Applicable from September 2015
Universal Assessment Regulations
Academic Misconduct: Procedures for the Investigation of Suspected
Cases, and Penalties for Confirmed Cases
Contents
1
Implementation ................................................................................................. 2
2
Procedures for the Investigation of Suspected Cases ....................................... 2
2.1 Cheating in an Examination or In-Class Test ............................................... 2
2.2 Plagiarism ................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Collusion..................................................................................................... 7
2.4 Fabrication of Data ..................................................................................... 9
2.5 Self-Plagiarism .......................................................................................... 11
3
Penalties for Confirmed Cases ......................................................................... 12
3.1 Scope of the Penalties .............................................................................. 12
3.2 Special Penalties for Plagiarism and Collusion at Certificate Level ............ 12
3.3 Common Penalties for Fabrication of Data and Cheating in an Examination
or Class Test at all Undergraduate Levels, AND for Plagiarism and Collusion
at Intermediate and Honours Levels......................................................... 14
3.4 Common Penalties for Academic Misconduct at Masters Level ............... 17
Page 1 of 19
Applicable from September 2015
1
Implementation
These regulations had been approved by Senate by June 2015, and shall apply with
immediate effect.
2
Procedures for the Investigation of Suspected Cases
2.1
Cheating in an Examination or In-Class Test
2.1.1 Regulations to be Followed by Candidates
Candidates are forbidden to:
[a] take to their desk in the examination/test room EITHER any unauthorised
material [including, inter alia, books, manuscripts, papers, articles or notes of any
kind] OR any case, bag or other container in which books, manuscripts, papers or
other unauthorised material can be carried;
[b] make use of any of the types of material referred to in “a” above that were
introduced into the examination/test room by either the candidate or another
examinee;
[c]
obtain, or endeavour to obtain, directly or indirectly, assistance in his/her work;
[d] give or endeavour to give, directly or indirectly, assistance to any other candidate
[e] impersonate an examination/test candidate;
[f]
allow themselves to be impersonated;
[g] write notes or rough work anywhere other than in the answer books or on the
question papers provided.
2.1.2 Action to be Taken Where an Invigilator Suspects a Candidate of Breaching Regulation
2.1.1
[a]
The Senior Invigilator shall be informed. If the Senior Invigilator shares the
suspicion, he or she shall:
o normally remove and retain any unauthorised material [where this is not
practicable, the material shall be photographed before the student is allowed
to leave]; AND
o report the matter to the Registrar (or her/his representative), who shall have
power EITHER to exclude the candidate from the examination room OR
permit the candidate to finish the paper.
[b]
The candidate shall be informed before s/he leaves the room that:
o the Invigilators will prepare a report of the circumstances, for forwarding to
the Registrar; and
o the candidate is not required to admit to a breach of the regulations but s/he
may submit a written statement if s/he so wishes, to be forwarded to the
Registrar.
[c]
At the conclusion of the examination, the Invigilators shall prepare a joint report
of all the circumstances, and forward this report to the Registrar.
Page 2 of 19
Applicable from September 2015
[d]
The Registrar shall compile a report for the relevant Panel and/or Board of
Examiners. The Registrar’s Report shall take into account the circumstances in the
Invigilator’s Report, and any statement submitted by the student, and shall
identify the options available to the Board, in view of the Academic Regulations
and any precedents.
[e]
Based on the Registrar’s report, the Board of Examiners shall be responsible for
determining the consequences for the student [in the case of a dual-stage
examining system, the Board may receive a recommendation from the Panel of
Examiners for the pathway concerned].
[f]
If, well before the normal date of a Board, a case emerges for which the most
appropriate outcome would be Termination of Studies, the Chair of the Board will
be empowered [in liaison with the Registrar] to take Chair’s Action to terminate
studies, the student retaining the right to appeal to Academic Appeals Committee
against that decision.
[g]
A record of each case, including the recommendation made to the Board of
Examiners and the decision taken, including reasons for any variation from the
normal penalty, shall be held centrally. This central record shall be maintained
until the student graduates, or leaves the University before graduation, at which
point the record shall normally be deleted; the record of misconduct shall neither
be passed on to other institutions, nor [in the case of undergraduates] transferred
to any subsequent record of the student’s Postgraduate study at this University.
However, if a student’s studies have been terminated for a repeated offence, the
record shall be maintained, and the University shall reserve the right to make the
reason for termination known to other institutions of Higher Education.
2.1.3 Action to be Taken Where an Where an Examiner, when Marking an Examination
Script, Suspects a Candidate of having Breached Regulation 2.1.1 or having Engaged in
Other Academic Misconduct
[a]
The Examiner shall consult the relevant Head of Department [or equivalent] or
nominee. If the Head or nominee considers that such a breach has occurred, s/he
shall make a full report to the Registrar and shall warn the candidate that this
report is being made.
