Academic Integrity and Academic Misconduct
Academic Integrity and Academic Misconduct Policy
pdf, 307.25 KB
1. Purpose and Scope
1.1 Purpose
1.1.1 As a learning community, we recognise that the principles of truth, honesty and mutual respect are central to the pursuit of knowledge. Behaviour undermining those principles diminishes us individually, collectively and devalues our work. We are therefore committed to ensuring that every member of our University is made aware of the responsibilities in maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and of the steps we take to protect those standards.
1.1.2 We are determined to ensure that our students are well-aware and hold a good understanding of what good academic practice is and hence how to avoid academic malpractice. Accordingly, we have adopted a balanced approach, by providing support to the students to acquire knowledge and skills to maintain academic integrity.
1.1.3 The University is committed to academic integrity and will take firm action against any student who breaches these regulations. All students are responsible for ensuring that every element of their studies is their own work and are following the regulations for the proper conduct of assessments. No credit will be awarded for work which is found to have breached these Academic Misconduct Regulations.
1.2 Scope
1.2.1 The Academic Misconduct Regulations and academic misconduct procedures apply to students who have a suspected case of academic misconduct in undergraduate programmes, taught postgraduate programmes, taught elements and transfer of postgraduate research programmes, and undergraduate and postgraduate credit bearing short courses.
1.2.2 Students studying under an Academic Partnership with UEL are subject to the procedures as outlined in their individual agreement. Please refer to Section 7.
1.2.3 A student cannot initiate an academic misconduct action against another student; this can only be done by an academic member of staff.
2. Policy Statement and Principles
2.1 Statement
2.1.1 All University of East London students are expected to adhere to the standards of behaviour required of them as a member of the University community. The University has a range of policies and procedures in place to manage breaches of student codes of conduct, student contracts or other codes of practice.
2.2 Academic Integrity Principles
2.2.1 The University’s approach to academic integrity is based upon the values of honesty, integrity, responsibility, trust, respect, and fairness and is guided by the following principles:
a) Each of us takes responsibility for our own work.
b) We treat the work of others with respect and in accordance with good academic practice.
c) We recognise that not all students will be familiar with such practice, and we are committed to providing support in a variety of ways, so that they are able to learn the skills necessary for academic success.
d) Our teaching and support staff will reinforce these learning opportunities by exhibiting and promoting academic integrity in all areas of their professional practice.
e) Teaching staff will be encouraged to design assessments that minimise the opportunity to breach academic integrity.
f) No credit will be awarded to any work that breaches our regulations.
g) All proven instances of academic misconduct will be penalised.
2.2.2 For the purposes of these Regulations, please note the definitions for the following words/phrases in Section 9.
- Academic Integrity
- Academic Misconduct
- Academic Poor Practice
- Collusion
- Contract Cheating
- Coursework Submitted for Assessment
- Examinations
- Plagiarism
- Self-Plagiarism
- Generative AI (GenAI) such as ChatGPT
2.3 Appointing School Responsible Officers
2.3.1 Each Head of School will appoint a minimum of two Responsible Officers to deal with cases of academic misconduct within the School.
2.3.2 The Responsible Officer should where possible be a member of the University’s academic staff. They will work closely with Module Leaders, the Student Conduct Team and the relevant Responsible Officers to manage incidents of reported academic misconduct within their School. This includes meeting with students to discuss cases and to outline the support available to prevent future incidents of academic misconduct.
2.3.3 Where possible we will seek to ensure that the School’s Responsible Officers reflect the diversity of our institution.
3. Academic Misconduct Procedure
3.1 Procedure
3.1.1 If an assessor suspects that academic misconduct has occurred, they should inform the relevant Module Leader, School Responsible Officer, and the Registry School Services team to be agreed upon within the School, within 5 working days after detection.
3.1.2 The Module Leader, in consultation with the Responsible Officer, will determine whether or not it appears that academic misconduct has occurred, by reviewing the reported circumstances and any relevant materials, including suspected source materials within ten working days.
3.1.3 If there is a difference of opinion and a decision cannot be reached, the allegation will be referred to another Responsible Officer (outside of the School) who will make the final decision on whether or not there is academic misconduct.
3.1.4 Academic Misconduct Regulations do not apply in an instance where: a) the student submitted their work more than 24 hours after the submission deadline and b) no extenuation or extension claim is either made or granted.
