Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK – Annual Report 2017

As a continuation of the previous posts (post 1, post 2) this post overviews the Annual Report of the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK, year 2017, related to misconducts in responsible conduct of research (RCR). The titles of the report’s Section 3, Handling of allegations of RCR misconduct, are repeated here. More detailed information on the anonymised case and statement descriptions can be found in the original report: Non-anonymized information can be further requested from TENK.

3.2. Verified RCR Violations at Research Organisations

  • Case 1: Information security leak suspected by the media turned out to be plagiarism
  • Case 2: Unauthorised borrowing over many years by a teacher of a university of applied sciences lead to a serious warning
  • Case 3: RCR violation in the grant application of a postgraduate university student
  • Case 4: Self-plagiarism identified in an articlebased doctoral dissertation shortly before the public examination
  • Case 5: Plagiarism and self-plagiarism suspected in a doctoral dissertation suspended the doctoral examination process

3.3. RCR Statements Requested from and Issued by TENK

  • Statement 1: Pointed online postings damaged the reputation of another researcher (TENK 2017:1)
  • Statement 2: The alleged disqualification related to an appointments procedure was not adequately investigated (TENK 2017:2)
  • Statements 3 and 4: Serious accusation of negligence of ethical principles in human sciences was to be investigated in the RCR process (TENK 2017:3 and TENK 2017:4)
  • Statement 5: The threshold of disregard was not exceeded in an authorship dispute (TENK 2017:5)
  • Statement 6: The investigation of an alleged RCR violation concerning a doctoral dissertation was not permitted on faculty level (TENK 2017:6)
  • Statement 7: The RCR process was invalidated, since the person conducting the preliminary inquiry was disqualified (TENK 2017:7)
  • Statement 8: Negligent reporting and storage of interview material was considered to be disregard of responsible conduct of research (TENK 2017:8)
  • Statements 9 and 10: No falsification but rather a difference in scientific views (TENK 2017:9 and TENK 2017:10)




Posted by Riikka Puurunen

About Riikka Puurunen

Associate professor, Catalysis Science and Technology, at Aalto since February 2017
This entry was posted in ethics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.