Opposing RCR allegations cannot be consolidated into one RCR process. An employer’s attempt at conciliation was not a form of pressuring

Project researcher Y of research institute A was dissatisfied with two RCR investigations conducted at the institute. In one of them, project researcher Y him/herself was the alleged and in the other he/she was the one who put forth the allegation. Project researcher Y had submitted a report on RCR violation allegations with professor W. According to the report, special researcher X and senior researcher Z of research institute A were guilty of multiple RCR violations concerning the publication of a joint article. It was a question of an article manuscript written by project researcher Y with special researcher X and senior researcher Z that was then under peer review again in the same international science magazine, but this time only in special researcher X and senior researcher Z’s names.

On the RCR report by project researcher Y and professor W, research institute A’s director general decided that no preliminary investigation under the RCR process would be started because an investigation had already been conducted at research institute A on the issue at the hand of special researcher X’s report. According to TENK’s point of view, project researcher Y and professor W’s report, however, included claims which were not clarified at all under the previous report made out by special researcher X. According to TENK, a preliminary investigation had to be started at research institute A to particularly clarify whether the course of events, whose consequence was that the joint article ended up being evaluated by the publisher without project researcher Y’s consent and without project researcher Y being noted as an author, included a violation of responsible conduct of research.

Project researcher Y saw that he/she was under pressure in the hearing organised at research institute A in connection with the RCR process. In the hearing, the publication of the contested joint article was also discussed. TENK, however, considers it natural that the research institute strives to find solutions which make it possible for research work, for which working hours and institutional funds were sacrificed, to be published. The search for such solutions is not a form of pressuring, even though this is what project researcher Y may have felt. Furthermore, research institute A’s decision on the allegation concerning the violation of responsible conduct of research that concerned project researcher Y was cleared, which additionally made it less evident that project researcher Y would have somehow been inappropriately put under pressure.