23. Academic misconduct

Detecting academic misconduct 

23.1. Academic misconduct can be identified by staff involved in marking or teaching. It can also be reported or disclosed by a third party.  

23.2. Software may be used to help identify potential academic misconduct, such as plagiarism. Any suspected cases are reviewed before any action is taken or penalty applied. A dissertation, project or industry placement report may be exempted from a third-party software detection service if there are contractual, security or safety obligations on the University to safeguard sensitive material from third parties. If an exemption is agreed, a relevant member of staff undertakes a manual academic integrity check of the dissertation. 

Procedures for investigating academic misconduct 

23.3. If any irregularities are detected, or academic misconduct identified after academic review, the case is referred to the appropriate procedure for investigation and/or consideration. A definition and further information on each are available in the Academic Misconduct Procedure, the links to which are provided below: 

1. Poor academic practice: for minor instances of poor referencing, incorrect, or missing attribution for small sections of copied work, or similar infringements by a student where there is no suggestion that there is an intention to deceive.
2. Plagiarism: where a student is considered to have used someone else’s work without proper acknowledgment.
3. Re-using own work (self-plagiarism): where a student is considered to have re-used their own previously submitted work without proper acknowledgement.
4. Cheating: where a student is considered to have broken the rules of an assessment or sought to gain an unfair advantage through unauthorised means. Includes collusion, contract cheating and the mis-use of artificial intelligence.
5. Ethical breaches: where a student is considered to have breached ethics in their research.  

23.4. Some cases of academic misconduct (under b-d above), depending on the student’s year of study, may be addressed through training instead of formal penalties to help students build the required understanding. This includes attending an Academic Integrity Awareness Course.  

Academic integrity awareness course (AIAC) 

23.5. Eligible students are invited to attend an AIAC to improve their understanding of academic integrity and what constitutes misconduct. This is separate from any work they may need to complete in order to receive credit for the affected unit/s, such as correcting the original assessment or submitting a new one. 

23.6. The AIAC is only available to first year undergraduate students (including those on Foundation programmes) where: 

• this is their first offence, and 
• the offence is not sufficiently serious that it cannot be addressed by training.   

23.7. Full attendance and engagement is required for successful completion of the training. If a student does not attend, or attends but refuses to engage or is disruptive, the relevant assessment is awarded a mark of zero. 

23.8. Any student referred to an AIAC can appeal this decision by submitting the AIAC appeal form within 21 days of being informed they are required to attend the course. The permissible grounds for appeal are: 

1. that the procedure was not correctly followed when making the decision
2. that new evidence has come to light that was not available to the original decision maker which may have materially affected the decision.  

23.9. The appeal will be considered by a nominated member of academic staff in the Faculty who has not been involved in the case. They will either: 

1. reject the appeal and confirm attendance at the AIAC is required, or,
2. uphold the appeal and revoke the original decision for attendance at an AIAC. 

Investigation of academic misconduct 

23.10. Where suspected academic misconduct requires investigation under the relevant procedure, an academic misconduct panel is convened to investigate at either school, faculty or university level, depending upon the seriousness of the case. At school and faculty level, the panel is convened by the student’s home school or faculty. 

23.11. Students are invited to engage with the panel in the form of an interview. The purpose of the interview is to allow the student to make representations and to present any mitigating factors. The interview can be online or in-person. A student can provide a written submission regardless of whether they attend the interview or not. 

23.12. Once the interview process is complete, the academic misconduct panel determines if academic misconduct has occurred or not. The applicable standard of proof is the balance of probabilities (i.e. a student is found guilty of academic misconduct if, on the evidence available, it is more likely than not that the offence was committed). 

Outcomes from an investigation of academic misconduct 

23.13. The outcomes from an investigation of academic misconduct are to:  

1. Dismiss the case
2. Refer it back to the unit director to be dealt with as poor academic practice
3. Impose no penalty beyond recording the case on the student’s record for future reference
4. Apply one of the following penalties to the original piece of work: 
   1. to award the work submitted a lower mark than would otherwise have been awarded in the form of mark penalty or a capped mark; if the work is the only summative assessment for the unit and this penalty reduces the mark to below the pass mark the panel should consider whether credit should be awarded. 
   2. if the assessment is the only assessment contributing to the unit mark, award credit but a mark of zero. 
   3. if the assessment contributes part of the unit mark, award a mark of zero but allow credit for the unit to be awarded if the zero results in a fail mark for the complete unit. 
5. Require the submission of an equivalent piece of work, to replace the originally submitted piece of work i.e. that corresponds to the same “attempt”, which is awarded: 
   1. the mark it would normally be awarded
   2. a lower mark than would otherwise be awarded in the form of a mark penalty or a capped mark; if the penalty reduces the mark to below the pass mark the panel should consider whether credit should be awarded.
   3. a mark of zero but, providing the intellectual mark of the resubmitted work would be sufficient for the unit pass mark to be achieved, allow credit for the unit to be awarded. 
6. Award no marks (zero), for the unit of which the examination or piece of assessed work was part. Under this penalty, the exam board will, where permitted by regulation, allow the student to take reassessment in order to demonstrate the learning outcomes for the unit, for the award of credit only. Where the credit points for the unit are later achieved by reassessment, the penalty of a mark of zero for the unit is retained. 
7. Award the student a lower classification of degree than they would otherwise achieve based on their mark profile. The UAMP should determine whether an equivalent piece of work should be submitted when recommending this penalty. 
8. Require the student to withdraw from the university, which means that the student ceases to be a member of the university, and loses all rights and privileges of membership, including whether an exit award should be made. This recommendation can only be made to the Dean of the student’s home faculty. 

Notes on outcomes

• for assessments on a pass/fail marking scheme, outcomes 4 and 5 are replaced by: require the submission of an equivalent piece of work, to replace the originally submitted piece of work i.e. that corresponds to the same “attempt”, with Pass/Fail outcomes.
• outcome 6 is available to Faculty Academic Misconduct Panels and University Academic Misconduct Panels only
• outcomes 7 and 8 are available to University Academic Misconduct Panels only.
• outcomes 3 and 5 are NOT available to a Panel with regard to incoming study abroad students or other visiting students who take units for credit but are not on a University of Bristol programme of study. 

23.14. Outcomes 4-7 are recommended to the relevant exam board or outcome 8 to the Dean of the Faculty for consideration. Outcomes 1-3 do not need further approval.  

23.15. The student is informed of the decision within 14 days of the date of the panel. 

23.16. The exam board (or Dean of a Faculty for outcome 8) receives and considers the recommendation of the panel when considering a student’s academic outcome. The normal expectation is that the recommendation is accepted; however, the exam board will consider:  

• whether the impact of applying the recommendation to the student’s overall academic outcome is disproportionate to the offence, and/or 
• the impact of any new exceptional circumstances not available to the panel that are relevant to the affected assessment(s).