Statistical interpretation differences were due to scientific dispute

Researcher A alleged that research managers Y and B from a certain social science research institution were guilty of disregard for RCR in writing a report. In A’s view, this took the form of distortion of concepts and carelessness in the formulation and interpretation of statistics from the field. Additionally, A alleged that the reporting of incorrect conclusions was misleading.

Having received the RCR notification, the director of the research institution considered that the researchers’ differing views concerning concept definition and related compilation of statistics were at the heart of the dispute. As this meant it was not an RCR violation case, there was no need to initiate a preliminary inquiry in accordance with the RCR process.

In its statement, TENK agreed with this diagnosis and stated that the director of the research institution had acted in accordance with RCR guidelines, because the case was one of scientific dispute rather than research integrity.