Doctoral Researcher A alleged that Dean B, Professor C and Assistant Professor D were guilty of disregard for good research practices in a number of ways, particularly with regard to the planning and preparation and implementation of research, exploitation of academic status, and guidance provided during the RI process. According to A, the respondents had, among other things, delayed and hampered A’s research in various ways.
After a preliminary inquiry, the university’s Rector E concluded that RI violations had not taken place. The Rector noted that the notification of suspected misconduct had also included several issues that do not fall within the scope of the RI process.
TENK concluded that RI violations had not taken place and that an investigation proper was not necessary in this case. In TENK’s view, the actions of the respondents in the planning, preparation or implementation of the research, the RI process, or with regard to their academic status did not contain elements that could be considered indicative of disregard for good scientific practices. According to the preliminary inquiry carried out by the university, C had stepped down from the role of dissertation supervisor for a valid reason, as A’s research had moved outside of C’s area of expertise. The university was deemed to have acted appropriately by separating RI issues from allegations that are not addressed through the RI process. The respondents were found not to have deliberately hampered, delayed or obstructed Doctoral Researcher A’s research.
TENK concluded that the various issues concerning HR management, supervision, the employment relationship, the terms of employment and the arrangement of doctoral studies included in the notification of suspected misconduct and the subsequent statement request to TENK are not within the scope of the RI process, and TENK will not address them.