Not using p values provided as additional information in an article was not an RCR violation (TENK 2022:18) 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
The grounds for misappropriation identified in the RCR process were not sufficient (TENK 2021:19) 1.6.2022
A human sciences ethics committee had partly misinterpreted TENK guidelines, but acted in accordance with them when requesting additional justifications and supplementary material for the application appendices (TENK 2021:14) 1.6.2022
The error in a dissertation was larger than a single bibliographical citation, but not so serious that it would constitute a RCR violation. The corrective actions taken were sufficient. (TENK 2021:3) 1.6.2022
Preliminary inquiry of suspected plagiarism in a non-fiction book was not based on the RCR guidelines (TENK 2021:1) 1.6.2022
There was no need to investigate an allegation regarding a Master’s thesis dating back over 20 years (TENK 2020:12) 27.5.2021
Freedom of teaching is part of university autonomy, the teaching was not found irresponsible (TENK 2020:11) 27.5.2021
