AU’s Research Practice Committee criticises department head over blocked research report

Jørgen E. Olesen, head of the Department of Agroecology (AGRO) at Aarhus University, has been criticised by the university's Research Practice Committee. The committee cited a "lack of transparency, predictability, and alignment of expectations" in a case where he refused to publish a postdoc's report. The postdoc has "rightly" experienced pressure on his academic freedom, according to the committee's statement. 

The statement was published in an article in Danish newspaper Information on April 22nd. 

When Peter Brinkmann Kristensen, a former postdoc at the Department of Agroecology at Aarhus University, in autumn 2024 completed his report on natural grazing and various methods for assessing the climate impact of meat production, he aimed to publish it through DCA – the Danish Centre for Food and Agriculture – Aarhus University.

But he wasn't allowed to. The report did not reflect the existing consultancy and AGROS tools in the climate area, and the report risked conflicting with the public sector consultancy from DCA, was the message from Head of Department Jørgen E. Olesen in November. DCA provides consultancy to public authorities and frequently delivers advisory reports commissioned by them. However, Peter Brinkmann Kristensen wanted to publish through DCA on his own initiative. It was also noted that the report lacked independent peer reviewers. Peter Brinkmann Kristensen was advised to "find other channels for publishing results." This is stated in the summary of the process in the statement from the Research Practice Committee in March 2025, which Omnibus has seen. 

As a result of the conflict, Peter Brinkmann Kristensen resigned from his postdoc position at Aarhus University. He later, in February 2025, submitted his case to the Research Practice Committee at AU. The Research Practice Committee handles cases of potentially questionable research practices, scientific misconduct or pressure on freedom of research. 

Former postdoc: Head of department is censoring the report

Peter Brinkmann Kristensen, who is currently head of secretariat in one of the 23 local Green Tripartite Agreement organisations, sees this as censorship of a specific academic perspective and is shocked by the process. To him, the heart of the matter is that he was prevented from carrying out independent research. 

Peter Brinkmann Kristensen followed DCA procedure and asked DCA for advice along the way, he tells Omnibus. In the autumn of 2024, he was merely waiting for the final confirmation that the report would be published by them. He emphasises that the Research Practice Committee has seen the correspondence with DCA and the peer reviewers, who gave the report a positive assessment. 

"I follow all the procedures and am told to just wait for it to be published. Everyone involved with the report expects it. It then comes across Jørgen E. Olesen's desk and gets censored there. I'm of the opinion that it would have been published if it hadn't come across his desk," he says.

At a meeting in December, according to Peter Brinkmann Kristensen, the head of department explained that it was not an opportune time to publish certain parts of the report and that it did not adequately reflect existing counsel and AGRO's climate tools.

"He offers that we can publish one part of it through DCA. It is the section concerning extensive grazing and the international knowledge on it that shouldn’t attract unnecessary attention, as I understood it. I thought the second half about the different methods of assessment (which can give various answers to whether free-range cattle or conventional beef production is more or less climate-impacting, ed.) was just as important," he says, summarising his experience of the meeting:

"So I go from getting a rejection to getting an offer to publish parts of the report that I've put a lot of effort into. It was difficult because I wanted to get the report published, but in the end it just seemed wrong (to omit parts of it, ed.)," Peter Brinkmann Kristensen says.

Head of department: It came as a surprise that we didn't have it under control

Jørgen E. Olesen denies that it is a case of censorship, but acknowledges to Omnibus that the procedures for publication through DCA were not in place – something the Research Practice Committee has also criticised – and that these issues have now been addressed at the department. 

The snag is that DCA often publishes commissioned consultancy reports – typically under AUs framework agreement with the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries – which are approved at the start and end by initiative coordinators, without necessarily involving the department head. If notes or reports are to be published in contexts other than as commissions under the framework agreement, they must be submitted to the head of department for approval, including the approval of peer reviewers. 

However, this procedure was introduced after Peter Brinkmann Kristensen had submitted his report for approval. In fact, it was only with his report that a new procedure was introduced. 

“The Research Practice Committee fundamentally criticises that we haven’t had the processes surrounding these DCA reports under control. I also became aware of it in this context. When it came to my attention, I was surprised that we hadn't had it under control," Jørgen E. Olesen says. 

"Of course I'm sorry we didn't have a process for it, but now we do," he says.

It's criticisable that we haven't had a procedure for this, the head of department acknowledges. 

“But you discover so many things along the way. It's hard to ensure that everything necessarily works. I believe we have a responsibility to put things right when we realise something is not working as it should," he says.

Jørgen E. Olesen describes it as an 'exceptional thing' that a researcher wants a report published through DCA independently.

"That's why we haven't caught it before. We haven't had a process for that, and now we do."

Jørgen E. Olesen does not believe that researchers should publish reports on their own initiative under the auspices of DCA. Research can and should be published in international journals, he says. 

"My recommendation is still that they should publish it in international journals, as it would help spread the findings more widely and give their resume a boost," he says.

