which metadata are best suited to describe your
can help you to establish good documentation practices (e.g. research data. A good starting point is to gather metadata
TILS Document Naming Convention, 2009). commonly used in your research discipline and check for
discipline-specific metadata standards (e.g. see the UK’s
Metadata Digital Curation Centre’s website on Disciplinary Metadata).
Metadata are data that are used to describe and add context Remember to outline your metadata planning in your DMP.
to your physical material and digital data. Adding metadata
enables you and others to identify, search through and 4. Storing research data and materials during
understand the work you have created, both in the short the project
term and in the longer term. This can then facilitate further Losing research data can be disastrous, especially when they
analysis, replication, and other follow-up work. have been generated over a very long period, were costly
or difficult to collect, or cannot easily be replaced. Every
Metadata can be embedded in the data or dataset itself researcher has probably gone through a ‘data storage scare’ at
– for example, within text documents or as file headers. some point: a misplaced USB stick or laboratory notebook, a
Digital images are a good example here: in these, technical laptop that crashed before a back-up was made, or a camera

62 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

that was stolen. It is easy to imagine how this can have severe to share datasets. All employees should adhere to UCPH’s
consequences if valuable research data generated during a PhD information security guidelines, and if you use private IT
project are lost, or if sensitive personal data are accessed by equipment (e.g. mobile phones, tablets, and so on) during
persons not authorised to do so. your work, bear in mind that the security guidelines apply to
these units as well – perhaps especially so.
To prevent problems, you should plan for the storage and
security of your research materials and data, and detail this Information security can operate on various levels:
in your DMP. It is strongly recommended that you make a
separate assessment for each project, tailoring your storage and Security of data files
security plan to the specific materials and data that you will Questions you should ask yourself include the following: Are
work with. Are they sensitive, or not? Are there any rules and my computer and data files password-protected? How can
regulations governing these data types? Do you need to share I guarantee the secure removal or destruction of data? Will
them with others, and are any other agreements, intellectual collaborators have controlled access to the data? Are changes
property or commercial interests that you need to take into made by my collaborators logged somewhere? Will I be able
account? to see whether unauthorised persons have tampered with
my data? If you need to share data in an ongoing research
4.1 Storage & back-up project with collaborators at the University of Copenhagen,
The risk of loss of digital data needs to be considered you can request password-protected folder sharing from your
when you are choosing the method and location of data faculty’s IT department. Alternatively, you could set up a
storage. How stable is the storage solution? Could it easily group room on KUnet in which you deposit copies of your
be damaged or misplaced? Is the process of backing up data files. Care should be taken when distributing data by email.
straightforward? Portable devices such as USB sticks and Such transfers should only be made via the university email
external hard drives, or personal laptops and computers, are system (not Gmail and the like), and personal or sensitive
not the best storage solutions. One way to prevent data loss information should always be encrypted. This could be done,
is to store the master copy of your data on your personal for example, by using UCPHs email add-in Bluewhale, which
drive on the university’s network, because data stored there is also suitable for large files.
are automatically and regularly backed up. If you are looking
for ways in which data can be shared with your research Security of storage networks
group members, consider setting up a project-specific secure If you cannot avoid storing data outside the university’s
drive, or use the research group’s shared network drive. The servers, you should investigate whether the service you
latter may become especially important at the end of your use sufficiently protects your data from viruses, malicious
employment: your personal drive is not accessible by others, software, hacking attempts, etc. Commercial cloud-based
so crucial data may disappear from the research group if you file sharing services such as Dropbox, Amazon Web Services
do not migrate them. and GoogleDrive can be used as backup, but they should
never be used for the master copy of your data. In addition,
4.2 Information security they should never be used when the data are confidential,
You will also need to ensure that materials and data are secure, sensitive or valuable. These services are very popular because
and cannot be accessed or manipulated by unauthorised of their ease of use, but they may store the data in countries
persons. This should be planned carefully from the very with privacy and data protection laws that differ from those
start of the project, especially when you are one of several in Denmark (or the EU), and you might need additional
researchers collaborating on the same project and you need permission. Instead, it is strongly recommended that you use

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 63

the university’s secure access to Microsoft OneDrive, after you from the office, that samples have accidentally been defrosted,
have encrypted your data and have set up the appropriate legal or that coffee has been spilled over a notebook rendering it
agreements to allow transfers of personal data (see Box 2). unreadable. Where it makes sense, consider making (digital)
copies of your research materials at regular intervals.
Security of physical materials
You should also consider the security of your materials, such 5. Sharing research data outside the project
as tissue samples, notebooks, soil samples, and photographs. In the previous section, we considered the sharing of research
Can someone simply walk into your office and take them data with collaborators within an on-going research project.
or tamper with them? Do you store your computer in a In this section, we address the sharing of data with the
locked cabinet? Have you set up an alarm in case the freezer wider scientific community after a project has concluded. As
holding your samples breaks down? If you do not take these mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, sharing data
precautions, you might discover that a laptop has been stolen with peers has become more and more common and is likely
to become standard in most disciplines in the near future, as
part of a broader open access movement (Federer et al. 2018).
Below and in Box 3 we discuss why the sharing of research
BOX 3: WHY SHARE RESEARCH DATA? data should be considered, and how to go about it. Please
There are many reasons why research data should be shared note that legislation, regulations and/or agreements sometimes
with the wider research community whenever possible: exclude or limit sharing.

Impact on your research profile: 5.1 Why share research data?

• It may lead to new research collaborations. Why would you share research data? Many papers have
• It may increase the impact and visibility of research. investigated attitudes to sharing of research data in different
• It provides credit for the researcher. disciplines – for example, in biomedical research (Federer et
al. 2015), (bio)chemistry (Bezuidenhout 2019), astrophysics
Impact on the (scientific) community: (Zuiderwijk and Spiers 2019), the arts, humanities and social
• It enhances scientific enquiry and debate. sciences (Curty et al. 2017) and cultural heritage (Modolo
• It enables innovation and new data uses. 2017). All of the studies agree that barriers currently hinder
• It increases the efficiency of research due to reusability and sharing, and that these barriers are more cultural, social and
replication studies. professional than technical. For example, researchers are
• It provides a valuable resource for education and training. concerned that they might lose their competitive advantage in
• It encourages the improvement and validation of research getting future papers accepted for publication, or in obtaining
methods. funding, if they share data before publication. They may also
• It enables scrutiny of research results. fear that others will scrutinise, or misuse, their research data,
• It facilitates transparency and accountability. or find errors in the published results that they themselves did
not uncover. Curty et al. (2017) discuss researchers’ concerns
Compliance with requirements: about not knowing how to share research data and credit
• It meets journal, institution and/or funder requirements for appropriately. As these concerns exist in all research disciplines,
data sharing. how can it be that there is a general shift towards data sharing?
• It meets standard practices within the research community.
In the next two sections we give an overview of the incentives
for sharing research data (see Box 3 for a summary).

64 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

Reasons for sharing research data – the carrot restricted datasets) and ‘verify’ (supplementary data must be
There have recently been significant improvements in the made fully available and reproducible). Some journals even
infrastructure supporting data sharing. The effort required specify requirements on the format of supplementary data,
to share data is not the barrier it once was (Kim 2017). and where and how the data must be deposited. Therefore,
For example, when you deposit a dataset in a research data always check the publisher’s policies carefully, including the
repository, a permanent identifier (e.g. a digital object identifier, publisher’s Copyright Transfer Agreement (CTA), to ensure
or DOI) is generated automatically. This identifier allows others you understand which rights to the data you are transferring
to refer to, and cite, the dataset properly, and thus it ensures to the publisher, and thus the restrictions or potentials that
that you will receive appropriate credit for your work. Previous accordingly apply to your data.
studies (Piwowar et al. 2007, Piwowar and Vision 2013) found
that articles for which supplementary datasets were deposited in 5.2 How to share research data: the FAIR principles, data
public repositories received more citations than those for which repositories and licences
datasets were not available. These studies also show that 20% The FAIR principles
of the deposited datasets are reused at least once within four To improve the potential for reuse of research data, an expert
to eight years of being deposited. In many cases, reuse can group consisting of researchers and representatives from
lead to invitations for co-authorship on new articles, with the journals, funders, universities and the European Commission,
original authors being asked to collaborate on a new project introduced the ‘FAIR principles’ (Wilkinson et al. 2016). The
based on the available dataset. Sharing research data also FAIR principles are a set of recommendations to make digital
benefits the research community as a whole: it increases the data Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable:
likelihood that research will be discovered by others (Niyazov
et al. 2016), improves the reproducibility and transparency • Findable: Make information about your data available online
of research (Ascoli 2015, Sturges et al. 2015), and stimulates in a searchable resource, so that others can discover that
collaborative efforts in which massive datasets are analysed the data and study exist. A persistent identifier (e.g. DOI)
effectively (Ferguson et al. 2014). should be used as permanent link to this information.
• Accessible: Provide access to your research data and
Reasons for sharing research data – the stick documentation thereof. This can be done, for example,
Another reason to share research data is the fact that by depositing data in a data repository as described below.
stakeholders demand it. This includes funding agencies, Access does not have to be open, but the conditions for
publishers and universities. Funding agencies naturally seek to access to restricted data need to be well-defined (Who may
maximise their ‘return on investment’. They are increasingly access the data, and when? Who can give access and how?).
requiring research data to be made publicly available, both • Interoperable: Apply commonly understood and preferably
to increase transparency and replicability, and to encourage open formats and standards for data and metadata,
reuse and thus generate more results from a single funded allowing them to be easily exchanged, linked and combined
project. Publishers (including PLOS, Springer Nature, with other data.
Wiley, Science, Elsevier and Taylor Francis) are enacting • Reusable: Document your research data in a way that
policies that focus on making supplementary data available to supports their interpretation and reuse across disciplines.
readers. This can be required on various levels of increasing This means that a thorough description of the context in
rigour (Mellor 2018): ‘disclosure’ (authors state simply how which the data were created (data provenance), such as
to access data underlying the published results), ‘mandate’ a ReadMe file or the project protocol, should always be
(authors must make supplementary data available in a public provided. In addition, a reuse licence could be added to
repository, or state access conditions and procedures for datasets explaining how others may reuse the data.

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 65

It is important to stress that the FAIR principles can also reusable by others, you should check that the repository
be followed for data sets that are not made openly available allows you to enter meaningful metadata (keywords, links to
through a data repository. Legal or contractual restrictions related publications and documentation, etc.). You should also
may exist that prevent the open sharing of data. However, you make sure the repository allows you to generate a persistent
might still be able to share these data in a FAIR way on an identifier to reference the data set, and that you can attach an
individual basis, or through a specialised and secure database. appropriate usage licence.

Research data repositories Usage licences for research data

As stated above, one step towards making your research data When you are making research data available to others, be
‘more FAIR’ is to deposit your dataset in a public repository sure to describe the terms and conditions of reuse. May
for research data. Examples are provided in Box 4, and the others make changes to the data? May they redistribute
online database re3data is a good place to start if you want the data, or parts of the data? Are they permitted to use
to find a suitable repository. Discipline-specific repositories the data for commercial purposes? Will you request proper
may have the largest outreach and impact in your field. attribution or citation from those who reuse your data? You
However, generalist, institutional or national repositories can describe the terms and conditions yourself or choose a
may also be suitable. Your research funder or publisher may standard licence – for example, one of the Creative Commons
make recommendations on repositories to use. If you want Licenses. The ‘CC-BY’ licence permits unrestricted reuse,
to ensure that your datasets are discoverable, citable and including distribution and reproduction in any medium, and

BOX 4. EXAMPLES OF RESEARCH DATA REPOSITORIES

Discipline-specific repositories
Advantages: Will have collections of similar types of data, using the same metadata schemes and vocabulary, which makes it easier to
combine different datasets. It is likely also to be the place where peers in the relevant discipline will find data to reuse.
Examples: NASA’s Space Physics Data Facility, Archaeology Data Service.

Generalist repositories
Advantages: Often free of charge up to a certain storage size. Many have options to add a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), standard
metadata and usage licenses. These repositories are usually very easy and convenient to use.
Examples: DRYAD, ZENODO, figshare.

Institutional repositories
Advantages: Include support function for local users, and may help to brand the content. The data are stored ‘in-house’.
Example: Data DOI at the University of Copenhagen.

National repositories
Advantages: Often long-term and stable preservation of high-quality research data.
Example: The Danish National Archives. This is the only repository where personal data can be archived without explicit informed consent.
It is the most appropriate solution for data that should be preserved indefinitely.

66 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

commercial and non-commercial usage, as long as the original Vines et al. (2014) showed that despite demands for data
author and source are credited. Other licences are more preservation, the availability of underlying research data
restrictive. For example, the ‘CC-BY-NC-ND’ license only declines rapidly with article age; the odds that a dataset
allows others to download and share your data if they credit remained available dropped by 22% every year after
you and does not allow changes or commercial use. GNU publication. Choosing a stable storage solution to preserve
licences apply similarly for software and coding. your data helps if you need to defend yourself against future
challenges raised by peers in connection with your published
6. Preserving research data after the project work. Good preservation will also benefit your future work
Research data management does not stop with the publication when you archive your research data along with proper
of research results. The last step in the research data lifecycle documentation and metadata, because this makes them easy
is the preservation, or archiving, of research data after the to find and understand at a later time.
project. Unfortunately, this step is often overlooked when,
for example, researchers move on to a new place of 6.2 What to preserve?
employment and start on new and exciting research projects. Should every single file containing research data be preserved
Research groups may not have standard procedures describing for years and years? The answer is no. As a starting point,
what should happen to physical material and data after the you should always investigate whether relevant legal, ethical
project is completed, and it will often be unclear who will or contractual restrictions apply to your project. Some types
have responsibility for them 5, 10 or 25 years later. As a result, of research data may need to be destroyed when your project
research data are often left behind in various storage locations, ends – for example, if you are dealing with personal or
rendering them inaccessible and difficult to interpret by confidential data and material.
others. Depositing data in Open Access data repositories,
as mentioned in the previous section, can be considered For research data that may be preserved, you should make
a form of data preservation. However, not all repositories some informed decisions on what you should retain for at
(except for the Danish National Archives) can guarantee the least 5 years. First of all, you will need to preserve all data
long-term persistence of the data deposited there, especially associated with publications. Second, we recommend that
if you want to preserve data for more than 10 years. In you preserve all data that are costly or difficult to replace.
addition, not all data can be deposited in data repositories. For example, think of research data generated in large
This means that other or additional measures may need to collaborative projects, data derived from materials and
be taken to preserve your data long-term. We detail some of observations that were difficult to obtain (e.g. in remote
the considerations and measures for long-term preservation locations, at a certain point in time, or under very specific
below. circumstances) and data that were generated with specialist
equipment not standardly present in every research group.
6.1 Why preserve research data? Remember that it may also be of great value to preserve
As with other aspects of research data management, there research data from projects that did not lead to a publication.
are requirements from funders, publishers, policy makers Often data from studies with a negative result are simply
and institutions for retaining research data after a project discarded, and this can lead to the repetition of experiments
is completed. For example, the Danish Code of Conduct that will give the same negative results.
for Research Integrity states that researchers must retain the
data underlying results for at least 5 years after publication. The preservation of physical objects will only make sense
Publishers and funders that require open access to research if the quality of the material allows it, and it is feasible
data will also require that those remain available long-term. financially to do it.

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 67

6.3 How to preserve? be able to access your data. Before doing so you will need,
When you have a collection of materials or data that should as a minimum, to fully format the USB stick and laptop to
be preserved, you will also need to decide how to preserve overwrite the files.
them. The preservation of materials and data often involves
moving them from one storage medium and format to 7. Conclusion
another. The location at which you stored your data during As this chapter has illustrated, there are many things you need
your research project (e.g. your laptop or the university’s to consider when you are planning your data management.
network drives) is often not suitable for long-term storage, as It is vital that you ensure your research is carried out in an
it will be inaccessible to others (e.g. project collaborators or efficient and secure way. The starting point in deciding on
your supervisor) when you leave the workplace or project. The your approach should always be the factors specific to your
file formats may be specific to the equipment and (version project. For example, these factors are:
of ) software used, and therefore not readable otherwise.
And storage media change over time; where storing data on • Data
CD-ROMs was pretty common 10 years ago, nowadays hardly What types of research data are you going to be working
any new laptop has an internal cd-drive. In 10 years, it may be with? Are there any regulations or pieces of legislation that
very hard to find a device that can read CD-ROMs. Therefore, apply to that specific data type? What precautions must be
in making decisions that will facilitate interpretation and the taken when dealing with confidential, sensitive or personal
reuse of your research data in 5, 10, 25 years, you should ask: data – for example, in the storing, sharing and preserving
Where should the data be stored so that they can be found and these data?
accessed when needed? In what format should they be retained? • Responsibilities and rights to data
What documentation and/or labels should be associated with Who will you be working with? What procedures will you
the data and materials so that they can be understood in the follow in collaborative work – for example, in collecting,
future? What will it cost to preserve materials and data, and documenting and analysing your materials and data? Who
who will cover these costs? Who will be the contact person for will be responsible for the different aspects of research
preserved materials and data? It is a good idea to decide on a data management? Who will have access to the data and
preservation strategy for your research data at the project start material, when, and under what conditions? And what can
– for example, as part of your data management plan. everyone do with the data after the project is complete?
• Outreach & compliance
6.4 Data destruction Who, potentially, will be interested in your research
Some data and physical material will need to be destroyed data? How will you make the data findable, accessible,
after the project’s completion, instead of being archived. interoperable and reusable for them? How will you comply
This may be because they are of low value or quality and with institutional policies and requirements from funders,
not worth preserving, because an agreed retention period journals and your research community – for example, on
(e.g. specified in a collaboration contract) has ended, or the provision of open access to your research data?
because legal or ethical regulations require destruction. As
with data preservation, data destruction needs to be carefully In summary, there is no one-size-fits-all-solution for
considered when dealing with confidential or sensitive data. data management. You need to plan your research data
Use irreversible methods; the ‘simple deletion’ of files may management based on the nature of your own project. Create
not destroy the data but merely remove the reference to them an overview of all the factors that will influence how you
at the user-interface. This means that if you lend out your collect, document, process, store, secure, share and preserve
USB stick, or dispose of your old laptop, someone may still your research data, and design your procedures accordingly.

68 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

The best way to do this is to write a data management Curty, R. G., K. Crowston, A. Specht, B. W. Grant and E. D.
plan, or DMP, preferably using the template provided Dalton (2017). ‘Attitudes and norms affecting scientists’ data
by the University of Copenhagen. Use the DMP to align reuse.’ PLOS ONE 12(12): 1-22.
expectations and make agreements with your supervisor and
collaborators. The effort that you put into thorough planning Federer, L. M., C. W. Belter, D. J. Joubert, A. Livinski, Y.-L.
will pay off when your project runs smoothly and lives up Lu, L. N. Snyders and H. Thompson (2018). ‘Data sharing
to the standards of honesty, transparency and credibility in in PLOS ONE: An analysis of Data Availability Statements.’
research that we all value. PLOS ONE 13(5): e0194768.

8. Test yourself questions Federer, L. M., Y. L. Lu, D. J. Joubert, J. Welsh and B.

• What is the difference between ‘personal data’, Brandys (2015). ‘Biomedical data sharing and reuse: attitudes
‘pseudonymous data’ and ‘anonymous data’? and practices of clinical and scientific research staff.’
• In your particular research project, what aspects of research PLOS ONE 2015(10: e0129506.).
data management should you talk about with your super-
visor and collaborators, and agree upon at the start of your Ferguson, A. R., J. L. Nielson, M. H. Cragin, A. E.
project? Bandrowski and M. E. Martone (2014). ‘Big data from
• What measures can you take to ensure that you yourself small data: data-sharing in the ’long tail’ of neuroscience.’
and others can find, understand and reuse your research Nat Neurosci 17(11): 1442-1447.
data, now and in the future?
• How can good research data management have a positive Kim, Y. (2017). ‘Fostering scientists’ data sharing behaviors
impact on your career? via data repositories, journal supplements, and personal
communication methods.’ Information Processing &
9. Getting help with research data Management 53(4): 871-885.
management
For help with any issues related to research data management Ledford, H. (2016). ‘Bitter fight over CRISPR patent heats
contact research support at your faculty, or the University’s up.’ Nature 529(7586): 265.
central contact point for research data management
([email protected]). Information about research data Mellor, D. (2018). ‘The Landscape of Open Data Policies.’
management and working with personal data can be found on
the Research Portal on KUnet. Modolo, M. (2017). ‘Towards a democracy of culture: Free
access and free sharing of data.’ Archeologia E Calcolatori:
111-134.

