The complainant, A, filed a notification of a suspected RI violation with University X regarding Student B who had worked there as a research assistant and then moved to University Y. The suspicions concerned two publications by B and involved manipulation of authorship and exaggerating the bibliography of a study. According to A, it was unclear how B had contributed to the study and in which role they participated in it. Furthermore, one of the manuscripts published in scientific journals was allegedly purchased from a ‘paper mill.’
In the preliminary inquiry carried out by University X, B admitted to the alleged RI violations and also said they had paid their co-author to have their name in the list of authors for the articles. However, the Rector of X stated in their decision that because B was not employed by University X at the time of the alleged violations, the case should be resolved by University Y.
A had also filed an RI notification with University Y. However, according to Y, it did not have authority in processing the case because B had not been an employee or a student there at the time of the alleged violations. Similarly, the publications under suspicion were not recorded in Y's research data system.
In their request for a statement from TENK, A asked what the course of action should have been. As a general rule, TENK states that the RI process should primarily be carried out by the research community in which the respondent operated at the time of the suspected violation. In this case, one of B's disputed articles was found in the research data system of University X, and X was marked as B's affiliation there. As such, University X was the right party to carry out the RI process. As a sanction based on the RI Guidelines, the university had to request the journal to withdraw the article in question.