Approved by the Academic Affairs Committee of Aalto University on 10 September 2024, in force from 1 January 2025.

1 Introduction 

The ethical principles and guidelines for responsible conduct set down in the Aalto University Code of Conduct (1) for research, education and artistic activities shall be elaborated with this Code of Academic Integrity in Studies in the context of studying, learning and teaching.

Academic integrity contains the same principles as research integrity: reliability, honesty, respect, accountability (2-4).

The purpose of this code is to support Aalto University students and other community members as learners so that they may succeed in their studies and in working life. Knowing and following good research and artistic practices – acting with integrity – is not only relevant in studying, but throughout working life. The code is aimed at building a shared understanding among students and staff at Aalto University about what academic integrity means.

The code applies to violations of academic integrity in studies, including in student admissions. If academic integrity in studies is violated, the violations will be investigated and consequences will ensue as described in the code. 

2 Field of application

This code is applicable to Aalto University degree students. This code is applicable to other Aalto University students than degree students as well within their study right and other applicable regulations (e.g. exchange students, Open University students and students pursuing non-degree studies) where appropriate.

The code applies also to applicants who are applying for a right to study towards a degree or who are applying to take other studies at Aalto University, where appropriate. There is a separate section for handling misconduct in student admissions.

The ethical principles and types of violations of academic integrity in the code apply also to all other Aalto University community members, such as continuing education students as well as staff when acting as learners at Aalto University or when applying for a right to study. Suspected violations shall be addressed by the university in accordance with the relevant terms and legislation applicable to the learner.

3 Key legislation, regulations and national guidelines

Aalto University is committed to The Finnish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and Procedures for Handling Alleged Violations of Research Integrity in Finland 2023 (Guideline of the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK) (hereinafter 'RI Guidelines') (3). The good research practices described in the RI Guidelines need to be applied to studies at all degree levels. 

The operations of Aalto University are governed by the Universities Act (yliopistolaki, 558/2009). According to section 2, 'The universities shall arrange their activities so as to ensure a high international standard in research, artistic activities, education and tuition in conformity with research integrity'. The Universities Act also lays down provisions on disciplinary actions and the right to request rectification to the evaluation of a thesis, other study attainment or admission result . The Administrative Procedure Act (hallintolaki 434/2003) and the principles of good administration shall be followed when investigating suspected misconduct or correcting any decision afterwards.

In accordance with the Aalto University General Regulations on Teaching and Studying (5) given by the University Academic Affairs Committee, further guidelines on the code of academic integrity and on the handling of violations shall also be given by the University Academic Affairs Committee. Other kinds of student misconduct than violations of academic integrity are defined in the 'Rules of Conduct – Student´s Rights and Responsibilities' (6), issued by The University Academic Affairs Committee.

4 Academic integrity

4.1 Good research practices in education and studies

Good research practices as applied to education and studies consist of practices and procedures (3, p.11-15) to be followed for demonstrating responsibility towards the university, degree programmes, teachers and students, such as: 

1. Research and Learning Environment: Good research practices are known in the university, and information about them is accessible. It is ensured that the infrastructure is appropriate for responsible conduct. Suspected violations will be handled appropriately and without delay. Suspected persons and persons who bring up suspicions against them will both be treated fairly. 
2. Training, Supervision and Mentoring: The teaching of good research practices is included in university studies. There is training available for staff. Support persons are appointed to help create a good organisational culture. 
3. Research Procedures: Students report their results and methods – including their use of external services or of AI and automated tools – in a way that is compatible with the requirements set down for their use in studies.
4. Safeguards: Students comply with the relevant codes, guidelines and regulations involving their own health and safety and that of others.
5. Data Practices and Management: Students comply with obligations related to the confidentiality, non-disclosure and limitation of data processing, such as data privacy regulations.
6. Collaborative Working: Students in collaboration (group work) agree on goals, rights, duties and adherence to good research practices so they can take responsibility for the integrity of the group work and its results.
7. Publication: The work of others will be respected, their achievements valued, and references to their publications will be made appropriately.
8. Reviewing: Students take seriously their responsibility for peer reviewing and refereeing other students´ work and for maintaining the confidentiality of unpublished work.

