TENK's statement summaries

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.

2020

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

2020

A suspected that B’s Master’s thesis in the field of humanities, approved in 1997, included falsification, fabrication and…

2020

Student A suspected that doctoral candidates B and C in the field of humanities had presented inappropriate learning…

2020

Docent A in the field of humanities had been suspected of an RCR violation. Persons who submitted the notification of the…

2020

Professor A of university X suspected that professor B and researcher C of university Y were guilty of inadequate…

2020

Professor A’s research group in the field of social sciences included a foreign researcher B, who worked as a visiting…

2020

Docent A considered that interviews implemented in a project in the field of humanities had been partly carried out in a…

2020

Postgraduate student A in the field of medical science considered that their doctoral supervisor B and head of department…

2020

Researcher A welcomed the outcome of an RCR process carried out by a university, in which researcher B was found guilty of…

2020

Company X suspected that a report written by technology researchers was not impartial. The report had been used as an…

2020

Doctor of Natural Sciences A alleged that researchers and directors of a university had been guilty of falsification or…

2020

Doctor of Natural Sciences A alleged that between 2005 and 2006 a university’s Emeritus Professor B had made it difficult…

2020

Doctor of Natural Sciences A suspected that researchers and directors of a research institute were guilty of falsification or disregard for the…

2019

Researcher A from the field of social sciences saw that researcher B from the same field wrote a chapter in a web publication that had matching…

2019

Researcher A suspected researchers B, C and D of disregard for the responsible conduct of research by not including A in the list of editors in a…

2019

Professor A suspected that researcher B from the field of technology has exaggerated their achievements in their curriculum vitae (CV).…

2019

Based on a preliminary inquiry, a university saw that Master of Arts A was guilty of a violation of the responsible conduct of research in their…

2019

Company X alleged that a report written by researchers in the field of technology was not impartial. The report was used as an expert opinion in a…

2019

Researcher A from the field of law suspected reviewer B to be guilty of inappropriately hampering the work of a researcher in the application…

2019

Researcher A from the field of social sciences suspected that doctoral student B had plagiarised A’s doctoral dissertation…