According to University Lecturers A and B from University X, the preliminary examiners of an art dissertation written at University Y, Professor C and Docent D from University Z, had a conflict of interest as preliminary examiners because they had collaborated with the doctoral candidate in the early stages of the dissertation project. A and B also claimed that the dissertation supervisor, Professor E from University Y, must have been aware of this connection after reading the dissertation manuscript, yet E still proposed that C and D act as preliminary examiners of the dissertation. For these reasons, A and B considered that C, D and E were guilty of disregard for good research practices.
According to University Y, the doctoral dissertation process had been conducted in compliance with the regulation on disqualification under the Administrative Procedure Act. Likewise, no conflict of interest was identified for the respondents in the RI process that was carried out. A and B were dissatisfied with this decision.
In its statement, TENK saw no reason to reach a different conclusion on the issue of conflict of interest. According to TENK, the 2012 RCR Guidelines do not define conflict of interest as a category of disregard for good research practices that meets the criteria for an RI violation.
According to the “Supervision of Doctoral Dissertations and Their Review Process in Finland with a Special Emphasis on Research Integrity” guidelines by TENK and UNIFI, universities must ensure that no one involved in the dissertation process is subject to a conflict of interest. According to TENK’s guidelines, researchers must disclose their possible commitments and conflicts of interest in assessment and decision-making situations.
Because the allegation of a conflict of interest was based on information in a publication intended to become a doctoral dissertation, TENK found that the allegation was not unfounded. TENK concluded that although from an external academic point of view E appears to have acted somewhat carelessly as a supervisor of the doctoral dissertation by nominating persons whose links to the doctoral candidate had not been checked, this was not a case of serious negligence and therefore did not meet the criteria for the type of disregard for good research practices that counts as an RI violation.
The same RI process is also discussed in the statement (TENK 2025:5).