Academic Integrity And Misconduct1

Work presented for assessment must be the candidate’s own, or the work of a project group as requested by the tutor. Plagiarism is the representation of another person’s published or unpublished work as the candidate’s own by unacknowledged paraphrasing or unacknowledged quotation, including material generated by AI. It is not an offence if the material is acknowledged by the candidate as the work of another through the provision of detailed references and a full references list, and in the case of direct quotation by the accurate use of quotation marks or indented paragraphs (although the Assessment Board will not expect work to rely heavily on direct quotations).

Offences such as cheating in exams or plagiarism (using the work of others without acknowledgement) in written assignments are taken very seriously. The procedures for dealing with such offences are given below.

Scope of this policy

This policy shall apply to allegations of academic misconduct arising from candidatures for all award types (i.e. taught or research schemes, degree awards, certificates or diplomas).

In the case of students who are not registered with the University, the same procedures are followed, except that the outcome of a Committee of Enquiry is communicated to the Chair of the College’s Academic Board. Grounds for appeal are the same, but appeals are made to the Board of Directors of the College.

The Superintendent of Examinations is the Student Services Manager.

Definition of Academic Misconduct

It is academic misconduct to commit any act whereby a person may obtain for himself/herself or for another, an unpermitted advantage which may or may not lead to a higher mark or grade than his/her abilities would otherwise secure. In particular, it is academic misconduct to:

  • introduce into an examination room any unauthorised form of materials such as a book, manuscripts or papers of any kind or any source of unauthorised information (including internet access);
  • communicate with any other person in the examination room, except as authorised by an invigilator;
  • communicate with any other person also completing the same online exam, except as authorised by an invigilator;
  • copy or use in any other way unauthorised materials or the work of any other student;
  • impersonate an examination candidate or allow oneself to be impersonated;
  • plagiarise by presenting as their own work, material which is wholly or partially the work of another person or a technological agent such as generative AI, where this is not permitted as described in the traffic light system set out in this policy;
  • engage in self-plagiarism by presentation by the student of material which is their own work, but which they have previously presented, submitted or published, without referencing their previous work;
  • fabricate results or records by claiming either to have carried out experiments, observations, interviews, clinical work or any form of research which one has not in fact carried out or to claim to have obtained results which have not in fact been obtained;
  • make inappropriate use of generative AI in assessed work, as described in the Policy for Use of Generative AI;
  • be party to an arrangement intending to break or avoid the regulations;
  • present evidence of special circumstances to examination boards which is false or falsified or which is, in any way, intended to mislead examination boards.

Potential academic misconduct in Work Completed under Non-Examinable Conditions

(including Coursework Assignments and Taught Master's Dissertations/Research Projects)

If a member of staff considers, or suspects, that potential academic misconduct has occurred in relation to work submitted as a piece of coursework, or a taught Master's dissertation/research project, or any other work completed under non-examination conditions, they shall report the matter in writing to the Chair of the Module Assessment Board as soon as possible.

The Chair of the Assessment Board shall first decide whether there is a prima facie case for treating the matter as a case of academic misconduct. If they consider that a prima facie case has been established the Superintendent of Examinations will take the actions prescribed below.

Academic Misconduct in a Formal Examination

Academic Misconduct in the Examination Room

An invigilator may consider or suspect that a candidate is engaging in an unfair examination practice. Suspicions of academic misconduct in examinations may also be raised, on occasion, by other members of staff or by students. In any of these circumstances, 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 which may subsequently be taken. Failure to give such a warning shall not, however, 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.

Suspected academic misconduct detected during or subsequent to Marking Period

An internal or external examiner who, whether in the course of the marking period or subsequently, considers or suspects that a candidate has engaged in academic misconduct shall report the matter in writing to the Chair of the Module Assessment Board as soon as possible. The Chair shall retain any relevant evidence and shall forthwith report the matter in writing to the Superintendent of Examinations. The Superintendent of Examinations shall then take the action prescribed, below.

