Academic Integrity and Academic Misconduct Policy and Procedure
|
Version: |
1.0 |
|
Policy Owner: |
NCA Registrar |
|
Effective from: |
1st September 2026 |
1.Scope and Purpose
1.1. The College is committed to academic integrity. In the interests of ensuring the maintenance of academic and professional standards the College will ensure that all suspected cases of academic misconduct are taken seriously and investigated thoroughly in line with this policy. We are committed to developing high standards of academic and professional practice among our students and to safeguarding the standards of our academic awards. We expect our students to act with professionalism, and this includes acting with, and promoting, honesty and academic integrity.
1.2. This document sets out the College’s principles relating to academic integrity and good academic practice, defines academic misconduct, and outlines arrangements the College applies to the process of suspected and actual academic misconduct, including the penalties which may be applied. It applies to all current students enrolled on our courses.
1.3. All students are subject to the College’s standard policy and procedures in relation to academic assessment/progress and conduct, in addition to Fitness to Practise procedures. Students who have been found to have committed academic misconduct or to have broken conduct rules, which may have implications in respect of fitness to practise, will be referred for consideration under the Fitness to Practise Policy.
1.4. The College is committed to the fair and equal treatment of all individuals regardless of gender, age, disability, colour, race, ethnic or national origin, socio-economic group, sexual orientation, marital status, family responsibilities, religious or political beliefs.
1.5. Where a student or staff member working with this policy has specific protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, all endeavours will be made to ensure that information is available in appropriate formats and reasonable adjustments are made to the proceedings and facilities to accommodate their needs. If students or staff require this document in a different format or require any other adjustments to be made in connection with any investigation under this policy, they should contact the Student Support team.
1.6. The Academic Integrity and Academic Misconduct Policy and Procedure is an internal procedure and is not a legal process. The College does not normally use legal professionals in the handling of cases, and therefore it is not expected that students would be required to do so either. As such the engagement of legal professionals by students in relation to academic misconduct is normally not permitted, and would be allowed only in exceptional circumstances, in discussion with the Registrar and the Course Lead.
1.7. Where academic misconduct is being investigated, the Assessment Board should not come to a decision on the student’s result until the academic misconduct procedures, and any subsequent investigations and actions, have been completed.
1.8. The standard of proof will normally be based on the balance of probability that in light of the evidence presented it is more likely than not that academic misconduct did take place.
2. Use of Turnitin
2.1. To promote good academic practice, prevent plagiarism, and protect the intellectual property of both the College and its students, written coursework is normally submitted through Turnitin, via the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE).
2.2. Identifying academic misconduct is a matter of academic judgement, based on appropriate evidence, of which an AI detection tool report may form a part. AI detection tools are not a substitute for promoting good academic practice, and the % similarity or AI score is not regarded as an absolute identifier of academic misconduct.
3. Key Responsibilities and delegated authority
3.1. Responsibility for the management and implementation of this policy lies with the Registrar. Where this policy and procedure refers to the ‘Student Support team’ this is under the management of the Registrar. Where this policy and procedure refers specifically to the role of the Registrar, this responsibility may be delegated to an appointed deputy if the Registrar is unavailable.
3.2. All staff and students, as part of the College community, are responsible for working with academic integrity and avoiding academic misconduct, to maintain the academic standards of our awards and the quality of the education and student experience we provide.
3.3. The College will ensure that at appropriate points in their studies (for example, at induction) students are provided with opportunities to develop their understanding of academic integrity and how to avoid academic misconduct, The College will additionally ensure that mechanisms are in place to detect and thereby discourage, academic misconduct (for example by using Turnitin as a submission tool).
3.4. Students are responsible for:
- understanding and achieving academic integrity and good academic practice.
- familiarising themselves with this Policy and acting in accordance with it; In the event of an allegation of misconduct, ignorance of the requirements of the policy will not be accepted as an excuse for misconduct or a justification for mitigation of penalties.
- seeking further advice or assistance if they have any doubts as to what they need to do to work within the principles and practices of academic integrity and avoid academic misconduct
- making sure they keep their work secure and take measures to ensure their work is always protected. Failure to secure work, thus providing opportunities for another student to gain access to it, resulting in it being used (even if this is without their explicit consent), may be regarded as academic misconduct.
3.5. Students are responsible for their own work and academic conduct, respecting the rights of other scholars (which includes appropriate acknowledgement and referencing, thereby avoiding plagiarism), following applicable professional and ethical conventions and requirements, supporting other students in their efforts to behave with academic integrity, and avoiding actions which seek to give them an unfair academic advantage over others.
3.6. Students who fail to follow these principles are being dishonest not only to those who later see their results, to those who mark their work, and to their peers who have worked hard to obtain their results without deception, but also to themselves, as they are not presenting a true reflection of their knowledge and abilities. Maintaining fair and honest conduct is an essential requirement of the system for assessing student learning.
