Appendix 3Distribution of responsibilities when processing a suspected fraud case and deciding on consequences

ASSOCIATED PARTY / RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTY
Supervisor of examination / After interrupting the student’s examination, the supervisor marks the fraud suspicion and the student’s comment on the test paper and submits a report on his/her observations and a list of possible witnesses to the teacher responsible for the study unit.
Teacher and the thesis supervisor / Teachers and thesis supervisors document all evidence that supports or weakens the fraud allegation and submit the created material to the head of the department or the director of independent institute or service department, or, if the faculty has no departments, to the professor responsible for the subject. They are responsible for ensuring that the student receives information on the allegation by the time the student should be informed of the evaluation results of the study unit. If it is clear that the evidence is not sufficient to prove fraud, they state that the fraud allegation will be droppedand inform the student.
The (preliminary) examiner of a master’s, licentiate or doctoral thesis / An examiner informs the faculty of the fraud allegation. In the time given by the faculty, prepares a statement that presents the evidence of the student’s fraudulent practice.
Head of department, director of independent institute or service department, or professor responsible for the subject / The respective party investigates the fraud allegation and hears possible witnesses and, without exception, the student suspected of fraud. Based on the investigation, the partydecides on further actions:
  • States that there is not enough evidence to prove fraud and informs the student and the teacher who filed the allegation that the casehas been dropped.
  • When the evidence is considered sufficient, informs the student and the teacher who reported the suspicion that the study unit has been rejected unless it is a study unit that must be approved by the Faculty Council.
  • A head of department or a professor responsible for the subject informs the dean of the fraud case and delivers the evidence to him/her.
  • A director of an independent institute or service department decides on further actions on the basis of the following item.

Dean or director of independent institute/service department / The dean or director decides on the consequences of reported academic fraud as follows:
  • Notes that there is not enough evidence to prove fraud and informs the head of department that the fraud allegation has been dropped.
  • Returns the matter to the department for further preparation.
  • As his/her own decision, gives the student a written warning. The dean informs the head of the department of this action. If the student is entitled to complete a degree in another faculty, information on the decision is also sent to the dean of this faculty.
  • Informs the Rector of the University for possible statutory disciplinary punishments if the warning of the dean is not considered to be sufficient.
  • Issues a written warning if the Rector or the University Board has decided that the fraud is not serious enough to warrant disciplinary punishments stipulated by law. The dean reports this decision as described above.
  • As a disciplinary punishment, may cancel the study rights of a person whose right to study is not based on the right to complete degrees.
If the matter regards fraud in a master’s or licentiate thesis or doctoral dissertation that is submitted for examination, the dean is responsible for investigating the allegation. The dean informs the student that the examination process has been interrupted and requests the student to reply to the statement of the examiners. When a decision on the rejection of the thesis must be made by the Faculty Council, the dean deals with other consequences as described above. The dean always informs these cases of fraud to the Rector. The dean is also responsible for investigating theallegationalso in other cases if the teacher who noticed the fraud is the head of a department in the dean’s faculty.
Faculty Council / When the evidence of fraud is considered to be sufficient, the Faculty Council decides on the rejection of a study unit under its power of decision.
Rector / The Rector decides on possible further actions in a case of fraud reported by a dean or a director of independent institute or service department:
  • Decides that the matter does not give reason to a disciplinary punishment and informs this to the dean or the director of independent institute or service department.
  • Gives the student a warning.
  • Takes the case to the University Board to suspend the student for a fixed period.
  • Decides if the student’s actions must be investigated as a breach of responsible conduct of research.

University Board / Upon the Rector’s presentation, the University Board decides if there is reason to suspend the student for a fixed period (maximum potential suspension: one year).