4.2 Furthering academic integrity

Aalto University ensures that: 

• There is information available to students and other learners as well as to teachers on academic integrity, on handling misconduct and on the consequences of violating it. 
• The practices and processes for sharing information and for handling possible violations of academic integrity are known throughout the university.
• There is material and training available on academic integrity to students and faculty.
• The number of violations of academic integrity is monitored.  

The Aalto University schools ensure that:

• All degrees include compulsory part in studies that discuss good scientific and/or good artistic practices relevant to the corresponding degree level.
• The number of violations of academic integrity is monitored.  

Teachers ensure that: 

• Students will get information about proper study practices and the consequences of misconduct.
• The possibilities to use prohibited practices are restricted.
• Proscribed practices will be intervened in, whenever perceived. 
• Students will be given guidance on good practices.

Students and other learners: 

• Commit to academic integrity and good scientific and/or artistic practices in their studies 
• Follow the instructions on exams and study attainments. 
• Take personal responsibility to know about academic integrity and the instructions available on it and to ask for guidance if needed. 
• Understand that misconduct – like cheating in exams, plagiarism and misuse of artificial intelligence – is not allowed and that consequences will ensue if they violate academic integrity.

5 Violations of academic integrity

5.1 Misconduct in studying (opintovilppi)

In the context of studying, misconduct is a deliberate, dishonest act or use of a means that mispresents the student´s own or someone else’s level of competence or observations or research results concerning the subject being studied (‘acts under false pretences’).

Regulations, rules, instructions and guidelines (regulations etc.) binding students when demonstrating their learning and competence (such as this code, examination guidelines or instructions for specific assignments) have been issued to ensure reliable assessment of learning and competence, and violating these regulations etc. is considered misconduct in studying. 

A student´s action that contradicts these regulations etc. is evaluated based on its significance on the assessment of learning or competence and on whether it is deliberate or not. If the violation is evaluated to be minor (e.g. unintentional and constitutingonly a minor part of the assessment of the learning in question), it can be handled through discussion between the student and the person responsible for the assessment or guidance, such as a teacher. Otherwise, it must be handled according to this code whether the issue is misconduct in studies or other violation of academic integrity.

5.1.1 Categories of misconduct in studying

Cheating on exams (tenttivilppi, lunttaaminen) or other study attainments
Cheating on exams refers to the use of prohibited means or aids in an exam. Attempted use of prohibited means or aids in an exam may also constitute an act of misconduct.

Cheating that has an influence on the assessment of a study attainment other than an exam (an assignment, for example) or the use of prohibited means, aids or collaboration in studies is likewise deemed as misconduct in studies. The act can also be cheating on attendance in the classroom or at some other educational event. Utilising artificial intelligence or other automated tools or collaboration with another person in a study attainment contrary to the teacher's instructions can also be considered cheating.

Helping another student to cheat in exams or in other study attainments is also an act of misconduct. The act can include, for example, giving one´s own essay to be copied or recording attendance on behalf of another student who is not actually present.

Plagiarism, fabrication and falsification are categories of misconduct that are handled separately below. Misconduct in studies can include elements of these misconduct categories. 

Cheating on proof of competence
This includes misrepresenting one´s own competence level or progress in studies in order to gain credits or access to a certain course or educational event. It may include giving false documentation or information regarding one´s previous studies or other prior learning in order to get a transfer of credits.

Preparing or using a false or falsified version of an official document (e.g. a degree certificate, transcript of records or proof of identity) to be used as misleading evidence may also be considered forgery. The university cannot itself investigate such suspected crimes, but it will always consider reporting the offence to the police if a forgery appears to be present.

