{"id":193208,"date":"2026-09-04T11:00:47","date_gmt":"2026-09-04T09:00:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/skandaleramte-hans-bonde-vil-have-historisk-ai-afgoerelse-genoptaget\/"},"modified":"2026-09-08T10:57:32","modified_gmt":"2026-09-08T08:57:32","slug":"skandaleramte-hans-bonde-vil-have-historisk-ai-afgoerelse-genoptaget","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/skandaleramte-hans-bonde-vil-have-historisk-ai-afgoerelse-genoptaget\/","title":{"rendered":"Embattled Hans Bonde seeks to reopen landmark AI ruling"},"content":{"rendered":"

F<\/span>ormer University of Copenhagen professor Hans Bonde is now seeking to overturn the decision that found him guilty of research misconduct last year over his use of artificial intelligence.<\/p>\n

The University Post can now reveal this after speaking to Hans Bonde\u2019s lawyer, Jonas Christoffersen, who has submitted a request to the The Danish Board on Research Misconduct to reopen the case. The request is based on a 36-page legal opinion written by Rasmus Gr\u00f8nved Nielsen, a professor at the Faculty of Law at the University of Copenhagen.<\/p>\n

The legal opinion concludes that the board\u2019s decision is \u00bbaffected by a number of significant legal errors and deficiencies\u00ab and is therefore invalid.<\/p>\n

\u00bbWe hope the board will reopen the case and look at it again with fresh eyes in light of what we are now arguing, and then consider whether it stands by its decision or chooses to reverse it,\u00ab Jonas Christoffersen tells the University Post.<\/p>\n

The aim is for the case to be sent back to the University of Copenhagen\u2019s Practice Committee, where it can be assessed whether Hans Bonde\u2019s mistakes should instead be classified as questionable research practice rather than research misconduct.<\/p>\n

\u00bbWe want them to send it back to the Practice Committee, and then we will take it from there,\u00ab Jonas Christoffersen says.<\/p>\n

The University Post has seen both the request and the legal opinion.<\/p>\n

Rasmus Gr\u00f8nved Nielsen prepared the legal opinion at Hans Bonde\u2019s request, but without payment. He has declined to be interviewed because he believes the document speaks for itself. Jonas Christoffersen also says he is working on Bonde\u2019s case without payment.<\/p>\n

\u00bbI read Rasmus\u2019 opinion and thought he was right that the decision was too harsh. So I told Hans I would be willing to help him. I think the decision is disproportionate,\u00ab he says.<\/p>\n

Fictitious authors<\/h3>\n

In May 2025, the The Danish Board on Research Misconduct concluded that Hans Bonde, who was a professor at the Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports at the University of Copenhagen until January 2025, had committed research misconduct through his use of AI while working on a research manuscript.<\/p>\n

The Danish newspaper Kristeligt Dagblad<\/a> recently revealed that the anonymised decision concerned Hans Bonde.
\n
\nThe introduction to the manuscript contained ten fictitious passages and references generated with the help of AI. Among them was a non-existent work by an author named John Doe, a name used in English for a person whose identity is unknown.<\/p>\n

Hans Bonde had submitted the manuscript to an academic journal. The errors were discovered by the journal\u2019s editor, after which Bonde withdrew the manuscript.<\/p>\n

The former University of Copenhagen professor has repeatedly acknowledged that he made a mistake, while maintaining that it was not serious enough to constitute research misconduct. The University Post has been in contact with Hans Bonde in connection with this article, but he declined to be interviewed.<\/p>\n

Debate over what constitutes data<\/h3>\n

The request to reopen the case is based on four main arguments.<\/p>\n

The first is that a finding of research misconduct is such a serious and far-reaching decision that the board must have a very solid basis for making it. According to Jonas Christoffersen, it did not have such a basis in Hans Bonde\u2019s case.<\/p>\n

The second argument concerns what can be classified as data.<\/p>\n

According to the legal opinion, data within the meaning of the law generally refers to the material that is the subject of the research. This could, for example, consist of measurements or historical sources. The fictitious references in the introduction to Hans Bonde\u2019s manuscript, by contrast, were supplementary literature and had no bearing on the research findings, the argument goes.<\/p>\n

