Promoting good scientific practice in learning and handling suspicions of cheating and violations

1 Purpose of the guideline

The revised guidelines of the Advisory Board on Research Integrity (TENK), based on the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, and published in 2023, together with the good scientific practice (HTK) guideline and the checklist for commitment, emphasize the promotion of sound research practices and a responsible research culture. The purpose of this guideline, prepared for learning and teaching activities, is to promote a consistent culture of adherence to good scientific practice, to the reporting of suspected cheating and suspected breaches of good scientific practice, and to encourage all members of the Laurea community to use the existing HTK tools in their activities.

Laurea staff are encouraged to participate in trainings that promote good scientific practice organized by their field’s Metropolitan Area Universities of Applied Sciences’ Committee on the Ethics of Research involving Human Subjects and to utilize the committee’s expertise in their research and development work. A Laurea support person trained by TENK acts as a resource for staff regarding HTK questions and the handling process for suspected HTK violations in master´s degree work. It is in the interest of everyone at Laurea that suspicions of cheating related to learning and suspected breaches of good scientific practice are addressed in a controlled process as quickly as possible (TENK 2023a; TENK 2023b).

This guideline, as applied at Laurea, concerns learning and teaching as well as related research and development activities (TENK 2023a; TENK 2023b). In a university of applied sciences, learning and teaching produce written and/or practical outputs based on research-based development or research. Through these outputs learners demonstrate their competence and produce assessable study attainments as part of their studies or degree. Outputs may include, for example, publications, materials (data and metadata), research plans, code, software, images, artificial objects (artifacts), other research materials and methods (ALLEA 2023, 3).

In all publishing, development and research activities related to learning and teaching, it is advisable to agree on the use of materials and authorship as early as possible (TENK 2019, TENK 2023a, TENK 2023b & ALLEA 2023). Adherence to good scientific practice in writing, the use and citation techniques for materials, and written agreements on authorship and usage rights can help prevent potential conflicts of interest, copyright and HTK violations, and other conflicts.

HTK violations can be avoided, for example, when all partners are well informed and aware of the publication of results before a publication is uploaded to a digital platform (ALLEA 2023). In Finland, TENK has since 1994 guided the implementation of good research ethical practices in the human sciences. The Rectors’ Conference of Finnish Universities of Applied Sciences (ARENE 2020) has instructed on the application of good practices in theses at universities of applied sciences. The National Advisory Board on Social Welfare and Health Care Ethics (ETENE) and the National Medical Research Ethics Committee (Tukija) guide good research ethics practices in their fields and produce material for professionals. Information on the use of materials subject to data protection is available from the Office of the Data Protection Ombudsman and from Laurea’s intranets for students and staff. Information about copyright is available, for example, on Kopiosto’s website.

In Finland, HTK guidelines for health sciences, especially medical research, are strict and binding. From a European perspective they are strict and concern many multidisciplinary actors, which can make compliance challenging. In Laurea’s domain the statutory responsibility for guidance on medical HTK practices and for issuing ethical opinions rests with the HUS Ethics Committee. Research permits are applied for from the relevant organisations.

2 Scope of the guideline and target groups

According to TENK (2023a, 11) “Good scientific practices can, in accordance with the European guidance on research ethics, be linked to eight areas of scientific activity: 1) the operating environment, 2) education, supervision and mentoring, 3) conducting scientific work, 4) ethics and foresight, 5) handling and management of research materials, 6) collaboration, 7) authorship, publishing and communication, and 8) expert and evaluation tasks.”

The TENK HTK guideline, on which this document is based, therefore also guides the learning, development and research activities of a university of applied sciences. HTK guideline-compliant procedures must be followed in higher education studies and related theses. Laurea is responsible for introducing these practices. Suspicions of cheating and suspected HTK violations related to degree studies and theses are handled in accordance with the institution’s internal processes and instructions.

”The HTK process described in this guideline does not apply to the following examples, unless they also concern the observance of good scientific practice:

• scientific or artistic differences of opinion or school disputes
• legal matters, such as copyright, data protection, patent or administrative law violations, or breaches of confidentiality
• employment disputes or workplace conflicts
• appointments or nominations.” (TENK 2023a.)

