Researcher A had made an RCR notification to the rector of university of applied sciences X. A alleged that B, a lecturer in technology at university of applied sciences X, had inappropriately hindered A’s work by publishing disparaging and derogatory writings about A. The rector of X did not make an RCR decision on the matter, since B did not participate in scientific research at the university of applied sciences.
In its first statement, TENK returned the matter to X for the RCR process (see summary TENK 2016:4). According to the RCR decision made because of the statement, an RCR process was not initiated, because the matter did not fall within the scope of research integrity, and the RCR guidelines do not cover writing on the Internet that an employee does during free time. In addition, the rector of X concluded in his decision that the writing of B did not represent the official standing of X on the matter.
In its second statement TENK concluded that the matter fell within the scope of the RCR process. The disputed writing put the limits of responsible conduct of research to the test. Through writing in the public, B showed irresponsible behaviour by inappropriately hampering the work of another researcher. As a whole, however, the act was not that serious that it would necessarily have to be deemed an RCR violation. Therefore, X was allowed to drop the preliminary RCR inquiry on the matter. In addition, returning the matter to preliminary inquiry would have further prolonged the handling of the matter.
Generally, however, TENK believes it important to keep the threshold for initiating a preliminary inquiry low.