Technical Sciences stops publishing specific type of report following criticism

The faculty management team at Technical Sciences has decided that DCA - the Danish Centre for Food and Agriculture will no longer publish reports at the request of the researchers themselves. In the future, DCA will only publish commissioned advisory reports, which is also the centre's main purpose. The same has also been decided for the other centre at Tech, which is responsible for research-based public sector consultancy, DCE - the Danish Centre for Environment and Energy. This is according to Ole Hertel, vice-dean for public sector consultancy and business collaboration at Technical Sciences.

"The faculty management team has decided to move away from publishing research reports through DCA. We are removing the option to publish reports on your own in DCA. The reports do not have the same clear and consistent quality control as research articles published in journals or advisory reports in DCA. We want to make sure that everything that gets through has been properly and reliably checked,” Ole Hertel says.

The management’s decision is based on a case in which former postdoc at the Department of Agroecology, Peter Brinkmann Kristensen, was denied permission to have his report published through DCA. The case was first described by Information.

AU’s Research Practice Committee criticises department head for blocking research report

Reports shouldn’t have to pass the department head's desk

Peter Brinkmann Kristensen’s case was criticised by AU’s Research Practice Committee, which concluded that the researcher could reasonably have perceived it as pressure on his academic freedom when department head Jørgen E. Olesen refused to publish his report, as requested by Peter Brinkmann Kristensen, through DCA. The report concerned grazing on natural areas and different methods for calculating the climate impact of meat production.

Peter Brinkmann Kristensen had followed DCA's procedure for publication and was under the impression that it was a matter of routine before his report would be published. But when the report came across Head of Department Jørgen E. Olesen's desk in the autumn of 2024, it was decided that the report shouldn’t be published. This was criticised by Peter Brinkmann Kristensen, who considered it censorship of his report.

At the same time, the head of department introduced a new rule that reports that researchers who wanted to publish through DCA had to pass his desk for review and approval by peer reviewers. Peter Brinkmann Kristensen believed that with this rule, the head of department used the Research Practice Committee's criticism to centre more power in his own hands.

The faculty management team's recent decision to stop publishing this type of report means, of course, that Jørgen E. Olesen will no longer have them passing his desk.

"It's no longer relevant, as we don't have these types of tasks in the future," Ole Hertel says.

However, it is still Jørgen E. Olesen who, as head of department, is responsible for the advice issued by the department, Ole Hertel explains.

"The public can't distinguish"

DCA often publishes advisory reports that are commissioned - typically under the framework agreement between AU, Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries - and these reports are approved in the start and end phases by initiative coordinators in a process form that does not necessarily have to pass the department head's desk.

Ole Hertel explains that advisory reports are based on peer-reviewed research, or as he also describes it: Accepted consensus in an area. A research report, on the other hand, is a stand-alone result that should not be confused with advisory reports, Ole Hertel emphasises.

The decision is meant to prevent confusion about what kinds of reports are eligible for publication, he explains:

"It creates doubt and confusion when several different reports come out. The public can't distinguish what's on the report, they just see it as an AU report," he says and concludes:

“The bottom line is that things must either go fully through our quality assurance system, as we do with advisory reports, or be published in academic journals. It's not about suppressing freedom of research. It's about being confident in the quality and product and adhering to the Research Practice Committee's recommendation of precise, clear and consistent procedures for publication," he says.

Ole Hertel explains that the faculty has "had a few reports that passed through the system a little too easily without proper control.” He can't say which ones, as no investigation has been carried out. He points out, as Jørgen E. Olesen has previously stated to Omnibus, that reports published on the initiative of the researchers themselves through DCA are uncommon.

Technical Sciences has now formed a committee to find out exactly which reports should be produced in the future. However, it is certain that DCA and DCE will stop allowing researchers to publish on their own initiative.

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