3.7. If students are aware that other students have submitted work that is not genuine, they should report this via . Anonymous allegations cannot be accepted. Students who do make reports will be treated in the utmost confidence and will only be asked to assist in the College's investigations by providing information where required i.e. the reporting student’s identity would be undisclosed unless the reporting student agreed otherwise. Students will not be penalised for bringing such matters to the College’s attention, unless this is done with malicious intentions.
3.8. Module Leaders are responsible for reminding students about the principles of academic integrity and the need to avoid academic misconduct when providing them with information about forthcoming assessments, and for highlighting to them the learning opportunities available relating to improving academic practice.
3.9. Markers/assessors (for coursework or practical assessments) are responsible for identifying potential cases of academic misconduct, ensuring these are taken seriously and reporting these for investigation in line with the requirements of this policy.
3.10. Exam invigilators are responsible for ensuring that breaches of examination rules are identified and reported appropriately for action in accordance with the Examination Rules (Appendix 2). In any such breaches, the invigilator or another member of staff shall inform the candidate, preferably in the presence of a witness, that the circumstances will be reported. The candidate may continue that examination, and any subsequent examination(s), without prejudice to any decision that may subsequently be taken. Failure to give such a warning shall not prejudice subsequent proceedings. Where appropriate, the invigilator or other member of staff shall confiscate and retain evidence relating to any alleged unfair examination practice, so that it is available to any subsequent investigation. The invigilator or other member of staff shall as soon as possible report the circumstances in writing to the Chair of the relevant Assessment Board and to the Superintendent of Examinations.
3.11. Academic misconduct is investigated and recorded by the Academic Misconduct Panel (AMP) (see below).
3.12. The relevant Assessment Board confirms the outcome of the investigation and uses it in its determination of the student’s results in accordance with the Assessment Regulations.
3.13. Under this policy and associated procedures, any College officeholder may act through their appointed nominee.
4. Academic Misconduct
4.1. The College has adopted as its definition of academic misconduct that which is suggested by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (Office of the Independent Adjudicator, Good Practice Framework: Disciplinary procedures) (https://www.oiahe.org.uk/media/2045/good-practice-framework-disciplinary-procedures-section.pdf, Section 34).
“Any action by a student which gives or has the potential to give an unfair advantage in an examination or assessment, or might assist someone else to gain an unfair advantage, or any activity likely to undermine the integrity essential to scholarship and research.”
The above definition includes assessment of practice, and assessment in practice.
4.2. A non-exhaustive list of examples of behaviours or actions which may constitute academic misconduct is available as Appendix 1. This includes misconduct during time-constrained assessments eg examinations and practical assessments, as specified in the Examination Rules (Appendix 2).
4.3. It is misconduct to assist another student to do any of these things.
4.4. All academic misconduct is serious and will be treated accordingly. However, where misconduct is found to be intentional, repeated, or compounded by deception, or otherwise aggravated, a more stringent penalty will be imposed.
Poor academic practice
4.5. Poor academic practice can be defined as a lack of knowledge, understanding and practice of the skills of good academic writing.
4.6. Such poor practice is more likely when students are in the early part of their studies or without recent experience of higher education in the UK.
4.7. Poor academic practice might encompass, for example:
- Work expressing ideas or concepts taken from the work of others in the student’s own words but without appropriate citation.
- Work which is referenced in the reference list but is not properly cited in the text.
- Work that has been subjected to unacknowledged minor changes of wording, with or without citation.
- Work that is quoted verbatim but not in quotation marks or a clearly indented paragraph.
- Limited collaboration between students as evidenced by structure, source or copied text; this includes cases where the written work is original throughout.
- Inappropriate, limited use of generative AI when this is a first offence, early in the course.
- Academic failings of this kind should be addressed, and appropriately penalised, through the application of assessment criteria. Written feedback should indicate clearly the shortcomings and ways in which the student should address them.
4.8. Advice about academic writing and study skills is available to students:
- Via one-to-one or group tutorials available through the Library;
- through specialist study skills assistance available from Student Services and online.
5. Academic misconduct procedure
5.1. All direct contact with a student under suspicion of academic misconduct shall be formal, and any face-to-face discussion with the student will be either recorded (if online or by email) or include more than one member of staff (where in person). Written records shall be kept of the key points and conclusions of any such meetings. Copies of all correspondence and other relevant documentation for a proven case of academic misconduct must be kept on the student’s record. The mark and the work should not be released to the student until the suspected academic misconduct has been investigated and this procedure completed. In some cases, this may entail not entering the student for an Assessment Board; where an Assessment Boad is imminent, the College will make every effort to expedite the investigation process and any necessary Academic Misconduct Panel (AMP).
