The School is committed to upholding academic integrity, essential to its educational mission. Our Academic Misconduct Regulations address and prevent misconduct, including plagiarism and cheating, through clear guidelines and procedures. Students are educated on ethical practices and supported with resources. Incidents are investigated and adjudicated fairly, with balanced consequences, ensuring the value and credibility of our academic programmes.
This Policy has been developed in line with the applicable laws, regulations, regulatory advice, and sector best practices, including the following:
Academic integrity is essential for ensuring that all students earn their credentials honestly and that the credibility of the institution is upheld. The School’s assessment regulations outline requirements on anonymity, identity, assessment timing, academic judgement, academic misconduct, the integrity of marks, and student support.
Adhering to academic integrity principles maintains the value of education and the merit of degrees, fostering a culture of trust and fairness that benefits both the institution and society. Although academic integrity is vital, the School also values freedom of thought and recognises the role of new technologies, such as generative AI, aiming to balance these in its regulations and policies.
The School differentiates between:
This distinction allows for appropriate responses, ensuring fairness in handling issues related to academic integrity.
Poor academic practice occurs when a student fails to follow academic conventions due to unfamiliarity with the School's assessment practices.
This often results in work that includes unattributed or improperly referenced material closely resembling the source. Recognising this helps address issues early and support student development.
Academic misconduct refers to any attempt to gain an unfair advantage and extends beyond poor academic practice.
When determining if an action constitutes academic misconduct, the investigator will assess:
Examples of academic misconduct include:
All staff and students must familiarise themselves with the Academic Misconduct Regulations, which define poor academic practice and provide examples of academic misconduct.
Understanding these regulations ensures that everyone adheres to expected academic standards and avoids misconduct.
All staff and students must be aware of the consequences of academic misconduct. The School provides continuous education on academic integrity throughout a student’s time at the School.
The School ensures understanding of academic integrity through programme and module handbooks, examples of misconduct, regular staff explanations, feedback, workshops (including on generative AI), and accessible guides. Regulations and policies are introduced during Welcome Week and reinforced through regular staff training. This comprehensive approach helps maintain high academic standards.
Proofreading is the final step in creating a written piece, focused on reviewing and correcting spelling, punctuation, grammar, and other errors.
Ensuring accuracy and clarity in your work depends on identifying and fixing mistakes during proofreading.
All students are responsible for proofreading their assignments to ensure accuracy in grammar, spelling, and punctuation.
This responsibility ensures the quality and clarity of the work submitted.
Subject to the School's regulations and policies, including the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy, students may use software, such as Generative AI, to check their work.
This ensures that students utilise technology responsibly while adhering to academic standards.
Students should avoid using human proofreaders but, if necessary, the proofreader must not significantly alter the work. Specifically, proofreaders cannot:
Proofreaders may only correct spelling, grammar, punctuation, formatting, and general clarity, and can suggest improvements without rewriting.
This ensures that students retain control over their work while receiving appropriate assistance, preventing any undue influence that could compromise academic integrity. Students must also ensure proofreaders follow these guidelines to avoid allegations of academic misconduct.
When using software or human proofreaders, including AI, students must declare the type of software or person used and provide a written statement confirming adherence to these regulations. They must also retain the original draft showing any changes, if requested.
This ensures transparency in the proofreading process and verifies that the work complies with academic integrity standards.
In group assignments, proofreading and discussing drafts among group members is acceptable and encouraged.
This collective approach enhances teamwork and critical analysis skills, contributing to the learning outcomes of the module.
Tutors may highlight spelling and grammar issues and comment on ideas and clarity in draft work using the insert comment function of editing software.
This feedback helps students improve their drafts, while the student remains responsible for considering and addressing the tutor’s comments.
The use of professional proofreaders or editorial services is strongly discouraged and subject to this regulation.
Such services often involve rewriting or rewording, which can compromise the student's authorship and lead to academic misconduct.
Under the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy, students must adhere to citation conventions by including full footnotes and a bibliography when using software and AI technologies, and must also comply with copyright regulations.
Proper citation and adherence to copyright ensure academic integrity and compliance with the School's Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy, which must be followed at all times.
If a staff member or external examiner suspects poor academic practice or academic misconduct during assessment, they must report it, with any available evidence, to the module leader. This should be done at any time before or after marking.
Reporting ensures that suspected issues are addressed promptly, maintaining academic integrity throughout the assessment process.
Upon receiving a report of suspected poor academic practice or misconduct, the module leader must either investigate the case themselves or appoint another staff member to do so. The person conducting the investigation will be referred to as the 'investigator.'
This process ensures that suspected issues are properly reviewed and handled by an appropriate individual, maintaining the integrity of the investigation.
