Statement 11 (TENK 2025:11): Adding the name of the researcher to the abstract of a presentation was not considered an RI violation 24.8.2026
Statement 10 (TENK 2025:10): The evidence and assessment could be disputed and no authorship violation was found 24.8.2026
Statement 7 (TENK 2025:7): Allegation concerning the organisation’s activities and guidelines in general did not require preliminary inquiry 24.8.2026
Statement 6 (TENK 2025:6): Intern’s contribution did not meet the authorship criteria, and consulting an expert from the same unit did not compromise the RI process 24.8.2026
Statement 3 (TENK 2025:3): Lack of clarity over whether the contribution warranted authorship led to the case being referred back for an investigation proper 24.8.2026
A preliminary inquiry was not necessary based on discussions held over a short period several years ago (TENK 2024:24) 16.4.2025
Changing the order of authors before sending the manuscript to a publisher did not cross the threshold of an RI violation (TENK 2024:19) 16.4.2025
Which university carries out the RI process and is responsible for the consequences of an RI violation? (TENK 2024:18) 16.4.2025
The denigration of others' contributions constituted disregard for good research practices, but not misappropriation. The investigation took unreasonably long, and the suspicions of misleading research funders must be investigate (TENK 2024:15 ja 2014:16) 16.4.2025
TENK made a statement on misappropriation and authorship manipulation, but not on communicating RI violations or terminating employment (TENK 2024:13) 16.4.2025
Intention to omit a researcher's name from the list of authors does not constitute an RI violation (TENK 2024:12) 16.4.2025
A research group was unable to fully agree on the principles of authorship. However, the criteria for an RI violation were not met (TENK 2024:10) 16.4.2025
