22. Academic misconduct

Detecting academic misconduct

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

22.2.    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

22.3.    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, as set out below. A definition and further information on each are available in the Academic Misconduct Procedure:

a.    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.

b.    Plagiarism: where a student is considered to have used someone else’s work without proper acknowledgment.

c.    Re-using own work (self-plagiarism): where a student is considered to have re-used their own previously submitted work without proper acknowledgement.

d.    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.

e.    Ethical breaches: where a student is considered to have breached ethics in their research. 

22.4.    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)

22.5.    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.

22.6.    The AIAC is available to undergraduate students (excluding those in their final year of study but including those on Foundation programmes) and taught postgraduate students where:

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

22.7.    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.

22.8.    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:

a.    that the procedure was not correctly followed when making the decision

b.    that new evidence has come to light that was not available to the original decision maker which may have materially affected the decision. 

22.9.    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:

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

Investigation of academic misconduct

22.10.    Where suspected academic misconduct requires investigation under the relevant procedure, an academic misconduct panel is convened.

22.11.    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.

22.12.    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

22.13.    Following completion of the investigation, if the panel judges that no academic misconduct has occurred, it either:
1.    Dismisses the case
2.    Refers it back to the unit director to be dealt with as poor academic practice.

Or, if the panel judges that academic misconduct has occurred, it determines the extent to which the assessment can still evidence the student’s learning and the level of advantage they may have gained, and either:

3.    Notes the case on the student’s record for future reference with no penalty applied

4.    Applies one of the following penalties to the original piece of work by awarding a lower mark than would otherwise have been awarded by:
a.    capping the mark for the assessment at the pass mark
b.    applying a mark reduction of 10 marks
c.    applying a mark reduction of 20 marks
d.    awarding a mark of zero for the assessment 
e.    in assessments that are marked on a pass/fail marking scheme, awarding a ‘fail’ mark for the assessment.

22.14.    In addition, the panel may refer the case to the Student Disciplinary procedure if the seriousness of the misconduct and the level of dishonesty are severe such that the student’s status at the University is called into question.

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

22.16.    The exam board receives the decision of the panel when considering a student’s academic outcome (i.e. the award of credit for a unit and any reassessment opportunities). The exam board will consider whether the impact of applying the penalty to the student’s overall academic outcome is disproportionate to the offence.

22.17.    Exceptional circumstances cannot reduce or overturn a penalty for academic misconduct on an assessment (i.e. where reassessment is subsequently required due to the application of a penalty for academic misconduct, it is then taken as a second or third attempt), unless a situation is disclosed that is of such severity that it is judged the student is not responsible for their actions. In such cases, any investigation into academic misconduct is paused, restarting at an appropriate point.

22.18.    A student may appeal a decision made by an Academic Misconduct Panel on the application of a mark penalty for academic misconduct (see Academic Misconduct Procedure for more information).