References Nickla, J. T. and M. B. Boehm (2011). ‘Proper laboratory

Ascoli, G. A. (2015). ‘Sharing Neuron Data: Carrots, notebook practices: protecting your intellectual property.’
Sticks, and Digital Records.’ PLoS biology 13(10): J Neuroimmune Pharmacol 6(1): 4-9.
e1002275-e1002275.
Niyazov, Y., C. Vogel, R. Price, B. Lund, D. Judd, A. Akil,...
Bezuidenhout, L. (2019). ‘To share or not to share: M. Shron (2016). ‘Open Access Meets Discoverability:
Incentivizing data sharing in life science communities.’ Citations to Articles Posted to Academia.edu.’ PLOS ONE
Developing World Bioethics 19(1): 18-24. 11(2): e0148257.

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 69

Piwowar, H. A., R. S. Day and D. B. Fridsma (2007).
‘Sharing detailed research data is associated with increased
citation rate.’ PLOS ONE 2(3): e308.

Piwowar, H. A. and T. J. Vision (2013). ‘Data reuse and the

open data citation advantage.’ PeerJ 1: e175.

Popkin, G. (2019). ‘Data sharing and how it can benefit your

scientific career.’ Nature 569(7756): 445-447.

Riley, J. and Niso (2017). Understanding metadata: what is

metadata, and what is it for?

Sturges, P., M. Bamkin, J. H. S. Anders, B. Hubbard, A.

Hussain and M. Heeley (2015). ‘Research data sharing:
Developing a stakeholder-driven model for journal policies.’
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology
66(12): 2445-2455.

Vines, T. H., A. Y. K. Albert, R. L. Andrew, F. Debarre, D.

G. Bock, M. T. Franklin,... D. J. Rennison (2014). ‘The
availability of research data declines rapidly with article age.’
Curr Biol 24(1): 94-97.

Wilkinson, M. D., M. Dumontier, I. J. Aalbersberg, G.

Appleton, M. Axton, A. Baak,... B. Mons (2016). ‘The
FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and
stewardship.’ Scientific Data 3(1): 160018.

Zuiderwijk, A. and H. Spiers (2019). ‘Sharing and re-using

open data: A case study of motivations in astrophysics.’
International Journal of Information Management 49: 228-241.

70 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

Appendix: Examples of Data Management Plans

Project title The Avon Longitudinal Study of Critical Heritages: performing Climatic Limitation of
Parents and Children (ALSPAC) and representing identities in Alien Weeds in New
Europe (CoHERE) Zealand: Enhancing
Species Distribution
Models with Field Data

Project Type Large collaborative project Large collaborative project PhD study

Description Birth cohort study following more Study of European heritages, Study of the potential
than 14,000 pregnant women (’91- their socio-political and cultural distributions of three
’92) together with their children significance and their potential alien plant species in
and partners over two decades. for developing communitarian their introduced ranges
identities. Including museum, of New Zealand, using a
heritage and memory studies, combination of correlative
cultural history, education, species distribution
musicology, ethnology, models and observational
political science, archaeology, and experimental
ethnolinguistics and digital approaches.
interaction design.

DMP template Medical Research Council UK European Commission (H2020) National Science
Foundation (NSF)

Links Project website, DMP Project website, DMP PhD thesis, DMP

How are Executive Lead for Data: release of Project PI: DMP implementation, The PhD student is
responsibilities for data and metadata. long-term preservation of the responsible for all data
data management Senior Data Manager: surveys of data. management concerning,
divided? documentation, quality assurance Project partners: day-to-day in agreement with the
of data sets. coordination of data collection PhD supervisor.
Technical Lead: data collection, (anonymisation, de-identification,
curation, storage. file labelling and storage and
production of metadata).

What data types 1) Quantitative data from Data are collected using: 1) Compiled data, such
are collected, questionnaires and interviews; 1) Mixed ethnographic methods as records from online
generated or used? physiological, cognitive, (observations, semi-structured databases, surveys, online
anthropometric measures; analyses interviews, audience surveys, focus records. Data from society
of biological samples; images (e.g. groups, in-depth interviews). newsletters, proceedings,
MRIs, Liver scans); administrative 2) Content analysis of textual and and journal articles.
records (e.g. records of maternity/ audio-visual documents, onsite Written notes from
birth, cancer/deaths); social media analysis of museums/sites communication with local
(e.g. Twitter, Facebook). 3) Textual analysis of heritage residents, experts and
2) Qualitative data such as tourism blogs and online herbaria.
interviews, audio recordings and photographs. 2) Data from
transcriptions. The formats of data collected measurements and
3) Biological samples, e.g. DNA and will include: audio (.mp3), video observations, such as
lymphoblastic cell lines. (.mp4), transcriptions of interview species occurrence
(.pdf/a;.txt;.docx), exhibition and data, raw temperature
display analyses (.pdf/a;.txt;.docx.; data from data loggers,
png;.jpg2000), survey data (.csv;. derived climate data,
pdf/a), literature review (.pdf/a.; transplant experiment
txt;.docx.;), academic texts data, Field survey data,
(.pdf/a;.txt;.docx), online text. model codes (R scripts)
and outputs.

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 71

 How is consistency 1) Assessment of data by logical Responsibility for controlling Note: This DMP outlines
and quality of data and range checks in electronic data accuracy of the data lies with detailed procedures
ensured? collection systems, with ambiguous the respective PI overseeing for the collection and
values assessed by an operator. the collection of the respective analysis of each individual
2) All assessment scales are dataset. dataset, e.g. by listing
validated externally with a known references for all data
reference paper. Note: This DMP does not compiled from external
3) ~3% of clinic participants will describe any specific procedures sources, explaining the
be re-invited to validate earlier or protocols for collecting and applied models and
measures and test for fieldworker analysing the data, e.g. on how to justifying the choice
bias or equipment calibration conduct interviews and surveys in of input parameters,
issues. order to avoid unintentional bias describing experimental
4) Clinical assessment data are and validate the results. protocols, including
collected according to clear rules for omitting data,
protocols; regular audits of clinic repeating measurements,
processes will be performed. etc, comparing selected
5) Molecular analysis of some datasets with reference
samples is repeated, using control data.
probes, analysis for batch effects.

What metadata Metadata are collected as an Each data collection process Species occurrence
will be included? integral process to (i) catalogue creates a template metadata data, transplant
and index the data in a searchable spreadsheet (.csv) including experiment data (e.g.
manner, (ii) define the assessment design process, software, and site descriptions, deaths,
tools (validated measures, vocabularies. As there is no flowering, growth,
key reference publication, standard, formal vocabulary in the seedling counts),
modifications etc.), (iii) describe fields covered by the project, the field survey data (e.g.
the data collection process on an project partners will generate their seeds per pod). Also,
individual basis (age at completion, own vocabulary as part of the metadata for the results:
administration and reminder research process. identifier, creator, title,
process) (iv) catalogue laboratory International metadata standards publisher, publication
information as captured through will be applied to describe year, contributor, subject,
LIMS and (v) assign a geographical bibliographic information such as language, size, format,
reference point (at a non-disclosive title; description; creator; funder; rights, description
level) to assist spatial analysis. keywords and affiliation. (abstract, column names
Published datasets will use the DDI Social Science metadata standards and units), dates, geo-
Lifecycle 3.2 metadata standard may be appropriate for some location.
facilitated through the CLOSER aspects of the data collection (i.e.
Discovery portal. quantitative surveys).

What conventions Each data item is referenced and 1) Files are numbered in Year- Not addressed.
for file naming, stored using a universal indexing Month-Day format.
labelling and and naming convention. 2) File names include: project
versioning are name; work package number;
used? Note: The DMP is missing a deliverable/milestone number OR
description of, or a reference to, research task number; deliverable/
this convention. milestone name, OR research
task name; draft or final version;
version number. File names
are spaced with hyphens and
underscores.

72 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

What security 1) Research data are stored All Digital data created, including There are no ethical or
measures are in separately from administrative data master copies, are securely stored privacy issues related to
place to prevent (e.g. subject identifiers), accessible and backed up on the university’s the data in the project.
unauthorised only to specified team members. Filestore Service, accessible only to All finalised data and
access, removal or 2) Free text is coded separately authorised staff. metadata will be stored
alteration of data from any other data; any The Project Administrator in a private folder in the
and material? identifying information is screened manages access to the data. Only cloud on figshare until
out before being passed to a the project lead or their nominee publication.
researcher. have access to the ‘key’ file. Any Note: The DMP does not
3) Complete dates (birth, clinic pseudo-anonymisation will be describe how the raw
attendance etc) are not released replaced with full anonymisation. data are stored, secured
to researchers; instead ages are If the sample size is small enough and backed up.
derived. to enable de-anonymisation,
4) Interview data are collected the research team will employ
and validated in real time on statistical techniques such as
encrypted laptops with data differential privacy to further
routinely transferred to the central protect participants.
repository.

Which datasets Majority of data are available All research outputs (project All finalised data and
will be shared for immediate use on request. deliverables) and some ‘raw data’ metadata will be made
outside of the ALSPAC is run and encouraged will be made openly accessible. available under embargo
project? as a resource to be used by the Access to sensitive data will be until publication of
research community. The process restricted in accordance with the chapters as manuscripts,
for accessing data is the same for ethics policy of the project, the or 3 years after the
all, regardless of research area, participating institutions and the PhD has been awarded,
institution, location or funding Data Protection Act. Anonymised whichever is sooner.
source, provided the proposed data underlying publications are
research is in the public interest released with the publication.
and is not being carried out for Within 12 months of the project
personal or commercial gain. ending, any appropriately
anonymised data will also be
made publicly available.

FAIR: How will Available data are described on Datasets that have been identified Research outputs will
datasets be made the ALSPAC website, including a as suitable for depositing in a be searchable through
findable? dictionary that is fully searchable public archive will be deposited the figshare repository,
by keyword. A web portal will be in Zenodo, with basic metadata and will have a DOI to
developed that allows for advanced for the archived data. DOIs for make the outputs citable.
searching of variables. Searchable each dataset will be automatically Associated information is
indexes of ALSPAC variables are created upon uploading. Short disseminated publicly on
also available via the CLOSER films will be made available in the internet.
Discovery search engine. the CoHERE Critical Archive, and
integrated online digital repository.
Project partners generate
keywords for use in the CCA.
These keywords will be visible to
CCA users to search and organise
the CCA content.

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 73

 FAIR: How will ALSPAC data are made available to Data deposited Zenodo will be All data and metadata
datasets be made researchers on a supported basis made open access within twelve will be stored privately in
accessible? rather than via an unrestricted, months of the completion of the the cloud on figshare until
open resource. Bespoke datasets of project. publication, after which
requested variables are provided to Sensitive data will be restricted in point it will be made
collaborators upon completion of a accordance with the ethics policy open-access on figshare,
Data Access Agreement. of the project and applicable data so that others are free to
protection rules. download data sets.
No specialist methods or software
are required to access the data.
Should any specialist software
become needed to access more
complex data (such as film, digital
or online apps) instructions will be
provided.

FAIR: How will Study protocols, assessment Data deposited Zenodo will be in All data files will
datasets be made tools, data derivation methods open formats, e.g..pdf/.txt files. be saved as CSV or
interoperable? and coding schema are provided Format changes to the data files ASCII files for cross-
as part of the research data (e.g. from closed to open formats) platform compatibility,
documentation available as will be the responsibility of each exchangeability and
downloadable content from the institutional PI. long-term access.
ALSPAC website. Public deliverables and selected, Metadata will be created
anonymised raw data may be as separate XML files
used by third parties, subject to using DataCite’s metadata
attribution and acknowledgement schema version 3.1.
of intellectual property rights,
artistic copyright, etc.

FAIR: How will The full ALSPAC data access policy Data in the CCA will be licensed Data will be free to
datasets be made is available online and provides with a Creative Commons License. use under a Creative
reusable? information on data sharing. Data archived in Zenodo will be Commons License, with
Researchers wishing to use the available for the lifetime of the the expectation that it
ALSPAC resource complete an repository. This is expected to be will be correctly attributed
online proposal form describing the at least 20 years. Zenodo states and cited using the DOI
proposed research. that if the repository is closed then provided by the figshare
they will endeavour to integrate repository.
deposited data into suitable
alternative institutional and/or
subject based repositories.

How will ALSPAC maintains an archive Archived project data will be USB hard drive and paper
the data and of data available to researchers securely stored in the University of copies of (meta) data are
documentation be on request. To ensure longevity Newcastle’s archive file store. stored at the university
preserved after the and availability, ALSPAC reviews library and archived along
project ends? data regularly and migrates data with the PhD thesis.
formats to newer formats if Digital copies are stored
necessary. Where data are disposed on figshare which is
of this will be done securely and in stable and accessible and
line with University IT information provides a suitable and
security policies. Primary source secure option for long-
material (e.g. questionnaires, clinic term storage of data.
data sheets and consent forms)
will be preserved as electronic
(scanned) copies where practicable.

74 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 75
6.
Commercialization of
research results and intellectual
property rights
Niels Lysholm Engelhard

76 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

Summary 2. Technology transfer
Universities have become increasingly engaged in The transfer of technology from universities to industry really
collaboration with industrial companies, and intellectual took off with the 1980 Bayh-Dole-Act in the US, which
property rights (IPR) play an important role in this kind of stated that the universities have the right to take ownership of
collaboration. This chapter begins by introducing the legal inventions made by their researchers. Before 1980, in the US,
background to transfers of technology from universities to researchers themselves had ownership to any inventions made
industry. It then describes the two most important forms as part of their work. This was called “Professor Privilege”.
of intellectual property right used to regulate this transfer; Denmark’s own “Bayh-Dole-Act” – the Act on Inventions at
patents and copyright. There follows a detailed description Public Research Institutions – was passed in 2000 (Ministry of
of how technology transfer works at the University of Higher Education and Science, 2009). Before then researchers
Copenhagen, through the involvement of the Tech Transfer at Danish universities and other public sector research
Office at the University. Finally, a short account of experiences institutions had ownership of their own inventions.
with technology transfer at University of Copenhagen is Why should universities protect inventions, rather than
provided. allowing researchers to just publish new knowledge so that
anyone can benefit from its application? Imagine having
1. Introduction invented a new molecule that could be the key ingredient in
Industry depends on access to the results of university a wonder drug for the eradication of HIV or tuberculosis.
research in order to develop new products and processes, Would it not be more ethical to publish the findings so that
and thereby remain competitive. Mechanisms to support anyone can use them?
technology transfer from academia to industry have been
embedded in innovation policies by almost all governments The problem is that it takes years, and vast funds, to develop
across the globe. Direct industry participation in publicly and market a new drug or other high tech product. Therefore,
funded research projects has become a tool widely used by no investor or company would take on the risk of developing
the various funding bodies to encourage technology transfer, and commercializing a new product or technology without
both in national and EU research programmes, especially as the protection offered by a patent to secure a return on that
part of the EU Horizon 2020 programme. More and more, investment. Hence, if technology is to be made commercially
universities and other public sector research institutions available, a property right to the invention may be necessary.
are involved not only in providing education and scientific Companies also want to invest in products for which there
discoveries, but also in collaboration with industrial is likely to be a demand – there’s no point developing a drug
companies. that no-one wants to buy. However, there are also areas which
are not commercially interesting, but where new knowledge
On the face of it, this seems to conflict with the traditional may be beneficial – e.g. to people living in impoverished parts
role of publicly funded universities as institutions which of the world. Universities also have an obligation to benefit
provide knowledge as a public good for the benefit of all. these people, and publish results deemed not to be worth
The potential conflicts of interest the wider role gives rise patenting.
to need careful management (see Chapter 7). At any
rate, it has become part of life on universities all over the Hence, there are important scientific, economic, and
world. Technology transfer can take many forms, but societal priorities involved in technology transfer and how
this chapter will focus on technology transfer based on it is managed. Governments encourage technology transfer,
the commercialization of research results protected because it is a way to supply innovation to industry and create
by IPR. new jobs. For universities, industrial collaboration offers

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 77

opportunities for extra funding; and for researchers to gain related to copyright include those of performing artists in
access to otherwise unobtainable knowledge and equipment. their performances, and those of producers of phonograms
However, universities have obligations that go beyond what and broadcasters in their radio and television programmes.
can be achieved through commercialization – e.g. finding This chapter will focus on patents, utility patents and
cures for very rare diseases of little commercial interest, or copyright, since these are the most relevant types of IPR for
helping people to find healthier ways of living. Therefore, a public sector researchers.
reasonable balance between research focused on commercial
applications and other kinds of research is called for. Where 3.1 Patents
industry collaboration does occur, the freedom of research A patent covers the technical aspects of an invention – it is, in
must nonetheless be protected. other words, a technical solution to a problem. The owner of
a patent can block others from commercial exploitation of the
The effective technology transfer process is in essence invention; at the same time anyone is permitted to perform
about people interacting so that innovation can occur. research on the invention for non-commercial purposes.
Intellectual property rights may be viewed merely as tools, Patent rights are territorial rights. If a patent has only been
and legal agreements can be seen as a framework to support granted in Denmark, anyone can exploit the invention in
collaboration between academic scientists and industry. The other countries outside Denmark, although they cannot
process is not always easy, as academia and industry belong to export products or semi-manufactured products that are based
different worlds. Understanding the viewpoint of the other on the invention to Denmark. But there is no “patent police”
party is the key to success. The primary mission of a university – it is the owner of a patent who must protect his or her rights
is education, and the creation and dissemination of new against infringement.
knowledge for the sake of knowledge itself, with publishing
as a fundamental condition. Industry’s mission, by contrast, is Criteria governing the issuing of a patent are:
to make a profit by providing services and offering products
to the market. The knowledge lying behind these services 1) Novelty
and products is for the most part developed confidentially 2) Inventive step
in-house. 3) Industrial applicability

3. Intellectual property rights Novelty means that the invention has to be novel at the date
Intellectual property rights confer ownership on ideas and the patent application is filed. Meeting the novelty criterion
creations and grant the inventor/creator exclusivity for a is an objective and a global matter. If an invention has been
certain period of time. They are instrumental in driving presented in a public forum, described in a paper, journal,
forward the development of technology and innovation. or on the Internet, or in any other way, it is not possible to
IPR divide into two categories: obtain a patent unless the patent application is filed before
the invention was published. Discussing the invention in
1) Industrial Property Rights include patents and utility a closed circle – e.g. with a supervisor and close colleagues
patents, trademarks, industrial designs and geographical – does not destroy the novelty of the invention, nor will
indications. the submission of a manuscript to a journal provided the
manuscript is kept confidential during the review process
2) Copyright covers literary and artistic works such as articles, and a patent application is filed at least one day before the
theses, films, photographs, musical compositions, drawings paper is published. Thus, patenting will not hinder or prevent
and paintings, sculptures, and architectural designs. The rights publishing – it is only matter of timing.