5.1.2 Research misconduct and its relation to misconduct in studies

The Finnish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and Procedures for Handling Alleged Violations of Research Integrity in Finland 2023 (RI Guidelines) (3) define key categories of violations against good research practices and violations against research integrity (RI). These categories apply to studying as well and are defined below.  

Plagiarism

Plagiarism, or unacknowledged borrowing, means using someone else’s work or research ideas without permission or reference. Plagiarism also infringes on the rights of the original authors. Plagiarism can be direct, modified or paraphrased.

Plagiarism includes presenting or using as one’s own another’s text or sections of text, research plans, manuscripts, articles, results, materials, research ideas, observations, programme codes [Note: Referred to as 'programming code' at Aalto University], translations, diagrams, images or other visual material without appropriate reference to the original.

(3, p. 17-18)

Science and art both make use of the prior scientific, artistic and other work of others. A good command of earlier work demonstrates learnedness. To show one's use of earlier work, an appropriate citation and referencing style is needed, and this is a basicrequirement in university-level study attainments. In addition, the author (i.e. the student or learner) must make their own independent contribution. Word-for-word repetition of source material rarely serves to prove a command of the 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 a missing or misleading citation. Plagiarism may concern published as well as unpublished work. A work produced by someone else must not be presented as one’s own for any purpose, even if it was in the public domain or was done with the original author´s permission or assistance.¹ 

Below is a list of some of the most common forms of plagiarism in study attainments. To avoid plagiarism, it is important to cite the source of the information and mark the part that is quoted. It is also important to keep the length of the quotation appropriate for the purpose.

• Word-for-word quotation without clearly indicating it as such
• Minor changes to the source text, for instance, changing a few words or the word order
  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 reproducing the line of 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. 
• Copy and paste
  When using internet sources, the author must also comply with the guidelines on the responsible conduct of research and not represent a work of another as their own, even if they do not know the original author(s). 
• Direct translation from the original without indicating the direct quotation
  Translating the source material word for word or altering it only slightly in the translation may also constitute plagiarism. The source must be cited even when translating the text into another language.
• Collusion and plagiarism
  Collusion refers here 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. Collusion may also take the form of discussing an individual assignment with another student, after which each writes a report on the learning as though it were solely their own rather than based on a text produced collaboratively with the other student. Often students are allowed to reflect on assignments together, but the individual assignment, its experimental part and reports must be produced independently. Collusion includes any voluntary cooperation that is disallowed as well as situations where someone takes unfair advantage of other students´ input in group work.

Fabrication

Fabrication refers to presenting fake observations, research data or results. An example of fabrication is when the observations presented in a publication do not correspond to the methods described. (3, p. 17)

Fabrication whether in scientific or artistic activities or in studies is considered an act of severe misconduct. To prevent fabrication, the data collection and analysis needs to be transparent and traceable in all study attainments and papers. 

Falsification (misrepresentation)

Falsification means the manipulation of research findings. By falsification of observations, the results of the research are distorted. Deliberate data selection or omission can also result in falsification. Falsification can occur in publications, manuscripts intended for publication, teaching materials and funding applications. (3, p. 17)

Falsification can be avoided by diligently reporting the data collection and the process of analysing the data. Although the ways of reporting vary in different methodologies and study designs, in any study assignment, the path from the analysis to the findings and conclusion(s) needs to be transparent. Any omission of data that conflicts with other data or results also needs to be reported. 

5.2 Disregard for good research practices in studies

Disregard for good research practices

Violations of good research practices that do not constitute research misconduct are referred to as disregard for good research practices according to the established practice in Finland. (3, p. 18)

Disregard for good research practices in studies can take many forms, for instance showing disregard for the rights of other students or teachers or denigrating the work and achievements of others. Disregard for good research practices may also be considered, in serious cases, as misconduct in studies or the other kinds of inappropriate behaviour specified in the Universities Act.

