Approved by the Academic Affairs Committee of Aalto University on 10 May 2011. Amended 10 September 2013.
Aalto University Code of Academic Integrity and Handling Violations Thereof (pdf)
1.1 Integrity as a value
In accordance with the Aalto University values, its operations are founded on integrity, openness, and equality. In the Aalto University strategy, this means for instance that 1) Aalto University activities are based on honesty, fairness and objectivity and that 2) Aalto University measures individual success with clearly defined criteria in order to recognise good performance without bias. The goal is that Aalto University students succeed in their studies and in the world of work while acting in compliance with the responsible conduct of research and good artistic practices and the professional practices of their field.
This Code of Academic Integrity applies to all stages of university studies and all fields of Aalto University. The goal of the Code of Academic Integrity is to safeguard the learning of the student in a manner that respects the accomplishments of both the student and others. Learning requires independent intellectual effort by the student. A study attainment earned through misconduct does not serve as proof of the true skill level of the student. Misconduct is disrespectful of both the teacher and the university community.
1.2 Provisions on academic integrity in university regulations
The Aalto University General Regulations on Teaching and Studying (OOS) sections 39--40 provide as follows:
Section 39 Code of academic integrity
All teaching and studying shall take into consideration good scientific practice. Teaching and studying related to artistic activities shall also observe good artistic practices.
Students shall comply with the guidelines given on examinations or on the completion of other study attainments. Students shall familiarise themselves with the available instructions and ask for guidance if instructions are unclear.
Teachers shall develop their teaching and guidance of students in a manner that allows students to receive guidance on the permissible academic practices and prevents the use of unfair means.
Section 40 Academic consequences for violation against Code of Academic Integrity
A study attainment may be left ungraded, if the student is deemed to have violated the Code of Academic Integrity while completing it. Students violating the Code of Academic Integrity may be subject to disciplinary action on the grounds set forth in the Universities Act.
The Aalto University Academic Affairs Committee issues more detailed guidelines on the Code of Academic Integrity and on the handling of violations thereof mentioned in Sections 39 and 40.
In accordance with Section 25 of the Aalto University General Regulations on Teaching and Studying, details on the organisation of examinations are issued at the level of the schools. Schools have also issued guidelines on the handling of violations against examination rules.
In accordance with Section 2 of the Aalto University General Regulations on Teaching and Studying, a study attainment is a thesis, course or part of a course evaluated separately.
2 Academic integrity in studies
2.1 Responsible conduct of research and good artistic practices
Aalto University is committed to acting in compliance with the guideline ‘Responsible conduct of research and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland’ by the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity. According to the guideline, for scientific research to be ethically acceptable and reliable and its findings credible, the conduct of research must conform to good scientific practice. (The National Advisory Board on Research Ethics 2002, p. 19 replaced on 1 March 2013 with Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity 2012: Responsible conduct of research and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland (RCR 2012)) The Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity has defined some characteristics of responsible conduct of research. These include 1.following modes of action endorsed by the research community 2. applying ethically sustainable methods conforming to scientific criteria, and practise openness intrinsic to scientific knowledge in publishing findings; 3.taking due account of other researchers’ work and achievements 4. giving due attention to detail in research documentation 5. recording the rights and responsibilities of the members of the research group 6. disclosure of sources of funding and commitments 7. good administrative practice. 8. giving due attention to conflicts of interests 9. obtaining the necessary research permits and conducting the preliminary ethical review required in certain fields. For details on the characteristics, please see the guide of the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity. (The National Advisory Board on Research Ethics 2002, p. 19 and Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity 2012, p. 31, see previous comment. Items 8 and 9 added in accordance with the RCR guideline of 2012).
Responsible artistic practice involves much of the same elements as responsible conduct of research. Both researchers and artists are morally responsible for their actions as members of society. The actions of a researcher or artist are not evaluated solely on scientific or artistic grounds. (Laiho 2009)
2.2 Responsible conduct in studying
The guideline of the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity applies not only to research but also to teaching and studying, as appropriate. Although the guidelines are particularly relevant for licentiate or doctoral students, the principles of academic integrity apply to the whole university community, including all of its degree and other students.
