Examination Board

To ensure the scientific integrity and civil value, the RSM degree certificate must reflect the capabilities of the individual student in terms of knowledge, skills, and insights. The Examination Board is established by the legislator to determine in an objective and expert manner whether a student meets the conditions set by the Teaching and Examination Regulations of a degree programme regarding the knowledge, insight and skills required to obtain a degree certificate. For this quality control, it is important that the Examination Board can guarantee that an individual student has passed all tests and the associated learning objectives. Checking whether the final objectives have been achieved is primarily done by determining whether a student has completed all examination components with a satisfactory result. In addition, the Examination Board has set rules regarding the minimum individual assessment of final learning objectives per examination component.

It is important that the tests are taken correctly. This cannot be said, for example, if irregularities occur during testing. Irregularities can occur through no fault (or risk) of a student for example due to the failure of test software during an online test while the student has followed all instructions. In addition, there may also be irregularities where the fault (or risk) is attributable to the student for example a poor internet connection that prevents proctoring from working. In the first case, the School must provide remedies (for example, an extra exam opportunity for students). In the latter case, there may be a case of fraud. In case of fraud due to the actions or omissions of a student, the examiner is no longer able to assess the student's 'knowledge, skills, and insights in a correct and fair manner. 

Fraud is problematic, not only for the student involved, but also for the reputation of the degree programme, RSM and the university as a whole and especially for the reliability and validity of the degree certificate. The legislator considers this so problematic that the Examination Board has been legally given the authority to take measures, both remedial sanctions and punitive sanctions.

With a view to guaranteeing the quality of the degree certificate, students are expected to take individual tests to the best of their own ability, without seeking or accepting the help of others or use resources that are not explicitly allowed by the examiner nor to help others. 

In teamwork, students are not allowed to collaborate outside their own group, unless explicitly permitted by the examiner. Sharing solutions with other teams may be considered a fraudulent action. Generally, all group members are responsible for any fraud in the execution of the assignment.  

In addition, especially in the context of assignments (e.g. the thesis), students are expected to adhere to some of the principles laid down in the Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, such as

• Honesty: one does not make unfounded claims, reports correctly on the research process, does not falsify, or invent data or sources, one takes alternative views and counterarguments seriously, one is open about margins of uncertainty, and one does not present results as more favourable or unfavourable than they are.

• Care: scientific methods are used, and maximum precision is exercised in the design, implementation, reporting, and dissemination of the research.

• Transparency: It is clear to others on which data the research is based, how it was obtained, what results were achieved and how, and what the role of external stakeholders was.

Although the code of conduct is aimed at scientific research that is published, the code also serves as a normative framework for scientific research including theses and other written assignments by students. Scientific research by students therefore falls within the normative frameworks of this code. Violation of these integrity principles can lead to a conviction for fraud.

Definition

The Examination Board defined in the Rules and Guidelines BSc and MSc (section Fraud) what is meant by fraud: “Fraud is the action or negligence of a student because of which it is impossible, entirely, or partially, to form a correct judgment about the knowledge, insight and skills of the student or another student. Examples of fraud are cheating, cribbing, plagiarism, freeriding in a team assignment, availability of unauthorized (study) material during a test such as mobile phones, contract cheating/outsourcing/ghost-writing, unauthorized use of generative AI, identity fraud, theft.”

Although it concerns an active act or omission by the student - the student is at fault - it is not necessary that the student had the intention to commit fraud or that the student benefited from the fraudulent act. The question of whether fraud has been committed must therefore be assessed based on objective standards, in which the intentions of the student involved are not important. However, in case of intended fraud, the Examination Board can determine a more severe punitive sanction.

Students can also commit fraud by giving others the opportunity to commit fraud. This mainly occurs with people who make their work available to someone else to plagiarize. Whether someone else actually took advantage of the opportunity is irrelevant.

Examples

To illustrate what is meant by committing fraud, a non-exhaustive list follows below.

1. Violation of order rules during a test: Sometimes failure to follow order rules during an exam can be regarded as fraud. In those cases, it must be clear to students which rules this applies to.

