These Regulations should be read alongside the General Provisions and in conjunction with the Academic Offences Procedure.
1. Introduction
1.1 The University has an obligation to uphold the academic integrity of the degrees, diplomas and certificates it awards.
1.2 It is an academic offence for a student to commit an act whereby they gain or attempt to gain an unfair academic advantage.
1.3 These Regulations apply:
- Where an academic offence is suspected to have been committed within any taught module; and
- Where there is suspected plagiarism or duplication in unpublished work submitted by a postgraduate research student for assessment (via Annual Progress Review or oral examination).
1.4 The appropriate Academic Offences Regulations for students registered or receiving tuition in Collaborative Institutions will be set out in the Memorandum of Agreement between the University and the Collaborative Institution. Any issue of interpretation will be determined by the Director of Academic Services (University) (or nominee) and the Director/Principal of the Collaborative Institution. Their joint decision will be final.
1.5 Allegations of academic offences made against students will be considered by an Academic Offences Officer and / or an Academic Offences Committee.
2. Definitions
2.1 In these Regulations:
-
The Head of School / Centre Director (or nominee) shall be referred to as ‘the Academic Offences Officer’.
- A student against whom an allegation of an academic offence is made, shall be referred to as ‘the Responding Student’.
3. General Principles
3.1 Anonymous Reports
3.1.1 Anonymous reports of concerns regarding alleged academic offences will not normally be considered. However, the University reserves the right to investigate the matter and to take appropriate action under these Regulations.
3.1.2 Any person who submits a concern must accept that any statement and / or evidence presented will be provided to the Responding Student.
3.2 Timescales
3.2.1 From investigation of a concern through to the conclusion of an appeal (not including the period a Responding Student has to submit an appeal), the timeframe should normally take no longer than 90 days.
3.2.2 Additional time may be required for complex cases.
3.3 Responding Student Duty to Engage
3.3.1 The Responding Student must engage with the procedure (including adhering to set timescales, complying with outcomes and attending meetings) at all points in time. Failure to engage may result in the Responding Student being investigated for misconduct under the Conduct Regulations.
3.3.2 If the Responding Student withdraws, is withdrawn or is suspended from the University during proceedings commenced under these Regulations, or if the Responding Student disengages with the Academic Offences Procedure, the University reserves the right to:
-
Continue with the Academic Offences Procedure in accordance with these Regulations. The Responding Student will be permitted to attend the investigation and committee meetings. However, the University also reserves the right to hear an academic offence case in the absence of the Responding Student without further notice, following their withdrawal, non-engagement or suspension. The University also reserves the right to consider allegations of additional academic offence concerns where appropriate; or
- Suspend the Academic Offences Procedure and, in the event that the Responding Student subsequently applies to the University for re-admission, or returns to their programme of study following suspension or withdrawal, to recommence the Academic Offences Procedure in accordance with these Regulations.
3.3.3 If, during the course of proceedings under these Regulations, the Responding Student is deemed unfit to engage with the Procedure, the University will normally suspend the Academic Offences Procedure until such time as the Responding Student is deemed fit.
3.3.4 Students deemed unfit to engage in the Academic Offences Procedure will also be deemed unfit to study and will be required to take a period of temporary withdrawal until such time as they are deemed fit to return (see 1.20 of the Regulations for Students). The University recognises that there may be cases where a student is deemed unfit to study but wishes to progress with proceedings under the Academic Offences Regulations, as unresolved or prolonged proceedings may have a greater impact on wellbeing. Decisions as to whether to progress proceedings under the Academic Offences Regulations in such circumstances will be made on a case-by-case basis, and may include a referral to the Occupational Health Service to help inform the University’s decision.
4. Interim Measures
Where deemed appropriate, the University may impose interim measures in accordance with the Interim Measures Regulations.
5. Definitions of Academic Offences
5.1 An academic offence is any action that compromises the integrity of academic work or assessment including, but not limited to, the following:
5.1.1 Cheating
The term ‘cheating’ normally describes behaviour that takes place in an examination, class test or laboratory test. It is considered cheating for a student to:
-
Have any form of notes, or any items texts other than those that are specifically permitted for that examination, at their desk, or on their person, in an examination / test environment. It is the student’s responsibility to establish what the permitted items are for each examination.
-
Make use or attempt to make use of unauthorised items as described above and/or any form of technology, including mobile telephones, smart phones, earpieces (except for authorised hearing aids), cameras or other devices.
-
Copy or attempt to copy from another student’s examination/test script.
-
Obtain or attempt to obtain assistance from another student or from any other person which leads to an unfair advantage.