Examples

• Self-plagiarism
  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 new thesis, or in an altered or translated form for another thesis, without reference to the previous thesis may constitute an act of misconduct. In all cases where a previous thesis or coursework is used, the possible ways to use it need to be discussed with the supervisor or with the teacher responsible for the assignment.

• Unethical dissemination of teaching material or study attainments
  This includes unethical dissemination of a teacher´s teaching material or another student's study attainment, even with correct attribution, and the unethical disclosure or transfer of confidential information or data. For example, it is unethical dissemination when a student shares assignments produced by the teacher to third parties outside the university to be utilised commercially without the teacher´s consent, or when a student sells a group work produced as a study attainment to a third party without agreeing to the transaction with the other students in the workgroup.

  In the case of suspected unethical dissemination the process described in this code (chapter 6) is followed only when appropriate.  

  6 Handling of suspected violations of academic integrity

  6.1 Actors in the process

  Students

  Students are expected to responsibly follow the code of conduct. Students suspected of a violation are entitled to a sufficient and appropriate examination of their case and to have an opportunity to be heard before any actions are taken. Students also have the right to use a support person in the process.

  The faculty, such as teachers, thesis supervisors, supervising professors, thesis advisors, other academic advisors and exam invigilators

  The faculty has the responsibility to support ethical behaviour in studies, intervene in cases of unethical behaviour in studies, and report suspected violations to the investigator when needed. The schools shall ensure that the faculty have guidance and support in the procedure as needed. Other staff members are also obligated to inform the investigator of any suspected violations of academic integrity that they become aware of in the course of their duties.

  The dean or academic actor responsible at another educational unit

  The school deans are responsible for ensuring that any suspected cases of students having violated academic integrity will be handled in accordance with the principles of good administration and governance. The deans are also responsible for deciding on follow-up measures and for seeing that the implementation of the decisions is monitored. The deans may delegate authority to another person as provided in the Aalto University Bylaws.

  If the degree student's home school is different from where the violation took place, the deans' responsibilities are divided as follows:

  A The dean of the school where the violation took place is responsible for conducting an investigation of the suspected violation and deciding on the potential academic consequences in accordance with this code.

  B The dean of the student's home school is responsible for any further actions, in accordance with this code, concerning actions that fall under the responsibility of the dean.

  Like the school deans, the academic actors responsible for the educational units outside the schools (e.g. the Language Centre, the Open University) are responsible for ensuring that any suspicions of students having violated academic integrity within their unit will be conducted as in the above section A in the schools. For a non-degree Open University student, the corresponding actions of the above section B are the responsibility of the academic actor responsible for the Open University.

  The investigator

  The investigator is the person responsible for conducting the investigation of the suspected violation at the school or educational unit outside schools and preparing cases for the dean or the academic actor responsible for an educational unit outside schools.²  The investigator(s) are the contact points for both students and staff. 

  Academic experts, thesis investigation group

  The dean or the academic actor responsible for an educational unit outside schools may ask for an opinion from an academic expert when conducting an investigation. When investigating a suspected violation concerning a thesis, the dean may also set up a thesis investigation group with academic expertise.

  6.2 Phases of the process

  6.2.1 Initiation of the investigation    

  Suspicion of a violation of academic integrity in coursework

  In the first phase, the teacher in charge of the course decides whether an investigation is needed. Other course personnel³  must inform the teacher in charge of the course (hereinafter ‘teacher’ in this paragraph 6.2.1) concerning the suspected violations in the exam or otherwise in the course.

  If the teacher perceives a possible violation of academic integrity concerning coursework or an unfinished thesis, they need to report this to the designated investigator of the school. In an unclear case, the teacher can interview the student to find out whether the suspicion is founded, or if the case is about slight carelessness or ignorance. The teacher may use relevant tools as instructed by the university to examine the suspected violation. For example, if the suspected violation is related to plagiarism, the teacher may use originality-checking software provided by the university to examine the student’s text, source code or other work. If the teacher sees the case is one of slight carelessness or ignorance, the teacher gives the student guidance on good research practices, and the case is not taken further. Even in this case, however, the act or omission is taken into consideration in the assessment of the coursework or the unfinished thesis in accordance with the evaluation criteria. The teacher can always consult the investigator before deciding if the case should be reported.

