Granskingsutvalget — the National Commission for the Investigation of Research Misconduct — is Norway’s national body for handling serious cases of suspected research misconduct. It was established in 2007 under Norway’s first Research Ethics Act (2006) and now operates under the current Lov om organisering av forskningsetisk arbeid (Act relating to the organisation of research ethics work), adopted in 2017. Unlike research-funder investigation offices in some other countries, Granskingsutvalget is not primarily a funding-agency compliance office: it is a standing national commission that sits above the institutional level, functioning simultaneously as an appeals body, an independent investigator of its own, and an advisory resource to Norway’s national research ethics committees.
What counts as research misconduct under Norwegian law
The Research Ethics Act defines scientific (research) misconduct as falsification, fabrication, plagiarism, and other serious violations of recognised norms of research ethics committed intentionally or through gross negligence in the planning, conduct, or reporting of research. This is close in substance to the fabrication-falsification-plagiarism (FFP) core used by many national frameworks — including the United States’ Office of Research Integrity (ORI) — but Norway’s statutory language explicitly extends beyond FFP to “other serious violations of recognised norms,” giving Granskingsutvalget and institutional committees room to address misconduct that doesn’t fit the narrow FFP definition, provided it is both serious and either intentional or grossly negligent. Ordinary disagreements about method, authorship order, or research quality that fall short of that threshold are not treated as misconduct under the Act.
Institutions investigate first — Granskingsutvalget is the national backstop
Norway’s system places primary responsibility for research integrity squarely on research institutions themselves. Every institution conducting research is required to have its own mechanism — typically a local research ethics or misconduct-handling committee — for receiving allegations, investigating them, and issuing a decision. Institutions must report serious misconduct cases to Granskingsutvalget, and the commission functions as a supplement to, not a replacement for, that institutional layer.
Granskingsutvalget’s role relative to institutions has three distinct parts:
- Appeals body. A researcher (or, in practice, an institution) can appeal an institution’s misconduct finding to Granskingsutvalget. Its decision on appeal is final and cannot be appealed further — there is no additional national tier above it.
- Independent investigator. The commission can open and conduct its own investigations into a case on its own initiative, rather than waiting for an institutional referral or appeal, when it judges a case warrants it.
- National resource and adviser. Granskingsutvalget advises institutions, companies, and other bodies commissioning research on how to handle misconduct allegations, and publishes statements on concluded cases — functioning as a source of institutional guidance and a public record of how the misconduct standard has been applied.
This structure — institutions investigate first, a national commission hears appeals and can step in directly — parallels the model used in Denmark’s Danish Board on Research Misconduct and, less directly, the second-opinion function of the Netherlands’ LOWI, though the Dutch and Norwegian bodies differ in how binding their decisions are and how cases reach them.
Relationship to NEM, NENT, and NESH
Granskingsutvalget operates alongside — but is functionally distinct from — Norway’s three discipline-based national research ethics committees: NEM (the National Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics), NENT (the National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology), and NESH (the National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities). These three committees were established by the Norwegian Parliament (Stortinget) in 1990 and, since 1 January 2013, sit together with Granskingsutvalget under the umbrella of the Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees (NREC), an independent administrative agency.
The division of labour is straightforward: NEM, NENT, and NESH focus on research ethics guidance, norm-setting, and (for NEM in particular) prior ethical review within their respective disciplinary domains. Granskingsutvalget’s remit is specifically misconduct — investigation, appeals, and case-handling advice — and it cooperates closely with the three committees both to help prevent misconduct and to keep them informed about how misconduct is being identified and addressed across the research system. A researcher or institution asking “which body handles this” should generally think of NEM/NENT/NESH as the ethics-guidance and review layer and Granskingsutvalget as the misconduct-investigation and appeals layer.
How a case moves through the system
- An allegation of possible research misconduct is raised, typically at the institution where the research was conducted.
- The institution’s own committee investigates and reaches a decision under its internal process, consistent with the Research Ethics Act’s definition of misconduct.
- Serious cases must be reported to Granskingsutvalget; a party dissatisfied with an institutional decision may also appeal it to the commission.
- Granskingsutvalget can also open an investigation on its own initiative rather than only receiving cases via referral or appeal.
- The commission issues a final statement. On appeal, that statement cannot be appealed further within the Norwegian system.
Because institutions retain first-instance responsibility, the practical caseload that reaches Granskingsutvalget directly is smaller than the total number of allegations handled nationally — most cases are resolved, or found not to meet the misconduct threshold, at the institutional level before ever reaching the commission.
Norway in the broader Nordic and international picture
Norway is one of several countries that separate the *institutional* handling of a misconduct allegation from a *national* investigative or appellate layer, but the exact division of authority varies considerably by country:
- Denmark centralised its system into the Danish Board on Research Misconduct, which succeeded the earlier UVVU and, unlike Granskingsutvalget, itself investigates cases directly rather than functioning primarily as an appeals body.
- Sweden’s Npof (National Board for Assessment of Research Misconduct) is the closest structural analogue in the Nordic region — a single national authority that investigates misconduct cases referred to it, rather than institutions retaining first-instance jurisdiction the way they do in Norway.
- The Netherlands’ LOWI issues non-binding second opinions on institutional decisions rather than final, unappealable rulings.
- Germany’s OWiD/DFG framework relies on institutional ombudspersons and DFG-level review rather than a single statutory national commission.
- Japan’s MEXT guidelines, Canada’s Tri-Agency SRCR/PRCR process, and Australia’s ARIC each place national bodies in a process-oversight or funder-compliance role rather than as a final appellate authority the way Granskingsutvalget operates.
- The UK’s UKRIO is advisory and membership-based, with no statutory investigative or appellate power at all — a sharp contrast to Granskingsutvalget’s statutory footing under the Research Ethics Act.
For a general walkthrough of how misconduct investigations unfold at the institutional level (a pattern broadly comparable across most of these systems before a national body ever gets involved), see How a Research Misconduct Investigation Actually Works.
Frequently asked questions
Is Granskingsutvalget a court?
No. It is an administrative commission created by statute, not a judicial body. Its statements are final within Norway’s research-ethics system in the sense that they cannot be appealed further administratively, but they operate alongside, not instead of, Norway’s ordinary courts, which remain available for matters outside the Research Ethics Act’s scope (for example, employment consequences or defamation claims connected to a misconduct case).
Can a researcher bring a complaint directly to Granskingsutvalget without going through their institution first?
The Norwegian system is built around institutions handling cases first. Granskingsutvalget’s main entry points are institutional referral of serious cases, appeals of institutional decisions, and its own-initiative power to open an investigation — it is not designed as a first-instance complaints intake parallel to the institution.
How does Granskingsutvalget differ from NEM, NENT, and NESH?
NEM, NENT, and NESH are Norway’s discipline-based ethics committees (medicine/health, science/technology, and social sciences/humanities respectively), focused on ethical guidance and, for NEM, prior ethical review of research. Granskingsutvalget’s mandate is specifically research misconduct: investigation, appeals, and advising institutions on case-handling. All four sit under the Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees (NREC) umbrella, established as an independent administrative agency in 2013.
What is the legal basis for Granskingsutvalget?
It was created under Norway’s first Research Ethics Act (2006), beginning its work in 2007, and continues to operate under the current 2017 Research Ethics Act (Lov om organisering av forskningsetisk arbeid).
Primary source: forskningsetikk.no — About the Commission (Granskingsutvalget) and the accompanying Research Misconduct topic page, the official site of Norway’s National Research Ethics Committees (NREC).