\u00bbData concerns the object of the research. It is what you are researching. Here, we are talking about supplementary literature references. We do not believe these are covered by the concept of data under the law,\u00ab Jonas Christoffersen says.<\/p>\n

Mental state should be taken into account<\/h3>\n

The third argument concerns whether Hans Bonde acted intentionally or with gross negligence.<\/p>\n

At the time he submitted the manuscript, he was, according to his lawyer, in \u00bban entirely exceptional and difficult personal situation\u00ab. Christoffersen does not wish to go into further detail, but the board\u2019s decision states that the circumstances were documented by statements from both a doctor and a psychologist.
\n
\nThe board also refers to the personal circumstances in its decision, but writes that \u00bbpersonal pressure and stress-related reactions\u00ab should, as a general rule, \u00bbnot be given weight\u00ab. In the board\u2019s assessment, Hans Bonde\u2019s specific personal circumstances did not alter its conclusion.<\/p>\n

But Jonas Christoffersen argues that this was not a sufficiently specific assessment.<\/p>\n

\u00bbIf you are going to determine how seriously negligent his conduct was, you have to take into account how he was doing at the time. You cannot simply say that you are not going to consider it at all,\u00ab the lawyer says.<\/p>\n

He also points out that the case was handled entirely in writing, meaning that the board did not hear Hans Bonde\u2019s own account.<\/p>\n

\u00bbIt is a fundamental flaw under administrative law not to take account of something that you are required to take into account,\u00ab he says.<\/p>\n

Does that mean Hans Bonde could not be held responsible for his actions at the time?<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00bbI would not go that far,\u00ab Jonas Christoffersen says, but stresses that Hans Bonde\u2019s condition should have formed part of the overall assessment of how serious his conduct was.<\/p>\n

At the same time, the board also placed weight on the fact that Hans Bonde was a highly experienced researcher. Jonas Christoffersen understands the argument, but does not believe his experience can be decisive:<\/p>\n

\u00bbI understand why they say that. But does that mean you should be judged more harshly when you are older than when you are younger? You still have to assess the overall seriousness of what happened.\u00ab<\/p>\n

Below the threshold of seriousness<\/h3>\n

The fourth argument is that the mistake was not serious enough to constitute research misconduct.<\/p>\n

The manuscript was an English-language adaptation of an article that Hans Bonde had previously published in Danish. The fictitious information appeared in the introduction and, according to the legal opinion, did not alter either the research analysis or its conclusions. The manuscript was also never published.
\n
\nJonas Christoffersen acknowledges that Hans Bonde should have spotted the obvious errors before submitting the manuscript.<\/p>\n

But precisely because the references were so obviously nonsensical, he argues that they could never have made it through peer review or affected the published research.<\/p>\n

But should the obvious errors not also have been easy for Hans Bonde himself to spot?<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00bbYes, and that is precisely why the mistake was so stupid,\u00ab Jonas Christoffersen says.<\/p>\n

For him, the dispute also concerns the dividing line between cases that should be dealt with locally and the most serious cases that end up before the national board.<\/p>\n

\u00bbThere has to be a certain level of seriousness before a case moves from the local practice committees to the national board. We believe the board set the bar too low in Hans Bonde\u2019s case,\u00ab Jonas Christoffersen says.<\/p>\n

In the request to reopen the case, Bonde\u2019s case is compared with a decision from December 2025. In that case, the board found 38 instances of plagiarism in a PhD thesis, but nevertheless concluded that they did not amount to research misconduct. Among other things, the board placed weight on the fact that the plagiarism appeared primarily in a background chapter rather than in the parts of the thesis containing the researcher\u2019s own analyses.<\/p>\n

According to the legal opinion, it is inconsistent for Hans Bonde\u2019s case to have resulted in a different outcome.<\/p>\n

The two cases are not identical. The other case concerned plagiarism, but Jonas Christoffersen nevertheless considers it relevant because, in both cases, the board had to assess the significance for the research of errors appearing in an introductory section.<\/p>\n

