UNIVERSAL CONVENTIONS AND PROCEDURES
Conventions and Procedural Guidelines Relating to the Investigation of,
and Penalties for, Academic Misconduct
Contents
1
Status of the Conventions .......................................................................................................... 1
2
Penalties for Initial Offences at Level I or Higher ....................................................................... 2
3
4
5
6
2.1
The Normal Penalties .................................................................................................................... 2
2.2
The Maximum Penalty .................................................................................................................. 2
2.3
Guidelines for Imposing a Lesser Penalty than the Norm ............................................................ 2
2.4
Guidelines for Imposing a More Severe Penalty than the Norm .................................................. 3
Penalties for Repeated Offences at Level I or Higher ................................................................ 4
3.1
The Normal Penalty ...................................................................................................................... 4
3.2
Guidelines for Imposing a Lesser Penalty than Termination of Studies ....................................... 4
Academic Misconduct in Portfolios ............................................................................................ 5
4.1
General.......................................................................................................................................... 5
4.2
Initial Misconduct Involving just ONE Assessment within a Portfolio .......................................... 6
4.3
Initial Misconduct Involving just TWO OR MORE Assessments within a Portfolio ....................... 6
4.4
Repeated Misconduct ................................................................................................................... 6
4.5
Resubmission of Failed Portfolios [not just for Misconduct] ........................................................ 6
Guidance to Markers who Suspect a Student of Academic Misconduct in Coursework ........... 7
5.1
What Types of Misconduct are Covered by the University’s Regulations? .................................. 7
5.2
What is My Role in Dealing with Suspected Misconduct? ............................................................ 7
5.3
How do I Judge whether a Student has Engaged in Misconduct or Poor Practice? ..................... 8
Guidance to Markers who Suspect a Student of Academic Misconduct in an Examination or
In-Class Test .............................................................................................................................. 10
6.1
What Counts as Misconduct in an Examination or In-Class Test? .............................................. 10
6.2
What is my Role in Dealing with Suspected Misconduct? .......................................................... 10
7
Avoiding Conflicts of Interest when Investigating Alleged Academic Misconduct .................. 11
1
Status of the Conventions
These conventions had been approved by the Standing SubCommittee on Assessment by
March 2015, and shall apply with immediate effect.
Page 1 of 11
2
Penalties for Initial Offences at Level I or Higher
2.1
2.2
2.3
The Normal Penalties
2.1.1
Intermediate and Honours Levels
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 reassessment regulations.
2.1.2
Masters Level
The normal penalty for an initial offence is 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.
The Maximum Penalty
2.1.1
Where the initial offence took place in a postgraduate module [or level of an
undergraduate subject] taken for the first time
The maximum penalty for an initial offence is to repeat with attendance the entire
Level of Study.
2.1.2
Where the initial offence took place in a retaken postgraduate module [or level of an
undergraduate subject], or in a module/subject taken instead of redeeming a fail in a
different module/subject]
The maximum penalty for an initial offence is to terminate studies.
Guidelines for Imposing a Lesser Penalty than the Norm
2.3.1
Mitigating Personal Circumstances
In principle, a lesser penalty may be imposed on the grounds of serious mitigating
personal circumstances. However:

no student will normally be eligible for a lesser penalty on the grounds of
mitigating circumstances unless the student supplies suitable evidence of the
circumstances;

a lesser penalty would only be applied in the case of serious mitigating
circumstances [eg circumstances that might lead the FSAA to conclude that the
student would have had grounds for interrupting studies];

the FSAA is empowered to judge [a] whether the circumstances are sufficiently
severe to warrant a lesser penalty, and [b] the type of evidence required;

at Masters level, the normal lesser penalty would be to allow the student a
reassessment opportunity for the assessment component;

in very extreme circumstances indicating that the student was not, at the time of
submitting the work, in a position to judge whether they were fit to be assessed,
the FSAA would be empowered to recommend that the assessment be treated
as null and void, and 0M entered as the mark and grade;

in the interests of equity, a record of all recommended penalty reductions, and
the nature of the associated mitigating circumstances, shall be kept via the
electronic FSAA records.
Page 2 of 11
2.4
2.3.2
Confirmed Misconduct in Late Work
If 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”, and the student informed of this.
