A joint article cited the author’s previous joint publications in a deficient and inappropriate manner. Nevertheless, the criteria for plagiarism were not met. (TENK 2021:22) 1.6.2022
The grounds for misappropriation identified in the RCR process were not sufficient (TENK 2021:19) 1.6.2022
An article’s use of sources was irresponsible, but it did not constitute a RCR violation. TENK did not comment in advance on the content of the dissertation. (TENK 2021:18) 1.6.2022
Commissioned research report found to contain plagiarism – company urged to name the guilty parties (TENK 2021:16) 1.6.2022
Misconduct found in the use of a non-peer-reviewed article for marketing a health test. The RCR process used to investigate the matter followed the RCR guidelines. (TENK 2021:15) 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 teachers’ activities on a course did not require an ethical review. The rector was allowed to transfer assessment of the case to the University Examination Board. (TENK 2021:13) 1.6.2022
Leaving out expressions of gratitude from a foreword to a doctoral thesis was not a RCR violation (TENK 2021:11) 1.6.2022
