1. ELECTRONIC DETECTION OF PLAGIA-RISM
IN FINNISH HIGHER EDUCATION
INSTITUTIONS 2013
Expert group:

2. 2
Ver. 3 March 2014
A RAKETTI project publication
ISBN 978‐952‐5520‐50‐7
PLAGIARISM STUDENT
CHEATING
PLAGIARISM AS
ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT
Plagiarism detectible by
means of electronic detec-tion

3. 3
SUMMARY
Finnish higher education institutions under‐went
a phase of acquiring and introducing
electronic detection of plagiarism on a large
scale in 2008–2013. A total of 34 higher educa‐tion
institutions are now using an electronic
detection system. The two software tools cho‐sen
as support systems for education and re‐search
are Turnitin of American and Urkund of
Swedish origin. International comparisons
have evaluated these as providing the highest
quality.
Several groups cooperated in preparing the
acquisitions, but each organisation concluded
licensing agreements individually. Most of the
acquisitions did not involve competitive ten‐dering.
In anticipation of future contract periods, it can
be stated that there is room for development in
the acquisition procedure. Not all operational
requirements that may be related to high‐volume
use in production were identified in
the pilot projects that preceded acquisitions.
The licensing periods should be prolonged in
order to facilitate the systematic utilisation of
the benefits involved in accumulating refer‐ence
databases. On the basis of experiences
gained, it would be useful to create a shared
set of criteria for higher education institutions
and a licensing template to meet the needs of
subsequent contract periods.
The benefits related to quality and risk man‐agement,
sought through PD systems, cannot
be achieved only by using electronic technolo‐gy
without the support of a strong control sys‐tem.
Mere control arrangements, without the
support of technology, are not adequate either
for achieving these benefits. The development
of plagiarism detection procedures requires
coordinated cooperation between student af‐fairs
and information administration and li‐braries.
PD system reference databases involve critical
development needs. More information content
of Finnish and international origin that would
serve higher education in Finland should be
included in the indexing of the PD systems.
These reference resources should be devel‐oped
through active customer guidance in line
with priorities defined by educational fields.
Without our initiative, the market‐oriented
reference strategy of international PD services
will not recognise, and thus cannot take ac‐count
of, the special needs of Finland.
In addition, the technical quality of reference
data should be enhanced. Gaps in the coverage
of indexing are created by the use of incompat‐ible
saving formats, among other things: PDF,
the most common format for distributing elec‐tronic
publications, can be produced in nu‐merous
variants, some of which manipulate
the text identification algorithms to produce
incorrect equivalence values.
Authentication and user role management can
be developed so as to support the more flexible
and simultaneously more data secure linking
of the systems to the processes of education
and research.
PD software can be used at the system level or
service level: in the latter case, the system is
integrated with the basic systems and control
frames of the higher education institution in
question. Solutions integrated into the e‐learning
platform and publishing systems have
achieved the highest utilisation rate and influ‐ence,
as these make the detection of plagiarism
an operational element in the learning envi‐ronment
or publishing process. Particular at‐tention
must be paid to the functionality of
data transfer interfaces and the overall data
security level of the operating environment
when systems are integrated.
When linked to the core processes of education
and research, strong legitimacy and precise
usage rules are required from the originality
check of study attainments. In addition, the
checking process is interwoven with the more
extensive application framework of good sci‐entific
practice (GSP). There is room for de‐velopment
in procedural guidelines: they
should be tied more closely and comprehen‐sively
to the regulations that steer operations.
In the course of examination processes, clear
authoritative relations, reasonable conse‐quences
in relation to the act committed, and
privacy protection of the parties concerned
should be ensured. The harmonisation of prac‐tices
can improve the equality among students,
the fluency of processes and overall data pro‐tection.
The use of plagiarism detection at all stages of
the study path imposes new content‐related
and perspective‐related requirements on the
basic concepts of the control of research mis‐conduct
and the processes employed in pro‐cessing
it. The survey project involved the
production of basic definitions for these work‐ing
concepts and material to guide their appli‐cation.

