The RI process carried out at University Y concerned an allegation, brought under investigation by decision of Rector A, that Assistant Professor B had violated research integrity by excluding Doctoral Researcher C from the list of authors of an article in which B was the lead author. In addition to B, one researcher from University Y and three researchers from a foreign university were named as co-authors.
C had worked in B’s research team at the time when B led the joint international project that produced the disputed publication. The parties agreed that C had been assigned the task of producing the first draft of the manuscript, including a literature review. However, in the preliminary inquiry no evidence was found that the published article was based on the manuscript version prepared by C, although there were similarities in terms of sources between the published version and the version prepared by C.
At the end of an investigation proper, the investigation committee concluded that C had participated both in the processing of the samples and in the drafting of the manuscript of the disputed article. With regard to the processing of the samples, the significance of C’s role could not be established with certainty. The investigation committee took the view that C’s draft and the disputed article did not directly correspond to each other, but they followed the same logic and order, and on this basis the investigation committee considered that C’s work appeared to have been used in the disputed article. The investigation committee stated that C’s resignation should not have led to their omission from the list of authors. The investigation committee found B to be guilty of disregard for good research practices in a way that meets the criteria for an RI violation because B had omitted C’s name from the authors of the article. The investigation committee recommended that C should be added as a co-author to the list of authors of the article.
The respondent, on the other hand, continued to state that C’s contribution to the article did not meet the criteria of authorship and that the overlap in the versions of the article was the expected consequence of using the same sources.
The Rector noted that the parties involved had notably contrasting views on the work involved in processing the samples and the writing process. The Rector concluded that the respondent was guilty of disregard for good research practices because they had omitted C’s name as the writer of the first draft from the list of authors of the disputed publication. According to the Rector’s decision, this disregard for good research practices met the criteria for an RI violation.
B considered that they should have been given the opportunity to comment on the material presented by C before the investigation committee’s report was drawn up, and that B should have been heard in person during the process. In TENK’s view, the university’s RI process had been carried out in accordance with the 2023 RI Guidelines with regard to hearing those involved.
In general, TENK stated that particular attention should be paid in the RI process to the assessment criteria, evidence or argumentation that can be used in an investigation to establish whether a violation of good research practices that is severe in its nature and consequences meets the criteria for an RI violation. As the consequences of an identified RI violation are serious, the evidence and the assessment must be irrefutable.
TENK found that the submitted material did not present irrefutable evidence that C had made a significant contribution to the disputed article. On the basis of the material presented, the nature, scope and significance of C’s work remained unclear and C’s contribution to the article was questionable and at most so minor as not to justify their inclusion in the list of authors. Based on the material presented, the nature, extent and significance of C’s contribution remained unclear and any contribution made by C appeared too minor to justify inclusion in the article’s list of authors.
TENK considered that it would have been polite to mention C in the acknowledgements of the article. Based on the investigation committee’s report, an attempt had been made to do so, but no response or approval had been received from C, which the publisher required in order to include C in the article’s acknowledgements.
TENK found that neither B nor the co-authors had committed an RI violation by omitting C’s name from the list of authors of the article.