Further Action to be taken by the Superintendent of Examinations

On receipt of a report concerning an allegation of unfair practice, the Superintendent of Examinations shall confirm with the Chair of the Module Assessment Board whether, in the light of all the circumstances, a prima facie case has been established. If satisfied that such a case exists, the following procedure shall then operate as described.

The candidate shall be informed of the allegation, and that either (a) in cases of misconduct as defined above which are in categories PAP or 1 to 3 (see table below), a Standard Penalty will be applied, or (b) a Committee of Enquiry will be constituted to consider the case (see Appointment of Committee of Enquiry paragraphs below).

If it is decided that a prima facie case does not exist, no further action against the candidate shall be taken, and the Chair of the relevant Assessment Board shall, where appropriate, inform the candidate in writing that the matter is closed.

Where it is decided that a case does exist, the Superintendent can ask the marker and moderator to call an authorship investigation meeting with the student. Before this meeting, the work will be given a provisional mark. This provisional mark is subject to ratification by the assessment boards. In the case of suspected use of generative AI, the marker and moderator may ask the student to provide their prompts and outputs that used AI in advance of the meeting.

In the first instance, the purpose of the authorship investigation meeting is to allow a student to understand the issue that has been raised and, if relevant, recognise and acknowledge the misconduct; standard procedures can then be followed (see table). If the student does not recognise/acknowledge misconduct, those running the meeting will then ask the student to demonstrate a suitable understanding of the information and arguments presented, and/or to explain how they constructed the assignment. If the student cannot demonstrate adequate understanding and/or suitably explain their methods, standard procedures will be followed. Depending on the outcome of the meeting, the marker and moderator can recommend to the Module Assessment Board an adjustment to the student’s provisional mark and/or make recommendations for student support as below.

Standard Penalty Procedure

This procedure applies to cases of poor academic practice, plagiarism, collusion or undeclared use of an AI writing tool.

Category

Characteristics

Action

Poor academic practice (PAP) First offences should normally be treated as poor academic practice, especially when occurring in the first year of a student’s course.

This is not a disciplinary offence and does not count as a first offence in the context of the Category 3 plagiarism definition (below). Poor academic practice involves collaboration, poor citation practice or inappropriate use of generative AI, where there is evidence that the student did not appreciate the rules of academic writing or where the extent of copied/AI assisted material can be considered so slight that it does not justify disciplinary proceedings or a penalty. The work in question includes (among other characteristics) a limited amount of material or text:

  • expressing ideas or concepts taken from the work of others in the student’s own words but without appropriate citation.
  • which is referenced in the reference list but is not properly cited.
  • that has been subjected to minor linguistic changes with or without citation.
  • that is cited 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.
  • Indicating inappropriate use of generative AI when this is a first offence, early in the course.

A formal warning but no penalty is issued by the Course Director and the student is directed to appropriate support. The student is required to EITHER work through a specified course of study, OR to take up the offer of study skills support, either on a one to one basis, or within a group setting. In cases of poor academic practice, the mark will reflect the academic merit of the work; the mark is likely to be low. When there has been an authorship investigation meeting concluding with proven academic misconduct, the marker and moderator can recommend that the Module Assessment Board adjusts the student’s mark for the assessment.

Category 1 plagiarism and/or collusion, or inappropriate use of generative AI

The work breaches the rules of academic integrity by presenting the material of others as the student’s original material. Category 1 plagiarism includes (among other characteristics), short blocks of material or text:

  • expressing ideas or concepts taken from the work of others, including AI, without appropriate citation, or copied text that is cited but not in quotation marks or a clearly indented paragraph.
  • referenced in the bibliography but is not properly cited.
  • subjected to minor linguistic changes and presented as the student’s own, with or without citation.
  • cited but not in quotation marks.
  • indicating collaboration between students as evidenced by structure, sources or short blocks of copied text, (including copied text subjected to minor linguistic changes) or similar bibliographies. A short block of text may be as small as two continuing lines.
  • copied from another student or the work of others from online resources or books without appropriate referencing.
  • Category 1 inappropriate use of generative AI includes short blocks of text that appear to have involved the undeclared use of such a tool or tools.