78 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

Inventive step means that the solution presented by the • Use (e.g. a drug developed against one disease may show
invention must not be obvious to a person with knowledge effectiveness against another disease)
within the technical field of the invention who has all of the
relevant published information at hand. The combination of A plant or animal that can be found in the wild is not
two or more already published documents, such as a scientific patentable. However, a transgenic animal such as the
paper combined with a text book or a patent, may not qualify Oncomouse may be patentable in certain countries such as US;
as an inventive step, and render the invention obvious. the same is true of genetically modified (GM) plant varieties
– e.g. a GM wheat. Inventions contravening public policy or
Industrial applicability means that it is possible for the morality (e.g. a torture instrument) cannot be patented.
invention to be made and used.
It is very costly to file the first patent application in many
A patent provides protection for 20 years from the date countries, and this imposes a heavy burden on companies and
the patent application was filed. Anyone can exploit an institutions. This could be detrimental to innovation, either
invention freely after expiry. Twenty years is a long time in preventing the filing altogether or imposing further delay on
some technological areas, but not in the pharmaceutical or top of the frequently long journey between the first filing and
pesticide industry, where it takes 10-13 years from initial the final product. Thus, several regional and global patent
filing of first patent application to the product’s being ready treaties make it possible to postpone costs while working to
for launch in the marketplace. The long development phase obtain a patent. This allows an inventor or company several
leaves the company with only 7-10 years to get a return on years to complete prototyping and business planning before
its investment before the patent expires. An annual fee is paid the application process becomes costly, as outlined in Box
for each country in which the patent is in force. The patent 1 below. One of the most widely used systems is the Patent
protection will lapse in a country if the fee is not paid. Corporation Treaty (PCT) system, which is operated by the
United Nations.
A patent application can be filed for four types of item:
• Subject matter (e.g. a compound, herbicide or drug) It usually takes 3-4 years from the date of the initial filing of
• Process or method (e.g. a process for the extraction of the application, for the patent to be granted. The route from
specific compounds, or for manufacturing a product) patent application to granted patent, including costs in DKK,
• Machine or article of manufacture (e.g. a new tool) is outlined below (Box 1):

BOX 1

Month 0 12 18 30

Patent application filed PCT patent application PCT patent application National phase, patent
in one PCT country, e.g. is filed is published application is filed
Denmark DK.

40–90,000 DKK 40–70,000 DKK 15–30,000 DKK 150–500,000 DKK

For the PCT application Prosecution costs Month12 Filing nation applications
to Month 30

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 79

This overview clearly shows the expense of the route from There are several free databases available on the Internet.
patent filing to granted patent. The precise cost depends on google.com/patents and espacenet.com both excellent
the complexity of the invention and field of technology. databases. lens.org is another free database that offers patent
mapping tools and link between scholar work and patents. Lens
Inventorship is credited to one or more individuals who have also offers also free search of biological sequences in patents.
contributed intellectually to the conception of the invention
and the technical means of the invention (the “how”). 3.2 Copyright
An individual cannot be an inventor if he or she merely Copyright differs from industrial property rights (patents,
follows a protocol designed by others, comments on the trademarks and design registration) in many ways. The
text of a draft patent application, provides funding for the copyright symbol © is still widely used, but in fact it is not
research project leading to the invention, or has a senior or necessary, as copyright is automatically given by law without
management role. Adding people to the list of inventors who any application process. Copyright also differs from industrial
are not really inventors, or omitting inventors from the list, property rights in that with it the creator of the copyrighted
can lead to problems for the patent owner and even result item, who is always an individual, holds the right to his or her
in the invalidation of a granted patent. In cases of doubt, work. Furthermore, a work has to represent “originality” to
inventorship can be determined with the assistance of a enjoy copyright protection.
patent agent (see Box 2). This has some interesting similarities
to questions of academic authorship, where a ‘substantial The Danish Copyright Act (“Ophavsretsloven”, Danish
contribution’ is usually required (see Chapter 4), but is more Ministry of Culture, 2014) regulates the protection of two
formally regulated. categories of subject matter (or types of creation):

Knowledge created by companies is often not published 1) Literature and artistic works such as maps, drawings,
in journals, but the information is available in the patent computer programs, architecture, various expressions of art
literature. Patent applications are published 18 months after (fictional or non-fictional), applied art, works of fine art, and
the first filing date, and the patent literature offers researchers graphic works, photographs (artistic).
a rich source of knowledge and “how to” which can be used
freely for research purposes as long as the research is into the 2) Neighboring rights covers photographs – all photographs
invention and not using the invention as a tool in research enjoy protection as neighboring rights, but artistic photo-
project. For example, research into the Polymerase Chain graphs also enjoy protection as artistic work – movies, sound
Reaction (PCR) method would not infringe the PCR patent, recordings, and the performance of literary or artistic work
but using the PCR method as a tool instead of buying the such as theatre plays.
patented PCR product would constitute an infringement.
Thus, by a search of the patent literature it is easy to carry Copyright protection lasts for 70 years after the death of the
out business intelligence on competing groups or companies. creator in the first category and 50 years in the second category.

The creator has the right to reproduce (copy), alter,

disseminate, and perform or show or display his or her work.
BOX 2 These rights can be assigned to a third party such as a journal
More information on patents can be found here: or publishing company. Researchers and teaching staff hold
wipo.org, www.epo.org and dkpto.dk. the copyright to any material (except computer programs)
that fulfil the criteria for copyright protection.

80 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

Computer programs are protected by copyright. The 4. How does technology transfer work at
protection relates only to the actual code (the binary sequence the University of Copenhagen?
of “0” and “1”) and to graphical representations such as the Collaboration with external partners is often an integral part
layout of the graphical interface, including icons and drawings of working at a university or other public research institution.
– not to the algorithm in itself. Who owns a computer The collaboration can take many forms and is regulated by
program made by a researcher at a public research institution different types of legal agreement. Technology transfers are
in Denmark? Unlike inventions, the employer (institution) usually organized by specialized Tech Transfer Offices. In
automatically has ownership here. order to avoid problems employees should always consult the
local legal advisor in their faculty, or contact the Tech Transfer
A work that enjoys copyright may consist of two individual Office for assistance.
works, e.g. a photo of a sculpture presented in PowerPoint.
The creator of the sculpture still has copyright to his work, The Tech Transfer Office at the University of Copenhagen
the photographer holds copyright to the photo, and maker operates from the Research & Innovation Department, in the
of the PowerPoint holds the copyright to the PowerPoint university’s Central Administration (Fælles Administrationen).
slide. In this case, the last of these creators would need All matters relating to the commercialization of IPR at the
permission, or a license, from the photographer and artist, University of Copenhagen are handled by the Tech Transfer
or from an organization to which the artist and photographer Office, which also assists researchers in entering all types of
have assigned their right to reproduce or otherwise use the legal agreement.
creation.
As a junior researcher, you are not permitted to sign an
It should be emphasized that copyright protection only agreement between the University of Copenhagen and
applies to the work itself, not to the idea or theory presented external partners. The agreement must be negotiated by the
in the work – e.g. to a new theory in given scientific field. Tech Transfer Office and signed by your head of department.
Box 3 presents some practical tips for navigating the complex If you need more information, there is a booklet introducing
world of copyright. the overall principles of the university’s collaboration policy at
fi.ku.dk. The booklet is available in Danish and English.

Inventions made by researchers at Danish universities,

BOX 3: TIPS CONCERNING COPYRIGHT ISSUES university hospitals and other public sector research
• Never use photos, drawings, or other copyrighted material institutions are regulated by the Act on Inventions at Public
in public without obtaining permission from the rights Research Institutions (Lov om opfindelser ved offentlige
holders forskningsinstitutioner, Ministry of Higher Education and
• Do not assign all your rights to publishing companies or Science (2009)). If an employee has made an invention as
other organizations without having read the guidelines: part of his or her work, the research institution has a right
Copyright for researchers, students and teachers at to transfer to itself the rights attached to the invention. All
University for Copenhagen tangible materials – e.g. antibodies, seeds and microbial
• UBVA (Udvalget til Beskyttelse af Videnskabeligt Arbejde, strains – belong to the institution and can in principle be
The Committee for Protection of Scientific Work) offers commercialized under a license agreement or sold. However,
free guidance, an e-book on copyright (in Danish), and free the Act only gives the institution the right to inventions
online courses in copyright falling inside the researcher’s field of work at the institution.
For example, if a cancer researcher invents a patentable new

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 81

kitchen tool, that tool will not be considered an invention Public Research Institutions (Ministry of Higher Education
subject to the Act. and Science, 2009) the research institution has a two-month
period after the date of disclosure to decide whether to assume
The inventor must report (disclose) the invention to the the rights to the invention. Inventors are not entitled to
Tech Transfer Office by completing an Invention Disclosure publish or otherwise disseminate information relating to the
Form, but how do you know if you’ve made an invention? invention during this assessment period. If the Institution fails
The definition of “inventions” is stated in the The Patent to notify an inventor of their decision within the two-month
Act (Patentloven, Ministry of Industry, Business and period, the inventor retains the rights to his or her invention
Financial Affairs (2017a)), and The Act on Utility Patents as a private individual.
(Brugsmodelloven, Ministry of Industry, Business and
Financial Affairs (2017b)). Under the Act on Inventions at Where the institution decides to assume rights over the
invention those rights become the property of the institution.
If the invention is exploited commercially, the employee will
be entitled to a reasonable payment from the institution.
BOX 4: DISTRIBUTION OF NET INCOME FROM That payment is described by the Act, where details of how
INVENTIONS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN net income is to be calculated are given; but each institution
Net income is defined as gross income (e.g. royalties received) has the right to decide how they distribute net income
minus external costs incurred during the commercialization of between the institution, the departments and inventors. Box 4
an invention (including patent costs and travelling expenses). describes how this distribution is handled at the University of
Once the total costs for commercialization of the invention Copenhagen.
have been recouped, the net income will be distributed in the
following manner: Sometimes an invention involves inventors from more
than one institution, as well as inventors from a company.
If the University of Copenhagen assumes the rights to an In such cases the invention will be co-owned and a patent
invention before the end of the two-month period: co-ownership agreement will be signed between the parties.
1/3 to the inventor(s) The proportion of ownership will, unless otherwise agreed,
1/3 to the department(s) where the inventors are employed be based on the intellectual contribution of each inventor to
1/3 to the University of Copenhagen the invention. It is highly advisable therefore that all inventors
agree on the distribution rubric internally as soon as possible,
If the University of Copenhagen decides not to assume the and preferably at the time when the invention is disclosed to
rights to an invention within the two-month period and offers the institution.
the rights of ownership to the inventors:
The University of Copenhagen is entitled to 1/3 of net income. Bachelor’s and Master’s students are not subject to the Act
on Inventions at Public Research Institutions (Ministry of
Where the University of Copenhagen offers the inventors to Higher Education and Science, 2009) in that the Act does not
reclaim the ownership to an invention after having tried to apply to inventions created as part of their studies as private
commercialize it: individuals. If a Bachelor’s or Master’s student becomes a
The University of Copenhagen is entitled to a share of the co-inventor by participating in a research project, the institution
net income subject to individual agreement on a case by may enter an agreement with the student under which the
case basis. student assigns his or her share of the rights to the invention to
the institution in return for a share of the net income.

82 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

If a University of Copenhagen Bachelor’s or Master’s student technologies or products currently available in the
becomes a co-inventor through his or her participation marketplace, and by contacting relevant companies and
in a research project, the Tech Transfer Office will ask the other commercial players (without disclosing the invention)
student if he or she wishes to assign his or her share of to assess its commercial potential. For some inventions, an
the invention to the University of Copenhagen as if he or examination of the regulatory landscape surrounding the
she was an employee of the University of Copenhagen. It technology may be necessary in order to identify potential
is recommended that an assignment and confidentiality barriers to the commercialization of the invention such as
agreement with the student should be set up as part of a industry standards or customs in the trade. The inventors
research project involving industrial partners. Contact the play an important role in assisting the Tech Transfer
Tech Transfer Office for help and guidance. Office with any technical input needed in the evaluation
of commercial potential.
4.1 The two-month period
Each institution has its own procedures and forms for the To answer the question of whether an invention can be
disclosure of an invention. Once formalities are in place, the commercialized it is necessary to consider a number of issues:
invention is assessed and evaluated before the institution the stage of development of the invention, the internal
decides whether to assume the rights to the invention and resources (funding, capacity of potential inventors, and
file a patent application. Essentially, the decision is based on availability of equipment) it will require, the availability of
answers to the following questions: relevant potential industrial partners, and time and funding
constraints, both internal and external. The Tech Transfer
1) Is the invention new and patentable? Office investigates these issues in close collaboration with the
2) Does the invention have commercial potential? inventors.
3) Can it be commercialized (sold or licensed)?
Following the investigations outlined above, the Tech Transfer
The first question, relating to patentability, is assessed by an Office will decide to either assume or decline to assume rights
external patent agent who not only understands the specific to the invention from the inventors. In the first of these
field of technology, but is also a specialist in IPR and patent outcomes, a patent application will be drafted and filed, and
law. As outlined above, one of the prerequisites for obtaining commercializing activities will begin. The patent applications
a patent is that the invention must be novel. This means that are drafted by an external patent agent in close collaboration
the invention must not have been made available before to with the inventors.
the public anywhere in the world. The patent agent conducts
a search in the patent literature and the scientific literature 4.2 The commercialization period
to identify documents or other material that may destroy the After the patent application has been filed commercialization
novelty of the invention and thus prevent the invention from activities begin. There are basically two routes to
being patented. This process usually requires input from the commercialization for university IPR:
inventors, who assist the patent agent in fully understanding
the technology, defining the invention and setting up a proper 1) License or sell the IPR to an existing company
search profile. The review and assessment of patentability is 2) Establish a spin-out company founded by the inventors
stated in a written report. or a wider group of inventors

The Tech Transfer Office reviews the commercial potential Under the Act on Inventions at Public Research Institutions
of an invention by benchmarking it against similar (Ministry of Higher Education and Science, 2009), an

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 83

institution may sell or license IPR to industry partners, license often leading to more funding and greater access to skills and
IPR to a spin-out company or receive shares in a spin-out equipment in the industry.
company, or both, in exchange for IPR generated at the
institutions. Each Danish university has its own business The University of Copenhagen received 45 to 77 new
strategy (see Box 5 for the University of Copenhagen’s invention disclosures a year between 2010 and 2017, and
strategy). Some institutions sell IP rights, some only out-license rights to the invention were assumed in 20-30% of cases,
IPR, yet others receive shares for equity in start-up companies resulting in 18-33 license and sales agreements a year. In
originating from the institution as the preferred strategy. comparison, 324 to 471 new invention disclosures were filed
Institutions may employ a combination of these strategies. across all Danish universities and other research organizations
in the same time period, resulting in 103 to 140 license and
Although a given technology can in principle be sold sales agreements. As shown in Figure 1 below, while the
or licensed to more than one company, the majority of number of invention disclosures and new patent applications
commercial agreements involve one company obtaining has been rising, the number of the license and sales
exclusivity for the technology. The commercial partner (or agreements has not gone up to the same extent. This is the
licensee) pays the ongoing patent costs as part of the license result of the time-lag between an invention being disclosed
agreement and will therefore almost always demand exclusivity and the license or sales agreement being signed.
in exchange. When commercialization of the invention is
unsuccessful the institution will offer to hand back, or return, Patent expenses are roughly equal to income between 2009 and
the rights to the invention to the inventors, including the right 2013, but the net profit here does not represent the real value
to make a patent application which will then no longer be of technology transfer to the university. In most cases a license
supported by the university’s Tech Transfer Office. or sales agreement entails collaboration with the industrial
partner that generates more funding and new equipment. In
Luckily inventions from the University of Copenhagen do some cases, the inventors have raised double-digit millions in
find their way to partners in industry. This can mean both research grants, so it is a win situation for both the university
some initial income, sometimes modest, for the inventors and the individual inventor, even if the industrial partner does
and an intensified collaboration with the industrial partners, not succeed in commercializing the invention.

BOX 5: IPR AND BUSINESS STRATEGY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN

The University of Copenhagen:

1) only invests in patent applications with a likelihood of being commercialized
2) does not sell IPR or accept shares in spin-out companies in exchange for them
3) maintains ownership of IPR and licenses rights to external or spin-out companies

Before a potential industry partner is approached, a non-confidential description of the invention and business opportunity will usually be
drafted by the Tech Transfer Office and the inventors in collaboration. There are several ways in which to identify the appropriate industry
partner. The inventors may be familiar with relevant companies, or the Tech Transfer Office may be able to identify and contact relevant
industry partners. Face-to-face presentation of the invention to a potential external partner is headed by the Tech Transfer Office with the
assistance of the inventor(s).

84 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

5. Further information and sources References
of assistance Danish Ministery of Culture (2014) Lov om ophavsret
Visit www.fi.ku.dk (Copyright Act). Retrieved from https://www.retsinformation.
Contact the Tech Transfer Office by e-mail: dk/pdfPrint.aspx?id=164796
[email protected]
Employed within Capital Region of Copenhagen? Ministry of Higher Education and Science (2009). Lov om
Visit www.regionh.dk/til-fagfolk/forskning-og-innovation opfindelser ved offentlige forskningsinstitutioner (Act on
Inventions at Public Research Institutions). Retrieved from
6. Test yourself questions https://www.retsinformation.dk/pdfPrint.aspx?id=123680
• Who owns innovations created at a Danish university or
hospital? Ministry of Industry, Business and Financial Affairs (2017a).
• Is there a copyright to scientific work? Patentloven (The Patent Act). Retrieved from https://www.
• How can a university innovation be patented? retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=187012

Ministry of Industry, Business and Financial Affairs (2017b).

Lov om brugsmodeller (The Act on Utility Patents). Retrieved
from https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.
aspx?id=187011

FIGURE 1: COMMERCIALIZATION STATICS, UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN 2004-2018

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Licenses Spin-outs Disclosures

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 85

7.
Conflicts of interest
Martin Marchman Andersen, Jeppe Berggreen Høj,
Louise Whiteley and Peter Sandøe

86 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

Summary interest, i.e. to disclose that you hold stocks in the tobacco
It is widely assumed that scientists should be objective and company.
ignore personal factors in their scientific conduct (Douglas
2014). However, scientists are human beings and are therefore Initially, one might wonder what the problem really is. Why
also driven by interests other than the advancement of should others criticise your study just because you hold
scientific knowledge – for instance, by the pursuit of honour stocks in a tobacco company? Criticising a study on the
and status, wealth, the desire to support their students, basis of the authors’ private life seems to be argumentum ad
political commitments, morality and other factors. Sometimes hominem – the fallacy of attacking the character, or motive, of
scientists’ non-scientific interests seem to be in conflict the person making the argument, rather than the substance
with responsible conduct of research, and when this is the of the argument itself. If scientific conduct is transparent
case there is a conflict of interest. However, some conflicts of it should be possible for others, at least other scientists, to
interest are unavoidable and some are even harmless; conflicts find the methodological and logical shortcomings of a study
of interest do not necessarily lead to questionable research and thereby separate the wheat from the chaff. If there is
practice and are sometimes an intrinsic part of research itself. a problem with the scientific conduct behind a scientific
But some, particularly those involving financial interests, are paper, other scholars will find it and thus reject the paper’s
a serious threat to the responsible conduct of research and conclusions.
should therefore be taken very seriously. In this chapter we
discuss what exactly a conflict of interest is, and why, when However, the reality of scientific conduct, and indeed
and how we, as scientists, should actively respond to our scientific communication, is not that simple. For instance,
conflicts of interest by, for example, disclosing them. thorough scientific peer review is difficult and time
consuming, and the incentive to review with sufficient care
Key take-home points include the following: Take all conflicts is often not very strong in academic life. There may also
of interest seriously. Discuss them with colleagues in all be methodological uncertainties that one may exploit to
scientific projects you take part in. Disclose all conflicts of approximate a desired conclusion. And perhaps even more
interest linked to financial holdings, or other benefits, or importantly, scientific publications are not only read by other
linked to collaboration with external partners. scientists, but also by journalists and others who may well
lack the necessary training to understand the scientific details
1. What is a conflict of interest and what is and limitations. There is a risk that scientific findings will be
the problem? widely circulated in public media before they are properly
According to the Danish Code of Conduct for Research criticized and evaluated by the scientific community.5 It
Integrity, a conflict of interest is ‘a situation in which financial therefore seems that we cannot merely dismiss conflicts of
or other interests have the potential to compromise or bias interest as irrelevant or unimportant. Rather, non-scientific
professional judgement’ (Ministry of Higher Education and interests seem to affect scientific results in a way that is not
Science, 2014, p. 15). The code also states that ‘all parties easily debunked. For instance, in 1998 Barnes and Baro set
involved with the research in question should disclose any
conflict of interests’ (ibid.). Suppose that you are a stockholder 5 For instance, in 2012 a study was published in Food and Chemical
in a tobacco company, but also an epidemiologist specialising Toxicology linking genetically modified corn to rat tumors. Although,
in studying the impact of tobacco on various forms of cancer. later, it was found that the study involved several methodological errors,
If you publish a paper arguing that the common medical and the journal withdrew it, at the time of its publication its inaccurate
belief about smoking’s impact on throat cancer is overstated, findings gained widespread currency in the news, which made them not
the code would require you to disclose your conflict of easily retractable.