\u00bbIn my view, plagiarism would be worse,\u00ab he says.<\/p>\n

Previous request rejected<\/h3>\n

This is not the first time Hans Bonde has tried to have the case reopened. In September 2025, he asked the board to reconsider its decision, but the request was rejected in November because he had not presented any new information.<\/p>\n

There is no new factual information this time either, Jonas Christoffersen acknowledges. What is new, he says, is the more extensive legal analysis of the case.<\/p>\n

He cannot say why the new request has only been submitted now. Hans Bonde himself contacted him a couple of weeks ago. Christoffersen therefore does not know whether the public disclosure of Bonde\u2019s name in connection with the case played a role in the decision.<\/p>\n

If the board again refuses to reopen the case, Hans Bonde can take the matter to court. In his legal opinion, Rasmus Gr\u00f8nved Nielsen assesses that, in that event, \u00bbthe decision will be set aside\u00ab \u2013\u00a0in other words, that Hans Bonde would succeed in his challenge.<\/p>\n

Jonas Christoffersen is more cautious.<\/p>\n

\u00bbThat is of course possible (to have the case reviewed by a court, ed.), but we hope that will not be necessary, so we have not given it any further thought,\u00ab he says.<\/p>\n

The secretariat of the The Danish Board on Research Misconduct confirms to the University Post that it has received the request to reopen the case.<\/p>\n