The student will be required to rectify the identified issues and resubmit. The mark will be capped at the level of a bare pass. The student is required to either work through a specified course of study, which may include online resources, OR to take up the offer of study skills support, either on a one to one basis, or within a group setting.

The student will be given a written warning and notified that any subsequent offence will be treated as a Category 2 or 3 offence. The incident will be entered on the student’s record.

Category 2 plagiarism and/or collusion, or inappropriate use of generative AI

A Category 2 offence will be committed when the copied material represents a significant proportion of the work. The line between Category 1 and Category 2 offences will be determined by the level of similarity between the work and the source material on a case-by-case basis. Category 2 plagiarism includes (among other characteristics), significant or numerous blocks of material or text:

  • expressing ideas or concepts taken from the work of others without appropriate citation.
  • referenced in the bibliography but not properly cited;
  • subjected to minor linguistic changes and presented as the student’s own, with or without citation.
  • cited but not in quotation marks. Significant blocks of text may be as small as several continuing lines.
  • indicating collaboration between students as evidenced by structure, sources, significant or numerous blocks of copied text (including copied text subjected to minor linguistic changes) or similar bibliographies.
  • copied from another student or the work of others from online resources or books without appropriate referencing.
  • Category 2 inappropriate use of generative AI involves the apparent undeclared use of such a tool or tools for significant or numerous blocks of material.

The student will be required to rectify the identified issues and resubmit. The mark will be capped at the level of a bare pass. The student is required to EITHER work through a specified course of study, OR to take up the offer of study skills support, either on a one to one basis, or within a group setting.

The student will be given a written warning and notified that any subsequent offence will be treated as a Category 3 offence. The incident will be entered on the student’s record.

Category 3 plagiarism and/or collusion, or inappropriate use of generative AI - ‘repeat offence’

A Category 3 offence will be committed if a Category 1 or 2 penalty has been applied to a student’s work on a previous occasion (i.e. a repeat offence). Contemporaneous offences or offences in which a student has had no opportunity to act upon advice arising from an earlier offence due to close submission dates etc. are not treated as repeat offences but may attract PAP, Category 1 or Category 2 penalties in the normal way.

The Chair of the Module Assessment Board shall determine whether the latest instance of plagiarism or inappropriate use of generative AI is Category 1 or Category 2 in the level of severity. The penalty to be applied shall then take into account the category of penalty of the prior offence.

If both offences are Category 1 then the penalty on the second offence is a Category 2 penalty. If either of the two offences is a Category 2 offence then the penalty on the second offence is a Category 3 penalty.

The student will be required to resubmit and reach the standard of a pass in order to fulfil the learning outcomes/obtain the module credits where this is required for progression purposes. However, a mark of zero (0) will be awarded. The Category 3 penalty is as follows: A mark of zero (0) should be awarded for the assessment in which the plagiarism/inappropriate use of generative AI was found to occur. The module mark is calculated on the basis of the zero mark for the plagiarised assessment. If the penalty does not result in the failure of the module, the module mark obtained for the module should be further reduced by 10% of the maximum available mark. If this penalty does not reduce the degree classification at the end of the course by one class, the degree class should be reduced by one class. Where reduction in the degree class would result in undergraduate students not obtaining an Honours degree, or in postgraduate students failing the course, their cases should be considered by the Progression and Finalists Assessment Board.

Category 4 plagiarism and/or collusion, or undeclared use of an AI writing tool

A Category 4 offence is the most severe plagiarism or inappropriate use of generative AI. Examples include purchasing of work or soliciting to do so, use of AI to write an entire assessment or the major part of an assignment, or multiple repeat offences.