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 87

out to determine whether the conclusions of review articles paper arguing that common medical beliefs about smoking’s
on the health effects of passive smoking were associated with impact on throat cancer are overstated. Non-experts on
article quality, the affiliations of their authors, or other article medical matters will have reason to believe that you know
characteristics. They found that the conclusions were strongly better than they do on such matters. You are in a better
associated with whether or not the authors were known to be position than they are to describe and understand the causes
affiliated with the tobacco industry (Barnes and Baro 1998). of cancer. But obviously you might still be wrong. There may
be errors in your reasoning. You might have interests that
unconsciously bias your conclusions. You may even want to
BOX 1: DEFINITIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST deceive your audience intentionally. Although non-experts
According to the Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity should rationally grant that you are in a better position than
(Ministry of Higher Education and Science, 2014), a conflict of they are to know about causes of cancer, it is a much more
interest is ‘a situation in which financial or other interests have complicated question whether they should therefore believe
the potential to compromise or bias professional judgement’ your claim to be true. This is so because their reasons to
(p.15). believe that what you claim is true depend not just on their
The University of Copenhagen’s code for good scientific assessment of your expertise, but also on their judgements
practice in research collaboration with external partners about whether, for instance, you are biased or intentionally
highlights an important addition: the issue is not only whether trying to mislead them.
the scientific judgement is actually being biased by the relevant
interests, but also whether there is a reasonable suspicion of Now suppose they find out that you hold stocks in a tobacco
such bias. company. This gives them reason to think that you have an
interest in increased tobacco sales, and therefore some interest
in encouraging people to think that smoking is less dangerous
Let us now consider more carefully why conflicts of interest than it actually is. Because you own stocks in the tobacco
are a problem at universities and other knowledge institutions. company, other people’s trust in your expert status is therefore
Scientists are very often epistemically privileged as regards jeopardised. Accordingly, others should lower their trust in
their research interests. That is to say, they know more your claim about the impact of smoking on throat cancer –
than non-scientists (and often, other scientists) about the not necessarily to the level of non-expert opinion, but to a
topic of their research. The dermatologist knows more level lower than that of a similar expert who does not hold
about the biology and treatment of skin diseases and the stocks in the tobacco industry.
ophthalmologist knows more about the biology and treatment
of eye diseases. Although science is always provisional and Thus, conflicts of interest can undermine trust in the
conclusions often turn out later to be mistaken, it follows scientist’s expert status. The norm that scientists should be
well-tested methods and is, at least ideally, subjected to required to declare their conflicts of interest therefore has a
systematic critic. Therefore scientific specialisation implies clear purpose: if they are to be trusted as experts, they should
epistemically privileged positions, or expert status, all else be transparent about circumstances that have the potential to
being equal. So, when non-experts want to know about an damage their expert status. When they conform to this norm
issue, consulting the scientific experts is very often the rational they allow non-experts to evaluate their credibility on an
thing to do. informed basis.

Suppose again you are an epidemiologist specialising in the It is worth noting that the importance of declaring conflicts
impact of tobacco on various forms of cancer. You publish a of interest does not depend on whether the scientist’s

88 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

‘professional judgement’ is actually compromised by ‘financial protect both individual scientists and their institutions from
or other interests’. You may hold stocks in a tobacco company future criticism. But disclosing does not always sufficiently
and still be correct in arguing that the common medical capture the scientists’ responsibilities as regards conflicts of
belief on smoking’s impact on throat cancer is overstated. The interest, and it is important that we do not use disclosure as
essential question is whether others, from their perspective, an excuse to stop reflecting on how our conflicts of interest
have reason to lower their trust in your professional/expert affects our scientific conduct.
judgement because of financial or other interests that you
have. You holding stocks in the tobacco company has the 2. Conflicts of interest and cognitive biases
potential to compromise your professional judgement even if A conflict of interest, as expressed in the Danish Code of
it does not actually compromise your professional judgement. Conduct, arises in situations ‘in which financial or other
Accordingly, there is an issue of trust even when you feel interests may compromise or bias professional judgement.
absolutely sure that your conclusion is right. But what does ‘other interests’ mean here? The most serious
cases of misconduct involve researchers failing to disclose
In the following sections we will discuss different kinds of financial interests (see Box 2). But which conflicting
conflict of interest; which conflicts of interest ought to be interests, other than financial, would amount to a conflict
disclosed? By ‘disclosure’ we simply mean letting other people of interest in the relevant sense? Which conflicts of interest
know about the relevant conflicts of interest. Disclosure threaten epistemic trust? And which interests should we
ensures transparency and hopefully also trust. It helps to disclose?

BOX 2: RECENT CASES OF FINANCIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

José Baselga is a Spanish medical oncologist, a specialist in breast cancer. Until September 2018 he served as chief physician at the
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York. In September 2018, an article in The New York Times (2018) and Pro
Publica revealed that Baselga had received at least $3.4 million in payments from drug, medical equipment and diagnostic companies
between 2013-2017. Moreover, according to The New York Times, he had failed to disclose his ties to the industry in 60 per cent of the
papers he had published since 2013, including papers published in prestigious journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine and
The Lancet.
He resigned his position at MSKCC a few days after the article was published. In January 2019 AstraZeneca, one of the companies he
received money from while employed at MSKCC, announced that they had hired him as head of oncological research and development.

Michel Aubier, a French lung specialist, was head of pneumonology and allergology at the Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital in Paris until
his retirement in September 2016. In April 2015 Aubier testified to a Senate commission about the financial and economic costs of air
pollution, as a representative of the public authority that runs Paris’s public hospitals. He told the Senate that the impact of pollution on
lung cancer ‘is extremely low and a subject of much debate’ (Nature 2017). Though he testified under oath he failed to mention his ties
to the oil industry, and, for example, that Total had paid him approximately €100,000 a year between 2012-2015. In July 2017 a French
court fined Aubier €50,000 and sentenced him to a suspended 6-month term in prison for false testimony.
Aubier appealed the case, and in November 2018 the Paris Court of Appeal annulled his prison sentence and reduced his fine to
€20,000. In his appeal, Aubier claimed that he had ‘not really understood the question asked’ (Teller Report 2018).

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 89

Many kinds of interest seem to have the potential to of the medical researchers specialising in tobacco and cancer
compromise professional judgement: these include honour, hold stocks in the tobacco industry, all of them – indeed all
wealth, status, supporting students, political commitments of us – tend to be biased towards the confirmation of our
and personal morality. In fact, just about any interest can be own hypotheses. But if we all have this bias, there seems to
relevant as long as it has ‘…the potential to compromise or be little communicative value in declaring it every time we
bias professional judgement’. publish a paper. Of course, cognitive bias does not affect
us all to the same degree, but the degrees to which we are
On the other hand, not all conflicts of interest necessarily cognitively biased seem hard to quantify. It might therefore be
need to be disclosed. Consider cognitive bias. Contemporary justifiable for us not to disclose our cognitive biases – in other
literature on cognition has highlighted the human tendency to words, it seems reasonable to say that conflicts of interest
be biased in quite a large range of situations (e.g. Kahneman that we all have need not generally be disclosed. This does
2011). For instance, we seem to suffer from a tendency to not mean that we should not take cognitive bias seriously.
search for, interpret, and recall information in ways that Indeed, cognitive biases are a challenge for scientific conduct
confirm our prior beliefs and hypotheses (confirmation bias). generally; they should be reflected upon and discussed
Suppose a young scholar proposes a controversial hypothesis regularly within responsible scientific environments. Similarly,
and builds a successful academic career on accruing evidence we can all be expected to be ambitious, to want an academic
for this hypothesis. Suppose that towards the end of her career career. So if you are biased towards your own pet theories
the professor (as she now is) is confronted by new evidence and hypotheses because this will increase your prospect of
suggesting her hypothesis is incorrect. In a situation like this academic advancement, it would also seem odd to require you
more than the ‘truth of the matter’ could easily be at stake. to disclose your ambition. Thus, whether or not an interest
The psychological price of having our views ‘proved wrong’ is universal might be a good initial litmus test of whether we
can be very high, especially if we have invested a lot of time should disclose it as a conflict of interest.
and energy in defending them. In such cases, our interest in
our own public standing might outweigh our professional 3. Conflicts of interest arising from payed
interest in advancing scientific knowledge. Confirmation bias public speaking
towards one’s own hypothesis might therefore be significant. There seem, nonetheless, to be conflicts of interest that
scholars do not always disclose, even though they are not
Now suppose that the professor publishes a further paper universally shared: What if a scholar runs a significant business
containing new findings that support her original hypothesis. giving talks alongside her professorship? Suppose that, by
Should she declare a conflict of interest? Does she have a duty virtue of being a professor, she has proposed the hypothesis
to declare that she might be biased towards confirming her that a certain vaccine programme has side-effects that the
own original hypothesis? It would be unusual, perhaps even public health authority does not recognise. Her hypothesis is
odd, to think she has a duty of disclosure here, but why do we controversial and attracts a great deal of attention, so she starts
think this? It is a good question: Why should we disclose our a tour giving public talks about it. For each talk she accepts
ownership of stocks in the tobacco company but not our bias a non-negligible fee. Suppose now she is about to publish
towards confirming our own hypothesis? Cannot our interest an academic paper expanding on her argument. Should she
in our own public standing be just as biasing as our interest in disclose the considerable income she has from giving talks
personal wealth? as a conflict of interest? It seems likely that if she were to
retract her hypothesis in light of better evidence, she might
A distinction may help to explain why the two cases are not be able to continue making money in this way. Does she
relevantly different. Whereas presumably only a small number not have a financial interest that potentially conflicts with

90 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

her professional scientific judgement? Should she therefore 2016). However, he has also collaborated with Den Danske
disclose it? The professor’s situation seems relevantly similar Forening, a right-wing political organisation opposing
to the case where a researcher owns stocks in the tobacco immigration to Denmark, and recently he ran for election
industry while publicly downplaying the dangers of smoking. for the right-wing political party Stram Kurs (Altinget 8.
Reading, for instance, the JAMA guidelines (applied by many Maj 2019). It seems reasonable to wonder whether Nyborg’s
medical journals) it seems that the professor does have a duty scientific work could have been biased by his political views.
of disclosure here, as all authors should declare their financial We do not know this has happened, of course, but it appears
interests, ‘including … consultancies, honoraria or payment, to be rational to lower our level of trust in his claims in light
speakers’ bureaus, expert testimony, royalties…’ Nonetheless, of his evident political beliefs. More generally, we might ask:
this does not seem entirely widespread practice, even though Why not expand the norm of disclosure to include conflicts of
it is common for academics to charge fees for providing expert interest involving moral, political, and religious views?
advice, giving talks, and the like, and even though such tasks
are also supported or even expected by universities.

Responsible conduct of research is not a static matter. What BOX 3: ON VALUE-FREE SCIENTIFIC CONDUCT

is considered ‘good scientific practice’ is constantly shifting The ideal of value-free science holds that scientific conduct
(see Chapter 1). It is therefore reasonable to believe that should be free of moral, political, religious and personal
there is a gap between the conflicts of interest that we ought values. According to this position, scientific conduct should
to disclose (given the rationale we have offered for why we be insensitive to such values, so that two scientists holding
should disclose conflicts of interest at all) and the conflicts very different moral, political and religious views can agree on
of interest that we actually disclose as things are now. The scientific results – even if they do not agree on which scientific
distinction between conflicting interests that we all have topics should be investigated and to which ends. It is worth
and special, less widespread conflicts of interest is a rule of noting that the ideal does not apply to epistemic values.
thumb that can help to determine when a conflict of interest Science is hardly possible without epistemic values such as the
needs to be disclosed. We will come back to this matter, but requirements of reproducibility, falsifiability, non-contradiction,
first we need to consider whether the political, moral and coherence, simplicity, etc. (see e.g. Lacey 2005). It is also worth
religious views that scientists hold also have the potential noting that this is an ideal – something that can be strived for,
to compromise their professional judgement in a way that but not something we can always be guaranteed to achieve.
demands disclosure. And although it is widely accepted, there are scholars who
argue against both the possibility and utility of striving for a
4. Conflicts of interest arising from moral, science that is completely value-free (e.g. Miller 2014; Kincaid,
political and religious views Dupré, & Wiley 2007).
In some cases, conflicts of interest can arise in connection
with moral, political and religious views. Should these be
disclosed too?

Helmuth Nyborg is a retired Danish professor of psychology Obviously, we should look at our moral, political and religious
from AArhus University. Postulating a general intelligence (or views very carefully where they potentially compromise
‘G’) factor, he claims to have found that there is a significant our scientific conduct. But this does not imply that we
difference in general intelligence between people from the should also disclose them. Indeed, there seems to be other
north of the globe and people from south of the Sahara (JP reasons against a norm of disclosure of political, moral and

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 91

religious views. First, there is a widespread tradition in liberal reasonable. You might find yourself in trouble simply because
democracies that we are not obligated to disclose our political others (wrongly) believe you have done something wrong.
views, mainly to avoid intimidation and the trading of votes. Some precaution is therefore advisable.
Second, in much the same way that our scientific views
are potentially biased by our political, moral, and religious When:
views, our perception of scientific dissemination may also be 1) you communicate something publicly as a scientist, and
biased by our perception of the political, moral and religious 2) you communicate about ongoing or unsettled research that
views of the disseminator (Mohsen and Ha-Joon, 2019). do not enjoy widespread and common scientific agreement.
Consider a non-expert on obesity who believes that obese
individuals themselves are responsible for being obese. He is You should disclose:
now confronted with a scientific paper presenting evidence 3) if the prospect is such that you, or your family or close
for an obesity gene which, to a large extent, predicts who friends, could gain financially, or
will become obese and who will not. Now the credence he 4) if your work is funded by, or you have ongoing
would ascribe to this paper might well depend on the political collaboration with, companies, NGOs, or public or semi-
orientation of the authors. If he is informed that the authors public institutions other than your own university.
hold the same political views as he does, he might be more
inclined to accept the suggestion than he would be if, say, Let us consider the four conditions.
the authors were left of centre and known for their past
declarations that obese people are not responsible for their The first condition tells you when you should be concerned
own obesity. It can be seen, therefore, that the suggestion that with conflict of interest disclosure at all. First, you need
scientists should disclose their political, moral and religious not remind your spouse over the dinner table how you earn
views may simply create a new epistemic problem – and one your money, so the relevant scope is public scope. However,
that is not minor than the problem it was intended to fix. what is ‘public’ should be understood broadly, including not
just journal publication, but also for instance teaching and
5. When should we disclose a conflict of presentations at workshops or conferences. Second, you may
interest? have other societal roles than your role as a scientist. For
We can now try to formulate general guidance on when instance, you may be the chairman of the local football club,
a scientist should disclose a conflict of interest. Any such where you do not act or communicate as a scientist. As long as
guidance should be read cautiously, not least because the the interests of the different roles do not overlap, you need not
demands of RCR are constantly shifting. Our suggestion be concerned with disclosing your conflicts of interest in such
builds on rationality considerations about what ought to other roles.
motivate non-experts to lower their trust in expert scientific
judgement. But rationally, non-experts also ought to lower The second condition reminds us that we should be
their trust in an expert’s scientific judgement in light of, for concerned about conflicts of interest because they can damage
example, cognitive biases and (at least some) moral, political other people’s trust in our propositions. But others only have
and religious views. We have suggested various reasons against reason to lower their trust if what you propose does not enjoy
a norm of declaring cognitive biases and moral, political and widespread scientific agreement. Naturally, the contents
religious views, but the strength of those other reasons may of most publications do not enjoy widespread scientific
change. Building the guidance on what ought, rationally, consensus, but you need not, for instance, disclose your stocks
to motivate non-experts also has the weakness that non- in an airline company when, as a scientist, you remind the
experts, and indeed humans, are not always rational or even public of Newton’s laws of motion. Similarly, it is not really

92 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

obvious that you should disclose holding stocks in the tobacco ethical principle, and The Danish Public Administration
industry if you merely claim publicly that tobacco is extremely Act (Justitsministeriet, 2004) public employees must be
dangerous. First, this is the scientific consensus, and second, impartial when they contribute to decisions on, for example,
this consensus is not in your financial interest. It is not who should receive funding or be employed, taking only
obvious that you should disclose your stocks in a wind turbine professionally relevant considerations into account. Where an
company if you claim publicly that the climate is changing. employee has a conflict of interest – e.g. if a close colleague is
However, to stay out of trouble, precaution is advisable. on the shortlist for a job or grant – they are deemed ineligible
to act and must step back or ‘recuse’ themselves from taking
Regarding the third condition, we are motivated not only by part (see also The European Code of Conduct for Research
our own assets, status and the like, but also by the assets and Integrity ALLEA, 2017; p.7).
status enjoyed by our friends and families. The interest we
ought to have in scientific truth may therefore conflict with An identified conflict of interest need not necessarily amount
a wider interest we have in benefits and advantages for our to questionable research practice. It is hard to state when,
spouses, siblings and friends. According to a widely accepted precisely, it does do so, so we should make some room for

BOX 4: THE BEEF SCANDAL, AARHUS UNIVERSITY

In June 2019 a group of researchers from the Danish Centre for Food and Agriculture, Department of Agroecology, at AArhus University,
together with one researcher from the Technical University of Denmark, published a report in which they attempted to estimate the
climate impact of beef. The report compared the impact of beef to that of, among other things, coffee, sweets and alcohol. The report
was financed by the Danish Cattle Levy Funder (itself financed by, and in service of, the Danish cattle industry) and done in collaboration
with Danish Crown and Danish Agriculture and Food Council.
From 13 August 2019 and onwards, the Danish newspaper Information published several articles criticising the report for its data
selection and methodology, and complaining that the researchers were not independent of their external partners. In a line of replies,
the researchers of the report defended their data and methodology, and denied that their external partners had had any influence on
their methodology and results. However, on 30 August Information published yet another article revealing that the external partners had
written parts of the report. The same day the Minister of Higher Education and Science called upon the Rector of AArhus University to
make a statement about the situation.
The rector criticised the report for violating both University guidelines and the arm’s-length principle. On 2 September the University
retracted the report, and on 10 September the rector sent his statement to the Minister. In this he criticised the project for lacking
a contract to ensure the researcher’s independence, for lacking external peer review, and for not being explicit about the different
collaborators’ text contributions.
Meanwhile, on 3 September the Head of the Department of Agroecology agreed to resign the headship. An internal investigation
at the Danish Centre for Food and Agriculture was initiated to summarise the RCR of the last five years of external collaborations.
The investigation found that in 19 out of 55 collaborations with external partners there were no contracts to ensure researchers’
independence.
The faculty of Science and Technology at AArhus University launched a set of initiatives in light of the scandal designed to secure more
transparency in external collaborations.

