Committee for Academic Integrity

• Not providing sources on an examination where this is a requirement.
• Failing to clearly mark text that consists of direct quotations.
• Submitting an answer that is completely or partly written by another person, or that is based on another person’s notes, and presenting it as one’s own work.
• Collaborating on an examination or submission where collaboration is not permitted, and as a consequence, submitting answers that are almost the same.
• Using the chatbot ChatGPT to write an examination answer.

Some examples of cheating may not be as obvious, but they are still classed as cheating:

• To rewrite part of a text from a web page and use the rewritten text in an examination answer without referring to the source. As a general rule, the source must be stated if source referencing is a requirement regarding the examination in question.
• Pasting text from notes that lack source references into an examination answer where source referencing is a requirement.
• Submitting an answer or using parts of an answer written by the student themselves during a previous examination/submission in the same course or in another course, without referring to the source when source referencing is required.

Suspicion of cheating may arise before, during and after examinations.

• The invigilators check the examination rooms before and during examinations, and they can identify cheating or attempted cheating.
• Electronic plagiarism control. As a general rule, submissions and examination answer papers that are submitted at the Faculty of Psychology are forwarded to an electronic plagiarism control. The electronic plagiarism control may reveal text similarities that require further follow-up. For example, reports that are generated by electronic plagiarism control quickly reveal text similarity in relation to examination answers that are available on websites such as StuDocu and Mitt UiB.
• Academic or administrative staff suspect that cheating has taken place in a form of assessment.  Academic professionals such as examiners and teachers are often very familiar with academic literature, and are able to detect text similarity that has not been identified by the electronic plagiarism control.

The examination result is suspended and the Committee for Academic Integrity is informed of the case

If there is a suspicion of cheating, the examination result will be suspended and the student in question will be sent a letter with information about withholding the examination result.  If there are any questions, the student can get in touch with the contact person stated in the letter. 

In cases of suspected cheating, the examiner is asked to write an examiner report with a written account of why the examiner considers/does not consider the circumstances to involve cheating.

The examiner report, the report from the electronic plagiarism control and other relevant documentation in the case are then passed on to the Committee for Academic Integrity.

The Committee for Academic Integrity decides on further procedures

Before the Committee for Academic Integrity reaches a decision, it must assess the documentation, as well as assess various aspects of the case, such as how long the student has been at the University of Bergen, the extent of the text similarity and how close to the source the written text is.

In cases where the Committee for Academic Integrity suspects cheating, the student will receive a letter inviting them to submit an explanation, and all the relevant case documents will be made available to the student. If the student refuses to provide an explanation, the Committee for Academic Integrity will make its assessment based on the available information in the case.

The Committee for Academic Integrity may make the following decisions:

• No case

In cases where the Committee for Academic Integrity considers that no cheating or attempted cheating has taken place, it will dismiss the case and the examination result will be released. A letter stating that the case has been dismissed and that the examination results will be released is sent to the student along with all the case documents.

• Warning

If the Committee for Academic Integrity decides that the case involves less serious breaches of academic norms, the case will be dismissed and the examination results released. The student will receive a letter with information about the dismissal of the case and a warning that due diligence requirements will be tightened in similar cases in the future.

• The case is sent to the Central Appeals Committee

In cases where the Committee for Academic Integrity considers that there is suspicion of cheating in the submitted work, the case will be sent to the Faculty along with a recommendation that the case be forwarded to the Central Appeals Committee at the University of Bergen. The student will be sent a copy of the Faculty’s cover letter and will have the opportunity to comment further on the case to the Central Appeals Committee.

If a case has been forwarded to the Central Appeals Committee, students must contact the Appeals Committee regarding any questions about further procedures. Students who have a case that has been submitted to the Central Appeals Committee have the right to use a lawyer at the University’s expense.

The Central Appeals Committee may, among other things, decide to annul the examination, and in serious cases, the student may also be expelled from the University of Bergen and deprived of the right to take examinations at all universities and university colleges in Norway for a period of up to 2 semesters. If the student is found guilty of cheating, he/she may appeal to the national Joint Appeals Committee for Student Affairs within three weeks.

In cases of suspected cheating or attempted cheating, the case must be dealt with as soon as possible by the Committee for Academic Integrity. The case processing time will vary from case to case and depends on factors such the number of cases at the time of case processing, and whether an explanation must be obtained in the case.  The student will receive a letter with information as soon as something new happens in the case.

If the case is submitted to the Central Appeals Committee, additional time must be expected before a final decision in the case is made.

A suspicion of cheating was passed on to the Committee for Academic Integrity because the examiner had discovered the use of direct translation without source referencing in an examination answer paper. The examination in question required source referencing when using direct translation, direct transcription and direct quotations.

In the student’s explanation, it emerged that the student had written Norwegian notes in order to work on the understanding of the English academic literature in the period leading up to the examination. Unfortunately, the student had completely forgotten to source reference the Norwegian notes. On the day of the examination, the student pasted parts of the Norwegian notes into the examination answer paper. As a result of this, the answer was noticed by the examiner who suspected cheating. 

This example shows just how easy it is to forget that notes and summaries also have a source. Therefore, it is important to keep this in mind when using notes and summaries in a written assignment or examination answer paper.

The committee has five members and a secretary. Members are elected for a period of 4 years.

Each department at the faculty is represented:

Professor Vegard Kvam – Department of Education 
Associate Professor Yngvild Danielsen – Department of Clinical Psychology
Associate Professor Marina Hirnstein - Department of Psychosocial Science
Associate Professor Sara Jahnke - Department of Health Promotion and Development
Associate Professor Frøydis Morken – Department of Biological and Medical Psychology

Senior Executive Officer Sunniva Aarseth, Secretary, Section for Academic and Student Affairs
Senior Executive Officer Hilde Strand Dybevik, Deputy, Student Administration