2.1 Good Scientific Practice
2.2 Misconduct in Studies and RDI Activities
The purpose of these instructions is to prevent dishonest behaviour in academic studies and RDI activities as well as issue instructions for processing cases of misconduct. These instructions apply to all students at Lapland University of Applied Sciences (Lapland UAS) who are engaged in studies that result in a grade in the student register or a digital badge based on the evaluation of their knowledge.
Lapland UAS is committed to The Finnish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and Procedures for Handling Alleged Violations of Research Integrity in Finland (link Research Integrity (RI) | Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK) published by TENK in 2023. TENK is the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity established by decree of the Ministry of Education. The code of conduct is implemented by all the organisations committed to it in all scientific, artistic and other research activities. This includes RDI projects and their life cycle functions. In addition, the principles and methods of good scientific practice described in the code (good research practices) apply to all higher education studies and the theses of their basic academic degrees. The following describes the principles of good scientific practice defined in the code and what constitutes a violation.
“Good scientific practice” refers to approved ethical norms and their underlying basic principles of reliability, honesty, respect and accountability. For example, the fundamental norms of good scientific practice include proper credit for the research of others, honesty, due care and accuracy in research and reporting, and impartiality.
Criteria for violations of good scientific practice:
We recognise two types of violation of good scientific practice: misconduct and disregard.
Misconduct refers to actions that misrepresent scientific facts and mislead the scientific and research community, policymakers or the general public. Such actions include fabrication, falsification and plagiarism.
Disregard for good scientific practice covers all other violations of good scientific practice. For example, disregard may manifest as neglecting to request or observe the permits and statements required for work or studies; failing to adequately document and preserve research results and materials; delaying or impeding the efforts of others unduly; referencing earlier research results inadequately or inappropriately; diminishing the inputs of other authors or otherwise manipulating authorship; self-plagiarism; and other ways that mislead the scientific community, educational establishment, sponsors or the general public with regard to one’s research.
Lapland UAS also applies the ethical guidelines for theses published by the Rectors’ Conference of Finnish Universities of Applied Sciences Arene: Ethical recommendations for thesis writing at universities of applied sciences.
In these instructions, both misconduct and disregard are referred to as “(academic) misconduct.”
Examples of misconduct in academic studies and RDI activities:
All students are responsible for their proper conduct. Lapland UAS is responsible for providing adequate support for students to learn and adopt good scientific practice. The UAS is responsible for supervising the students in their application of good scientific practice and refrain from academic misconduct. Further instructions on how to follow good scientific practice (reference styles etc.) can be found in the Lapland UAS writing instructions for thesis reports, for example. In particular, the subject of good scientific practice is covered in the initiation courses for UAS studies and the courses related to research methods, Finnish language, communication and theses.
Lapland UAS uses a plagiarism identification system. The plagiarism identification software may also be used to evaluate the output of individual assignments.
Students have the option of using the software to evaluate their text before submission without storing the text in the system’s index. Students may use the software with this link.
How to detect and report academic misconduct
Teachers, instructors, invigilators and teachers overseeing practical training who suspect misconduct must inform the student in question and the Head of Expertise. Students suspected of cheating in an exam or test may be removed immediately.
If the student’s misconduct is found to be accidental, the cause must be investigated (misunderstanding, poor reference style, ignorance of assignment instructions, etc.). In this case, the student is instructed in the correct and expected conduct and not punished for their error as a rule. The instructor must require the student to correct their poor conduct and erroneous assignment. Only then can the performance be evaluated.
How cases are investigated and the decision prepared
The misconduct investigation process is initiated once a case of misconduct is confirmed.
If a student is found to have cheated during an exam or other evaluation, their work is rejected and the student failed. The student is also failed if their misconduct or plagiarism is observed after an exam, thesis, practical assignment or report has been submitted.
If misconduct is detected during or after practical training, the teacher overseeing the training and the workplace contact person must discuss the matter and inform the student and the Head of Expertise.
The student is given the opportunity to be heard regarding the matter. The student may opt to not attend the hearing, but the hearing improves their legal protection and the fairness of the UAS’ decisions. If the student fails to attend, submit their comment or respond to contact, the UAS may decide the case based on the available information.
Before the hearing, the student must be informed of the subject and purpose of the hearing. At the hearing, the student has the opportunity to express their view of the situation being discussed. It should be noted that the hearing is not a negotiation: there is no need to seek or reach a consensus on what has occurred, for example.
The hearing may take place in writing or by meeting with the student in person or remotely. If the student chooses to comment in writing, the response to the teacher or Head of Expertise must be submitted within 14 days of being informed of the hearing. Likewise, in-person and remote hearings must take place within 14 days of the student being informed of the hearing. The UAS may request supplementary information from other parties, if necessary.
After the hearing has been completed or the student has opted not to be heard, a memorandum of the case must be prepared after the 14 days have passed and sent to the student by encrypted email.
The Head of Expertise prepares and forwards the memorandum to the specialisation area’s Director (caution) or the Rector (reprimand), who makes the final decision. The memorandum and the hearing documents are stored in the Dynasty case management system.
The student has the right to request the initiation of the misconduct investigation process if their assignment or other work is failed due to suspected misconduct.
Who makes and communicates the decision
The consequences for misconduct are decided by the Director of the specialisation area in question, the Rector or the UAS board.
Potential consequences:
The decision is recorded in the UAS case management system. The decision is announced to the parties involved: the student, teacher or instructor, Head of Expertise, Director of the specialisation area and the student’s home institution.
The home institution is informed if the student is undertaking cross-institutional studies or if a student is on study exchange. These communications are the responsibility of the member of staff who detected the misconduct and/or initiated the process.