"The quality wasn’t up to standard"

In principle, there is no problem with researchers wanting to publish reports through DCA, but in this case, according to Jørgen E. Olesen, there were a number of problems with the report itself. One being that the two peer reviewers on the report were not professionally qualified "for the entire subject area of the report" according to the head of department, and furthermore, Peter Brinkmann Kristensen had chosen them himself, Jørgen E. Olesen explains. 

"It wasn't their area, their expertise. And one of them was very close to him, a kind of supervisor, and I wouldn't approve of that either," Jørgen E. Olesen says. 

In addition, there were flaws and deficiencies in the report that needed to be corrected before it could be published, Jørgen E. Olesen states.

"I could easily see it being published, just not in the shape it was in. The quality wasn’t up to par. We cannot publish anything that is inadequate or flawed. So it had to have another go. But as I also wrote to him, I thought it would require some work, it wasn't just trifles," says Jørgen E. Olesen.

The head of department doesn't think there's anything wrong with him having the final say in these types of cases, thanks to the department's new procedure. 

"I've read my employment contract, which states that I'm responsible for the quality of the research and its dissemination. This means, among other things, that I am responsible for the reports we publish," Jørgen E. Olesen says. 

He emphasises that a researcher does not have the right to have something published through a specific channel. 

"It's no different than when you submit an article to a journal. There is no guarantee that they want it. Oftentimes you get a 'no'," he says, equating his role to that of a journal editor.

Perceived pressure on freedom of research 

While the Research Practice Committee acknowledges in its statement that department management is entitled to ensure the academic quality of publications – and that freedom of publication does not imply an unrestricted right to publish in any forum – it also notes that, in autumn 2024, DCA gave the reviewer the expectation that their research findings could be published as a DCA advisory report.

"However, the procedure for approval as a DCA advisory report that has been communicated by AGRO and DCA has been changed suddenly and in a sense retroactively and with varying justifications," writes the Research Practice Committee. 

In its summary, the Research Practice Committee goes on to say: 

"The process to which the notification relates has been unfortunate and inexpedient, that the criteria for publishing DCA reports from AGRO have been opaque and inconsistent, and that 'this unfortunate situation' (the words of the notifier) could have been resolved or prevented by clearer communication earlier in the process and a more flexible approach to the possibility of publishing in DCA report form other than as an 'advisory report."

"Although nothing has prevented the reviewer from seeking publication of his research results in other ways, including in other peer-reviewed journals, the Research Practice Committee finds that the obstacles to publication of the reviewer's report under the auspices of DCA, which were set up by the head of department during the process after the report had been submitted and positively peer-reviewed, could rightly be perceived by the reviewer as pressure on his freedom of research," the summary states. 

Peter Brinkmann Kristensen: Won’t accept censorship 

Jørgen E. Olesen uses the occasion to centre more power around himself, says Peter Brinkmann Kristensen. By acknowledging that there were errors in the procedure, but introducing the new rule that the reports must pass his desk for approval, he turns it to his own advantage, he believes.

"It's extremely vulnerable if the current head of department favours a certain academic direction over others," says Peter Brinkmann Kristensen. 

According to Peter Brinkmann Kristensen, Jørgen E. Olesen is trying to make the case about anything but the essence. According to the former postdoc, the essence is that Jørgen E. Olesen has not wanted to publish his report, and that the Research Practice Committee believes he has rightly experienced pressure on his freedom of research. He points out that Jørgen E. Olesen has received criticism - not him. 

"Just as I wrote in my objection to the Research Practice Committee, I would like to accommodate changes to the real issues identified in the report. I have presented my research. If a discussion has to come from that, so be it. But I won't accept having something censored just because it doesn't align with the department," says Peter Brinkmann Kristensen. 

The now former postdoc maintains that the two peer reviewers are “100 percent obvious choices” and that it is entirely normal for researchers to suggest who might assess their work. He adds that he had asked several people to peer review the report. Three had accepted, but it came down to two, as the third felt the other two covered the area sufficiently. If he could do it again today, he wouldn't have chosen the one peer reviewer who was very close to his research and was also involved in hiring him. But it's not for professional reasons, but because he feels that the peer reviewers are being thrown under the bus. 

In addition, he is happy to submit his report for external review, as he also suggested in his objection to the Research Practice Committee. If he had his way, there should be a national system that ensures that there is both an external and internal peer reviewer for research articles, and a committee that decides whom. 

Peter Brinkmann Kristensen had a part-time farm with cattle in nature conservation until 2019 and sold his organic farm in 2021. He has also previously worked both privately and as a project manager with nature conservation, including concept development of nature conservation meat, and contributed to the public debate on the subject. 

Recognises the Research Practice Committee's reasoning 

Jørgen E. Olesen is sorry about the process, which has indeed been inexpedient, he explains. Although he denies having interfered with anyone's freedom of research, he recognises the Research Practice Committee's reasoning that Peter Brinkmann Kristensen may have rightly felt this way. 

"When you experience something, it's about expectations. Since we haven't had the process described well enough, he could rightly have expected something different," Jørgen E. Olesen says. 

This text is machine translated and post-edited by Cecillia Jensen.