Assistant Professor A of University X suspected Researcher B of an authorship violation and a malicious RI notification.
The Rector of University X decided that the allegations were unfounded, which is why the RI process was concluded. A was unhappy with the decision and asked in their request for a statement whether the process had been carried out according to the 2012 RI Guidelines.
According to A, B had committed an RI violation when they claimed to be a co-author of a joint article and when they filed a malicious RI notification regarding A. B had compiled a table for the article that A had co-authored, based on which B considered themselves to be one of the authors. When the RI process began, acknowledgements for the work done by B had been added to the digital version of the disputed article.
According to TENK, B's RI notification was not malicious and B did not intend to manipulate authorship. TENK found that B had not committed an RI violation and that University X carried out the RI process according to guidelines.