It may also be appropriate to refer to a disciplinary panel a case which is complex and where it has been impossible to establish the facts, for example a case of apparent collusion where the identification of the guilty party cannot be ascertained. A Committee of Enquiry has the power to impose penalties up to and including expulsion from the course.

Refer to a Committee of Enquiry

 

Appointment of Committee of Enquiry

On receipt of an allegation of unfair practice submitted by a Superintendent of Examinations which is not a case of poor academic practice, plagiarism or collusion which is in categories PAP or 1 to 3 (see table above), the Principal shall arrange for an appropriate Committee of Enquiry to be convened as soon as possible, normally within 6 working weeks of the allegation being made, and for a member of the College Team, to act as Secretary to the Committee. The Superintendent of Examinations, who shall present the case against the candidate, shall not act as Secretary to the Committee.

Each Committee of Enquiry shall consist of 3 members selected by the Principal (or their nominee) from the academic staff. It is preferable for at least one, and preferably two, members to be drawn from different courses from that on which the student is studying, whenever practicable. The Chair of the Committee of Enquiry shall be designated by the Principal from amongst the three members of the Committee.

A representative of the validating University or his/her nominee shall be invited to attend, as an observer, all meetings of the Committee of Enquiry. The Principal shall supply to the University details of the allegations of academic misconduct and any other information relevant to the meeting of the Committee of Enquiry.

In cases which are straightforward and/or less serious, at the discretion of the Principal and with the agreement of the candidate, the Committee of Enquiry may meet by e-mail correspondence.

As soon as reasonably practicable after the appointment of the Committee of Enquiry and bearing in mind the University's expectation that such cases should be heard normally within 6 working weeks of the allegation being made, the Secretary shall:

  • Send to the candidate copies of statements of witnesses and of documents to be placed before the Committee of Enquiry and request the candidate to indicate which statements or documents are agreed and which are in dispute.

  • Notify the Superintendent of Examinations and members of the Committee of Enquiry of the date, place and time of the meeting and supply them with copies of the allegation and of any agreed statements or documents.

  • The Secretary shall, at the same time, inform the candidate of the date, place and time when the Committee of Enquiry intends to meet and that they shall have the right to be represented or accompanied, to hear all the evidence, to call and question witnesses and to submit other evidence. The candidate shall be required to inform the Secretary whether or not they intend to attend the meeting of the Committee of Enquiry. If the candidate indicates that they do not wish to attend the meeting, or has agreed to a meeting by correspondence, the Committee of Enquiry shall proceed in their absence.

A candidate who intends to be accompanied and/or represented shall be required to inform the Secretary in writing in advance and shall state whether or not the person representing or accompanying them has legal qualifications. The College may also obtain legal representation.

Should a candidate not attend the meeting of the Committee of Enquiry, having previously indicated to the Secretary that they would attend, and provided that all reasonable means have been taken to contact the candidate, the meeting shall proceed in their absence.

Functions of the Committee

The functions of the Committee of Enquiry shall be:

  • to consider the evidence submitted to it on the allegation of academic misconduct;
  • to determine whether the allegation has been substantiated beyond reasonable doubt;
  • to determine, in appropriate cases, the penalty which should be imposed.
  • to determine whether it is also appropriate to refer the case to the Student Progress Committee for consideration as a possible Fitness to Practise issue.

The Committee of Enquiry shall not normally be informed, before reaching its verdict on the allegation under consideration, of any evidence of previously substantiated allegations of academic misconduct; the Committee should be so informed before determining the penalty in appropriate cases.

However, in exceptional cases, evidence of previous allegations of academic misconduct may be disclosed prior to the verdict of the Committee where such evidence:

  • rebuts a claim of previous good character made by the candidate;
  • is relevant to the allegation under consideration (other than merely showing that the candidate had a disposition to commit the facts alleged) and its prejudicial effect does not outweigh its probative value.

