Company number: 12497951
6 Sutton Park Road, Sutton, SM1 2GD

Academic Misconduct Regulations

Policy Statement

The School is committed to upholding academic integrity, essential to its educational mission. Our Academic Misconduct Regulations address and prevent misconduct, including plagiarism and cheating, through clear guidelines and procedures. Students are educated on ethical practices and supported with resources. Incidents are investigated and adjudicated fairly, with balanced consequences, ensuring the value and credibility of our academic programmes.

Principles

Integrity: Sustaining an academic environment where honesty is the foundation of all scholarly activity.
Fairness: Ensuring just and unbiased treatment in the investigation and resolution of alleged academic misconduct.
Prevention: Proactively deterring academic misconduct through education and clear communication of expectations.
Accountability: Holding individuals responsible for their actions and promoting accountability for academic integrity.
Education: Emphasising the importance of understanding and abiding by academic conventions and ethical standards.
Transparency: Pursuing clear, transparent processes in the handling of academic misconduct cases.
Confidentiality: Maintaining the confidentiality of all parties involved in allegations of academic misconduct.
Consistency: Applying regulations consistently across all faculties and departments to uphold fairness.
Proportionality: Ensuring that penalties for academic misconduct are proportionate to the severity of the offence.
Support: Providing support for those involved in cases of academic misconduct, including access to appeals.
Review: Regularly reviewing and updating the policy to adapt to emerging forms of academic misconduct.
Respect: Treating all members of the academic community with respect throughout the process of dealing with academic misconduct.

Regulatory Context

This Policy has been developed in line with the applicable laws, regulations, regulatory advice, and sector best practices, including the following:

Authority	Name	Url
Office for Students (OfS)	Regulatory framework for higher education in England This framework outlines OfS' primary aim to ensure positive outcomes for students, including access, success, and progress in higher education. It covers quality academic experience, progress into employment, and value for money.
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)	The Quality Code This code represents a shared understanding of quality practice across the UK higher education sector, protecting public and student interests and championing the UK's reputation for quality.
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)	Advice - Academic Misconduct Guidance on handling academic misconduct for higher education providers.
Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA)	The Good Practice Framework Principles and operational guidance to support HE providers to develop and follow fair processes for complaints and appeals.
Office for Students (OfS)	Sector-recognised standards The standards set with regards to B5 and B8 of the OfS' conditions of registration for higher education institutions.

Authority

Name

Url

Office for Students (OfS)

Regulatory framework for higher education in England
This framework outlines OfS' primary aim to ensure positive outcomes for students, including access, success, and progress in higher education. It covers quality academic experience, progress into employment, and value for money.

Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)

The Quality Code
This code represents a shared understanding of quality practice across the UK higher education sector, protecting public and student interests and championing the UK's reputation for quality.

Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)

Advice - Academic Misconduct
Guidance on handling academic misconduct for higher education providers.

Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA)

The Good Practice Framework
Principles and operational guidance to support HE providers to develop and follow fair processes for complaints and appeals.

Office for Students (OfS)

Sector-recognised standards
The standards set with regards to B5 and B8 of the OfS' conditions of registration for higher education institutions.

Clarification of Academic Integrity Violations

Title
Rule Importance of Academic Integrity Academic integrity is essential for ensuring that all students earn their credentials honestly and that the credibility of the institution is upheld. The School’s assessment regulations outline requirements on anonymity, identity, assessment timing, academic judgement, academic misconduct, the integrity of marks, and student support. Adhering to academic integrity principles maintains the value of education and the merit of degrees, fostering a culture of trust and fairness that benefits both the institution and society. Although academic integrity is vital, the School also values freedom of thought and recognises the role of new technologies, such as generative AI, aiming to balance these in its regulations and policies.
Advice Differentiating Academic Practices The School differentiates between: Poor academic practice; and Academic misconduct. This distinction allows for appropriate responses, ensuring fairness in handling issues related to academic integrity.
Definition Understanding Poor Academic Practice Poor academic practice occurs when a student fails to follow academic conventions due to unfamiliarity with the School's assessment practices. This often results in work that includes unattributed or improperly referenced material closely resembling the source. Recognising this helps address issues early and support student development.
Definition Defining Academic Misconduct Academic misconduct refers to any attempt to gain an unfair advantage and extends beyond poor academic practice. When determining if an action constitutes academic misconduct, the investigator will assess: The seriousness of the incident Whether the student should reasonably have known proper academic practices Whether the student received adequate guidance The student’s history of poor academic practice or misconduct Any other relevant evidence Examples of academic misconduct include: Plagiarism: Submitting work from another source without proper attribution. Collusion: Collaborating on assessed work without permission and presenting it as individual work. Fabrication: Falsifying academic results, data, sources, or references. Duplication: Resubmitting the same or similar work for credit without acknowledgment. Cheating in Exams: Using unauthorised material or communicating with others to gain an advantage. Impersonation: Assuming another person’s identity to gain an advantage. Ghostwriting: Submitting work done by someone else or aiding another student in committing misconduct. Unethical Behaviour: Violating ethical standards, such as not obtaining ethical approval or coercing participants. Negligence: Repeated poor academic practice can escalate to misconduct.

Title

Rule
Importance of Academic Integrity

Academic integrity is essential for ensuring that all students earn their credentials honestly and that the credibility of the institution is upheld. The School’s assessment regulations outline requirements on anonymity, identity, assessment timing, academic judgement, academic misconduct, the integrity of marks, and student support.

Adhering to academic integrity principles maintains the value of education and the merit of degrees, fostering a culture of trust and fairness that benefits both the institution and society. Although academic integrity is vital, the School also values freedom of thought and recognises the role of new technologies, such as generative AI, aiming to balance these in its regulations and policies.

