This policy defines the procedures for the investigation of suspected academic misconduct in PGR examinations and awards. It sets out how investigations are conducted, what the potential penalties are, and how the University decides on an outcome, including the role of the Research Degrees Examination Board (RDEB).
1. The regulations on academic integrity and research degrees and the University-wide academic integrity policy contain the relevant underpinning rules on plagiarism and other forms of academic misconduct.
2. Any suspected academic misconduct in relation to a credit-bearing taught component undertaken by a PGR student is not covered by this policy. The University’s Assessment Regulations cover the regulations and procedures for academic misconduct in credit-bearing taught components.
3. Where the Faculty PGR Director or the Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (PGR) has a conflict of interest (for example, if they are a supervisor for the student), they must appoint a nominee to cover their role in this policy.
4. An investigation under this policy can be triggered in the following circumstances:
a. Suspected academic misconduct in the form of plagiarism, minor referencing problems, and/or other suspected academic misconduct is raised by the nominated reviewer as a result of the plagiarism review for a PGR student’s submission for examination.
b. Suspected academic misconduct is raised by the examiners during the examination process.
c. Suspected academic misconduct is raised after an award had been approved.
5. Regulations on plagiarism reviews are set out in the academic integrity and research degrees section.
6. If the nominated reviewer finds suspected plagiarism, minor referencing problems, and/or other suspected academic misconduct in a dissertation, they must inform the Head of School and refer the case to the Faculty PGR Director with the relevant evidence as soon as possible.
7. The nominated reviewer must also inform the following people that the case has been referred to the Faculty PGR Director:
a. The PGR student.
b. The main supervisor.
c. The relevant school PGR professional services team (in the Faculty of Arts this will be the faculty PGR professional services team).
d. The Academic Quality and Policy Office (pgr-exams@bristol.ac.uk).
8. The nominated reviewer must not provide details of the suspected issues when they notify the student and the main supervisor, as an investigation must be held before any details are confirmed.
9. The Faculty PGR Director must consider the evidence provided by the nominated reviewer and decide on one of the following outcomes:
a. Where there are only minor referencing problems, refer the case to the Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (PGR) for a decision.
b. Where there is suspected plagiarism, convene a faculty panel to investigate.
10. If the Faculty PGR Director considers that there are only minor referencing problems, they can refer the case to the Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (PGR) for a decision.
11. Minor referencing problems are where the PGR student has not fully adopted accepted academic practice in their referencing but where this is only limited in nature. Examples of minor referencing problems are:
a. The dissertation contains a small number of simple mistakes in referencing or citation.
b. The dissertation does not fully acknowledge the use of the student’s own previous publications or work they have co-authored with others.
12. When a student is referred to them, the Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (PGR) must consider the evidence provided by the Faculty PGR Director and decide on one of the following outcomes:
a. If it is clear that there are only minor referencing problems, permit the PGR student to revise and re-present their dissertation.
b. If there appear to be more significant issues, refer the case back to the Faculty PGR Director to set up a faculty panel to investigate.
13. Where the decision is for minor referencing problems, the Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (PGR) must set a deadline for the PGR student to revise and re-present their dissertation. The deadline can be up to four weeks from the notification of the decision to the student. In exceptional circumstances, the Associate Pro-Vice Chancellor (PGR) can decide on a longer period and can grant extensions to the deadline.
14. The Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (PGR) must inform the Faculty PGR Director of the decision for minor referencing problems and of the deadline for the PGR student.
15. The Faculty PGR Director must inform the following people of the decision for minor referencing problems, the deadline, and the required revisions:
a. The PGR student.
b. The main supervisor.
c. The Head of School.
d. The relevant school PGR professional services team (in the Faculty of Arts this will be the faculty PGR professional services team).
e. The Academic Quality and Policy Office (pgr-exams@bristol.ac.uk).
16. The PGR student must submit their revised dissertation by the deadline following the standard submission process of emailing a copy to the Academic Quality and Policy Office (pgr-exams@bristol.ac.uk) and uploading a copy to Turnitin.
