Three professors and researchers from different universities suspected that a humanities dissertation involved fabrication and falsification because a term had been misused in it. In addition to this, it was claimed that the dissertation included falsified information about the complainants' background. According to the complainants, the actors involved in the dissertation process and the project behind it were close relatives of each other. The respondents were both the doctoral candidate and the researchers who participated in the supervising and review process of the dissertation. Based on the preliminary inquiry, the Rector of the university decided that the respondents had not committed RI violations and they had not had a conflict of interest. The differences in opinion related to the interpretation of the term were not investigated in the RI process.
In their request for a statement from TENK, the complainants claimed that this was a case of research ethics, on which a proper RI investigation should be launched. However, TENK stated that scientific differences of opinion are not within the scope of application of the RI process, as specified in the 2023 RI Guidelines. Scientific disputes should be processed in scientific forums. Any factual errors in the disputed dissertation should have been corrected in the dissertation review process. The RI process must follow the principles of good governance and regulations on disqualification in the Administrative Procedure Act. TENK does not take a stand on legal matters in its statements.