-
Provide or attempt to provide unfair assistance to another student. This includes permitting another student to copy from their examination script.
-
Impersonate another student, or to allow themselves to be impersonated during an assessment.
5.1.2 Plagiarism: The use or reproduction of another person's work without appropriate acknowledgment, thereby passing it off or presenting it as one's own.
5.1.3 Collusion: Where two or more students work together on an assignment that is meant to be completed individually. It is expected that the work being assessed, unless specifically designated as a group assessment, shall be the work solely of the student submitting it.
5.1.4 Duplication: Using or re-using significant or identical, or nearly identical portion(s) of their own work where such work has been previously submitted for credit within the University or at another institution. This may also be described as self-plagiarism, unless this has been explicitly permitted within the guidelines for the assessment.
5.1.5 Copying or Permitting Copying: Copying another student’s work or permitting another student to copy their work submitted for assessment. Both parties will be dealt with in accordance with these Regulations.
5.1.6 Contract cheating: Purchasing, attempting to purchase, or providing any other inducement, to procure assessed work created by another person which the student then submits as their own work. It is also an offence for a student to supply their own work to a third party, regardless of whether they receive a financial payment or obtain any other gain or advantage.
5.1.7 Improper use of Artificial Intelligence (AI): Unauthorised or unacknowledged inclusion of content, including text and images, generated by artificial intelligence tools or other knowledge-based systems to create the response to an assessment submitted as a student’s own work, contrary to the University’s guidance on responsible use, integrity and AI best practice.
5.1.8 Fabrication: Where a student claims to have carried out experiments, interviews or any form of research which they have not in fact carried out, or where they invent or falsify data, evidence or experimental results. It is also an academic offence for a student to knowingly make use of falsified data as described above.
5.1.9 Research Misconduct:The University defines research misconduct as behaviour by any student in the conduct of research, whether intentional or not, that falls short of acceptable academic standards. Misconduct in research covers inappropriate behaviour as well as misconduct in the course of research. Misconduct includes, but is not limited to:
-
Plagiarism
-
Duplication
-
Collusion
-
Fabrication
-
Falsification
-
Misrepresentation of data and/or interests and/or involvement
- Breach of legislation
- Failure to follow accepted procedure or to exercise due care in carrying out responsibilities for avoiding unreasonable risk or harm to:
a. humans
b. animals used in research
c. the environment
ix. The improper handling of privileged or private information or individuals collected during the research
x. Failure to ensure the appropriate ethical approval has been granted prior to commencing research
xi. Contract cheating.
Honest error (which is not due to negligence), or differences of interpretation, are not included as misconduct in research. However, poor research practice may be considered misconduct, particularly where individual negligence results in harm or potential harm to research collaborators, participants or animals.
5.2 Poor academic practice refers to minor, unintentional or otherwise, breaches of academic integrity (e.g., incorrect citation, omitting quotation marks) that may result from misunderstanding or lack of academic skills. These can be addressed through educational interventions without penalties and are not considered to be academic offences.
6. Scope of the Procedure: Standard and Serious Academic Offences
6.1 The following academic offences shall be designated as Serious Academic Offences, and will normally be considered by an Academic Offences Committee:
- Any incidents of research misconduct by an undergraduate or postgraduate taught student.
- Any incidents of plagiarism or duplication in unpublished work submitted by a postgraduate research student for assessment (via Annual Progress Review or oral examination).
- Any repeat or multiple offences (not including findings of poor academic practice).
- Any incident of cheating in an examination / test environment.
- Contract cheating.
- Fabrication.
- Any other academic offence where:
a. the extent of the impact of the alleged academic offence upon the assessment as a whole is significant. ‘Significant’ refers to the extent to which the alleged academic offence affects the overall assessment. If the impact is considered ‘significant’, it means that the alleged offence, if proven, has a substantial or considerable effect on the assessment’s integrity, fairness or outcome. The alleged offence is not minor or negligible but rather has a meaningful influence on the assessment as a whole; or
b. there is clear evidence of behaviour which was designed to mislead or deceive those setting, administering and marking the assessment.
6.2 All other academic offences will be designated as Standard Academic Offences.
7. Preliminary Consideration
7.1 When considered appropriate, the matter may be dealt with at Preliminary Consideration stage.
7.2 Upon completion of the preliminary consideration, the appointed member of staff will make one of the following decisions:
- That there is no evidence of poor academic practice, or of an academic offence; or
- That there is evidence of poor academic practice but not of an academic offence and that:
a. the student will be signposted to advice, guidance and additional learning resources; or
b. the student will be required to undertake the Transition Skills for University module, available on Canvas or appropriate equivalent School or University course. Students who fail to attend or engage with this requirement will not be contacted further and lack of engagement will be taken into consideration in the event of further allegations of academic misconduct; or
c. the original mark for the work demonstrating poor academic practice will stand, but the student is required to submit a new assessment task to evidence their understanding of academic integrity principles. Students who fail to engage with this requirement will not be contacted further, and lack of engagement will be taken into consideration in the event of further allegations of academic misconduct; or
iii. That on the basis of the evidence available an academic offence is suspected to have been committed, and the matter should be referred to an Investigating Officer for investigation.