This guideline applies to all Laurea degree students and students of the Open University of Applied Sciences, as well as to degree students at Laurea on student exchange. The guideline also concerns commissioned degree-awarding education and Laurea staff. Degree students of other universities of applied sciences are subject to the anti-cheating procedures of their home institution. However, Laurea has the right to decide on the assessment and approval of studies carried out in its activities. All suspected HTK violations and cheating cases will be investigated and resolved as soon as possible after detection using pedagogical and guidance-based measures in accordance with this guideline.

TENK has defined the applicability of its 2023 HTK guidelines in international activities as follows: “The HTK guideline is in line with international guidelines, but it also includes guidance on the Finnish definition of HTK violations and on the handling of suspicions of violations. International guidelines do not bind practitioners and supporting bodies of science in Finland in the same way as the HTK guideline.” (TENK 2023a, 10.)

3 Value base of the guideline

“The values guiding Laurea University of Applied Sciences’ activities and work are openness, impact and responsibility. Openness as a value means transparency in all operations. We openly share competence, information and materials within the higher education community. Openness thus builds mutual trust. Impact as a value guides all our actions. Laurea’s societal impact means the development of work-life competence and vitality in the Uusimaa region. Responsibility as a value means taking responsibility for the results of our work and for working together. At Laurea, we take into account economically, socially and ecologically sustainable development in all our activities. We create new sustainable development solutions through education and RDI activities.” (Strategy 2030.)

Activities at Laurea follow European principles guiding development and research activities (ALLEA 2023, 5). Reliability guides quality assurance in the use of resources, planning, application of methodology, and in the analysis and use of results. Honesty is evident in all research-based development, implementation, verification, reporting and communication carried out in a transparent, fair and impartial manner. Respect guides behaviour towards students, colleagues, research participants, research subjects, society, ecosystems, cultural heritage and the environment. Responsibility guides education and teaching from planning to implementation, supervision, mentoring and assessment, as well as research and development from idea and planning to publication, leadership and organization, education, supervision and mentoring, and to broader societal impacts.

4 Legal basis of the guideline

The collection and handling of information for research and scientific activities, and the publication and retention of data, are tasks of universities, higher education institutions and research institutes (ALLEA 2023; TENK 2023a). Laurea is committed to following European and national guidelines and agreements concerning good scientific practice and the handling of suspected violations (ALLEA 2023; ARENE 2020; TENK 2023a). Laurea is obliged to train its teaching, research and RDI staff in HTK guideline-compliant practices, in recognizing HTK violations, in reporting suspicions, and in the investigation and sanction processes. After receiving the training, all Laurea teachers and supervisors will take into account the development of their students’ and supervisees’ HTK competence as part of teaching and supervision.

In suspicions of HTK violations or cheating, and in their investigation and resolution, the provisions of section 38 of the Universities of Applied Sciences Act (Ammattikorkeakoululaki 832/2014), the Administrative Procedure Act, TENK’s HTK guidance (2023a) and Laurea’s degree regulations are followed. An HTK violation concerns only theses and development works of the master´s degree.

”The seriousness of conduct or negligence contrary to good scientific practice is assessed case-by-case taking into account the characteristics of the discipline. Factors to be weighed in the assessment include, for example, the extent of the conduct, recurrence, scientific significance and harmfulness.” (TENK 2023a.)

It is important to note that good scientific practice must also be observed in bachelor-level studies. The application of good scientific practice guidelines is a form of self-regulation within the higher education community, for which legislation sets boundaries. (TENK 2023). Good scientific practice is also part of Laurea University of Applied Sciences’ quality system.

5 Cheating in studies

Laurea University of Applied Sciences’ degree regulations state that a study attainment is rejected if a student is suspected of cheating. In such cases section 38 of the Universities of Applied Sciences Act (Ammattikorkeakoululaki 832/2014) is applied. According to this disciplinary provision, a written warning may be given to a student if they repeatedly behave dishonestly or if the cheating is serious.