Advice
Differentiating Academic Practices

The School differentiates between:

Poor academic practice; and
Academic misconduct.

This distinction allows for appropriate responses, ensuring fairness in handling issues related to academic integrity.

Definition
Understanding Poor Academic Practice

Poor academic practice occurs when a student fails to follow academic conventions due to unfamiliarity with the School's assessment practices.

This often results in work that includes unattributed or improperly referenced material closely resembling the source. Recognising this helps address issues early and support student development.

Definition
Defining Academic Misconduct

Academic misconduct refers to any attempt to gain an unfair advantage and extends beyond poor academic practice.

When determining if an action constitutes academic misconduct, the investigator will assess:

The seriousness of the incident
Whether the student should reasonably have known proper academic practices
Whether the student received adequate guidance
The student’s history of poor academic practice or misconduct
Any other relevant evidence

Examples of academic misconduct include:

Plagiarism: Submitting work from another source without proper attribution.
Collusion: Collaborating on assessed work without permission and presenting it as individual work.
Fabrication: Falsifying academic results, data, sources, or references.
Duplication: Resubmitting the same or similar work for credit without acknowledgment.
Cheating in Exams: Using unauthorised material or communicating with others to gain an advantage.
Impersonation: Assuming another person’s identity to gain an advantage.
Ghostwriting: Submitting work done by someone else or aiding another student in committing misconduct.
Unethical Behaviour: Violating ethical standards, such as not obtaining ethical approval or coercing participants.
Negligence: Repeated poor academic practice can escalate to misconduct.

Obligations for Understanding Academic Misconduct

Title
Rule Familiarity with Academic Misconduct Regulations All staff and students must familiarise themselves with academic integrity and the Misconduct Regulations, which define poor academic practice and provide examples of academic misconduct. This will also be covered in the Welcome Week. All assessments will require students to acknowledge that they have read and understood the academic regulations. Understanding these regulations ensures that everyone adheres to expected academic standards and avoids misconduct.
Rule Understanding and Preventing Academic Misconduct All staff and students must be aware of the consequences of academic misconduct. The School provides continuous education on academic integrity throughout a student’s time at the School, including in modules. The School ensures understanding of academic integrity through programme and module handbooks, examples of misconduct, regular staff explanations, feedback, workshops (including on generative AI), and accessible guides. Regulations and policies are introduced during Welcome Week and reinforced through regular staff training. This comprehensive approach helps maintain high academic standards.

Title

Rule
Familiarity with Academic Misconduct Regulations

All staff and students must familiarise themselves with academic integrity and the Misconduct Regulations, which define poor academic practice and provide examples of academic misconduct. This will also be covered in the Welcome Week.

All assessments will require students to acknowledge that they have read and understood the academic regulations.

Understanding these regulations ensures that everyone adheres to expected academic standards and avoids misconduct.

Rule
Understanding and Preventing Academic Misconduct

All staff and students must be aware of the consequences of academic misconduct. The School provides continuous education on academic integrity throughout a student’s time at the School, including in modules.

The School ensures understanding of academic integrity through programme and module handbooks, examples of misconduct, regular staff explanations, feedback, workshops (including on generative AI), and accessible guides. Regulations and policies are introduced during Welcome Week and reinforced through regular staff training. This comprehensive approach helps maintain high academic standards.

Guidelines for Proofreading

Title
Definition Proofreading Proofreading is the final step in creating a written piece, focused on reviewing and correcting spelling, punctuation, grammar, and other errors. Ensuring accuracy and clarity in your work depends on identifying and fixing mistakes during proofreading.
Rule Student Responsibility for Proofreading All students are responsible for proofreading their assignments to ensure accuracy in grammar, spelling, and punctuation. This responsibility ensures the quality and clarity of the work submitted.
Rule Use of Software for Checking Work Subject to the School's regulations and policies, including the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy, students may use software, such as Generative AI, to check their work. This ensures that students utilise technology responsibly while adhering to academic standards.
Rule Regulations for Using Human Proofreaders Students should avoid using human proofreaders but, if necessary, the proofreader must not significantly alter the work. Specifically, proofreaders cannot: Rewrite or edit sections to improve clarity or argument Rearrange text or reformat the material Change factual information or correct errors Add material or make comments on substantial content Correct academic referencing Translate the work Significantly alter the length of the work Check calculations or formulas Re-label charts, diagrams, or figures Proofreaders may only correct spelling, grammar, punctuation, formatting, and general clarity, and can suggest improvements without rewriting. This ensures that students retain control over their work while receiving appropriate assistance, preventing any undue influence that could compromise academic integrity. Students must also ensure proofreaders follow these guidelines to avoid allegations of academic misconduct.
Rule Disclosure of Proofreading Methods When using software or human proofreaders, including AI, students must declare the type of software or person used and provide a written statement confirming adherence to these regulations. They must also retain the original draft showing any changes, if requested. This ensures transparency in the proofreading process and verifies that the work complies with academic integrity standards.
Advice Proofreading in Group Assignments In group assignments, proofreading and discussing drafts among group members is acceptable and encouraged. This collective approach enhances teamwork and critical analysis skills, contributing to the learning outcomes of the module.
Rule Formative Feedback on Drafts Tutors may highlight spelling and grammar issues and comment on ideas and clarity in draft work using the insert comment function of editing software. This feedback helps students improve their drafts, while the student remains responsible for considering and addressing the tutor’s comments.
Rule Use of Professional Proofreading Services The use of professional proofreaders or editorial services is strongly discouraged and subject to this regulation. Such services often involve rewriting or rewording, which can compromise the student's authorship and lead to academic misconduct.

Title

Definition
Proofreading

Proofreading is the final step in creating a written piece, focused on reviewing and correcting spelling, punctuation, grammar, and other errors.