3.1.5 If, within the time period stipulated in
3.1.2, the Module Leader and Responsible Officer have not found evidence that misconduct may have occurred, the work will be marked as normal.
3.1.6 If, within the time period stipulated in 3.1.2, the Module Leader and Responsible Officer find evidence that misconduct may have occurred and:
a) There is a record that the student has previously been issued with a penalty sanction. or
b) The suspected academic misconduct is such that it might (according to the tariff in section 4 below) incur a Level B, C or D penalty (regardless of whether it is a first instance of academic misconduct),
3.1.7 the matter will be referred to the Student Conduct Team within three working days of the decision (Section 3.2).
3.1.8 If the Module Leader and Responsible Officer agree that there is a case to answer and there is no record of the student having previously breached our Academic Misconduct Regulations, the Module Leader, together with the School’s Responsible Officer, will hold a School Meeting with the student.
3.1.9 The student will be entitled to be accompanied to the meeting by one person, who may be a relative, friend, colleague or a Student Union Advisor. The accompanying person cannot be a professional legal representative who has been employed to act on the student’s behalf, nor can they act in the capacity of a legal advisor. The accompanying person can comment, assist and help to present evidence, but cannot answer questions on the student’s behalf.
3.1.10 At that meeting, the student will be reminded of our Academic Misconduct Regulations (including the tariff of penalties), showing how they have breached the regulations and advised on how to adhere to them in the future. The Module Leader will present the evidence which could consist of the source material, or a report from Turnitin or another programme or method used to detect similarity to a published source. The student will be invited to make further comments.
3.1.11 Where acceptance occurs in relation to an undergraduate or taught postgraduate programme, a Level A penalty will be issued by the Module Leader and the assessment concerned will incur the penalty as stipulated in section 4 below. (Please refer to Section 4.2 for the relevant Level A Penalty to be applied).
3.1.12 Students are required to confirm their acceptance that they have breached these regulations by explicitly agreeing in their school meeting, that they understand how they have breached these regulations, undertake all necessary steps to ensure that they do not do so again and understand that any further instance of academic misconduct is likely to lead to a serious penalty.
3.1.13 The Module Leader or School Responsible Officer will inform the Registry School Services team who will notify the Student Conduct Team. The Registry School Services team will be responsible for notifying the student formally of the outcome and retaining the record of the School Meeting.
3.1.14 Any appeal must be made in writing to the Student Conduct Team, within 10 working days of the date of the outcome correspondence.
3.1.15 Where the student denies academic misconduct the Module Leader and Responsible Officer will refer the matter to the Student Conduct Team and inform the Registry School Services team.
3.1.16 If academic misconduct has been alleged because an assessor suspects that the work submitted is not entirely the student’s own work, and it is deemed appropriate (e.g., in cases where it has not been possible to identify the sources from which the work (or parts of it) has (or have) been taken), then a viva voce interview may be incorporated within the School Meeting. The student will be informed in advance that a viva voce interview will be taking place in accordance with UEL’s guidance in conducting viva voce interviews in relation to academic misconduct.
3.1.17 A report of the meeting at which the viva voce is held will be produced and made available to the Student Conduct Team.
3.1.18 The School Meeting may take place via MS Teams. For viva voce interviews, all parties will be expected to enable their webcam.
3.1.19 If the student does not appear at the date and time scheduled for the School Meeting, or refuses to take part, the School’s Responsible Officer will consider whether any reasons offered are valid, if so, may adjourn proceedings to a later date.
3.1.20 Any appeal must be made by the student, in writing, to the Student Conduct Team, within 10 working days of the date of the School’s outcome correspondence.
3.1.21 Where the outcome of the viva voce interview is such that the suspected academic misconduct might (according to the tariff in section 4.2 below) incur a penalty (regardless of whether it is a first instance of academic misconduct) the matter will be referred to the Student Conduct Team (see section 3.2 below) within 5 working days of meeting.
3.2 Referrals to the Student Conduct Team
3.2.1 The Student Conduct Team will write to the student setting out the allegation and the proposed penalty and invite the student to a meeting.
3.2.2 The student is required to attend the meeting. If the student does not attend the meeting, they will be deemed to have accepted the proposed penalty (and notified of this in writing).