2.3.3
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 issues a warning
to the student[s], but no further action is taken.
2.3.4
Postgraduate Students not given Comprehensive Induction to the University’s
Expectations in Academic Writing
If misconduct is confirmed in work submitted by an international taught postgraduate
student whose first degree was taken outside the UK, then, UNLESS the relevant
Department [or equivalent] had provided comprehensive induction to the University’s
Expectations in Academic Writing, the assignment will normally be given a mark of
zero, but the student would be allowed a reassessment opportunity.
2.3.5
Students attending the University as part of a Study Abroad or Exchange Programme
Such students shall be treated in accordance with the regulations and guidance
governing students at Level C[4], even if the misconduct occurred in a module at a
higher level.
Guidelines for Imposing a More Severe Penalty than the Norm
2.4.1
Multiple Simultaneous Offences
Although normally multiple offences are treated as separate examples of an initial
offence:
 in all cases involving plagiarism, the student would be required, as a condition of
continuing their studies, to seek advice from their Faculty about academic writing,
and to provide evidence confirming that they had done so;
 irrespective of the type of offence, an FSAA is empowered to judge that the
number of offences is such as to warrant:
o recommending that the student repeats the entire level of study in the
subject[s] in which misconduct took place; and/or
o requesting that other assessments are reviewed to confirm whether
misconduct is present, and deferring the recommendation of a penalty until
the investigation is complete [in the case of Cross-Faculty students, an FSAA in
the second Faculty would also be asked to explore the matter].
In the interests of equity, a record of all such cases, and the number of offences
involved, shall be kept via the electronic FSAA records.
2.4.2
Multiple Offences in the Same Assignment
This refers to a case in which, for example, an assignment is both plagiarised and
contains fabricated data. The standard penalty would apply, except that the student
would also be required, as a condition of continuing their studies, to seek advice from
their Faculty about academic writing, and to provide evidence confirming that they
had done so
Page 3 of 11
3
Penalties for Repeated Offences at Level I or Higher
3.1
The Normal Penalty
The normal penalty for a repeated offence is termination of studies.
3.2
Guidelines for Imposing a Lesser Penalty than Termination of Studies
3.2.1
When the Repeated Offence is the First Offence Beyond Level C
If the only previous case on the student’s record is a single incident of plagiarism or
collusion at Certificate Level:
 the normal penalty is that for an initial offence;
 the guidelines for imposing a lesser or more severe penalty than the norm are the
same as those for an initial offence.
3.2.2
Different Types of Offence
The fact that a second offence involved a different type of misconduct from the initial
offence does not provide grounds for imposing a lesser penalty than termination of
studies, even if the student had been informed before October 2009 of the penalty for
the initial offence.
3.2.3
Confirmed Misconduct in Late Work
If 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”, and the student informed of this.
3.2.4
When the Repeated Offence is Less Substantial than the Initial Offence
Sometimes, a student, having been found guilty of academic misconduct on one
assignment, then submits a second assignment that, although appearing to meet the
University’s definitions of academic misconduct, deviates from the University’s
expectations less substantially than the first assignment, suggesting that the student
has been trying, albeit not very successfully, to follow the University’s rules. In such
circumstances, the FSAA should judge, by comparing the two assignments, whether it
would be possible to regard the second assignment as falling within the University’s
definitions of “poor academic practice”: if so, the student should be handled in
accordance with the procedures for poor academic practice; if not, the FSAA should
recommend termination of studies.
3.2.5
Mitigating Personal Circumstances
In principle, a lesser penalty may be imposed on the grounds of serious mitigating
personal circumstances. However:
 no student will normally be eligible for a lesser penalty on the grounds of
mitigating circumstances unless the student supplies suitable evidence of the
circumstances;
 a lesser penalty would only be applied in the case of serious mitigating
circumstances [eg circumstances that might lead the FSAA to conclude that the
student would have had grounds for interrupting studies];
 the FSAA is empowered to judge [a] whether the circumstances are sufficiently
severe to warrant a lesser penalty than termination of studies, and [b] the type of
evidence required;
Page 4 of 11



4
the lesser penalty should normally be selected from the penalties available for an
initial offence, with the FSAA empowered to judge the most appropriate penalty in
accordance with the general principle that the scale of the reduction in the penalty
should reflect the severity of the student’s circumstances;
in very extreme circumstances indicating that the student was not, at the time of
submitting the work, in a position to judge whether they were fit to be assessed,
the FSAA would be empowered to recommend that the assessment be treated as
null and void, and 0M entered as the mark and grade;
in the interests of equity, a record of all recommended penalty reductions, and the
nature of the associated mitigating circumstances, shall be kept via the electronic
FSAA records.
