Assistant Professor A suspected that university researcher, Associate Professor B had committed an RI violation when B ended their cooperation in a research project led by B. B had unilaterally excluded A from the research project that B was leading, left A's emails unanswered and communicated with the project funder in a manner that A saw as misleading. A also suspected B of occasionally using the title 'Associate Professor' erroneously.
In the investigation proper carried out by the university, it was found that such actions had taken place, but the actions were not severe enough to meet the criteria for an RI violation. The Rector decided that B had not violated research integrity.
A was unhappy with the rector's decision.
TENK found that the university had carried out the RI process in the case carefully and according to TENK guidelines. TENK stated that the RI process should not cover any matters related to personal relations and harassment. TENK found that the carelessness and reprehensible characteristics of B's actions did not meet the criteria of an RI violation as specified in the 2012 RI Guidelines and B had not committed an RI violation in the case.