  If a violation of academic integrity (i.e. misconduct or disregard for good research practices) cannot be ruled out, the teacher need to report the case to the investigator. The teacher gives the investigator a written report. The study attainment will not be graded until the case has been closed. If the violation is confirmed, the study attainment will be failed. 

  Exam supervisors/invigilators must write down their perceptions of the incident, the student’s explanation and the actions taken, and write a report on the suspected violation they have perceived during the exam.

  In examinations not organised by the teacher, the exam supervisors/invigilators must directly inform the investigator about the suspected violations they perceived during the exam. In that case the investigator will see that the teacher is also informed of the suspected exam violation.

  Suspicion of a violation of academic integrity in an approved study attainment (coursework)

  If the teacher perceives a possible violation of academic integrity concerning coursework after the coursework or entire course has been graded, the teacher contacts the investigator.

  The possibility to initiate an investigation process is considered case by case in accordance with the current legislation. For example, if the student has committed a violation in the coursework for the course, there are grounds for the teacher to look at the student´s previously assessed work in the same course. and for the investigator to initiate a process to investigate also suspicions concerning previously assessed works.

  The dean makes the decision for launching the investigation if the entire course was already completed and passed. 

  The matter shall be handled in the same manner as violations related to ungraded coursework, as appropriate.

  Suspicion of a violation of academic integrity in credit transfer

  An allegation of violation concerning a matter pertaining to credit transfer shall be handled in the same manner as violations related to study attainments, as appropriate. 

  Suspicions of a violation of academic integrity in an ongoing bachelor's, master's or licentiate thesis

  Suspicions concerning an ongoing thesis are handled similarly to suspicions related to coursework. If the thesis supervisor, supervising professor, or thesis advisor notices a potential violation of academic integrity connected with an ongoing thesis, they should notify the designated investigator at the student´s home school.

  Suspicions of a violation of academic integrity raised during the evaluation stage of a bachelor´s, master´s or licentiate thesis 

  If the party responsible for supervising, examining or evaluating a thesis suspects a violation of academic integrity in a thesis that has been submitted for evaluation, they need to inform the school’s investigator. The evaluation process is then interrupted for the investigation. The dean makes the decision on interrupting the evaluation process.

  The dean makes the decision for initiating an investigation concerning a thesis that has been submitted for evaluation. The dean also decides on whether a thesis investigation group should be set up on the basis of the investigator´s report.

  Suspicion of a violation of academic integrity in an approved bachelor´s, master´s or licentiate thesis

  If a person responsible for / a member of a university body responsible for supervising, examining or evaluating a thesis or perceives or receives information about a possible violation of academic integrity concerning an approved thesis, they shall notify the school investigator. Also, a person other than the above can make the notification.

  The possibility to initiate an investigation process is considered case by case in accordance with the current legislation. As a rule, an investigation process shall be initiated if the reported suspicion of violation is so serious that, had it been known before the approval of the thesis, the evaluation process would have been interrupted. Also, the notification should arrive sufficiently early so that correction of the approval decision following the investigation (including any investigation conducted by the thesis investigation group) would still be possible in accordance with the current legislation. If notification arrives later than that, an investigation shall be initiated on its basis only if there is a significant reason for doing so.

  The dean makes the decision for initiating an investigation concerning an approved thesis. The investigation itself shall be conducted in the same manner as investigations into suspected violations related to theses that are still in the evaluation stage, as appropriate.

  6.2.2 Investigation: courses and theses that are in progress

  The investigator carries out the investigation, writes a report, and gives it to the dean. 