[b]
The Head or nominee shall inform the candidate that s/he is not required to admit
a breach of the regulations but s/he may submit a written statement if s/he so
wishes, to be forwarded to the Registrar.
[c]
The Registrar shall compile a report for the relevant Panel and/or Board of
Examiners. The Registrar’s Report shall take into account the circumstances in the
Invigilator’s Report, and any statement submitted by the student, and shall
identify the options available to the Board, in view of the Academic Regulations
and any precedents.
[d]
Based on the Registrar’s report, the Board of Examiners shall be responsible for
determining the consequences for the student [in the case of a dual-stage
examining system, the Board may receive a recommendation from the Panel of
Examiners for the subject concerned].
Page 3 of 19
Applicable from September 2015
2.2
[e]
If, well before the normal date of a Board, a case emerges for which the most
appropriate outcome would be Termination of Studies, the Chair of the Board will
be empowered [in liaison with the Registrar] to take Chair’s Action to terminate
studies, the student retaining the right to appeal to Academic Appeals Committee
against that decision.
[f]
A record of each case, including the recommendation made to the Board of
Examiners and the decision taken, including reasons for any variation from the
normal penalty, shall be held centrally. This central record shall be maintained
until the student graduates, or leaves the University before graduation, at which
point the record shall normally be deleted; the record of misconduct shall neither
be passed on to other institutions, nor [in the case of undergraduates] transferred
to any subsequent record of the student’s Postgraduate study at this University.
However, if a student’s studies have been terminated for a repeated offence, the
record shall be maintained, and the University shall reserve the right to make the
reason for termination known to other institutions of Higher Education.
Plagiarism
2.2.1 Initial Action to be Undertaken by the Marker
[a]
Identification of the Source
The first step in dealing with a case of suspected plagiarism is to specify the
sections that appear to have been plagiarised, and the apparent source of the
material, including page numbers or equivalent. Unless it is possible to specify the
apparent source, the work shall be deemed to be the student’s own work, and no
further action shall be taken.
[b]
Judgement of whether the matter should count as “Plagiarism” or “Poor
Academic Practice”
This is a matter of academic judgement, which shall be exercised within the
following guidelines, and in liaison with the second marker.
i.
Poor Academic Practice
o Typically, this might involve including, without adequately identifying
the source, only a small amount of paraphrased or verbatim text [or
equivalent].
o However, a more extensive case may be treated as Poor Academic
Practice if it is judged that the student could reasonably argue that no
guidance previously issued to the student had identified the student’s
type of poor practice as falling within the Department’s understanding
of “plagiarism”.
o Whether a student had intended to plagiarise is not, in itself, relevant.
Page 4 of 19
Applicable from September 2015
ii.
[c]
Plagiarism:
o Typically, this might involve features such as:
 including, without adequately identifying the source, an extensive
amount of paraphrased or verbatim text [or equivalent];
 including an extensive amount of verbatim or paraphrased text [or
equivalent] without the use of quotation marks [or equivalent];
 the use of material from essay banks;
 presenting another person’s designs, concepts or ideas as the
student’s own.
o However, if the student had previously been warned of the
consequences of Poor Academic Practice, it may be appropriate to treat
as plagiarism a case involving only a small amount of material; if
appropriate, the marker should consult a Faculty Senior Academic
Adviser to determine whether there is a previous case on the student’s
record.
o Whether a student had intended to plagiarise is not, in itself, relevant.
Reporting the Case, and Contacting the Student
If the student is judged to have engaged in Poor Academic Practice, the marker
shall:
o
award a suitable grade and, at the standard time for providing feedback,
direct the student to additional support materials dealing with plagiarism
and academic practice;
o
report the judgement to a Faculty Senior Academic Adviser, who will log the
date, course, staff member and judgement to the central Academic
Misconduct records.
If the student is judged to have plagiarised, the marker shall:
o
refer the matter to a Faculty Senior Academic Adviser.
2.2.2 Action to be Undertaken by the Faculty Senior Academic Adviser where the Marker
Judges that a Student has Plagiarised at Certificate Level
[a]
The FSAA shall consult the University’s Academic Misconduct records, and advise
the Head of Department [or equivalent] of the most appropriate penalty in
accordance with the regulations.
[b]
The FSAA shall then enter a summary of the case to the University’s Academic
Misconduct records.
