The investigation of an alleged RCR violation concerning a doctoral dissertation was not permitted on faculty level (TENK 2017:6) 23.3.2021
The need for ethical review of a project should be determined in an investigation proper (TENK 2018:9) 9.3.2021
Investigation proper should be initiated to determine the roles of authors in a publication (TENK 2018:7) 9.3.2021
Preliminary inquiry should be initiated with regard to a researcher’s right to author status (TENK 2018:3) 9.3.2021
Suspected falsification of research result turned out to be a difference of opinion (TENK 2018:2) 9.3.2021
Deficiencies in the management of research projects, but no disregard for the responsible conduct of research (TENK 2018:1) 9.3.2021
University had to initiate an investigation proper to review the contribution of an editor. University reprimanded for the prolonged RCR process (TENK 2019:19) 11.1.2021
Exaggerating a CV was not a gross violation, but allegations about manipulating the list of authors, plagiarism, and self-plagiarism should be investigated in an investigation proper (TENK 2019:18) 11.1.2021
Using a plagiarism checker was not necessary for verifying the extent of plagiarism in a thesis (TENK 2019:11) 11.1.2021
Allegation concerning an expert opinion in legal proceedings required an RCR process (TENK 2019:10) 11.1.2021