17. Supervisors must provide the PGR student with support in revising and re-presenting the dissertation so that the minor referencing problems are addressed.
18. If the examiners of a PGR student suspect academic misconduct (for example, the falsification of data) during the examination process, the internal examiner, or the independent chair if appointed, must stop the examination.
19. The examiners must produce a report setting out the details of the suspected academic misconduct. The internal examiner, or independent chair if appointed, must submit this report to the Academic Quality and Policy Office (pgr-exams@bristol.ac.uk). The report is confidential and must not be shared with the student before an investigation is held.
20. The Academic Quality and Policy Office must inform the Head of School and the School PGR Director and refer the case to the Faculty PGR Director with the relevant evidence.
21. The Academic Quality and Policy Office must inform the following people that the case has been referred to the Faculty PGR Director:
a. The PGR student.
b. The main supervisor.
c. The relevant school PGR professional services team (in the Faculty of Arts this will be the faculty PGR professional services team).
22. The Academic Quality and Policy Office must not provide details of the report from the examiners when they notify the student and the main supervisor, as an investigation must be held before any details are confirmed.
23. The Faculty PGR Director must convene a faculty panel to investigate.
24. Continuation of the examination process, including a rescheduled oral examination where necessary, will depend on the outcome of the investigation.
25. The Faculty PGR Director must convene a faculty panel to investigate suspected academic misconduct when this is identified as a result of the plagiarism review or is identified by the examiners.
26. The Faculty PGR Director must ensure that the student and the main supervisor are notified of the decision to convene a panel.
27. The Faculty PGR Director must appoint the members of the panel, which must consist of at least three academic members of staff, including:
a. A chair, who must have appropriate experience for the role.
b. A member from the PGR student’s home school.
c. A member from another school.
28. The Faculty Head of Student Administration (or nominee) must attend meetings of the panel including the interview with the student to provide advice on regulations and to take a formal note of proceedings.
29. The Faculty PGR Director cannot chair or be a member of the panel, as they must remain impartial during this stage.
30. The panel must investigate the suspected academic misconduct. The investigation will normally include an interview with the PGR student.
31. If the PGR student declines to attend the interview, the panel must conduct the investigation with the available evidence. Any obstruction or lack of engagement from the student must be documented in the panel’s report.
32. The purpose of the interview with the PGR student is to determine whether academic misconduct has occurred and to allow the student to make representations and to present any mitigating factors.
33. All information and evidence considered by the panel must be made available to the PGR student in advance of the interview.
34. An adviser, friend, or other representative (such as the Academic Advice service) can accompany the student to the interview. The adviser, friend or representative can confer with the student, but they cannot ask or answer questions on behalf of the student during the interview.
35. The interview does not need to be recorded, but the panel chair can agree for a recording to be made in exceptional circumstances.
36. The chair must approve the formal note of the interview and must ensure that all participants, including the student, receive a copy. The student must not however receive a copy of the panel’s full report at this stage.
37. Following the investigation, the panel must decide whether the PGR student has committed academic misconduct.
38. If the panel decides that academic misconduct has not been proved, no further action under this policy will be taken and the examination process will resume. The panel chair must inform the following people of the decision:
a. The PGR student.
b. The main supervisor.
c. The Faculty PGR Director.
d. The Head of School.
e. The School PGR Director.
f. The relevant school PGR professional services team (in the Faculty of Arts this will be the faculty PGR professional services team).
g. The Academic Quality and Policy Office (pgr-exams@bristol.ac.uk).
39. If the panel decides that academic misconduct has been committed, the panel must determine the seriousness of the offence. This must take into account whether this is a first or subsequent offence and the extent and significance of the academic misconduct.
