Physician A from wellbeing services county X alleged that Physician B from University Y had committed an authorship violation. According to A, they had not been mentioned in a publication despite having contributed to the publication in the form of database work. A asserted that Physician B should have mentioned that A had worked in a local subcohort of the international project.
At the end of the preliminary inquiry, Subdirector C of wellbeing services county X concluded that no RI violation had taken place. In their request for a statement, A questioned whether the preliminary inquiry had been carried out in accordance with the RI Guidelines (2023).
On the basis of the material submitted to it, TENK concluded that the database work drawing from multiple sources which was carried out by A as part of and after their dissertation had played a noteworthy role in the background material used by the disputed article.
TENK concluded that wellbeing services county X should carry out an investigation proper in the case. As the process was not decided by the highest leadership, TENK also instructed the wellbeing services county to justify the delegation of decision-making on the RI process in the future, if the process is organised in a manner that deviates from the RI Guidelines (2023).