7.3 There is no right of appeal against the decision to refer the matter for investigation, or against a finding of poor academic practice.
8. Investigation and Remit of the Academic Offences Officer
8.1 The Investigating Officer will investigate the alleged academic misconduct and will present their findings to the Academic Offences Officer.
8.2 The findings of the Investigating Officer shall address the following:
8.2.1 Criteria for Consideration
- The level of study and educational background of the Responding Student and how this may have informed their understanding of academic integrity.
- Whether the Responding Student has already received or been offered additional support and guidance due to previous academic offences or instances of poor academic practice under these Regulations.
- The nature, extent and significance of the academic offence in the piece of work.
- The extent to which key ideas that are central to the assessment appear not to be the Responding Student’s own work.
- The perceived intent to deceive the examiners / markers, and the benefit to the Responding Student of the academic offence. It is not necessary to prove intention to commit an academic offence, and all cases will be considered in line with these Regulations, regardless of whether the academic offence was intentional.
- The Responding Student’s level of engagement with and honesty throughout the Procedure.
- The impact of a penalty on the Responding Student’s progress or award.
- Any steps taken proactively by the Responding Student to address the issue(s) giving rise to the academic offence (e.g. engagement with Learning Development Service / Graduate School in relation to academic writing).
8.2.3 Intent
8.2.3.1 Intent to gain an academic advantage by deception is a significant factor in determining the level of penalty or other action to be taken. To make a determination on the level of intent, the following may be considered:
- Student Statements: Any oral or written statements from the student that provide insight into their awareness and intentions at the time of the incident.
- Previous warnings or penalties: Where the student has previously been signposted to additional resources or required to undertake a study skills session under the Preliminary Consideration stage of these Regulations; or received a penalty for an academic offence, indicating awareness of the rules.
- Efforts to Mislead: Any deliberate attempts to alter the original source material, such as evidence of falsification (e.g., fabricated data or content).
- Possession of Unauthorised Materials: Instances such as possession of pre-prepared materials during an examination, which will create a presumption of intent unless countered by credible evidence.
- Premeditated Actions: Evidence of planned misconduct, such as the use of hidden notes, commissioning work from others, or systematic efforts to cheat.
- Evidence from Drafts: Review of earlier drafts or stages of the work to identify potential patterns of deliberate deception or to evidence a student’s progress in the work.
8.4 Standard Academic Offences:
8.4.1 The Academic Offences Officer will make one of the following decisions:
- That on the balance of probabilities, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that an academic offence has been committed, and no further action should be taken; or
- That on the balance of probabilities, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that an academic offence has been committed; however, there is evidence of poor academic practice. The Academic Offences Officer may apply one or more of the outcomes under section 7 (Preliminary Consideration); or
- That on the balance of probabilities there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a Standard Academic Offence has been committed, and a penalty will be applied in accordance with section 10.2; or
- That on the balance of probabilities there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a Standard Academic Offence has been committed; however, a penalty beyond those set out at section 10.2 is warranted. Therefore, the case is to be referred to the Academic Offences Committee.
8.5 Serious Academic Offences:
8.5.1 The Academic Offences Officer will make one of the following decisions in consultation with a member of a Board of Examiners / School Postgraduate Research Committee as appropriate, (who may be from the same or a different School):
- That on the balance of probabilities there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that an academic offence has been committed, and no further action should be taken; or
- That on the balance of probabilities there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that an academic offence has been committed; however, there is evidence of poor academic practice. One or more of the outcomes under section 7 (Preliminary Consideration) may be applied; or
- That on the balance of probabilities there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a Serious Academic Offence has been committed. However, taking into consideration the Criteria for Consideration at 8.2.1 there are mitigating circumstances and therefore a penalty within those set out at section 10.2 will be applied; or
- That on the balance of probabilities there is sufficient evidence of a Serious Academic Offence to warrant consideration by an Academic Offences Committee, and to refer the case to the Academic Offences Committee for consideration and imposition of a penalty (if appropriate), in accordance with section 10.3.
