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 8 (TENK 2025:8): A series of publications violated good research practices in a broad sense, but deficiencies in the investigation committee’s report and the Rector’s decision led TENK to refer the case back to the university for reconsideration 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 5 (TENK 2025:5): Notification of an alleged RI violation was not malicious. Ongoing RI processes must not be commented on in the media 24.8.2026
Statement 4 (TENK 2025:4): No conflict of interest was found in the doctoral dissertation’s supervision or review 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
Statement 1 (TENK 2025:1): Not a case of deliberate delaying or hampering of doctoral research – the university acted appropriately by separating RI issues from other allegations 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
