Plagiarism
Authors, Coauthors & Publications
Authors, Coauthors & Publications
“Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit, including those obtained through confidential review of others’ research proposals and manuscripts.”
(Office of Science and Technology Policy, 1999).
(Source: U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI): "Acknowledging the Source of Our Ideas")
(Office of Science and Technology Policy, 1999).
(Source: U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI): "Acknowledging the Source of Our Ideas")
Definition of Plagiarism: The University of Oxford
Plagiarism Types
There are several types of plagiarism which range from literal, word-for-word copying to appropriating the ideas or discoveries of others. Following is a list of plagiarism types consolidated from the sources identified below.
Plagiarism: words and ideas
Publishing Ethics: Quality of Research Literature"
Intent to Deceive: Falsification, Fabrication, & Plagiarism (FFP)
"Intelligent plagiarists are the most dangerous"
The phrases "intelligent plagiarist" and "intelligent plagiarism" are used and explained in the excerpt below, taken from the 2004 Correspondence article in Nature: "Intelligent plagiarists are the most dangerous". Sturla H. Eik-Nes et al. are "intelligent plagiarists" who continue to engage in "intelligent plagiarism" of Dr. David J. R. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE), Hutchon 1998. Moreover, the intelligent plagiarism by Sturla H. Eik-Nes et al. is incorporated into Directorate of Health's knowledge-obviated, medically & ethically flawed 2014 Recommendation; a recommendation (i.e., policy) which is proven to cause unnecessary increased medical risks, critical medicals mistakes and grievous medical harms.
Authorship Credits
Included below is a bar chart of the distribution of 89 authorship credits among 23 authors of 24 publications which plagiarized Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE), Hutchon 1998.
- "Plagiarism is presenting someone else’s work or ideas as your own, with or without their consent, by incorporating it into your work without full acknowledgement. All published and unpublished material, whether in manuscript, printed or electronic form, is covered under this definition. Plagiarism may be intentional or reckless, or unintentional. Under the regulations for examinations, intentional or reckless plagiarism is a disciplinary offence."
(Source: University of Oxford Website: https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/academic/guidance/skills/plagiarism)
Plagiarism Types
There are several types of plagiarism which range from literal, word-for-word copying to appropriating the ideas or discoveries of others. Following is a list of plagiarism types consolidated from the sources identified below.
- Word for Word Plagiarism: Copying a source’s text exactly the way it is written.
- Paraphrasing Plagiarism: Condensing the work of another in your owns words without citing.
- Copy & Paste Plagiarism: Copying and pasting text from an electronic source and using it as your own.
- Word Switch Plagiarism: Taking a sentence from a source and only switching around a few words.
- Style Plagiarism: Replicating the style and format of a source’s writing.
- Metaphor Plagiarism: Using metaphors or analogies from a source as your own.
- Idea Plagiarism: Using the creative ideas of another as your own.
- Self-Plagiarism: Reusing portions of previous writings in subsequent papers, either as a re-titled paper, or a compilation of bits and pieces of previous papers.
(Source: "PLAGIARISM: A Student's Guide to Recognizing It and Avoiding It" and "PLAGIARISM STATEMENT" Dr. Cecilia Barnbaum) (Source: "WHAT IS PLAGIARISM?" Natasha Molet Worthington, June 2014) (Source: "Overview and Comparison of Plagiarism Detection Tools" Asim M. El Tahir Ali, Hussam M. Dahwa Abdulla, and Vaclav Snasel. Dateso 2011, pp. 161–172, ISBN 978-80-248-2391-1)
Plagiarism: words and ideas
- Abstract
"Plagiarism is a crime against academy. It deceives readers, hurts plagiarized authors, and gets the plagiarist undeserved benefits. However, even though these arguments do show that copying other people’s intellectual contribution is wrong, they do not apply to the copying of words. Copying a few sentences that contain no original idea (e.g. in the introduction) is of marginal importance compared to stealing the ideas of others. The two must be clearly distinguished, and the ‘plagiarism’ label should not be used for deeds which are very different in nature and importance." (Source: "Plagiarism: words and ideas" Bouville M. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2008 Sep;14(3):311-22. d0oi: 10.1007/s11948-008-9057-6.)
Publishing Ethics: Quality of Research Literature"
- Abstract
"Publication ethics in science: To ensure quality of research literature
Scientific advances are almost never the result of a single article or the work of an individual researcher. Scientific progress is the result of many researchers working for a long time, through trial and error, studying of research literature and discussions with colleagues. Together, researchers and journals build the scientific knowledge base, and together they build upon it. This cooperation is the strength of science, but also its vulnerability. When all build on each other’s work, we are dependent on all building blocks of the edifice being solid, otherwise it could all collapse. The quality of the research literature is entirely dependent on the quality and integrity of the research and the quality and integrity of the published article, good research ethics and good publishing ethics. Publication ethics is the set of common rules and standards editors – and eventually also publishers – have agreed to follow to ensure the quality of the scientific literature. How these rules and standards are developed, and how violations of these standards can be handled, is the topic of this article. The development of publishing ethical standards has not occurred in a vacuum. New technological possibilities and models for scientific publication has provided new opportunities and challenges. This is also discussed." (Source: "Vitenskapelig (u)redelighet" (Scientific (Dishonesty)Honesty) Torkild Vinther, Vidar Enebakk & Jacob C. Hølen 2016, Chapter 7: Scientific Publishing Ethics: To Ensure the Quality of Research Literature. Charlotte J. Haug, Senior Scientist at SINTEF Technology and Society, Department of Health)
Intent to Deceive: Falsification, Fabrication, & Plagiarism (FFP)
- "A crucial distinction between falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism (sometimes called FFP) and error or negligence is the intent to deceive. When researchers intentionally deceive their colleagues by falsifying information, fabricating research results, or using others’ words and ideas without giving credit, they are violating fundamental research standards and basic societal values. These actions are seen as the worst violations of scientific standards because they undermine the trust on which science is based."(Source: "On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research: Third Edition" Contributors: National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Engineering; Institute of Medicine; Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12192 p. 17-18. Free download at: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12192/on-being-a-scientist-a-guide-to-responsible-conduct-in)
"Intelligent plagiarists are the most dangerous"
The phrases "intelligent plagiarist" and "intelligent plagiarism" are used and explained in the excerpt below, taken from the 2004 Correspondence article in Nature: "Intelligent plagiarists are the most dangerous". Sturla H. Eik-Nes et al. are "intelligent plagiarists" who continue to engage in "intelligent plagiarism" of Dr. David J. R. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE), Hutchon 1998. Moreover, the intelligent plagiarism by Sturla H. Eik-Nes et al. is incorporated into Directorate of Health's knowledge-obviated, medically & ethically flawed 2014 Recommendation; a recommendation (i.e., policy) which is proven to cause unnecessary increased medical risks, critical medicals mistakes and grievous medical harms.
