Docent A suspected that professors B and C, experts of a certain university who took part in the appointments process of a university lecturer, as well as professor D who made the appointment proposal, had a conflict of interest. A had applied for the position but was not chosen. The university did not initiate a preliminary inquiry on the matter, as it considered the notification to be unfounded.
A felt that B favoured the person chosen for the position, because B had been in a cooperation relationship with the selected researcher through joint publications, for example. According to TENK, working at the same university department does not lead into disqualification as such. In the opinion of A, the disqualification of C resulted from C having copied the works of A. As regards C, TENK concluded, however, that since A had not taken the alleged plagiarism into the official RCR process, the alleged conflict of interest could be ignored in this context.
According to A, the disqualification of D resulted from A having made a complaint of the activities of D due to a former dispute. According to university X, in conjunction with the said complaint process it had been investigated that D was not disqualified at that time. TENK concluded, however, that it was possible that due to the said complaint, a polemic relationship had evolved between A and D. In addition, during the now disputable appointments process of the university lecturer, A had made a remark to D about D’s potential disqualification, but D did not take any action on the remark.
According to TENK, D’s action had been ethically reprehensible. Even though the disqualification of D had not been adequately investigated from the RCR point of view, the university may have decided not to initiate the RCR process, because there was no reason in this case to suspect an RCR violation. At the same time TENK pointed out to the university that the any engagements of the persons participating in appointments procedures must be clarified in advance.