Professor A from University X had filed a notification of seven alleged RI violations related to authorship violations and impeding a researcher's career, all of which featured the same respondent, Professor B of a technological field from the same university. The investigation committee of the investigation proper stated in their report that B had added extra authors to a joint article's list of authors, manipulated the review process, and attempted to mislead the publication process. According to the Rector of X, two of the cases investigated involved misappropriation and two involved disregard of good research practices. In the three other cases, no RI violations were determined.
In their request for a statement from TENK, B denied having committed RI violations, but did not provide justifications on a case-by-case basis. However, B found that both the allegations of RI violations and the RI process were related to their termination, which they considered to be illegal and unprofessional. According to B, their employer at the time, University Y, was informed of the conclusion of the RI process before B was able to give their own comments on the investigation committee's report and before the Rector of X had decided on the conclusion of the RI process.
In its response to TENK, University X stated that it had consciously separated the process of B's termination and the RI process related to their actions. X emphasised that the RI process had followed the Administrative Procedure Act and the documents produced in the RI process are public.
In its statement, TENK only reviewed the cases investigated in the RI process in question where an RI violation had been determined. TENK did not take a stand on B's termination or the allegations directed at other parties involved in B's process.
It was stated in the RI process, for example, that B had added a person to the list of authors of a scientific article to boost the person's research career. In their decision, the Rector found that this was a case of misappropriation. According to TENK, the case mostly had characteristics of other irresponsible practices, i.e., manipulation of authorship by including persons who had not participated in the study in the list of authors. In terms of severity, TENK found that the events could constitute disregard for good research practices. Because misappropriation is an extremely severe form of RI violation, the grounds for it must be undisputable.
TENK does not comment on the consequences of RI processes in its statements. As such, it also does not comment on the timing of Organisation 1 providing information about the investigation committee's report to Organisation 2, if the researcher being investigated in the RI process has changed workplaces from Organisation 1 to Organisation 2.
In connection to this, TENK also refers to the Act on the Openness of Government Activities (621/1999), section 9.2 of which states that "Access to a document which is not yet in the public domain under sections 6 and 7 shall be granted at the discretion of the authority. The provisions in section 17 shall be taken into account when discretion is exercised."
TENK concluded that University X had carried out the RI process in question according to TENK guidelines. B was guilty of disregard for good research practices. The process followed the 2012 RI Guidelines.