- "What is worse, in my opinion, but was not discussed in these Nature articles, are cases where scientists rewrite previous findings in different words, purposely hiding the sources of their ideas, and then during subsequent years forcefully claim that they have discovered new phenomena. Such 'intelligent plagiarism' is, unfortunately, often more successful because most scientists do not have either time or sufficient interest to carefully investigate where the original results came from.
As such misconduct seems to me to have recently increased within the scientific community, I think that a thorough discussion of these issues, in Nature or elsewhere, is urgently needed." (Source: "Intelligent plagiarists are the most dangerous" Lennart Stenflo, Department of Physics, Umea University, SE-90187 Umea, Sweden. Nature 427, 777 (26 February 2004))
Authorship Credits
Included below is a bar chart of the distribution of 89 authorship credits among 23 authors of 24 publications which plagiarized Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE), Hutchon 1998.
ICMJE Authorship Criteria (ICMJE is commonly referred to as 'Vancouver Group' and ICMJE Authorship Criteria, 'Vancouver rules')
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends that authorship be based on the following criteria:
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations regarding scientific misconduct (i.e., data fabrication, data falsification and plagiarism) are identified in the excerpt below.
Coauthors: Research Misconduct
There were 65 coauthor credits (i.e., authorship not credited as lead (or first) author: 89 - 24 = 65); and, with respect to the occurrence and severity of plagiarism and coauthors' responsibilities, included below are 2 excerpts from the 2006 article "Pillory after research fraud – will it help?" ("Gapestokk etter forskningsfusk – vil det hjelpe?") by Harm-Gerd K. Blaas, Kjell Å. Salvesen & Sturla H. Eik-Nes., published in Tidsskr Nor Lægeforen. Interestingly, there was a total of 60 coauthors in the Jon Sudbø case of scientific/research misconduct via falsification and fabrication.
The excerpts below were taken from the article" "Report: Scientific misconduct v / Harm-Gerd Blaas" authored by Nasjonalt Senter for Fostermedisin, St Olavs Hospital, Universitetssykehus i Trondheim, which Sturla H. Eik-Nes headed at the time.
Magne Nylenna on Research Misconduct & Scientific Fraud in Norway
Magne Nylenna opened his article "Forskningsfusk i stort og smått" ("Research fraud in large and small") [via reference (17) above] with a clever use of the classic W. C. Fields line from the movie, My Little Chickadee (1940), in which Fields starred alongside Mae West.
Individual & Institutional Responsiblities
Sigmund Simonsen opened his article "Playing by the rules - Scientific misconduct in a legal perspective" by making the point about individual responsibility and institutional responsibility with respect to the Jon Sudbø case.
Lessons Learned from the Jon Sudbø Case
Anders Ekbom was quite specific about his take on the Jon Sudbø case in his article: "Investigation of scientific misconduct – some personal reflections"
Magne Nylenna revisited the subject in 2017 with a letter published in Tidsskr Nor Lægeforen:"Ten years after the Sudbø case" ("Ti år etter Sudbø-saken")
Research Handbook
In the wake of the Jon Sudbø case of research misconduct the research administrations at Oslo University Hospital (OUH) in collaboration with Haukeland University Hospital (Bergen) published a research handbook appropriately titled "From Idea to Publication: THE RESEARCH HANDBOOK", 7th EDITION 2017.
Jon Sudbø case: "8.3 The Commission’s concluding remark" (p. 121)
"In conclusion, the Commission will remark that although this case has been very serious and tragic for individuals, institutions and Norwegian research more generally, there appears to be a remarkable will internally in the research community to turn the case around to something positive – something everyone can learn from. Frequent contributions to newspapers, debates and seminars have shown an already great involvement in many research environments. The Commission will support such a way of thinking, and at the same time caution against sweeping this extraordinary case under the carpet – because it is extraordinary – and just continue as before. On the contrary, this case provides an opportunity for a thorough discussion of different sides of the norms related to good research practice. The research community must make an all-out effort to make plain research’s traditional ideals of honesty, thoroughness, trustworthiness and openness. And this must be made visible to the general public so that the population’s trust in Norwegian research is maintained and reinforced." (Source: "Report from the Investigation Commission appointed by Rikshospitalet – Radiumhospitalet MC and the University of Oslo January 18, 2006" Investigation Committee appointed on 18 January 2006: Anders Ekbom (Chair), Gro E M Helgesenj, Aage Tverdal, Tore Lunde, Stein Emil Vollset, Sigmund Simonsen (Secretary); Report Submitted 30 June 2006)
"Unintentional Plagiarism"
Much has been written on the subject of "unintentional plagiarism," however, the conclusions are always the same; it is still plagiarism. Confusing intentions and efforts with a result that is plagiarism is a mistake; a mistake for which there is a plethora of excuses, because results which are plagiarism have both seen and unforeseen, downstream consequences; consequences which in the field of medical research, can contribute to, and cause increased medical risks, critical medical mistakes and grievous medical harms. LailasCase.com proves this.
