Researcher A from University X suspected Assistant Professor B of plagiarism. According to the preliminary inquiry, no RI violation had occurred. According to A, B had utilised interview survey material collected by A in a book chapter without acknowledging their work or crediting them appropriately. B had published the book chapter based on the interview material collected by A but had not acknowledged A.
The Rector of University X ruled that B had not committed an RI violation, and thus the RI process was concluded. A expressed dissatisfaction with the decision and asked in their request for a statement whether B had committed an RI violation.
Based on the material provided, TENK could not find any new information supporting the position that B had committed an RI violation. TENK shared the view expressed in the decision of the Rector of University X stating that no RI violation had been committed in the case.
At a general level, TENK recommended that it should be considered carefully whether the launching of multiple overlapping RI processes is necessary.