In accordance with the Government Decree on University Degrees (794/2004), a postgraduate student gains, among other things, knowledge and skills needed to apply scientific research methods independently and critically and to produce new scientific knowledge within his/her field of research. In the field of art and design, an additional aim of postgraduate education may be that the student gains knowledge and skills for independently conceiving methods of artistic creation or creating products, objects or works which fulfil high artistic demands. In accordance with the Government Decree on University Degrees, the goals of the master’s degree include gaining knowledge and skills needed to apply scientific knowledge and scientific methods or gaining knowledge and skills needed for independent and demanding artistic work as well for scientific or artistic postgraduate education. Pursuant to the Government Decree on University Degrees (794/2004), one of the aims of a bachelor’s degree is to provide the student with knowledge and skills needed for scientific thinking and the use of scientific methods, or with knowledge and skills needed for artistic work. The education leading to bachelor's and master's degrees is based on research or artistic activity and on the professional practices of the field in question. In addition to doctoral students, also bachelor’s and master’s students must familiarise themselves with the principles of good scientific practice/or good artistic practice and consider them in their studies.
2.3 Furthering responsible conduct in studying
The responsible conduct of research should be taken into consideration in curricula, by including in each degree at least an orientation period that introduces students to the good practices of the field and the university Code of Academic Integrity, or at minimum, informs students clearly where they can find this information. Aalto University shall ensure that key information is available to students and teachers also outside the courses dealing with this topic.
In accordance with the Aalto University General Regulations on Teaching and Studying, teachers must develop their teaching and guidance of students in a manner that allows students to receive guidance on the permissible academic practices and prevent the use of unfair means. The goal is to teach students responsible conduct and prevent violation against rules. Teachers plan their teaching and assignments from the viewpoint of learning. To further learning, teachers should for instance, plan their assignments so that it is difficult for students to complete them by resorting to plagiarism. (See Carroll 2007 pp. 33-40 ‘Designing courses for deterring plagiarism’ and pp. 41-48 ‘Using assessment to deter plagiarism) In particular, teachers should pay attention to the guidance of group work to ensure that students are aware of the extent of allowed collaboration within the group. Teachers shall intervene with any observed unfair practices immediately, and instruct students who ask for further information on correct practices.
The students of Aalto University shall commit to studying in compliance with the Code of Academic Integrity. Students are expected to abide by the law and to have, upon their entry to the university, a basic understanding of the means prohibited at a university (e.g. cheating on an exam, plagiarism, completing a study attainment on behalf of another person). In accordance with the Aalto University General Regulations on Teaching and Studying, students must comply with the guidelines given on examinations or on the completion of other study attainments. Students shall familiarise themselves with the available instructions and ask for guidance if instructions are unclear. Each student has the final responsibility for his/her learning and for finding out the permissible practices. Ignorance is not an excuse when information is available.
3 Violations against Code of Academic Integrity
3.1 Types of violation
Violations against the Code of Academic Integrity or violations of the responsible conduct of research are divided into disregard for responsible conduct of research or good artistic practices, and in the most serious cases, misconduct (‘acts under false pretences’ in the Universities Act 558/2009).
3.2 Disregard for the responsible conduct of research and good artistic practices
Disregard for the responsible conduct of research and the various forms of research misconduct are discussed in the related guideline by the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity. It does not discuss good artistic practices in particular. The following illustrates disregard for responsible conduct of research and good artistic practices in the light of responsible conduct in research.
Disregard refers to negligence and irresponsibility in the conduct of scientific or artistic research or in producing a scientific or artistic work. For instance, understatement of other researchers’ contribution to a publication and negligence in referring to earlier findings as well as careless, and hence misleading, reporting of research findings and methods may constitute disregard for the responsible conduct of research. Also publishing the same research results multiple times ostensibly as new and novel results (redundant publication, also referred to as self-plagiarism) constitutes disregard for the responsible conduct of research. (Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity 2012, p. 33) In addition, acting against generally accepted principles by, for instance, bullying or discriminating against others may also be considered disregard. Also disregarding the possible consequences of one's work may constitute disregard for responsible conduct.