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 93

uncertainty. Suppose, for instance, that you publicly suggest a even when they are disclosed. Disclosing is necessary under
scientifically controversial view. Perhaps, if you give this view the conditions we have outlined above, but does not always
up you will have to cancel a talk for which you are promised sufficiently capture the scientists’ responsibilities as regards
two bottles of (ordinary) wine. Although your scientific conflicts of interest, as will now be explained.6
decision about holding, or giving up, the view does affect the
value of your future assets, the difference is hardly significant. First, one of the lessons learned from the beef scandal at
A grey zone remains in which it is hard to decide whether AArhus University seems to have been that when scientists
an undeclared conflict of interest amounts to questionable collaborate with external partners, companies, NGOs,
research practice. interest groups, and public or semi-public institutions, the
collaboration must be arranged so that, for instance, the
Even when we do not expect our family and friends to benefit scientists’ right (and duty) to publish the results of their
financially from our results, or to benefit ourselves, we might research is not compromised. It is advisable, and at some
still be biased by the interests of those we relate to. It is hardly institutions it is required, that all external collaborations are
psychologically abnormal to feel committed to our colleagues. built on clear, written contracts, or terms and conditions,
Therefore, we suggest that the fourth condition applies even that secure transparency and independence. See more at The
when the third is not satisfied. Suppose you have a hypothesis University of Copenhagen’s code for good scientific practice in
about some health-promoting effects of drinking beer in research collaboration with external partners.
a certain quantity each week. You now get funding from a
brewery to do research into the matter, and you find that your Second, as is also stated in the Code, a researcher should
hypothesis is not only unsupported but contradicted. Although withdraw from assessment processes when there is reason to
the research has no prospect of affecting the value of your doubt her ability to act impartially (see Box 5). Thus, ‘recusal’
own assets, or those of your family or friends, you may feel is a tool that can be usefully applied to conflicts of interest. If
committed to the brewery’s interests and somehow be biased in your financial or other interests are so strong and obvious that
your interpretation of the data in the brewery’s interests. This you are not in a position to offer an objective evaluation of
means we ought to disclose external funding and collaborations the relevant matter, recusal may be the only responsible course
whenever the first two conditions are also satisfied. of action. Precisely when recusal is the only thing to do is, of
course, often hard to say. It is not something we can settle in
6. How should we handle conflicts of interest? this chapter.
The excerpt from the Danish Code of Conduct for Research
Integrity (Ministry of Higher Education and Science, 2014, We suggest that you discuss potential conflicts of interest
see Box 5) states that ‘researchers are responsible for disclosing with colleagues in all of the scientific projects in which you
all conflicts of interest related to the research they are involved take part. If you identify a potential conflict of interest for
with.’ And in this chapter we have mainly been concerned you or your research group, try to find a way to bring it up
with the question of when to disclose a conflict of interest. with your colleagues, including your supervisor if possible.
However, our responsibilities as scientists and researchers go Ask them: Do they agree that a conflict of interest exists, and
beyond disclosure. The Code emphasises that it is primarily that it could be contrary to good scientific practice? Although
the responsibility of the various relevant institutions (e.g. we have argued that cognitive biases and moral, political and
universities, research institutes, journals) to handle conflicts religious views should not generally be disclosed, they still
of interest, but also that ‘all parties involved’ have a ‘joint
responsibility’. We should think that conflicts of interest can 6 Note that although disclosure increases transparency, it does not
be problems, even matters of questionable research practice, necessarily promote public trust. See e.g. Stossel and Lee (2008).

94 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

 agreement (at least, not yet). If it did, scientific journals would
BOX 5: THE DANISH CODE OF CONDUCT FOR RE- not be interested in publishing your paper.
SEARCH INTEGRITY (MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCA-
TION AND SCIENCE, 2014) – EXCERPT ON CONFLICTS There are other roles and tasks in academic life where it might
OF INTEREST be relevant to disclose any conflicts of interest – for instance,
as regards public dissemination or engagement, where you are
6.1. Responsibilities normally not asked to make a declaration, or indeed, in the
i. All parties involved with the research in question should foreword of your PhD thesis. You may therefore choose to list
disclose any conflicts of interest. your conflicts of interest online. Employees of the University
ii. Assessors of research and research proposals (e.g. editors, of Copenhagen can do this using the research information
reviewers, research councils, etc.) who have a conflict of interest system CURIS (see University of Copenhagen, 2016), on
should withdraw from any involvement in the process. CVs appearing on the University website, or in places where
iii. All parties involved with the research in question have a joint particular stakeholder groups will be able to access them. It
responsibility for handling issues relating to conflicts of interest. is important, of course, to consider whether your disclosure
is easy to find. Setting out a list of your conflicts of interest
6.2. Division of responsibilities in a PDF that appears as a subpage of your personal webpage
i. Researchers are responsible for disclosing all conflicts of on a university website may make the information public,
interest related to the research they are involved with. and available in principle, but no one is ever likely to see
ii. Institutions are responsible for addressing conflicts of interest, it. Finally, if you want to make a public disclosure, it is
and for ensuring that all conflicts of interest are handled also important to check with your supervisor or legal office
adequately. In this context institutions should have a policy for whether there any restrictions on whether and how you can
handling conflicts of interest, which includes information on: do so.
a. Situations that constitute a conflict of interest
b. Disclosure of conflicts of interest, including how to handle
confidentiality issues

BOX 6: PRACTICAL TIP: KEEP A LIST

Keep a record of the conflicts of interest you consider yourself

represent threats to the responsible conduct of research, so you to have, and of any financial interests outside of your primary
need to discuss them and take them seriously. employment, and update it regularly. A simple list saved on
your computer will suffice. This is a useful and effective way
Most often, when you submit a paper to a scientific journal to remain aware of the issues surrounding conflicts of interest,
you will be asked to declare your conflicts of interest. We and how they may be affecting you, and it can be a useful
suggest that you declare all potentially relevant financial reference in any discussions with your supervisor about, say,
interests relating to you, your partner and your close friends, publication schedules. A regularly updated list can also make it
and that you declare all ongoing external collaborations of quicker and easier to prepare full replies if you are asked about
relevance to the subject matter of your paper. Assume that conflicts of interest (e.g. by a journal or a funding agency). See
when you submit a paper, the first two of the conditions we set the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research,
out above in Section 5 are always satisfied: you communicate Section 7.2.1 (Australian Government, 2007).
publicly in virtue of being a scientist, and what you propose in
the paper does not enjoy widespread and common scientific

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 95

7. Test yourself questions Information 30th of August 2019. Mails afslører:
• What is a conflict of interest? Aarhus Universitet lod landbrugslobby skrive med på
• Why are conflicting interests a problem, and to whom? oksekødsrapport. Retrieved from https://www.information.
• Do you think we should require each other to disclose dk/indland/2019/08/mails-afsloerer-aarhus-universitet-lod-
our cognitive biases and our political, religious and moral landbrugslobby-skrive-paa-oksekoedsrapport
views? If so, when and why? If not, why not?
• What conflicts of interest do you currently have, and what International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2013).
consequences could they potentially have for your scientific Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and
conduct if they are not managed correctly? Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. Retrieved
• Do you think scientists should strive to be value-free? from http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf

Justitsministeriet (2014). Forvaltningsloven (The Danish

Public Administration Act). Retrieved from https://www.
References retsinformation.dk/forms/r0710.aspx?id=142955
All European Academies (ALLEA) (2017). The European
Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: Revised Edition. Jyllands-Posten 12th of Nov. 2016. Danskhed – kultur eller
Retrieved from http://www.allea.org/wp-content/ biologi? Retrieved at: https://jyllands-posten.dk/debat/kronik/
uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct- ECE9145818/danskhed-kultur-eller-biologi/
forResearch-Integrity-2017.pdf
Kahneman D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.
Altinget 8th of May 2019: Kontroversiel forsker stiller op for
Stram Kurs. Retrieved from https://www.altinget.dk/artikel/ Kincaid, K, Dupré, J., & Wylie, A. (2007). Value-Free
kontroversiel-forsker-stiller-op-for-stram-kurs Science?: Ideals and Illusions. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research.
Retrieved from https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines- Lacey H. (2005). On the interplay of the cognitive and the
publications/r39 social in scientific practices. Philosophy of Science, 72(5),
977-988.
Barnes DE & Bero LA. (1998). Why review articles on the
health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. Miller B. (2014). Science, values, and pragmatic
Jama, 279(19), 1566-1570. encroachment on knowledge. European Journal for Philosophy
of Science, 4(2), 253-270.
Djørup S, Hallsson BG & Kappel K. (2019). Can We
Comply with the Ideal of Value-Freedom? A Reply to Miller’s Ministry of Higher Education and Science (2014). Danish
Critique of the Ideal of Value-Freedom in Science. Ethics, Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Retrieved from
Policy & Environment. http://ufm.dk/publikationer/2014/filer-2014/the-danish-
code-ofconduct-for research-integrity.pdf
Douglas HE & Bour E. (2014). Scientific integrity in a
politicized world. In Logic, methodology, and philosophy of Mohsen J & Ha-Joon C. (2019) Are Economists Ideologically
science: proceedings of the fourteenth international congress Biased? Economics. Retrieved from https://evonomics.com/
(pp. 253-268). economist-ideologically-biased-javdani-chang/

96 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

Nature 5th of July 2017. French scientist fined for failure to University of Copenhagen. The University of Copenhagen’s
disclose industry ties. Retrieved from https://www.nature. code of good scientific practice in research collaborations
com/news/french-scientist-fined-for-failure-to-disclose- with external partners. Retrieved from https://research.ku.dk/
industry-ties-1.22269 integrity/documents/ucph_code_of_good_scientific_practice_
in_research_collaborations__2016_.pdf
Newsroom.au 15th of Nov. 2019. Rektor: Vi skal blive
klogere af vores fejl. Retrieved from https://newsroom.au.dk/
nyheder/vis/artikel/rektor-vi-skal-blive-klogere-af-vores-fejl/

New York Times 13th of Sep. 2018. Top Sloan Kettering

Cancer Doctor Resigns After Failing to Disclose Industry Ties.
Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/health/
jose-baselga-cancer-memorial-sloan-kettering.html

Omnibus (AU) 2th of Sep. 2019. Forstå sagen om den

kritiserede oksekødsrapport på 5 minutter. Retrieved from
https://omnibus.au.dk/arkiv/vis/artikel/overblik-forstaa-sagen-
om-den-kritiserede-oksekoedsrapport-paa-5-minutter/

Practice Committee at the Practice Committee at the

University of Copenhagen (2016). The University of
Copenhagen’s code of good scientific practice in research
collaborations with external partners. Retrieved from
http://praksisudvalget.ku.dk/english/rules_

Scientific American. Retrieved from https://www.

scientificamerican.com/article/study-linking-genetically-
modified-corn-to-cancer/

Stossel TP & Lee K. (2008). Has the hunt for conflicts of

interest gone too far? BMJ 366: 476-477.

Teller Report 9th of Nov. 2018. Lie before the Senate:

the pulmonologist Michel Aubier condemned on appeal.
Retrieved from https://www.tellerreport.com/life/--lie-before-
the-senate--the-pulmonologist-michel-aubier-condemned-on-
appeal-.r1vO7zmpX.html

University of Copenhagen (n.d.). Conflicts of interest.

Retrieved from https://intranet.ku.dk/research/rcr/conflict-
ofinterest/Pages/default.aspx

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 97

8.
Public science communication
Louise Whiteley *

* The author would like to thank Peter Sandøe, Martin Marchman

Andersen, Karsten Klint Jensen, Morten Hilgaard Bülow, Adam Bencard
and Jeppe Berggreen Høj for comments, input, and editorial advice, and
staff at Medical Museion including Thomas Söderqvist, Karin Tybjerg,
and Nina Bjerglund Andersen for ongoing dialogue around approaches to
science communication.

98 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

Summary carefully on when and how to communicate their own results,
This chapter examines the role of public science and about how they present themselves, their institution, and
communication in responsible conduct of research. It their expertise. Being clear about why you are communicating
addresses the what, why, who, and how of communication, – and being prepared for potential pitfalls – increases the
within a complex media landscape where truth and expertise likelihood of a good outcome. Practical tips and links to
are increasingly at stake. Responsible science communication further guidance are included at the end of the chapter.
is not just a matter of explaining scientific results accurately,
honestly and clearly. Communicating context, uncertainty, 1. What is public science communication?
and disagreement are just as important if we want to build Before we start discussing public science communication as
trust with public audiences and have productive societal part of the responsible conduct of research (RCR), we will
conversations about research. The diverse media available step back for a moment and ask what it is. One of the most
today – from social media to video lectures and participatory prominent forms of science communication is reporting by
public events – make it easier than ever before to engage journalists, including specialist science journalists such as
people in research, and allow researchers at every stage of their Lone Frank in Denmark or Matt Ridley in the UK. Giving
careers to join in. However, researchers still need to reflect an interview to a journalist can be a highly effective way for

BOX 1: A DIVERSITY OF MEDIA FORMS FOR SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

• Newspapers, news websites and news programmes, often featuring prominent scientists. Scientists on the news sometimes talk about
their own research, but often comment on news stories related to their broader expertise. For example, a political scientist commenting
on elections or a plant geneticist commenting on protests about GM crops.
• Science magazines, e.g., Scientific American, The Scientist, Wired, Discover, New Scientist.
• Popular science books, e.g., those by Richard Dawkins, Ben Goldacre, Jon Turney, and Stephen Hawking.
• Documentary films on traditional broadcasters, streaming services, or YouTube.
• Online videos produced by scientists, both serious and for fun.
• Radio programmes and podcasts, e.g., RadioLab, Science Friday, Inside Science on BBC Radio 4, or Hjernekassen on DR.
• Live webcasts of public talks, e.g., TED talks.
• Blogs and crowd-sourced online magazines, e.g., Science Blogs and Field of Science blog networks, and the Science and Technology
sections of The Conversation and Medium.
• Social media such as Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Q&A sites such as Reddit Science. For a humorous take on laboratory life, search
the twitter hashtag #overlyhonestmethods.
• Museums and science centres, e.g., in Copenhagen Experimentarium and Medical Museion.
• Science fiction or novels with scientific or biomedical themes, e.g., Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, Saturday by Ian McEwan.
• Public lecture and discussion series, e.g., Science & Cocktails in Copenhagen.
• Science festivals and public engagement activities, e.g., in Copenhagen Forskningens Døgn, Bloom, and KU open days as part of the
annual Culture Night. In the UK Guerilla Science develops innovative festival and pop up activities.
• Science comedy, choirs, and club nights.
• Theatre productions, e.g., Videnskabsteatret in Denmark and Complicité productions such as A Disappearing Number.
• Consensus conferences and citizen’s juries, e.g. GM Nation in the UK.

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 99

a scientist to communicate their research or to enrich news media involved, and preparing for them. To come back to the
coverage with expert commentary, but there are also many example of giving an interview, you can check the past work
other possibilities – e.g. social media and public events can of the journalist, prepare concise talking points, and prior to
allow researchers to come into more direct dialogue with the interview negotiate to be allowed to check quotes before
publics, and tell different stories about research7. Thus, publication.
different media present different opportunities, and also carry
different risks. For example, the risk of misrepresentation This chapter will take a broad perspective on forms of public
might be higher if you give an interview to a journalist than science communication. Box 1 lists different communication
presenting yourself, though the opportunity to reach a wide media with examples, and Box 2 gives case studies of
audience might also be higher. You can mitigate the risks of successful scientists who do public communication. Both
communication by being aware of the pitfalls of the particular demonstrate the diversity of media available, and Box 2 also
demonstrates the diversity of roles scientists can play – from
7 In the science communication literature, rather than write about ‘the writing personal blogs about their daily work, to being
public’ scholars often write about ‘publics’ in the plural. This recognizes interviewed for TV, speaking at public events, and appearing
that there is not one homogenous public. Rather, there are groups with on radio shows.
different attitudes, knowledge, and interests in scientific research. Many of
these heterogeneous ‘publics’ (e.g. patient organizations) have significant if For more examples, the University of Copenhagen’s online
non-traditional forms of expertise. newspaper Universitetsavisen published a list of KU’s Top 20

BOX 2: CASE STUDIES OF SUCCESSFUL SCIENTISTS DOING PUBLIC SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

• Anja Cetti Andersen is a Professor of Astrophysics and Public Understanding of Science at the University of Copenhagen, and has won
many awards for her public outreach, particularly interviews for television and radio and at public events (Andersen, 2011). By speaking
in public, she can deliver her message in her own voice, rather than always being filtered through a journalist’s lens.
• Ben Goldacre is a British doctor and epidemiologist who has authored four books including 2016’s Do Statins Work? The Battle for
Perfect Evidence-Based Medicine, following his popular newspaper column and blog Bad Science (Goldacre, 2017). You can also
find Ben Goldacre on YouTube giving talks at public events such as TED and on Twitter @bengoldacre. Goldacre works to expose
flaws in biomedical research and in media reports of research. In doing this, he communicates how epidemiological studies work
methodologically, aiming to equip his readers better to evaluate other reports of clinical research in the future.
• Professor Oluf Borbye Pedersen at the University of Copenhagen engages in unusual forms of science communication, as well as giving
interviews and talks. His popular book Tarme I Topform was a collaboration that combined microbiome science with dietary advice, and
Magtfulde Mikrober brings together science communication with reflections on his own life, in collaboration with an illustrator and
journalist. Prof Pedersen has also collaborated with KU’s Medical Museion to bring metabolic science into exhibitions.
• Microbiologist Rosie Redfield ran a pioneering ‘open science’ blog called RRResearch reporting the daily work in her laboratory at
the University of British Columbia until 2018; she is now active on twitter @RosieRedfield. After reading a 2011 paper in Science
claiming that a bacterium had been discovered that could live on arsenic rather than oxygen, Redfield was sceptical and repeated the
experiment, failing to replicate the results. She reported this on her blog, which was picked up by the scientific community and popular
media, contributing to a retraction of the original study (Wolinsky, 2011).