Ensuring accuracy and clarity in your work depends on identifying and fixing mistakes during proofreading.

Rule
Student Responsibility for Proofreading

All students are responsible for proofreading their assignments to ensure accuracy in grammar, spelling, and punctuation.

This responsibility ensures the quality and clarity of the work submitted.

Rule
Use of Software for Checking Work

Subject to the School's regulations and policies, including the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy, students may use software, such as Generative AI, to check their work.

This ensures that students utilise technology responsibly while adhering to academic standards.

Rule
Regulations for Using Human Proofreaders

Students should avoid using human proofreaders but, if necessary, the proofreader must not significantly alter the work. Specifically, proofreaders cannot:

Rewrite or edit sections to improve clarity or argument
Rearrange text or reformat the material
Change factual information or correct errors
Add material or make comments on substantial content
Correct academic referencing
Translate the work
Significantly alter the length of the work
Check calculations or formulas
Re-label charts, diagrams, or figures

Proofreaders may only correct spelling, grammar, punctuation, formatting, and general clarity, and can suggest improvements without rewriting.

This ensures that students retain control over their work while receiving appropriate assistance, preventing any undue influence that could compromise academic integrity. Students must also ensure proofreaders follow these guidelines to avoid allegations of academic misconduct.

Rule
Disclosure of Proofreading Methods

When using software or human proofreaders, including AI, students must declare the type of software or person used and provide a written statement confirming adherence to these regulations. They must also retain the original draft showing any changes, if requested.

This ensures transparency in the proofreading process and verifies that the work complies with academic integrity standards.

Advice
Proofreading in Group Assignments

In group assignments, proofreading and discussing drafts among group members is acceptable and encouraged.

This collective approach enhances teamwork and critical analysis skills, contributing to the learning outcomes of the module.

Rule
Formative Feedback on Drafts

Tutors may highlight spelling and grammar issues and comment on ideas and clarity in draft work using the insert comment function of editing software.

This feedback helps students improve their drafts, while the student remains responsible for considering and addressing the tutor’s comments.

Rule
Use of Professional Proofreading Services

The use of professional proofreaders or editorial services is strongly discouraged and subject to this regulation.

Such services often involve rewriting or rewording, which can compromise the student's authorship and lead to academic misconduct.

Artificial Intelligence and Academic Integrity

Title
Rule Citation and Acknowledgement of AI Tools Under the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy, students must adhere to citation conventions by including full footnotes and a bibliography when using software and AI technologies, and must also comply with copyright regulations. Proper citation and adherence to copyright ensure academic integrity and compliance with the School's Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy, which must be followed at all times.

Title

Rule
Citation and Acknowledgement of AI Tools

Under the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy, students must adhere to citation conventions by including full footnotes and a bibliography when using software and AI technologies, and must also comply with copyright regulations.

Proper citation and adherence to copyright ensure academic integrity and compliance with the School's Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy, which must be followed at all times.

Initiating Procedures for Suspected Academic Misconduct

Title
Rule Reporting Suspected Academic Misconduct If a staff member or external examiner suspects poor academic practice or academic misconduct during assessment, they must report it, with any available evidence, to the module leader. This should be done at any time before or after marking. Upholding confidentiality at all stages is important. Reporting ensures that suspected issues are addressed promptly, maintaining academic integrity throughout the assessment process.
Rule Investigation of Reported Suspicions Upon receiving a report of suspected poor academic practice or misconduct, the module leader must either investigate the case themselves or appoint another staff member to do so. The person conducting the investigation will be referred to as the 'investigator.' This process ensures that suspected issues are properly reviewed and handled by an appropriate individual, maintaining the integrity of the investigation.
Rule Reviewing Evidence of Misconduct The investigator will review the assessment and the reporter's comments to determine if there is sufficient evidence of poor academic practice or academic misconduct. If no reasonable evidence is found: The investigator must notify both the reporter and the module leader. The process will be terminated, and no record will be kept on the student's file. This ensures that only substantiated concerns are pursued, protecting the student’s record from unwarranted issues.
Rule Determining the Appropriate Response If the investigator finds reasonable evidence of wrongdoing, they will decide whether the case should be classified as poor academic practice or academic misconduct. Based on this classification, the case will be handled through either: An Academic Practice Review, or An Academic Misconduct Panel This ensures that each case is addressed appropriately according to the severity of the issue.
Rule Notification of Allegations After determining whether the matter is poor academic practice or academic misconduct, the investigator must notify the student of: The allegation made against them The requirement to attend a meeting to discuss the allegation The available Student Support services This ensures the student is fully informed of the issue and has access to support during the process.

Title

Rule
Reporting Suspected Academic Misconduct

If a staff member or external examiner suspects poor academic practice or academic misconduct during assessment, they must report it, with any available evidence, to the module leader. This should be done at any time before or after marking. Upholding confidentiality at all stages is important.

Reporting ensures that suspected issues are addressed promptly, maintaining academic integrity throughout the assessment process.

Rule
Investigation of Reported Suspicions

Upon receiving a report of suspected poor academic practice or misconduct, the module leader must either investigate the case themselves or appoint another staff member to do so. The person conducting the investigation will be referred to as the 'investigator.'

This process ensures that suspected issues are properly reviewed and handled by an appropriate individual, maintaining the integrity of the investigation.

Rule
Reviewing Evidence of Misconduct

The investigator will review the assessment and the reporter's comments to determine if there is sufficient evidence of poor academic practice or academic misconduct. If no reasonable evidence is found:

The investigator must notify both the reporter and the module leader.
The process will be terminated, and no record will be kept on the student's file.

This ensures that only substantiated concerns are pursued, protecting the student’s record from unwarranted issues.