4. 4
Tables:
Table 1, p. 25: Integration of PD systems at higher education
institutions. PD system survey 2‐4/2013.
Table 2, p. 50: Scale for grading the degree of intention in an
act or attempted act
Table 3, p. 71: Proposals for action related to the survey and
bodies responsible for their implementation, and estimated
volumes of work
Images:
Image 1, p 14: Plagiarism Reference Tariff, national
guidelines for the sanctioning of plagiarism in the UK.
Image 2, p. 17: Digitoday news item on the introduction of
Nalkki, 29 October 2007.
Image 3, p. 22: Thesis originality check feedback session 7
February 2014.
Image 4, p. 36: A PD system check report view broken by a
faulty PDF file.
Image 5, p. 38: Side‐by‐side user interface image of Turnitin
and Urkund assignments in Moodle.
Image 6, p. 59: Ethical guidelines for learning, University of
Turku.
Recommendations:
P. 60‐61: Recommendations for higher education institutions
for training students to act ethically and for instructions
for dealing with cases of student cheating.
P. 65: Recommendation for training in good scientific practice
at the various stages of study path.
P. 68: Recommendation for the assessment of ethical guide‐lines,
PD guidelines and guidelines for GSP training based
on questions from several actor perspectives.
Graphs:
Inside cover: The relationship between plagiarism, plagiarism
as academic misconduct and student cheating, and the elec‐tronic
detection of plagiarism. Ref. Graph 3.
Graph 1, p 9: Issues channelled for further processing in
workgroups from the kick‐off seminar on 18 April 2013.
Graph 2, p 12: Relationship between a PD system and PD ser‐vice,
and the control framework of plagiarism control.
Graph 3, p 12: Links between a PD system to higher education
institution infrastructure and key operating instructions.
Graph 4, p. 33: General process for agreeing on indexing.
Graph 5, p. 33: Turnitin process description for technical prepa‐ration
of indexing.
Graph 6, p. 39: PD check of a thesis as part of the assessment,
approval and publishing process.
Graph 7, p. 41: Procedures in Case of Academic Fraud at the
University of Vaasa
Graph 8, p. 45: Three perspectives for examining the concept of
plagiarism.
Graph 9, p. 50: Plagiarism, plagiarism as academic misconduct
and student cheating.
Graph 10, p. 52: Continuum of plagiarism related to a study
attainment.
Diagrams:
Diagram 1, p. 15: Share of cautions issued for plagiarism and
fixed‐term suspensions of all sanctions in higher education
institutions in Sweden in 2012.
Diagrams 2, p. 20: Distribution of PD systems in Finnish uni‐versities
in 2013.
Diagram 3, p. 20: Distribution of PD systems in Finnish univer‐sities
of applied science in 2013.
Diagrams 4, p. 21: PD service owners in higher education insti‐tutions
Diagram 5, p. 21: Providers of end‐user support in higher edu‐cation
institutions
Diagram 6, p. 21: Owners of PD services, providers of end‐user
support and actors primarily responsible for maintenance
support in higher education institutions.
Diagram 7, p. 23: Readiness of higher education institutions to
cooperate in acquiring PD software.
Diagram 8, p. 23: Schedule for the next PD related acquisition.