5.1 Cheating in exam or test situations

Exam cheating means cribbing in an exam situation, the unauthorized use of aids, discussions, or taking an exam on behalf of another person. If a student is suspected of exam cheating, the test is interrupted for that student. The invigilator of the exam or test reports the suspicion to the responsible teacher and to the contact person appointed by the university of applied sciences. Exam cheating always results in the rejection of the exam and the loss of that attempt. (Degree regulations, section 29) If there is a suspicion of cheating in an online proctored exam, the lecturer contacts the lead administrator of the online proctoring at dcell@laurea.fi so the recording can be preserved.

5.2 Plagiarism or unauthorized quotation

Citations and referencing should follow Laurea’s guidelines (Source references and citation practices at Laurea University of Applied Sciences).

Plagiarism is the unauthorized use of another person’s work or ideas without giving proper credit to the original source (ALLEA 2023, 11). Plagiarism can occur in many different ways (see Appendix Table 1).

A student must not copy and present as their own work a work obtained from another student, the internet or another source. The same applies to partial copying. It is also forbidden to hand over one’s own work to another if the recipient’s intention is to use it dishonestly for their own benefit. If suspicion of dishonest conduct arises, it will be investigated according to the process described in Chapter 6 of this guideline.

Unauthorized reuse of the same work previously submitted in another context in a learning assignment is also prohibited unless agreed in advance with the teacher. Partial reuse of earlier work is also prohibited if not agreed with the teacher.

Copying and presenting entire learning assignments, theses, articles, reports and other texts or parts thereof as one’s own performance is prohibited. At Laurea, the use of plagiarism detection software is part of the assessment process (ARENE 2020).

5.3 Unauthorized or fraudulent use of artificial intelligence

Presenting materials produced by artificial intelligence as one’s own work is prohibited. The use of AI is governed by a separate guideline. (Utilizing artificial intelligence in teaching and learning at Laurea University of Applied Sciences.) Plagiarism detection software is used in all theses, extensive learning assignments, and in specific texts where plagiarism is suspected. Verified plagiarism in a submitted work leads to the rejection of the attainment and possibly to a warning or temporary expulsion.

6 Laurea’s process in cases of suspected cheating

Laurea follows the guidance applied by European higher education institutions and research organizations (ALLEA 2023, 11-12). Suspicions of cheating are handled according to the following principles:

1. Anyone suspected of cheating is considered innocent until proven otherwise.
2. Investigations are fair, comprehensive and carried out appropriately, without compromising accuracy, objectivity or thoroughness.
3. Parties involved in the investigation disclose any conflicts of interest that may arise during the investigation.
4. The investigation must be brought to a conclusion.
5. The investigation is conducted confidentially to protect the parties involved.
6. The rights of whistle-blowers acting in good faith are protected during the investigation and it is ensured that their career prospects are not jeopardized.
7. General procedures for handling breaches of good research practice are publicly available to ensure transparency and consistency.
8. Persons suspected of cheating are provided with complete information about the suspicions and are given the opportunity for a fair process to respond to allegations and present evidence.
9. Cheating investigations take into account both the roles of individuals and institutions in breaches of good research practice.
10. If the suspicion of cheating is proven true, the consequences must be proportionate to the seriousness of the breach.
11. If suspicions are not confirmed, appropriate actions must be taken to clear the accused of the allegations.

The following section describes in more detail the progression of handling a cheating case and the roles of different actors in the investigation. The process progression is illustrated in Figure 1 from the point when the teacher has noticed or been informed of suspected cheating.

Insert the process diagram here

6.1 Teacher’s actions in suspected cheating

1. The teacher first raises the matter with the student and asks for an explanation of what happened.
2. If this discussion shows that the suspicion of cheating is unfounded, the matter is closed.
3. If the student does not admit to cheating in the discussion, the teacher contacts the contact person responsible for handling cheating by sending a description of the situation by email to vilppiamk@laurea.fi for bachelor-level degree students and to vilppiyamk@laurea.fi for master´s degree students.
4. The contact person contacts the student and begins to investigate the incident. A meeting is arranged attended by the student and the contact person and, if the student wishes, the student’s support person, and if necessary the teacher.
5. If cheating is established, the attainment is rejected and the teacher gives instructions for retaking the failed attainment.
6. Repeated cheating always triggers the procedure under section 38 of the Universities of Applied Sciences Act.