"Personal motives as the reason for misconduct and fraud" (p. 147)
"There is an increasing pressure to publish ("publish or perish"), particularly within biomedical disciplines in which it is crucial for researchers to be the first to publish important findings. Publications have also become the basis of a merit system, both in terms of personal career and with respect to allocation of research grants. However, the pressure to publish cannot fully explain why a few researchers deliberately choose to commit fraud in research, for example fabricating research data. It is likely that personal characteristics of the individual researcher also play a role. For example some researchers exposed of committing fraud have been found to repeat their fraudulent behavior (in research). The desire for "honor and glory" may also represent a motivational factor that can lead to research fraud." (Source: "From Idea to Publication: THE RESEARCH HANDBOOK" 7th Edition: 2017" [Norwegian: "FRA IDE TIL PUBLIKASJON: FORSKNINGSHÅNDBOKEN") Editors: Annetine Staff & Karin C Lødrup Carlsen; Coauthors: Harald Arnesen, Anne Grete Bechensteen, Anne Flem Jacobsen, Ernst Omenaas. Published by Oslo University Hospital in collaboration with Haukeland University Hospital)
More on Publish-or-perish Realities
As articulated above, the stresses of 'publish or perish' career realities can induce aberrant behaviors which result in academic misconduct and research misconduct. Included below is the abstract of "Publication pressure and scientific misconduct in medical scientists" from the Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics.
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends that authorship be based on the following criteria:
- Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
- Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
- Final approval of the version to be published; AND
- Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. (Source: International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, "Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals Updated December 2016" http://www.icmje.org/ & http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf, respectively)
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations regarding scientific misconduct (i.e., data fabrication, data falsification and plagiarism) are identified in the excerpt below.
- "When scientific misconduct is alleged, or concerns are otherwise raised about the conduct or integrity of work described in submitted or published papers, the editor should initiate appropriate procedures detailed by such committees such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts) and may choose to publish an expression of concern pending the outcomes of those procedures." (Source: "Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals" Section III. Publishing and Editorial Issues Related to Publication in Medical Journals B Scientific Misconduct, Expressions of Concern, and Retraction p. 8. Updated December 2016. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE, www.icmje.org)) [Note: Link for the COPE flowcharts reference above: https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts]
- "Process for identification of and dealing with allegations of research misconduct: Publishers and editors shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication, among others. In no case shall a journal or its editors encourage such misconduct, or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place. In the event that a journal’s publisher or editors are made aware of any allegation of research misconduct relating to a published article in their journal—the publisher or editor shall follow COPE’s guidelines (or equivalent) in dealing with allegations." (Source: "Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing" The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME, www.wame.org) Date of Publication: June 22, 2015.)
Coauthors: Research Misconduct
There were 65 coauthor credits (i.e., authorship not credited as lead (or first) author: 89 - 24 = 65); and, with respect to the occurrence and severity of plagiarism and coauthors' responsibilities, included below are 2 excerpts from the 2006 article "Pillory after research fraud – will it help?" ("Gapestokk etter forskningsfusk – vil det hjelpe?") by Harm-Gerd K. Blaas, Kjell Å. Salvesen & Sturla H. Eik-Nes., published in Tidsskr Nor Lægeforen. Interestingly, there was a total of 60 coauthors in the Jon Sudbø case of scientific/research misconduct via falsification and fabrication.
- "Occurrence and severity: The incidence and severity of research fraud are determined by the individual himself, by the institution he / she works with, and by the tradition and culture of scientific work (12). Scientific dishonesty can occur everywhere."
("Forekomst og alvorlighetsgrad: Forekomst og alvorlighetsgrad av forskningsfusk bestemmes av individet selv, av institusjonen han/hun arbeider ved, og av tradisjon og kultur for vitenskapelig arbeid (12). Vitenskapelig uredelighet kan forekomme overalt.") (Source: "Gapestokk etter forskningsfusk – vil det hjelpe?" Harm-Gerd K. Blaas, Kjell Å. Salvesen, Sturla H. Eik-Nes. PERSPEKTIV OG DEBATT Kronikk, Tidsskr Nor Lægeforen nr. 22, 2006; 126. p. 2983)
- "We agree with Magne Nylenna's assessment that it may be unfortunate to exonerate co-authors of fraudulent scientific articles entirely from responsibility (17)."
("Vi er enig i Magne Nylennas vurdering av at det kan være uheldig å frita medforfattere av uredelige vitenskapelige artikler helt for ansvar (17).") (Source: ibid.) [Cited reference: 17. Nylenna M. Forskningsfusk i stort og smått. Tidsskr Nor Lægeforen 2006; 126: 2089. Published: August 24, 2006
Issue 16, 24th of August 2006)
The excerpts below were taken from the article" "Report: Scientific misconduct v / Harm-Gerd Blaas" authored by Nasjonalt Senter for Fostermedisin, St Olavs Hospital, Universitetssykehus i Trondheim, which Sturla H. Eik-Nes headed at the time.
- "There are examples that plagiarism has been revealed in the work of systematic reviews. When the people who have cheated are not subjected to sanctions, it is unlikely that the problem will disappear."
("Det finnes eksempler på at plagiering er avslørt i arbeidet med systematiske oversikter. Når personene som har fusket ikke utsettes for sanksjoner, er det lite trolig at problemet vil forsvinne.") (Source: "Report: Scientific misconduct v / Harm-Gerd Blaas" Nasjonalt Senter for Fostermedisin, St Olavs Hospital, Universitetssykehus i Trondheim, Norsk gynekologisk forening, Gynekologen nr. 4/2002, 21. desember 2002) - "Asim Kurjak was a co-founder and long-term member of the board of ISUOG, and he was still co-editor of the association's journal "Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.""
("Asim Kurjak var medgründer og mangeårig styremedlem av ISUOG, og han var fremdeles co-editor av foreningens tidsskrift "Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology".") (Source: ibid.)
- "ISUOG" Statement Complaint of Scientific Misconduct by Harm-Gerd Blaas against Asim Kurjak and Sanja Kupesic's ‘Ultrasound of first trimester CNS development: structure and circulation' – Chapter in ‘Fetal and Neonatal Neurology and Neurosurgery', 3rd edition, 2001 (Churchill Livingston):
In full consideration of the complaint, relevant publications and the response from Drs Kurjak and Kupesic, the ISUOG Board has concluded that the publication of this chapter constitutes plagiarism of the previously published original work of the complainant and that the complaint is justified. It is therefore the decision of the Board to accept the resignation of Drs Kurjak and Kupesic as members of ISUOG, and their withdrawal from ISUOG's forthcoming World Congress. Drs Kurjak and Kupesic will be ineligible for membership of the Society and associated benefits for a further three years.' London, April 30, 2002." (Source: ibid.)