Autoplagiarism in studies refers to reusing one’s own earlier work in new study attainments. In such cases, the author is not presenting the work of someone else as his/her own, but reuses his/her own earlier study attainments without explicating it. Reusing one’s work (text, pictures, charts, etc.), requires references to one’s own earlier work in addition to the original sources used. Wilful and extensive autoplagiarism may also be considered misconduct. A student who writes a thesis on a topic s/he has studied in an earlier thesis is to refer to his/her own earlier thesis in accordance with responsible conduct and the instructions issued by the teacher.
3.3 Misconduct in studying
In a studying context, misconduct is first and foremost defined as a deliberate act or means of misrepresenting one's own or someone else’s level of competence (‘acts under false pretences’ in the Universities Act 558/2009). In addition, violating the rules regarding the testing of learning constitutes misconduct. The various forms of research misconduct are discussed in the guideline by the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity. These include fabrication, misrepresentation and unattributed borrowing, which are considered forms of misconduct also in study contexts. Below is a more detailed description of the various forms of misconduct that are considered violations of the Code of Academic Integrity.
Cheating on exams
Cheating on exams refers to the use of prohibited means or aids in an exam. Also attempted cheating on an exam constitutes cheating.
Unattributed borrowing or plagiarism
Plagiarism, or unacknowledged borrowing, refers to representing another person’s material as one’s own without appropriate references. This includes research plans, manuscripts, articles, other texts or parts of them, visual materials, or translations (Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity 2012, p. 33). Plagiarism in scientific and artistic activity may, in addition, take the form of unattributed use of a chart, piece of code, any visual or audio material, or other work. Plagiarism includes direct copying as well as adapted copying (Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity 2012, p. 33).
Both science and artistic work make use of prior science or arts by others. Good command of the earlier work of the field demonstrates learnedness. An appropriate citing and referencing style is a basic requirement in university-level study attainments. In addition, the author must make an independent contribution. Word-for-word repetition of source material rarely serves to prove the extent of knowledge required at university level. Repetition of others’ work becomes misconduct when the used source or the extent of the quotation is intentionally obscured by misleading or lacking citation.
Also the Finnish Copyright Act (404/1961) Section 22 deals with unattributed use. Pursuant to it, a work made public may be quoted, in accordance with proper usage to the extent necessary for the purpose. In other words, quotations shall not be excessively long or short for their purpose. The purpose of the right to quote is to give everyone an opportunity to comment and criticize a published work, but a quotation must serve a sensible purpose, such as criticizing the original or supporting one’s own argumentation (Mäkinen 2006, p. 160). Also the use of pictures to illustrate, for instance, reports and theses, is allowed provided that the source of the picture and its original creator has been mentioned. In accordance with Section 25 of the Copyright Act, works of art made public may be reproduced in pictorial form in material connection with the text in a scientific presentation. Please note! Although this provision of the Copyright Act only refers to a published work, plagiarising an unpublished work is also prohibited. A work produced by someone else shall not be presented as one’s own for any purpose even if it were in the public domain.
Below is a list of some of the most common forms of plagiarism in study attainments. Since the list is not exhaustive, students who are unsure about the correct procedure shall contact the relevant teacher. Students shall follow the instructions of the teacher. To avoid plagiarism, you should note that it is important to both cite the source and mark the quotation, as well as to keep the length of the quotation appropriate for the purpose.
- quotations or word-for-word citing without clear indication
When using a direct quotation, you must indicate that it is a quotation and not a piece of text you have produced independently. You can indicate a quotation for instance through quotation marks, and you must include a reference. The reader must be able to distinguish between the independent contribution of the author and cited text (Carroll 2007, p. 18). The key is to not present any text, picture, piece of code or other work created by someone else as one’s own.
