Special researcher X of research institute A was dissatisfied with the RCR violation investigation conducted at the institute. The investigation clarified whether project researcher Y was guilty of an RCR violation by delaying the publication of a joint article in the field of agriculture and forestry. Project researcher Y had withdrawn the manuscript in question from a peer review in an international science magazine. It was a question of an article manuscript written by special researcher X together with project researcher Y and senior researcher Z.
According to the decision given by research institute A’s director general, it was not a question of an RCR violation but rather a scientific interpretation of the research results and the disagreements pertaining to it. Even though, from the perspective of the research institute, research results must reach publication as quickly as possible, project researcher Y’s contribution in the preparation of the joint article was, however, so significant that the article could not have been published without his/her consent. According to the director general, publishing the article in special researcher X and senior researcher Z’s names could have led to an RCR violation.
In its statement, TENK attested that authorship includes the right to decide when the research is ready to be published. Project researcher Y had exercised this right. There was therefore no reason to change the end result reached by research institute A in the preliminary investigation. On a general level, the right to deny the consent to publication can also be wrongly used. This can be if the author denies his/her consent in order to persuade other members of the research group to make such a change to the content of the research report or the order of the authors, which must clearly be considered inappropriate and ungrounded. This kind of action would be a disregard for responsible conduct of research.
Special researcher X was also dissatisfied with the oral hearing organised in connection with the RCR process at research institute A. Special researcher X considered it biased that the superiors of the parties were called to the hearing and that project researcher Y had an outside assistant with him/her.
According to TENK, research organisations have free hands to carry out an RCR preliminary investigation as they see fit and to organise hearings regarding them. There was an attempt to also find concord to publish a joint article in the same hearing on the case in question. In this event, those present may have found the hearing unclear as to at what stage the supervision of work was discussed and when a possible RCR violation would be clarified. In regard to the legal protection of the parties, the RCR process and attempts at investigating workplace disputes should always be kept separate from one another.
Furthermore, TENK attested in its statement that anyone being a party in an RCR investigation has the right to use an assistant in a hearing.