Doctoral Researcher A had interned with a research team led by Assistant Professor B. A alleged that B had violated research integrity by making use of methods and materials developed by A without A’s consent or appropriate acknowledgement and by omitting A’s name from the list of authors and contributors of the article. According to A, their work had been utilised in the disputed article to create a recipe for x. The method was already mentioned in the project’s research plan, but A claimed to be the first person to make the recipe during their internship. Based on this, A considered that their discovery should at least have been acknowledged in the acknowledgements section. A also believed that their contribution was scientifically significant enough to merit inclusion as a co-author of the article in question. A also considered that Professor C, who was heard as an expert in the preliminary inquiry, had a conflict of interest due to C working in the same unit as B.
Based on the preliminary inquiry conducted by University Y, A’s contribution was not significant enough to entitle them to the co-authorship of the disputed article or to justify the redaction of the publication, as was proposed by A. According to the preliminary inquiry, B’s research team had had established practices for agreeing on the authorship of publications in advance. With regard to the disputed article, the preliminary inquiry compared the list of authors to the criteria for the publication in question, based on which it was interpreted that A’s contribution did not entitle them to be mentioned as one of the publication’s co-authors. The conclusion of the preliminary inquiry was that it would have been polite to mention A in the acknowledgements of the article, but that the lack of acknowledgement had caused no detriment to A and the publication in question has not hindered the publishing of future studies by A. Following the preliminary inquiry, the university’s Rector D concluded that no RI violation had taken place.
TENK agreed that it would have been polite to mention A in the acknowledgements of the article. However, TENK considers that the lack of acknowledgement cannot be interpreted as a serious violation of good research practices that would meet the criteria for an RI violation.
TENK found that although A’s view of the scientific significance of their contribution differed from the conclusions of the preliminary inquiry and the experts heard during the process, it would be unlikely that an investigation proper would result in a different outcome. TENK found that the university had complied with the 2023 RI Guidelines in this respect, and it was not necessary to initiate an investigation proper.
Regarding the allegation of C having a conflict of interest in the case, TENK stated that the university had followed the 2023 RI Guidelines in the appointment of the person conducting the preliminary inquiry and in the hearings of experts.