  The investigator hears the views of the suspected person(s), the person(s) who brought up the suspicion and other persons if needed. The investigator informs the suspected person(s) and other parties about their rights and responsibilities in the process. The investigator obtains the information and evidence necessary, including an academic expert´s view, if needed. The hearings and other information are documented in a report, which must include:

• The identity of the suspected person(s)
• The suspicions of the violations of academic integrity in their original form 
• The hearings and the information discovered
• The conclusion on whether 
  - the student is found to have violated academic integrity
  - the study attainment should be failed 
  - the case should proceed to the president for considering any appropriate disciplinary measures

The investigator delivers the report to the dean.

6.2.3 Investigation of bachelor´s, master´s or licentiate theses that are in the evaluation stage or have been approved

Investigation

The investigator carries out the investigation, writes a report, and gives it to the dean (see 6.2.2) with the following exceptions: 

• The conclusion may be that the matter is not yet ready to be resolved, as a thesis investigation group needs to be appointed to carry out the investigation.
• The suspected student is given a possibility to be heard concerning the report before the dean makes a decision on the next step.

Process of the thesis investigation group

The dean may appoint a thesis investigation group if

• the investigator suggests this, or
• the suspected student demands that the investigation be carried out by a thesis investigation group, or
• the dean otherwise deems it necessary in order to carry out the investigation appropriately. 

The thesis investigation group consists of at least 3 persons with the appropriate academic and research ethics expertise. The dean appoints a rapporteur for the group.

The duty of the thesis investigation group is to carry out the investigation, write a report and give the report to the dean.

The thesis investigation group conducts the necessary hearings and obtains the necessary information and evidence. The hearings and other information are documented in the report, which must include:

• The identity of the suspected person(s) 
• The suspicions of the violations of academic integrity in their original form 
• The hearings and the information discovered
• The conclusion on whether
  - the student has violated academic integrity
  - the study attainment should be failed 
  - the case should proceed to the president for considering any appropriate disciplinary measures

The thesis investigation group delivers the report to the dean.

6.2.4 The dean’s decision

Based on the report of the investigation, the dean responsible for conducting the investigation makes a decision on whether a violation has taken place. The dean’s decision can deviate from the recommendations of the report. If a violation concerning a study attainment in evaluation stage is detected, the dean returns the study attainment to the teacher or other decision-maker to give it a failing mark. If the study attainment is a coursework, the dean will, if necessary, return the entire course performance to the teacher to give it a failing mark.

The dean can also give the student written and/or verbal admonition, or:

• if the student is not a degree student at the school that completed the investigation, but a degree student at another Aalto University school, the dean will transfer the case to the dean of the student´s home school to consider giving the student a written and/or verbal admonition. 
• if the student is not a degree student at Aalto University but a student at the Open University, the dean will transfer the case to the party responsible at the Open University for considering further actions to be taken in accordance with the relevant terms and legislation. 

If the dean of the degree student's home school considers the student's violation to be misconduct for which disciplinary action should be considered, as specified in section 45 of the Universities Act, the dean shall forward the case to the president for consideration of disciplinary actions. 

The investigator can remind the student of good academic practices even when the dean does not give a written or verbal admonition.

6.3 Phases of the process: Doctoral thesis

The RI Guidelines (The Finnish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and Procedures for Handling Alleged Violations of Research Integrity in Finland 2023) (3) are applied when a suspicion of violation of good scientific practice concerns a doctoral thesis submitted for preliminary examination or approval, or when the doctoral thesis has already been approved. 

In accordance with the RI Guidelines, the 'complainant' is 'the person who has submitted the [written] notification of an alleged RI violation', in the case of Aalto University, to the president of the university. If a suspicion concerning a doctoral thesis comes to the dean´s notice by other means, the dean informs the president and, when appropriate, recommends that the person who has brought the suspicion to attention proceeds to the RI process by making a written notification to the president following RI Guidelines.