3.2.3 The student may be accompanied by one person, who may be a relative, friend, colleague or preferably a Student Union Advisor for support. The accompanying person cannot be a professional legal representative who has been employed to act on the student’s behalf nor can they act in the capacity of a legal advisor and answer questions on the student’s behalf. The accompanying person can comment, assist and help to present evidence but cannot answer questions on the student’s behalf.
3.2.4 Any appeal must be made in writing to the Student Conduct Team, within 10 working days of the date of the outcome correspondence.
3.2.5 When the student attends the meeting and admits academic misconduct, they will be reminded of the proposed penalty and their understanding of how they have breached the regulations. They must also undertake the necessary steps to ensure that they do not breach the regulations again and be aware that any further instance of academic misconduct will result in a significantly more severe penalty.
3.2.6 Where a student attends the meeting and either:
a) feels that there are unique and particular circumstances that mitigate or explain the allegation[s] and/or
b) does not admit academic misconduct because they have suitable grounds to challenge the decision.
3.2.7 The student is required to submit a statement to the Student Conduct Team within 10 working days for consideration of a lower penalty. The Student Conduct Team will then forward the statement to the School’s Responsible Officer and Module Leader.
3.2.8 If the student does not provide the statement within the specified time, the Student Conduct Team will inform them that the deadline has lapsed, and the initially proposed penalty will be imposed.
3.2.9 If the statement is received within the designated time frame, the School's Responsible Officer and Module Leader will decide whether to issue a lower penalty. If the statement is considered insufficient to warrant a lower penalty, the Student Conduct Team will notify the student and direct them to the procedure outlined in Section 3.2.10.
3.2.10 The student must submit an evidence-based proposal for proceeding to an Academic Misconduct Panel within 10 working days following their meeting with the Student Conduct Team. Should the submission from the student not be received within the stipulated time period, the Student Conduct Team will write to the student informing them that the time allowed to submit a proposal has lapsed, therefore the proposed penalty will be applied.
3.2.11 The Student Conduct Team will forward the proposal to two Responsible Officers (who must be from a different School than the student). Should the submission from the student not be received within the stipulated time period by the Student Conduct Team, they will write to the student informing them that the time allowed to submit a proposal has lapsed, therefore the proposed penalty will be applied.
3.2.12 Where a proposal to proceed to an Academic Misconduct Panel is received within the stipulated time period, the Responsible Officers will review the proposal and decide whether there are sufficient grounds for the case to be considered by an Academic Misconduct Panel. This decision must be made within 10 working days of receipt of the proposal by the Responsible Officer. In the event of an irreconcilable difference of opinion between the Responsible Officers, the proposal shall proceed to an Academic Misconduct Panel.
3.2.13 In reaching their decision as to whether there are sufficient grounds for the case to be considered by an Academic Misconduct Panel, the Responsible Officer will consider the full range of issues relating to the student's proposal along with the details of the alleged breach.
3.2.14 Where the proposal does not provide sufficient grounds to allow the student’s case to proceed to an Academic Misconduct Panel, the reviewing Responsible Officer will, within ten working days of receiving the proposal, complete a written report providing their decision and explanation for their decision. This will be forwarded to the Student Conduct Team who will inform the student within three working days of receipt and confirm that the proposed penalty will be applied.
3.2.15 The decision of the reviewing Responsible Officer will be final and there shall be no right of appeal. Student will be referred to Section 6.
3.2.16 If the proposal is deemed valid by the reviewing Responsible Officer, the matter will be considered by an Academic Misconduct Panel. The student will be informed of this, in writing, by the Student Conduct Team within three working days.
3.2.17 This written notification will also inform the student that any case heard by an Academic Misconduct Panel may result in the awarding of a more severe penalty than that originally proposed.
3.3 Academic Misconduct Panels
3.3.1 Academic Misconduct Panels will be convened on a regular basis by the Student Conduct Team, to investigate the facts of a case and/or to determine the appropriate penalty.
3.3.2 The constitution of the Academic Misconduct Panel shall be: a) three members of our university’s academic staff, the Chair will be a Senior Lecturer or above, with appropriate expertise in academic misconduct procedures, b) a student representative nominated by the Students' Union.
3.3.3 Where possible we will seek to ensure that the composition of the panel reflects the character and diversity of our institution.
3.3.4 In cases such as collusion, where two or more students have an alleged academic misconduct allegation, the University may decide to pursue the cases together.
