Â鶹´«Ã½

Academic Quality and Partnerships

Academic misconduct for staff

Information for Â鶹´«Ã½ staff when handling cases of student academic misconduct.

Our policy

The Â鶹´«Ã½'s regulations on Academic Misconduct are published in the Examination and Assessment Regulations Handbook, Section 2, Academic Misconduct. See exams and assessment information. Please also refer to our institutional position on AI and Academic Integrity. 

  • collusion 
  • plagiarism
  • personation (including use of AI generated text unless explicitly permitted in the assessment brief)
  • misconduct in exams
  • fabrication of results
  • breach of research ethics

Refer to the current regulations for the definitions of the various types of academic misconduct.

It is Â鶹´«Ã½ policy that the values of academic integrity are promoted. These values include honesty, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility.

Academic misconduct is prevented by educating students in appropriate academic conduct and good assessment design - resources and guidance are available from .

Show your students:

See academic integrity resources for staff.

Concerns regarding academic misconduct must be considered seriously and referred to the Module Convenor. Where a concern has been raised, the student will be given an opportunity to present their case. For cases of academic misconduct which are proven, a penaly will be applied - see  Academic misconduct penalties

The flowcharts below and accompanying guidance on these web pages are provided to set out the sequence of events and what is required at each stage of the process:

Role Descriptors and Personnel

A list of Academic Misconduct Panel members and Investigating Officers is also available. 

Summary of the process

Where academic misconduct is suspected, the Module Convenor will send an  Academic misconduct Notice of Advice template [DOC 37.00KB] to inform the student that a concern has been raised regarding academic misconduct and to refer the student to published guidance on academic integrity in assessment and avoiding academic misconduct. This notice is copied to appropriate members of staff in the School.

An Evidence File will be prepared by the Module Convenor which includes an Academic misconduct cover sheet [DOC 50.00KB] outlining details of the concern raised. This is referred to the Investigating Officer of the School which owns the module, who will establish the type of case and whether the student has any previous academic misconduct. The Investigating Officer decision will be one of the following:

  • First Case of collusion or plagiarism
  • Minor misconduct to be considered by the Academic Misconduct Panel
  • Major misconduct to be considered by the Academic Misconduct Panel
  • No case to answer

In all cases, students should be sent written confirmation of the Investigating Officer's decision using the Academic misconduct School Letter template [DOC 47.50KB]

Academic Misconduct Panel

An Academic Misconduct Panel will be arranged to consider all cases of Major and Minor undergraduate and taught postgraduate academic misconduct in accordance with the regulations, with the exception of First Cases, unless a First Case is referred to the Panel. The Panel will comprise of three members – the Chair, two panel members, one of whom may be a representative from the Students’ Union. A note taker will also be in attendance to record the outcomes of each case. Students are invited to attend to present their case and are entitled to be accompanied by either a member of Â鶹´«Ã½ faculty, for example their Academic Advisor, or a representative from the Student Voice Advocates. The Panel will consider the evidence file and hear from the student, if they have chosen to attend or submit a statement. The Panel will then determine if there is a case and apply a penalty, as appropriate. Outcomes of Academic Misconduct Panels will be confirmed in writing within 10 working days.

For cases where there is a concern that misconduct has occurred in an exam taken remotely (DEX, CEX or MCQ) the Module Convenor, Marker or another member of faculty may invite the student to take part in a video call using the Template email - online exam academic integrity [DOCX 12.45KB] The Guidance for students - discussion on online exams should be sent with the invitation.  The Module Convenor, Marker or member of faculty must follow the Guidance for staff - discussion on online exams.  Academic misconduct flowchart 4 - online exams is provided to support the process. For exam misconduct where the candidate has not been considered by the Panel previously (and additionally for exams taken remotely, the candidate accepts that misconduct had occurred during a discussion with the Module Convenor, Marker and/or member of faculty) the procedure for considering exam misconduct will be followed. The case will be delegated to a designated Chair for decision and the student will not normally be invited to attend a Panel - see Academic misconduct flowchart 3 - delegated exams

For a case of personation, for example a concern that an essay has been purchased online, the Procedure for considering personation must be followed.

First Case of collusion or plagiarism

The Investigating Officer will determine whether the case is major or minor and confirm that it is a First Case of collusion or plagiarism, provided there have been no previous instances of academic misconduct.

Within 10 days of marks publication, the Module Convenor must arrange to meet with the student using the Template invite to First Case meeting [DOC 34.00KB]The purpose of the meeting is to explain the proportion of the work judged to be plagiarised or subject to collusion and to explain that the mark given is based on the work considered to be the student's own (for plagiarism) or work that is not the same as another student's (for collusion). See Guidance for Module Convenors (First Case) for meeting with students about a First Case of collusion/plagiarism.  An Academic misconduct First Case collusion or plagiarism form [DOCX 26.41KB] must be completed as a record.  

The student will be enrolled on the online Academic Practice Workshop and asked to complete the workshop and all the assessments.  The student may accept the referral to the Academic Practice Workshop or choose to challenge the decision. Challenging the allegation of collusion or plagiarism will result in the case being referred to a Panel, provided the Progression and Award Board has not already taken place.  Referral to an Academic Practice Workshop will be recorded on the student's assessment record (but not as a misconduct case).  Attendance and satisfactory engagement at the Academic Practice Workshop will be recorded and will be taken into consideration if a further academic misconduct case occurs.

Where a further concern of collusion or plagiarism occurs (major/minor), the student will be invited to the Panel.

No case to answer

Where there is no case to answer or academic misconduct is not proven, work will be fully marked and the Evidence File pertaining to the case will be destroyed leaving no reference to academic misconduct on the student's record.

Back to top