- "It is therefore useful to protest. The process from which we made our complaint until the complaint was processed was questionable and characterized by lobbying. We became aware that there was no international appeal body for such scientific offenses. ISUOG had no rules for handling such a case. Some ISUOG board members felt that our complaint was not something that ISUOG should proceed with. But there was a clause in the ISUOG's rules that allowed the board to exclude members who in their 'reasonable opinion' were harmful to the association. It was also demanded from some members of the board of ISUOG that the association had to have a robust policy against scientific misconduct that covered accusations of cheating by board members, cheating in presentations at the association's congresses, and falsification and plagiarism in the association's journal. Therefore, ISUOG is now revising its regulations so that scientific misconduct can be treated."
("Det nytter altså å protestere. Prosessen fra vi fremsatte vår klage til klagen var behandlet var kronglete og preget av lobby-virksomhet. Vi ble oppmerksomme på at det egentlig ikke fantes en internasjonal klageinstans for slike vitenskaplige forseelser. ISUOG hadde ikke regler for behandling av en slik sak. Enkelte ISUOG styremedlemmer mente at vår klage ikke var noe ISUOG skulle gå videre med. Men det fantes en klausul i ISUOG's regelverk som tillot styret å ekskludere medlemmer som i deres ‘reasonable opinion' var skadelige for foreningen. Det ble også krevet fra noen styremedlemmer i ISUOG at foreningen måtte ha en robust politikk mot scientific misconduct som dekket anklager om juks hos styremedlemmer, juks i presentasjoner på foreningens kongresser, og forfalskning og plagiering i foreningens tidsskrift. Derfor er ISUOG nå igang med å revidere regelverket sitt slik at scientific misconduct kan behandles.") (Source: ibid.) - "How is it in Norway? Do we have a complaint body in Norway that can be addressed and which can possibly raise the case internationally with similar agencies in other countries? Is gross scientific misconduct a private matter between plagiarism, publishers and the one that was copied? Many would rather not be involved in such affairs. But is scientific misconduct not an issue that we should all be concerned with? The question "... how much more dishonest research will have to be conducted and published before our complacency finally damages the reputation of the medical research community beyond repair?" should we also be in Norway."
("Hvordan står det til i Norge? Har vi i Norge en klageinstans som man kan henvende seg til, og som eventuelt kan ta opp saken internasjonalt med lignende instanser i andre land? Er grov scientific misconduct en privat sak mellom plagiatør, forlag og den som ble kopiert? Mange vil helst ikke bli innblandet i slike affærer. Men er scientific misconduct ikke et anliggende som vi alle burde være opptatt av? Spørsmålet "… how much more dishonest research will have to be conducted and published before our complacency fina lly damages the reputation of the medical research community beyond repair?" bør vi også stille oss i Norge.") (Source: ibid.)
Magne Nylenna on Research Misconduct & Scientific Fraud in Norway
Magne Nylenna opened his article "Forskningsfusk i stort og smått" ("Research fraud in large and small") [via reference (17) above] with a clever use of the classic W. C. Fields line from the movie, My Little Chickadee (1940), in which Fields starred alongside Mae West.
- "If a thing's worth having, it's worth cheating for."
- "«It can never happen here» has been the traditional saying in Norway when incidents of scientific dishonesty have been disclosed around the world. In a small country with a limited number of medical researchers, traditions for transparency and a strong belief in honesty, there has been a more or less naïve attitude to fraud and research misconduct." (Source: "Research misconduct: lessons to be learned?" Magne Nylenna. Michael 2007;4:7–9. The Norwegian Medical Society or see PDF)
Individual & Institutional Responsiblities
Sigmund Simonsen opened his article "Playing by the rules - Scientific misconduct in a legal perspective" by making the point about individual responsibility and institutional responsibility with respect to the Jon Sudbø case.
- "A simple lesson to learn from the recent Norwegian research scandal is that there are rules that need to be observed and appreciated. This requires knowledge, understanding and awareness both at the individual level and institutional level.." (Source: "Playing by the rules - Scientific misconduct in a legal perspective" Sigmund Simonsen, LLM. Michael 2007;4:35–42. The Norwegian Medical Society)
Lessons Learned from the Jon Sudbø Case
Anders Ekbom was quite specific about his take on the Jon Sudbø case in his article: "Investigation of scientific misconduct – some personal reflections"
- Conclusions and future perspectives
"What did I learn? There were at least three things I realized after my involvement with this case and taking into account other instances of scientific misconduct:
1. It will happen again!
2. It will happen again!
3. It will happen again!
In other words the scientific community has to be prepared to deal with situations when there are suspicions of scientific misconduct. Ideally one should have an organization in place, but if this is not the case at least use the experiences from this commission and similar ones. Other investigators should not be forced to re-invent the wheel! My take-home message to them can be summarized in four sentences:
1. You need lawyers, or access to good legal advice.
2. It is a costly and time consuming process.
3. You have to be an outsider.
4. Investigating is different from research."
(Source: "Investigation of scientific misconduct – some personal reflections" Anders Ekbom. Michael 2007;4:11–17. The Norwegian Medical Society)
Magne Nylenna revisited the subject in 2017 with a letter published in Tidsskr Nor Lægeforen:"Ten years after the Sudbø case" ("Ti år etter Sudbø-saken")
- "Perhaps the most important thing is that the naivety is gone. The awareness that the full range of breaches of good research ethics, from cheating to regular fraud, may also occur in Norway, has increased significantly. A wide range of regulations have come into place. In 2007, the Research Ethics Act came into force. Here the regional ethics committees and a national scrutiny committee became statutory. In addition, scientific dishonesty was given a legal definition in the form of "falsification, fabrication, plagiarism and other serious breaches of good scientific practice committed intentionally or grossly negligently in planning, conducting or reporting research" (§5). In 2009, the Health Research Act was implemented with requirements for organizing and approving research projects as well as research director, project manager and research protocol ( 2). Many institutions have also adopted their own research ethics rules. Compulsory courses in the PhD programs with research ethics have been introduced as a central part of the content. Scientific journals have tightened the duty of disclosure for all co-authors. Most journals now require comprehensive declarations of conflicts of interest, fulfillment of authorship criteria and responsibility for different parts of an article."