The University Post has presented the arguments in the request to the board\u2019s chair, High Court judge Mikael Friis Rasmussen, but he was unable to comment on the case before deadline.
\n<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A new legal opinion concludes that the Danish Board on Research Misconduct\u2019s decision against the former University of Copenhagen professor is invalid. Hans Bonde\u2019s lawyer now wants the board to reconsider the case.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":106,"featured_media":193181,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[46],"tags":[6108,4315,8906,8905],"class_list":["post-193208","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-science","tag-ai-en","tag-hans-bonde-en","tag-research-misconduct","tag-the-danish-board-on-research-misconduct","expression-portrait_article"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nEmbattled Hans Bonde seeks to reopen landmark AI ruling<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/skandaleramte-hans-bonde-vil-have-historisk-ai-afgoerelse-genoptaget\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Embattled Hans Bonde seeks to reopen landmark AI ruling\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"A new legal opinion concludes that the Danish Board on Research Misconduct\u2019s decision against the former University of Copenhagen professor is invalid. Hans Bonde\u2019s lawyer now wants the board to reconsider the case.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/skandaleramte-hans-bonde-vil-have-historisk-ai-afgoerelse-genoptaget\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"University Post\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/uniavis\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-09-04T09:00:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-09-08T08:57:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/2020092916192036000x4000ma-scaled.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1707\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Martin Juhl\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@Uniavisen\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Uniavisen\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Martin Juhl\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/en\\\/skandaleramte-hans-bonde-vil-have-historisk-ai-afgoerelse-genoptaget\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/en\\\/skandaleramte-hans-bonde-vil-have-historisk-ai-afgoerelse-genoptaget\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Martin Juhl\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ff6534f5b2402ad00c090ce725c33b27\"},\"headline\":\"Embattled Hans Bonde seeks to reopen landmark AI ruling\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-04T09:00:47+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-09-08T08:57:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/en\\\/skandaleramte-hans-bonde-vil-have-historisk-ai-afgoerelse-genoptaget\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1601,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/en\\\/skandaleramte-hans-bonde-vil-have-historisk-ai-afgoerelse-genoptaget\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/2020092916192036000x4000ma-scaled.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"AI\",\"Hans Bonde\",\"Research Misconduct\",\"The Danish Board on Research Misconduct\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Science\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/en\\\/skandaleramte-hans-bonde-vil-have-historisk-ai-afgoerelse-genoptaget\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/en\\\/skandaleramte-hans-bonde-vil-have-historisk-ai-afgoerelse-genoptaget\\\/\",\"name\":\"Embattled Hans Bonde seeks to reopen landmark AI ruling\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/en\\\/skandaleramte-hans-bonde-vil-have-historisk-ai-afgoerelse-genoptaget\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/en\\\/skandaleramte-hans-bonde-vil-have-historisk-ai-afgoerelse-genoptaget\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/2020092916192036000x4000ma-scaled.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-04T09:00:47+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-09-08T08:57:32+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ff6534f5b2402ad00c090ce725c33b27\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/en\\\/skandaleramte-hans-bonde-vil-have-historisk-ai-afgoerelse-genoptaget\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/en\\\/skandaleramte-hans-bonde-vil-have-historisk-ai-afgoerelse-genoptaget\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/en\\\/skandaleramte-hans-bonde-vil-have-historisk-ai-afgoerelse-genoptaget\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/2020092916192036000x4000ma-scaled.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/2020092916192036000x4000ma-scaled.jpg\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":1707,\"caption\":\"Debatinterview med Hans Bonde\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/en\\\/skandaleramte-hans-bonde-vil-have-historisk-ai-afgoerelse-genoptaget\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/en\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Embattled Hans Bonde seeks to reopen landmark AI ruling\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/\",\"name\":\"University Post\",\"description\":\"Independent of management\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ff6534f5b2402ad00c090ce725c33b27\",\"name\":\"Martin