   An example of a rule that, if violated, is regarded as fraud is the unauthorized use of (study) materials: only explicitly permitted materials are permitted during the exam. If this has been expressly permitted in advance by the examiner and is stated on the examination cover sheet, study material may also be present, such as a calculator - graphical or otherwise -, literature or other sources. Any authorized dictionaries and law books should not contain any notes. Watches, telephones, etc. must be kept out of reach and switched off. Anything that conflicts with this is considered fraud. It is irrelevant whether unauthorized (study) materials have been used: to determine fraud it is sufficient that there is a possibility that unauthorized use could be made of the said (study) materials.

   Another example is the rule that during an online test that is taken remotely using online proctoring software (remote surveillance), the student is not allowed to be out of sight of the camera. A student is therefore not allowed to go to the toilet or otherwise be out of sight during such a test.

2. Copying/cribbing/peeking: unauthorized communication with a fellow student during the test. Any form of communication is prohibited. It is not necessary that information that is important for the test has been exchanged. The fact that communication takes place is sufficient to speak of fraud.

3. Cheating: unauthorized consultation of one's own notes, literature, etc. Having a cheat sheet is enough to determine fraud, regardless of whether it has been used.

4. Plagiarism: In general, plagiarism is defined as using someone else's ideas, methods, results, or texts in one's own work without correct referencing to the source, which makes it wholly or partially impossible to correctly assess the student's knowledge, insight, and skills. Specific examples of plagiarism are:

   1. Copying verbatim either by 'copy-paste' from digital documents, or by literally typing passages texts or ideas from other sources – such as persons, systems, or AI – without correct source acknowledgment and/or without using quotation marks. Even if the copied passages only form a relatively small part of a paper, this constitutes fraudulent conduct. The EUR has advanced means to detect plagiarism digitally;

   2. Paraphrasing ideas, methods, results, or texts from other sources – such as persons, systems, or AI – in your own words without correct referencing;

   3. Presenting the structure or central ideas of other sources as one's own work or idea, regardless of whether a reference to other authors is included;

   4. Submitting a previously submitted text or a text comparable to that for assignments in other courses without correct source citation (self-plagiarism).

5. Freeriding: this occurs if a student has knowingly not contributed or contributed insufficiently to a group assignment. The group assignment is then actually made by the other team members. Freeriding can be regarded as fraud if and insofar as the examiner cannot properly assess the knowledge, insight, and skills of the student in question.

6. Fabrication: making up data or research results and reporting them as if they were real.

7. Falsification: manipulating research material, equipment, or processes to change, withhold or delete data or research results without justification.

8. Unauthorized Assistance/Outsourcing:

   1. Identity fraud: having someone else take (part of) a test. An extreme example of 'outsourcing' is when a student has someone else take the test in an exam hall. Such offenders will not only be prosecuted by the Examination Board for committing serious fraud, but the Examination Board will also report the offense to the police for identity fraud.

   2. Ghost-writing/contract writing: Another clear example of unauthorized outsourcing is having a thesis or paper written by someone else (with or without payment). Having parts of a thesis or paper carried out by someone else is in principle not permitted and is considered fraud. Data collection or conducting interviews is usually part of the work to be assessed and outsourcing this to third parties is therefore not permitted.

   3. Artificial Intelligence: Unauthorized use of generative AI applications such as ChatGPT that enable students to (partially) answer essay questions, write assignments or a thesis. For further reading check Section The use of Artificial Intelligence in summative assessments.

   Not all forms of outsourcing/input from third parties/resources are unauthorized: having someone else check a text for the quality of the English (or Dutch) language does not necessarily constitute fraud. Likewise, helping each other in a thesis group or talking about your thesis with housemates is not immediately a problem. In case of doubt as to whether input from third parties is permitted or not, the student should consult with the examiner(s).

9. Theft: for example, another student's work is stolen and submitted as one’s own work. If a student is caught doing this, the Examination Board will usually also report it to the police.

Note: The overview of forms and methods of fraud is not exhaustive.

In assignments where the student cites, builds on, paraphrases or uses research or data provided by others, the report should acknowledge and reference this in accordance with recognized reference styles as stated, for example, in the APA Publication Manual (apastyle.apa.org) and the University Library’s Information skills modules relating to citation and referencing. 

Specific guidelines on referencing AI – if and to the extent permitted – can be found here:

• APA: How to cite ChatGPT

• MLA: https://style.mla.org/citing-generative-ai/

• Chicago: FAQ Item (chicagomanualofstyle.org)

Further information on correct referencing can be found on the EUR Library webpages, such as citation styles, avoiding plagiarism and correct paraphrasing.

