March 2019

Request from the Academic Senate: a formal complaint has been submitted to the Rector by a PhD holder against their supervisor. There may have been a possible violation of the Code of Ethics, in particular of article 5, paragraph 10, (Intellectual creations and copyright issues), and article 9, paragraph 2 (Autonomy and democracy in decision-making processes).

Final opinion: the Committee, having examined the original documents attached to the report and the documents provided by the supervisors, gave a first partial opinion on the issue in June 2019, inviting the Academic Senate to close the case without further investigations, actions or hearings, for the alleged violation of article°9 (Autonomy and democracy in decision-making processes). 

The Committee, however, was also invited by the Academic Senate to investigate the alleged violation of article 5, paragraph 10, Intellectual creations and copyright issues. At the end of an investigation conducted with the help of skilled professionals, in its second opinion provided to the Academic Senate in July 2019, the Committee (which, among its duties, has to offer opinions, guidelines, best practices) deemed it appropriate to give some general advice on the valorization of intellectual contributions. Based on the principles enshrined in the Code of Ethics of the University, researchers have an ethical and moral responsibility to cite the authors who have inspired or contributed in some way to the development of their work.

In conclusion (December 2019), based on the information and documents attached to the present case, the Committee confirms that there has been no violation of article 5, paragraph 10, of the Code of Ethics, concerning Intellectual creations and copyright issues, and that there has not been an insufficient recognition of the research work conducted by the PhD holder (who submitted the report) by the supervisors, in the work that they later further developed.