Juhl\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/1797e6a2f5504b0011d25ea810ff777cf9961880304ebea2975858e118970e05?s=96&d=identicon&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/1797e6a2f5504b0011d25ea810ff777cf9961880304ebea2975858e118970e05?s=96&d=identicon&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/1797e6a2f5504b0011d25ea810ff777cf9961880304ebea2975858e118970e05?s=96&d=identicon&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Martin Juhl\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/en\\\/author\\\/martin_juhl_petersen\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Embattled Hans Bonde seeks to reopen landmark AI ruling","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/skandaleramte-hans-bonde-vil-have-historisk-ai-afgoerelse-genoptaget\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Embattled Hans Bonde seeks to reopen landmark AI ruling","og_description":"A new legal opinion concludes that the Danish Board on Research Misconduct\u2019s decision against the former University of Copenhagen professor is invalid. Hans Bonde\u2019s lawyer now wants the board to reconsider the case.","og_url":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/skandaleramte-hans-bonde-vil-have-historisk-ai-afgoerelse-genoptaget\/","og_site_name":"University Post","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/uniavis","article_published_time":"2026-09-04T09:00:47+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-09-08T08:57:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2560,"height":1707,"url":"http:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/2020092916192036000x4000ma-scaled.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Martin Juhl","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@Uniavisen","twitter_site":"@Uniavisen","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Martin Juhl","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/skandaleramte-hans-bonde-vil-have-historisk-ai-afgoerelse-genoptaget\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/skandaleramte-hans-bonde-vil-have-historisk-ai-afgoerelse-genoptaget\/"},"author":{"name":"Martin Juhl","@id":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/#\/schema\/person\/ff6534f5b2402ad00c090ce725c33b27"},"headline":"Embattled Hans Bonde seeks to reopen landmark AI ruling","datePublished":"2026-09-04T09:00:47+00:00","dateModified":"2026-09-08T08:57:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/skandaleramte-hans-bonde-vil-have-historisk-ai-afgoerelse-genoptaget\/"},"wordCount":1601,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/skandaleramte-hans-bonde-vil-have-historisk-ai-afgoerelse-genoptaget\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/2020092916192036000x4000ma-scaled.jpg","keywords":["AI","Hans Bonde","Research Misconduct","The Danish Board on Research Misconduct"],"articleSection":["Science"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/skandaleramte-hans-bonde-vil-have-historisk-ai-afgoerelse-genoptaget\/","url":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/skandaleramte-hans-bonde-vil-have-historisk-ai-afgoerelse-genoptaget\/","name":"Embattled Hans Bonde seeks to reopen landmark AI ruling","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/skandaleramte-hans-bonde-vil-have-historisk-ai-afgoerelse-genoptaget\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/skandaleramte-hans-bonde-vil-have-historisk-ai-afgoerelse-genoptaget\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/2020092916192036000x4000ma-scaled.jpg","datePublished":"2026-09-04T09:00:47+00:00","dateModified":"2026-09-08T08:57:32+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/#\/schema\/person\/ff6534f5b2402ad00c090ce725c33b27"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/skandaleramte-hans-bonde-vil-have-historisk-ai-afgoerelse-genoptaget\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/skandaleramte-hans-bonde-vil-have-historisk-ai-afgoerelse-genoptaget\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/skandaleramte-hans-bonde-vil-have-historisk-ai-afgoerelse-genoptaget\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/2020092916192036000x4000ma-scaled.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/2020092916192036000x4000ma-scaled.jpg","width":2560,"height":1707,"caption":"Debatinterview med Hans Bonde"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/skandaleramte-hans-bonde-vil-have-historisk-ai-afgoerelse-genoptaget\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Embattled Hans Bonde seeks to reopen landmark AI ruling"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/#website","url":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/","name":"University Post","description":"Independent of management","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/#\/schema\/person\/ff6534f5b2402ad00c090ce725c33b27","name":"Martin Juhl","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1797e6a2f5504b0011d25ea810ff777cf9961880304ebea2975858e118970e05?s=96&d=identicon&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1797e6a2f5504b0011d25ea810ff777cf9961880304ebea2975858e118970e05?s=96&d=identicon&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1797e6a2f5504b0011d25ea810ff777cf9961880304ebea2975858e118970e05?s=96&d=identicon&r=g","caption":"Martin Juhl"},"url":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/author\/martin_juhl_petersen\/"}]}},"advancedCustomFields":{"expression":{"term_id":14,"name":"Portrait Article","slug":"portrait_article","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":14,"taxonomy":"expression","description":"","parent":0,"count":844,"filter":"raw"},"enable_comments":true,"align_content":"alignleft","feature_color":"#2289d8","article_updated":"","layout_group":[{"acf_fc_layout":"Headline","use_post_title":true,"headline":"","style":"default","highlighted_words":"","text_size":"small"},{"acf_fc_layout":"Image","image":{"ID":193180,"id":193180,"title":"Hans