2.2.3 Action to be Undertaken by the Faculty Senior Academic Adviser where the Marker
Judges that a Student has Plagiarised at Intermediate, Honours or Masters Levels
[a]
The FSAA shall advise the student by Hope email that a marker has judged that
one of their assessments had been plagiarised, offering the student the
opportunity to come for interview [with the marker, or, exceptionally, the second
marker, in attendance] to discuss the issue, advising them that they may be
accompanied if they wish. The email shall indicate that the interview will provide
an opportunity to explain why the work has been judged to have been plagiarised,
to help the university form a judgement about the most appropriate penalty to be
applied, and to discuss with the student what remedial help might be offered.
The interview shall be minuted, and the student asked to sign that they accept the
minutes.
Page 5 of 19
Applicable from September 2015
[b]
Following the interview, the FSAA and the marker shall confirm whether any
further information provided by the student was sufficient to cast doubt upon the
original judgement that the work had been plagiarised.
[c]
The FSAA shall then, in view of the extent of the plagiarism, any previous cases
held on the university’s Academic Misconduct records, and any information
provided by the student, form a recommendation about the most appropriate
penalty in accordance with the regulations, and taking into account the published
guidance about circumstances which might warrant a more severe penalty than
the norm.
[d]
The FSAA shall email the student to inform them of the judgement, and, if
appropriate, of the penalty that will be recommended to the Board or Panel of
Examiners. The student shall also be informed that they will have the right to
appeal against the penalty awarded by the Board, in accordance with standard
regulations governing appeals against decisions made by Boards of Examiners.
The FSAA shall copy the email to the marker, the Chair of the Board of Examiners
and, if appropriate, the Registrar.
[e]
The FSAA shall then enter a summary of the case to the University’s Academic
Misconduct records.
[f]
The final decision about the case shall be made by the relevant Board of
Examiners [in the case of a dual-stage examining system, such as for Combined
Honours or BA QTS, the Board may receive a recommendation from the Panel of
Examiners for the pathway concerned]. Normally, the Board will implement the
recommendation of the FSAA unless further information emerges at the Board, in
which case the FSAA shall be informed of the reasons for the decision.
[g]
If, well before the normal date of a Board, a case emerges for which the most
appropriate outcome would be Termination of Studies, the Chair of the Board will
be empowered [in liaison with the Registrar] to take Chair’s Action to terminate
studies, the student retaining the right to appeal to Academic Appeals Committee
against that decision.
[h]
A record of each case, including the recommendation made to the Board of
Examiners and the decision taken, including reasons for any variation from the
normal penalty, shall be held centrally. This central record shall be maintained
until the student graduates, or leaves the University before graduation, at which
point the record shall normally be deleted; the record of misconduct shall neither
be passed on to other institutions, nor [in the case of undergraduates] transferred
to any subsequent record of the student’s Postgraduate study at this University.
However, if a student’s studies have been terminated for a repeated offence, the
record shall be maintained, and the University shall reserve the right to make the
reason for termination known to other institutions of Higher Education.
Page 6 of 19
Applicable from September 2015
2.3
Collusion
2.3.1 Initial Action to be Undertaken by the Marker
[a]
Identification of the Common Elements
The first step in dealing with a case of suspected collusion is to specify the
sections in which collusion appears to have taken place.
[b]
Judgement of whether the matter should count as “Collusion” or “Poor Academic
Practice”
This is a matter of academic judgement, which shall be exercised within the
following guidelines, and in liaison with the second marker.
[c]
i
Poor Academic Practice
o A case may be treated as Poor Academic Practice if it is judged that the
students could reasonably argue that the guidance issued by the
Department had failed to specify that the type of practice engaged in
would be unacceptable
ii.
Collusion
o A case may be treated as Collusion if it is clear that from Departmental
guidelines that the relevant sections were intended to have been written
separately by each student.
Reporting the Case, and Contacting the Student
If the student is judged to have engaged in Poor Academic Practice, the marker
shall:
o award a suitable grade;
o arrange for subsequent guidance to be more explicit;
o report the judgement to a Faculty Senior Academic Adviser, who will log the
date, course, staff member and judgement to the central Academic
Misconduct records.
If the student is judged to have colluded, the marker shall:
o refer the matter to a Faculty Senior Academic Adviser.
2.3.2 Action to be Undertaken by the Faculty Senior Academic Adviser where the Marker
Judges that a Student has Colluded at Certificate Level
[a]
The FSAA shall invite all the students involved for interview, with the marker [or,
exceptionally, the second marker] in attendance; normally, each student shall be
interviewed separately. The FSAA and the marker shall then judge, on the basis of
the written material, and further evidence provided at interview, whether the
work fulfils the university’s definition of collusion, and whether it is possible to
arrive at a view about the relative culpability of the various parties.
