Academic misconduct policy

Approved by Senate on 11 December 2024.

Purpose and definitions

All students at our university are expected to maintain a high degree of academic integrity.

This policy outlines the University's expectations regarding academic integrity. It is intended to foster a learning environment that values honesty, fairness, and respect for intellectual property and academic rigour.

• Academic integrity is a positive commitment to approaching academic work in a way that is honest, fair, respectful and responsible, and is a fundamental value in higher education. Academic integrity is a component of academic rigour.
• To ensure that academic integrity standards are upheld, all work submitted for an assessment is expected to be the student’s or students’ own independent work. It must not be work that has been submitted for another assessment either at the University or elsewhere. When working with others, or when presenting other people’s work as part of an assessment, this must be fully acknowledged and credit given to all contributors.
• Academic misconduct is therefore considered to be any act that compromises the integrity of the academic process, and/or has the potential to gain an unfair advantage for a student or group of students in a formal university assessment.
• This policy sets out our approach to managing suspected academic misconduct and outlines the consequences for breaching these standards in line with our principles and underpinning values described below.

---

Principles and underpinning values 

• It is essential to protect and maintain assessment standards, the value of the University’s awards and the reputation for academic excellence.
• The University will be bound by any relevant legislation or regulatory obligations relevant to the policy, process and practice in this area.
• We are fair and transparent with students and we seek to educate them to understand how to correct poor academic practice.
• Students suspected of academic misconduct must be informed in clear terms of;
  • The specific breach of academic misconduct.
  • The process to establish whether a breach has occurred including how they can respond to the allegation and present any information, explanation or mitigating circumstances they feel are relevant.
  • The support available to them during and after the process.
  • Any penalty given and how it will be applied.
  • The right to appeal and how to do so.
• Suspected breaches will be dealt with promptly, thoroughly and fairly.
  • Cases should be concluded within a reasonable timeframe, and not exceeding 30 working days of notification of the suspected breach to the student.
  • Where this is not possible students should be kept regularly informed.
  • All relevant evidence must be provided to the student.

---

Forms of academic misconduct

Academic misconduct includes but is not limited to:

• False Authorship wherein authorship is claimed for work that was not solely or substantially created by the individual submitting it. This can take various forms, including:
  • Plagiarism
  • Contracting cheating
  • Collusion
  • Ghost authorship, where individuals who made significant contributions to the work are excluded from the authorship list
  • Gift authorship, where individuals are included on the authorship list who did not contribute significantly to the work
  • Automated authorship, involving the inappropriate/unsanctioned use of Artificial Intelligence.
• Plagiarism (either intentional or unintentional): using the ideas or work of another person and submitting them as the student’s own.
• Self-Plagiarism: submitting work that has already been submitted for another assessment, without acknowledgement, or express authorisation by an academic tutor. This may take the form of copying either the whole piece of work or part of it.
• Fabrication: submitting work (for example, data, evidence or experimental results) which is untrue, made up, falsified or fabricated in any way.
• Collusion: working with others to produce a piece of work, all or part of which is then submitted by each student as their own individual work without acknowledgement. This includes passing on work in any format to another student. It also includes sharing answers with other students or obtaining answers from others.
• Impersonation: arranging for someone else to impersonate a student by undertaking their assessment, for example, sitting their examination.
• Contract cheating: submitting bought or commissioned work from a third party, including essay mills, other students, friends or family members. This may take the form of buying or commissioning either the whole piece of work or part of it.
• Facilitating the use of unfair means: assisting a fellow student in using any of the forms of academic misconduct defined above, for example in submitting bought or commissioned work. The University takes an extremely serious view of any student who sells, offers to sell or passes on their own assessed work to other students.
• Cheating in examinations: Using unauthorised materials or methods to complete assignments or exams. This includes using notes, books, or electronic devices during exams or assignments without permission.

---

Determining penalties

As a general principle, the consequences for academic misconduct will depend on the severity of the offence, any previous incidents of academic misconduct, and any additional mitigating or aggravating factors.

The University has three levels of severity for academic misconduct cases:

1. Poor academic practice: an inadvertent or low level breach of academic practice arising from a lack of understanding of academic protocols, where there is no evidence of an intention to gain an unfair advantage or to deceive the marker. There should be no penalties given for this category; the response is supportive and ensures that the student complies with an educational process to raise their academic practice.
   • In these cases the mark awarded should be based on an academic judgement of the quality of the work overall.
   • It is likely that cases falling under this severity will be offences such as incorrect use of referencing or an omission to reference (for example verbatim text taken from several sources that are cited in foot or endnotes), seemingly genuine mistakes, undue haste or academic inexperience (for example, at an early stage in an undergraduate degree programme).
   • It may be evident that genuine cultural issues appear to be involved and where there is doubt that the student has fully understood what constitutes academic misconduct.
   • A case cannot be considered poor academic practice where the student has a pattern of previous, similar offences.
2. Moderate offences: behaviour which would have deceived the marker and/or could have gained an unfair advantage for the student. There is clear intent to deceive however the extent of the action is limited in scope and impact.
   • It is likely that cases falling under this severity will be some deliberate plagiarism or self-plagiarism that is not extensive, or minor collusion.
3. Severe offences: more serious cases of academic misconduct that would significantly undermine the assessment process and give a clear advantage to the student.
   • Cases may involve evidence of extensive academic misconduct, repeated incidents of academic misconduct or with a clear and obvious intent to deceive.
   • It is likely that cases falling under this severity will be extensive plagiarism or self plagiarism, fabrication, cheating in an examination, extensive collusion, impersonation, or contract cheating. Such cases must be referred to the Student Conduct and Appeals Team for consideration of a referral to a Summary Hearing or a Senate Discipline Panel in line with University regulations.

Students for whom it is a first breach of academic integrity, at any severity level, must be provided with material and/or tuition to clearly explain why the breach is below the standards expected and guidance as to how correct academic practice can be achieved.

The student should then be asked to confirm that they understand and that they undertake to maintain standards of academic integrity for the remainder of their programme.

The School Officer responsible for managing academic misconduct should take into account any aggravating and/or mitigating factors when considering whether and what penalty should be applied.

• We have laid out the range of penalties for each category of offence, below. Students who receive an academic misconduct penalty remain subject to standard University General Regulations, for example, in relation to the right to resit assessments and the capping of marks, unless expressly stated otherwise.
• Mitigating and aggravating factors may include (but are not limited to) consideration of the following;
  1. whether it is a first or further offence
  2. where the impact of imposing a penalty on a student’s progression or award would be disproportionate
  3. the extent of the potential advantage to the student
  4. the presence of significant and applicable extenuating circumstances
  5. the extent of the intent to deceive
  6. where the university’s reputation has been damaged by the actions of the individual.
• All penalties must be approved by the Faculty Officer responsible for academic misconduct oversight before the student is informed of the outcome.
• Where a case of academic misconduct is considered outside of the student’s home school, the Faculty Officer should ensure that the school is made aware of the matter.
• Reports of academic misconduct in the assessment process will initially be considered by the relevant academic school who may investigate and respond to the matter.
  • Matters which are considered serious may be reported to the Chief Operating Officer for consideration for referral to a Summary Hearing or a Senate Discipline Panel in line with university regulations.
  • Expulsion and the refusal of a right to resit can only be approved as penalties by a Senate Discipline Panel.
  • Summary Hearing or Senate Discipline Panel may also apply a penalty not listed in the list of academic misconduct and corresponding penalties below.
• Public Disclosure: In certain cases, the University may publicly disclose the student's academic misconduct. This may include requests for references.