3.3.5 Proceedings of an Academic Misconduct Panel shall be as follows:
a) The Academic Misconduct Panel shall, as far as is practicable, be constituted of Panel Members with no prior involvement with the student(s) concerned.
b) All relevant documentation and written submissions, including statements from witnesses unable to attend the Panel, such as examination invigilators, to be considered by Academic Misconduct Panels must be sent to the Student Conduct Team 7 working days before the date of the Panel.
c) All relevant records of a School Meeting shall be made available to the Academic Misconduct Panel, together with all relevant correspondence from the Student Conduct Team. d) Five working days before the Panel date, the Student Conduct Team will circulate the evidence file to members of the Academic Misconduct Panel; the student; the relevant Responsible Officer and any other colleague(s) from the relevant School who will present the case at the Academic Misconduct Panel.
e) The student will be entitled to be accompanied to the meeting by one person, who may be a relative, friend, colleague or a Student Union Advisor. The accompanying person cannot be a professional legal representative who has been employed to act on the student’s behalf, nor can they act in the capacity of a legal advisor. The accompanying person can comment, assist and help to present evidence, but cannot answer questions on the student’s behalf.
f) Five working days before the Panel, the student must inform the Student Conduct Team of any person accompanying them. If details of the accompanying person are not provided at least five working days prior, the Chair has the right to demand that they be removed from the Panel.
g) The student shall have the right to call any witnesses.
h) The Academic Misconduct Panel shall have the right to call and to question witnesses in the presence of the student (and relative, friend, colleague or a Student Union Advisor if present).
i) If the student does not appear at the date and time scheduled for the hearing, the Academic Misconduct Panel shall consider whether any reasons provided for non-attendance are valid, and:
j) if no reasons are provided, or if they are judged invalid, proceed in the respondent's absence, regarding them (subject to any written account) as having admitted none of the allegations.
k) if the Panel so judges, adjourn proceedings to a later meeting.
l) If the School’s Responsible Officer (or nominee) delegated to present the case on behalf of the School does not appear at the date and time scheduled for the Academic Misconduct Panel, the case will be permanently withdrawn, with no grounds for appeal by the School.
m) The Panel will be organised and carried out through Microsoft Teams unless otherwise requested or deemed necessary by the Chair of the Panel or the Student Conduct Team.
n) The Academic Misconduct Panel shall consider its findings in private and shall submit a written report to the School’s Responsible Officer and the student. The outcome is presented to the relevant Progression Board, as soon as is practicable following its deliberations.
o) In determining whether the allegation(s) can be proven, the Panel must be satisfied that the allegation(s) is/are proven on the balance of probability.
p) In reaching its conclusions on whether the allegation(s) can be proven, the Academic Misconduct Panel shall consider fully any relevant input from staff familiar with the student's circumstances and/or previous performance.
q) Should an Academic Misconduct Panel be unable to reach an agreed decision, the Chair will determine a final decision.
r) If the student is found to have breached these regulations, the Panel will impose a penalty in accordance with the penalty tariff noted in Section 4.2.
s) An annual report will be made available to the Academic Board or other University body authorised by it to monitor consistency of academic breaches across the institution.
t) Where a Panel decides that a student should be expelled, a full report on the matter should be submitted to the Vice-Chancellor & President (or nominee) by the Student Conduct Team, with the recommendation that any student concerned be expelled under the general disciplinary powers of the Vice-Chancellor & President.
4. Penalties for Academic Misconduct
4.1 Criteria for determining the penalty for academic misconduct
4.1.1 In determining the sanction to be imposed, an Academic Misconduct Panel will assess the seriousness of the academic misconduct using the following criteria:
a) Pre-meditation: Deliberate or intended misconduct will normally be considered more serious than that which has arisen inadvertently.
b) Previous history: A previous history of academic misconduct will normally be considered as being more serious than a first instance of academic misconduct.
c) Theft, falsification and work purchased from third parties: Academic misconduct involving theft (e.g., stealing a piece of coursework from another student), the falsification of another person's work or ideas, the purchase of work from a third party, or the use of a “cheat site”, irrespective of whether there involves human agency or generated by Artificial Intelligence, will normally be considered more serious than that involving the authorised, but unattributed, use of another person's work.
d) Effect on other students: Academic misconduct that has an adverse effect on the standing or well-being be considered to be more serious than an act that only affects the offender.
e) Miscellaneous: Any other relevant factors pertinent to individual cases may be considered in the penalty.
f) Work Placement fraud: Work placement fraud is a type of fraudulent activity that typically involves individuals and organisations misrepresenting or exploiting opportunities related to work placements.