The investigator will review the assessment and the reporter's comments to determine if there is sufficient evidence of poor academic practice or academic misconduct. If no reasonable evidence is found:
This ensures that only substantiated concerns are pursued, protecting the student’s record from unwarranted issues.
If the investigator finds reasonable evidence of wrongdoing, they will decide whether the case should be classified as poor academic practice or academic misconduct. Based on this classification, the case will be handled through either:
This ensures that each case is addressed appropriately according to the severity of the issue.
After determining whether the matter is poor academic practice or academic misconduct, the investigator must notify the student of:
This ensures the student is fully informed of the issue and has access to support during the process.
If the investigator finds reasonable evidence of poor academic practice, the student will be invited to an academic practice review meeting within approximately 5 working days. The email invitation should:
This ensures the student is informed about the meeting details, understands the allegations, and knows their rights and obligations, facilitating a fair review process.
During the meeting, the student can discuss the assessed work and other submissions, and present their views. The investigator may:
This process ensures that the student has a chance to present their perspective and that the outcome is appropriately determined based on the evidence and discussion.
If the investigator determines there has been poor academic practice, the following steps will be taken:
These actions ensure the student receives appropriate guidance, warnings, and that records are maintained for monitoring and improvement purposes, while keeping the module and programme leaders informed.
If a student fails to attend an Academic Practice Review without a valid reason, the case may be escalated to an Academic Misconduct Panel.
This ensures that attendance at the review is taken seriously and that unaddressed issues are properly escalated for further review.
If the investigator refers a case to an Academic Misconduct Panel due to reasonable evidence of academic misconduct, the panel will include:
The Reporter may attend at the Panel's discretion to present information or answer questions.
This ensures a fair and impartial review of the case by involving staff who are not directly associated with the student, while allowing the Reporter to contribute if needed.
If multiple students are involved in the same academic misconduct incident(s), a single Panel may review all cases together, as long as it does not conflict with this regulation.
This ensures efficient handling of related cases while maintaining compliance with regulations.
The Academic Misconduct Panel generally meets twice per semester: once after the first set of assessments and again after referrals, deferrals, and retakes. Ad hoc sessions can also be arranged. The Secretary will:
This ensures timely and organised handling of cases while providing adequate notice and thorough documentation.
The student(s) may choose another member of staff or a fellow student from the School to accompany them to the Panel meeting.
This allows students to have support and representation during the Panel meeting, ensuring they are adequately assisted throughout the process.
The student(s) will receive details of the allegations and copies of any work or evidence submitted for the Panel’s review.
This ensures that students are fully informed about the case against them and have access to all relevant materials needed for their response.
The student(s) may submit a statement before the meeting.
This allows students to present their side of the story or provide additional context in advance, ensuring a fair review process.
Panel members will not see details of any previous academic misconduct cases on the student’s record. They will only have access to the student's level, current results profile, and the initial investigation report.
This ensures that panel members base their decision solely on the current case without being influenced by past incidents.
During the panel meeting:
This ensures a fair and thorough review process by allowing the student to present their case and respond to evidence before the Panel makes a decision.
If the student does not provide a satisfactory explanation for their absence, the Panel may proceed without them, provided the School has given the required notice.
This rule ensures that the Panel can continue with the proceedings and make a decision if the student fails to attend, assuming proper notice was given.
Once the Panel has reviewed all the evidence and submissions, it will decide either during the meeting or within 3 working days. The decision will be based on a simple majority vote and communicated to the student in writing as soon as possible. In the event of a tied vote, the student will receive the benefit of the doubt.
This procedure ensures a prompt and fair decision-making process, with clear communication to the student and a safeguard for tie votes.
If further investigation is required, the Panel may postpone its decision until sufficient evidence is available.
This allows the Panel to make a well-informed decision based on comprehensive evidence.
If the Panel finds no reasonable evidence of academic misconduct, the process ends, and the allegations are withdrawn. The work will be returned to the marker for grading, and no record will be placed on the student's file.
This ensures that no undue impact is made on the student's record when evidence does not support the allegations.
If the Panel finds reasonable evidence of academic misconduct or the student admits to it, the allegation will be upheld. Generally, the Academic Board will not reverse the decision of the Academic Misconduct Panel.
This ensures that findings of academic misconduct are upheld and provides finality to the decision-making process, maintaining the integrity of academic standards.
Once misconduct is upheld, the Panel will review the student’s record of previous academic misconduct and recommend sanctions based on:
Sanctions may include:
Sanctions are imposed to address the severity of the misconduct, with increased penalties for repeated offences, ensuring fair and consistent academic discipline.
The School may initiate disciplinary proceedings for upheld cases of academic misconduct, following the Student Disciplinary Procedure.