[b]
The FSAA shall consult the University’s Academic Misconduct records, and advise
the Head of Department [or equivalent] of the most appropriate penalty in
accordance with the regulations.
Page 7 of 19
Applicable from September 2015
[c]
The FSAA shall then enter a summary of the case to the University’s Academic
Misconduct records.
2.3.3 Action to be Undertaken by the Faculty Senior Academic Adviser where the Marker
Judges that a Student has Colluded at Intermediate, Honours or Masters Levels
[a]
The FSAA shall advise all the students by Hope email that a marker has judged
that they had colluded on one of their assessments, offering the students the
opportunity to come for interview [with the marker, or, exceptionally, the second
marker, in attendance] to discuss the issue, advising them that they may be
accompanied if they wish; normally, each student shall be interviewed separately.
The email shall indicate that the interview will provide an opportunity to explain
why the collusion has been judged to have taken place, to help the university
form a judgement about the most appropriate penalty to be applied, and to
discuss with the student what remedial help might be offered. The interview shall
be minuted, and the student asked to sign that they accept the minutes.
[b]
Following the interview, the FSAA and the marker shall confirm whether any
further information provided by the student was sufficient to cast doubt upon the
original judgement that the students had colluded, and whether it is possible to
arrive at a view about the relative culpability of the various parties.
[c]
The FSAA shall then, in view of the extent of the collusion, the extent to which the
relative culpability of the various parties has been established, any previous cases
held on the university’s Academic Misconduct records, and any further
information provided by the students, form a recommendation about the most
appropriate penalty in accordance, as appropriate, with the regulations, and
taking into account the guidance about circumstances which might warrant a
more severe penalty than the norm.
[d]
The FSAA shall email the students to inform them of the judgement, and, if
appropriate, of the penalty that will be recommended to the Board or Panel of
Examiners. The students shall also be informed that they will have the right,
appeal against the penalty awarded by the Board, in accordance with standard
regulations governing appeals against decisions made by Boards of Examiners.
The FSAA shall copy the email to the marker, the Chair of the Board of Examiners
and, if appropriate, the Registrar
[e]
The FSAA shall then enter a summary of the case to the University’s Academic
Misconduct records.
[f]
The final decision about the case shall be made by the relevant Board of
Examiners [in the case of a dual-stage examining system, such as for of Combined
Honours or BA QTS, the Board may receive a recommendation from the Panel of
Examiners for the subject concerned]. Normally, the Board will implement the
recommendation of the FSAA unless further information emerges at the Board, in
which case the FSAA shall be informed of the reasons for the decision.
[g]
If, well before the normal date of a Board, a case emerges for which the most
appropriate outcome would be Termination of Studies, the Chair of the Board will
be empowered [in liaison with the Registrar] to take Chair’s Action to terminate
studies, the student retaining the right to appeal to Academic Appeals Committee
against that decision.
Page 8 of 19
Applicable from September 2015
[h]
2.4
A record of each case, including the recommendation made to the Board of
Examiners and the decision taken, including reasons for any variation from the
normal penalty, shall be held centrally. This central record shall be maintained
until the student graduates, or leaves the University before graduation, at which
point the record shall normally be deleted; the record of misconduct shall neither
be passed on to other institutions, nor [in the case of undergraduates] transferred
to any subsequent record of the students Postgraduate study at this University.
However, if a student’s studies have been terminated for a repeated offence, the
record shall be maintained, and the University shall reserve the right to make the
reason for termination known to other institutions of Higher Education.
Fabrication of Data
2.4.1 Initial Action to be Undertaken by the Marker
[a]
Identification of the Fabricated Elements
The first step in dealing with a case of suspected fabrication is to specify the
elements for which fabrication appears to have taken place, and the reason why
the data appears not to be genuine.
[b]
Judgement of whether the matter should count as “Fabrication” or “Poor
Academic Practice”
This is a matter of academic judgement, which shall be exercised within the
following guidelines, and in liaison with the second marker.
[c]
i.
Poor Academic Practice
o A case may be treated as Poor Academic Practice if it is judged that the
students could reasonably argue that the guidance issued by the
Department had failed to specify that the data had to be genuine.
ii.
Fabrication
o A case may be treated as Fabrication if it is clear that the student[s]
were expected to collect genuine data.
Reporting the Case, and Contacting the Student
If the student is judged to have engaged in Poor Academic Practice, the marker
shall:
o award a suitable grade;
o arrange for subsequent guidance to be more explicit;
o report the judgement to a Faculty Senior Academic Adviser, who will log the
date, course, staff member and judgement to the central Academic
Misconduct records.
