PlagiatScanner.deWhat this checklist can tell you
This is a process check, not a certificate and not a substitute for your university’s regulations, ethics requirements or subject-specific methods. Mark an item complete only when you can point to evidence: a saved search strategy, a preserved raw-data file, a methodological explanation, a version history or a documented conversation with your supervisor. Confidence that you “worked carefully” is useful, but it is not an audit trail.
The German Research Foundation’s Code of Conduct treats research integrity as a connected system of standards, responsibilities, documentation and quality assurance. The European ALLEA code expresses four fundamental principles: reliability, honesty, respect and accountability. A student project does not need an elaborate compliance system. It does need a proportionate record that allows a knowledgeable reader to understand how the work developed and where its limitations lie.
Connecting the audit to integrity codes
This mapping is intentionally broad. The DFG code addresses institutions and the research system as well as individuals. Universities translate its principles into local statutes, assessment rules and support structures. Use this audit alongside those documents, and never infer that a general web checklist overrides a binding local requirement.
Turn ticks into an evidence trail
Create one modest evidence folder for each area. Planning evidence might include your proposal, a decision log and approved changes. Search evidence can include exported result lists, exact queries and screening notes. For data, retain the lawful original state, a codebook, processing records and a readable explanatory file. Writing evidence may include reference-library exports, draft history and a contribution note. Retain only material you are entitled to keep, and apply access controls where data are sensitive.
Useful records are dated, named intelligibly and linked to the project. A filename such as “final_new2” conceals its history. “2026-08-18_interview-coding_v03_after-category-review” states when and why the version exists. Proportionate documentation explains consequential decisions; it need not capture every click. For confidential research, minimisation and secure handling are part of integrity rather than exceptions to transparency.
Warning signs worth investigating
Pause if you are reconstructing all records immediately before submission, if every retained source confirms one position, if exclusion rules changed after the results became visible, or if passages can no longer be connected to their note or source. None of these signs by itself proves misconduct. Each identifies a place where reconstruction, supervisor advice or explicit limitation may be necessary. An honest account of uncertainty is more defensible than a smooth retrospective story that hides how the project actually changed.
A focused 30-minute final pass
Review all twenty items using three labels: green for “evidence present”, amber for “explained but not evidenced” and red for “unresolved”. Address red items affecting results, attribution, privacy or independent work first. An amber item may be closed by a clear methods sentence, a well-named file or a documented question to the appropriate person. State any genuine remaining limitation in the thesis. Used this way, the checklist becomes a last quality-control exercise rather than a ceremonial set of ticks.