Course-level investigation
5.2. Where academic misconduct is suspected, the person identifying this and the Course Lead shall meet to consider the case promptly. If the Course Lead was responsible for identifying the alleged misconduct, they should nominate an appropriate senior member of academic staff from within the course to take part in the investigation. The Course Lead or their nominated deputy will then report the suspected academic misconduct to the Chair of the Assessment Board.
5.3. Suspected academic misconduct may have become known through a variety of means. Where the suspected misconduct relates to plagiarism or inappropriate AI use, the evidence presented should never be solely based on an originality or AI detection report.
5.4. When suspected academic misconduct is reported to the Chair of the Assessment Board, the Chair shall first decide whether there is a prima facie case for treating the matter as a case of academic misconduct. If the Chair considers that a prima facie case has been established, an authorship investigation meeting or an Academic Misconduct Panel may be convened, as relevant to the nature of the academic misconduct.
5.5. The Course Lead will assemble necessary evidence to determine whether there is a prima facie case of academic misconduct. Evidence considered by the Chair of the Assessment Board should be as comprehensive as possible.
5.6. Where academic misconduct is alleged or suspected, a student may not use, as a defence, the failure of any member of academic staff to detect academic misconduct at an earlier point in time in their studies.
Authorship investigation meeting
5.7. The College may use authorship investigation meetings as part of its processes for detecting and investigating some types of academic misconduct. In some cases, where oral or viva examinations are already a part of summative assessment methods, the viva itself may function as an authorship investigation meeting and a further authorship investigation meeting may be deemed unnecessary.
5.8. In cases where it is difficult to document the evidence of academic misconduct (such as when a student is suspected of not having produced the work themselves – for example, suspicions of inappropriate AI use or collusion), the Course Lead may convene an authorship investigation meeting to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of academic misconduct to proceed with the allegation.
5.9. For the avoidance of doubt, authorship investigation meetings must only be used in the circumstances set out in para 5.8 above and when preceded by the establishment of a prima facie case. The purpose of an authorship investigation meeting is not to investigate students randomly to check that their work is their own.
5.10. The purpose of the authorship investigation meeting is to test the student’s knowledge of the work they have submitted and provide them with the opportunity to demonstrate that the work they have submitted is their own. The student should be encouraged to bring with them any evidence that will help them demonstrate that the work is their own, such as notes, drafts, AI logs, etc.
5.11. The authorship investigation meeting will be conducted by the Course Lead and a marker or moderator of the work in question (the authorship investigation panel). If a marker/moderator or other member of staff cannot be present, the authorship investigation meeting will be recorded so it can be viewed later by the remainder of the panel.
5.12. The student may be accompanied by a friend or representative; this is normally another enrolled student of the College. Students are encouraged to make use of this provision. The friend or representative may not however respond to questions on behalf of the student, unless this has specifically been agreed in advance as a reasonable adjustment.
5.13. Students should be given at least three calendar days’ notice of the requirement to attend, and should be provided with a specific date, time and location. Authorship investigation meetings may take place in person or online.
5.14. If the student declines or does not attend an authorship investigation meeting without providing exceptional reasons with supporting evidence, the Course Lead will offer a second date for the meeting. In the case of repeated decline or non-attendance, this will constitute inability to determine authorship, and the suspected offence will progress to an Academic Misconduct Panel (AMP).
5.15. In the authorship investigation meeting, the Course Lead will act as Chair, confirm the purpose of the meeting and invite those present to introduce themselves. Questions can be posed by either the Course Lead or the marker/moderator.
5.16. The questions used in the authorship investigation meeting should encourage the student to offer helpful clarification and elaboration of their work, to demonstrate understanding and authorship. This is a matter of academic judgement and the questions asked will reflect the nature of the subject, and the assessment. The student should be given the opportunity to demonstrate that the work is their own, including the opportunity to present any evidence which they have brought with them.
5.17. The Course Lead will be responsible for preparing a report on the authorship investigation meeting recording their conclusions on the student’s knowledge of the work which they have submitted and the reasons for this assessment, based on their academic judgement, using the authorship investigation report template.
5.18. The report from the authorship investigation meeting should be presented to the Chair of the Assessment Board or the Student Support team, as appropriate, normally within five working days of the date of the authorship investigation meeting.
