TENK received a request for a statement from a specialist researcher Y in relation to the RCR investigation mentioned in another statement. Y was the manager in charge of the project, and the lead author of the article. Y requested a statement from TENK concerning the handling of the case at the research institution.
According to the request for a statement, two of the members of the investigation team had been biased, and the team did not include any genuinely external members. Based on the materials submitted to TENK, it was not possible to conclude that any of the members of the investigation team were biased. The requirement of an external member was also fulfilled, which meant that TENK found no faults with the composition of the investigation team or with the process in itself.
TENK concluded that Y had striven to act in a very difficult situation in such a way that the research results could get published. TENK finds it credible that Y’s motivation in doing so was correct and that his/her primary objective was not to steal B’s research results.
Regardless of this, TENK concluded that Y acted incorrectly in sending the article to a publisher without consent from B. Therefore TENK agreed with the decision of the research institution with regard to Y.