University Lecturer A in Pharmaceuticals and Health Sciences suspected that their supervisor, Professor B had stolen research ideas of the research group the professor headed, belittled the achievements of other researchers and made their work more difficult. At the centre of the case was a diagram of the theoretical model presented in the manuscript for joint article by A's research team, which, according to A, had been created as the result of long-term development work. A was surprised when this figure was included in the slideshow presenting B's project plan in their team meeting. Member C of A's research team had, without A's knowledge, authorised B to use this manuscript in the preparation of their project. A had planned to apply for funding for a new project based on the diagram, but changed their plan to prevent a competitive situation. B received funding for their project, while A did not.
Based on the preliminary investigation, the President of the University decided that no RI violation had taken place. As the slideshow referred to the aforementioned manuscript, B did not present the controversial idea in their own name. A was dissatisfied with both the conclusion and the RI process carried out. According to A, the preliminary investigator did not have an in-depth knowledge of the research discipline in which the suspected misconduct took place.
In its statement, TENK found that in their position as supervisor, B should have taken the initiative well in advance to come to an agreement with A on the division of labour in planning projects on similar research topics. B should also have requested permission to use the contested manuscript either from all its authors or from the principal investigator of the research project in question, meaning A. However, the fact that B did not do so cannot be regarded as misappropriation or disregard for RI. As B mentioned in their presentation the source they had used, it was therefore not gross negligence. In TENK’s view, the preliminary investigation and the expertise of the preliminary investigator had been sufficient, and no actual investigation was needed in the matter.