Researchers A and B in the field of humanities felt that researcher C, active in a different science but investigating the same area, should have referenced A and B’s publication in their dissertation. They justified their opinion using a long-standing friendship and staying in the same research premises. A and B felt that C had got the idea for their dissertation from them. Furthermore, they felt that the conclusions of C’s dissertation largely consisted of information which had already been published in international research literature.
According to the preliminary inquiry conducted by the university, there was no evidence of plagiarism or stealing.
In their request for statement, A and B did not specify a particular idea or section in C’s dissertation that they considered as having been stolen; instead, they claimed that the idea for the dissertation was theirs.
According to TENK’s opinion, researching the same subject matter area was not a specific research idea as such, as the same matter had been studied internationally for a long time in various fields of science. The generic nature of the subject matter explained the similarities between the publications. Moreover, friendship is not a reason for citation.
With regard to the more comprehensive allegation of stealing, TENK concluded that this was a matter of criticism towards the general quality of the dissertation. TENK found this to be a scientific dispute and therefore did not discuss it.
In conclusion, TENK did not find C guilty of the RCR violations in their dissertation alleged by A and B, and the university had investigated the matter in accordance with the RCR guidelines.