Doctor A made the allegation that the application documents of doctor B, who had been elected as professor in the field of arts, included exaggeration of artistic and scientific merits. According to the RCR preliminary inquiry conducted by the university, this was a case of carelessness, not an RCR violation. A was dissatisfied with both the result of the preliminary inquiry and its impartiality. The preliminary inquiry had been conducted by dean C who had made the appointment decision for the position in dispute.
In its statement, TENK concluded that C had been disqualified in their duty as the party conducting the preliminary inquiry, thereby invalidating the RCR process conducted. The university should therefore initiate a new inquiry in accordance with the RCR process in the matter. (TENK 2017:7)
Also on the basis of the new RCR process, the university concluded that B had not been guilty of an RCR violation in the presentation of their merits; instead, it was a matter of inaccuracy. A was dissatisfied with both the ruling and the limitations of the RCR process and requested TENK’s statement in the matter.
In its statement, TENK stated that applicants are free to accentuate their merits in their application documents, but they may not provide false information. In this case, the university should conduct the investigation proper in accordance with the RCR process, because a violation of the RCR could not be excluded completely based on the preliminary inquiry. The investigation should, however, not focus on the process of filling in the position or the artistic merits of B. It should focus on whether B gave misleading information of their academic work experience or publications in their application documents.