Doctors A and B from University X presented suspicions of Professor C and Assistant Professor D engaging in plagiarism, misappropriation and insufficient references to previous research results. According to A and B, a key idea of their project was misappropriated to a larger project that was launched later. Assistant Professor D had been involved in both projects.
The Rector of University X ruled that the allegations were unfounded and, thus, decided not to launch the RI process. The request for a statement questioned whether the process had been carried out according to the 2023 RI Guidelines.
TENK found that the similar elements between the projects were common in the research projects of University X and an individual project could not be identified from the elements in question. It was found that there were shortcomings in the projects' management, but these were not considered to be severe enough to constitute an RI violation.
TENK found that the RI process had been carried out by University X according to the TENK guidelines. However, TENK prompted University X to aim for better compliance with the recommended time limits.