Professors A and B alleged that Researcher C and Docent D had violated good research practices together with several unnamed co-authors in a number of publications by fabricating research, plagiarising applications, presentations and publications by A’s research team and using materials without permission, among other things. The allegations concerned 19 publications authored by a total of 30 different researchers from different research organisations. According to A, C had gained access to the materials while working as a doctoral researcher under A’s supervision, and C had then used the materials without permission in the disputed publications by fabricating research and mass-producing publications by plagiarising (through modification and paraphrasing) and self-plagiarising.
University Y conducted a preliminary inquiry and later an investigation proper into the matter, with Visiting Researcher E, Postgraduate Student F and Professor G from the university also named as respondents. According to the investigation committee’s report, the respondents were found to have violated good research practices by mass-producing publications, self-plagiarising, plagiarising (modification and paraphrasing) and failing to follow proper citation practices. In the case of self-plagiarism, the behaviour was considered to be widespread. The investigation committee found that the respondents’ behaviour showed a clear disregard for good research practices, or at least a lack of knowledge of research integrity to the point that the respondents were found to be guilty of disregard for good research practices. However, the investigation committee concluded that, overall, the acts were minor.
During the process, one of the concerned parties alleged that one of the complainants, Professor B, who had been heard as an expert in the investigation, had a conflict of interest in the case.
After the investigation proper, Rector H decided, contrary to the report by the investigation committee, that the respondents had not committed an RI violation. The Rector was of the view that because the violations of good research practices identified by the investigation committee in their report were not severe, they, by definition, did not meet the criteria for an RI violation. The Rector considered the expert statement by Professor B to be equivalent to a hearing of a concerned party.
TENK concluded that it was evident from the RI process that the disputed publications had been found to be in violation of good research practices. However, on the basis of the material submitted to TENK, it was not possible to establish separately for each publication the role of the authors in the violations of good research practices, and thus it was not possible to issue a statement on which specific category of RI violation each of the authors was or was not guilty of for each publication.
Regarding the allegation that Professor B had a conflict of interest, TENK stated that Professor B had the right to be heard in the RI process only as a complainant. TENK considered that the investigation committee had violated the 2023 RI Guidelines by hearing Professor B as an expert during the investigation, which therefore constituted an error in the process.
TENK found that the RI process had otherwise been largely carried out in accordance with the 2023 RI Guidelines. However, the final report by the investigation committee did not fully comply with the 2023 RI Guidelines. The report was imprecise in terms of how the severity of an identified violation of good research practices should be assessed and how an RI violation is defined in the 2023 RI Guidelines. The report also included internal contradictions between the discussion section and the conclusions, and it lacked a decision of the form and severity of the alleged RI violations in line with the RI Guidelines, broken down by publication and author, and on who was or was not found guilty of RI violations in each publication. For these reasons, TENK referred the case back to the university for reconsideration.