Doctoral Researcher of humanities A from University X suspected their dissertation supervisor, Professor B of a technological field in X, of plagiarising and misappropriating A's research and publications. According to the notification, B had allegedly plagiarised the visual materials presented by A at a lecture, for example. Furthermore, it was alleged that the interview materials for the article were fabricated.
The RI process followed the 2012 RI Guidelines. The person who conducted the preliminary inquiry found that, while B had been careless in their reference practices, they had sent the article in question to A for commenting before publication. Even though the images by A and B, respectively, were similar, models for A's image were also found.
The investigation proper found that B had acted carelessly and reprehensibly both as a researcher and a supervisor. There were no records of the email and phone discussions mentioned in the disputed article. However, B had admitted to being careless and attempted to rectify the observed shortcomings. The investigation conclusions stated that B's actions had been close to negligence, but the threshold for an RI violation was not crossed. The Rector of X reached the same conclusion.
A was unhappy with both the RI process and the Rector's decision.
In its statement, TENK found that the preliminary inquiry and the investigation proper were sufficient and carried out with care. After reviewing the documents and the disputed publication, TENK agreed with the Rector's conclusion that B had not committed an RI violation as a whole.
At a general level, TENK stated that an RI violation can only be determined if the actions meet both the criteria for a specific RI violation and the general criteria for RI violations. As such, the RI process must also prove that the respondent has been guilty of intentionally misleading the scientific community, gross negligence or irresponsibility in their research.