In their request for a statement, humanities docent A expressed their dissatisfaction with the RCR process carried out at the university, where an RCR violation had been found concerning a book written by A. Docent A asked for TENK’s statement on whether A’s field of research differs from other scientific research with regard to diligence requirements and whether the investigation committee that investigated A’s case had prepared their final report in accordance with the RCR guidelines.
It was TENK’s interpretation that the question about the field of research concerned scientific policy, which is why TENK did not comment on it. In addition, TENK found that the RCR process had been carried out in accordance with TENK guidelines at the university.