Outcomes of authorship investigation meetings
5.19. Authorship investigation meetings may find:
|
Outcome |
Action |
|
(a) There is no case to answer |
Course Lead: All documentation relating to the case must be destroyed within 5 working days. Notes relating to the alleged misconduct must not be produced. The Course Lead should advise the Student Support team that there has been an investigation with a ‘no case to answer’ outcome. Student Support team: In order to maintain an audit trail, the Student Support team will retain a record of the number of ‘no cases to answer’ in each academic year (course, student level, type of misconduct and what part of the process the alleged misconduct reached i.e. authorship investigation or Academic Misconduct Panel (AMP)). Specific student details will not be included. Course Lead/Module Leader: The student’s work should be marked as normal. Course Lead: Inform the student of the outcome and that no further action will be taken. |
|
(b) There is no case to answer but the student may have made small mistakes in their work |
Course Lead: The student should be informed of this in writing and be invited to discuss this with an appropriate member of academic staff at the earliest possible opportunity. The student should be given appropriate advice as to how to prevent a recurrence of these mistakes. A note that this has occurred should be given to the student within 5 working days of the meeting and a copy provided to the Course Administrator for the student record, and to the Student Support team for the audit trail. In such cases, no specific penalty will be applied. The overall mark awarded will consider normal assessment criteria. Student Support team: In order to maintain an audit trail, the Student Support team will retain a record of the number of ‘no cases to answer’ in each academic year (course, student level, type of misconduct and what part of the process the alleged misconduct reached i.e. authorship investigation or AMP). Specific student details will not be included. |
|
(c) There is evidence to demonstrate that a first offence of academic misconduct of a minor nature has occurred, for instance:
|
The authorship investigation panel may impose a penalty as follows:
Course Lead: will advise the Student Support team of the outcome within 5 working days. Student Support team: will inform the student of the outcome of the investigation by email within 5 working days. The student will be advised in this letter that if they wish to dispute the penalty, they have the right to request that the case be referred to the AMP for consideration. The student: should reply to the Student Support team email to confirm that they understand the decision and either: accept the penalty applied, or request that the case be referred to the AMP for consideration. The Student Support team: will then either issue the penalty or arrange for the AMP to be convened. Course Lead: For any penalty lower than withdrawal, the authorship investigation panel is encouraged to incorporate an educational element relating to academic integrity – for example asking the student to write a reflective piece of work on academic integrity to demonstrate their learning. Alternatively, the student may be required to either work through a specified course of study or to engage with study skills support. |
|
(d) There is evidence to indicate that academic misconduct of a more extensive or serious nature, or that is a second or more offence, may have occurred. |
Course Lead: Where the authorship investigation concludes that there is evidence to indicate that academic misconduct of a more serious or extensive nature, or that is a second or more offence may have occurred, the Course Lead should forward the outcome of the authorship investigation meeting to the Student Support team within 5 working days. The Student Support team: The student will be informed of this in writing by the student support team within 5 working days, and the matter submitted to the AMP for consideration. The outcome of the authorship investigation will form part of the evidence to be submitted for consideration by the AMP. |
5.20. Students who have been found to have committed academic misconduct, and a formal written warning issued, will be referred for consideration under the Fitness to Practise Policy. Where the authorship investigation panel considers that misconduct does not warrant a formal written warning but nonetheless has implications on the student’s fitness to practise, the matter can also be referred to the fitness to practise process.
Academic Misconduct Panel (AMP)
5.21. The Academic Misconduct Panel (AMP) will be convened by the Student Support team. Normally a Panel will be convened within 20 working days of the outcome of the establishment of a prima facie case or an authorship investigation and the student will be given a minimum of 10 working days’ notice before the meeting of the Panel except where the student has agreed in writing that shorter notice is acceptable.
5.22. The AMP will normally consist of:
- The Chair of the Assessment Board (Chair);
- an independent senior member of the academic staff of the College not involved in the initial investigation of the case;
- A member of the Student Support team.
5.23. The Registrar (or appointed nominee) will act as Secretary but is not a decision-making member of the Panel.
5.24. The role of the Student Support team is to act as a full member of the panel in determining the matter under consideration and not to act as an advocate for the student suspected of the academic misconduct.
5.25. Where the Chair of the Panel and/or the Secretary consider that the Panel would benefit from input from an expert to deal with a question of fact or special difficulty (for example in relation to academic misconduct in a research dissertation), such an expert may provide a written report in advance of the panel and, where appropriate, may be invited to the panel to provide expert evidence and advice to the panel. Such expertise may be sought from inside or outside the College, as most appropriate.
5.26. In the event of an allegation which the Registrar, in consultation with the Chair and the relevant Course Lead considers to be serious, the Panel may include a representative from the validating partner university.
5.27. The student will be informed in writing of the nature of the allegations and be provided with the evidence to be considered at least 5 working days before the meeting of the Panel. The student will also be advised of the names of the Panel members and will be asked to indicate if they have any legitimate concerns that any member of the Panel might not be impartial towards them, providing supporting evidence. Should the Registrar accept that the student’s concerns are legitimate, the Panel member(s) will be replaced. This may require the Panel to be re-scheduled.
