Honour Code


The following Honour Code is an effort of the students and the staff at the department of Computing Science. A violation of the honour code not only affects the individual dishonest student, but also its fellow students and the quality and integrity of their education as a whole.


The text below is heavily based on Stanford University’s Honour Code [1] and KTH/Nada’s Examination Regulations [2]. Please note that this Honour Code does not replace Umeå University’s “Regelsamling för grundutbildning” [3]. In case of any uncertainties, please consult with the person(s) responsible for your course(s).

1)      The Honour Code is an agreement from the students, individually and collectively:

a)      that they will not give or receive aid in examinations; that they will not give or receive unpermitted aid in class work, in the preparation of reports, or in any other work that is to be used by the instructor as the basis of grading;

b)      that they will acknowledge any (permitted) help they have received and resources they have used for doing such work; that they will make sure they understand the entirety of submitted works, including all parts they received help for;

c)      that they will do their share and take an active part in seeing to it that others as well as themselves uphold the spirit and letter of the Honour Code.

2)      While the faculty alone has the right and obligation to set academic requirements, the students and faculty will work together to establish optimal conditions for honourable academic work.

According to university regulations (see http://www.umu.se/studentcentrum/regler_riktlinjer/regelsamlingen/disciplin_eng.htm) all suspected violations of the Honour Code will be reported to the vice chancellor of the university. The vice chancellor of the university shall then investigate the case and give the suspected student(s) the possibility to argue their case. After that a decision is made of whether (a) the case is closed without taking any measures, (b) the vice chancellor of the university issues an official warning, or (c) the case is forwarded to the university’s disciplinary board for further examination. A violation of the Honour Code will also typically result in a failing grade for the exercise, lab, paper, or exam comprising the violation or even a failing grade for the entire course.

Examples of conduct that have been regarded as being in violation of the Honour Code include:

·         Copying from another’s work or allowing another to copy from one’s own work

  • Unpermitted collaboration
  • Plagiarism (see http://www.cs.umu.se/kurser/5DV054/plagiarism.html for more information)
  • Revising and resubmitting work for regrading, without the instructor’s knowledge and consent
  • Giving or receiving unpermitted aid on a take-home examination
  • Representing as one’s own work the work of another
  • Giving or receiving aid on an academic assignment under circumstances in which a reasonable person should have known that such aid was not permitted

Examples of honourable academic work and behaviour include:

·         All bear responsibility for group work. When working in groups, all members of the group collaborate and contribute equally to the group’s works. Each group member is individually capable of giving an account of the entirety of submitted works.

·         All help received and all sources used are acknowledged correctly. Whenever all or parts of some submitted works are not the work of the student, he/she clearly informs the teacher of this. In all writing, sources are shown as formal references and all direct quotes are explicitly given. If the idea of someone else is used, the origin of the idea is clearly stated in the work even if the idea has been expressed vocally, e.g. during discussions with other students. If existing codes are used in programming assignments, this is clearly shown in the documentation/report (as formal references) and comments in the code. If someone else has given debugging help or a tip this is acknowledged in the code and the documentation/report.

·         No plagiarism. Each student has written his/her own text/figures/tables/code. Students are aware that rewriting material to change the surface structure only is not sufficient to avoid plagiarism.

·         Ability to present/explain the entire solution. All students understand the entirety of their submitted works. They are able to present and explain the entirety of their submitted works, including the parts they did not complete on their own or received help for.

·         Honest use of attendance lists. Students only write their own names and do not give the impression that another person was present when in fact this person was absent.


[1]        Stanford University's Office of Judicial Affairs: Honor Code, http://www.stanford.edu/dept/vpsa/judicialaffairs/guiding/honorcode.htm, last visited Dec 20, 2007.

[2]        KTH Nada, Stockholm University: Examination regulations, http://www.nada.kth.se/utbildning/hederskodex/index.html.en#regulations, Nov 10, 2004, last visited Dec 20, 2007.

[3]        StudentCentrum, Umeå Universitet: Regelsamling för grundutbildningen vid Umeå universitet, http://www.umu.se/studentcentrum/regler_riktlinjer/regelsamlingen/index_eng.htm, Apr 26, 2005, last visited Dec 20, 2007.









I have read and understood the terms stated in this Honour Code.



                   signature                                                 in print                                             date