ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT PROCEDURE Lynn Jones Regulations, Assessment and Awards Manager

DEFINITION To conduct any act whereby a person may obtain for himself/herself or for another, an unpermitted advantage

EXAMPLES  Plagiarism  Collusion  Re-use of one’s own material  Contracting with a third party to write a piece of work  Fabrication of data  Introduction of unauthorised material into an exam room or associated facilities  Impersonation of an examination candidate or allowing oneself to be impersonated

DETECTION  Suspicions by markers should be reported to the Programme Leader  Allegations to be supported by documentary evidence  Turnitin is useful tool but not conclusive

 To be used when there are suspicions of academic misconduct but inadequate documentary evidence  Marker and another member of academic staff within the department to interview student  Brief report to Academic Head who will decide whether or not to pursue Academic Investigative Interview

DETERMINATION OF LEVEL OF OFFENCE  Minor Indiscretion  Minor Academic Misconduct  Major Academic Misconduct

RESPONSIBILITY FOR DETERMINATION  Academic Head and Programme Leader  If offence occurs during an examination, Superintendant of Examinations in consultation with Academic Head

MAJOR ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT  Programme Leader to advise RAAU who will organise Committee of Enquiry  Case against student to be presented by the Programme Leader or nominee  Decision made by Committee on balance of probabilities  Extenuating circumstances can be considered in determination of penalty only

PENALTIES  Range of recommended penalties provided for guidance  Factors to be considered - is it a first offence, has the student tried to deliberately deceive, has the offence been committed early on in the student’s studies  Extenuating circumstances can be considered if relevant and timely documentary evidence is provided

 If a student is studying on a professional programme and a minor case of Academic Misconduct is found proven, consider under Stage 1 of the procedure  If a student is studying on a professional programme and a major case of Academic Misconduct is found proven, consider under Stage 1 or 2 of the procedure SUITABILITY FOR PRACTICE

 Student can bring along someone for support but that person may not speak without Chair’s permission  If student wants to bring a person with legal qualifications or a professional body representative, University must be advised in advance CAN STUDENT BE ACCOMPANIED AT A HEARING?

 If student confirms attendance but does not attend without good reason the hearing will continue  If student requests postponement Chair can grant this on one occasion only if evidence of mitigation is provided  If student advises non attendance or does not reply to communications, hearing will continue without student ATTENDANCE AT HEARINGS

Grounds for Appeal Irregularity in the conduct of the hearing Exceptional personal circumstances which were not known when the hearing was conducted MINOR – if accepted, refer for consideration by Committee of Enquiry MAJOR – if accepted, refer for consideration by Appeal Panel OIA – Following completion of internal procedures, student may apply for a review APPEALS

The procedure can be found on the X drive under Academic Misconduct along with other useful documents.