Procedure during the Meeting

The Superintendent of Examinations or the legal representative acting for the College shall present the case against the candidate, calling such witnesses and presenting such evidence as the Superintendent thinks fit. The Superintendent may question both the candidate and witnesses.

The candidate shall have the right to be represented or accompanied, to hear all the evidence brought against them, to call and question witnesses, and to submit other evidence.

Witnesses can only be concerned with evidence relating directly to the allegation and shall withdraw after questioning.

When the submission of evidence and the questioning of witnesses are completed, all persons, other than the members of the Committee and the University observer shall withdraw.

The Committee of Enquiry shall then consider whether the allegation has been substantiated.

If the Committee finds that the case has been substantiated, it shall then consider the penalty to be imposed.

Penalties available to the Committee

The penalties available to the Committee of Enquiry shall be:

  1. The issue of a verbal or written reprimand to the candidate. A record of the reprimand so given should be kept, and a copy sent to the University (by the Secretary to the Committee). In addition, the Committee may recommend that the candidate should receive advice from a member of the Assessment Board, in order to make clear the reasons for the Committee’s decision and to ensure that the cause of the action (e.g. unintentional plagiarism) is discussed with the student to ensure that any future repeat offence by them cannot then be classed as ‘inadvertent’;

  2. The cancellation of the candidate’s marks for the whole paper or other assessment component in question;

  3. The cancellation of the candidate’s marks for the whole paper or other assessment component in question and the postponement of the candidate’s qualification until one year after the date on which they would have qualified had the allegation of academic misconduct not been substantiated;

  4. The cancellation of the candidate’s marks in one or all of the modules for the particular level of study;

  5. The reduction of the candidate’s degree classification by a class and/or the award of a lower qualification;

  6. The cancellation of the candidate’s marks in all of the modules for the particular level of study and the disqualification of the candidate from any future University examination;

  7. An alternative penalty to be decided upon by the Committee of Enquiry.

Note: Where the Committee chooses to implement any of the penalties shown above under 2, 3 or 4, the candidate concerned may be allowed, where the regulations for the scheme of study so permit, to re-take the work(s)/assessment(s) in question, retaining eligibility for the bare pass-mark only.

If the Committee of Enquiry finds that the case has been substantiated, the Committee can also refer the case to the Student Progress Committee for consideration as a possible Fitness to Practise concern. This will normally apply when the Committee of Enquiry considers there to have been deliberate intent to engage in academic misconduct.

Action to be taken following the Committee of Enquiry

When the Committee of Enquiry has investigated the facts of the alleged academic misconduct, the Secretary shall in his/her report state whether or not the allegation has

been substantiated and the penalty imposed where appropriate. The report shall be submitted, via the Registrar, to the University as soon as possible after the Enquiry has been completed.

If the finding of the Enquiry is that a case has not been substantiated, the Chair of the Committee of Enquiry may inform the candidate verbally of this. Irrespective of whether or not the candidate is informed verbally, the Registrar shall notify the candidate formally in writing of the Enquiry’s findings and that the matter is therefore closed.

If the finding of the Enquiry is that the allegation has been substantiated, the Chair of the Committee of Enquiry may inform the candidate verbally, but there shall be no discussion of the Committee’s decision with the candidate. Irrespective of whether or not the candidate is informed verbally, the Chair shall inform the candidate of the findings and the penalty imposed as soon as possible. At the same time, the Chair of the Assessment Board concerned must be informed.

The Chair of the Committee of Enquiry shall further inform the candidate about any right of appeal to the validating University and/or to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.

Where the allegation has been substantiated, the Assessment Board concerned shall re-determine the candidate’s overall examination result in the light of the penalty imposed by the Committee of Enquiry.

If the Committee of Enquiry has decided that the mark obtained for the unit of assessment in which academic misconduct has occurred shall be cancelled, the Assessment Board shall award a mark of zero for the unit and shall then re-determine the candidate’s overall result.