Rule
Determining the Appropriate Response

If the investigator finds reasonable evidence of wrongdoing, they will decide whether the case should be classified as poor academic practice or academic misconduct. Based on this classification, the case will be handled through either:

An Academic Practice Review, or
An Academic Misconduct Panel

This ensures that each case is addressed appropriately according to the severity of the issue.

Rule
Notification of Allegations

After determining whether the matter is poor academic practice or academic misconduct, the investigator must notify the student of:

The allegation made against them
The requirement to attend a meeting to discuss the allegation
The available Student Support services

This ensures the student is fully informed of the issue and has access to support during the process.

Academic Practice Review for Poor Academic Practice

Title
Rule Invitation to Academic Practice Review Meeting If the investigator finds reasonable evidence of poor academic practice, the student will be invited to an academic practice review meeting within approximately 5 working days. The email invitation should: Explain the purpose and format of the meeting Detail the nature of the allegations Include a copy of the assessed work and evidence to be discussed Outline the obligation to attend and the consequences of non-attendance Inform the student of their right to seek advice, representation, or be accompanied by another student or faculty member This ensures the student is informed about the meeting details, understands the allegations, and knows their rights and obligations, facilitating a fair review process.
Rule Outcomes of the Academic Practice Review Meeting During the meeting, the student can discuss the assessed work and other submissions, and present their views. The investigator may: Determine there is no poor academic practice, notify the reporter and module leader, and terminate the process with no record on the student's file Conclude that there is poor academic practice Decide the case should be classified as academic misconduct and refer it to an Academic Misconduct Panel This process ensures that the student has a chance to present their perspective and that the outcome is appropriately determined based on the evidence and discussion.
Rule Actions Following Poor Academic Practice If the investigator determines there has been poor academic practice, the following steps will be taken: Guidance: The investigator will offer advice on how to avoid similar issues in the future. Warning: The student will be warned about the potential consequences of repeated poor academic practice. Record: A report of the meeting and its outcome will be added to the student's file. Notification: The module and programme leaders will be informed of the outcome. Marking: The impact of the poor academic practice, such as incorrect citations, will be considered in the marking process. These actions ensure the student receives appropriate guidance, warnings, and that records are maintained for monitoring and improvement purposes, while keeping the module and programme leaders informed.
Rule Consequences of Missing an Academic Practice Review If a student fails to attend an Academic Practice Review without a valid reason, the case may be escalated to an Academic Misconduct Panel. This ensures that attendance at the review is taken seriously and that unaddressed issues are properly escalated for further review.

Title

Rule
Invitation to Academic Practice Review Meeting

If the investigator finds reasonable evidence of poor academic practice, the student will be invited to an academic practice review meeting within approximately 5 working days. The email invitation should:

Explain the purpose and format of the meeting
Detail the nature of the allegations
Include a copy of the assessed work and evidence to be discussed
Outline the obligation to attend and the consequences of non-attendance
Inform the student of their right to seek advice, representation, or be accompanied by another student or faculty member

This ensures the student is informed about the meeting details, understands the allegations, and knows their rights and obligations, facilitating a fair review process.

Rule
Outcomes of the Academic Practice Review Meeting

During the meeting, the student can discuss the assessed work and other submissions, and present their views. The investigator may:

Determine there is no poor academic practice, notify the reporter and module leader, and terminate the process with no record on the student's file
Conclude that there is poor academic practice
Decide the case should be classified as academic misconduct and refer it to an Academic Misconduct Panel

This process ensures that the student has a chance to present their perspective and that the outcome is appropriately determined based on the evidence and discussion.

Rule
Actions Following Poor Academic Practice

If the investigator determines there has been poor academic practice, the following steps will be taken:

Guidance: The investigator will offer advice on how to avoid similar issues in the future.
Warning: The student will be warned about the potential consequences of repeated poor academic practice.
Record: A report of the meeting and its outcome will be added to the student's file.
Notification: The module and programme leaders will be informed of the outcome.
Marking: The impact of the poor academic practice, such as incorrect citations, will be considered in the marking process.

These actions ensure the student receives appropriate guidance, warnings, and that records are maintained for monitoring and improvement purposes, while keeping the module and programme leaders informed.

Rule
Consequences of Missing an Academic Practice Review

If a student fails to attend an Academic Practice Review without a valid reason, the case may be escalated to an Academic Misconduct Panel.

This ensures that attendance at the review is taken seriously and that unaddressed issues are properly escalated for further review.