5.28. The student will be given an opportunity to provide a written explanation, and this will be provided to the Panel.
5.29. The student should be encouraged to be open and honest and should be informed that the formal procedure will be reduced in length and complexity if the facts are known and agreed at an early stage. Where a student admits to the suspected academic misconduct before the meeting, the meeting should still go ahead but the formal procedure should be reduced in length and complexity.
5.30. At the meeting of the AMP the student may be accompanied by a friend or representative (not acting in a legal capacity). This is normally another enrolled student of the College. Students are encouraged to make use of this provision.
5.31. If, for exceptional reasons (e.g. having left the College) the student is unable to attend the meeting of the Panel, the student may choose to be represented by another current student willing to act in this capacity. In this case the Panel will proceed as normal, basing its considerations on the evidence available.
5.32. Where an appropriate medical practitioner has advised in writing that the student’s state of health makes attendance impossible or inadvisable, the case will not be considered formally until the student is deemed fit by their medical adviser to appear before the Panel.
5.33. If a student fails to attend a meeting of the Panel without notifying the Panel in advance, the meeting will proceed in their absence.
5.34. Normally the Course Lead will attend to set out evidence relating to the alleged misconduct.
5.35. In cases where members of an AMP learn that a student was previously involved in a suspected case where the outcome was ‘no case to answer’, this must not be considered during the hearing and should not prejudice the decision of the Panel for the current case.
5.36. If a case of alleged academic misconduct is under investigation at the time of the meeting of the relevant Assessment Board, the Board shall defer consideration of the candidate’s work until the AMP has made a decision on the case.
5.37. Should a case be under investigation when a pass-list or conferment list is due for completion and publication, the name of the candidate concerned shall be withheld from the pass-list or conferment list and a supplementary pass-list or conferment list issued as appropriate.
Academic Misconduct Panel agenda and proceedings
5.38. The Academic Misconduct Panel (AMP) shall determine whether academic misconduct has been committed. If it is determined that academic misconduct has been committed the AMP will judge the seriousness of the misconduct, and decide what penalty should be applied, as appropriate to the case.
5.39. For cases involving a group of students, the Panel must decide on the most appropriate way to deal with the students suspected, including the conduct of the hearing in terms of meeting with individuals or with a group of students; the rationale for this decision must be clearly recorded in the minutes. The potential outcome(s) could affect the whole group or individuals. However, the impact could vary; for example, if an individual student had been previously penalised for academic integrity issues.
5.40. The Agenda for a meeting of the Academic Misconduct Panel (AMP) shall be as follows:
- Introduction of those present
- Course Lead presentation (normally no more than 10 minutes)
- Opportunity for the AMP to question the University representative (if present)
- Opportunity for the student to question, through the Chair, the Course Lead
- Student and/or representative presentation (normally no more than 10 minutes)
- Opportunity for the AMP to question the student
- Opportunity for the University representative to question, through the Chair, the student
- Course Lead summing up (5 minutes). New evidence is not admissible at this stage
- Student and/or representative summing up (5 minutes). New evidence is not admissible at this stage.
5.41. The agenda may be varied if appropriate and may be preceded by a private meeting of the Panel.
5.42. The student, their representative (if present) and the Course Lead will then withdraw while the AMP considers the evidence privately.
5.43. Either party may call witnesses. Should witnesses be called they will attend only to present their evidence and to answer any questions that the Panel or the other party may put to them. Once their evidence has been heard and there are no more questions, witnesses will be required to withdraw.
5.44. In exceptional circumstances, the Panel may request additional evidence if it is considered that such evidence is likely to significantly affect the outcome. If all parties, including the student, agree that the Panel members may consider this evidence and reach a decision without further need for the student or Course Lead to have an opportunity to respond to the additional evidence, then all parties will be allowed to depart, and the decision will be communicated to all parties in writing. Otherwise, the AMP may decide that the meeting would need to be adjourned to give all parties the opportunity to have time to consider and respond to the new evidence.
5.45. While the AMP is considering the evidence, the student and the Course Lead must be available and may be required to provide further information or clarification to the Panel. If the Panel needs further information or clarification, both parties shall be recalled to the hearing. The Panel will confirm to all parties when the consideration has been concluded, and the meeting has closed.
5.46. The decision shall be confirmed in writing to all parties within 5 working days. This takes the form of a Completion of Procedures letter.
6. Penalties
6.1. In considering which penalty to impose, the Academic Misconduct Panel (AMP) shall take into consideration the seriousness of the misconduct. Relevant precedents should also be considered. For example, first or admitted misconduct would normally be treated more leniently than second or denied misconduct. Repeated misconduct, or those aggravated or compounded by lying or deception, will normally attract more stringent penalties.