40. Based on the seriousness of the offence, the panel can recommend one of the following academic penalties to RDEB:
a. Impose no penalty beyond reporting the outcome to the Head of School and the main supervisor for future reference either permanently or for a specified period.
b. Require the student to re-present a revised version of their dissertation with the identified problems addressed.
c. Exclude the student from the award of the degree. This can be either permanently or for a stated period and can be either absolute or subject to the student complying with stipulated requirements.
d. Award the student a lower degree where regulations permit this.
41. For serious cases of academic misconduct, the panel can recommend that a non-academic penalty is considered as well.
42. The panel must submit a report, which will include their recommendation/s, to RDEB.
43. The report from the panel to RDEB must include the following:
a. A summary of the evidence considered.
b. The formal note of the interview or details on why the student declined an interview.
c. A note of the deliberations of the panel, including the factors taken into account in reaching a decision and any mitigations provided by the student.
d. The recommendation/s.
44. The panel chair must inform the student and the main supervisor of the recommendation/s, but the panel’s full report remains confidential at this stage.
45. RDEB must consider the panel’s report and recommendation/s. It can approve the panel’s recommendation/s or decide on a different outcome, depending on the seriousness of the academic misconduct and on any mitigations reported by the panel.
46. RDEB has the authority to impose any of the following academic penalties:
a. Impose no penalty beyond reporting the outcome to the Head of School and the main supervisor for future reference either permanently or for a specified period.
b. Require the student to re-present a revised version of their dissertation with the identified problems addressed.
c. Exclude the student from the award of the degree. This can be either permanently or for a stated period and can be either absolute or subject to the student complying with stipulated requirements.
d. Award the student a lower degree where regulations permit this.
47. Academic misconduct in a dissertation submitted for a research degree should be mentioned in student references, unless any time limit set by RDEB under paragraph 46a has expired.
48. RDEB must record its conclusion and details of the imposed penalty in its minutes.
49. RDEB must keep a record of academic misconduct cases it has considered and note them in its annual report to the University Academic Quality and Standards Committee.
50. Where RDEB decides that an academic penalty is sufficient, it must inform the student and the main supervisor and provide them with a copy of the panel’s report.
51. RDEB must also inform the following people of the decision:
a. The Head of School.
b. The panel chair.
c. The Faculty Head of Student Administration.
52. If the academic penalty imposed is for the student to re-present a revised version of their dissertation, RDEB must set a deadline for the student, usually not more than four weeks from the date of notification. In exceptional circumstances, RDEB can decide on a longer period and the RDEB chair (or nominee) can grant extensions to the deadline.
53. The PGR student must submit their revised dissertation by the deadline following the standard submission process of emailing a copy to the Academic Quality and Policy Office (pgr-exams@bristol.ac.uk) and uploading a copy to Turnitin.
54. Supervisors must provide the PGR student with support in revising and re-presenting the dissertation.
55. Where RDEB decides that an academic penalty is insufficient because of the serious nature of the academic misconduct, it can refer the case to the Vice-Chancellor (via the University Secretary) to be dealt with under the Student Disciplinary Regulations.
56. RDEB will not impose any penalty itself but can recommend to the Vice-Chancellor that a specified academic penalty is imposed alongside any non-academic penalty made under the Student Disciplinary Regulations.
57. Where a case if dealt with under the Student Disciplinary Regulations, the Vice-Chancellor (or nominee) will make the final decision on penalties and can impose any penalty or penalties available under the Student Disciplinary Regulations, as well as any specified academic penalty recommended by RDEB.
58. If an allegation of academic misconduct is made about an individual who has been awarded a research degree, RDEB must initiate an investigation.
59. RDEB will determine how the investigation will be conducted in a reasonable and appropriate way with the aim of ensuring a fair process.
60. Once the investigation has been completed, RDEB will report the findings to the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Education and Students), who can consult with the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and Enterprise), before reaching a decision on the case.
61. If the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Education and Students) decides that the research degree has been improperly awarded, they will refer the case to Senate for consideration of whether to recommend to the Board of Trustees that the award is withdrawn.