If the student is judged to have fabricated, the marker shall:
o refer the matter to a Faculty Senior Academic Adviser.
Page 9 of 19
Applicable from September 2015
2.4.2 Action to be Undertaken by the Faculty Senior Academic Adviser where the Marker
Judges that a Student has Fabricated Data at Any Level
[a]
The FSAA shall advise the student[s] by Hope email that a marker has judged that
they had fabricated data in assessed work, that the student[s] should attend an
interview [with the marker, or, exceptionally, the second marker, in attendance]
to discuss how the research had been conducted, that they may be accompanied
if they wish, and that they must bring to the interview full and comprehensive
evidence of their data collection. The email shall indicate that the interview will
provide an opportunity to explain why fabrication has been judged to have taken
place, to help the university form a judgement about the most appropriate
penalty to be applied, and to discuss with the student what remedial help might
be offered. The interview shall be minuted, and the student asked to sign that
they accept the minutes. [Where the research was undertaken by a group of
students, each student shall be invited to a separate interview.]
[b]
Following the interview, the FSAA, the marker and, if appropriate staff with
relevant expertise, shall confirm whether the evidence of data collection, and any
further information provided by the student[s], was sufficient to cast doubt upon
the original judgement that the data had been fabricated, and, in the case of
group research, the extent to which each student was responsible for any
fabrication. [If a student declines to attend an interview or to submit evidence, the
judgement shall normally be based on information that is available.]
[c]
The FSAA shall then, in view of the extent of the fabrication, any previous cases
held on the university’s Academic Misconduct records, and any further
information provided by the student[s], form a recommendation about the most
appropriate penalty in accordance, as appropriate, with the regulations, and
taking into account the published guidance about circumstances which might
warrant a more severe penalty than the norm.
[d]
The FSAA shall email the student[s] to inform them of the judgement, and, if
appropriate, of the penalty that will be recommended to the Board or Panel of
Examiners. The student[s] shall also be informed that they will have the right to
appeal against the penalty awarded by the Board, in accordance with standard
regulations governing appeals against decisions made by Boards of Examiners.
The FSAA shall copy the email to the marker, the Chair of the Board of Examiners
and, if appropriate, the Registrar.
[e]
The FSAA shall then enter a summary of the case to the University’s Academic
Misconduct records.
[f]
The final decision about the case shall be made by the relevant Board of
Examiners [in the case of a dual-stage examining system, such as for Combined
Honours or BA QTS, the Board shall receive a recommendation from the Panel of
Examiners for the subject concerned]. Normally, the Board will implement the
recommendation of the FSAA unless further information emerges at the Board, in
which case the FSAA shall be informed of the reasons for the decision.
[g]
If, well before the normal date of a Board, a case emerges for which the most
appropriate outcome would be Termination of Studies, the Chair of the Board will
be empowered [in liaison with the Registrar] to take Chair’s Action to terminate
studies, the student retaining the right to appeal to Academic Appeals Committee
against that decision.
Page 10 of 19
Applicable from September 2015
[h]
2.5
A record of each case, including the recommendation made to the Board of
Examiners and the decision taken, including reasons for any variation from the
normal penalty, shall be held centrally. This central record shall be maintained
until the student graduates, or leaves the University before graduation, at which
point the record shall normally be deleted; the record of misconduct shall neither
be passed on to other institutions, nor [in the case of undergraduates] transferred
to any subsequent record of the students Postgraduate study at this University.
However, if a student’s studies have been terminated for a repeated offence, the
record shall be maintained, and the University shall reserve the right to make the
reason for termination known to other institutions of Higher Education.
Self-Plagiarism
2.5.1 Regulations to be Followed by Candidates
[a]
Except where indicated in paragraph “c” below, students are forbidden to
present, for formal assessment in this University:
o any material that they have previously submitted as part of a formal
assessment at this University or any other Institution.
[b]
Students are permitted in any assessment, to draw attention, for reference
purposes only, to material that they have previously submitted as part of a formal
assessment, subject to the strict condition that student must clearly indicate the
title and date of the work, the course for which it was submitted and, where
appropriate, the date of any award granted on the basis of the work, and the
name of the body making the award.
[c]
Paragraph “a” does not apply in the case of:
o students who are resubmitting or “re-presenting” failed work to reach a
minimum threshold;
o students who are retaking with attendance;
o the inclusion in examination answers of material previously included in
coursework answers, unless this is explicitly forbidden by the rubric.
2.5.2 Action to be Taken Where an Examiner Suspects a Candidate of Breaching the
Regulations in Paragraph 2.5.1
Suspected self-plagiarism at any Level shall be investigated in accordance with the
procedures outlined in paragraph 2.2 above in relation to suspected Plagiarism at Levels
I[5], H[6] or M[7].