Bonde","filename":"2020092916192036000x4000ma-scaled.jpg","filesize":713046,"url":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/2020092916192036000x4000ma-scaled.jpg","link":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/skandaleramte-hans-bonde-vil-have-historisk-ai-afgoerelse-genoptaget\/hans-bonde-2\/","alt":"","author":"5","description":"","caption":"","name":"hans-bonde-2","status":"inherit","uploaded_to":193162,"date":"2026-09-04 09:16:22","modified":"2026-09-04 09:17:05","menu_order":0,"mime_type":"image\/jpeg","type":"image","subtype":"jpeg","icon":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-includes\/images\/media\/default.png","width":2560,"height":1707,"sizes":{"thumbnail":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/2020092916192036000x4000ma-150x150.jpg","thumbnail-width":150,"thumbnail-height":150,"medium":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/2020092916192036000x4000ma-480x320.jpg","medium-width":480,"medium-height":320,"medium_large":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/2020092916192036000x4000ma-768x512.jpg","medium_large-width":768,"medium_large-height":512,"large":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/2020092916192036000x4000ma-1280x853.jpg","large-width":1280,"large-height":853,"1536x1536":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/2020092916192036000x4000ma-1536x1024.jpg","1536x1536-width":1536,"1536x1536-height":1024,"2048x2048":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/2020092916192036000x4000ma-2048x1365.jpg","2048x2048-width":2048,"2048x2048-height":1365,"featured-soft":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/2020092916192036000x4000ma-290x193.jpg","featured-soft-width":290,"featured-soft-height":193,"featured-hard":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/2020092916192036000x4000ma-290x180.jpg","featured-hard-width":290,"featured-hard-height":180,"narrow":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/2020092916192036000x4000ma-700x467.jpg","narrow-width":700,"narrow-height":467,"extended":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/2020092916192036000x4000ma-990x660.jpg","extended-width":990,"extended-height":660}},"style":"extended","text_placement":"metadata-below","image_link_url":"","image_link_title":"","caption_prefix":"","enable_alternative_caption":true,"alternative_caption":"Dr.phil. Hans Bonde was a professor at the Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports until 2025."},{"acf_fc_layout":"Standfirst","subject":"(Mis)conduct","text":"This is a story about what will follow","use_post_excerpt":true},{"acf_fc_layout":"Byline","is_author":true,"contributors":false},{"acf_fc_layout":"Content","content":"<p><span class=\"dropcap\">F<\/span>ormer University of Copenhagen professor Hans Bonde is now seeking to overturn the decision that found him guilty of research misconduct last year over his use of artificial intelligence.<\/p>\n<p>The University Post can now reveal this after speaking to Hans Bonde\u2019s lawyer, Jonas Christoffersen, who has submitted a request to the The Danish Board on Research Misconduct to reopen the case. The request is based on a 36-page legal opinion written by Rasmus Gr\u00f8nved Nielsen, a professor at the Faculty of Law at the University of Copenhagen.<\/p>\n<p>The legal opinion concludes that the board\u2019s decision is \u00bbaffected by a number of significant legal errors and deficiencies\u00ab and is therefore invalid.<\/p>\n<p>\u00bbWe hope the board will reopen the case and look at it again with fresh eyes in light of what we are now arguing, and then consider whether it stands by its decision or chooses to reverse it,\u00ab Jonas Christoffersen tells the University Post.<\/p>\n<p>The aim is for the case to be sent back to the University of Copenhagen\u2019s Practice Committee, where it can be assessed whether Hans Bonde\u2019s mistakes should instead be classified as questionable research practice rather than research misconduct.<\/p>\n<p>\u00bbWe want them to send it back to the Practice Committee, and then we will take it from there,\u00ab Jonas Christoffersen says.<\/p>\n<p>The University Post has seen both the request and the legal opinion.<\/p>\n<p>Rasmus Gr\u00f8nved Nielsen prepared the legal opinion at Hans Bonde\u2019s request, but without payment. He has declined to be interviewed because he believes the document speaks for itself. Jonas Christoffersen also says he is working on Bonde\u2019s case without payment.<\/p>\n<p>\u00bbI read Rasmus\u2019 opinion and thought he was right that the decision was too harsh. So I told Hans I would be willing to help him. I think the decision is disproportionate,\u00ab he says.<\/p>\n<h3>Fictitious authors<\/h3>\n<p>In May 2025, the The Danish Board on Research Misconduct concluded that Hans Bonde, who was a professor at the Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports at the University of Copenhagen until January 2025, had committed research misconduct through his use of AI while working on a research manuscript.<\/p>\n<p>The Danish newspaper <a href=\"https:\/\/www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk\/danmark\/anerkendt-dansk-professor-brugte-falske-kilder\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Kristeligt Dagblad<\/a> recently revealed that the anonymised decision concerned Hans Bonde.