Academic misconduct policy - postgraduate research students

Purpose and scope

The University expects the highest standards of academic and research integrity from its Postgraduate Research (PGR) community. As early-career researchers contributing to the global body of knowledge, PGRs are held to a higher standard of academic rigour and integrity than undergraduate or taught postgraduate students.

This policy sets out the University’s definition of academic misconduct as it applies to PGRs, the procedures for investigation, and the penalties for proven misconduct. It should be noted that academic misconduct is defined differently to our policies on research misconduct, which also apply to PGRs.

This policy applies to all students registered on higher degrees by research (including, but not limited to, PhD, MPhil, MD, and Professional Doctorates).

It covers all work and activities related to the research degree, including:

• The final thesis or dissertation.
• The oral examination (viva voce).
• The Doctoral Development Programme (DDP) summary.
• Confirmation reviews.
• Taught elements: Assignments undertaken as part of credit-bearing modules or mandatory training within the PhD programme.
• Drafts and supervision: Work submitted to supervisors for review, including chapter drafts and progress reports.
• External publications: Academic publications authored by the PGR while registered with the University.

Definitions of academic misconduct

Academic misconduct in the PGR context is defined as any activity or behaviour which compromises the integrity of the research, the assessment process, or the validity of the degree award. Categories include, but are 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: Presenting the work, data, or ideas of others (including other students or supervisors) as one's own without appropriate acknowledgement.
  • Self-plagiarism: Re-using significant amounts of one’s own previously assessed work (eg from a Masters dissertation) without acknowledgement.
  • Fabrication: Making up data, results, or sources and recording or reporting them.
  • Falsification: Manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented.
  • Collusion: Working with others on a piece of work and presenting it as one's own independent effort, where this is not permitted.
  • Contract cheating/ ghost authorship: Using a third party (paid or unpaid) to produce any part of the thesis or research data.
  • 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
• Unethical Research Practice: Failure to obtain necessary ethical approval, failure to follow approved ethical protocols during data collection or inappropriate use of GenAI during the research process.

Principles of integrity for PGRs

PGRs are trainee academics and researchers. Unlike taught students, who are primarily consumers of knowledge, PGRs are producers of new knowledge. Consequently:

• The threshold for "poor academic practice" is significantly lower for PGRs.
• Acts that might be considered minor misconduct at an undergraduate level may be treated as severe misconduct at the PGR level.
• Ignorance of referencing standards or research ethics is not an acceptable defence for a
  PGR student.

Specific applications of the policy

Academic misconduct is not limited to "final" or "summative" assessments.

Early drafts and supervisor interaction

• If a supervisor identifies academic misconduct (eg plagiarism, fabrication) in a draft chapter or progress report, they will intervene to educate the student.
• Persistent misconduct: If a PGR fails to act on supervisory advice regarding integrity, or if misconduct is identified in revised versions of work where the issue was previously flagged, this will be treated as formal academic misconduct under this policy, even if the work has not yet been submitted for the Confirmation Review or final examination.

Taught elements within research degrees

Where a PGR undertakes taught modules (eg Research Methods, DDP modules including Ethics, modules taken as part of a UKRI-funded programme, professional doctorate, or PhD with integrated taught award):

• Misconduct in these modules will be investigated under this policy.
• Penalties may range from failure of the module to termination of the PhD registration, depending on the severity and its indication of the student's fitness to practice as a researcher.

Compulsory placements

This policy will also apply to instances where PGRs are on mandatory placements which
students take as an integral and assessed part of their course.

External publications

PGRs often publish their research during their candidature.

• The University asserts jurisdiction over the integrity of any publication (including conference papers, journal articles and book chapters) authored by a PGR while registered, provided the work relates to their programme of study.
• Allegations of plagiarism, data fabrication, or authorship disputes in such publications will be investigated under this policy.
• Proven misconduct in publications may lead to penalties regarding the PhD registration and the final thesis.

Procedures

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.

• Students who receive an academic misconduct penalty remain subject to standard University General Regulations, 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.
• For academic misconduct concerns in a PhD thesis, the thesis must not be retracted to allow amendments to be made. The viva should be postponed pending an investigation and any subsequent discipline hearing. Where the penalty applied is not failure of the examination/thesis, and the investigation/discipline process has been completed, the viva should take place based on the thesis originally submitted. Where the penalty is failure of the examination/thesis, the viva should not be held. If the student is permitted to resubmit the thesis, a viva will be held in relation to that resubmission (subject to there being no further concerns as to academic misconduct).

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.

Penalties

Penalties for PGRs reflect the severity of the breach and the stage of the programme.

Minor/poor practice

Examples

• Limited referencing errors in early drafts
• Minor formatting issues in taught modules
• Minor/moderate issues of plagiarism (for instance, caused by poor referencing in the final thesis)

Potential penalties

• Formal warning
• Requirement to retake integrity training
• Requirement to rewrite the specific section/assignment
• Removal of the option for the straight award of a degree with no corrections

Moderate misconduct

Examples

• Plagiarism in a progress review or taught module
• Failure to act on supervisor warnings regarding drafts
• Minor data mismanagement

Potential penalties

• Failure of the specific module/review component with resubmission cap
• Strict probation period

Severe misconduct

Examples

• Extensive plagiarism in the thesis
• Data fabrication or falsification
• Contract cheating
• Ethical violations
• Misconduct in external publications

Potential penalties

• Downgrade of registration: transfer from PhD to MPhil status
• Failure of the thesis with the right to submit a revised thesis
• Failure of the thesis without the right to resubmit, leading to immediate failure of the degree 
  • (This can only be imposed as a penalty by a Senate Discipline Panel)
• Expulsion: immediate termination of registration and expulsion from the University
  • (This can only be imposed as a penalty by a Senate Discipline Panel)

Note: Inappropriate use of generative AI may be categorised in any of the three misconduct severity levels, depending on the form and scale of inappropriate use.

Retrospective application (rescinding of rewards)

The University aims to ensure the permanent integrity of its awards.

• Postgraduation discovery: If academic misconduct (such as plagiarism or data fabrication in the thesis) is identified after the degree has been conferred, the University reserves the right to investigate.
• Penalties: If the misconduct is proven and affects the validity of the thesis, the Senate reserves the right to downgrade the award (from PhD to MPhil) or rescind (revoke) the degree entirely.
• Alumni publications: Where misconduct is identified in publications authored after the student has left the University, the matter may be referred to the University’s Research Misconduct proceedings rather than this Academic Misconduct policy, though the validity of the original thesis may still be reviewed if linked.

Findings of academic misconduct may be reported to the relevant professional, statutory, or regulatory body which may have separate implications for fitness to practice; and to partner institutions on collaborative programmes.

Research misconduct

The University’s Good Research and Innovation Practices (GRIP) policy includes our definition of, and processes for addressing, research misconduct. This policy applies to PGRs. 

Depending on the nature of the alleged misconduct, it may be investigated through research, rather than academic, misconduct procedures.

The University uses the Concordat to Support Research Integrity’s definition of research misconduct, namely that “research misconduct constitutes the behaviours and deliberate actions that fall short of the principles in Commitment 1 of the Concordat, occurring at any point in the research lifecycle”, and that “honest errors and differences in, for example, research Information classification: Internal methodology or interpretations, do not constitute research misconduct.” 

Other academic misconduct

For information on other forms of misconduct, seek advice from the Student Conduct and Appeals team