University Lecturers A and B from University X alleged that the preliminary examiners of an art dissertation written at University Y, Professor C and Docent D from University Z, were subject to a conflict of interest as preliminary examiners because they had collaborated with the doctoral candidate in the early stages of the dissertation project. However, the RI process conducted by University Y identified no conflict of interest for the respondents, and they were found to have committed no RI violations.
In their request for a statement, C expressed their dissatisfaction with the decision, as they considered the notification of alleged misconduct submitted about them to have been unfounded and malicious. According to C, the unreasonably long RI process should never have been initiated. C also felt that they had been subjected to “hounding by the media” because the complainants and representatives of University Y had made comments about the RI process in public, against TENK guidelines. According to C, the RI process in question had caused significant damage to their reputation and research career.
Because the allegation of a conflict of interest was based on information derived from what was intended to become a doctoral dissertation, TENK concluded that the allegation was not unfounded and therefore also not malicious. As the possibility of an RI violation could not be ruled out after the preliminary inquiry conducted by Y, the initiation of an investigation proper into the matter as a whole was in accordance with TENK’s guidelines and made it possible to also establish the views of experts outside University Y. TENK noted that the fact that the case attracted public interest was not a reason to speed up the RI process.
TENK agreed with C in that, in order to protect confidentiality, the concerned parties should not comment on an ongoing RI process. In this case, however, A had already made comments on the doctoral dissertation to the media before submitting a notification of alleged misconduct. In its statement, TENK stated that it does not comment on public appearances related to RI processes by members of the research community who are not involved in the process. In the same context, however, TENK pointed out that researchers are bound by the RI Guidelines also when they comment on science or research in their capacity as researchers in public or on social media.
The same RI process is also discussed in the statement (TENK 2025:4).