The president decides if the RI process will be initiated. The president also decides on whether the preliminary examination or evaluation process will be interrupted during the RI process. The dean makes the decision on interrupting the preliminary examination or evaluation process in urgent cases until the president has the possibility to consider the allegation.

If the conclusion of a completed RI process is that the thesis should be marked failed or that other consequences should be considered, the president returns the case to the dean for overseeing the further actions. 

Suspected violations of academic integrity in an ongoing doctoral thesis are dealt with, as applicable, like other suspicions concerning ongoing theses. If the supervising professor or advisor identifies a potential violation of academic integrity related to an ongoing doctoral thesis, they must report it to the designated investigator at the student´s home school. The investigation applies the procedure described above in section 6.2.2 and the matter is resolved by the dean according to section 6.2.4.

7 Consequences of violations of academic integrity

7.1 Consequences for the evaluation and approval of the study attainment

The coursework, thesis or any other study attainment shall be left academically ungraded and marked failed if the outcome of the dean´s decision or president´s decision after RI process confirms that academic integrity was violated, i.e. the student was found guilty of misconduct or disregard for good research practices in completing the work and the study attainment should be marked failed. The student’s completion of an entire course can be failed if the violation of an individual coursework is severe. The student has the right to appeal against the grading decision in accordance with the Universities Act also when the reason for a failure is a violation of academic integrity.

A student whose thesis for evaluation or doctoral thesis for preliminary examination has been proposed for rejection as the result of a investigation conducted in accordance with this code or the RI process may ask the deciding person or body to interrupt and terminate the evaluation or preliminary examination as stated in the Aalto University General Regulations on Teaching and Studying, section 29 (5). The termination of the evaluation procedure or preliminary examination has no effect on other possible consequences of the violation.

No separate period of suspension may be set (e.g. to allow a student to try to complete the study attainment or the course again) as a consequence for a violation of academic integrity. The student's right to retake a failed study attainment or course is not affected by the fact that it was failed based on a violation of academic integrity instead of another reason.

In severe violations of academic integrity, an already approved thesis or other study attainment can be failed retroactively in cases applicable under the Administrative Procedure Act (hallintolaki 434/2003). Information about verified severe violations of academic integrity can be added in connection with approved theses, including in cases where a thesis cannot be failed retroactively.

The severity referred to in this paragraph is assessed in terms of the scope of the actions, their recurrence, scientific significance, and harmful consequences (harmfulness).

7.2 Disciplinary actions

A student who has been found guilty of misconduct in studies can be subject to disciplinary action as prescribed in the Universities Act, section 45. According to the law, a student who acts under false pretences can be given a written caution or be suspended from the university for a fixed period of one year at most. Also, a student who has helped another student in violation can be subject to disciplinary actions. 

The president decides whether disciplinary actions are needed. The president also decides on a written caution or on recommending to the university board a suspension of the student. 

The university board decides about suspending the student for a fixed period. 

8 Retention and handling of information

8.1 Retention and sharing of documents and information related to handling violations

Decisions by a dean to give a written admonition or memorandum of a verbal admonition, as well as notifications, other conclusions and follow-up measures of the investigation are recorded in written form and retained until the graduation of the student in question, but for no more than 10 years at the most, at the school responsible for the described actions. 

What is specified in Aalto University's records management plan is valid regarding the retention of RI process documents and disciplinary procedure documents.

If the investigation of a student's suspected violation and the decision on other actions fall under the responsibility of deans from different schools, the investigators of these schools are responsible for sharing the necessary documents and information with the other school.

If the student is also a degree or exchange student at an Aalto University school other than the school where the violation took place and was investigated or other actions were taken, the investigator delivers information of taken actions to that school also.

What is stated here regarding the retention and other handling of documents and information in schools applies, as appropriate, also to the educational units outside schools.

The schools and the educational units outside schools keep a record of the number of their notifications, misconduct processes and consequences imposed and they report them annually.

