Senior Researcher A from University X suspected Professor B of disregard for good research practices, especially regarding unnecessarily delaying and impeding researchers' work. According to A, B had allegedly committed an RI violation by reporting an incorrect sum granted to a project in a joint meeting between the parties to the notification. Furthermore, according to A, B had impeded A's career as a researcher by organising, without A's approval, a transfer to another project for Degree Student C, who had worked on the project.
The Rector of University X ruled that B had not committed an RI violation and the RI process was thus concluded. A was unhappy with the conclusion and requested a statement on whether B had committed an RI violation and whether the RI process had been carried out according to the 2023 RI Guidelines.
TENK found that these two events were separate from each other. The materials submitted were not sufficient to prove misleading with regard to the sum granted. Similarly, Student C was free to choose where they worked.
TENK found that this was primarily a case of a work community dispute and an RI violation could not be established. According to TENK, the RI process had been carried out by University X according to the guidelines.