TENK's statement summaries

Last updated 20.3.2023

On this page you can search summaries of statements issued by the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK concerning allegations of violations of responsible conduct of research (RCR).

Allegations of RCR violations are always investigated within the organisation in which the suspected violation occurred or where the person against whom the allegation is made was working when it occurred. Once the allegation has first been addressed under the organisation’s RCR process, the party dissatisfied with the ruling may request a statement from TENK. TENK restricts its statement to questions of research integrity. Therefore its statements only state whether an RCR investigation has been performed in accordance with the RCR guidelines and whether there has been a violation of responsible conduct of research.

Direct references to involved parties and the organisations where the allegation in question was handled have been removed from the summaries. Summaries can be used for educational purposes under a CC BY license.

You can search the statement summaries by using the following filters. Links open in a new tab.

2022

Researcher A at a research institute suspected that principal investigator B in their research group had plagiarised parts of…

2022

Professor A suspected that university director B was guilty of both misappropriation of another researchers’ work and…

2022

A group of researchers suspected that a non-fiction book published by Professor A and Docent B in the field of humanities…

2022

Researcher A submitted a report of a suspected RCR violation to the rector of the university, stating that researchers B and C…

2022

Based on a conference abstract published by technology professor A and doctoral researcher B at university X, a research group…

2022

Researcher A suspected that social sciences researcher B and university lecturer C had committed an RCR violation when rejecting…

2022

Researcher A at a research institute suspected that researcher B in the same research group had acted in a misleading manner…

2022

Professor A from a foreign university suspected that Finnish technology researcher B who had worked under A’s guidance was…

2022

In their request for a statement, humanities docent A expressed their dissatisfaction with the RCR process carried out at the…

2022

Professor A suspected that researcher B in the field of human sciences and assistant professor C at university X were guilty of…

2021

A university’s humanities docent A wrote a book that passed its peer review and was published in a scientific publication series…

2021

Professor A suspected that technical researcher B had plagiarised a chapter of a book in a joint article and marked X as the…

2021

TENK received a request for a statement from professor A expressing dissatisfaction with the university’s handling of a…

2021

The university investigated a notification stating that the project application prepared by humanities professor A and his team…

2021

A suspected that doctoral candidate B had expressed the topic of his doctoral dissertation in a misleading way and thus obtained…

2021

University doctoral candidate X suspected Professor A, who was the supervisor of his doctoral dissertation, of inappropriately…

2021

Company X suspected that the commissioned research report of technology company A had exaggerated the list of authors, engaged…

2021

According to A, the university’s economics teachers B and C had given an illegal assignment in their course. It was alleged that…