Licentiate A in the field of humanities alleged that the supervisor of their dissertation, professor B, had plagiarised A’s research plan and stolen research ideas presented by A during supervision conversations. This would have led to B obtaining substantial project funding due to these ideas. A’s allegations were based on the public descriptions and reporting on these project decisions.
After consulting the parties, the rector of the university decided that the allegation was unfounded as the actual projects were completely different than A’s research plan. A was dissatisfied with the fact that no preliminary inquiry had been initiated in the matter.
In its statement, TENK stated that project descriptions as such cannot be considered as adequate proof in serious allegations of research misconduct. A had also not specified the parts in B’s scientific production which they considered to contain plagiarism. According to TENK, however, A’s allegation was not ungrounded in such a way that there would not have been reason to initiate a preliminary inquiry.
As the response submitted to TENK by the university was thorough and comprehensive, initiating the preliminary inquiry would not have resulted in any substantially new information necessary for the resolution of the matter. The rector of the university was within their rights in accordance with the RCR 2012 guidelines when they decided not to initiate a preliminary inquiry.