Company X suspected that the commissioned research report of technology company A had exaggerated the list of authors, engaged in plagiarism and neglected to name those responsible, and falsified research results. In addition, company X doubted the expertise of the working group and the appropriateness of the RCR process in the investigation proper carried out by company A.
In a decision made by the CEO of company A based on the investigation proper, it was found that the RCR violation of plagiarism had taken place. The decision did not identify those involved in the plagiarism, however, even though TENK had required this in its previous statement. According to the CEO’s decision, none of the other RCR violations suspected by company X took place. No shortcomings were found in the expertise of the investigation proper team nor in the RCR process.
TENK noted that the RCR violation of plagiarism took place and issued company A with another request to name the parties involved. TENK did not verify any of the other RCR violations suspected by company X. However, TENK urged company A to pay attention in future to the division of responsibilities and agreement on authorship in its projects, and it issued a reprimand for minor shortcomings in the investigation proper that were nevertheless not of significance for the outcome of the RCR process.