100 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

Media Darlings in 2018; listing the university researchers with For example, social media like Twitter are now a hotspot of
the most media mentions (Friis & Balslev, 2018). networking, debate, and sharing amongst scientists as well as
with various publics and stakeholders (Van Noorden, 2014).
Many of the challenges of public science communication
overlap with those of internal scientific communication. A 2. Public science communication as part of
peer-reviewed journal article can seem worlds apart from an the responsible conduct of research
article in a tabloid newspaper. However, both involve selecting In recent years, governments, universities, and funders
what to include and in how much detail, and deciding how have placed more pressure on scientists to do public science
to contextualize the findings and their implications. Even communication – or, in other words, to engage more closely
when producing a peer-reviewed article, scientists inevitably with the society that supports and will be affected by their
omit a lot of what actually happened in the lab – such as work. Indeed, societal impact is now generally seen as the
failed experiments, changes in methodology, or alternative third arm of the modern university, alongside research and
explanations of the findings. And unless publishing in a teaching (see Doubleday, 2009; Pickersgill, 2011; Meyer &
highly specialized journal, authors are often communicating Sandøe, 2012).
to scientists from different fields and so have to simplify or
explain technical terms. Whilst a lot more detail is omitted In Denmark, the University Law states that “The University
for a non-scientific audience, the job of translating from one must as a central knowledge and culture bearing institution
‘language’ to another is fundamentally the same. At heart, exchange ideas and competences with the surrounding society
both scientific and public communication present a storyline and encourage employees to participate in the public debate.”
or narrative – if in very different genres. (Uddannelses- og Forskningsministeriet, 2015, Chapter 1,
Paragraph 2, Section 3. Translated by Jeppe Berggreen Høj). The
Gregory and Miller (1998, p.245) write: Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity reinforces
this message, stating that “researchers have a right and an
“Scientists take for granted that the scientific paper is not obligation to publish and communicate their results to the
literally true: it is not a blow-by-blow account ... But the research community, to professional practitioners, and to society
scientific paper is truthful even though it is written according at large” (Ministry of Higher Education and Science, 2014).
to a formula which deliberately distorts the literal truth in
order to make the research accessible to other scientists. So However, courses and textbooks on RCR or research ethics
popular accounts of science should not be viewed as somehow rarely cover science communication. This leaves researchers with
‘untrue’, merely because they, too, have to leave out a lot and little guidance on why they might want to communicate, when
simplify what they include to match the expectations and they have a responsibility to do so, and how to communicate
abilities of their audiences”. responsibly (Meyer and Sandøe, 2012). The present chapter
addresses this gap, focusing on early stage researchers.
Bucchi (2004) argues that we should therefore think of
science communication as a continuum with highly technical One of the key norms of scientific research is that the
scientific publications at one end and popular media at the knowledge it produces should be shared openly within the
other – in-between lie media such as science magazines, scientific community. This helps knowledge to advance
textbooks and detailed documentaries. Thinking in terms of a by avoiding unnecessary repetition of experiments and
continuum also highlights the fact that the boundary between opening research up to peer scrutiny. It also allows potential
popular and scientific communication is far from clear-cut, applications of basic research to be explored as early and
and reminds us that scientists consume popular media too. efficiently as possible. In his 1942 sociological study of the

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 101

principles under which scientific institutions operate, Robert for public communication, on societal, institutional and
Merton describes openness or ‘communalism’ as one of four personal levels in order to give a fuller picture of the roles
central norms; the idea that scientists should feel a sense of science communication can play, and to encourage readers
common ownership of the products of science (Merton, 1973 to reflect on which potential benefits might motivate their
[1942]). Contemporary formulations based on Merton’s own communication. As discussed further in Section 5.1,
work (e.g. Ziman, 2000) still include communalism, and being clear about your reasons for communicating is key to
whilst scientists often keep new results or novel techniques doing it both responsibly and well.8 Considering motivations
under wraps until they are published, the importance of for public communication also reveals the fundamental
publication in scientists’ lives indicates how central a principle importance of communication in the operation of science
communalism still is. Indeed, the contemporary push toward itself. From the shaping of research priorities and recruitment
open access journals is part of a long history of scientists of scientists, to the functioning of interdisciplinary
attempting to make results freely available to the research collaborations, basic knowledge sharing, and the weaving of
community (see Wikipedia, 2020 for a timeline), and more translation into ‘real world’ contexts, communication to non-
recent moves towards ‘open data’ also encourage researchers to expert audiences is unavoidable.
make materials, data, and code available (see Chapter 5).
3.1 Benefits to society
Meyer and Sandøe (2012) argue that this principle of Research does not occur in a vacuum, it is woven into the
openness should extend further, encompassing not just society that supports and informs – but can also challenge
scientific publications read by other scientists but also and hinder - its progress. Public communication is a crucial
communication via popular media. Or in other words, stage on which relations between science, citizens, and
common ownership of research results and communication societal institutions are formed: a place where knowledge
of scientific uncertainty should include those outside is transmitted, trust won or lost, and cultural attitudes
scientific institutions. If we fail to share and discuss research developed. When journalists misunderstand controversial
in public, we leave people unequipped to deal with scientific techniques or politicians use social media to criticize experts,
controversies when they arise and exclude them from the public sphere can feel like an irritation, but it also keeps
discussions about possibly conflicting research findings. us honest. Being prepared to explain why we do what we
do can sharpen scientific thinking as well as strengthen our
Openness between scientists and publics can also help to professional ethos. The benefits of responsible communication
facilitate the progress of research. For example, the translation on a societal level thus span ethical, political, pragmatic, and
of research into real world applications can be improved when cultural domains.
the people who will use those applications are involved from an
early stage. It is also worth noting that as science increasingly • Democratic imperative: Publicly funded research institutions
emphasizes interdisciplinarity and international collaboration, rely on taxes, and should communicate with taxpayers
popular media are an important route for scientists themselves about how their money is spent. Even privately funded
to learn about each other’s work and thus focus their efforts institutions rely indirectly on the infrastructure of a
most efficiently (Research Councils UK, n.d.). tax-funded democratic society. Setting aside economic

3. Benefits of public science communication 8 Note that this section focuses on the motives of scientists and their
So why do universities and government institutions emphasize institutions. Media producers – ranging from professional journalists to
public science communication as a part of responsible bloggers, artists, and museum curators – might have other motives for
research practice? This section breaks down the motivations communicating, not least fascination, aesthetics, and entertainment.

102 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

 arguments, research institutions produce knowledge and • Shared culture: It can be argued that science is part of a
aim to affect society for the better. As such, they should shared heritage and as such should be widely accessible,
arguably involve those who will be affected – though to independently of educational goals (Bultitude, 2011).
what degree is a matter of ongoing debate (see e.g. Irwin, Similar arguments are sometimes made for other
2009; Bultitude, 2011; Davies & Horst, 2016). supposedly elite cultural domains such as classical music.
Davies & Horst (2016) suggest that science is not
• Scientific citizenship: If citizens are expected to engage something outside our daily lives that we just need better
with research and join in debates, they arguably need to access to, but that it is already “part of how we understand
know something about science and how it works. What ourselves, an integral aspect of the cultural fabric in which
exactly they should know is a matter of controversy – we exist … science communication is an activity that
is it more useful for citizens to know scientific facts, allows us to make sense of science and thereby the societies
understand methodologies, appreciate the social and in which we live.” (p.2)
economic contexts of research, or ponder the philosophical
implications? (Gregory & Miller, 1998; Bell, 2010). • Public attitudes: For scientists working in controversial areas,
Scientists can span these domains of knowledge, offering public attitudes can affect their ability to do their work and
not just clear explanations of research findings, but also to obtain future funding. For governments, applications
offering an inside view on the processes, uncertainties, and of research in areas such as agriculture, food safety, and
implications of research. social policy can also be hindered by public protest.
Contributing to accurate media portrayals of controversial
• National prestige and economics: The televised moon landing research, providing expert commentary, and participating
of 1969 was in part a celebration of the scientific and in public debate can help combat hype (Cossins, 2014),
technological advances that allowed it to happen. As TV nurture trust (Bultitude, 2011), and possibly prevent
viewers around the world watched Neil Armstrong’s ‘giant protest (Taylor, 2007). To take a more cynical perspective,
leap for mankind’ they were also taking in a message about communication can be used to control public reactions –
US power and prestige (Gregory & Miller, 1998; p.13). e.g. by emphasizing the safety or potential benefits of new
International EXPOs and science and technology fairs techniques and downplaying the risks (see Irwin, 2009). But
are also examples of how communicating research on the increasing public discussion of controversial research is not
international stage enhances a country’s reputation, which guaranteed to have positive results – it can also draw more
can then attract future talent and investment in research attention to controversial areas and increase public anxiety.
(Gregory & Miller, 1998, ch.8). It is also unclear how exactly public responses should
be used. For example, how should we handle religious
• Improved research translation: Research institutions are perspectives, what happens if different public groups
increasingly asked to translate their research into practical disagree, and to what degree is it appropriate to allow non-
(and profitable) applications. User research is an important experts shape future research directions?
part of this process and involves communicating about
science with non-experts. In a wider sense, the more 3.2 Benefits to universities
that research is part of public culture, and the more that As mentioned in Section 2, universities are increasingly
scientists listen to public responses, the stronger basis there under pressure to engage with the society around them. A
will be for designing applications in a way that will be both manifesto by the UK’s National Coordinating Centre for
effective and socially acceptable (Stilgoe, Irwin, & Jones, Public Engagement (2010) highlights that the benefits can
2006; Wilsdon & Willis, 2004). be mutual; “higher education institutions can play a … vital

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 103

role in the UK’s community, intellectual and cultural life of individual benefits to taking part in public science
through their engagement with the public. It is a role that communication (Research Councils UK, n.d.):
enables institutions not only to rediscover their roots as active
contributors to positive social change but also to gain practical • Enhance your scientific CV: As universities are under
benefits of lasting value.” Some of these benefits are listed pressure to engage more with society, experience in this
below (see also Bultitude, 2011). area can be a bonus point on top of a good research and
teaching record.
• Branding: Communicating about research in popular
media can increase awareness of a university, its staff, • Build a career outside science: For those young researchers
and funders. In other words, it is an important part who decide that a career in research is not for them,
of ‘branding’ the institution and thus increasing its communication experience signifies valuable transferable
competitiveness in attracting funding and investment. skills. It can also lead to specific research dissemination
or public engagement roles in, for example, universities,
• Reputation and Trust: Scientists participating in open funding bodies and charities, and government research or
communication, comment and debate can increase education departments.
public trust and improve the university’s reputation in
the wider community. Whilst openness can of course • Improve your grant success: Whilst it is a minor part of an
backfire if scandals and controversies come to light, application in highly competitive funding rounds when
being found to have hidden something is arguably every point counts, a stand-out section on dissemination or
more dangerous. public outreach can give you an edge. Previous experience
is helpful, but so is being able to come up with original and
• Social Accountability and Responsibility: Demonstrating thoughtful ways of communicating with public groups.
social accountability is particularly important in a climate Doing media work can also draw funders’ attention to
where universities are increasingly under scrutiny for their your research field and your personal research profile, again
benefit to society. Social responsibility can be improved improving the chances of success in grant applications.
both by involving publics in research and its translation
and by making researchers more aware of social issues • Improve your scientific communication skills: Intra-scientific
and public perspectives – both are activities that involve communication such as writing journal papers or preparing
communicating about science in public contexts. conference presentations has more in common with public
communication than you might think – both involve
• Recruitment and Training: Communication with the wider storytelling, being clear about your main messages, and
society can help to inspire and recruit future students and translation for an audience that is less informed than you
staff. (see Section 1). So practicing how to explain research in
public will benefit your scientific writing too – and your
3.3 Benefits to individual scientists skill in building interdisciplinary collaborations.
The benefits to society (3.1) and research institutions
(3.2) discussed above might seem irrelevant to individual • Make connections with other scientists: Scientists are also part
scientists – or at least less pressing than their research. And of the ‘public’, and as the use of social and online media
scientists might also argue that the collective responsibility increases, the boundaries between science communication
of the university to communicate does not apply to for the general public and for interested experts are
them individually (Section 4). But there are also a range blurring (e.g. Wolinksy, 2011; Andersen & Söderqvist,

104 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

 2012). Communicating ‘in public’ can thus enhance your advises researchers on how to communicate responsibly (see
reputation and recognizability amongst other scientists Ministry of Higher Education and Science, 2014; Section 3.2
too. It can also be a way of making direct connections with v. & vi.).
potential colleagues, collaborators and future employers
(Research Councils UK, n.d.), especially through social In Section 3.3 we listed positive benefits of doing public
media (Andersen & Söderqvist, 2012, p.10), and it can, science communication for individual researchers. There are
for example, lead to invitations to present your work in equally many reasons scientists give not to communicate.
person. One of the main reasons scientists give for avoiding public
communication is that they do not have enough time (Royal
• Keep up with your field and its impact: Many scientists read Society, 2006, p.10). Researchers must of course balance a
the front section of journals such as Nature and Science to shared duty to communicate against other duties in relation
keep up with developments in their field and with wider to research, teaching, administration etc., and be aware of
issues in science funding, governance, and careers. Keeping potential conflicts of commitment. Scientists also often refer
an eye on how your field is covered on social and popular to it being the wrong time to communicate – e.g. to avoid
media can be an extension of this process – many scientists being scooped or due to restrictive publication agreements
are active on e.g., Twitter and LinkedIn, in part as a way with funders or industrial sponsors. And if scientists
of finding out about research developments (Van Noorden participate in public conversation about controversial topics,
2014). Following your field in the media can also simply they may be drawn into a polemic or being misinterpreted.
be part of a passion for research and how it shapes and
responds to society. Noting what you do and do not like Some years ago a PhD student in applied economics suddenly
about other media coverage of your field can also help you found herself at the heart of a media storm. She spoke at a
plan your own public communication work. scientific meeting about the idea of economic incentives to
encourage people to lose weight. A press release ascribed the
• Have fun! Lots of scientists who do public communication idea of a ‘BMI tax’ to her, and a journalist from a Danish
work do it because it is enjoyable. It can give you a break tabloid then covered the story (Poul Bøgh, 2003) and
from research and make you feel more connected to the significantly distorted her message. Of course, the storm
world outside the lab. eventually blew over, but this case reminds us to be prepared
for misinterpretation, and for the speed with which news
4. Whose responsibility is it to communicate? coverage moves. It also emphasizes the power of a snappy title
4.1 Individual vs. collective responsibility – without the phrase ‘BMI tax’ the story might not have been
The Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity presented in the same way.
(Ministry of Higher Education and Science, 2014) states
that university researchers have “a right and an obligation” In 2009, KU professor of religion Margit Warburg led a
to communicate. This does not imply that all individual government-commissioned report on the prevalence of
scientists have an obligation to communicate all of their the burqa and niqab in Denmark, and reported that it was
research – indeed, there wouldn’t be readers enough to process very low. This led to a great deal of politically-motivated
all of the resulting communication! Rather, the duty is a criticism in the media, and the researchers and university
collective one, and therefore lies primarily with the institution. had to work hard to defend their research methods and
If researchers do want to get involved, particularly at an early correct misreporting. In other cases, researchers themselves
stage of their career, their institutions should support them make political comments in the press, which can result in
through a culture that values science communication and backlash. For example, in 2011 Professor of Political Science

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 105

Marlene Wind made comments about a political agreement simple language to disseminate information. But thinking
on increased Danish border control and was accused of using of communication as dissemination can also imply that it
her position as expert to air her personal opinions, resulting in only goes in one direction: that the listener has nothing to
her taking a break from media work (Wikipedia, 2016). But say in return. This has been referred to as the ‘deficit model’;
by 2018, Prof Wind was back at Number 3 of KU’s ‘Media assuming that the public is deficient in knowledge, and that
Darlings’ (Friis & Balslev, 2018). good science communication will solve the problem. The
deficit model also tends to assume that the public’s attitudes
Another reason researchers often give for not doing public are deficient, and that knowing more science will make them
communication is that it is the journalists’ responsibility, feel more positive towards research and researchers – that ‘to
not theirs. But when researchers are an expert in a field that know it is to love it’. Another naïve assumption of the deficit
is currently in the news, they may feel a duty to share their model is that if people understand what science has to say,
expertise and improve media coverage by, for example, giving they will change their behavior accordingly, particularly in
interviews to journalists. Even as an early stage researcher, public health contexts (Bernhardt, 2004).
you are likely to be able to offer valuable insight into your
research area. It is also worth thinking about the benefits of In the late twentieth century there was a widespread
communicating more directly with public audiences. This can perception that public trust in science had been damaged (e.g.
offer the researcher more control over the conversation, and by the atom bombs of World War Two), and governments
without the strict length constraints of news articles, it can and scientific organizations instigated explicit science
also allow researchers to give greater insight into the ‘behind communication programmes in response. These programmes
the scenes’ of how science works. In the past, only the most tended to be grounded in the deficit model and focused on
high-profile or dedicated scientists would have spoken in their improving public knowledge. Towards the end of the century
own voices – e.g. through televised lectures or writing popular ongoing public protest around issues such as GM crops, BSE
science books. Today, public events and online and social and vaccines suggested that this was not having the desired
media have massively expanded scientists’ opportunities to effect, and sociological studies of scientific controversies
communicate directly, even at an early stage in their career. emphasized the shortcomings of the deficit model as well as
its failure to acknowledge the democratic arguments outlined
Even if you decide not to communicate about your own in Section 3.1. The conclusion taken up by government and
research, talking about research in general achieves many of scientific institutions was that scientists should ‘engage’ with
the same goals. For example, you can inspire future scientists publics in a more two-way dialogue, rather than lecture them.
by talking about biology in a school or organizing an activity In other words, think of non-experts as scientific citizens who
in your lab as part of a science festival, without mentioning might inform and shape as well as consume and appreciate
sensitive details of your own studies. This also applies to science (for fuller accounts see e.g., Taylor, 2007; Davies &
researchers in highly abstract or technical areas, although it Horst, 2016; Broks, 2004).
is worth remembering too that the Internet has opened up
access to audiences even for geeky or esoteric subjects. Two-way public engagement formats range from informal
discussions, creative activities and crowd-sourced research
4.2 What role should the public play in science communication? (Davies et al., 2009) to formal consultation exercises set up
For many scientists, the main goal of communication is to to gather public perspectives on controversial issues. There
increase public understanding of science (Royal society, 2006, is a strong tradition in Denmark of this kind of work (e.g.
p.9). From this perspective, the task of the communicator see Horst, 2008). Social media are another key medium of
is to translate technical details as accurately as possible into two-way engagement, as they are fundamentally structured

106 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

to invite reciprocal communication and break down barriers Whilst researchers should always aim for honesty in public
of expertise – although this also presents new problems with (and should certainly avoid dis-honesty), it is often impossible
deciding who to trust and what to pay attention to (Wolinksy, to be accurate in the same way for a popular audience as you
2011; Mandavilli, 2011; Andersen & Söderqvist, 2012). In are for expert colleagues. This, as Gregory and Miller (1998)
practice, it can be hard to draw a clear line between one-way argued in the quotation in Section 1, does not make popular
and two-way communication. Many forms of communication communication untrue – and it does not mean we should
lie somewhere in-between, or involve elements of both. give up and indulge in hype. Rather, it should encourage
Indeed, either one-way dissemination or two-way engagement researchers to work as well as possible within the constraints
can be appropriate, depending on your goals (see Section of public communication.
5.2), though it is surprisingly difficult to produce genuinely
reciprocal dialogue (Irwin, 2009; Broks, 2004; Einseidel In 2019, the association of Danish universities proposed seven
2008). principles for good research communication, attempting
to flesh out concepts such as ‘accuracy’, ‘relevance’ and
In recent years, there has also been significant critique of ‘uncertainty’ (Universities Denmark, 2019). But they also
public engagement activities that claim to be listening to acknowledge that what exactly these concepts mean in
their participants, but are actually ‘deficit model in disguise’, practice depends on the context and the discipline: “the seven
prioritizing scientist voices and failing to act on public principles should be understood and applied in accordance
inputs (Einseidel 2008). A new focus has emerged on the with the distinguishing features, methods and history of the
material, affective, and cultural dimensions of public science various research traditions, and they must be adapted to the
communication, implying that if we want to understand when many different formats that research communication may
and how communication ‘works’ we need to pay attention have” (Universities Denmark, 2019).
to how people feel as well as to what they know (e.g., Davies
& Horst, 2016). At the same time, the changing media and In the remainder of this section, we go through some key
political landscape has led to a profound sense of anxiety about questions to consider when planning public communication,
how we know what to believe: an era of anxiety about ‘fake to help researchers make the most of the benefits it offers
news’ and ‘post-truth’ where it might be tempting to stick to whilst also satisfying the demands of research integrity (5.1-
‘the facts’ and avoid communicating about the processes and 5.5; summarized as a checklist in Box 3). These questions
uncertainties of science. But now more than ever, transparency are not highly technical – they just require some reflection
is key to generating trust; rather than hide the complexity of and common sense – and writing out answers to each one
how research produces knowledge, we need to find new ways is good preparation for media work. If you are preparing for
to communicate, celebrate, and strengthen it. public communication activities your department or faculty
communication office or media section can also help and
5. How to communicate responsibly advise you. There are also many practical guidelines, courses
If you have decided to communicate, how can it be done and workshops to help scientists learn more and improve their
responsibly? The Danish Code of Conduct for Research communication skills (see Section 7).
Integrity states that “Research results should be published
in an honest, transparent, and accurate manner” (Ministry 5.1 Reflecting on your goals
of Higher Education and Science, 2014), and the European Being clear about your goals is essential for planning
Code of Conduct for Research Integrity ALLEA, 2017) states communication effectively and can help to avoid frustration
that “Authors (...) are honest in their communication to the and disappointment. Reflecting on the possible outcomes
general public and in traditional and social media” (p. 7). from a societal, institutional, personal and audience

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 107

 on one-way dissemination of information from a scientific
expert to a public audience, or do you want to engage in
BOX 3: CHECKLIST OF QUESTIONS FOR RESPONSIBLE two-way dialogue or public engagement? Section 4.2 gives a
RESEARCH COMMUNICATION brief history of this key distinction, which also relates to the
1) Reflect on your goals – why do you want to communicate, democratic arguments for involving publics in discussions
and what kind of relationship do you want to have with about research outlined in Section 3.1. Of course, many
your audience? (Section 5.1) communication activities will contain elements of both
2) If you have a choice, which media will best match your one-way dissemination and two-way engagement, and both
goals? If you cannot choose which media to use, do you are appropriate in different settings. What matters is being
need to adjust your goals? (Section 5.2) clear about your expectations and communicating them
3) Which aspect(s) of research do you want to communicate clearly to your audience or participants. This helps to avoid
about? (Section 5.3) the frustration that can arise when, for example, scientific
4) Within the constraints of your medium, what is your key institutions say they will take public opinion into account and
message? How can you honestly and accurately describe then fail to do so.
the novelty, importance, certainty, statistics, practical
applications and ethical or societal implications of your When thinking about your goals, it is important to recognize
research? (Section 5.4) that communication professionals such as journalists or
5) Are there any requirements or restrictions (a) on what you university media officers have different goals, duties and
communicate and (b) how you present your affiliation and constraints. For example, journalists may consider it their
expertise? (Section 5.5) duty to report how basic biomedical research is relevant
to patients, whilst scientists may consider it their duty
to downplay how close we are to practical applications.
Understanding and respecting each other’s professional goals
perspective (see Section 3) can also draw your attention to can help the diverse players in the science communication
potential unanticipated effects. For example, your primary landscape to make the most out of working together. To
goal may be to raise the profile of your department, but continue the example above, if you respect a journalist’s need
emphasizing your cutting-edge techniques may also draw to report on the future clinical application of research you can
attention to uncertainty surrounding their safety or ethical prepare an answer that clearly emphasizes the uncertainties
status. Being clear about the goal of communication can and timescale of translation. There is of course always a risk
also help you to explain and defend your activities to others, that a journalist will misquote, misrepresent or misunderstand
and is crucial to a meaningful evaluation of whether the you, but this is often a risk worth taking. You can reduce
communication was successful (Research Councils UK, the likelihood of being misrepresented by preparing well for
2011). Enjoyment and connection are also legitimate goals, interviews – write out clear take home messages, both about
recognizing that communication can be an emotional or what your findings mean and about what they don’t mean.
identity-building activity, as well as a cognitive process of And always ask to check the reporting for accuracy before
improving knowledge and understanding – and this is equally publication – this is standard practice within Denmark,
true for both scientists and publics (Davies & Horst, 2016). though varies internationally.