Process for Academic Misconduct Panel

Title
Rule Composition of the Academic Misconduct Panel If the investigator refers a case to an Academic Misconduct Panel due to reasonable evidence of academic misconduct, the panel will include: The relevant Module Leader or their nominee as Chair A member of the Student Success Team as Secretary Two academic staff members who: Do not currently teach the student and ideally never have Do not include the Reporter The Reporter may attend at the Panel's discretion to present information or answer questions. This ensures a fair and impartial review of the case by involving staff who are not directly associated with the student, while allowing the Reporter to contribute if needed.
Rule Handling Multiple Students in Academic Misconduct Cases If multiple students are involved in the same academic misconduct incident(s), a single Panel may review all cases together, as long as it does not conflict with this regulation. This ensures efficient handling of related cases while maintaining compliance with regulations.
Rule Scheduling and Notification for Academic Misconduct Panels The Academic Misconduct Panel generally meets twice per semester: once after the first set of assessments and again after referrals, deferrals, and retakes. Ad hoc sessions can also be arranged. The Secretary will: Notify panel members and the student of the meeting's location, time, and date, providing at least 5 days' notice Record evidence, maintain appropriate records, and document any Panel decisions This ensures timely and organised handling of cases while providing adequate notice and thorough documentation.
Rule Accompaniment to the Academic Misconduct Panel Meeting The student(s) may choose another member of staff or a fellow student from the School to accompany them to the Panel meeting. This allows students to have support and representation during the Panel meeting, ensuring they are adequately assisted throughout the process.
Rule Provision of Allegation Details and Evidence The student(s) will receive details of the allegations and copies of any work or evidence submitted for the Panel’s review. This ensures that students are fully informed about the case against them and have access to all relevant materials needed for their response.
Rule Submission of Pre-Meeting Statement The student(s) may submit a statement before the meeting. This allows students to present their side of the story or provide additional context in advance, ensuring a fair review process.
Rule Access to Student Records for Panel Members Panel members will not see details of any previous academic misconduct cases on the student’s record. They will only have access to the student's level, current results profile, and the initial investigation report. This ensures that panel members base their decision solely on the current case without being influenced by past incidents.
Rule Panel Meeting Procedures Rule: During the panel meeting: Panel members will review all evidence, including the student's written statement. Evidence and allegations will be presented to the student. The student and any witnesses can address the allegations. The student will have the chance to respond to all evidence and speak to the Panel before a decision is made. This ensures a fair and thorough review process by allowing the student to present their case and respond to evidence before the Panel makes a decision.
Rule Panel Proceedings in Case of Student Absence If the student does not provide a satisfactory explanation for their absence, the Panel may proceed without them, provided the School has given the required notice. This rule ensures that the Panel can continue with the proceedings and make a decision if the student fails to attend, assuming proper notice was given.

Title

Rule
Composition of the Academic Misconduct Panel

If the investigator refers a case to an Academic Misconduct Panel due to reasonable evidence of academic misconduct, the panel will include:

The relevant Module Leader or their nominee as Chair
A member of the Student Success Team as Secretary
Two academic staff members who:
- Do not currently teach the student and ideally never have
- Do not include the Reporter

The Reporter may attend at the Panel's discretion to present information or answer questions.

This ensures a fair and impartial review of the case by involving staff who are not directly associated with the student, while allowing the Reporter to contribute if needed.

Rule
Handling Multiple Students in Academic Misconduct Cases

If multiple students are involved in the same academic misconduct incident(s), a single Panel may review all cases together, as long as it does not conflict with this regulation.

This ensures efficient handling of related cases while maintaining compliance with regulations.

Rule
Scheduling and Notification for Academic Misconduct Panels

The Academic Misconduct Panel generally meets twice per semester: once after the first set of assessments and again after referrals, deferrals, and retakes. Ad hoc sessions can also be arranged. The Secretary will:

Notify panel members and the student of the meeting's location, time, and date, providing at least 5 days' notice
Record evidence, maintain appropriate records, and document any Panel decisions

This ensures timely and organised handling of cases while providing adequate notice and thorough documentation.

Rule
Accompaniment to the Academic Misconduct Panel Meeting

The student(s) may choose another member of staff or a fellow student from the School to accompany them to the Panel meeting.

This allows students to have support and representation during the Panel meeting, ensuring they are adequately assisted throughout the process.

Rule
Provision of Allegation Details and Evidence

The student(s) will receive details of the allegations and copies of any work or evidence submitted for the Panel’s review.

This ensures that students are fully informed about the case against them and have access to all relevant materials needed for their response.

Rule
Submission of Pre-Meeting Statement

The student(s) may submit a statement before the meeting.

This allows students to present their side of the story or provide additional context in advance, ensuring a fair review process.

Rule
Access to Student Records for Panel Members

Panel members will not see details of any previous academic misconduct cases on the student’s record. They will only have access to the student's level, current results profile, and the initial investigation report.

This ensures that panel members base their decision solely on the current case without being influenced by past incidents.

Rule
Panel Meeting Procedures Rule:

During the panel meeting:

Panel members will review all evidence, including the student's written statement.
Evidence and allegations will be presented to the student.
The student and any witnesses can address the allegations.
The student will have the chance to respond to all evidence and speak to the Panel before a decision is made.

This ensures a fair and thorough review process by allowing the student to present their case and respond to evidence before the Panel makes a decision.

Rule
Panel Proceedings in Case of Student Absence

If the student does not provide a satisfactory explanation for their absence, the Panel may proceed without them, provided the School has given the required notice.

This rule ensures that the Panel can continue with the proceedings and make a decision if the student fails to attend, assuming proper notice was given.