3.2.6
A Material Irregularity on the Part of the University
If a repeated offender is inadvertently treated as an initial offender, and that error is
reflected in the letter issued by the FSAA informing the student of the recommended
penalty, then the student’s studies shall not normally be terminated, and the penalty
shall be in accordance with those available for initial offenders. However,
 the penalty shall normally be harsher than the normal penalty for an initial
offence, and
 the Registrar shall advise the Board of the most suitable penalty, and shall, as soon
as the error is discovered, inform the student that, due to the existence of an
earlier case, the penalty imposed by the Board may be harsher than that
recommended by the FSAA.
3.2.7
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 issues a warning
to the student[s], but no further action is taken.
3.2.8
Students not given Comprehensive Induction to the University’s Expectations in
Academic Writing
If misconduct is confirmed in work submitted by an international taught postgraduate
student whose first degree was taken outside the UK, then, UNLESS the relevant
Department [or equivalent] had provided comprehensive induction to the University’s
Expectations in Academic Writing, the penalty will normally be:
 for a second offence: a mark of zero for the assessment component [ie the
examination/test or the coursework assignment] with no right of reassessment for
that component;
 for a third offence: termination of studies.
Academic Misconduct in Portfolios
4.1
General


The standard procedures and penalties should apply to Portfolios, except as indicated in
4.2 to 4.5 below.
These guidelines are to be interpreted by Faculty Senior Academic Advisers in view of the
extent/severity of the misconduct; the guidelines assume that the FSAA has decided to
treat the case as misconduct, not poor academic practice.
Page 5 of 11
4.2
Initial Misconduct Involving just ONE Assessment within a Portfolio
The penalty should depend upon how the aggregate overall mark for the Portfolio is
calculated, as follows.
4.2.1 Where each assessment in the Portfolio carries a mark:
 the mark penalty [typically zero] should apply only to the assessment, but
 any PL/PR grade should apply to the Portfolio overall, thereby yielding a clear
indication to the Board of Examiners that confirmed misconduct has occurred;
 reassessment requirements are based, as usual, on the aggregate mark for the
Portfolio and the overall aggregate mark for the credit-rated block.
4.2.2 Where the only mark awarded is for the Portfolio overall:
 the mark should be reduced to reflect that the Portfolio had been affected by
misconduct;
 the reduction should reflect the size of the assessment in relation to the Portfolio
overall;
 any PL/PR grade should apply to the Portfolio overall, thereby yielding a clear
indication to the Board of Examiners that confirmed misconduct has occurred;
 reassessment requirements are based, as usual, on the mark for the Portfolio and
the overall aggregate mark for the credit-rated block.
4.3
Initial Misconduct Involving just TWO OR MORE Assessments within a Portfolio
The mark penalty [typically zero] and any PL/PR grade should apply to the Portfolio overall.
4.4
Repeated Misconduct
4.4.1 Where a previous case of misconduct is on a student’s record, such that the next case
would be treated as “repeated”, if the student is subsequently found to have engaged in
academic misconduct in even a single assessment within a Portfolio:
 the mark penalty [typically zero] and any PL/PR grade should apply to the Portfolio
overall;
 the standard penalty [termination if the initial case had been at I or H] would apply.
4.4.2 Clause 4.4.1 would apply even if the initial and repeated cases were in the same
Portfolio, as long as the 1st case had been dealt with by standard procedures before the
2nd assessment was submitted.
4.5
Resubmission of Failed Portfolios [not just for Misconduct]
4.5.1 Where a Board of Examiners determines that the student must resubmit, the full
Portfolio must be submitted. This will enable the markers to assess the new Portfolio in
an integrated manner.
