TENK's statement summaries

Last updated 20.3.2023

On this page you can search summaries of statements issued by the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK concerning allegations of violations of responsible conduct of research (RCR).

Allegations of RCR violations are always investigated within the organisation in which the suspected violation occurred or where the person against whom the allegation is made was working when it occurred. Once the allegation has first been addressed under the organisation’s RCR process, the party dissatisfied with the ruling may request a statement from TENK. TENK restricts its statement to questions of research integrity. Therefore its statements only state whether an RCR investigation has been performed in accordance with the RCR guidelines and whether there has been a violation of responsible conduct of research.

Direct references to involved parties and the organisations where the allegation in question was handled have been removed from the summaries. Summaries can be used for educational purposes under a CC BY license.

You can search the statement summaries by using the following filters. Links open in a new tab.

2021

Professor A had acted as the Phd supervisor of natural sciences doctoral researcher B and co-author in all of the separate…

2021

Technical professor A suspected that university X’s management was guilty of stealing their research ideas and plans. According…

2021

According to a RCR notification made by Professor A, grant-funded…

2021

Researcher A suspected that researchers B, C and D were guilty of disregard for responsible conduct of research when…

2021

Professor A suspected that technical researcher B had plagiarised a chapter of a book in a joint article and marked X as the…

2021

A suspected that B’s technical master’s thesis included plagiarism of A’s master’s thesis, which was published in 2007.…

2021

A suspected that B’s doctoral dissertation in the field of human sciences contained incorrect information and an incorrectly…

2021

A university’s natural sciences (biomedicine) doctoral candidate X suspected that professor A, who had supervised the…

2021

A group of researchers suspected that the human sciences non-fiction book published by professor A and docent B contained…

2020

Research institution X published an annual report in the field of social sciences, and included the names of researchers A…

2020

A suspected that B’s Master’s thesis in the field of humanities, approved in 1997, included falsification, fabrication and…

2020

Student A suspected that doctoral candidates B and C in the field of humanities had presented inappropriate learning…

2020

Docent A in the field of humanities had been suspected of an RCR violation. Persons who submitted the notification of the…

2020

Professor A of university X suspected that professor B and researcher C of university Y were guilty of inadequate…

2020

Professor A’s research group in the field of social sciences included a foreign researcher B, who worked as a visiting…

2020

Docent A considered that interviews implemented in a project in the field of humanities had been partly carried out in a…

2020

Postgraduate student A in the field of medical science considered that their doctoral supervisor B and head of department…

2020

Researcher A welcomed the outcome of an RCR process carried out by a university, in which researcher B was found guilty of…

2020

Company X suspected that a report written by technology researchers was not impartial. The report had been used as an…

2020

Doctor of Natural Sciences A alleged that researchers and directors of a university had been guilty of falsification or…