Page 11 of 19
Applicable from September 2015
3
Penalties for Confirmed Cases
3.1
Scope of the Penalties
Unless specified to the contrary, the paragraphs below apply to all types of misconduct.
However, they do NOT apply to cases in which it was judged that the student had engaged in
Poor Academic Practice.
3.2
Special Penalties for Plagiarism and Collusion at Certificate Level
Students shall be treated in accordance with one of paragraphs 3.2.1 – 3.2.4 below.
3.2.1 Confirmed Initial Plagiarism or Initial Collusion
[a]
Definitions of Initial Plagiarism and Initial Collusion
i.
“Initial” Plagiarism or Collusion normally refers to cases where a student is
dealt with through these regulations for the first time.
ii.
Cases will also be treated as “initial” if the student has previously
plagiarised or colluded but the results of the investigation of the earlier
case[s] had not yet been made known to the student.
iii.
Cases of multiple plagiarism and/or collusion in assessments submitted at
the same time will be treated as “initial” unless, before submitting any of
these assessments, the student had plagiarised or colluded on a previous
occasion and had been advised that action under these procedures had
been initiated.
Page 12 of 19
Applicable from September 2015
[b]
Penalties [if plagiarised or colluded work is submitted during the normal course of
the year]
i.
The Head of Department [or equivalent] or nominee shall issue a warning
to the student[s], and direct the student[s] to additional support materials
dealing with plagiarism and academic referencing.
AND
ii.
[c]
The student[s] shall be given the opportunity to re-present the assignment
within a reasonable timescale, having addressed the issues and made the
necessary amendments. The re-presented work shall be marked on a bare
pass or fail basis. If this results in the overall failure of the subject at
Certificate Level, the student[s] shall be entitled to any reassessment
opportunities available in accordance with the Regulations.
Penalties [if plagiarised or colluded work is submitted during a reassessment
period]
i.
The Head of Department [or equivalent] or nominee shall issue a warning
to the student[s], and direct the student[s] to additional support materials
dealing with plagiarism and academic referencing.
AND
ii.
student[s] who had failed the subject on initial assessment
o shall be awarded Zero for the plagiarised/colluded work, resulting in the
overall failure of the subject at Certificate Level [any redemption
opportunities shall be granted in accordance with the Regulations].
student[s] who had not undertaken the relevant assessment during the
normal course of the year due to valid mitigating circumstances
o shall be given the opportunity to re-present the assignment within a
reasonable timescale, having addressed the issues and made the
necessary amendments. The re-presented work shall be marked on a
bare pass or fail basis. If this results in the overall failure of the subject
at Certificate Level, the student[s] shall be entitled to any reassessment
opportunities available in accordance with the Regulations.
If it is not possible to complete the procedure before the relevant meeting of the
Panel or Board of Examiners, the result shall be left unentered until the next
assessment period.
3.2.2 Confirmed Repeated Plagiarism or Repeated Collusion
[a]
Definitions of Repeated Plagiarism and Repeated Collusion
i.
“Repeated” Plagiarism or Collusion refers to cases where a student who
has already been dealt with through these regulations is found to have
plagiarised or colluded on a later occasion.
ii.
In determining whether a case is “repeated”, no account shall be taken of
whether the initial case was one of plagiarism or collusion.
Page 13 of 19
Applicable from September 2015
iii.
[b]
Cases of multiple plagiarism and/or collusion in assessments submitted at
the same time will be only treated as “repeated” if, before submitting any
of these assessments, the student had plagiarised or colluded on a previous
occasion and had been advised that action under these procedures had
been initiated.
Penalties
i.
The relevant Head of Department [or equivalent] or nominee shall issue a
warning to the student, and direct the student to additional support
materials dealing with plagiarism and academic referencing.
ii.
The assessment will receive a mark of Zero, thereby resulting in the overall
failure of the subject at Certificate Level; the student[s] shall be entitled to
any reassessment opportunities available in accordance with the
Regulations.
3.2.3 Confirmed Plagiarism or Collusion in Late Work
If plagiarism or collusion is confirmed in work that had been submitted after the normal
or extended deadline without the student having obtained an extension:
♦
the penalty shall be in accordance with the regulations governing late submission
BUT
♦
a record of the case shall be kept, and any subsequent case shall be treated as
“repeated”.
3.2.4 Unconfirmed Relative Culpability of Students involved with Collusion
If the FSAA and the marker judge that the work fulfils the university’s definition of
collusion, but are unable to arrive at a view about the relative culpability of the various
parties, the relevant Head of Department [or equivalent] or nominee shall issue a
warning to the student[s], but no further action shall be taken.