4.2 Tariff of penalties for academic misconduct
4.2.1 In determining the penalty, the School Responsible Officers, Student Conduct Team and Academic Misconduct Panel shall have due regard of the need to:
a) maintain the academic standards of the University.
b) deal equitably with the students of the University.
c) apply proportional penalties in all circumstance.
| Academic Misconduct Penalties Undergraduate Programmes (UG) | |
|---|---|
| Level A1 Plagiarism allegations only: first instance of minor offence A student who plagiarises for the first time will be issued with a Level A1 Penalty, providing that there is no evidence of pre-meditated dishonesty | Level A2 Collusion or Self-Plagiarism allegation only: first instance of minor offence A student who colludes or self-plagiarises for the first time will be issued with a Level A2 Penalty, providing that there is no evidence of pre-meditated dishonesty. |
Penalty Outcome:
| Penalty Outcome:
|
| Level B: First instance of serious academic misconduct and/or any academic misconduct following a Level A1 pass or fail or A2 Penalty | |
Where a level B penalty is issued at the reassessment point, the Assessment Board will determine the appropriate consequence. | Indicative Misconduct: Importing prohibited materials of any type into an examination room |
| Level C: First instance of serious academic misconduct involving pre-meditated dishonesty and/or any academic misconduct following a Level B Penalty) | |
Penalty Outcome:
Where a level C penalty is issued at the reassessment point, the Assessment Board will determine the appropriate consequence. | Indicative Misconduct: Any instance of academic misconduct that has been preceded by a Level B penalty. A serious first instance where the student has acted in a grossly dishonest way (this could pertain to academic misconduct such as theft, forgery, or contract cheating involving work produced by external parties like essay mills or other sources). Irrespective of whether this involves human agency or generated by Artificial Intelligence. Any other types of misconduct involving impersonation, bribery, reference to prohibited materials in an examination and/or the attempted |
| Level D: Any academic misconduct following a Level C Penalty | |
| Indicative Misconduct: Any instance of academic misconduct that has been preceded by a Level C penalty, or any instance of academic misconduct deemed to merit this penalty. |
| Academic Misconduct Penalties Undergraduate Programmes (pG) | |
|---|---|
Level A1 - First instance of minor offence involving plagiarism allegations only.
| Level A2: First instance of minor offence involving collusion or self – plagiarism allegations only. A student who colludes or self-plagiarises for the first time will be issued with a Level A2 Penalty, providing that there is no evidence of pre-meditated dishonesty. |
Penalty Outcome:
If a mark of zero is issued during a reassessment opportunity this may impact the students ability to continue on their course as per 7.6.5 & 14.4.5 in Part 3: Manual of General Regulations. | Penalty Outcome:
If a mark of zero is issued during a reassessment opportunity this may impact the students ability to continue on their course as per 7.6.5 & 14.4.5 in Part 3: Manual of General Regulations |
| Level B: First instance of serious academic misconduct and/or any academic misconduct following a Level A1 pass or fail or A2 Penalty | |
Where a level B penalty is issued at the reassessment point, this may impact the students ability to continue on their course as per 7.6.5 & 14.4.5 in Part 3: Manual of General Regulations | Indicative Misconduct: Importing prohibited materials of any type into an examination room Any instance of academic misconduct that has been preceded by a Level A1 pass or fail or A2 penalty. |
| Level C: First instance of serious academic misconduct involving pre-meditated dishonesty and/or any academic misconduct following a Level B Penalty) | |
Penalty Outcome:
Where a level C penalty is issued at the reassessment point, this may impact the students ability to continue on their course as per 7.6.5 & 14.4.5 in Part 3: Manual of General Regulations . | Indicative Misconduct: A serious first instance where the student has acted in a grossly dishonest way (this could pertain to academic misconduct such as theft, forgery, or contract cheating involving work produced by external parties like essay mills or other sources) Irrespective of whether this involves human agency or generated by Artificial Intelligence. Any other types of misconduct involving impersonation, bribery, reference to prohibited materials in an examination and/or the attempted intimidation of an invigilator |
| Level D: Work Placement Fraud or any academic misconduct following a Level C Penalty | |
| Indicative Misconduct: Any other types of misconduct involving fraudulent activity within a work placement setting. Any instance of academic misconduct that has been preceded by a Level C penalty, or any instance of academic misconduct deemed to merit this penalty. |
Additional Key Academic Misconduct Penalty Issues – UG and PG Programmes
A student whose mobile telephone or electronic device sounds during an examination may be issued with the appropriate penalty, provided that there is no evidence that they have behaved in a pre-meditated dishonest way.
