Principal Lecturer A and two other researchers from UAS 1 suspected that UAS 2 lecturer B was guilty of misappropriation in two articles B had published in the field of technology. According to A, B had acted as an expert in a multidisciplinary joint project, but not as a member of the research team, and B did thus not have the right to use the outputs of the project in their own name in those articles. According to B, however, the contractual situation applying to the parties and outputs of the project had been unclear. In addition, in B's own field of science, only those who participate in the writing of articles are listed as authors of articles.
On the basis of the preliminary investigation, the President of the University of Applied Sciences 2 decided that B was guilty of a mild RI violation, i.e. misappropriation based on the RI 2012 guidelines and plagiarism based on the RI 2023 guidelines. As the President considered the misconduct to be mild, there was no need to begin an actual investigation.
According to TENK, the contribution of other researchers must be presented in scientific publications in an adequate manner assessed on a case-by-case basis. In order for misappropriation, which is always very serious both as an act and in terms of its consequences, to be found to have taken place in the RI process, the act must not only fulfil the characteristics of misappropriation: it must also be intentional and deliberately mislead the scientific community. In this case, the President's decision was not sufficiently detailed to establish that misappropriation had taken place.
As the occurrence and identification of the RI violation were unclear, TENK stated that an investigation proper had to be initiated in the case. Both the assessment of the possible violation and the RI process had to be carried out in accordance with the RI 2012 Guidelines.