Researchers A and B from the field of science and technology deemed researcher C to have exaggerated their curriculum vitae (CV) in applying for a professorship, thereby being guilty of manipulating authorship. Based on the investigation proper conducted by the university, C’s CV had some discrepancies and anomalies that should be corrected, but C was not guilty of violating the responsible conduct of research.
A and B requested a statement from TENK concerning whether C was guilty of exaggerating their CV and whether the investigation process was conducted in accordance with TENK’s guidelines. Additionally, they wanted to hear TENK’s view on whether C’s sanctions were sufficient and whether the investigation process documents should be public.
TENK’s statement deemed C’s CV for the professorship application to have several inaccuracies and C to have acted irresponsibly by exaggerating their scientific accomplishments. However, the deed was not serious enough to be found a violation of the responsible conduct of research. TENK found that the university had acted according to TENK’s guidelines in deciding that C was not guilty of an RCR violation.
As they do not fall within TENK’s scope, TENK does not comment on the sanctions or consequences issued by research organisations. Concerning the RCR documents being public, TENK stated that in accordance with the Act on the Openness of Government Activities, both TENK’s and the university’s documents are public, provided that they do not include secret information. TENK’s statement emphasized that C must amend their CV to wholly comply with TENK’s “Template for researcher's curriculum vitae”.