The grounds for the President's decision were not sufficient to establish research misconduct. The transitional provisions between the RI Guidelines had been interpreted incorrectly (TENK 2023:5) 6.6.2024
The use of test materials was part of the research group's activities and there was no RI violation related to its use. (TENK 2023:3) 6.6.2024
Professor did not steal his subordinates' research idea, but he should have informed them about his own project plan (TENK 2023:2) 6.6.2024
TENK could not rule out an RCR violation concerning materials used in a conference presentation (TENK 2022:21) 4.4.2023
Disregard in the reference practices of a method section did not meet the criteria of research misconduct (TENK 2022:19) 4.4.2023
Finnish researcher was not responsible for RCR violations suspected by a foreign professor (TENK 2022:14) 4.4.2023
Omission from the list of authors or not being named in an introduction did not prove to be RCR violations (TENK 2022:5) 4.4.2023
Leaving out expressions of gratitude from a foreword to a doctoral thesis was not a RCR violation (TENK 2021:11) 1.6.2022
A co-author could not retrospectively question the authorship order of a joint article (TENK 2021:9) 1.6.2022
The list of authors for the translated versions had to also be corrected. The rector’s decision should have named those responsible for the RCR violation. (TENK 2021:6) 1.6.2022
The supervisors of a dissertation were not found guilty of a RCR violation in an authorship dispute (TENK 2021:2) 1.6.2022
