TENK's statement summaries

Last updated 3.6.2021

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.

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…

2021

Professor A had acted as the Phd supervisor of natural sciences doctoral researcher B and co-author in all of the separate…

2021

Technical professor A suspected that university X’s management was guilty of stealing their research ideas and plans. According…

2021

According to a RCR notification made by Professor A, grant-funded…

2021

Researcher A suspected that researchers B, C and D were guilty of disregard for responsible conduct of research when…

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

A suspected that B’s technical master’s thesis included plagiarism of A’s master’s thesis, which was published in 2007.…

2021

A suspected that B’s doctoral dissertation in the field of human sciences contained incorrect information and an incorrectly…

2021

A university’s natural sciences (biomedicine) doctoral candidate X suspected that professor A, who had supervised the…

2021

A group of researchers suspected that the human sciences non-fiction book published by professor A and docent B contained…

2020

Research institution X published an annual report in the field of social sciences, and included the names of researchers A…