<\/p>\n"},{"acf_fc_layout":"Quote","quote":"If you are going to determine how seriously negligent his conduct was, you have to take into account how he was doing at the time. You cannot simply say that you are not going to consider it at all","quotee":"Jonas Christoffersen, Hans Bonde\u2019s lawyer","style":"extended"},{"acf_fc_layout":"Content","content":"<p>The introduction to the manuscript contained ten fictitious passages and references generated with the help of AI. Among them was a non-existent work by an author named John Doe, a name used in English for a person whose identity is unknown.<\/p>\n<p>Hans Bonde had submitted the manuscript to an academic journal. The errors were discovered by the journal\u2019s editor, after which Bonde withdrew the manuscript.<\/p>\n<p>The former University of Copenhagen professor has repeatedly acknowledged that he made a mistake, while maintaining that it was not serious enough to constitute research misconduct. The University Post has been in contact with Hans Bonde in connection with this article, but he declined to be interviewed.<\/p>\n<h3>Debate over what constitutes data<\/h3>\n<p>The request to reopen the case is based on four main arguments.<\/p>\n<p>The first is that a finding of research misconduct is such a serious and far-reaching decision that the board must have a very solid basis for making it. According to Jonas Christoffersen, it did not have such a basis in Hans Bonde\u2019s case.<\/p>\n<p>The second argument concerns what can be classified as data.<\/p>\n<p>According to the legal opinion, data within the meaning of the law generally refers to the material that is the subject of the research. This could, for example, consist of measurements or historical sources. The fictitious references in the introduction to Hans Bonde\u2019s manuscript, by contrast, were supplementary literature and had no bearing on the research findings, the argument goes.<\/p>\n<p>\u00bbData concerns the object of the research. It is what you are researching. Here, we are talking about supplementary literature references. We do not believe these are covered by the concept of data under the law,\u00ab Jonas Christoffersen says.<\/p>\n<h3>Mental state should be taken into account<\/h3>\n<p>The third argument concerns whether Hans Bonde acted intentionally or with gross negligence.<\/p>\n<p>At the time he submitted the manuscript, he was, according to his lawyer, in \u00bban entirely exceptional and difficult personal situation\u00ab. Christoffersen does not wish to go into further detail, but the board\u2019s decision states that the circumstances were documented by statements from both a doctor and a psychologist.<\/p>\n"},{"acf_fc_layout":"Quote","quote":"It is a fundamental flaw under administrative law not to take account of something that you are required to take into account","quotee":"Jonas Christoffersen, Hans Bonde\u2019s lawyer","style":"extended"},{"acf_fc_layout":"Content","content":"<p>The board also refers to the personal circumstances in its decision, but writes that \u00bbpersonal pressure and stress-related reactions\u00ab should, as a general rule, \u00bbnot be given weight\u00ab. In the board\u2019s assessment, Hans Bonde\u2019s specific personal circumstances did not alter its conclusion.<\/p>\n<p>But Jonas Christoffersen argues that this was not a sufficiently specific assessment.<\/p>\n<p>\u00bbIf you are going to determine how seriously negligent his conduct was, you have to take into account how he was doing at the time. You cannot simply say that you are not going to consider it at all,\u00ab the lawyer says.<\/p>\n<p>He also points out that the case was handled entirely in writing, meaning that the board did not hear Hans Bonde\u2019s own account.<\/p>\n<p>\u00bbIt is a fundamental flaw under administrative law not to take account of something that you are required to take into account,\u00ab he says.<\/p>\n<p><em>Does that mean Hans Bonde could not be held responsible for his actions at the time?<\/em><\/p>\n<p>\u00bbI would not go that far,\u00ab Jonas Christoffersen says, but stresses that Hans Bonde\u2019s condition should have formed part of the overall assessment of how serious his conduct was.<\/p>\n<p>At the same time, the board also placed weight on the fact that Hans Bonde was a highly experienced researcher. Jonas Christoffersen understands the argument, but does not believe his experience can be decisive:<\/p>\n<p>\u00bbI understand why they say that. But does that mean you should be judged more harshly when you are older than when you are younger? You still have to assess the overall seriousness of what happened.\u00ab<\/p>\n<h3>Below the threshold of seriousness<\/h3>\n<p>The fourth argument is that the mistake was not serious enough to constitute research misconduct.<\/p>\n<p>The manuscript was an English-language adaptation of an article that Hans Bonde had previously published in Danish. The fictitious information appeared in the introduction and, according to the legal opinion, did not alter either the research analysis or its conclusions. The manuscript was also never published.<\/p>\n"},{"acf_fc_layout":"Quote","quote":"We believe the board set the bar too low in Hans Bonde\u2019s case","quotee":"Jonas Christoffersen, Hans Bonde\u2019s lawyer","style":"extended"},{"acf_fc_layout":"Content","content":"<p>Jonas Christoffersen acknowledges that Hans Bonde should have spotted the obvious errors before submitting the manuscript.<\/p>\n<p>But precisely because the references were so obviously nonsensical, he argues that they could never have made it through peer review or affected the published research.<\/p>\n<p><em>But should the obvious errors not also have been easy for Hans Bonde himself to spot?<\/em><\/p>\n<p>\u00bbYes, and that is precisely why the mistake was so stupid,\u00ab Jonas Christoffersen says.