A suspected that B’s doctoral dissertation in the field of human sciences contained incorrect information and an incorrectly marked source reference, and thus public access to it should be withdrawn. The university carried out a preliminary inquiry on the matter, according to which there was an error in the bibliography, but it was not so significant that the dissertation should be re-evaluated. The inquiry also concluded that B had not violated responsible conduct of research. B had contacted the library to correct the error in the dissertation.
A was dissatisfied with the university’s decision that no RCR violation had taken place and demanded that the dissertation be rejected.
TENK agreed with A that the case involved an error greater than a single bibliographical reference, but considered credible B’s explanation that this had been a technical observation error which was then repeated in different parts of the research text. In TENK’s view, this was not a matter of gross negligence or carelessness that would give reason to examine the matter as a RCR violation.
TENK took the view that the measures taken to remedy the matter were sufficient. However, TENK considered that a note on the corrections made should be added to the electronic versions of the dissertation.