One key dimension to consider when thinking about goals 5.2 Matching the media to your goals
is what role you want the audience to play – do you want Once you are clear about your goals, consider which media
them to learn or to contribute? In other words, will you focus would best help you fulfil them. For example, if you want to

108 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

encourage young people to take part in democratic debates not just the results that come out at the end. There are several
about the use of cloning technology, a discussion activity reasons for this. First, science is always ‘in the making’ (Shapin,
may be more effective than a lecture. If you want to get as 1992) – a scientist should never express 100% certainty that
much attention as possible for a high-profile result from a particular finding will hold forever. More likely, they will
your lab, working with the university press office to get the admit to some uncertainty over how future experiments will
national newspapers and digital media interested may be refine or revise current knowledge. Communicating about
better than writing a detailed blog post about methodology this uncertainty is a difficult task, but it is often worth the
(although the impact of a blog post going viral should not be effort. For example, someone who has read about changing
underestimated). advice on drinking during pregnancy might think either that
scientists are lying or that the research is unreliable. But if they
Of course, sometimes the medium is decided for us – if a understood that certainty about the effects of alcohol evolves
newspaper calls for a quote about your recently published over time, and were given information about the levels of
Nature paper, you are unlikely to turn it down in favour of certainty attached to current recommendations, they would
using Facebook. If the media is decided for you, you may then have a firmer basis for deciding how to utilize those
need to adjust your goals. For example, you are likely to be recommendations in their own lives.
frustrated if you aim to communicate a nuanced picture of
the uncertainty surrounding the future trajectory of research Another reason for communicating about the processes and
by giving a quote over the phone. It’s also important to note methodologies of science is that this kind of knowledge can
that if the publication or journalist who approaches you be generalizable. If people understand how clinical trials work,
has a history of misrepresenting research, you may want to for example, they can apply this knowledge to future media
turn down the interview. If you decide to go ahead but are reports about other trials. And finally, if we are serious about
uncomfortable with how an interview is going, you can decide doing two-way public engagement that invites audiences to
to politely end the conversation and request not to be featured. participate in the discussion of research, some knowledge of
methodology is essential. ‘How science works’ most obviously
Communication is not just about information; it is also about refers to methodology or theory of science. But it can also
emotions, identity, and culture (Davies & Horst, 2016; Broks, refer to social, ethical, and even personal aspects of science –
2004). And just like different media are suited to different for example, to the way funding and safety legislation works
kinds of information-transfer; different media tend to pull or to ethical debates surrounding particular techniques.
towards different emotional tones. This is also worth bearing Communicating about these wider aspects of research also
in mind when choosing or adapting to your medium: a public contributes to a culture where people are equipped to take
talk tends to work well if the presenter is relaxed and friendly, part in debate, to act as scientific citizens, and see scientists as
whereas ‘experts’ are more likely to be believed on television if fully-fledged human beings.
they act with seriousness and professionalism. The emotional
connections an audience brings to the topic are also important This section has focused on what scientists would like to
to bear in mind; for example if talking to a group of parents communicate, and how to get our message across. If we take
about vaccination. arguments for two-way engagement seriously, we should
also be asking what aspects of science are important and
5.3 Communicating different aspects of science interesting from the perspective of the public groups we are
At several points in this chapter it has been suggested that if trying to engage (Turney, 2003; Broks, 2004; Bell, 2010).
we want public audiences to engage in meaningful discussions Turney (2003) argues that rather than deciding in advance
about research, we need to communicate how science works, what people need to know about science, we should focus

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 109

on situations where science is relevant to their lives or • How important are your findings? For example, do they
where they are genuinely being invited to participate, and close a gap in our knowledge, provide a missing technique,
then communicate the information that they want in those or promise to lead to an important practical application?
contexts. On the other hand, audiences may not know they • How certain are you about the results? What are the sources
are interested in something until it is offered: whilst the news of uncertainty, and are there experiments in progress that
media often claim to cover stories that are of public interest, will help to confirm, refute or revise your findings? How
they also shape those interests over time. widely accepted are your findings by other scientists in
your field?
5.4 Novelty, importance, certainty, statistics, and practical • Do your results include a probability, or do you need to
applications communicate a level of risk, particularly in relation to
In attempting to communicate “in an honest, transparent, and health? If so, be very careful how you present these statistics
accurate manner” (Ministry of Higher Education and Science, and consider how to make them meaningful to a public
2014) there are several common pitfalls relating to the audience.
temptation to ‘oversell’ the importance of research findings. • What are the potential practical applications, how close
This temptation can be strong when your goals include are they, and what factors stand in the way of progress?
increasing the public profile of your work or institution, Relatedly, are there any ethical or societal issues associated
and it is exacerbated by the drive of many media outlets to with your research which you may be asked about or want
produce ‘big splash’ stories. A recent case that illustrates this to communicate?
problem is that of former PhD student at Aarhus University
Ole Henrik Hansen, whose studies of interactions between 5.5 Restrictions, requirements and affiliations
teachers and children in Danish nurseries were widely University of Copenhagen legislation supports scientists in
reported. His findings were troubling, but were overstated in their freedom to communicate about research (Uddannelses-
the media, which then led to a backlash – Hansen later wrote og Forskningsministeriet, 2015; Ministry for Higher
that he had been “an elephant in a china shop”. A crucial Education and Science, 2014). However, there may be specific
detail of this case is that early newspaper reports stated that restrictions on when you communicate, as well as on what
Hansen’s results were based on 40.000 survey responses, whilst exactly you say. These might come from your supervisor or
in fact the number was 1.412 (Buch-Andersen, 2012). This from colleagues, in which case they can often be negotiated.
case reminds us that being as cautious about the details and Restrictions may also come from funders, sponsors or
the implications of our findings is as important in public professional bodies, or from a journal embargo that prevents
media as in scientific publication. you discussing a paper before it is published. As a researcher
you may also wish to adjust the timing of communication to
Making a list of phrases that accurately describe the novelty, avoid being scooped; in some fields it is considered important
importance, certainty, and practical and societal relevance that scientists don’t communicate before their research has
of your research is good preparation for any communication been published, though in some fields data is shared in
activity (see Guidelines for Scientists on Communicating with ‘preprint’ archives. If you have any concerns, check with your
the Media (Social Issues Research Centre, 2006) for more supervisor, or funder, or with other parties whose interests
details and other practical tips): may conflict with your own (see Chapter 7 for a discussion of
how to define and handle conflicts of interest).
• How novel are your findings? How do they relate to other
work in the field? Do they contradict an accepted view or There may be requirements as well as restrictions when you
introduce a new hypothesis? do public communication. For example, a funder may require

110 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

that you mention them, or your university may require you • Science Media Centre UK. Publications. These short
to include a link to a media enquiries page whenever you leaflets offer practical tips for a range of communication
write online about your research. There may also be rules scenarios.
about when you present yourself as a representative of your • National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement,
institution. Again, check with your supervisor or media UK (2010). The Engaged University: A Manifesto for Public
department if you are unsure. Engagement. See also case studies and practical guidance on
the same website.
Finally, it can be unclear how to present your expertise.
Scientists sometimes worry about not being experts outside 6.2 Advice for social media communication
their own specific research niche, but even when you are • Nature has an online collection of articles on Social Media
talking more broadly about research, your expertise is for Scientists.
probably greater than the interviewer’s. On the flip side, • Mollett A, Brumley C, Gilson C, & Williams S (2017).
scientists sometimes offer opinions on the implications of Communicating your Research with Social Media: A Practical
their research – e.g. on societal or ethical issues – that step Guide to Using Blogs, Podcasts, Data Visualisations and
well outside of their field of expertise. To tread this fine Video. Sage Publications.
line responsibly you are not necessarily required to avoid • Bik HM & Goldstein MC (2013). An introduction to
discussing topics outside your specific research niche. It is social media for scientists. PLoS Biology 11(4): e1001535.
important, however, to be clear about the limits of your • Lewis NA, Van Bavel, JJ, Somerville, LH, & Gruber J
expertise and to be certain whether what you are saying is (2018). A social media survival guide for scientists. Science
backed up by evidence. Acknowledging the different kinds [Weblog].
of expertise that your audience bring with them can also
smooth the way for dialogue about the meanings and values 6.3 Courses and workshops
of research. • In Denmark, search phdcourses.dk for ‘communication’.
• Danish newspaper Information runs a longer medieskole
6. Practical advice course for PhD students which happens in the spring as
Section 5 summarized some key points to consider and part of their PhD cup programme.
prepare before doing public communication work. The • In the UK, there are residential science communication
guidelines below give more details. They are split into general courses at the University of the West of England and the
advice and practical tips for science communication and Royal Society.
public engagement (6.1) and for using social media (6.2), • Online certificate/masters course from Edinburgh
plus some suggestions for courses and workshops if you are University in Science communication and public
interested in learning more (6.3). engagement.
• Online science journalism course from the World
6.1 General advice on communication and public engagement Federation of Science Journalists, in close cooperation with
the Science and Development Network SciDev.Net.
• Universities Denmark (2019). Seven Principles for Good
Research Communication. 7. Test yourself questions
• National Institutes of Health, US. (2016). A Checklist for • Give three reasons for doing public communication from
Communicating Science and Health Research to the Public. a societal perspective, three from a university perspective,
• Social Issues Research Centre (SIRC) (2006). Guidelines and three from the perspective of an individual scientist.
for Scientists on Communicating with the Media. Which do you find the most convincing and why?

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 111

• Describe two motivations for communicating science to Bell A (2010, October 10th). The Myth of Scientific Literacy.
the public from an individual researcher’s perspective, [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://doctoralicebell.
and for each discuss whether there are conflicts of interest blogspot.dk/2010/08/myth-of-scientific-literacy.html
involved.
• Why is public communication included in a textbook and Bernhardt J M (2004). Communication at the Core of
course on RCR? Do you agree that it should be? Effective Public Health. American Journal of Public Health
• Describe the difference between top-down dissemination 94(12): 2051–2053.
of scientific knowledge, and two-way public engagement.
Discuss some of the reasons for engaging the public in Broks P (2004). Understanding Popular Science. Chapter 6:
dialogue, and some of the things that can go wrong. Going critical. Blacklick, OH: McGrawHill.
• Discuss whose responsibility it is to communicate about
scientific research in public, and how you think the Bucchi M (2004). Science in Society: An Introduction to Social
responsibilities of the individual scientist and the university Studies of Science. Chapter 7: Communicating Science. New
differ. York, NY: Routledge.
• What does it mean to do public communication responsibly?
• As a researcher, what challenges might you face in talking Buch-Andersen, T. (2012). Helt forkerte tal: Forsker vildledte
to journalists? Give four examples of questions you should om vuggestuer. DR Nyheder, 10 May.
prepare to answer before giving an interview. https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/helt-forkerte-tal-forsker-
• Discuss the role of public communication in establishing vildledte-om-vuggestuer
public trust in science – and whether you think anxiety
about ‘fake news’ and a ‘post truth’ era should change how Bultitude K (2011). The Why and How of science
we communicate. communication. In: Rosulek P (ed.), Science Communication.
Pilsen: European Commission.

Bøgh, P. (2005). Forsker: Lad fede betale vægtafgift. BT, 24

References September.
All European Academies (ALLEA) (2017). The European https://www.bt.dk/nyheder/forsker-lad-fede-betale-vaegtafgift
Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: Revised Edition. Cossins D (2014). Setting the Record Straight. The Scientist
Retrieved from http://www.allea.org/wp-content/ 28(10).
uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-
Research-Integrity-2017.pdf Davies S, McCallie E, Simonsson E, Lehr JL & Duensing
S (2009). Discussing dialogue: perspectives on the value of
Andersen AC (2011). Public Outreach by Anja C. Andersen. science dialogue events that do not inform policy. Public
Retrieved from http://dark.dark-cosmology.dk/%7Eanja/ Understanding of Science 18: 338-353.
media.html
Davies, S., & Horst, M. (2016). Science Communication:
Andersen NB & Söderqvist T (2012). Social Media and Public Culture, Identity, and Citizenship. Chapter 1: Introduction:
Health Research: Technical Report. University of Copenhagen. Science Communication as Culture. London: Palgrave
Retrieved from http://www.museion.ku.dk/wp-content/ Macmillan.
uploads/FINAL-Social-Media-and-Public-Health-Research.
pdf

112 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

Doubleday R (2009). Ethical codes and scientific norms: the Meyer G & Sandøe P (2012). Going public: good scientific
role of communication in maintaining the social contract conduct. Science and Engineering Ethics 18(2): 173-189.
for science. In Hollimann R, Thomas J, Smidt S, Scanlon E
& Whitelegg E (Eds.) Practicing Science Communication in Ministry of Higher Education and Science (2014). Danish
the information Age: Theorising professional practices. Oxford: Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Retrieved from http://
Oxford University Press. pp.19-34. ufm.dk/publikationer/2014/filer-2014/the-danish-code-of-
conduct-for-research-integrity.pdf
Einseidel E F (2008). Public participation and dialogue.
In M Bucchi & B Trench (Eds.). Handbook of Public National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement
Communication of Science and Technology. Oxford: Routledge. (2010). The Engaged University: A manifesto for public
engagement. Retrieved from https://www.publicengagement.
Friis R & Balslev N (2018). The top UCPH media darlings in ac.uk/sites/default/files/publication/manifesto_for_public_
2018. Universitetsavisen. Retrieved from https://uniavisen.dk/ engagement_final_january_2010.pdf
en/the-top-ucph-media-darlings-in-2018/
Pickersgill MD (2011). Research, engagement and public
Goldacre B (2017). Bad science. Retrieved from bioethics: promoting socially robust science. Journal of
http://www.badscience.net Medical Ethics 37(11): 698-701.

Gregory J & Miller S (1998). Science in Public. Cambridge, Research Councils UK (n.d.). What’s in it for me? The benefits
MA: Basic Books. of public engagement for researchers. Retrieved from http://
www.rcuk.ac.uk/Publications/researchers/initforme/
Horst M (2008). In search of dialogue: Staging science
communication in consensus conferences. In Research Councils UK (2011). Evaluation: Practical
Guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/
Cheng D, Claessens M, Gascoigne T, Metcalfe J, Schiele B & Publications/policy/Evaluation/
Shi S (Eds.) Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New
models, new practices. Springer. Pp. 259-274. Royal Society (2006). Survey of factors affecting science
communication by scientists and engineers. Retrieved from
Irwin A (2009). Moving forwards or in circles? Science https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_society_Content/
communication and scientific governance in an age of policy/publications/2006/1111111395.pdf
innovation. In Holliman R, Whitelegg E, Scanlon E, Smidt S
& Thomas J (Eds.) Investigating science communication in the Shapin S (1992). Why the public ought to understand
Information Age: Implications for public engagement and popular science-in-the-making. Public Understanding of Science 1(1):
media. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 3-17. 27-30.

Mandavilli A (2011). Trial by Twitter. Nature 469: 286-287. Social Issues Research Centre (SIRC) (2006). Guidelines for
Merton RK (1973[1942]). The Normative Structure of Scientists on Communicating with the Media. Retrieved from
Science. In Merton RK The Sociology of Science: Theoretical http://www.sirc.org/messenger/
and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press. Stilgoe J, Irwin A & Jones K (2006). The Received Wisdom:
Opening up Expert Advice. London: Demos.

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 113

Taylor PL (2007). Rules of engagement. Nature 450: 8-9.

Turney J (2003). How Greenfield got it wrong. The Guardian

17 April. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/
education/2003/apr/17/research.highereducation1

Uddannelses- og Forskningsministeriet (2015).

Bekendtgørelse af lov om universiteter (universitetsloven),
LBK nr 261. 18th March. Retrieved from https://www.
retsinformation.dk/Forms/r0710.aspx?id=168797

Van Noorden R (2014). Scientists and the social network.

Nature 512: 126-129.

Wikipedia (2016). Marlene Wind. Retrieved from https://

da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlene_Wind#Kontrovers_i_2011

Wikipedia (2020). History of Open Access. Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_open_access

Wilsdon J & Willis R (2004) See Through Science: Why Public

Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. Chapters 1 and 3.
London, UK: DEMOS.

Wolinksy J (2011). More than a blog. EMBO Reports 12(11):

1102-1105.

Universities Denmark (2019). Universities Denmark’s principles

of good research communication. [Webpage] Retrieved from
https://dkuni.dk/analyser-og-notater/danske-universiteters-
principper-for-god-forskningskommunikation/

Ziman J (2000). Real Science: what it is, and what it means.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

114 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 115
9.
Appendix 1:
Key guidelines, policies,
and legislation

116 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

All European Academies (ALLEA) (2017). The European Ministry of Higher Education and Science (2014). Danish
Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: Revised Edition. Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Retrieved from http://
Retrieved from http://www.allea.org/wp-content/ ufm.dk/publikationer/2014/filer-2014/the-danish-code-of-
uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for- conduct-for-research-integrity.pdf
Research-Integrity-2017.pdf
Uddannelses- og Forskningsministeriet (2015).
Danish Committee on Research Misconduct (DCRM) Bekendtgørelse af lov om universiteter (universitetsloven),
(2017). Danish Committee on Research Misconduct. Retrieved LBK nr 261. 18th March. Retrieved from https://www.
from http://ufm.dk/en/research-and-innovation/councils-and- retsinformation.dk/Forms/r0710.aspx?id=168797
commissions/the-danish-committees-on-scientific-dishonesty
World Conference on Research Integrity (2010). Singapore
Faculty of Health and Mecical Sciences (2016). Policy Statement on Research Integrity. Retrieved from https://wcrif.
for Research Data Management. Retrieved from http:// org/documents/354-montreal-statement-english/file
healthsciences.ku.dk/research/responsible-conduct-of-
research/SUND_policy_for_research_data_management_ World Conference on Research Integrity (2013). Montreal
FINAL.pdf Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary
Research Collaborations. Retrieved from https://wcrif.org/
Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences. (n.d.). Named documents/354-montreal-statement-english/file
Person. Retrieved from http://healthsciences.ku.dk/research/
responsible-conduct-of-research/

Faculty of Science. (n.d.). Specially Appointed Named Persons.