6.2. Neither exceptional personal circumstances nor the impact of a decision on the student’s current work and employment will be considered grounds for excusing academic misconduct. However, a Panel may take such circumstances (with appropriate supporting evidence) into account and use its discretion if the evidence demonstrates that the student’s judgement at the time of the alleged misconduct would have been severely impaired due to these circumstances. It is for the Panel to decide if the exceptional personal circumstances are deemed to have severely impaired a student’s judgement. Such circumstances may then be considered in relation to the penalty imposed, but not to the decision on whether academic misconduct has occurred.
6.3. The AMP shall reach one of the outcomes, based on the standard of proof on the balance of probability, that in light of the evidence presented, it is more likely than not that academic misconduct did take place.
6.4. Where the Panel determines that a penalty is imposed, the level of penalty is a matter of academic judgement for the Panel. Points that may be taken into account in determining the seriousness of the misconduct and appropriateness of a particular penalty may include:
- the student’s level of study, their experience in UK HE and the guidance that has been made available to them.
- whether this is a student’s first offence (the penalty for a second or subsequent offence will normally be more severe, even if the second offence would normally merit a lower penalty that the first offence on the student’s record).
- the impact of the misconduct on the work, linking to the assessment criteria/learning outcomes (for example, whether a few lines of limited impact on the assessment criteria, or a large proportion which significantly affects attainment of the assessment criteria).
- nature or seriousness of the misconduct (ranging from, for example, incomplete or inconsistent referencing, through using another’s work with no attribution, to acts which are clearly fraudulent acts such as using substantial generative AI or deliberately bringing material into an examination room.
- whether the student accepts that they have committed academic misconduct.
- whether the student has evidence of exceptional personal circumstances demonstrating that their judgement at the time of the alleged misconduct would have been severely impaired due to these circumstances (see paragraph 6.2).
6.5. Penalties may be imposed as set out in the table below.
Taught degrees (undergraduate and postgraduate)
|
Decision |
Action |
|
(a) That no further action be taken. |
The Panel will act in accordance with para 5.19 (a) above |
|
(b) That small errors in work have been made |
The Panel will act in accordance with para 5.19 (b) above |
|
(c) That academic misconduct has occurred |
The Panel will impose a penalty as set out below:
|
6.6. For any penalty lower than withdrawal, Panels are encouraged to incorporate an educational element relating to academic integrity – for example asking the student to write a reflective piece of work on academic integrity to demonstrate their learning.
6.7. It is recognised that pass/fail assessments cannot necessarily incur the same penalties as set out above and it is the responsibility of the AMP in discussion with the Secretary to adapt the penalties as necessary, to determine the appropriate penalty to be applied in these cases.
6.8. Reassessment(s) shall only be carried out once the Assessment Board has met to consider the student’s overall profile and where the student’s overall profile permits such a reassessment.
6.9. The Panel’s decision will be passed to the Assessment Board for confirmation and for inclusion in its recommendations. It may be that the student has also failed assessed work other than that affected by the academic misconduct. If this is the case, the Board will include all units failed as a result of the Panel’s decision in its consideration of the student’s overall performance according to the assessment regulations in force.
6.10. Students who have been found to have committed academic misconduct, and a formal written warning issued, will be referred for consideration under the Fitness to Practise Policy. Where the Panel considers that misconduct does not warrant a formal written warning has implications on the student’s fitness to practise, the matter can be referred to the Fitness to Practise panel.
6.11. The College will be mindful of its obligations under relevant data protection regulations and the Equality Act 2010 in relation to any information shared about the case. All those involved will be reminded of the confidentiality associated with the procedures. Information associated with the case will be disclosed to as few people as possible, consistent with effective investigation.
7. Academic misconduct coming to light after the meeting of the Assessment Board
7.1. Evidence which comes to light after the recommendation of the Assessment Board shall be considered promptly.
7.2. An Assessment Board shall also have authority to cancel a result previously published and to publish a supplementary pass-list or conferment list should a case of academic misconduct arise subsequently to the publication of the original pass-list or conferment list. Where a student has already graduated, the outcome may result in the revoking of a qualification already awarded.
7.3. At the conclusion of the process, External Examiners should be informed of any decision that materially affects the original recommendation of the Assessment Board.
8. Appeals – undergraduate and taught postgraduate students
8.1. The decision of the Academic Misconduct Panel (AMP) is considered to be one of academic judgement against which students may not appeal. However, appeals may be lodged on the grounds of:
- Procedural irregularity: That there were irregularities in the academic misconduct process which are of such a nature as to cause reasonable doubt whether the same decision would have been reached had they not occurred;
- New evidence: That relevant new evidence can be presented which the student was unable, for compelling reasons, to provide earlier in the process. NB: Exceptional personal circumstances are not considered as grounds for appeal;
- Prejudice or Bias: That there is evidence of prejudice or bias on the part of the person or persons conducting the investigation and/or hearing;
- Unreasonable decision: The AMP reached an unreasonable decision;
- Disproportionate penalty: The penalty imposed was disproportionate, or not permitted under the procedures.