6.2 Exam invigilator’s duties in cases of exam cheating

1. When an invigilator detects cheating during an exam, the exam is interrupted and the invigilator may, at their discretion, ask the person to leave the room. This may only be done if the cheating event was obvious, the student admits the incident, the removal from the exam is agreed with the student and it is otherwise safe for all parties. A request to leave should not be made if it endangers the safety of the invigilator or others present.
2. Suspicions of cheating should, where possible, be clarified outside the exam room itself.
3. If the person refuses to leave despite the request, they are allowed to remain in the room until the exam is over, others have left, another invigilator has arrived, and the matter can be resolved in cooperation with the student.
4. If removing the person from the room is necessary due to threatening or otherwise safety-endangering behaviour, the police are called without delay.
5. The staff member who acted as invigilator sends an email about the situation to vilppiAmk@laurea.fi or vilppiYamk@laurea.fi. The message should describe the course of events, indicate what the suspicion concerns and include other relevant information.
6. If there is a suspicion of cheating in an online proctored exam, the student is interviewed. If the suspicion is not resolved, the teacher immediately requests the lead administrator of the online proctoring to preserve the recording. The recording is stored and deleted after processing.

6.3 The contact person’s role in handling cheating cases

1. There are separate reporting channels for bachelor-level and master´s degree students. Upon receiving a report, the contact person summons the student to a hearing by email or phone. The summons indicates the reason for the hearing, the time and any other necessary instructions.
2. The contact person hears the student’s account of the incident and records a memo of the hearing with decisions. The memo is sent to the reporting teacher and the student.
3. If the cheating is repeated or serious, the contact person may, if necessary, make a proposal to the President to issue a warning.
4. If the student is dissatisfied with the decision, they may request a rectification of the assessment from the Laurea Board of Examiners within 14 days. This period is calculated from the moment the student received notice of the decision.

6.4 The President’s role in cheating cases

1. If a cheating case is reported to the President, they hear the student before any possible decision.
2. If the President decides to issue a warning for the act, a written decision with justifications is made. The written warning issued by the President is recorded in the student’s additional information in Peppi.
3. This decision is served to the student with proof of delivery and includes instructions on how to appeal.
4. The student may appeal this decision to the administrative court.
5. The decision may be enforced even if the student appeals, unless the administrative court decides otherwise.
6. If the act is particularly gross or the student continues to engage in dishonest conduct despite a warning, the Laurea Board may decide on the student’s temporary expulsion on the President’s proposal.

7 HTK violation in learning-based research and development activities

Learning-based research and development activities can be ethically acceptable, reliable and produce credible results only if the research has been carried out in accordance with the requirements of good scientific practice.

Scientific dishonesty and HTK violations describe researchers’ dishonest conduct. Scientific dishonesty includes, in addition to research fraud, other researcher misconduct such as disregard for good research practices and misleading the general public. Negligence in conducting research is considered disregard for good research practice. Violations of specific ethical guidelines of a research field are considered HTK violations. (HTK 2023; Karjalainen & Saxén 2002, 222.)

An HTK violation can be intentional or unintentional. Breaches of good scientific practice are divided into two categories: 1) fraud in scientific activity and 2) disregard for good scientific practice. (TENK 2023a.)

7.1 HTK violation suspicion process at Laurea

The HTK violation suspicion process begins with a report to the contact person named by the higher education unit. The reporting channel is a dedicated email address for this purpose (yamkvilppi@laurea.fi).

The contact person verifies the validity of the report, fills in TENK’s notification form together with the reporter and notifies the President, the Vice President responsible for education, the unit manager responsible for the master´s degree, and Laurea’s TENK contact person of a valid report. The contact person forwards a valid report to the preliminary investigation.

The preliminary investigation is carried out by a responsible person appointed by the President. The responsible person assembles an expert group for the preliminary investigation. In the preliminary investigation, the reporter, the person who is the subject of the report and the supervisor named for the work are heard. Internal and external experts may be used if necessary. A report of the preliminary investigation is compiled and submitted to the President.

Based on the preliminary investigation, the President decides whether to terminate the process or to initiate a formal investigation. The decision is communicated to the parties to the report and to the Advisory Board on Research Integrity.