8.6 Where a decision is made under 8.4.1(iii), 8.4.1(iv), 8.5.1(iii) or 8.5.1(iv) and the Responding Student is subject to the Fitness to Practise Regulations, the School will consider whether those Regulations should be invoked.
8.7 Where a decision is made under 8.4.1(iii), 8.4.1(iv), 8.5.1(iii) or 8.5.1(iv), the Academic Offences Officer may determine that the Responding Student’s previous work, for which marks have already been awarded, and credit has been accumulated, is to be investigated under the Academic Offences Regulations. There is no appeal against such a determination.
9. Academic Offences Committee
9.1 When the Academic Offences Officer refers a case to the Academic Offences Committee, the Academic Offences Committee will hear the case and will decide either:
- That on the balance of probabilities, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that an academic offence has been committed and dismiss the offence; or
- That on the balance of probabilities there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that an academic offence(s) has been committed; however, there is evidence of poor academic practice. One or more of the outcomes under section 7 (Preliminary Consideration) may be applied; or
- That on the balance of probabilities, there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that an academic offence has been committed. A penalty will be imposed in accordance with section 10.3.
9.1.2 Where a decision is made under 9.1.1(iii), and the student is subject to the Fitness to Practise Regulations, the School will consider whether those Regulations should be invoked.
9.1.3 Where a decision is made under 9.1.1(iii), the Academic Offences Committee may refer the matter for consideration under the Conduct Regulations. There is no right of appeal against such a referral.
9.1.4 The Academic Offences Committee may recommend that the Responding Student’s previous work, for which marks have already been awarded, and credit already accumulated, is to be investigated under these Regulations. There is no appeal against such a recommendation.
9.2. Appeals to Academic Offences Committee Against the Decision of the Academic Offences Officer
9.2.1 Grounds of Appeal
9.2.1.1 Where an Academic Offences Officer makes a decision under regulations 8.4.1 (iii) or 8.5.1(iii), the Responding Student may appeal to the Academic Offences Committee. Appeals may be made on one or both of the following grounds:
- Substantial and relevant new evidence has become available which the Responding Student could not reasonably have obtained in time to present for consideration by the Academic Offences Officer, which has had a material effect on the outcome, making it unsound.
- There was a procedural irregularity in the conduct of the investigation and/or in the decision of the Academic Offences Officer which has had a clear and demonstrable impact on the outcome.
9.2.1.2 Dissatisfaction with the decision of the Academic Offences Officer does not itself constitute grounds of appeal.
9.2.1.3 There is no right of appeal against the decision of the Academic Offences Officer to refer the case to an Academic Offences Committee, or against a finding of poor academic practice.
9.2.2 Sifting and Review
9.2.2.1 The onus is on the Responding Student to present sufficient evidence and /or a sufficiently compelling case to warrant consideration of their appeal under these Regulations.
9.2.2.3 Where it is not clear that the evidence presented is sufficient or that the case is sufficiently compelling, the appeal against the decision of the Academic Offences Officer will be considered by a Sifting Panel (and Review Panel, if required).
9.2.2.4 The Sifting Panel will decide either:
- That the Responding Student has presented sufficient evidence or a sufficiently compelling case to warrant consideration of the appeal; or
-
That the Responding Student has not presented sufficient evidence or a sufficiently compelling case to warrant consideration of the appeal; for example*, where a Responding Student
a. does not cite a ground of appeal
b. clearly does not demonstrate grounds
c. fails to submit necessary supporting documentation (e.g. medical evidence) before the AOC deadline
d. requests an outcome which is not within the remit of the AOC to grant.
*The list is not exhaustive.
9.2.2.5 Where the Sifting Panel makes a decision under regulation 9.2.2.4(ii), the appeal will be reviewed by the Review Panel who will decide either:
- To agree with the decision of the Sifting Panel; or
-
To overturn the decision of the Sifting Panel.
9.2.2.6 The decision is made on the basis of the evidence presented at the time, where only the opinion of the Sifting Panel (and Review Panel, if required) will suffice.
9.2.3 Decision of the Academic Offences Committee on Appeal
9.2.3.1 The Academic Offences Committee will decide either:
- To uphold the appeal in full or in part, and will either rescind the penalty imposed by the Academic Offences Officer in full or in part, or impose a different (lesser or equivalent) penalty (as permitted under regulation 10); or
- To dismiss the appeal and confirm the penalty imposed by the Academic Offences Officer.
9.2.3.2 Where the Academic Offences Committee makes a decision in accordance with regulation 9.2.3.1(ii) this decision is final and there is no further internal right of appeal. However, a Responding Student may make a complaint about maladministration in the procedure to the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman within six months of notification of the final decision.
