This year, I received a summer project dissertation at Warwick (among several I supervised) that was a direct aggregation of three main papers on the project topic, including advanced simulations that were clearly beyond the reach of a summer project. Especially when the perpetrator only attended a very few supervision sessions among those I proposed.
With the help of a colleague we found rather easily the three papers, which had been rewritten to some extent into the project, while keeping the plan of the originals. And then I later a fourth paper corresponding to the numerical illustrative component of the project, which was the original reason for suspecting foul play. With graphs redrawn! Meaning that a plagiarism detector was only achieving an 18% agreement with the available literature, but still flagging plagiarism as “highly likely.”
I thus referred the case to the colleague in charge of academic integrity in the department.
And this initiated a very involved process summarised by the attached flowchart… Starting with the academic conduct panel, which also concluded at plagiarism.