Postgraduate student A in the field of medical science considered that their doctoral supervisor B and head of department C had used their scientific authority to prevent A’s doctoral dissertation from proceeding to preliminary examination by invoking false requirements and promises. As the doctoral programme of the university had also acted the same way, A considered this to be persecution directed at A.
A was dissatisfied with the university’s decision according to which an RCR violation had not taken place.
TENK examined A’s allegation in terms of finding out whether other irresponsible practices, such as delaying or hampering the work of another researcher, could be applicable in the case. According to TENK, for example a difference of views on the scientific nature or evaluation of a study does not violate the responsible conduct of research.
However, TENK was not informed of any such irresponsible conduct against A’s doctoral dissertation process which could have been considered serious enough to initiate an investigation process to find out whether the conditions for an RCR violation were met. In its statement, TENK concluded that the university had investigated the alleged RCR violation presented by A in accordance with TENK’s guidelines.