Professor A suspected that Doctoral Researcher B and professors C and D had violated A's authorship in publications intended for B's dissertation. In A's view, the publications were based on their research idea that they had given to an aspiring doctoral researcher five years ago in discussions between them, which is why A should have been mentioned in the publications' list of authors.
The Rector of the university decided that a preliminary inquiry would not be launched into the case. Professor A requested a statement from TENK regarding whether an RI process should have been initiated in the case.
TENK’s view was that, considering that the dissertation research had been carried out for several years under another supervisor after the conversations between Professor A and Doctoral Researcher B had taken place, it was not believable that the conversations that had taken place during a short period in the early stages of the dissertation project constitute in their quality and scope such a substantial contribution that A should be referred to in the dissertation or that they should be included in the list of authors of the individual articles constituting it. TENK’s view was that the university acted in accordance with the 2023 RI Guidelines when deciding that no preliminary inquiry would be initiated in the case.