Researcher A suspected researchers B, C and D of disregard for the responsible conduct of research by not including A in the list of editors in a handbook based on a pedagogical project report. A had participated in planning the handbook but had opted out before the book was published.
The university made the first decision concerning the matter in March 2017. According to the decision the matter did not fall within the scope of RCR. Therefore, the preliminary inquiry was not initiated. On A’s request, TENK gave its first statement concerning the matter, stating that the university should initiate a preliminary inquiry in accordance with the RCR process. The preliminary inquiry found that no RCR violation had occurred. A was dissatisfied with the decision. In their second request for a statement, A asked for TENK’s view on the RCR process conducted by the university which had taken a considerable amount of time.
According to TENK, A had participated in the handbook’s editorial team, but the parties shared different views on what was agreed on concerning A’s contribution. As the possibility of an RCR violation could not be ruled out, TENK found that the university must conduct an investigation proper in accordance with the RCR process to examine the matter.
TENK found reproachable that the RCR process at the university took such a long time.