5. 5
CONTENTS:
SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................ 3
FOREWORD .......................................................................................................................................................... 7
1. PD SYSTEM, PD SERVICE AND METHODS FOR CONTROLLING PLAGIARISM ................................................... 10
2. WHAT IS THE SCALE OF THE PROBLEM? ......................................................................................................... 12
3. BRIEF HISTORY OF PLAGIARISM DETECTION SYSTEMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS IN FINLAND
16
3.1 The first wave of PD technology ................................................................................................................... 16
3.2 The use of PD technology becomes a quality system requirement ....................................................... 17
3.3 Summary of the history of acquisitions ........................................................................................................ 20
3.4 Acquired systems, their owners and maintainers in 2013 ........................................................................... 21
4. DEVELOPMENT TARGETS IN THE ACQUISITION PROCESS ............................................................................. 24
4. DEVELOPMENT TARGETS IN THE ACQUISITION PROCESS ............................................................................. 24
4.1 Higher education institutions' preparedness for cooperation in licensing ................................................... 24
4.2 Joint preparation of selection criteria .......................................................................................................... 24
4.3 Ensuring good data protection and data security throughout the service environment ............................. 25
4.4 Assessment of efficiency, usability and reliability ........................................................................................ 27
4.5 Service provider's responsibility for the quality of reference databases ..................................................... 29
4.6 Summary of development needs in the acquisition process ........................................................................ 30
5. USE OF PD SYSTEMS IN PRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 31
5.1 Visibility of Finnish publications in reference databases .............................................................................. 32
5.1.1 Charting of content‐related requirements ............................................................................................32
5.1.2 PD as part of scientific publishers' publishing processes .......................................................................33
5.1.3 A uniform indexing process for various service providers......................................................................33
5.1.4 The use of theses and study attainments as reference data .................................................................35
5.1.5 Summary of measures for enhancing the quality of reference data in Finland .....................................36
5.2 Factors undermining the reliability and usability of PD systems .................................................................. 37
5.2.1 Partial indexing and exclusive licensing ................................................................................................37
5.2.2 Invalid file formats ................................................................................................................................37
5.2.3 Manipulated records .............................................................................................................................38
5.2.4 Poor quality of language versions in user interfaces and instructions ..................................................38
5.2.5 Operational differences between direct use and integrated use ...........................................................39
5.2.6 Timing of originality check influences the thesis verification and publishing process ...........................40
5.2.6 Summary of the management of problems undermining reliability and usability ................................41
6. COMMON BASIC CONCEPTS IN PLAGIARISM CONTROL .......................................................................... 43
6.1 Background and basis for definition ............................................................................................................. 43
6.2 Ethical writing and permissible citation ....................................................................................................... 44
6.3 Plagiarism in a study attainment and plagiarism as misconduct .................................................................. 45
6.3.1 Analysis of the study of the concept of plagiarism ................................................................................45
6.3.2 Definition of the concept of plagiarism in a study attainment ..............................................................47
6.3.3 Definition of the concept of student cheating .......................................................................................49
6.3.4 Definition of the concept of plagiarism as misconduct .........................................................................49
6.3.5 Forms of plagiarism related to study attainment ..................................................................................51
6.4 Recommendation for the harmonisation of basic concepts related to the management of plagiarism ...... 53
7. GUIDELINES FOR PLAGIARISM CONTROL AND THEIR USAGE IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS IN
FINLAND ............................................................................................................................................................. 54
7.1 The use of PD systems creates the need for harmonising procedural guidelines ........................................ 54
7.2 Targets of development in the content and structure of guidelines related to PD activities ....................... 56
7.3 Context of guidance ..................................................................................................................................... 57
7.4 Recommendations for higher education institutions for training students to act ethically and for
instructions for dealing with cases of academic deceit ...................................................................................... 59
8. NEED FOR GUIDANCE AND ASSESSMENT OF THE GUIDANCE SYSTEM .................................................... 61
8.1 Why must good scientific practice be taught? ............................................................................................. 61
8.2 Preventing plagiarism in teaching ................................................................................................................ 61
8.3 Good scientific practice in a curriculum and syllabus ................................................................................... 62
8.4 Recommendation for training in good scientific practices at the various stages of study path ................... 64
8.5 Protecting the teacher's work ...................................................................................................................... 65
8.6 The use of electronic plagiarism detection software in teaching ................................................................. 66

6. 8.7 Introduction of electronic detection of plagiarism and communicating about it in higher education
institutions ......................................................................................................................................................... 66
8.8 Recommendation for the assessment of ethical guidelines, plagiarism detection guidelines and
guidelines for good scientific practice based on questions from several actor perspectives ............................. 67
9. SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS AND PROPOSED MEASURES ......................................................................... 69
Recommendation for training in good scientific practices at the various stages of the study path ................... 72
Protecting the work of teachers ......................................................................................................................... 72
APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................................................... 73
APPENDIX 1: Problems in text identification of PDF files and recommendations for how to proceed .............. 73
6

7. 7
FOREWORD
The report on the introduction of electronic detection of plagiarism in higher
education institutions in Finland examines the technology for plagiarism de‐tection
(PD technology) from the viewpoints of usability, reliability, impacts
and acceptability. Simultaneously, the questions are posed of how this tech‐nology
could support the core processes of education better than at present,
and which special requirements the high quality use of PD systems sets on the
operating environment and planning of guidance. Both the observations of
teachers in Finnish higher education institutions and the results of a recent
EU‐level comparison reveal a number of development needs in PD systems
and particularly in guidance for their use.1
In this report, we draw attention to problems that occur if the use of electronic
PD technology is planned on an excessively narrow scale, ignoring the devel‐opment
of operational guidance structures. A perspective that emphasises
technology may for instance distort the operational culture: students are guid‐ed
to avoid plagiarism formally while the basic issues of the proper scientific
use of information and the relation of discipline‐specific description methods
to the general standards of ethical writing are largely ignored.2 In this report,
we propose drafts for good practices in controlling the key problems involved
in PD technology and PD processes.
In line with the policy of the Ministry of Education and Culture, Department for
Higher Education and Science Policy, this report was prepared by working
groups and as part of the RAKETTI (Information Management as a Structural
Support) project for higher education institutions' teaching and research ad‐ministration.
The support measures that the extensive use of new technology
would seem to require were jointly defined and prioritised. In addition to
technological aspects and rules, the survey process has involved determined
organisation, as those responsible for the maintenance, training and admin‐istration
of PD systems have joined the networked ecosystem of RAKETTI ac‐tors.
In fact, our report is primarily a working memo for expert networks re‐sponsible
for the acquisition, maintenance and development of PD services.
The use of PD systems involves transaction processes between higher educa‐tion
institutions. The management of these should be jointly agreed on. A com‐petent
owner will also need to be appointed for some of the national develop‐ment
targets in the future. The chapters of this report include several pro‐posals
for resolving ownership issues, and for those responsible for resolving
them.
1 Impact of Policies for plagiarism in Higher Education Across Europe (http://ippheae.eu/).
2 Erika Löfström & Pauliina Kupila (2011): Plagiaatintunnistusjärjestelmä oppimisen ohjaami‐sen
välineenä. Peda‐Formum 2/11, 17; A. R. Abasi & B. Graves (2008): Academic literacy and
plagiarism: conversations with international graduate students and disciplinary professors.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 221–233.