Outcomes and Sanctions for Academic Misconduct

Title
Rule Panel Decision Process Once the Panel has reviewed all the evidence and submissions, it will decide either during the meeting or within 3 working days. The decision will be based on a simple majority vote and communicated to the student in writing as soon as possible. In the event of a tied vote, the student will receive the benefit of the doubt. This procedure ensures a prompt and fair decision-making process, with clear communication to the student and a safeguard for tie votes.
Rule Deferral of Panel Decision for Further Investigation If further investigation is required, the Panel may postpone its decision until sufficient evidence is available. This allows the Panel to make a well-informed decision based on comprehensive evidence.
Rule Outcome of No Evidence of Academic Misconduct If the Panel finds no reasonable evidence of academic misconduct, the process ends, and the allegations are withdrawn. The work will be returned to the marker for grading, and no record will be placed on the student's file. This ensures that no undue impact is made on the student's record when evidence does not support the allegations.
Rule Upheld Allegation of Academic Misconduct If the Panel finds reasonable evidence of academic misconduct or the student admits to it, the allegation will be upheld. Generally, the Academic Board will not reverse the decision of the Academic Misconduct Panel. This ensures that findings of academic misconduct are upheld and provides finality to the decision-making process, maintaining the integrity of academic standards.
Rule Determining Sanctions for Upheld Academic Misconduct Once misconduct is upheld, the Panel will review the student’s record of previous academic misconduct and recommend sanctions based on: All evidence related to the current case. The student's past instances of academic misconduct. Sanctions may include: Formal warnings Resubmission of work Capping the assessment mark. Awarding 0% for the assessment with no referral attempt, requiring a retake of the module. Awarding 0% with no referral or retake. Expelling the student according to School regulations. Sanctions are imposed to address the severity of the misconduct, with increased penalties for repeated offences, ensuring fair and consistent academic discipline.
Rule Disciplinary Proceedings for Upheld Academic Misconduct The School may initiate disciplinary proceedings for upheld cases of academic misconduct, following the Student Disciplinary Procedure. This ensures that appropriate measures are taken in accordance with the established disciplinary guidelines, maintaining academic integrity and fairness.
Rule Documentation and Reporting of Upheld Misconduct When misconduct is upheld, the Panel's deliberations must be recorded in the student's AGS record and reported to: The Director of Education This ensures transparency and proper documentation of the case, including: Evidence considered by the Panel The Panel's conclusions Any previous cases of academic misconduct in the student's record The recommended outcome
Rule Role of the Module Examination Board in Panel Decisions The Module Examination Board (MEB) agenda will include Panel decisions and recommendations. The MEB will review these recommendations when assessing the student's overall profile and will either ratify the decisions or refer the matter back to the Panel if necessary. The MEB will also determine the impact of ratification on modules, including any failures and referrals. This ensures that Panel decisions are formally reviewed and integrated into the student's academic record, with appropriate actions taken based on the MEB's evaluation.

Title

Rule
Panel Decision Process

Once the Panel has reviewed all the evidence and submissions, it will decide either during the meeting or within 3 working days. The decision will be based on a simple majority vote and communicated to the student in writing as soon as possible. In the event of a tied vote, the student will receive the benefit of the doubt.

This procedure ensures a prompt and fair decision-making process, with clear communication to the student and a safeguard for tie votes.

Rule
Deferral of Panel Decision for Further Investigation

If further investigation is required, the Panel may postpone its decision until sufficient evidence is available.

This allows the Panel to make a well-informed decision based on comprehensive evidence.

Rule
Outcome of No Evidence of Academic Misconduct

If the Panel finds no reasonable evidence of academic misconduct, the process ends, and the allegations are withdrawn. The work will be returned to the marker for grading, and no record will be placed on the student's file.

This ensures that no undue impact is made on the student's record when evidence does not support the allegations.

Rule
Upheld Allegation of Academic Misconduct

If the Panel finds reasonable evidence of academic misconduct or the student admits to it, the allegation will be upheld. Generally, the Academic Board will not reverse the decision of the Academic Misconduct Panel.

This ensures that findings of academic misconduct are upheld and provides finality to the decision-making process, maintaining the integrity of academic standards.

Rule
Determining Sanctions for Upheld Academic Misconduct

Once misconduct is upheld, the Panel will review the student’s record of previous academic misconduct and recommend sanctions based on:

All evidence related to the current case.
The student's past instances of academic misconduct.

Sanctions may include:

Formal warnings
Resubmission of work
Capping the assessment mark.
Awarding 0% for the assessment with no referral attempt, requiring a retake of the module.
Awarding 0% with no referral or retake.
Expelling the student according to School regulations.

Sanctions are imposed to address the severity of the misconduct, with increased penalties for repeated offences, ensuring fair and consistent academic discipline.

Rule
Disciplinary Proceedings for Upheld Academic Misconduct

The School may initiate disciplinary proceedings for upheld cases of academic misconduct, following the Student Disciplinary Procedure.

This ensures that appropriate measures are taken in accordance with the established disciplinary guidelines, maintaining academic integrity and fairness.

Rule
Documentation and Reporting of Upheld Misconduct

When misconduct is upheld, the Panel's deliberations must be recorded in the student's AGS record and reported to:

The Director of Education

This ensures transparency and proper documentation of the case, including:

Evidence considered by the Panel
The Panel's conclusions
Any previous cases of academic misconduct in the student's record
The recommended outcome

Rule
Role of the Module Examination Board in Panel Decisions

The Module Examination Board (MEB) agenda will include Panel decisions and recommendations. The MEB will review these recommendations when assessing the student's overall profile and will either ratify the decisions or refer the matter back to the Panel if necessary. The MEB will also determine the impact of ratification on modules, including any failures and referrals.

This ensures that Panel decisions are formally reviewed and integrated into the student's academic record, with appropriate actions taken based on the MEB's evaluation.

Procedures for Appeals and Complaints Regarding Misconduct

Title
Rule Procedure for Appealing Panel Decisions To appeal the outcome of an Academic Misconduct Panel, a student must submit a written appeal to the Director of Education within 10 working days of receiving notification of the decision. This timeframe ensures that appeals are made promptly and allows for a timely review of the Panel's decision.
Rule Grounds for Appealing a Panel Decision Appeals can be made only on the following grounds: New Evidence: There is new material evidence or a witness that could cast doubt on the original decision, with an explanation of why this evidence was not available at the initial hearing. Misjudgement: The Panel's findings do not support the conclusion of academic misconduct. Excessive Penalty: The penalty imposed was unreasonable given the circumstances of the case. Simply repeating arguments from the original hearing is not a valid ground for appeal. These criteria ensure that appeals are based on substantial new information or errors in the decision-making process rather than rehashing previously considered points.
Rule Determining Appeal Validity and Forming an Appeals Panel The Director of Education is responsible for assessing whether an appeal meets the grounds specified in this policy. If the appeal is valid, an Academic Misconduct Appeals Panel will be convened. If the appeal does not meet the grounds, the student will be notified in writing as soon as possible. The timing of the appeal decision may influence Module and Programme Examination Board decisions, potentially leading to actions by the Chair. This process ensures that appeals are properly reviewed and only valid appeals lead to further review, while also considering the impact on ongoing administrative decisions.
Rule Composition of the Academic Misconduct Appeals Panel The Academic Misconduct Appeals Panel will have a structure similar to the original Panel. However, it must include at least one academic member who was not part of the original panel. This ensures that the appeals panel has a fresh perspective while maintaining consistency in its structure.
Rule Appeals Panel Hearing Format The Appeals Panel meeting will follow a rehearing format, similar to the process of the initial panel. This approach ensures consistency and fairness by using the same procedures as the original hearing.
Rule Finality of Appeal Panel Decisions The decision of the Appeal Panel is final and cannot be appealed further. The decision will be communicated to all relevant parties, including the MEB, as soon as possible according to these procedures. This rule ensures closure of the appeal process and provides clarity to all involved parties by eliminating any further avenues for appeal.
Rule External Complaint Option If a student is dissatisfied with the Appeal Panel's decision or any decision that concludes the internal process, they may lodge a complaint with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education. This rule provides students with an external recourse if they are unhappy with the final decision of the internal appeal process, ensuring an additional level of oversight.

