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
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
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.
 KTH Nada,
 StudentCentrum, Umeå Universitet:
Regelsamling för grundutbildningen vid Umeå universitet, http://www.umu.se/studentcentrum/regler_riktlinjer/regelsamlingen/index_eng.htm,
I have read and understood the terms stated in this Honour Code.
signature in print date