4.5.2 If any assessments in the Portfolio had been passed on initial assessment, the student
would be able to resubmit those assessments unamended.
Page 6 of 11
5
Guidance to Markers who Suspect a Student of Academic Misconduct in Coursework
5.1
5.2
What Types of Misconduct are Covered by the University’s Regulations?
o
There are 4 main types:
[a] plagiarism;
[b] collusion;
[c] fabrication of data;
[d] cheating in an exam or in-class test.
o
If you suspect a student of engaging in another type of misconduct, please contact the
Registrar [Neil McLaughlin Cook, x3473; [email protected]] for advice.
What is My Role in Dealing with Suspected Misconduct?
You have three main roles, as follows.
5.2.1.
To Judge whether the Student Appears to have Engaged in “Misconduct” or Merely
“Poor Practice”
In the first instance, you need to judge whether the work reflects Academic
Misconduct as such [typically leading to a possibly severe penalty], or merely Poor
Academic Practice.
There are no hard and fast rules about this, and so you need to form a judgement in
the context of what a student might reasonably have understood they were being
expected to do in the context of the general requirements of your discipline and any
specific instructions for the task you set.
However, you are advised, before making your judgement, to:
[a] consult with the second internal marker, and
[b] consult the notes in Section 4.3 overleaf, which provide guidance for
distinguishing between misconduct and poor practice in the cases of plagiarism,
collusion and data fabrication.
5.2.2
To Report your Judgement to a Faculty Senior Academic Adviser
You need to forward your judgement to a Senior Academic Adviser [FSAA] in your
Faculty.
In the case of Misconduct,
o indicate the student [name and ID], the course, the assignment and the type of
misconduct involved;
o give the FSAA [a] the assignment and [b] details of why you think misconduct has
occurred [including, where possible, evidence such as a TURNITIN printout].
In the case of Poor Practice:
o simply indicate the student [name and ID], the course, the assignment and the
type of misconduct of which you had originally suspected.
The FSAA will understand the possible penalties for misconduct, and will be aware of
how similar cases have been handled in the past, and whether the student is a repeat
offender. Therefore, the FSAA will be responsible for taking the matter forward, but
you have an important role is assisting the FSAA, as follows.
Page 7 of 11
5.2.3
To Help the FSAA to Give Feedback to the Student and Recommend a Penalty
What you need to do varies as follows.
[a]
5.3
Cases of Plagiarism at Level I or Higher, and Collusion & Data Fabrication at Any
Level
The FSAA will invite the student for an interview, and you are normally expected
to attend.
o If you are unwilling to face the student, you may ask the second marker to
attend instead.
o Your main role will be to explain why you judged that misconduct had taken
place, so that the student is clear why their work was unacceptable in the
context of your discipline and the task you had set.
o In the case of collusion [for which each student will be interviewed
separately], you will need to help the FSAA to determine whether a student
was an innocent party; in the case of data fabrication your expertise may be
needed to assess any arguments made by the student to show that the data
is genuine.
o Although the FSAA will be responsible for recommending a suitable penalty,
and communicating this to the student after the interview, you will be able
to assist the FSAA by indicating whether anything said by the student casts
doubt on your judgement that misconduct had taken place.
[b]
Cases of Poor Academic Practice
o You need to award a suitable grade and, at the standard time for
providing feedback, direct the student to support materials.
o If you concluded that there was no misconduct because guidance given
to the student had not stated that the type of practice engaged in was
unacceptable, you might want to rethink your guidance.
o The FSAA will also contact the student, in effect to warn them that they
might not be so lucky next time, and advise them to seek support.
[c]
Cases of Plagiarism at Level C
There is normally no interview, and you have no formal role in
communicating with the student or recommending a penalty, although you
will be kept informed of the outcome.
How do I Judge whether a Student has Engaged in Misconduct or Poor Practice?
5.3.1
Plagiarism
Identification of the Source
The first step 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 must be deemed to be the
student’s own work, and no further action can be taken.
Judgement of whether the matter should count as “Plagiarism” or “Poor Academic
Practice”
[a] 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
Page 8 of 11
previously issued to the student had identified the student’s type of poor
practice as falling within the Department’s understanding of “plagiarism”.