8.2. The Chair of the AMP shall inform the student that they have the right to appeal the outcome decision to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) at HSU.
8.3. To appeal the AMP’s outcome decision to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) at the HSU, students should write to the Registrar at the HSU () within 21 days from receiving their outcome decision, providing a copy of their NCA Panel Outcome letter and an explanation and evidence of why they are not satisfied with the outcome. Where the appeal is based on the presentation of fresh evidence, the student should forward it or a summary of it, including explaining why this could not have been provided earlier in the process.
8.4. Further to the review, the HSU’s Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) may either uphold the original outcome or refer the case back to the formal stage for reconsideration by the NCA.
8.5. Where the case is referred back to the formal stage, reconsideration of the case will be undertaken as soon as possible by the NCA, and where practicable within 90 calendar days.
8.6. Where the student’s appeal is upheld, their case will be reconsidered by an Assessment Board.
8.7. The outcome of the review by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) shall be communicated to the student within 28 days and include why the review decision was made.
8.8. The decision of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) will be final and a Completion of Procedures Letter shall be provided to the student by HSU.
8.9. Thereafter students have the right to refer the matter to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (the OIA) (https://www.oiahe.org.uk/). Students must refer the matter to the OIA within 12 months of the date of their Completion of Procedures letter.
9. Monitoring and review of academic misconduct cases taken to AMP
9.1. The Student Support team will prepare an annual review of academic misconduct across all awards, to be considered by Academic Board, with a view to identifying any trends and whether there is a need to revise any policy or practices. This report will not refer to individuals by name.
9.2. The College seeks to develop a body of “case-law”, which will provide guidance and precedents that may be used by Academic Misconduct Panels and Assessment Boards, in pursuit of consistent and equitable practice. To this end, the minutes of each meeting of an Academic Misconduct Panel will be retained. These records will be anonymous.
10. Support for students affected by contract cheating
10.1. The Skills and Post-16 Education Bill (28 April 2022) made it illegal to provide contract cheating services (essay mills) for financial gain and/or to advertise to provide or arrange for another person to provide a cheating service. Anyone considering breaching this academic integrity policy to use such a service should therefore be aware that they would be engaging with a body or person that is operating outside the law.
10.2. Students who have used contract cheating services may subsequently find themselves the subject of extortion or blackmail (with the company or individual indicating that unless the student meets a financial demand they will inform the College or other body that cheating has occurred). Such blackmail may continue indefinitely. The College does not wish to see any student pressured in this way, and any student in this situation is advised to seek support from Student Services as soon as possible. Although speaking up about the threat will trigger an investigation under this policy, and an academic penalty is likely to be applied, students are encouraged to recognise that this is preferable to the longer-term stress and financial anxiety that dealing with the situation are likely to cause.
|
Version: |
0.1 |
|
Approved by: |
Academic Board |
|
Originator/Author: |
BSc Acupuncture Course Lead |
|
Policy Owner: |
NCA Registrar |
|
Date approved: |
27 August 2026 |
|
Effective from: |
1st September 2026 |
|
Review date: |
1st September 2027 |
|
Target: |
All staff and students |
|
Policy location: |
Policy Vault, SharePoint |
|
Reference Source: |
HSU Academic Integrity and Academic Misconduct Policy and Procedure, v1.2 |
Appendix 1: Behaviour or actions which may constitute academic misconduct
The following non-exhaustive list gives examples of behaviour or actions which may constitute academic misconduct:
- Bribery: paying or offering inducements to another person to obtain or to attempt to obtain an unfair advantage.
- Cheating: failing to comply with the rules or otherwise seeking to gain unfair advantage in examinations or tests, such as:
- obtaining an advance copy of an ‘unseen’ written examination paper;
- copying or communicating with any other person in the examination room, except as authorised by an invigilator;
- copying or communicating with any other person also completing the same online exam, except as authorised by an invigilator;
- using notes or other prompts, or any unauthorised form of materials such as a book, manuscripts or papers of any kind, including internet access except in open book exams;
- removing items of stationery or other materials from the examination room without permission or contrary to instructions;
- use of smart devices in examination rooms contrary to instructions;
- asking other students about questions asked in practical/viva examinations during the examination period; accepting information from other students about questions asked in practical/viva examinations during the examination period; offering other students’ information about questions asked in practical/viva examinations during the examination period.