("Det viktigste er kanskje at naiviteten er borte. Bevisstheten om at hele spekteret av brudd på god forskningsetikk, fra fusk til regelrett svindel, også kan forekomme i Norge, har økt betraktelig. En lang rekke reguleringer er kommet på plass. I 2007 trådte forskningsetikkloven i kraft. Her ble de regionale etikkomiteene og et nasjonalt granskningsutvalg lovhjemlet. Dessuten fikk vitenskapelig uredelighet en legal definisjon i form av «… forfalskning, fabrikkering, plagiering og andre alvorlige brudd med god vitenskapelig praksis som er begått forsettlig eller grovt uaktsomt i planlegging, gjennomføring eller rapportering av forskning» (§5). I 2009 ble helseforskningsloven iverksatt med krav til organisering og godkjenning av forskningsprosjekter samt til forskningsansvarlig, prosjektleder og forskningsprotokoll (2). Mange institusjoner har dessuten vedtatt egne forskningsetiske regler. Det er innført obligatoriske kurs i ph.d.-programmene med forskningsetikk som en sentral del av innholdet. Vitenskapelige tidsskrifter har skjerpet opplysningsplikten for alle medforfattere. De fleste tidsskrifter krever nå omfattende deklarasjoner om interessekonflikter, oppfylling av forfatterskapskriterier og ansvar for ulike deler av en artikkel.") (Source: ""Ten years after the Sudbø case" ("Ti år etter Sudbø-saken") Magne Nylenna. Tidsskr Nor Legeforen nr. 17, 2016; 136) [Note: Magne Nylenna is a physician, director of the Knowledge Center at the National Institute of Public Health, editor of the Health Library and Professor II in Social Medicine at the University of Oslo.]
Research Handbook
In the wake of the Jon Sudbø case of research misconduct the research administrations at Oslo University Hospital (OUH) in collaboration with Haukeland University Hospital (Bergen) published a research handbook appropriately titled "From Idea to Publication: THE RESEARCH HANDBOOK", 7th EDITION 2017.
- References (p. 89)
"Regulations governing the references one should choose in one’s publications are generally lacking, except the restrictions applicable to plagiarism (see Chapter 16). The Norwegian Committees of Research Ethics (”forskningsetiske komiteer”) has published a paper on sound reference use in publications (https://www.etikkom.no/FBIB/Temaer/Redelighet-og-kollegialitet/)"
It is important to refer to high quality studies that provide a balanced account of the background for your research question, preferably reporting the original studies that first described the findings. Studies that confirm such findings may also be mentioned, but not without including the original paper. Reporting thoughts, ideas and statements from others, as if they were your own, is considered plagiarism. Plagiarism is intellectual theft, and is regulated in Norway by "Lov om opphavsrett til åndsverk", https://lovdata.no/dokument/åndsverkloven [Updated URL: https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1961-05-12-2] [New Copyright Act: https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2018-06-15-40] as well as by "Lov om Universiteter og Høyskoler", https://lovdata.no/dokument/lov om Universiteter og Høyskoler [Updated URL: https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2005-04-01-15]. - Citation and ethics (p. 159)
"Correct use of references shows academic integrity and avoids plagiarism. Presentation of results, thoughts, ideas or formulations made by others, as your own, is plagiarism. Plagiarism is intellectual theft, and is regulated by several Norwegian acts, including "åndsverkloven" (https://lovdata.no/dokument/åndverksloven [Updated URL: https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1961-05-12-2] and "universitet- og høyskoleloven" (https://lovdata.no/dokument/universitets-og høyskoleloven [Updated URL: https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2005-04-01-15] ). See Chapter 9 (on publishing), as well as an article on the use of references in the "Research Ethics Library" (http://etikkom.no/FBIB)."
(Source: "From Idea to Publication: THE RESEARCH HANDBOOK" 7th Edition: 2017" [Norwegian: "FRA IDE TIL PUBLIKASJON: FORSKNINGSHÅNDBOKEN") Editors: Annetine Staff & Karin C Lødrup Carlsen; Coauthors: Harald Arnesen, Anne Grete Bechensteen, Anne Flem Jacobsen, Ernst Omenaas. Published by Oslo University Hospital in collaboration with Haukeland University Hospital)
Jon Sudbø case: "8.3 The Commission’s concluding remark" (p. 121)
"In conclusion, the Commission will remark that although this case has been very serious and tragic for individuals, institutions and Norwegian research more generally, there appears to be a remarkable will internally in the research community to turn the case around to something positive – something everyone can learn from. Frequent contributions to newspapers, debates and seminars have shown an already great involvement in many research environments. The Commission will support such a way of thinking, and at the same time caution against sweeping this extraordinary case under the carpet – because it is extraordinary – and just continue as before. On the contrary, this case provides an opportunity for a thorough discussion of different sides of the norms related to good research practice. The research community must make an all-out effort to make plain research’s traditional ideals of honesty, thoroughness, trustworthiness and openness. And this must be made visible to the general public so that the population’s trust in Norwegian research is maintained and reinforced." (Source: "Report from the Investigation Commission appointed by Rikshospitalet – Radiumhospitalet MC and the University of Oslo January 18, 2006" Investigation Committee appointed on 18 January 2006: Anders Ekbom (Chair), Gro E M Helgesenj, Aage Tverdal, Tore Lunde, Stein Emil Vollset, Sigmund Simonsen (Secretary); Report Submitted 30 June 2006)
"Unintentional Plagiarism"
Much has been written on the subject of "unintentional plagiarism," however, the conclusions are always the same; it is still plagiarism. Confusing intentions and efforts with a result that is plagiarism is a mistake; a mistake for which there is a plethora of excuses, because results which are plagiarism have both seen and unforeseen, downstream consequences; consequences which in the field of medical research, can contribute to, and cause increased medical risks, critical medical mistakes and grievous medical harms. LailasCase.com proves this.