3.3
Common Penalties for Fabrication of Data and Cheating in an Examination or Class Test at all
Undergraduate Levels, AND for Plagiarism and Collusion at Intermediate and Honours Levels
Students shall be treated in accordance with one of paragraphs 3.3.1 – 3.3.4 below.
3.3.1 Penalties for an Initial Offence
[a]
Definitions of an “Initial Offence”
i.
An “Initial” Offence” normally refers to a case where a student is dealt
with through these regulations for the first time.
ii.
Cases will also be treated as “initial” if the student had previously engaged
in academic misconduct but the results of the investigation of the earlier
case[s] had not yet been made known to the student.
Page 14 of 19
Applicable from September 2015
iii.
[b]
Multiple offences in assessments undertaken at roughly the same time will
all be treated as “initial” unless, before submitting any of these
assessments [or attending the examinations/tests], the student had been
found guilty of academic misconduct on a previous occasion and the results
of the investigation of the earlier case[s] had been made known to the
student.
The Normal Penalty for an Initial Offence
The normal penalty for an initial offence shall be a mark of zero for the
assessment component [interpreted as the examination/test or the coursework
assignment], with the student retaining any eligibility for reassessment for that
component [and for redemption of a fail of the relevant subject or level of study],
to which he/she would otherwise be entitled in accordance with the regulations.
[c]
Imposing a Penalty which is Less Severe or More Severe than the Norm
i.
The Standing SubCommittee on Assessment shall provide Boards of
Examiners with guidance about the circumstances which might warrant a
penalty which is less severe or more severe than the norm.
ii.
Any Board of Examiners wishing to impose a more severe penalty than the
norm shall be required to [i] consult the Registrar, and [ii] record the reasons
for the penalty in the formal Board Minutes.
iii. No Board shall impose a penalty harsher than those specified in paragraph
“d” below.
[d]
The Maximum Penalties for an Initial Offence
i.
If the initial offence took place in a subject taken for the first time at the
current Level of Study, the maximum penalty for an initial offence shall be:
o to repeat with attendance the entire Level of Study.
ii.
If the initial offence took place in a retaken course [or a course taken
instead of redeeming a fail in a different course] the maximum penalty for
an initial offence shall be:
o to terminate studies.
3.3.2 Penalties for a Repeated Offence
[a]
Definitions of a “Repeated Offence”
i.
A “Repeated Offence” is a case where a student who has already been
dealt with through these regulations is found guilty of academic misconduct
on a later occasion.
ii.
In determining whether a case is “repeated”, no account shall be taken of
whether the type of misconduct involved in the initial offence is the same
as the type involved in the second offence.
Page 15 of 19
Applicable from September 2015
iii.
[b]
[c]
Multiple offences in assessments undertaken at roughly the same time will
only be treated as “repeated” if, before submitting any of these
assessments [or attending the examinations/tests], the student had been
found guilty of academic misconduct on a previous occasion and the results
of the investigation of the earlier case[s] had been made known to the
student.
The Normal Penalties for a Repeated Offence
i.
If the only previous case on the student’s record is a single incident of
plagiarism or collusion at Certificate Level: the normal penalty for a
repeated offence shall be:
o
identical to the normal penalty for an initial offence [cf paragraph
3.3.1 above].
ii.
In all other cases, the normal penalty for a repeated offence shall be:
o
to terminate studies.
Imposing a Penalty which is Less Severe or More Severe than the Norm
i.
The Standing SubCommittee on Assessment shall provide Boards of
Examiners with guidance about the circumstances which might warrant a
penalty which is less severe or more severe than the norm.
ii.
Any Board of Examiners wishing to impose a more severe penalty than the
norm shall be required to [i] consult the Registrar, and [ii] record the
reasons for the penalty in the formal Board Minutes.
3.3.3 Confirmed Academic Misconduct in Late Work
If academic misconduct is confirmed in work that had been submitted after the normal
or extended deadline without the student having obtained an extension:
• the penalty shall be in accordance with the regulations governing late submission
BUT
• a record of the case shall be kept, and any subsequent case shall be treated as
“repeated”.
3.3.4 Unconfirmed Relative Culpability of Students involved with Collusion
If the FSAA and the marker judge that the work fulfils the university’s definition of
collusion, but are unable to arrive at a view about the relative culpability of the various
parties, the relevant Head of Department [or equivalent] or nominee shall issue a
warning to the student[s], but no further action shall be taken.
Page 16 of 19
Applicable from September 2015
3.4
Common Penalties for Academic Misconduct at Masters Level
Students shall be treated in accordance with one of paragraphs 3.4.1 – 3.4.4 below.