- Collusion: working together with other students – without official approval – and submitting the resulting work as the work of a single student.
- Contract cheating: Contract cheating is the practice of students engaging a third-party to complete assignments. It occurs when someone other than the student completes an assignment which the student then submits for assessment/credit. This would include the use of AI to complete the work.
- Fabrication: including falsified or fabricated material or data in work submitted for assessment.
- Falsification: falsely claiming to have completed requirements such as hours in practice or patient numbers, false claims of mitigating circumstance; falsifying signature(s) or documents related to certification or assessment.
- Ghosting: submitting work presented as the student's own which has been produced in whole or part by another person on the student’s behalf, which includes acquiring or buying material or paying another person to complete an assignment. This would include the use of AI to complete the work.
- Personation: arranging or attempting to arrange for another person to take one's place in an examination; or being a party to an impersonation, or producing work on behalf of another student, or permitting oneself to be impersonated.
- Plagiarism: representing another person’s work (published or unpublished) as one’s own, without acknowledgement of the author or source; this includes:
- submitting whole pieces of work originally produced by another, including the work of generative AI where this is not permitted as described in the Policy on the Use of Generative AI;
- directly importing into one's work more than a few words from another person's work without using quotation marks and identifying the source;
- making a copy of all or part of another person's work and presenting it as one's own (copying);
- engage in self-plagiarism by presentation of material which is one’s own work, but which has been previously presented, submitted or published, without referencing that previous work;
- making extensive use of another person's work or the output of generative AI where this is not permitted as described in the Policy on the Use of Generative AI, by summarising or paraphrasing it, by changing a few words or altering the order of presentation, without acknowledgement;
- presenting data collected or analysed by others, without acknowledgment;
- the use of the words, constructs or ideas of another person without acknowledging the source, or submitting/presenting work as one's own which is substantially the ideas or intellectual data of another.
- Recycling (self-plagiarism): Re-submitting work which has already been assessed and marked (whether in full or in part) for another assessment in the same or in a different course, or at another institution.
- Third party assistance: making use of the assistance of another such as an editor, translator or proof-reader or the use of generative AI, in such a way as to change significantly the content, language, meaning or significance of what is written.
- Breaking examination rules
- Breaching ethical standards:
- Failing to obtain ethical approval where necessary before carrying out research, or failing to carry out a research study as set out in the approved ethics application
- Improper or unauthorised use of data from participants in a research study
- Failure to follow accepted procedures or to exercise due care in carrying out research in relation to research subjects
- Publication of data or results known to be or believed to be misleading
- Misquotation or misrepresentation of other authors
Assisting another student to do any of these things is academic misconduct.
Appendix 2: Examination rules
Whatever form their examination takes (for example, written, practical, viva, computer-based) students must ensure that they avoid all forms of academic misconduct/cheating.
Students are not permitted to have any other person impersonate them, contribute towards or complete answers on their behalf in any examination. Arranging, or attempting to arrange, for another person to take their place in an examination is Personation, and will be treated very seriously. Students will be required to present their student ID card at all examinations or vivas as proof of identity.
Written examinations (in person)
Please refer to the NCA’s Examination Regulations.
Written examinations (remote)
Where written examinations are carried out remotely (for example, Open Book exams), if a student attempts to contact another student during the period of the examination, it will be considered cheating. If a student permits any contact from another student during the period of the examination, it will be considered cheating. If a student uses generative AI in non-permitted ways during their Open Book exam (as outlined in the Policy on the Use of Generative AI, in the module descriptor, and/or in teaching), this will be considered cheating.
Practical examinations (in person)
- The term “practical examinations” includes skills assessments taking place in the classroom and viva or oral examinations
- Students should arrive 10 minutes before the start of the examination or when directed by their tutor.
- Students must bring their student card with them to the examination or viva as proof of identity.
- Electronic devices: The use of mobile telephones, smart watches or other electronic devices is strictly forbidden. Such devices must be left outside the room or on the invigilator’s desk (mobile phones turned off). If students are found to have a mobile telephone or other electronic device in their possession during the course of an examination, irrespective of whether it is being used, it will be regarded as an academic offence.
- In some cases, students may be held in a room (a ‘holding room’) while other students undertake their practical/ viva examination. During that time students must place their turned off mobile phones/smart watches/devices where directed. Possession of an electronic device while in the holding room, whether or not they are seen to use the device, may be regarded as a breach of these examination rules.
- If a student attempts to contact another student during the practical examination period, it will be considered cheating. If they receive any contact from another student during the practical/viva examination period it will be considered cheating.
- In practical assessments, a student model’s use of body positioning, verbal cues, movement, facial expression, or any other kind of collusive indication, will be considered cheating. Both the student model and the examined student will be subject to penalties for committing academic offences.