"Personal motives as the reason for misconduct and fraud" (p. 147)
"There is an increasing pressure to publish ("publish or perish"), particularly within biomedical disciplines in which it is crucial for researchers to be the first to publish important findings. Publications have also become the basis of a merit system, both in terms of personal career and with respect to allocation of research grants. However, the pressure to publish cannot fully explain why a few researchers deliberately choose to commit fraud in research, for example fabricating research data. It is likely that personal characteristics of the individual researcher also play a role. For example some researchers exposed of committing fraud have been found to repeat their fraudulent behavior (in research). The desire for "honor and glory" may also represent a motivational factor that can lead to research fraud." (Source: "From Idea to Publication: THE RESEARCH HANDBOOK" 7th Edition: 2017" [Norwegian: "FRA IDE TIL PUBLIKASJON: FORSKNINGSHÅNDBOKEN") Editors: Annetine Staff & Karin C Lødrup Carlsen; Coauthors: Harald Arnesen, Anne Grete Bechensteen, Anne Flem Jacobsen, Ernst Omenaas. Published by Oslo University Hospital in collaboration with Haukeland University Hospital)
More on Publish-or-perish Realities
As articulated above, the stresses of 'publish or perish' career realities can induce aberrant behaviors which result in academic misconduct and research misconduct. Included below is the abstract of "Publication pressure and scientific misconduct in medical scientists" from the Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics.
- Abstract
There is increasing evidence that scientific misconduct is more common than previously thought. Strong emphasis on scientific productivity may increase the sense of publication pressure. We administered a nationwide survey to Flemish biomedical scientists on whether they had engaged in scientific misconduct and whether they had experienced publication pressure. A total of 315 scientists participated in the survey; 15% of the respondents admitted they had fabricated, falsified, plagiarized, or manipulated data in the past 3 years. Fraud was more common among younger scientists working in a university hospital. Furthermore, 72% rated publication pressure as "too high." Publication pressure was strongly and significantly associated with a composite scientific misconduct severity score. (Source: "Publication pressure and scientific misconduct in medical scientists" Tijdink JK, Verbeke R, Smulders YM. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. 2014 Dec. vol. 9, 5: pp. 64-71.. doi: 10.1177/1556264614552421. Epub 2014 Oct 2.)
Plagiarism: Publications
Included below, in chronological order, are the known publications resulting from the appropriation and plagiarism of Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (Hutchon, 1998). There are 24 known publications with 88 authorship credits among 23 authors. Note: Funding, Institutions and Acknowledgements are included if available from the publication.
Included below, in chronological order, are the known publications resulting from the appropriation and plagiarism of Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (Hutchon, 1998). There are 24 known publications with 88 authorship credits among 23 authors. Note: Funding, Institutions and Acknowledgements are included if available from the publication.
- (Source: "Predicting delivery date by ultrasound and last menstrual period in early gestation" Taipale P, Hiilesmaa V. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 97(2):189-194, February 2001. Received May 30, 2000. Received in revised form September 25, 2000. Accepted October 12, 2000.) [Note: A recognized collaboration of NCFM Snurra Group, Trondheim, Norway]
Funding: "Supported by grants of Maud Kuistila Foundation, Helsinki, Finnish Cultural Foundation, Helsinki, and Jorvi Hospital Research Foundation, Espoo, Finland."
Institutions: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jorvi Hospital, Espoo, Finland; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland; National Center for Fetal Medicine, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway; and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland - (Source: "OC20.01: Predicting remaining time of pregnancy—a new approach to the prediction of day of delivery" S. H. Eik-Nes 1, H.G.Blaas 1, P. Grøttum 2, H.Gjessing 3; 1 National Center for Fetal Medicine, Trondheim, Norway, 2 University of Oslo, Norway, 3 Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway. Special Issue:15th World Congress on Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, Volume 26, Issue 4, September 2005. Page 341. First Published: 8 September 2005. DOI:10.1002/uog.2113)
Institutions: National Center for Fetal Medicine, Trondheim, Norway; University of Oslo, Norway; Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway - (Source: LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Regarding ‘‘Term prediction with ultrasound: evaluation of a new dating curve for biparietal diameter’’ STURLA H. EIK-NES, PER GRØTTUM, HÅKON GJESSING. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica Volume 85, Issue 10, October 2006, Pages 1276–1278 First published: October 2006 DOI: 10.1080/00016340600839668. Received 25 April 2006; accepted 24 April 2006 [sic])
Institutions: National Center for Fetal Medicine, St. Olav's Hospital, N-7006, Trondheim, Norway - (Source: "Accuracy of second trimester fetal head circumference and biparietal diameter for predicting the time of spontaneous birth" Håkkon K. Gjessing, and Per Grøttum. J. Perinat. Med. 35 (2007) 350–351. DOI 10.1515/JPM.2007.080. Received February 14, 2007, Accepted May 10, 2007, Published online on June 1, 2007)
Institutions: Division of Epidemiology, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Norway; Section of Medical Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway - (Source: "A direct method for ultrasound prediction of day of delivery: a new, population-based approach," H. K. GJESSING, P. GRØTTUM and S. H. EIKNES; Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 30: 19–27, Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 30: 19–27, p. 21. DOI: 10.1002/uog.4053. Manuscript Accepted:16 April 2007; Version of record online: 8 June 2007; Issue online: 22 June 2007Accepted)
Institutions: Division of Epidemiology, Norwegian Institute of Public Health; Section of Medical Informatics , University of Oslo, Oslo; Section for Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, Department of Public Health and Primary Health Care; University of Bergen, Bergen; National Center for Fetal Medicine, Women and Children’s Center, St Olavs University Hospital, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
Acknowledgements: "We thank Christine Østerlie for extensive data quality ascertainment and Nancy Lea Eik-Nes for revising the manuscript." - (Source: "OC01: A new population-based term prediction method—evaluation of the FL-based predictions" I. Økland, H. K. Gjessing, P. Grøttum, T. M. Eggebø, S. H. Eik-Nes. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology Volume 30, Issue 4, October 2007 Page 367. Special Issue: 17th World Congress on Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. First published: 21 September 2007 DOI: 10.1002/uog.4107. Issue online: 21 September 2007, Version of record online:21 September 2007)
Institutions: Stavanger University Hospital, Norway; Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Norway; University of Oslo, Norway; National Center for Fetal Medicine (NCFM), Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway - (Source: "OP08.01: Predicting remaining time of pregnancy—a new population-based approach for the prediction of day of delivery based on Femur length" S. H. Eik-Nes, H. G. K. Blaas, P. Grottom, H. K. Gjessing. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology Volume 30, Issue 4, October 2007, Page 478. Special Issue: 17th World Congress on Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. First published: 21 September 2007 DOI: 10.1002/uog.4467. Issue online: 21 September 2007, Version of record online:21 September 2007)
Institutions: National Center for Fetal Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway; University of Oslo, Norway; Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway - (Source: "OP08.02: A new population-based term prediction method—evaluation of the BPD-based predictions" I. Økland, H. K. Gjessing, P. Grøttum, T. M. Eggebø, S. H. Eik-Nes. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology Volume 30, Issue 4, October 2007, Pages 478–479. Special Issue: 17th World Congress on Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. First published: 21 September 2007, DOI: 10.1002/uog.4468. Issue online: 21 September 2007, Version of record online:21 September 2007)
Institutions: Stavanger University Hospital, Norway; Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Norway; University of Oslo, Norway - (Source: "OP07.07: Predictions of the median interval in days between first trimester ultrasound examination and delivery" L. J. Salomon, C. Pizzi, A. Gasparrini, J. P. Bernard, Y. Ville. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. Volume 30, Issue 4, October 2007, Pages 478–479. Special Issue: 17th World Congress on Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. First published: 21 September 2007. DOI: 10.1002/uog.4468 Issue online: 21 September 2007, Version of record online:21 September 2007)
Institutions: Chi Poissy St Germain, France; London School of Hygiene, London, United Kingdom; Unit of Environmental and Occupational Epidemiology, CSPO, Florence, Italy - (Source: Correspondence: Reply to: "Re: A direct method for ultrasound prediction of day of delivery: a new, population-based approach. Problems of accounting for a retrospective selection" H. K. Gjessing, P. Grøttum and S. H. Eik-Nes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31: 225–228.) [Note: A link could not be found for the "Reply to: Re: A direct..."]