- minor changes to the source text, for instance, changing a few words or the word order
Plagiarism is presenting a text, picture, piece of code or other work created by someone else as one's own. If only a few words or the word order has been altered, the text is not considered to be an independent contribution or product of independent thinking. In addition, closely following the argumentation or text structure of someone else may constitute plagiarism.
- inadequacies in citing and referencing
The citing and referencing style should allow the reader to clearly distinguish the quotation from the independent contribution of the author (e.g. with italics or quotation marks (‘ or “)), and the source should be clearly indicated after the part in which it has been used. Different fields have different citing and referencing styles. The cited works should be listed in a manner that allows others to find the original source.
- copy and paste
While online materials facilitate information seeking, you should remember that also text or other works on the internet have been created by somebody else. When using internet sources you must also comply with the guidelines on the responsible conduct of research. Each citing and referencing style has its own way of indicating online sources in the bibliography; usually these include not only the publication date but also the date of accessing the site.
- direct translation from the original without indicating the direct quotation
Translating the source material word for word or only altering it slightly in the translation may also constitute plagiarism. The source must be cited even when translating the text into another language.
Collusion refers to making a work produced collaboratively to look as if it had been produced independently or without assistance. Any use of assistants and their share in, for instance, a thesis must be mentioned. (See also Carroll 2007, p. 18) Collusion may also take the form of discussing an individual learning assignment with another student and writing a report on one's learning on the basis of a text written in cooperation with another. Often students are allowed to reflect on assignments together, but the individual assignment, its experimental part and reports must be produced independently.
- Autoplagiarism, see ‘Disregard for responsible conduct of research’
Serious cases of reusing one’s own prior study attainments as seemingly new works may constitute misconduct. For instance, presenting a thesis written for a prior degree as a seemingly new thesis (in an altered or translated form) for another thesis without citing sources may constitute misconduct.
Fabrication refers to reporting invented observations or results to the research community (Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity 2012, p. 32). In the case of study attainments, fabrication may take the form of, for instance, purposefully presenting an erroneous result as a correct one.
Falsification (misrepresentation) refers to modifying and presenting original observations deliberately so that the results based on those observations are distorted (Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity 2012, p. 33). In artistic activity, for instance, this refers to intentional misrepresentation of findings related to the work process. In the field of technology, misrepresentation may include intentionally presenting the findings in a way that give a misleading idea of the technical solutions. Fabrication and misrepresentation are forms of misconduct that may be present in study contexts for instance in a report or research work required for the degree.
Misappropriation refers to the unlawful presentation of another person’s result, idea, plan, observation or data as one’s own research (Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity 2012, p 33). Misappropriation may become an issue for instance in group work. In artistic activity, misappropriation may refer to, for example, presenting the work of somebody else in one's own name in a collective project.
4 Handling and consequences of violations
In accordance with the Aalto University General Regulations on Teaching and Studying, a study attainment may be left ungraded if the student is deemed to have violated against the Code of Academic Integrity while completing it. If disciplinary action is taken against the student due to misconduct associated with a study attainment, the study attainment is not submitted for academic evaluation at all. A study attainment completed through violating the Code of Academic Integrity usually results in receiving the grade of fail, because this type of study attainment does not serve as proof of requisite learning. If a student is observed to attempt cheating on an examination, the invigilator of the examination may interrupt the examination of the student in question.
Violation against the Code of Academic Integrity alone is not a reason to stop the student from taking a course or from completing a study attainment at the next possible opportunity provided for it. The teacher is not, however, obligated to make special arrangements to allow the student to retake the study attainment in cases where the study attainment has been failed or left ungraded on justifiable grounds. In practice, failing or not receiving a grade for an obligatory course component may thus lead to the student failing the entire course. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Universities Act (Yliopistolaki 558/2009), a student who has been found guilty of misconduct (i.e. ‘acts under false pretences’) may be cautioned or suspended for a maximum of one year as a disciplinary measure, depending on the severity of the violation. Also students who have assisted other students in misconduct may face disciplinary action.
