Postgraduate Student A from University X was suspected of self-plagiarism. The complainants were Dean B, University Lecturer C and Education Specialist D. The dissertation by A in the preliminary examination stage had included material from A's previous publications unmarked as citations, according to the preliminary examiners.
Based on the preliminary inquiry, the Rector of University X decided that this was not an RI violation. A requested a statement about the initiation of the process and questioned whether the RI process had been carried out according to the 2023 RI Guidelines.
TENK found that it an undisputed fact that A had not committed an RI violation. However, the statement from the person conducting the preliminary inquiry was seen as sufficient grounds for launching an RI process. The severity of the actions was deemed to be so low that they did not constitute an RI violation.
TENK found that the RI process had been carried out according to the TENK guidelines by University X, except for the mistake of not sending the RI notification to the respondent without delay once the process was launched. After allegations are overturned, the conclusion of the RI process should be published in an appropriate channel.