Institutions: Division of Epidemiology, Norwegian Institute of Public Health; Section of Medical Informatics , University of Oslo, Oslo; Section for Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, Department of Public Health and Primary Health Care; University of Bergen, Bergen; National Center for Fetal Medicine, Women and Children’s Center, St Olavs University Hospital, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway - (Source: Prediction of the date of delivery based on first trimester ultrasound measurements: An independent method from estimated date of conception, Laurent J. Salomon, Costanza Pizzi, Antonio Gasparrini, Jean-Pierre Bernard & Yves Ville, The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine Volume 23, 2010 - Issue 1, Pages 1-9. Received 12 Apr 2009, Accepted 29 May 2009, Published online: 11 Dec 2009)
Institutions: CHU Necker-Enfants Malades, AP-HP, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France; Société Francaise pour l’Ame´lioration des Pratiques Echographiques (SFAPE); Medical Statistics Unit, Department of Epidemiology and Population Health; Public and Environmental Health Research Unit, Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
Acknowledgements: "L. J. Salomon designed the study, supervised the analysis and wrote most the manuscript. J. P. Bernard co-designed the study and supervised its realization as well as the manuscript. A. Gasparini and C. Pizzi performed the statistical analysis. Y. Ville supervised the study and the manuscript writing. Women gave oral informed consent prior to ultrasound examination (US) in all cases. There was no IRB because this research did not modify routine prenatal care." - (Source: "Comment and reply on: Prediction of the date of delivery based on first trimester ultrasound measurements: an independent method from estimated date of conception" Håkon K. Gjessing, Per Grøttum, Inger Økland & Sturla H. Eik-Nes (2010), The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine, 23:8, 944-947, DOI: 10.3109/14767050903420309)
Institutions: Division of Epidemiology, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway; Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger,Norway; National Center for Fetal Medicine, St. Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway - (Source: "Biases of traditional term prediction models: results from different sample-based models evaluated on 41 343 ultrasound examinations" I. ØKLAND, H. K. GJESSING, P. GRØTTUM and S. H. EIK-NES, Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 36: 728–734. DOI: 10.1002/uog.7707, Manuscript Accepted: 26 May 2010, Accepted manuscript online: 8 June 2010, Version of record online: 8 June 2010, Issue online: 24 November 2010)
Institutions: National Center for Fetal Medicine, Women and Children’s Center, St Olavs University Hospital; Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger; Division of Epidemiology, Norwegian Institute of Public Health; Section of Medical Informatics, University of Oslo, Oslo; Department of Public Health and Primary Health Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
Acknowledgements: "We would like to thank Nancy Lea Eik-Nes for revising the manuscript." - (Source: " A new population-based term prediction model vs. two traditional sample-based models: validation on 9046ultrasound examinations" I. ØKLAND, H. K. GJESSING, P. GRØTTUM, T. M. EGGEBØ and S. H. EIK-NES, Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 37: 207–213. DOI: 10.1002/uog.7728, Manuscript Accepted: 26 May 2010, Accepted manuscript online: 17 June 2010, Version of record online: 17 June 2010, Issue online: 24 January 2011)
Institutions: National Center for Fetal Medicine, Women and Children’s Center, St Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway; Division of Epidemiology, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway; Department of Public Health and Primary Health Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; Section of Medical Informatics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
Acknowledgements: "Leif K. Gjessing supplied us with the data files. Nancy Lea Eik-Nes revised the manuscript." - (Source: "Narrowed beam width in newer ultrasound machines shortens measurements in the lateral direction: fetal measurement charts may be obsolete" I. ØKLAND, T. G. BJASTAD, T. F. JOHANSEN, H. K. GJESSING, P. GRØTTUM and S. H. EIK-NES. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 38: 82–87. DOI: 10.1002/uog.8954. Accepted: 26 January 2011, Published July 2011)
Institutions: *National Center for Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, St Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway; Department of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway; Division of Epidemiology, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway; Department of Public Health and Primary Health Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; Section of Medical Informatics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; Department of Laboratory Medicine, Children’s and Women’s Health, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
Acknowledgements: ""We would like to thank Nancy Lea Eik-Nes for revising the manuscript." - (Source: Inger Økland (dr.philos.) Doctoral Thesis: "Biases in second-trimester ultrasound dating related to prediction models and fetal measurements" NTNU, 13 January 2012. Principal Supervisor: Sturla H. Eik-Nes, MD, PhD , Co-supervisors: Håkon K. Gjessing, PhD & Per Grøttum, MD, PhD; Assessment Committee & Thesis Adjudication: 1) Jens Grøgaard, MD, PhD, Senior Adviser, Directorate of Health, 2) Zarko Alfirevic, MD, Professor of Fetal and Maternal Medicine Women's and Children's Health, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool and 3) Liv Bente Romundstad, MD, PhD, Gynecologist with Spiren Fertilitetsklinikkand and post-doc at the Department of Community Medicine, NTNU.)