8.2 Notifications between partner universities

Notification of violations of academic integrity must as a rule be included in the provisions of all new domestic or foreign-exchange and double-degree or joint-degree agreements as well as teaching-cooperation or other corresponding educational agreements, where appropriate. 

Violations of academic integrity may be communicated to the partner university or to other parties mentioned in the agreement. The decision regarding the notification is made by the dean of the student´s home school.

Notification from the partner university of a detection of a violation by an Aalto University student shall be processed by the dean (see 6.2.4).

9 Handling suspected misconduct in student admissions

Misconduct in admissions

Cheating in entrance examinations as well submitting fraudulent documents or deliberately providing false information in the admissions process is considered misconduct in student admissions. 

Doctoral applicants are required to adhere to good academic practices and ethics when composing research plans for admission. Violation of academic integrity in the application documents may be considered misconduct in admissions.

Misconduct in student admissions may lead to rejection of the application.

The authority to investigate suspected misconduct and to decide on the consequences lies with the dean of the school of the study option as detailed below.

Entrance examination    

The responsibility to investigate suspected cheating in entrance examinations lies with Aalto Admission Services or the Aalto school organising the examination, or as otherwise agreed by Aalto University when the suspected cheating occurs in entrance exams administered by another university.

Detailed instructions on the procedures to be followed by entrance examination invigilators when cheating is detected are provided in the guidelines for invigilators. The authority to decide on the consequences either lies with the dean of the school of the study option or is specified in the agreed joint admission policy.

Applicants suspected of cheating in an entrance examination will be given the possibility to state their perspective as part of the investigation, either during or after the entrance exam or in both stages.

Cheating in an entrance examination leads to rejection of the applicant’s exam, either wholly or in part. The rejected exam or part cannot be retaken, as this would be inconsistent with the equal treatment of applicants.

Fraudulent documents

Presenting fraudulent documents in the application process may result in rejection of admission. Furthermore, Aalto University may initiate criminal proceedings against the applicant.

Applicants´ legal remedies

The Administrative Procedure Act (hallintolaki 434/2003) and the principles of good administration shall be followed when investigating suspected misconduct.

As a part of due process, applicants whose application has been rejected due to misconduct in admissions have a right to request rectification of the admission decision in accordance with the standard rectification request process of admissions, as laid down in the Universities Act (yliopistolaki 558/2009), section 82.

References

1. Aalto University Code of Conduct. 2021. Available from: https://www.aalto.fi/en/aalto-university/code-of-conduct-values-into-practice?check_logged_in=1.
2. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. The European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities. 2024. Available from: https://allea.org.
3. The Finnish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and Procedures for Handling Alleged Violations of Research Integrity in Finland 2023. Guideline of the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK. Available from: https://tenk.fi/sites/default/files/2023-11/RI_Guidelines_2023.pdf.
4. The Fundamental values of Academic Integrity: International Center for Academic Integrity. 2021. Saatavissa: https://academicintegrity.org/images/pdfs/20019_ICAI-Fundamental-Values_R12.pdf. 
5. Aalto University General Regulations on Teaching and Studying. 2010. Available from: https://www.aalto.fi/en/applications-instructions-and-guidelines/aalto-university-general-regulations-on-teaching-and-studying-in-force-from-1-august-2021?check_logged_in=1.
6. Rules of Conduct - Students´ Rights and Responsibilities. 2020. Available from: https://www.aalto.fi/en/applications-instructions-and-guidelines/rules-of-conduct-students-rights-and-responsibilities-in-force-from-1-august-2020.

Footnotes

¹ Unauthorised use of another person´s work may also constitute an infringement of copyright or other IPR (intellectual property rights) violation according to Finnish or foreign law. The university cannot investigate copyright violations.

² Typically, the investigator for the school is the school's manager of academic affairs [= opintoasiainpäällikkö].

³ Personnel such as hourly paid teachers, course or teaching assistants.