Title

Rule
Procedure for Appealing Panel Decisions

To appeal the outcome of an Academic Misconduct Panel, a student must submit a written appeal to the Director of Education within 10 working days of receiving notification of the decision.

This timeframe ensures that appeals are made promptly and allows for a timely review of the Panel's decision.

Rule
Grounds for Appealing a Panel Decision

Appeals can be made only on the following grounds:

New Evidence: There is new material evidence or a witness that could cast doubt on the original decision, with an explanation of why this evidence was not available at the initial hearing.
Misjudgement: The Panel's findings do not support the conclusion of academic misconduct.
Excessive Penalty: The penalty imposed was unreasonable given the circumstances of the case.

Simply repeating arguments from the original hearing is not a valid ground for appeal.

These criteria ensure that appeals are based on substantial new information or errors in the decision-making process rather than rehashing previously considered points.

Rule
Determining Appeal Validity and Forming an Appeals Panel

The Director of Education is responsible for assessing whether an appeal meets the grounds specified in this policy.

If the appeal is valid, an Academic Misconduct Appeals Panel will be convened.
If the appeal does not meet the grounds, the student will be notified in writing as soon as possible.

The timing of the appeal decision may influence Module and Programme Examination Board decisions, potentially leading to actions by the Chair.

This process ensures that appeals are properly reviewed and only valid appeals lead to further review, while also considering the impact on ongoing administrative decisions.

Rule
Composition of the Academic Misconduct Appeals Panel

The Academic Misconduct Appeals Panel will have a structure similar to the original Panel. However, it must include at least one academic member who was not part of the original panel.

This ensures that the appeals panel has a fresh perspective while maintaining consistency in its structure.

Rule
Appeals Panel Hearing Format

The Appeals Panel meeting will follow a rehearing format, similar to the process of the initial panel.

This approach ensures consistency and fairness by using the same procedures as the original hearing.

Rule
Finality of Appeal Panel Decisions

The decision of the Appeal Panel is final and cannot be appealed further. The decision will be communicated to all relevant parties, including the MEB, as soon as possible according to these procedures.

This rule ensures closure of the appeal process and provides clarity to all involved parties by eliminating any further avenues for appeal.

Rule
External Complaint Option

If a student is dissatisfied with the Appeal Panel's decision or any decision that concludes the internal process, they may lodge a complaint with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education.

This rule provides students with an external recourse if they are unhappy with the final decision of the internal appeal process, ensuring an additional level of oversight.

Handling Misconduct Discovered Post-Graduation

Title
Rule Investigation of Former Students for Academic Misconduct The Academic Board may mandate an investigation into a former student's academic misconduct. This decision will be based on the evidence, the seriousness of the case, and the time elapsed since the alleged misconduct. This rule ensures that serious cases of academic misconduct are addressed, even if the student is no longer currently enrolled, taking into account relevant factors such as evidence and the time passed.
Rule Investigation and Panel Procedures for Academic Misconduct The Director of Education will investigate the allegation. If no reasonable evidence is found at this stage, the Academic Board will be notified, and the process will be terminated. If reasonable evidence is identified, an Academic Misconduct Panel will be convened. The School will notify the former student of: The allegation against them The need to attend a meeting to discuss the allegation The support services available to them The Panel will include: The Chair of the Academic Board or their nominee, as Chair A member of the Student Success Team as Secretary Two academic staff members who did not and ideally have never taught the student During the Panel meeting: Evidence, including the student’s written statement, will be reviewed Allegations will be presented to the student The student and any witnesses can address the allegations The Panel will decide based on a majority vote and communicate the decision to the student in writing as soon as possible. If the vote is tied, the student will be given the benefit of the doubt. If no reasonable evidence of academic misconduct is found, the process ends, and the allegations are withdrawn. If misconduct is upheld, the Panel will review the student’s past misconduct records and recommend sanctions, considering all evidence and the student's history. Sanctions may include changing marks or revoking awards. Such sanctions must be approved by the Board of Governors with a high standard of proof. If the former student does not attend the meeting without a satisfactory explanation, the Panel may proceed in their absence, provided the School has given the required notice. These procedures ensure that allegations of academic misconduct are handled fairly and thoroughly, with clear guidelines for evidence review, decision-making, and possible sanctions. They also provide a structured process for dealing with cases involving former students and ensure that any decisions are made with a high level of scrutiny.
Rule Final Decision and Appeal Rights All recommendations will be submitted to the Board of Governors for the final decision. The student will be informed of the Board’s decision. The former student retains the full right of appeal as detailed in these regulations. This ensures that all recommendations are reviewed and decided upon by the Board of Governors, and that the student is kept informed of the final decision. It also guarantees that the former student has access to the appeal process if they wish to challenge the outcome.
Rule Appeal to the President and Further Complaints The student may appeal to the President of the Board of Governors within 10 working days of receiving notification of the decision, based on new evidence, misjudgement, or an excessive penalty. The process will mirror the original appeal process, with the President determining if the appeal meets the criteria, and the panel including at least one academic member not on the original panel. If dissatisfied with the final decision, the student can lodge a complaint with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education. This ensures that the student has a clear path to appeal the decision based on specific grounds and that the appeal process is managed by the President of the Board of Governors. It also provides a further recourse through the Office of the Independent Adjudicator if the student is not satisfied with the internal process's conclusion.