Where a student takes any module in place of a module failed as a result of academic misconduct, the mark for that module will be capped at the minimum pass mark.
Where a student has previously received a Level A1 pass or fail or A2 Penalty for an instance of academic misconduct of a type significantly different from that currently alleged, the decision as to whether it remains appropriate to impose the next most severe penalty in the tariff, should be considered.
Upheld allegations of academic misconduct resulting in a Level B, D and D penalty will be recorded on the transcript and the University may also notify any relevant professional body. Where a student is found to have breached Academic Misconduct Regulations more than once over a short period of time, the level of penalty to be imposed should be fully considered in light of the circumstances, types of misconduct and timings of misconduct.
Academic Misconduct penalties will not be carried forward where there is a change in qualification level from Undergraduate to Postgraduate study.
For the purposes of these regulations, Students on the Foundation programme and Integrated Masters Programmes will be treated as a single qualification level.
Any module with a level B, C or level D recorded breach, on any previous assessment attempt, cannot be pass compensated. Any module with a Level A1 fail and A2 penalty recorded breach can be pass compensated.
5. Appeals
5.1 Appeals against the decision of an Academic Misconduct Panel
5.1.1 An appeal is not a re-hearing of the case previously presented under the relevant procedure. It is solely a review of that process, or procedure, which is intended to establish whether the conduct of that process under the relevant procedure, prior to the appeal, was fair and had been conducted properly, and that the decisions made were not the result of a perversity of judgement in the face of the evidence presented.
5.1.2 There shall be no appeal against the decision of the Academic Misconduct Panel except on the grounds that:
a) There is new and material evidence that the student was for exceptional reasons unable to present to the Academic Misconduct Panel.
b) The procedures were not complied with to the extent that it was questionable whether the outcome would have been different had the new evidence been complied with.
c) There is documented evidence of bias on the part of the members of the Academic Misconduct Panel or its Clerk.
d) The penalty imposed exceeded that available to the Academic Misconduct Panel.
5.1.3 No new evidence may be given at an appeal hearing, except where it can be shown that there were justifiable reasons why it had not been presented previously and, if it had been presented previously, would have been likely to have been material to the decision(s) made. Such justification is to be provided as part of the application to appeal.
5.1.4 Any student wishing to appeal must submit to the Chief Student Officer (or nominee), a written notice stating the ground(s) of appeal within 20 working days of the date upon which they were informed of the Academic Misconduct Panel’s decision.
5.1.5 There shall be an Appeal Panel which shall be convened by the Chief Student Officer (or nominee), and shall be constituted of:
a) Two academic staff members one of whom will be a Provost/Dean or Head of School.
b) Student Union Chief Executive Officer or nominee.
5.1.6 The Chair of the Appeal Panel shall normally be the Provost/Dean, or Head of School.
5.1.7 Where possible our University shall seek to ensure that the composition of the panel reflects the character of the institution.
5.1.8 The panel shall, where practicable, be composed of members who are unlikely to know personally any student whose case it may consider.
5.1.9 The panel shall appoint a Secretary, who will be responsible for keeping a written record of the decisions made.
5.2 Powers of the Appeal Panel
5.2.1 The Appeal Panel shall have the power to:
a) adjourn the hearing to a future date;
b) confirm the penalty imposed;
c) moderate the penalty imposed to a lesser penalty as stipulated in section Section 4.2 above. The Committee may not impose a greater penalty;
d) uphold the appeal and overturn a decision to impose a penalty.
5.3 Procedure to be followed by the Appeal Panel
5.3.1 The Secretary will invite both parties to attend the appeal hearing, informing them of the date, time and venue. The two parties will be the student and the Chair of the Academic Misconduct Panel which is the subject of the appeal. There shall be no other persons invited to attend the hearing, save that the student may be accompanied (see Section 5.3.2).
5.3.2 The student will be entitled to be accompanied to the meeting by a relative, friend, colleague, or a Student Union advisor. The accompanying person cannot be a professional legal representative who has been employed to act on the student’s behalf, nor can they act in the capacity of a legal advisor. The accompanying person can comment, assist, and help to present evidence, but cannot answer questions on the student’s behalf.