Institutions: Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Children’s and Women’s Health; National Center for Fetal Medicine, Women and Children’s Center, St Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway; Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger Hospital Trust, Stavanger, Norway
Acknowledgements: Hovedveileder: Sturla H. Eik-Nes Biveiledere: Håkon K. Gjessing og Per Grøttum A; Individuals: Torbjørn Eggebø, Nancy Lea Eik-Nes, Kjell Løvslett, Stein Tore Nilsen, Sissel Moe Lichtenberg, Astrid Rygh, Leif K. Gjessing, Anita Steinbakk, Ane Cecilie Munk, Gerd Inger Lånke, Eva Tegnander, Harm-Gerd Blaas, Anne Brantberg, Morten Dreier, Hilde Magnussen, Mara Andrejic & sonographers. - (Source: "Advantages of the population-based approach to pregnancy dating: results from 23 020 ultrasound examinations" ØKLAND, J. NAKLING, H. K. GJESSING, P. GRØTTUM and S. H. EIK-NES. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology Vol. 39, Issue 5 Pages 489–608, May 2012. Accepted: 18 August 2011)
Institutions: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway; National Center for Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, St Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Innlandet Hospital Trust, Lillehammer, Norway; Division of Epidemiology, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway; Department of Public Health and Primary Health Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; Section of Medical Informatics,
University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; Department of Laboratory Medicine, Children’s and Women’s Health, Norwegian University of
Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
Acknowledgements: "We would like to thank Nancy Lea Eik-Nes for revising the manuscript." - (Source: "Rapport: avhengig ekspertgruppe for vurdering av svangerskapsavbrudd") Oslo 8. april 2013, Stein Kinserdal /s/, Leder.) [Note: In a letter dated 16.05.2012, Ministry of Health and Care Services commissioned Directorate of Health to assemble an "independent expert group" to review Norway's regulations and practices related to late-term abortions and to deliver a report on same. This publication is the report commissioned by Ministry of Health and Care Services.]
Institutions: Ministry of Health and Care Services (Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet); Directorate of Health (Helsedirektoratet), - (Source: "A new population-based reference curve for symphysis–fundus height" Aase Serine D. Pay, Jan Frederik Frøen, Anne Cathrine Staff, Bo Jacobsson, Håkon K. Gjessing. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica (AOGS) Volume 92, Issue 8, August 2013, Pages 925–933. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.12157, Issue online: 16 July 2013, Version of record online: 16 May 2013, Accepted manuscript online: 24 April 2013, Manuscript Accepted: 17 April 2013, Manuscript Received: 3 September 2012.)
Institutions: Department of International Public Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway; Women and Children's Division, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg, Sweden; Division of Epidemiology, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway; Department of Public Health and Primary Health Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway - (Source: "Aase Serine Devold Pay 2016 UiO PhD Thesis "Symphysis-fundus measurements and prediction of SGA in neonates"; 10 May 2016. University of Oslo, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine. Thesis supervisor: Håkon K. Gjessing)
Institutions: University of Oslo, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine; Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
Acknowledgements: Supervisor: Håkon K. Gjessing; Co-supervisors: Frederik Frøen, Bo Jacobsson, and Annetine Staff; Grethe Gaarder Næsje, Hanne Knutsen, Kristi Hjelle, Bjørn Busund, Åbyholm, Brita Winje Askeland, Solveig Myking, Ingvild Fjeldheim
Funding: "This project has been financially supported by the Norwegian Extra Foundation for Health and Rehabilitation through EXTRA funds, the Unexpected Child Death Society of Norway, and Oslo University Hospital, which is gratefully acknowledged." - (Source: "Estimation of fetal weight in pregnancies past term" TORBJØRN M. EGGEBØ, OLAV A. KLEFSTAD, INGER ØKLAND, ELSA LINDTJØRN, STURLA H. EIK-NES & HÅKON K. GJESSING Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 96 (2017) 183–189. Issue online: 25 January 2017, Version of record online: 16 November 2016, Accepted manuscript online: 14 October 2016. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13044. Manuscript Accepted: 10 October 2016, Manuscript Received: 10 May 2016.)
Institutions: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger; National Center for Fetal Medicine, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim; Department of Laboratory Medicine, Children’s and Women’s Health, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim; Division of Epidemiology, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo; Department of Public Health and Primary Health Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway - (Source: "Fetal size monitoring and birth-weight prediction: a new population-based approach" H. K. Gjessing, P. Grøttum, I. Økland, S. H. Eik-Nes Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, Volume 49, Issue 4 April 2017, Pages 500–507. Publication History: Manuscript received: 30 June 2015; Manuscript revised: 04 April 2016; Manuscript accepted: 22 April 2016; Accepted manuscript online: 30 April 2016; Version of Record online: 03 April 2017; Issue Online: 03 April 2017.)
Institutions: Division of Epidemiology, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway; Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; Section of Medical Informatics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway; National Center for Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, St Olav's University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway; Department of Laboratory Medicine, Children's and Women's Health, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
Acknowledgements: "We thank Christine Østerlie for extensive data quality ascertainment, Aase Devold Pay for useful discussions and Nancy Lea Eik-Nes for revising the manuscript." - (Source: "eSnurra Growth - Method Description" ("eSnurra Vekst - Metodebeskrivelse") Hakon K. Gjessing, Per Grøttum, Inger Økland, J. Morten Dreier, Sturla H. Eik-Nes. [Note: no date provided, 8-page NCFM eSnurra Group marketing brochure])
Institutions: Nasjonalt Folkehelseinstitutt, Oslo; Institutt for Informatikk, Universitetet i Oslo; Stavanger Universitetssjukehus; Nasjonalt senter for fostermedisin St. Olavs hospital, Trondheim - (Source: "Svangerskapsdatering" Håkon K. Gjessing. Norsk Epidemiologi 2017; 27 (1-2): 13-18. doi: 10.5324/nje.v27i1-2.2397.)
Institutions: Senter for fruktbarhet og helse, Folkehelseinstituttet Institutt for global helse og samfunnsmedisin, Universitetet i Bergen.