8. This report was completed with the support of a background process that in‐volved
8
many phases.
In spring 2012, the University of Turku proposed that the Ministry of Educa‐tion
and Culture should pay attention to national‐level issues that had
emerged due to the boom in acquiring PD systems: how to organise the exten‐sive
sourcing of Finnish reference materials, how to ensure the sufficient uni‐formity
of investigation processes concerning suspected cases of plagiarism,
how to produce legitimate concept and procedure definitions for these new
operating processes, and how to improve the quality of the acquisition criteria
for PD technology?
The Ministry of Education and Culture's Department for Higher Education and
Science Policy took charge of these issues and delegated the further prepara‐tion
of the matter to the steering group of RAKETTI projects. The steering
group recorded the conclusion that to ensure the credibility of higher educa‐tion
institutions, it is vital to secure the high quality of theses with regard to
research ethics. However, no sole owner for this quality aspect exists in Fin‐land.
As a further measure, Senior Planning Officer Totti Tuhkanen was appointed to
investigate the matter until the end of 2013. His duties included the objective
of establishing a network to create the basis for cooperation between PD ser‐vice
users and instructors.
The investigation process was kicked off at the seminar titled Control of pla‐giarism
and electronic detection of plagiarism in higher education institutions
on 18 April 2013 at Hanken School of Economics in Helsinki. A small‐scale sur‐vey
in February‐April 2013 on detection systems and the organisation of their
maintenance preceded the seminar.
The introductions and panel comments, describing the expectations and needs
of higher education institutions, the Ministry of Education and Culture, the
Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity, the National Library of Finland,
science publishing houses and PD service providers, highlighted the key prob‐lems
and acute development needs in controlling plagiarism. Four working
groups to continue the work were organised in connection with the kick‐off
seminar. The analyses, specifications and action proposals included in this re‐port
were prepared with their support.
The four working groups have implemented several data collections, support‐ed
by the student affairs administration's OHA network and the National Li‐brary's
FinELib actors. Issues related to defining the key concepts of plagia‐rism
detection technology, system integrations, assessment criteria, investiga‐tion
process models, ethical guidelines, training in good scientific practice and
control of plagiarism were handled at 14 workshop meetings. Simultaneously,
higher education institutions have implemented several PD systems, published
new procedural guidelines and revised former instructions. The working

9. groups' benchmarking and information exchange forum has sought to support
these processes. Project materials were maintained in CSC's RAKETTI wiki.
The report addresses problems related to the functionality or usability of PD
systems as follows: problems are described and defined, possible paths for
how to proceed in resolving them are presented alongside assessment models
or piloted operating models and, if necessary, proposals for development tar‐get
owners for future purposes are given. The first part of the report focuses
on issues related to the acquisition and introduction of detection technology,
while the second part presents issues examining the operational preconditions
of end users.
The report includes sections prepared by the administrator and working
group chairpersons, some of which are placed as supplementary information
in CSC's service pages. Because the working groups have refined all contents,
the report is signed by all members of the working groups.
Survey report results were assessed by the OPI Synergy group of the RAKETTI
project, OPI steering group and RAKETTI steering group, resulting in recom‐mendations
that enable the further preparation of development objectives
9
presented at the end of this report.
26 February 2014
Administrator
Totti Tuhkanen, University of Turku
Group chairpersons
Anna Johansson, Aalto University
Markku Ihonen, University of Tampere
Kari Silpiö, Haaga‐Helia University of Applied Sciences
Minna Vänskä, Aalto University
Experts
Dan Holm, Åbo Akademi
Ole Karlsson, Åbo Akademi
Pauliina Kupila, University of Helsinki
Irma Mänty, Laurea University of Applied Sciences
Anne Nevgi, University of Helsinki
Elizabeth San Miguel, Haaga‐Helia University of Applied Sciences
Sanna Suoranta, Aalto University
Sari Tervonen, Uni versity of Eastern Finland
Arja Tuuliniemi, FinELib
Kaie Veiler, Hanken School of Economics
The whole publication can be read (in Finnish) in the address: http://51.fi/EDP2013