If the Committee of Enquiry finds that the case has been substantiated, the Committee can also refer the case to the Student Progress Committee for consideration as a possible Fitness to Practise concern. This will normally apply when the Committee of Enquiry considers there to have been deliberate intent to engage in academic misconduct, and considers that the case is sufficiently serious to lead to concerns about the student’s fitness to become a professional practitioner in future.

Examination Pass Lists/Conferment Lists

The Chair of the Assessment Board shall arrange for the publication of such supplementary pass-list or conferment list as may be necessary.

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 Committee of Enquiry has made a decision on the case and the decision has been conveyed to the Chair of the Assessment Board.

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.

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.

Report to Academic Board

The Chair of the Assessment Board shall submit a report on a case of academic misconduct considered in accordance with the Committee of Enquiry procedure set out above to the next available meeting of the Academic Board.

Appeal Stage

For students studying on a HSU-validated course:

The Chair of the Committee of Enquiry shall inform the student that they have the right to appeal the Committee of Enquiry’s outcome decision to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) at the HSU.

Students may only make an appeal on the following grounds:

    a) The NCA’s procedures were not followed properly.
    b) The Committee of Enquiry reached an unreasonable decision.
    c) The student has new material evidence that they were unable, for valid reasons, to provide earlier in the process.
    d) There is bias or reasonable perception of bias during the procedure.
    e) The penalty imposed was disproportionate, or not permitted under the procedures.

To appeal the Committee of Enquiry’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 Committee of Enquiry’s outcome decision providing a copy of their NCA Completion of Procedures letter and an explanation and evidence of why they are not satisfied with the outcome.

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.

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.

Where the student’s appeal is upheld, their case will be reconsidered by an Assessment Board.

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.

The decision of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) will be final and a Completion of Procedures Letter shall be provided to the student.

Thereafter students have the right to refer the matter to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (the OIA) (http://www.oiahe.org.uk/). Students must refer the matter to the OIA within 12 months of the date of their Completion of Procedures letter.

Traffic-light system: generative AI in assessments

In most cases, NCA submissions cannot include any text written, edited or paraphrased by generative AI. However, for many assignments, generative AI may be used in assistive roles, and in other cases, generative AI can or should be used for various functions, including writing. To clarify the situation, we propose a three-tiered system based on the system used at the University of Leeds (2026).

Where some element of AI is allowed or required in assignments, suitable instructions will be given, and the student must ensure that the platform details, inputs and outputs are recorded in full. However, the usual caveats apply, for example, anyone using AI must be aware of the risk of hallucinations, inaccuracy, false conclusions, etc. and must not be misled by the apparent authoritative tone of the output. It is also critical that anyone using AI should not enter any personal details into their prompts. Inappropriate use of AI is academic misconduct.

Red: generative AI must not be used in any component of the assessment

Examples: exams, vivas, presentations, clinical skills assessments.

If appropriate, proof-reading software is still permitted, e.g. for spelling and grammar (but not editing/paraphrasing the text), even if the software uses AI; an example might be a dyslexic student who uses a laptop in exams.

Amber: some use of AI is allowed in an assistive role, but the parameters will be explained in training.

Examples: many written assessments.

Assistive roles would include:

  • Scoping, preparatory work

     

  • Summarising/paraphrasing of original sources

However, none of the text generated in these assistive actions should be copied and pasted into the submitted assignment text.

Students must record the date, the platforms used and the prompts and outputs used using the standard NCA log sheet, and be able to show these records, if required.

Green: the use of gen AI is a part of the required learning and should be part of a student’s work.

Examples: where students are asked to explore and critique AI’s capabilities

Students must record the platforms used and the prompts and outputs used. These records may form part of the assignment.

 

Reference

University of Leeds, 2026. Category of assessments. [online] University of Leeds, AI and Assessments. Available at: <https://generative-ai.leeds.ac.uk/ai-and-assessments/categories-of-assessments/> [Accessed 11 February 2026].

 

1Policy and procedure reviewed by Academic Board February 2026. Next review May 2027.

Related Articles