A, who had been working as a research assistant in a project in the field of engineering, noticed after the end of their employment that the leader of the project and B, who had been working as a doctoral student in the project, had published an article which, according to A, was based on the measurements and analysis that they had carried out during their employment relationship. A had not been identified as an author in the list of authors of the article.
According to the preliminary inquiry conducted in the university, the responsible conduct of research had not been violated, because in accordance with the practices applicable to projects based on external funding, the rights to all research materials and results are transferred to the university. Furthermore, the university stated that A’s contribution the planning of research, the creation of ideas, the practical conduct of research, the analysis of research materials or the publication of research results had not been substantial enough for A to be identified as an author.
In the university’s ruling, copyright and the right to be specified as an author of a scientific publication were considered comparable. In its statement, however, TENK declared that the authorship of a scientific publication reaches to every stage of research and is more extensive than copyright. The authors named in the publication agree to take responsibility for the contents and results of the research published. Due to research ethics responsibility, it is therefore not possible to restrict the right to be identified as an author on the basis of an employment relationship, even though the ownership to and the right of use of the materials produced during the employment are transferred to the university.
In this case, being mentioned in the list of authors could also not be denied on the basis of A not participating in the processing of the article in question, as it seemed based on the materials submitted to TENK that they were never given the opportunity to participate. It was TENK’s opinion that the university should conduct an investigation proper to determine whether A’s contribution in the research in question was substantial enough that they should have been offered the opportunity to participate in the design, writing, evaluation and final approval of the manuscript as one of the authors of the article.