Allegations of misconduct made only after the study attainment has been graded or the decision on credit transfer has been made may lead to the earlier decision being revoked and disciplinary measures taken against the student.
4.2 Application of the guidelines by the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity
The guidelines (RCR guidelines 2012) of the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (TENK) are applied also to alleged violations of the Code of Academic Integrity associated with study attainments regardless of the level of studies if the student is the subject of an allegation of misconduct in research. The investigation procedure specified in the RCR guidelines is also applied to handling allegations of violations of the responsible conduct of research in approved and/or published master’s, licentiate or doctoral theses. (Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity 2012, p. 34)The investigation procedure put forth in the RCR guidelines is also applied to handling alleged RCR violations concerning licentiate thesis or doctoral dissertation submitted for examination or approval. Otherwise, the investigation procedure set forth in the RCR guidelines is conducted in master’s, licentiate or doctoral theses only at the request of the alleged student or if the matter fulfils the criteria of alleged violation of the responsible conduct of research as referred to in the RCR guidelines.
If the allegation concerns an unpublished master’s thesis submitted for examination, it must be inquired of the student whether s/he demands that an investigation referred to in the RCR guidelines be conducted instead of the procedure defined in the present code. The decision on the approval of the thesis is left pending until the allegation has been investigated.
All other allegations related to study attainments are handled in accordance with the procedure described below.
4.3 Rights of students
When handling violations of the Code of Academic Integrity by students, good administrative practices are to be followed. It is particularly important that the issue be dealt with without undue delay and that students are given a possibility to be heard before any decisions are made regarding consequences. Students shall also be given the opportunity to take a support person with them to the personal hearing, reprimand or other meeting organised by the university for handling the issue. The process of handling allegations of misconduct is not a public one. When the case is being processed, it is only communicated to persons that deal with the matter as part of their duties or who may provide additional information on the case. The student must be informed of the progress of the issue.
Here ‘teacher’ refers to the teacher-in-charge of the course or the thesis supervisor or supervising professor or thesis advisor of a thesis or another similar person or body in charge of the acceptance of a study attainment or a study module or an application for transfer of credits. An allegation of violation concerning in a matter pertaining to transfer of credits shall be handled in the same manner as violations related to study attainments, as appropriate.
The teacher shall report the alleged violation to the investigator of violations of his/her own school. In unclear cases, the teacher communicates his/her suspicion first to the student and gives the student a possibility to explain either in writing or orally. If the teacher deems the case to be only one of minor negligence or misunderstanding, s/he guides the student on correct working methods. Depending on the situation, the teacher may, for instance, fail the study attainment or resubmit it to the student for revision. A teacher cannot fail a study attainment due to misconduct or note misconduct in the file of the student unless misconduct has been verified by the dean or the university president or board on the basis of an investigation conducted in accordance with the present code. The teacher communicates his/her suspicion to the investigator of violations if disregard of responsible conduct of research or the possibility of misconduct in research cannot be ruled out. The teacher gives his/her own written account of the issue to the investigator. In such cases, the study attainment will not be graded until the investigation into the matter has been concluded. If after an investigation, the student is found guilty of misconduct in completing the study attainment, the teacher must fail the study attainment submitted to him/her for evaluation. As in the case of other failed study attainments, students may appeal against the failure of these study attainments.
Even if an investigation was underway due to alleged misconduct of a student on the course, the teacher must evaluate the study attainments of the other students in accordance with the deadlines specified in the regulations.
Also the head of the degree programme or another person whose duties include deciding on the award of degrees to students has to communicate any alleged violations to the investigator.
Invigilator of examination
The invigilator of an exam shall intervene with any suspected cheating on an exam or with other violations against guidelines issued on examination proceedings. The invigilators record their observations, the explanation of the student and the measures taken to the log kept of the exam hall events. The invigilator notifies the investigator of the suspected cheating on an examination, and gives his/her written account of the events to the investigator.