3.4.1 Penalties for an Initial Offence
[a]
[b]
Definitions of an “Initial Offence”
i.
An “Initial” Offence” normally refers to a case where a student is dealt with
through these regulations for the first time.
ii.
Cases will also be treated as “initial” if the student had previously engaged
in academic misconduct but the results of the investigation of the earlier
case[s] had not yet been made known to the student.
iii.
Multiple offences in assessments undertaken at roughly the same time will
all be treated as “initial” unless, before submitting any of these
assessments [or attending the examinations/tests], the student had been
found guilty of academic misconduct on a previous occasion and the results
of the investigation of the earlier case[s] had been made known to the
student.
The Normal Penalty for an Initial Offence
The normal penalty for an initial offence shall be a mark of zero for the
assessment component [interpreted as the examination/test or the coursework
assignment] with no right of reassessment for that component.
[c]
Impact of the Normal Penalty on a Student’s Entitlement to Progress or to Achieve
their Intended award
i.
If, notwithstanding the zero, a student has fulfilled all the requirements for
achieving the intended award:
o the student shall be deemed eligible for that award.
ii.
If a student has not fulfilled all the requirements for achieving the award,
AND has a mark below 40 [below 35 for students who began before
September 2015] for any component other that awarded zero due to
academic misconduct:
o the student shall be allowed to undertake any reassessments to which
they are entitled in accordance with the reassessment regulations, but
ONLY for component[s] not failed due to academic misconduct.
iii.
If the misconduct resulted in the failure of a module taken for the first time,
and the student is eligible NEITHER to receive their award NOR to
undertake any reassessments:
o the student shall be entitled to retake the module with attendance [or, in
the case of optional modules, to take an alternative module with
attendance instead].
iv.
If the misconduct occurred in a retaken module [or in an alternative module
taken instead of redeeming a failed module], and the student is eligible
NEITHER to progress or receive their award NOR to undertake any
reassessments:
o the student shall normally be required to terminate studies.
Page 17 of 19
Applicable from September 2015
[d]
[e]
Imposing a Penalty which is Less Severe or More Severe than the Norm
i.
The Standing SubCommittee on Assessment shall provide Boards of
Examiners with guidance about the circumstances which might warrant a
penalty which is less severe or more severe than the norm.
ii.
Any Board of Examiners wishing to impose a more severe penalty than the
norm shall be required to [i] consult the Registrar, and [ii] record the
reasons for the penalty in the formal Board Minutes.
iii.
No Board shall impose a penalty harsher than those specified in paragraph
“e” below.
The Maximum Penalties for an Initial Offence
i.
If the initial offence took place in a module taken for the first time, the
maximum penalty for an initial offence shall be:
o
to repeat with attendance the programme of study.
ii.
If the initial offence took place in a retaken module [or a module taken
instead of redeeming a fail in a different module] the maximum penalty for
an initial offence shall be:
o to terminate studies.
3.4.2 Penalties for a Repeated Offence
[a]
[b]
Definitions of a “Repeated Offence”
i.
A “Repeated Offence” is a case where a student who has already been
dealt with through these regulations is found guilty of academic misconduct
on a later occasion.
ii.
In determining whether a case is “repeated”, no account shall be taken of
whether the type of misconduct involved in the initial offence is the same
as the type involved in the second offence.
iii.
Multiple offences in assessments undertaken at roughly the same time will
only be treated as “repeated” if, before submitting any of these
assessments [or attending the examinations/tests], the student had been
found guilty of academic misconduct on a previous occasion and the results
of the investigation of the earlier case[s] had been made known to the
student.
The Normal Penalties for a Repeated Offence
The normal penalty for a repeated offence shall be:
o
to terminate studies.
[c]
Imposing a Penalty which is Less Severe than the Norm
The Standing SubCommittee on Assessment shall provide Boards of Examiners
with guidance about the circumstances which might warrant a less severe penalty
than the norm.
Page 18 of 19
Applicable from September 2015
3.4.3 Confirmed Academic Misconduct in Late Work
If academic misconduct is confirmed in work that had been submitted after the normal
or extended deadline without the student having obtained an extension:
♦
the penalty shall be in accordance with the regulations governing late submission
BUT
♦
a record of the case shall be kept, and any subsequent case shall be treated as
“repeated”.
3.4.4 Unconfirmed Relative Culpability of Students involved with Collusion
If the FSAA and the marker judge that the work fulfils the university’s definition of
collusion, but are unable to arrive at a view about the relative culpability of the various
parties, the relevant Head of Department [or equivalent] or nominee shall issue a
warning to the student[s], but no further action shall be taken.
Page 19 of 19