A researcher working at natural science research organisation X made a GSP complaint alleging that an unpublished pro gradu thesis submitted by the researcher to university Y had been plagiarised in scientific publications. The allegation focused on several researchers, who were employed by or whose post-graduate work was being supervised by two different universities, Y and Z, as well as by X, the complainant’s employer; the research project that linked the separate parties was administered by university Z. The complaint was lodged with research organisation X, where the GSP investigation and decisionmaking were the responsibility of the research director, and with university Z, where the GSP process was the responsibility of the dean.
The Advisory Board’s statement notes that both investigations were implemented in a way, which contained substantial shortcomings from the perspective of GSP: the Advisory Board was not informed of the matter, a preliminary inquiry was not conducted and an investigation team was not appointed. The person who made the allegation was not heard during the investigation. Furthermore, an organisation’s decisions regarding a GSP violation investigation should be made by an accountable director or the rector.
As the alleged GSP violation could not be ruled out completely and because the applied plagiarism definition did not correspond with national or international interpretations, the Advisory Board took the view that new full investigations of the matter should be undertaken, either separately or jointly between university Z and research organisation X.
The Advisory Board also pointed out that it was inappropriate to make a counter-allegation against the complainant in the decision.