10. Penalties for Academic Offences
10.1 At all stages, the Criteria for Consideration at section 8.2 will be considered when deciding the level of penalty to be imposed or other action to be taken.
10.2 Penalties available to the Academic Offences Officer:
10.2.1 In addition to the outcomes available under Preliminary Consideration, the Academic Offences Officer may apply the following penalties:
- Taught students: Award a mark of zero for the relevant component(s) of the module(s).
- PGT Dissertation / Project only: Award a mark of zero for the module. Require the student to resubmit the original work on the basis of minor revisions addressing the identified issues within a specified timescale (typically no longer than two weeks). This resubmission will be treated as a second attempt. The maximum mark will be the pass mark. Resubmission will only be permitted in line with study regulations (including programme specific regulations which outline the limit on the number of attempts permitted).
- Research students: For the written submission for the Annual Progress Review or oral examination, require the student to resubmit the written submission or research degree submission addressing the identified issues within a specified timescale. Guidance must be given regarding the scope and nature of the required changes.
- Taught and Research students: refer the matter to the Academic Offences Committee.
10.3 Penalties available to the Academic Offences Committee:
10.3.1 In addition to the penalties outlined at 10.2, the Academic Offences Committee may impose the following penalties:
- Taught students: Award a mark of zero for the relevant module(s).
- Research students: For the research degree submission for students enrolled on a Doctoral programme, recommend that a submission for the appropriate Master’s degree examination be made (MPhil or as specified in appropriate programme specifications). Guidance must be given regarding any requirements for examination and/or resubmission;
- Research students: For Annual Progress Review, to fail the progress review with no right to resubmit. Where applicable, the student may be offered the opportunity to transfer onto the appropriate Master’s degree programme (MPhil, or as specified in appropriate programme specifications).
- Taught and Research students: Suspend the student;
- Taught and Research students: Expel the student from the University.
11. Appeals to an Academic Offences Appeals Committee Against the Decision of the Academic Offences Committee
11.1 Grounds of Appeal
11.1.1. Responding Students who have a penalty imposed by an Academic Offences Committee may appeal to the Academic Offences Appeals Committee. Appeals may be made on one or both of the following grounds:
- Substantial and relevant new evidence has become available which the Responding Student could not have reasonably obtained in time to present for consideration by the Academic Offences Committee, which has had a material effect on the outcome, making it unsound.
- There is evidence of a procedural irregularity in the conduct of the investigation and/or the conduct of the Academic Offences Committee proceedings, which has had a clear and demonstrable impact on the decision.
11.1.2 Dissatisfaction with the decision of the Academic Offences Committee does not itself constitute grounds of appeal.
11.1.3 There is no right of appeal against a finding of poor academic practice.
11.2 Sifting and Review
11.2.1 The onus is on the Responding Student to present sufficient evidence and /or a sufficiently compelling case to warrant consideration of their appeal under these Regulations.
11.2.2 Where it is not clear that the evidence presented is sufficient or that the case is sufficiently compelling, the appeal against the decision of the Academic Offences Committee will be considered in accordance with Regulation 9.2.2.
11.2.3 The decision is made on the basis of the evidence presented at the time, where only the opinion of the Sifting Panel (and Review Panel, if required) will suffice.
11.3 Study Pending Appeal
11.3.1 With the exception of relevant interim measures, Responding Students who submit an appeal against a decision to suspend or withdraw them from the University, may normally continue to attend their programme of study pending the outcome of the appeal.
11.3.2 Where circumstances merit it, the Head of School may refuse permission for the Responding Student to attend classes and/or take or submit assessments pending the appeal.
11.3.3 Students who have submitted an appeal against a decision to suspend or withdraw them from the University may not participate in external or clinical placements pending the outcome of an appeal.
11.4 Decision of the Academic Offences Appeals Committee
11.4.1 The Academic Offences Appeals Committee will decide either:
- To uphold the appeal in full or in part, and either rescind the penalty imposed by the Academic Offences Committee, or impose a different penalty, which shall not be more severe than the penalty given by the Academic Offences Committee (as permitted under regulation 10); or
- To dismiss the appeal and confirm the penalty imposed by the Academic Offences Committee.
11.4.2 The decision of the Academic Offences Appeals Committee shall be final and there is no further internal right of appeal. However, a Responding Student may make a complaint about maladministration in the procedure to the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman within six months of notification of the final decision.
12. Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman
12.1 Upon notification of the University’s final internal decision, a Responding Student may submit a complaint about maladministration in the procedure to the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman within six months of notification of the University’s final decision.
13. Further Information
13.1 Advice on these regulations may be obtained from the Appeals, Conduct and Complaints Team (email: appeals@qub.ac.uk).