Guidelines in case of suspected plagiarism or wrong use of sources

Back to overview (Information for examiner)

In the assessment of submitted exam answers, the use of sources should be given an important role. MF has developed guidelines for assignment writing, which describe good citation practices and source use. Students should follow these and are obliged to familiarize themselves with the applicable laws and regulations in this field.

Poor use of sources ranges from a few careless mistakes to extensive plagiarism. Deficiencies in the candidate's use of sources can therefore be an expression of academic immaturity, but in some cases may also lead to suspicion of plagiarism.

For exam submissions, assessors receive access to plagiarism reports in WISEflow. It is the assessor's task to use this to evaluate possible plagiarism (see also the user guide for assessment in WISEflow).

Below are criteria for evaluating weak source use and guidelines for how to respond, if necessary.

Criteria for assessing deficiencies in source use

Course level
Higher requirements are set for master's theses and courses at the 5000-level than for courses at the bachelor level (1000- and 2000-level).
Exam duration
The longer the candidates have had available, the higher the requirements for source use.
Scope and severity
Are the deficiencies limited in scope and do they appear as oversights?
Does the source use show a significant lack of understanding?
Does the answer give the impression of being the result of (deliberate attempt at) cheating?

Forms of response to deficiencies in source use (mild to strict)

Grade tipped down

If missing references appear as oversights and are limited in number, the usual form of response should be to tip the grade down. The same applies to limited reuse of one's own work. This is considered less strict than plagiarism. If the extent of reuse is significant, the next form of response can be used. Contact sensor@mf.no if there is a need to clarify whether a source text is the candidate's own previous work.

Larger grade deduction (or fail)

If the scope is larger and suggests a greater lack of understanding of academic writing, a larger grade deduction may be appropriate. If this form of response is used, the internal assessor is asked to write a justification for the result, emphasizing the reason for the deduction. The justification should be sent to sensor@mf.no before or simultaneously with the assessment results.

Suspected plagiarism should be reported to the administration

If the case is considered particularly serious or a deliberate attempt at cheating, suspicion of plagiarism should be reported to the administration. In case of suspected plagiarism, the internal assessor writes a brief explanation of why cheating is suspected and sends it to sensor@mf.no. Refer to the plagiarism report if this is the basis for the suspicion. If the suspicion is not based on the plagiarism report, a copy of the plagiarized source should be attached, preferably with an indication of the overlapping text. The examination office will bring the case to the attention to the director of academic affairs, who will, among other things, call the student in for a conversation. The assessment should normally be carried out, but the grade will be withheld until the case has been investigated and closed.