Professor A suspected that Professor B and University Lecturer C from the same field had reported such publications in the final report for the research project led by B that were not publications of the project in question or that only a small proportion of the reported publications were connected to the project in question. The events were related to two partially overlapping research projects that partially involved the same researchers.
In A's view, presenting the publications completed in one project as being completed in the other project was exaggerating the project results and gave wrong information to the funders.
Based on the preliminary inquiry carried out at the university, no RI violation had been committed.
The parties' differing views were related to the role of the final report. In B's and C's view, they were obligated to report where the project resources had been used. Not reporting the publications would have misled the funder.
A had a different view. According to A, this was a case of exaggerating the results of the project led by B by using the results of the project led by A. A believed that presenting the publications in B's report reduced their value in relation to A's project. B and C should have discussed the reporting of the publications with A.
Exaggerating one's scientific merits is classified as other irresponsible practice in the 2012 RI Guidelines, which may meet the criteria for an RI violation, at its most severe. In order to conclude that an RI violation has occurred in a case like this, the activities of the respondent must also constitute gross disregard and irresponsibility during various stages of the activities.
The matter can also be viewed as misleading the scientific community in other ways with regard to one's own research, which the 2012 RI Guidelines classify as disregard for good research practices. Also in such a case, in order to conclude that an RI violation has occurred, the activities of the respondent must show gross negligence and carelessness during various stages of the research process in addition to meeting the criteria for disregard.
In TENK's view, B and C should have negotiated on the reporting of the publications in more detail with A. However, the respondents' actions did not constitute such gross negligence, irresponsibility in the different stages of research, or intentional misleading of the scientific community that would meet the criteria for an RI violation.