5.3.3 At least ten working days prior to the hearing, the Secretary will circulate the case papers to the members of the Appeal Panel, the appellant and the Chair of the relevant Academic Panel.
5.3.4 The Chair of the relevant Academic Misconduct Panel shall be invited to submit a response to the appeal, which should be received at least five working days prior to the hearing. The Secretary shall circulate the response to the members of the Appeal Panel and the appellant (and friend, relative or representative) at least three working days prior to the hearing.
5.3.5 In the event of late papers being received by the Secretary, or previously uncirculated papers being presented by either side at the hearing, the Chair of the Appeal Panel shall decide whether they should be admitted, taking into account that, should such admission be permitted, it should not be to the disadvantage of either party.
5.3.6 The appellant may elect not to appear in person before the Appeal Panel. In such cases, the Appeal Panel will decide the appeal on the basis of written submissions. If, however, a written submission is not clear, the Panel will arrive at a decision on the basis of the evidence available to it.
5.3.7 Should the appellant fail to appear at the hearing without reasonable cause or explanation, the Appeal Panel will hear the appeal in absentia and decide based on the evidence available to it.
5.3.8 The Appeal Panel, having regard to all of the written and oral evidence provided, will decide whether the decision being appealed was fair, reasonable and proportionate.
5.3.9 In the event of the Appeal Panel not being able to reach a unanimous decision, there will be a majority conclusion.
5.3.10 The decision of the Panel will be final and there shall be no further right of appeal. Within ten working days of the appeal hearing the Panel shall issue to the appellant and the Chair of the relevant Academic Misconduct Panel, a Completion of Procedures letter which will set out its reasons for either dismissing or upholding the appeal. No further correspondence shall be entered into.
6. Independent Review - Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA)
6.1.1 If a student has exhausted the appeal procedure set out in Sections 3.2.15 above, the Student Conduct Team will issue the student with a Completion of Procedures Letter. If the student is not satisfied with the outcome, they may request that the case is reviewed by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator which is a body independent of our University.
6.1.2 The grounds and eligibility for review shall be determined by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA). The OIA provides an independent scheme for the review of student grievances under the Higher Education Act 2021.
7. Links to other Institutional Policies and Procedures
7.1.1 Across the University there is a range of related procedures and policies which may offer a more relevant, effective and immediate means of influencing and managing student conduct. Where appropriate the University may choose to use one of the following policies and procedures in addition to, or instead of, the Academic Integrity Policy and Academic Misconduct Regulations.
a) For academic misconduct allegations relating to research misconduct, the Staff and Student Misconduct in Research Procedure will apply.
b) If a member of staff suspects misconduct against a student on the Professional Policing Practice organised by Babcock International Group (Babcock), the ‘Unfair Academic Practice (Misconduct) Policy’ will apply.
c) For non-academic misconduct allegations, the Non-Academic Misconduct Policy will be applied.
d) For complaints against the University the Complaints Procedure will be applied.
e) For appeals against assessment board decisions against the University the Appeals against assessment board decisions (Part 6) procedure will be applied.
f) For students with health or mental health issues that are significantly impacting their student experience, the Fitness to Study Policy and Procedure will be applied.
g) For students on professional courses the Fitness to Practise Policy and Procedure may be applied.
7.1.2 These Regulations should be read in conjunction with:
h) UEL Student code of conduct
i) Academic Integrity matters guide for Students
j) Academic Regulations
8. Definitions
8.1.1 Academic Integrity: The honour code of academia. It means that you uphold specific values and ideas associated with good scholarship.
8.1.2 Academic Misconduct is defined as a practice that leads to an unfair advantage in an assessment for the purposes of achieving a personal gain. Examples of such misconduct are given in the section below: the list is not exhaustive and the use of any form of unfair or dishonest practice in assessment can be considered potential misconduct.