Title

Rule
Investigation of Former Students for Academic Misconduct

The Academic Board may mandate an investigation into a former student's academic misconduct. This decision will be based on the evidence, the seriousness of the case, and the time elapsed since the alleged misconduct.

This rule ensures that serious cases of academic misconduct are addressed, even if the student is no longer currently enrolled, taking into account relevant factors such as evidence and the time passed.

Rule
Investigation and Panel Procedures for Academic Misconduct

The Director of Education will investigate the allegation. If no reasonable evidence is found at this stage, the Academic Board will be notified, and the process will be terminated. If reasonable evidence is identified, an Academic Misconduct Panel will be convened.

The School will notify the former student of:

The allegation against them
The need to attend a meeting to discuss the allegation
The support services available to them

The Panel will include:

The Chair of the Academic Board or their nominee, as Chair
A member of the Student Success Team as Secretary
Two academic staff members who did not and ideally have never taught the student

During the Panel meeting:

Evidence, including the student’s written statement, will be reviewed
Allegations will be presented to the student
The student and any witnesses can address the allegations

The Panel will decide based on a majority vote and communicate the decision to the student in writing as soon as possible. If the vote is tied, the student will be given the benefit of the doubt.

If no reasonable evidence of academic misconduct is found, the process ends, and the allegations are withdrawn. If misconduct is upheld, the Panel will review the student’s past misconduct records and recommend sanctions, considering all evidence and the student's history. Sanctions may include changing marks or revoking awards. Such sanctions must be approved by the Board of Governors with a high standard of proof.

If the former student does not attend the meeting without a satisfactory explanation, the Panel may proceed in their absence, provided the School has given the required notice.

These procedures ensure that allegations of academic misconduct are handled fairly and thoroughly, with clear guidelines for evidence review, decision-making, and possible sanctions. They also provide a structured process for dealing with cases involving former students and ensure that any decisions are made with a high level of scrutiny.

Rule
Final Decision and Appeal Rights

All recommendations will be submitted to the Board of Governors for the final decision. The student will be informed of the Board’s decision. The former student retains the full right of appeal as detailed in these regulations.

This ensures that all recommendations are reviewed and decided upon by the Board of Governors, and that the student is kept informed of the final decision. It also guarantees that the former student has access to the appeal process if they wish to challenge the outcome.

Rule
Appeal to the President and Further Complaints

The student may appeal to the President of the Board of Governors within 10 working days of receiving notification of the decision, based on new evidence, misjudgement, or an excessive penalty. The process will mirror the original appeal process, with the President determining if the appeal meets the criteria, and the panel including at least one academic member not on the original panel. If dissatisfied with the final decision, the student can lodge a complaint with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education.

This ensures that the student has a clear path to appeal the decision based on specific grounds and that the appeal process is managed by the President of the Board of Governors. It also provides a further recourse through the Office of the Independent Adjudicator if the student is not satisfied with the internal process's conclusion.

Metrics and KPIs

The following metrics will be measured and regularly reviewed as key performance indicators for the School to ensure the effectiveness of this policy and associated operations.

Title
Number of Misconduct Incidents Reported Track and aim for a 10% annual decrease in the number of reported academic misconduct incidents, based on previous year figures. A decrease in reported incidents suggests improved awareness and adherence to academic integrity, indicating successful prevention efforts.
Student Awareness of Support Services At least 90% of students should be aware of and have access to support services related to academic integrity and misconduct, as measured by surveys. High awareness of support services ensures that students are informed about available resources, promoting ethical behaviour and providing assistance when needed.
Timeliness of Incident Investigation 90% of reported academic misconduct cases will be investigated and resolved within 15 working days from the date of the initial report. Quick resolution of cases ensures timely and fair adjudication, maintains academic standards, and reduces anxiety and disruption for involved students.
Timeliness of Notification to Involved Parties Notify students and relevant parties of decisions related to academic misconduct within 5 working days of the final decision. Timely notifications ensure that all parties are promptly informed of decisions, reducing uncertainty and allowing for swift action on appeals or compliance.

Title

Number of Misconduct Incidents Reported
Track and aim for a 10% annual decrease in the number of reported academic misconduct incidents, based on previous year figures.
A decrease in reported incidents suggests improved awareness and adherence to academic integrity, indicating successful prevention efforts.

Student Awareness of Support Services
At least 90% of students should be aware of and have access to support services related to academic integrity and misconduct, as measured by surveys.
High awareness of support services ensures that students are informed about available resources, promoting ethical behaviour and providing assistance when needed.

Timeliness of Incident Investigation
90% of reported academic misconduct cases will be investigated and resolved within 15 working days from the date of the initial report.
Quick resolution of cases ensures timely and fair adjudication, maintains academic standards, and reduces anxiety and disruption for involved students.

Timeliness of Notification to Involved Parties
Notify students and relevant parties of decisions related to academic misconduct within 5 working days of the final decision.
Timely notifications ensure that all parties are promptly informed of decisions, reducing uncertainty and allowing for swift action on appeals or compliance.