The investigator is the manager of student services or other expert of the school academic affairs, designated the task of investigating violations of academic integrity. The investigation involves guiding the teacher and other parties on the procedures, collecting investigation documents and other material, hearing the student and organising a hearing, informing the parties and preparing the matter for decision by the dean. The investigation is carried out in the school in which the suspected violation has taken place.
The dean decides the follow-up measures based on the account prepared by the investigator. The dean may delegate authority to a person designated by him/her as provided in the Aalto University Bylaws. In such cases, the decision of the dean and the regulations on related actions are applied to the decisions and actions of the delegate.
The dean may reprimand the student regardless of any other measures taken by him/her.
If the dean, based on the investigation, deems that the suspicion was unfounded or the violation minor, s/he resubmits the study attainment for evaluation to the teacher. In connection with resubmitting the study attainment to the teacher, the dean states his/her view on whether the study attainment should be accepted for academic evaluation or failed due to misconduct. If the dean deems that the student has committed misconduct, and the violation cannot be considered minor, s/he decides on initiating disciplinary measures. The decision should be made taking into consideration at least the recurrence and severity of the misconduct. The disciplinary procedure is initiated when the student has been notified in accordance with the Universities Act (558/2009) of the offence s/he is alleged to have committed. The notification must also mention any consequences of the disciplinary procedure. Students must be provided an opportunity to be heard regarding the notification. If the dean decides that a disciplinary procedure is initiated, the issue shall be submitted to the president of Aalto University regardless of whether the dean proposes sanctions in the light of the evidence gathered.
The dean proposes to the president that a preliminary inquiry into the matter be initiated in accordance with the guidelines of the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity, if s/he deems the violation to concern research activity. In such cases, a decision on the initiation of a disciplinary procedure can only be made after the conclusion of the preliminary inquiry.
The president shall decide whether the procedure defined in the guideline of the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity should be applied to the case or if an inquiry should be initiated even in cases where the dean has decided not to propose an inquiry.
The president decides on cautioning the student in accordance with the Universities Act. If a caution is considered as too minor a consequence for the violation in question, the president proposes the fixed-term suspension of the student to the board.
After the procedure, the president or board will resubmit the study attainment for evaluation to the teacher. In connection with resubmitting the study attainment to the teacher, the president states his/her view on whether the study attainment should be accepted for academic evaluation or failed due to misconduct.
4.5 Retention and confidentiality of documents related to handling violations
The reprimand of the dean is recorded in minutes signed by the participants. The investigation material is appended to the minutes. Minutes are prepared also in cases where the student does not show up at the hearing or does not respond in any other way to the reprimand. The minutes and the decision by the dean regarding the follow up measures is retained in the student file until the right to study of the student ends due to graduation or due to the student waiving his/her study rights or if the student file is moved to closed records for other reasons. The minutes of the meeting and the dean decision regarding the follow-up measures is communicated to the student and teacher involved, and as necessary, to other parties involved.
A copy of the decision regarding the caution and fixed-term suspension is kept for university archives and for the student file. The decision is communicated to the student, to the dean, the investigator, the teacher involved, and as necessary, to other parties involved. The decision is also communicated to the dean and the investigator of the school of the student if the student is a student at another Aalto University school.
4.6 Notifying a partner university
Notification of the violations against the Code of Academic Integrity must as a rule be included in the provisions of all new exchange, dual degree etc. agreements. If an exchange student or a student pursuing studies at Aalto University under a similar agreement is imposed a sanction in accordance with the Universities Act (558/2009), the home university of the student may be notified even if no contractual obligation for notification exists. Similarly, sanctions imposed on students pursuing a double degree at Aalto University may be communicated to the partner university. The decision regarding the notification is made by the person in charge of imposing the sanction.
A violation of the Code of Academic Integrity may be communicated to the partner university or to other parties mentioned in the agreement also during the investigation or in cases where any disciplinary measures defined in the Universities Act (558/2009) are not taken, provided the student has been informed of the duty of notifying the partner university before the violation has occurred. In such cases, the decision to notify rests with the dean.