In case of doubt as to whether how to reference, please consult with the examiner.

Inadequate and missing referencing will be considered fraud (usually plagiarism).

The Examination Board expects examiners to actively scan for fraud such as plagiarism, contract cheating, outsourcing, ghost-writing, use of generative AI. 

There are several ways to detect fraud. First, an examiner can suspect fraud based on one’s own observations. But there are also specific detection methods that can differ per test form. It also matters whether the test is taken on campus or remotely.

When fraud is detected or suspected, the examiner or invigilator must report this to the Examination Board. The invigilator or examiner can ask the student to make available any items of evidence. A refusal to do so will be included in the written report. The student is given the opportunity to include written comments in the report by the invigilator or the examiner.

Further explanation of the procedure can be found under the section Procedure in case of suspected fraud.

If an examiner or invigilator suspects fraud, this will be reported to the Examination Board. The report should preferably include all relevant information and evidence.

The Examination Board will subsequently invite the student to a hearing. The student is also informed why fraud is suspected, including the substantiation. 

Depending on the specific case, the examiner may be invited to attend the hearing. The student will be informed of this in advance. During the hearing, the student can provide an explanation of what happened.

In the case of a minor first offense for which at most a reprimand would be given, the Examination Board can, with the student's consent, settle the case without a hearing based on the documents.

The Examination Board decides based on the evidence and the responses during a hearing whether it is sufficiently plausible that fraud has been committed and which appropriate and proportional sanction should be imposed in the specific case.

The Examination Board decides based on the evidence and the responses during a hearing whether it is sufficiently plausible that fraud has been committed and which sanction should be imposed in the specific case. Possible appropriate and proportional measures as mentioned in the Rules & Guidelines may consist of, among others, the following sanctions:

1. Reprimand;

2. Invalidation of the examination and/or test concerned (even if the grade is already registered in Osiris);

3. Exclusion from one or more examinations and/or tests;

4. Exclusion from one or more examination periods;

5. A combination of the above measures for a maximum period of exclusion for at most one year;

6. In the event of a serious case of fraud, the Examination Board may advise the Executive Board of the University to definitively terminate the enrolment in the degree programme of the person concerned once and for all.

A reprimand is the lightest sanction. The advice to terminate registration is the most severe sanction.

This list of measures is not exhaustive, other sanctions are also possible such as exclusion from the distinction (summa) cum laude. 

Incidentally, these measures fall under the term administrative sanction as referred to in Article 5:2 General Administrative Law Act (Algemene Wet Bestuursrecht), in short AWB.

The sanction must be appropriate and proportional. Therefore, the Examination Board will consider, for example:

• The form of fraud: having a mobile phone in one's pocket that is switched off is of a different order than stealing a paper or having someone else take a test. Incidentally, the last two examples are also punishable under the Penal Code, which is why a report will also be filed with the police. There is also a difference between forms of plagiarism: it can involve a single incorrect source reference, but also copying large pieces of text;

• Whether it concerns a first offense or whether there is recidivism: a student who has already been convicted may be punished more severely;

• Whether intentional or not: it matters whether a student accidentally breaks a rule or knowingly commits fraud (for example, joining an app group set up to commit fraud).

If there is no intent, there is probably no case of serious fraud as referred to in the Rules and Guidelines. In that case, no severe punishment can be imposed such as the advice to the Executive Board to terminate a student's registration.

In view of the foregoing, it is not possible to formulate a specific sanction for each type of fraud in advance. The circumstances must be considered for each case and that can lead to a different outcome each time. However, an average fraud measure consists of an invalidation of the relevant test and exclusion from participation in the re-sit. In case of a minor first violation in the first year of the Bachelor's programme, for example having a mobile phone within reach during the test in an exam hall, a reprimand will usually suffice.

Although a sanction may be proportionate as such, the consequence of the sanction is sometimes experienced by the student as disproportionate. Due to the sanction of, for example, no grading for the test and denial of participation in the re-sit, the student may de facto not be able to participate in an Exchange Programme or is no longer eligible for the distinction (summa) cum laude or may not be able to meet the standard of the Binding Study Advice and must therefore leave the programme. According to established case law, the circumstance that the imposed fraud measure may possibly have consequences for the further course of the student's studies does not necessarily mean that the measure conflicts with the principle of proportionality. After all, this circumstance has been created by the student by committing fraud.