[b] 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.
5.3.2
Collusion
Identification of the Common Elements
The first step is to specify the sections in which collusion appears to have taken
place.
Judgement of whether the matter should count as “Collusion” or “Poor Academic
Practice”
[a] 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
[b] 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.
5.3.3
Fabrication of Data
Identification of the Fabricated Elements
The first step is to specify the elements for which fabrication appears to have
taken place, and the reason why the data appears not to be genuine.
Judgement of whether the matter should count as “Fabrication” or “Poor Academic
Practice”
[a] 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.
[b] Fabrication
o A case may be treated as Fabrication if it is clear that the student[s] were
expected to collect genuine data.
Page 9 of 11
6
Guidance to Markers who Suspect a Student of Academic Misconduct in an Examination or
In-Class Test
6.1
6.2
What Counts as Misconduct in an Examination or In-Class Test?
o
Candidates are engaging in academic misconduct if they:
[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 their work;
[d] give or endeavour to give, directly or indirectly, assistance to any other candidate;
[e] impersonate another 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.
o
If you suspect a student of engaging in another type of misconduct, please contact the
Registrar [Neil McLaughlin Cook, x3473; [email protected]] for advice.
What is my Role in Dealing with Suspected Misconduct?
You have a role at three points, as follows.
6.2.1
6.2.2
Before the Exam or Test
[a]
Clearly Communicating your Rules, to Avoid False Accusations of Misconduct
If you decide to allow students to bring material into the exam/test with them,
it is important to ensure that the rules about what counts as legitimate
material are clearly issued in writing both to the students AND the invigilators.
In the case of formal examinations, please make sure that the Student
Administration office [[email protected] x3331] are aware of your
rules, so that they can brief the paid invigilators.
[b]
Giving Notice to the Registrar of an Impending In-Class Test
If misconduct is suspected, the Registrar determines whether a student can
continue with the exam/test. Therefore, please contact the Registrar [Neil
McLaughlin Cook; [email protected]; x3473] before the test, so he knows
to be on call. If your notification is received no later than the day before the
test, he will remain on-call throughout your test, even if it is held in the
evening, via x3473 or email.
When Invigilating an Exam or Test
Formal examinations are invigilated by paid invigilators employed by the Student
Administration office, not lecturers.
However, in-class tests typically take place in normal class time, and so they are often
invigilated by the lecturers responsible for the class. If you suspect a student of
academic misconduct in a test, you proceed as follows.
Page 10 of 11
6.2.3
[a]
In the first instance:
o normally remove and retain any unauthorised material [where this is not
practicable, the material should be photographed before the student is
allowed to leave]; AND
o report the matter to the Registrar via 3473/[email protected], who
shall have power EITHER to exclude the candidate from the exam/test
room OR permit the candidate to finish the paper.
[b]
Before the candidate leaves the room, inform her/him that:
o you 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 test, prepare a joint report of all the circumstances,
and forward this report to the Registrar [if there is more than one invigilator,
submit a joint report from all invigilators]. The Registrar will then compile a
report for the relevant Panel and/or Board of Examiners, identifying the
options available to the Board, in view of the Academic Regulations and any
precedents. [If it turns out that the student was guilty of academic
misconduct on a previous occasion, the Registrar may recommend
Termination of Studies, in which case the Chair of the Board will be
empowered to take Chair’s Action to terminate studies before the formal
Board meeting.]
When Marking a Script
In the first instance, consult your Head of Department [or equivalent] [or nominee].
If the Head or nominee shares your judgement that misconduct has occurred, s/he will
o make a full report to the Registrar;
o warn the candidate that this report is being made;
o 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. The Registrar will then take the matter forward in the same way as for
misconduct identified by an invigilator.
7
Avoiding Conflicts of Interest when Investigating Alleged Academic Misconduct
7.1
Where a student suspected of misconduct is also a member of staff, the penalties should be
determined using exactly the same criteria as in other cases.
7.2
Where a student suspected of misconduct is also a member of staff, the FSAA investigating the
case must not be from the same Faculty.
7.3
In no case should the FSAA investigating a case also be involved with assessing the student’s
work, or teaching the student, on any course.
Page 11 of 11