Doctoral Researcher A suspected that Research Project Manager B had added themselves to a list of authors of joint articles under wrong contributions. A did not deny B's authorship, apart from stating that B had not contributed in the way they claimed. Furthermore, according to the complainant, B had manipulated the articles' list of authors by including authors whose contributions were not sufficient for authorship to the extent that B claimed. According to A, B's behaviour was repetitive.
In TENK's view, including persons who had not participated in the study in the list of authors constituted manipulation of authorship, which the 2012 RI Guidelines define as one of the 'other irresponsible practices'. At their worst, other irresponsible practices can be RI violations. In a case like this, the activities of the respondent must also constitute gross disregard and irresponsibility during various stages of the activities.
According to the preliminary inquiry, the respondent had "a very flexible view of defining authorship that pushes the limits of authorship. The flexibility is based on the aim to support co-authorship between the research group members and the success of the group." There had been attempts to settle the case, but A had refused the discussions proposed. After the preliminary inquiry, the Rector ruled that B had not committed an RI violation.
According to TENK, the parties in B's research group had widely different views of the grounds for authorship, and it had not been possible to fully agree on the principles of authorship. The position of power between B and A also required attention. Even though the parties' views of B's contributions differ, it was undisputed that B and the other members of the working group participated in working on the articles, and no persons who had no role in preparing the publications were included in the articles as authors.
In TENK's view, B's actions did not constitute such gross negligence, irresponsibility in various stages of research, or intentional misleading of the scientific community that would meet the criteria for an RI violation.