The President initiates, if necessary, a formal investigation and appoints a group and its responsible person and members for this purpose. In the formal investigation, all parties and experts related to the report are heard. The investigation group compiles a report of the formal investigation. Based on the formal investigation, the President makes a decision on the suspected violation and its consequences. The decision is communicated to the parties to the report and to the Advisory Board on Research Integrity.

Insert diagram 2 here

7.2 Roles in handling a violation suspicion (master´s degree)

Contact person

• The contact person receives reports of suspected violations, assesses the validity of the suspicions, forwards the report to a preliminary investigation, and notifies the President, the Vice President responsible for education, the unit manager responsible for the master´s degree and TENK’s contact person of valid reports.

TENK contact person

• The TENK contact person acts as an expert if needed, but otherwise does not participate in investigations.

Responsible person and members appointed by the President for the preliminary investigation

• The person appointed by the President leads and conducts the preliminary investigation together with the group members and submits a report of the preliminary investigation to the President.

Responsible person and members appointed by the President for the formal investigation

• The person appointed by the President leads and conducts the formal investigation together with the group members and submits a report of the formal investigation to the President.

President

• Appoints the persons responsible for the preliminary and formal investigations and makes decisions to terminate the preliminary investigation, to initiate a formal investigation, and decisions on suspected violations and their consequences.

Note:

If a suspicion of cheating concerns a thesis submitted for assessment in a master´s degree, the assessment is suspended and the matter is reported to the contact person, who forwards it to a preliminary investigation. Thesis assessment cannot continue until a decision has been made on the investigation and possible follow-up actions.

If a suspicion of cheating comes to Laurea’s attention only after the attainment has already been assessed or credit transfer has been granted, previously made decisions can be corrected and the matter investigated and possibly disciplinary measures taken. The same applies to an already approved master´s degree thesis: a suspicion of cheating may be investigated under the Advisory Board on Research Integrity’s guidance (TENK 2023a) if the work is not older than two years. For particularly weighty reasons, a thesis older than two years may also be investigated.

8 On the retention of documents

The documents mentioned above are retained at Laurea appropriately in accordance with the specific provisions on retention.

Appendix 1 Example cases of fraud and negligence

”In Finland, conduct contrary to good scientific practice is divided into two forms: fraud in scientific activity and disregard for good scientific practice. They can appear in any area and at any stage of scientific activity.” (TENK 2023a.)

Fraud in scientific activity distorts researched information and misleads the scientific and research community, decision-makers or the public. It also diminishes the value of scientific work, its results or outputs and the esteem for science, and causes harm to other researchers and research subjects. Fraud in scientific activity is classified in Finland, following international practice, into three subcategories: fabrication, falsification (misrepresentation) and plagiarism. (TENK 2023a.) Table 1 describes fraudulent activity in higher education.

Table 1. Fraudulent activity in higher education (TENK 2023a, 16-17).

Concept	Definition
Fabrication	“Fabrication means presenting fabricated observations, materials or results. For example, observations presented in a scientific report have not been made in the manner or with the methods described in the report.”
Falsification	“Falsification is unjustified modification of research data. Falsification of observations means altering or presenting original observations in such a way that the resulting findings become distorted. Falsification of results means unjustified modification or selection of research results. Falsification can occur, for example, in a publication, a manuscript intended for publication, learning materials or a funding application. Falsification also includes omitting results or information that are essential for conclusions.”
Plagiarism	“Plagiarism, i.e. unauthorized copying, means using the work or research ideas of others without permission or citation. This also infringes the rights of the original authors to their scientific work. Plagiarism includes both direct copying and paraphrasing.   Examples of plagiarism include presenting or using another person’s text or part of it, research plan, manuscript, article, research result, dataset, idea, observation or program code, translation, diagram, image or other visual expression in one’s own name without proper citation.”

”Other conduct contrary to good scientific practice than fraud is commonly referred to in Finland as disregard for good scientific practice. Whether disregard amounts to an HTK violation is assessed case-by-case in the HTK process.” (TENK 2023a.) Table 2 presents concise examples of disregard for good scientific practice, adapted to the operations of a university of applied sciences according to TENK (2023a).