<\/p>\n<p>For him, the dispute also concerns the dividing line between cases that should be dealt with locally and the most serious cases that end up before the national board.<\/p>\n<p>\u00bbThere has to be a certain level of seriousness before a case moves from the local practice committees to the national board. We believe the board set the bar too low in Hans Bonde\u2019s case,\u00ab Jonas Christoffersen says.<\/p>\n<p>In the request to reopen the case, Bonde\u2019s case is compared with a decision from December 2025. In that case, the board found 38 instances of plagiarism in a PhD thesis, but nevertheless concluded that they did not amount to research misconduct. Among other things, the board placed weight on the fact that the plagiarism appeared primarily in a background chapter rather than in the parts of the thesis containing the researcher\u2019s own analyses.<\/p>\n<p>According to the legal opinion, it is inconsistent for Hans Bonde\u2019s case to have resulted in a different outcome.<\/p>\n<p>The two cases are not identical. The other case concerned plagiarism, but Jonas Christoffersen nevertheless considers it relevant because, in both cases, the board had to assess the significance for the research of errors appearing in an introductory section.<\/p>\n<p>\u00bbIn my view, plagiarism would be worse,\u00ab he says.<\/p>\n<h3>Previous request rejected<\/h3>\n<p>This is not the first time Hans Bonde has tried to have the case reopened. In September 2025, he asked the board to reconsider its decision, but the request was rejected in November because he had not presented any new information.<\/p>\n<p>There is no new factual information this time either, Jonas Christoffersen acknowledges. What is new, he says, is the more extensive legal analysis of the case.<\/p>\n<p>He cannot say why the new request has only been submitted now. Hans Bonde himself contacted him a couple of weeks ago. Christoffersen therefore does not know whether the public disclosure of Bonde\u2019s name in connection with the case played a role in the decision.<\/p>\n<p>If the board again refuses to reopen the case, Hans Bonde can take the matter to court. In his legal opinion, Rasmus Gr\u00f8nved Nielsen assesses that, in that event, \u00bbthe decision will be set aside\u00ab \u2013\u00a0in other words, that Hans Bonde would succeed in his challenge.<\/p>\n<p>Jonas Christoffersen is more cautious.<\/p>\n<p>\u00bbThat is of course possible (to have the case reviewed by a court, ed.), but we hope that will not be necessary, so we have not given it any further thought,\u00ab he says.<\/p>\n<p>The secretariat of the The Danish Board on Research Misconduct confirms to the University Post that it has received the request to reopen the case.<\/p>\n<p>The University Post has presented the arguments in the request to the board\u2019s chair, High Court judge Mikael Friis Rasmussen, but he was unable to comment on the case before deadline.<\/p>\n"},{"acf_fc_layout":"ArticleEnd"},{"acf_fc_layout":"Newsletter","lang_select":"en","identifier":"Newsletter","headline":"Get an email with upcoming events and news from University of Copenhagen","button_text":"Sign up here","class":""},{"acf_fc_layout":"OtherStories","headline":"","hand_picked_posts":false,"references":false,"category":false,"theme":false,"number_of_posts":"4","style":"default"}]},"taxonomyData":{"category":[{"term_id":46,"name":"Science","slug":"science","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":46,"taxonomy":"category","description":"","parent":0,"count":837,"filter":"raw"}],"post_tag":[{"term_id":6108,"name":"AI","slug":"ai-en","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":6108,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":7,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":4315,"name":"Hans Bonde","slug":"hans-bonde-en","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":4315,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":3,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":8906,"name":"Research Misconduct","slug":"research-misconduct","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":8906,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":1,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":8905,"name":"The Danish Board on Research Misconduct","slug":"the-danish-board-on-research-misconduct","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":8905,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":1,"filter":"raw"}],"post_format":[],"expression":[{"term_id":14,"name":"Portrait Article","slug":"portrait_article","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":14,"taxonomy":"expression","description":"","parent":0,"count":844,"filter":"raw"}],"translation_priority":[{"term_id":5468,"name":"Optional","slug":"optional-en","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":5468,"taxonomy":"translation_priority","description":"","parent":0,"count":692,"filter":"raw"}]},"featured_media_url":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/2020092916192036000x4000ma-1280x853.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/193208","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/106"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=193208"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/193208\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":193211,"href":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/193208\/revisions\/193211"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/193181"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=193208"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=193208"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=193208"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}