8.1.3 Academic Misconduct in Examinations includes, but is not limited to the following:
a) Obtaining information from any other person or source during a viva examination, except those materials explicitly permitted.
b) Importation into an examination room of materials or devices.
c) Other than those which are specifically permitted under the regulations applying to the examination in question.
d) Reference to such materials (whether written or electronically recorded) during the period of the examination, whether or not such reference is made within the examination room.
e) Refusing, when asked, to surrender any materials requested by an invigilator.
f) The application of an electronic device unless this has been expressly permitted for that examination.
g) Copying the work of another candidate.
h) Disruptive behaviour during examination or assessment.
i) Obtaining or seeking to obtain access to unseen examination questions prior to the examination.
j) Failure to observe the instructions of a person invigilating an examination or seeking to intimidate such a person.
k) Impersonating or attempting to impersonate another candidate or being knowingly impersonated.
l) Offering an inducement to invigilators and/or staff and/or other persons connected with assessment.
m) Communicating with other students during a timed assessment, unless clearly stated as collaborative or group work.
n) Participating in collusion during an examination includes acting dishonestly in any way, whether before, during or after an assessment, to obtain an unfair advantage.
o) Using generative artificial intelligence software such as ChatGPT or QuillBot to generate answers.
8.1.4 Collusion: Occurs when work that has been created together is submitted as a person’s own work, or one person shares their work with others who submit part or all of it as their own work.
8.1.5 Contract Cheating: When work is produced or commissioned by someone else i.e., essay mills or ghost-writing companies.
8.1.6 Coursework Submitted for Assessment: for coursework submissions, academic misconduct includes, but is not limited to the following:
a) Including in your own work material whether written, visual or oral without giving suitable acknowledgement to its creator and/or author including in your own work material whether written, visual or oral without giving suitable acknowledgement to its creator and/or author.
b) The submission or presentation of another person’s work that has been offered to you for your use, but which is not your own work.
c) Including in your own work concepts, ideas or theories paraphrased from a source(s) without the use of citing it/ or them.
d) Submitting sections whether it is electronic or hard copy, without acknowledging the source.
e) The submission of work that the student, as the author, has previously submitted, without suitable acknowledgement of the source of their previous work.
f) Including or quoting the work of other students in one’s work, except for published work, or outputs held in the library as a learning resource, which should be cited and acknowledged appropriately.
g) Being party to any arrangement whereby the work of one candidate is represented as that of another.
h) The submission, as your own work, of any work that has been purchased, or otherwise obtained from others, whether this is from other students, online services, “cheat sites”, or other agents or sources that sell or provide assignments irrespective of whether there is human agency or AI generative.
i) Practices such as ‘cutting and pasting’ or otherwise copying segments of text into your work, without clearly indicating that the text is a quotation.
j) For work not intended to be submitted as a collaborative assignment: producing work with one or more other students, using study practices that mean the submitted work is nearly identical, overall or in part, to that of other students.
k) Attempts to circumvent the similarity checking programmes that the University uses (including the use of spinning websites to rephrase text).
8.1.7 Other forms of Unfair Practice:
a) Offering an inducement to staff and/or other persons connected with Assessment.
b) Falsifying data and references in any assessment. c) Work placement fraud.
8.1.8 Examinations: for examinations including online and viva voces conducted online.
8.1.9 Plagiarism: Using parts of or whole materials or work created by someone else without acknowledgment or relevant permission and presenting it as your own work.
8.1.10 Self-Plagiarism: When work that has already been submitted for assessment either to the University, or another institution and is then used again in another assessment.
8.1.11 Generative AI: The use of generative artificial Intelligence tools to gain an unfair advantage. Such as ChatGPT, Bing Char or DALL-E to produce content that is then submitted as your own original work.
8.1.12 Academic Poor Practice is defined as work that the student has produced which is poorly referenced or incorrectly referenced resulting from misunderstanding or lack of confidence using academic conventions. Examples include (but are not limited to):
- Incomplete or incorrect citations.
- An attempt to show that the content/concepts were not the student's own.
- 1 or 2 sentences of direct copying without acknowledging the source. • Over-reliance on references and sources.
- Inappropriate paraphrasing– which does not include the following:
(i) If a passage of text replicates a published source with only a few words having been altered, this will be treated as if the entire passage of text had been copied and is therefore Academic Misconduct, not poor academic practice.
(ii) If a substantial portion of the text mirrors the structure of a published source, with alterations to the wording but maintenance of the detailed sequence of information, this will be treated as not being the original work of the student practice.
8.1.13 The outcome of work that is poor practice is that it should be dealt with as part of the marking and feedback process (not through the academic misconduct process). Students who wish to appeal against their confirmed results may appeal in accordance with the procedure for Appeals against Assessment Board decisions - Part 6 of the Manual of General Regulations.