5 Electronic originality check
5.1 Aalto University electronic system
Aalto University has a university-level electronic system which recognises similarities between written texts and thus helps in the detection of plagiarism. All teachers can use the system for checking the originality of texts both for the purposes of guidance and grading, including possible mid-term evaluation. The teacher responsible for grading the study attainments of the course (teacher-in-charge) is responsible for using the system as instructed and for interpreting the originality reports produced by it. When using the electronic system for guidance and grading of theses, the principles set for its use for other study attainments shall apply as appropriate.
5.2 Use of the Aalto University electronic system in the guidance and grading of study attainments
The system may be used on courses as a tool for guidance and grading. The goal is to mainly use the system in the guidance phase so that students may use the system independently on the course while working on their study attainment before its submission for grading. The teacher shall notify students of the use of the system on the course and use it equally for the study attainments of all students of the course. The use of the system for supervision and grading always involves the teacher’s interpretation of the originality report. If students are given the opportunity to use the system independently while working on a study attainment, they must also be given the chance to hear the teacher’s interpretation of the originality report produced by the system.
Even if the system was not used on a given course otherwise, the teacher may use it for grading and evaluating individual study attainments where plagiarism is suspected.
If the interpretation of the originality report gives the teacher cause to suspect violation of the Code of Academic Integrity, the procedure followed is the same as that followed with other violations of academic integrity. The teacher is recommended to always go through the originality report with the student before contacting the investigator.
5.3 Student rights and responsibilities
Checking originality is a part of the evaluation and grading of a study attainment. Students cannot refuse the use of the system for checking their study attainment if they wish to have their study attainments graded. Students shall return their study attainments in electronic format for evaluation and grading upon request.
Student consent is not required for saving the study attainment temporarily into the system when the study attainment has been submitted to the teacher for evaluation or grading, or when the study attainment has been graded. Student consent is, however, required if the study attainment is saved permanently into the comparison repository of the system.
5.4 Retention and confidentiality of the originality report produced by the Aalto University electronic system
The originality reports of study attainments submitted for approval are retained for the same length of time as the study attainments, unless otherwise provided in statutes or regulations pertinent to record-keeping. If the study attainment is associated with allegations of plagiarism or other violation of the Code of Academic Integrity, the originality report is to be retained in the same manner as the other material related to the investigation. The confidentiality of the originality report is determined on the same basis as that of the related study attainment. Upon request, students have a right to be informed by the teacher whether their work has been checked for originality and familiarise themselves with the originality report in the same way as with their study attainments. Students must be given an originality report on their study attainment automatically if the originality report is to be included in the material used to investigate an alleged violation of academic integrity committed by the student or someone else.
Links, additional information
Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity, Responsible conduct of research and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland 2012 (pdf) (tenk.fi)
Copyright Act (pdf) (finlex.fi)
Hallamaa, J., Sorvali, I., Launis V., Lötjönen S. (eds).: Etiikkaa ihmistieteille, SKS 2006, Tutkimuseettisen neuvottelukunnan julkaisuja
Räsänen, P., Anttila, A., Melin, H. (eds.) Tutkimus menetelmien pyörteissä, PS- Kustannus, 2005
Kuula, A: Tutkimusetiikka: aineistojen hankinta, käyttö ja säilytys, Vastapaino, 2006
Mäkinen, O.: Tutkimusetiikan ABC, Tammi 2006
- The National Advisory Board on Research Ethics, 2002:
National Advisory Board on Research Ethics: Good Scientific Practice and Procedures for Handling Misconduct and Fraud in Science', 2002.
- Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity 2012:
Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity: Responsible conduct of research and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland 2012 (9 September 2013)
- Laiho 2009:
Laiho, H. ‘Taiteen etiikka’ published on 19 January 2009 http://filosofia.fi/node/4178 (11 February 2011)
- Carroll 2007:
Carroll, J.: A Handbook for Deterring Plagiarism in Higher Education, Second Edition, Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development 2007
- Mäkinen 2006:
Mäkinen, O.: Tutkimusetiikan ABC, Tammi 2006.