This ensures that appropriate measures are taken in accordance with the established disciplinary guidelines, maintaining academic integrity and fairness.
When misconduct is upheld, the Panel's deliberations must be recorded in the student's AGS record and reported to:
This ensures transparency and proper documentation of the case, including:
The Module Examination Board (MEB) agenda will include Panel decisions and recommendations. The MEB will review these recommendations when assessing the student's overall profile and will either ratify the decisions or refer the matter back to the Panel if necessary. The MEB will also determine the impact of ratification on modules, including any failures and referrals.
This ensures that Panel decisions are formally reviewed and integrated into the student's academic record, with appropriate actions taken based on the MEB's evaluation.
To appeal the outcome of an Academic Misconduct Panel, a student must submit a written appeal to the Director of Education within 10 working days of receiving notification of the decision.
This timeframe ensures that appeals are made promptly and allows for a timely review of the Panel's decision.
Appeals can be made only on the following grounds:
Simply repeating arguments from the original hearing is not a valid ground for appeal.
These criteria ensure that appeals are based on substantial new information or errors in the decision-making process rather than rehashing previously considered points.
The Director of Education is responsible for assessing whether an appeal meets the grounds specified in this policy.
The timing of the appeal decision may influence Module and Programme Examination Board decisions, potentially leading to actions by the Chair.
This process ensures that appeals are properly reviewed and only valid appeals lead to further review, while also considering the impact on ongoing administrative decisions.
The Academic Misconduct Appeals Panel will have a structure similar to the original Panel. However, it must include at least one academic member who was not part of the original panel.
This ensures that the appeals panel has a fresh perspective while maintaining consistency in its structure.
The Appeals Panel meeting will follow a rehearing format, similar to the process of the initial panel.
This approach ensures consistency and fairness by using the same procedures as the original hearing.
The decision of the Appeal Panel is final and cannot be appealed further. The decision will be communicated to all relevant parties, including the MEB, as soon as possible according to these procedures.
This rule ensures closure of the appeal process and provides clarity to all involved parties by eliminating any further avenues for appeal.
If a student is dissatisfied with the Appeal Panel's decision or any decision that concludes the internal process, they may lodge a complaint with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education.
This rule provides students with an external recourse if they are unhappy with the final decision of the internal appeal process, ensuring an additional level of oversight.
The Academic Board may mandate an investigation into a former student's academic misconduct. This decision will be based on the evidence, the seriousness of the case, and the time elapsed since the alleged misconduct.
This rule ensures that serious cases of academic misconduct are addressed, even if the student is no longer currently enrolled, taking into account relevant factors such as evidence and the time passed.
The Director of Education will investigate the allegation. If no reasonable evidence is found at this stage, the Academic Board will be notified, and the process will be terminated. If reasonable evidence is identified, an Academic Misconduct Panel will be convened.
The School will notify the former student of:
The Panel will include:
During the Panel meeting:
The Panel will decide based on a majority vote and communicate the decision to the student in writing as soon as possible. If the vote is tied, the student will be given the benefit of the doubt.
If no reasonable evidence of academic misconduct is found, the process ends, and the allegations are withdrawn. If misconduct is upheld, the Panel will review the student’s past misconduct records and recommend sanctions, considering all evidence and the student's history. Sanctions may include changing marks or revoking awards. Such sanctions must be approved by the Board of Governors with a high standard of proof.
If the former student does not attend the meeting without a satisfactory explanation, the Panel may proceed in their absence, provided the School has given the required notice.
These procedures ensure that allegations of academic misconduct are handled fairly and thoroughly, with clear guidelines for evidence review, decision-making, and possible sanctions. They also provide a structured process for dealing with cases involving former students and ensure that any decisions are made with a high level of scrutiny.
All recommendations will be submitted to the Board of Governors for the final decision. The student will be informed of the Board’s decision. The former student retains the full right of appeal as detailed in these regulations.
This ensures that all recommendations are reviewed and decided upon by the Board of Governors, and that the student is kept informed of the final decision. It also guarantees that the former student has access to the appeal process if they wish to challenge the outcome.
The student may appeal to the President of the Board of Governors within 10 working days of receiving notification of the decision, based on new evidence, misjudgement, or an excessive penalty. The process will mirror the original appeal process, with the President determining if the appeal meets the criteria, and the panel including at least one academic member not on the original panel. If dissatisfied with the final decision, the student can lodge a complaint with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education.
This ensures that the student has a clear path to appeal the decision based on specific grounds and that the appeal process is managed by the President of the Board of Governors. It also provides a further recourse through the Office of the Independent Adjudicator if the student is not satisfied with the internal process's conclusion.
The following metrics will be measured and regularly reviewed as performance indicators for the School to ensure the effectiveness of this policy and associated operations.