Retrieved from http://www.science.ku.dk/english/research/
good-scientific-practice/named-persons_/

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors

(ICMJE) (2015). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting,
Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical
Journals. Retrieved from http://www.icmje.org/icmje-
recommendations.pdf

Justitsministeriet, Danmark (2014). Forvaltningsloven (The

Danish Public Administration Act). Retrieved from https://
www.retsinformation.dk/forms/r0710.aspx?id=142955

Ministry of Higher Education and Science (2013). Ministerial

Order on the PhD Programme at the Universities and Certain
Higher Artistic Educational Institutions (PhD Order).
Retrieved from http://ufm.dk/en/legislation/prevailing-laws-
and-regulations/education/files/engelsk-ph-d-bekendtgorelse.
pdf

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 117

Appendix 2:
A short introduction to GDPR
Lene Stevner and Peter Sandøe

118 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

What is GDPR? means that a wide range of data are personal, including
GDPR, or General Data Protection Regulation, regulates the names, identification numbers, location data, biological
processing of personal data relating to individuals when data material, or online identifiers.
are processed in an EU Member State.
Personal data in research?
The purpose of GDPR is to impose a uniform level of privacy The processing of personal data in research projects must
protection within all Member States when data are processed in comply with the GDPR.
the Member State or transferred to other Member States within
the EU/EEA. Why?
Apart from the need to comply with the legislation,
This puts companies, researchers and other actors on a level additional requirements are imposed by funders, journals
playing field when it comes to personal data protection. Due and the institutions to which international collaborators
to the EU’s global importance in trade and international belong.
science, GDPR will have an impact on personal data
protection requirements globally. Potentially there are grave economic consequences: The
University of Copenhagen (UCPH) can be fined up to four
The privacy and data protection requirements per cent of annual global turnover for breaching GDPR, or 20
of GDPR include: million euro.

• Consent of subjects to data processing What must a researcher do to comply with

• The need to anonymise collected data as soon GDPR?
as possible to protect privacy Before the project
• Provision of personal data breach notifications All projects involving the collection, handling and/
to authorities or processing of personal data must be registered at the
• Requirements for safe handling and transfer University by completing the registration form (see link
of personal data across borders below).
• The need for larger companies and institutions to appoint
a data protection officer (DPO) to oversee GDPR If personal data are entrusted to external processors who
compliance (University of Copenhagen (UCPH) has are to perform a task or handle the data for the University,
appointed Lisa Ibenfeldt Schultz as DPO). a data processing agreement must be concluded and signed
by the Head of Department. A copy must be sent to the
Which data count as personal? Faculty Secretariat. The Tech Trans Office negotiates the data
Any information which can directly or indirectly be linked processing agreement if the main contract is negotiated by
to an identifiable person counts as personal. This definition them.

For data processors outside the EU, the Standard Contractual

LINKS Clauses Template must be used as the agreement with data
• DPO: [email protected] processors and signed by the Head of Department. A copy
• Legislative acts must be sent to the Faculty Secretariat. The Tech Trans Office
• KU-guide in Management of Personal Data – Research Portal negotiates the agreement if the main contract is negotiated by
them.

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 119

Project managers who grant students access to research high risk to project participants. Questions about the risks
data must enter into a data processing agreement with the associated with the data processing is implemented in the
individual student. registration form (see below).

Create a project-ID list. The ID list must be the only NOTE that there may be requirements going beyond those
document/key connecting the subject’s personal data/ relating to the processing of personal data:
biological samples with his or her name or other identifiers. It
must restrict access to the identity of the subject via a unique If the trial includes biological material and/or a medicinal
project-ID. Store the project-ID list separately from all other product or a medical device, additional approvals from a
documents or biological samples. committee on health research ethics and/or the Danish
Medicine Agency is mandatory.
All study documents and samples must be identified only by
project-ID (pseudonymised). For other research it may be advisable to apply for permission
at the Research Ethics Committee for SUND and SCIENCE.
The ID list in hard copy must be stored under lock and key
in a “room” with a limited number of keys and restricted During the project
access. Data subjects must give informed consent to the processing
of their personal data for one or more specific purpose or
The electronic ID list must be stored in a folder on the protocol.
personal drive or the S-drive if it is to be shared with
other staff. The ID-list must never be shared with external The researcher must be able to demonstrate that the
processors. data subject has consented to the processing of his or her

Never use DropBox, OneDrive, etc. for personal data.

LINKS

“One Drive Business” can be used for sharing with external • Registration form
collaborators, but all personal data must be encrypted. • Risk and impact assessment
• Processing of sensitive data in health and social sector
E-mails containing personal data must maximum be stored • Privacy impact assessment
in outlook for 30 days. If an mail contains important • Agreement with data processors
information and needs to be saved as documentation, it must • Standard contractual clauses
be transferred to the personal drive or the S-drives. • Student Contract
• Create a folder on S-drive
Implement a “Good Data Management Procedure” for • Guidelines about notification etc. of a biomedical research
handling personal data. project to the committee system on biomedical research
ethics (in Danish)
Train project staff in the procedures. • Research Ethics Committee for SCIENCE and SUND
• Guideline for applications for authorisation of clinical trials
The project manager is responsible for carrying out an impact of medicinal products in humans
assessment if personal data are to be processed in research • Application for clinical investigations for medical devices
projects and the processing of personal data will result in a

120 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

personal data: Archive the Informed Consent Forms or other The Ethics Committee Act requires that sources are stored
documentation under lock and key or on the S-drive as a for as long as clinical analyses are being performed and
scanned copy. clinical findings can be made. It also requires the subject to
be informed.
New data processing agreements must be completed in an
ongoing way when new processors become involved and Non-anonymised data without consent can only be archived
always before data are transferred to the processor. at the Danish National Archives (Rigsarkivet).

ID lists are to be updated in an ongoing way as long as If things go wrong

subjects are included in the project and their data are If there is a breach in security, such as an accidental
recorded. unauthorised breach of data protection, contact the
department’s Information Security Representative who will
The project should be considered as ongoing for as long as the assist with further procedures:
data are being processed.
• ensure that the information is no longer available
Where personal data are no longer required for the project, • inform affected persons of the incident
they must be anonymised – the sooner the better. • inform the UCPH Information Security Unit by filling in
the form in the employee guide. The Information Security
Data are anonymous when it is no longer possible for anyone Unit will inform the Data Protection Agency about the
(including the researcher) to re-establish the identity of the incident within 72 hours of its being discovered if required.
subject with reference to remaining information/data. Hence
proper anonymisation requires the ID list to be destroyed.
Qualitative data may need to be checked and redacted to
remove information that could serve to identify a specific OTHER USEFUL LINKS

person. • GDPR for Researchers

• GDPR and research projects
Likewise, with biological material it may be necessary to • Danish Data Protection Agency (in Danish)
delete or remove certain meta-data. • Guide in Data management of Personal data in Research/
NEXS (English version in process)
After the project • Employee guide: Handling of security incidents
A project can only be viewed as ended when anonymization
has been successfully completed, is transferred to the Danish
National Archives (Rigsarkivet), or, if the participants have
consented to this, transferred to a secure database. For at more thorough introduction to data management,
see chapter 5.
Good Clinical Practice (GCP) Guidelines require the archiving
of source data for 15 years. (A new EU regulation expected to
apply from 2020 will extend that period to 25 years.)

The Danish government’s “patient insurance” requires

material to be archived for 10 years.

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 121

 ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARY

DDPA Danish Data Protection Agency

DMA Danish Medicines Agency

DPO Data Protection Officer

EC Committee on Health Research Ethics

EU European Union

EØS (EEA) The 28 EU countries plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway

GDPR EU General Data Protection Regulation

GCP Good Clinical Practice

KU/UCPH Københavns Universitet/University of Copenhagen

Pseudonymisation “Pseudonymisation” means replacing any identifying characteristics of data with a pseudonym, or value,
which does not allow the data subject to be directly identified.
Pseudonymisation should be distinguished from anonymisation. It provides only limited protection of
the identity of data subjects, as in many cases it still allows identification via indirect means. Where a
pseudonym is used, it is often possible to identify the data subject by analysing underlying or related
data.

Pseudonymised data Pseudonymised data remains personal data.

Anonymisation ”Anonymisation” of data means processing it with the aim of irreversibly preventing the identification
of the individual to whom it relates. More specifically, data are anonymised when they do not allow
individuals to whom they relate to be identified, nor is it possible for individuals to be identified from
the data by any further processing of that data or by processing it together with other information
which is available or likely to be available.

Anonymised data Irreversibly and effectively anonymised data are not “personal data”, so the data protection principles
do not have to be complied with in respect of such data.

Data controllers Data controllers can be either human persons or ”legal persons” such as companies, governmental
departments and voluntary organisations. All data controllers must comply with important rules
governing their collection and use of personal information. They must also re-register annually in order
to make their data handling practices transparent.

Data processor The data processor is someone distinct from (working at a different university) the data controller for
whom she/he is processing the personal data.

122 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 123
Appendix 3:
What to remember and consider
when you submit your PhD thesis
and papers to scientific journals
Martin Marchman Andersen and Peter Sandøe

124 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

When submitting a paper or a PhD thesis one is typically you have copied from (…) with a clear reference to the
confronted with a great deal of responsible conduct of original!
research-issues, RCR-issues. These are issues on open • If you re-cycle text from your other papers, or your PhD/
access requirements, data management, authorship issues, master thesis, be sure to quote and make references to your
documentation of ethical and legal permissions, declaring one’s own work.
conflicts of interest, and etc. It is not always easy to navigate • If you paraphrase yourself, be sure to make clear references
these issues. Below you find a checklist of things to remember to yourself.
and consider when you submit papers to scientific journals, • If you re-use an image/figure/table that you have published
and when you submit your PhD thesis. The list covers the most elsewhere be sure to write explicitly that you have copied
general RCR aspects of submission, but there might be RCR- from (…) with a clear reference to the original!
issues not covered in the list. We hope you will find it helpful.
See more in the Danish Code of Conduct for Research
1. The right journal Integrity.
Specific to submissions to journals
When looking for the right journal consider the following: NOTE These are tips as for how to stay clear of plagiarism and
• What is the scientific scope of the journal? And how does self-plagiarism. But staying clear of plagiarism and self-plagiarism
your work fit into the scientific scope of the journal? is not sufficient for scientific quality. In PhD theses based on
• If it does not fit, find another journal. articles, it is necessary that the PhD student writes the synopsis
• If in doubt, you may try to write and ask the editor. of the thesis in his/her own words. This is particularly important
in parts of the synopsis that are rich on text such as the abstract,
Is the journal trustworthy? introduction/background, discussion and conclusion/perspective.
• If you are in doubt, ask yourself some of the following It is not possible for the assessment committee to specifically
questions: Does the journal publish research that you evaluate the PhD student’s independent contribution to
would read yourself? Which organization publishes the co-authored articles, so if long text paragraphs in the synopsis
journal? Are prices transparent? Do you know/have you have been copied/paraphrased from co-authored articles, the
heard of any of the editorial board members? If still in assessment committee is less able to evaluate his/her skills and
doubt, see more at: thinkchecksubmit.org competences.

2. Issues of plagiarism and self-plagiarism In concise parts of the thesis where precision is pertinent, such
Plagiarism, if grossly negligent or done deliberately, is research as methods & materials descriptions and data intensive results
misconduct and self-plagiarism is questionable research practice. sections it is generally acceptable to duplicate text, as long as there
It is advisable to stay clear of both. Consider the following: are clear and explicit references to the originals.

General considerations Considerations specific to journal submission

• If you copy text from others, be sure to quote the originals! Papers are often desk-rejected by the editors because of
Copied text should always appear in quotation marks. formalities. Be sure to follow the ‘instructions to authors’ of
• If you paraphrase, be sure to make clear references to the the journal in regards to:
originals!
• Plagiarism does not only concern text, but also e.g. images, • Manuscript formatting
figures and tables. If you use an image/figure/table that is • Citation and referencing style
not of your own creation, be sure to write explicitly that • Format and details about figures, tables and statistics

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 125

Considerations specific to submission of your PhD thesis 4. Authorship Issues
• Make sure that quotes are easily seen as quotes, and that According to the Vancouver Recommendations everyone
you quote in a consistent manner throughout your thesis. contributing substantially to the conception or design of the
• Pick a referencing style that is common for your scientific work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for
field and apply it consistently throughout your thesis. the work should be given the opportunity to fulfill further three
conditions and thereby be honored with authorship.
3. Open Access Issues See chapter 4.
Does your funding source require the use of Open Access?
Fully or partially publicly funded research (and research General considerations
funded by some private funds, e.g. the Carlsberg Foundation), • Have you added ALL authors, and ONLY all authors,
must be made freely available to everybody via Open Access to the byline of your paper/thesis? Can you describe
insofar the journal allows it. Open Access is often in your own the contribution of each author and why it qualifies to
interest too. It makes it easier for others to access your work. authorship?
• Do you acknowledge scholars who have contributed to
See Denmark’s National Strategy for Open Access. your paper/thesis, but who do not qualify as authors? If so,
did you ask for their permission?
Considerations specific to journal submission
What is the journals policy on pre-print and post-print? And Considerations specific to submission of your PhD thesis
does it impose an embargo? If you plan papers to be part of your PhD thesis, consider the
• Pre-print usually means a version of your paper prior to following:
peer review. But there may be differences from journal to • If you have co-authors, have you collected your co-authors’
journal, so check your journal for the right definition. signatures on a co-authors statement?
• Post-print usually means a version of your paper after peer Find the declaration here.
reviewed, but not the publisher’s version. But there may be • Are there PhD students other than yourself among your
differences from journal to journal, so check your journal co-authors who will include the paper in their PhD thesis?
for the right definition. If so, you should synchronize your estimations of the size
• Embargo is usually the time from publication until the of each authors’ contribution!
journal allows you to share publicly a post-print version of
your paper. 5. Conflicts of interest
• You can check most journals policies on pre-print, post- Often journals require you to declare your conflicts of interest,
print, and embargo on sherpa.ac.uk. and according to the Danish Code of Conduct for Research
Integrity you should disclose any conflict of interest. If you
What are the journal’s policies for reusing single diagrams or have financial conflicts of interest it is wise and in accordance
pictures, for future scholarly purposes? with the Code to disclose it.
See chapter 7.
Considerations specific to submission of your PhD thesis
• If parts of your thesis have been published, or is under peer General considerations
review, are there potential conflicts between the policy of • Is any of your work funded by companies, institutions,
the journal and the requirement of your PhD thesis being or organizations that could be thought to have a financial
publicly available? interest in the results of your study being in one way rather
than another? If so, declare it!

126 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

• Do you, your close family or friends, hold assets, the value • If so, it should be approved by the The Danish Working
of which may be affected by the result of your study? If so, Environment Authority. Journals may have requirements of
declare it! documentation.
• Are you affiliated with, or do you hold a partnership with,
companies, institutions, or organizations that could be Does your research involve radiopharmaceuticals?
thought to have a financial interest in the results of your • If so, it should be approved by the Danish Medicines
study being in one way rather than another? If so, declare it! Agency (Lægemiddelstyrelsen). Journals may have
• If still in doubt, see the specific guidance of the journal, or requirements of documentation.
write and ask the editor of the journal.
Does your study involve animal testing?
6. (Ethical) Permissions • Journals may require documentation of The Animal
Journals may require you to document the relevant legal and Experiments Inspectorate’s permission of your study.
ethical permissions of your study. You might also be expected
to, or it may be required of you to, document relevant legal Does your study involve personal data?
and ethical permissions in your PhD thesis. You should • If so, it should be approved by the Faculty Secretariat.
therefore be aware of the legal and ethical requirements to Journals may have requirements of documentation.
your study, and you should know how to document the
granted permissions. Sometimes journals require (or encourage to) permissions
form the institutional review board. This is often, but
General considerations not only, in regards to research including surveys and
Does your study involve clinical research? interviews. Journals may require permissions from the
• Journals often require a filenumber referring to the Research Ethics Committee of Science and Health,
registration of the Regional/National Committee on Copenhagen University.
Health Research Ethics’ permission of your research. See chapter 5.
• It is increasingly required that clinical trials are registered in
international databases like clinicaltrials.gov 7. Data Management
Submitting a paper, and even more your PhD thesis, gives you
Does your clinical research project include test of drug(s) and/ the opportunity to check your data management. Journals
or medical equipment? may ask questions pertaining to data management.
• Approval from Danish Medicines Agency See chapter 5.
(Lægemiddelstyrelsen) is required and journals often
requires a filenumber referring to the registration of the General considerations
permission. • What is your primary material? Where is it stored now?
Where and how do you aim to store it in the future?
Is your research based on information from hospital records? • What are your data? Where are your data stored now?
• Approval from the Danish Patient Safety Authority Where and how do you aim to store them in the future?
may be required and journals may have requirements of
documentation. Do you work with personal data? Have they been
anonymized?
Does your research involve gene- technology or therapy? • If yes, where did you store the informed consents?
• If no, where and how are they stored? See more at KUnet.

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 127

Do you intend to, and are you required to, share your data at
the end of your project? If so, where will you share them? See
more at KUnet.

If you have questions about data management you may ask

them at: [email protected]

8. Other issues
Considerations specific to journal submission
• If your research involve animal research, your paper should
be aligned with the ARRIVE guidelines!

Considerations specific to submission of your PhD thesis

• Have you discussed with your supervisor who to nominate
as members of your assessment committee for your PhD
thesis? See more at your PhD School.
• Did you consider and have you talked to your supervisor
and other partners about your work responsibilities in
regards to publication of articles after your PhD project?
For example, if you receive an ‘accepted with minor
revision’ feedback from a journal you submitted a paper to
while you were still a PhD student. Who shall revise and
re-submit the paper?

General considerations
• Make sure your English is correct (linguistically fluent etc.)
in your papers and your thesis.
• If you intend to apply for a patent on an invention you
have made, do not publish or present your work publicly
before you have filed an application! See more at dkpto.dk
• Do you consider your work to be a piece of responsibly
conducted research? If not, do not submit it!

128 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics

RCR – A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research 129
Since 2011 it has been mandatory for all new PhD students at the University of Copenhagen to take
a course in RCR (Responsible Conduct of Research). This book will serve as a textbook for the courses
held at the Faculty of Science and at the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences.

The book aims to give an accessible presentation of what PhD-students are supposed to learn about
RCR; to present a clear and consistent terminology; and to focus on the way RCR is dealt with in
Denmark and at the University of Copenhagen. The intended readers are from two faculties where the
large majority of research falls under the umbrella of the natural sciences, broadly construed.

The book can also be of use to other scientific staff at the University.

university of copenhagen
d e pa r t m e n t o f f o o d a n d r e s o u r c e e c o n o m i c s

rolighedsvej 25
dk-1958 frederiksberg c
denmark

tel: +45 3533 6800

e-mail: [email protected]
web: www.ifro.ku.dk/english

isbn: 978-87-93768-19-2

130 University of Copenhagen · Department of Food and Resource Economics