Table 2. Concise examples of disregard for good scientific practice according to TENK (2023a, 19), adapted to the activities of a university of applied sciences.

Concept	Applied example
Negligence in planning and preparation	Failing to obtain the necessary permits, decisions and/or statements related to a thesis.
Negligence in implementation	– “Failure to comply with data permit and research permit decisions or with statements given in an ethical prior assessment process – Improper use of datasets or failure to comply with agreements concerning datasets – Inadequate documentation and storage of research results and datasets” – Impeding or unreasonably delaying the work of other thesis authors
Violation of authorship	– “Inadequate or improper referencing of previous research results” – Omitting the name of an actor who made a significant contribution to a reported process from the publication’s author list – Manipulating authorship in other ways, such as including persons who did not participate in the research in the author list or accepting work done by a so-called ghostwriter as one’s own
Negligence related to the significance of scientific work or claiming scientific merits	– Exaggerating or altering one’s achievements or merits, e.g. on a CV – Self-plagiarism, i.e. publishing the same results multiple times as seemingly new
Negligence related to exploiting scientific position	“Failing to disclose significant conflicts of interest in scientific activity”

References

ALLEA (2023) The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity – Revised Edition 2023. Berlin. DOI 10.26356/ECOC. Accessed 14.10.2023.

Rectors’ Conference of Finnish Universities of Applied Sciences (ARENE), 2020. Ethical recommendations for theses at universities of applied sciences. Accessed 15.10.2023.

ARENE’s recommendations on the use of artificial intelligence for universities of applied sciences

Universities of Applied Sciences Act (932/2014). Accessed 14.10.2023.
 

Administrative Procedure Act (434/2003). Accessed 15.10.2023.

HUS. Applying for an ethical statement. https://www.hus.fi/tutkimus-ja-opetus/tutkijan-ohjeet/eettisen-lausunnon-hakeminen Accessed 15.10.2023.

Karjalainen, S. and Saxén, L. 2002. Fraud in scientific research. In: Karjalainen, S., Launis, V., Pelkonen, R. & Pietarinen, J. 2002. Ethical choices of the researcher. Yliopistokustannus Oy, Helsinki. 221–245.

Kopiosto. Frequently asked questions about copyright. https://peda.net/oppimateriaalit/kopiosto/ukk Accessed 14.10.2023.

Act on Medical Research 9.4.1999/488 https://finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1999/19990488 and

Act on Clinical Medical Research 983/2021 section 16. https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2021/20210983 Accessed 15.10.2023.

Office of the Data Protection Ombudsman. https://tietosuoja.fi/etusivu Accessed 15.10.2023.
 

The Advisory Board on Research Integrity (TENK) 2023a. Good scientific practice and its handling in Finland 2023. TENK HTK guideline 2023. TENK publications 2/2023. https://tenk.fi/sites/default/files/2023-03/HTK-ohje_2023.pdf Accessed 31.10.2023.

TENK 2023b. Checklist for commitment to the HTK 2023 guideline. https://tenk.fi/sites/default/files/2023-08/HTK-ohje_Sitoutumisen_muistilista_FINAL.pdf Accessed 14.10.2023.

TENK 2019. Recommendation on agreeing authorship of scientific publications. https://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/TENK_suositus_tekijyys.pdf Accessed 14.10.2023.

TENK 2019. Ethical principles of research involving humans and ethical pre-assessment in the human sciences. https://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/Ihmistieteiden_eettisen_ennakkoarviavioinnin_rohje_2019.pdf Accessed 15.10.2023.

National Medical Research Ethics Committee (Tukija). https://tukija.fi/etusivu Accessed 15.10.2023.

National Advisory Board on Social Welfare and Health Care Ethics (ETENE). https://etene.fi/etusivu Accessed 15.10.2023.

Responsible Science. Publication ethics guidance. Publication ethics guidance | Responsible Science Accessed 15.10.2023.

What is plagiarism? Accessed 15.10.2023.

Strategy 2030. https://www.laurea.fi/tietoa-meista/strategia-2030/#arvot Accessed 14.10.2023.