2.1 Who does this code apply to?
The content of this code of practice is applicable to staff and students across all campuses, whether on taught or research programmes of study and whether they are currently registered or not. Former students will be subject to the academic misconduct regulations that were in place at the time that the instance(s) of alleged academic misconduct being considered took place.
2.2 Definitions
Academic integrity
Academic activities at the 糖心原创, whether scholarship, research, or innovation, are based on the values of academic integrity. Academic integrity is a set of values and practices that expect us to act with honesty, trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility.
Academic misconduct
Academic misconduct is any inappropriate activity or behaviour by a student which may give that student, or another student, an unpermitted academic advantage in a summative assessment and is unacceptable within the university’s scholarly community. This includes activity or behaviour during preparation for a summative assessment even if there is no direct evidence of misconduct in the submitted assessment itself, such as approaching a third party for help during an assessment even if there is no evidence of the material provided being used in the summative assessment. It also includes the submission of a false claim/request under any academic process, such as academic appeals or extenuating circumstances, even when the submission relates to formative assessment. Such activities and behaviours will be considered under this code and may lead to a caution or penalty being imposed.
Academic Misconduct Committee
A panel which makes decisions on cases of alleged academic misconduct that are referred to it in line with the criteria set out in section 4.1.4 of this code. Further information about the committee is available in section 4.1.5 of this code.
Formative assessment
A formative assessment is an assessment that does not contribute to a module mark and is primarily designed to give feedback on progress and inform development. Instances that resemble academic misconduct in formative assessments would normally be addressed by specific and extensive feedback on the issue. This is to ensure change of behaviour and act as a preventative measure.
Poor academic practice
Poor academic practice is a finding an academic misconduct officer can make when they are satisfied that academic misconduct has occurred because of a lack of understanding of good academic practice or convention. Instances of poor academic practice could include incorrect or inadequate referencing with attempts to acknowledge the original source material, for example missing or misplaced quotation marks, despite the author being listed in the reference list. Errors are likely to appear to have been made through carelessness or inexperience rather than any attempt to gain an unfair academic advantage. A finding of poor academic practice is usually only applicable to foundation year or first-year undergraduate students. A student may only have one finding of poor academic practice; any further allegations of academic misconduct which occur after the finding of poor academic practice will normally be investigated as a first instance. In cases where poor academic practice is found, the school/department will provide the student with relevant guidance to enable the student to develop their understanding of good practice plus the student should seek opportunities to further their understanding (for example, accessing university website referencing training materials).
Poor academic scholarship
Poor academic scholarship is a type of academic misconduct and is not the same as poor academic practice, which is a finding of academic misconduct as explained in the definition above.
Poor academic scholarship is conduct which breaches the standard of academic integrity expected by the university and which does not neatly fit into the definitions outlined above. Such behaviour could include the mishandling and inappropriate use of research data or the uploading of information (including live assessment material and criteria) onto a public forum.
Summative assessment
A summative assessment is an assessment that counts towards an award, a transcript mark, or a progression decision. This includes postgraduate research students’ annual reviews and thesis submissions.
2.3 What constitutes academic misconduct under this code?
The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples of academic misconduct which will be considered under these regulations:
2.3.1 Plagiarism
Plagiarism is representing work or ideas of a third party as one’s own. For example, by failing to correctly acknowledge others’ ideas and work as sources of information in a summative assessment. Plagiarism is not limited to text-based sources; it also applies to, for example, the use of graphical material, images, video/audio and/or calculations and/or lecture materials.
Where permitted, a proofreader (whether a person or software) may identify spelling and basic grammar errors. Inaccuracies in academic content must not be corrected nor must the structure of the piece of work be changed. A proofreader may only be used to ensure that the work meets a quality threshold in accordance with the university’s Regulation and code of practice on proofreading (see section 6) unless a school/department regulation or policy specifically prohibits this. Students must make every effort to familiarise themselves with their school/department’s regulation or policy as well as the university regulation regarding proofreading.
Paraphrasing or reordering the words of plagiarised text to avoid Turnitin matches is plagiarism if the ideas are represented as the student’s own. Schools/departments must ensure this information is accessible to students.
The multiple submission (recycling) by a student of their own material (in whole or in part) is not considered academic misconduct. This includes work that the student may have submitted for a previous academic year, for another course or at a different institution. Submission of material that has been submitted on a previous occasion for a different summative assessment is, however, unlikely to be academically appropriate. The merit of such material will therefore be a matter of academic judgement.
2.3.2 False authorship
False authorship is where a student is not the sole author of the work they have submitted as their own work. False authorship is a form of plagiarism but is distinguished by the fact that the student has engaged with an unauthorised or unacknowledged third party and/or software tool to complete an assessment, either in part or whole.
False authorship can be via direct contact with an individual or through a platform, or software (such as Course Hero). This may include work produced by another student, an essay mill, a family member or friend, or a tutoring service (such as Chegg). The use of answers advertised or provided by tutoring services or essay mills is false authorship. As it is the authorship of the work that is contested, there is no requirement to prove that the work has been purchased. For clarity, this includes the overreliance on translation or paraphrasing software (for example Grammarly, YouDao and DeepL), including when it is used to conceal the original author or source material or to translate more than individual phrases or words.
False authorship includes the submission of work that is generated and/or improved by software that is not permitted for that assessment. This may include the use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) software to produce text, images, data or other work (e.g. Copilot, ChatGPT, Claude, DeepSeek, BARD, Wordtune, Quillbot, DALL-E, chatbots and similar). Assessment-specific information on the permitted use of GenAI tools will be available for each assessment, and it is the student’s responsibility to check this and ask for clarification where necessary.
2.3.3 Collusion
Collusion is cooperation in order to gain an unpermitted advantage. This may occur where students have collaborated on a piece of work, in part or whole, and passed it off as their own individual efforts; where one student has authorised another to use their work, in part or whole, and to submit it as their own; or when a student has stolen somebody else’s work. A colluding student does not have to gain an unpermitted advantage in their own summative assessment for academic misconduct to have occurred.
Permitted input from university tutors or approved readers or scribes is not considered to be collusion.
2.3.4 Misconduct in examinations and in-person assessments
Misconduct in examinations includes, for example, when an examination candidate:
- Copies from the examination script of another candidate.
- Obtains or offers any other improper assistance from or to another candidate (or any other person unless an approved reader or scribe). This includes engagement with online tutoring services/essay mills even if the student does not go on to submit the work provided as part of the summative assessment.
- Allows themself to be impersonated by a person or software agent or impersonates another examination candidate. This definition is not limited to formal examinations and includes presentations, groupwork and other forms of summative assessment.
- Has with them any unauthorised items, including mathematical tables, manuscripts or loose papers of any kind, any electronic device capable of communicating or providing information or any source of unauthorised information.
It is the student’s responsibility to ensure unauthorised items are not taken into an examination. It is not the responsibility of an invigilator to search for and remove unauthorised items.
Where a student is found to have taken unauthorised items into an exam setting or a location that can be accessed during the exam, this constitutes academic misconduct, irrespective of that student’s intent, the nature of the items or whether there is evidence the student has utilised them to gain an advantage.
2.3.5 Fabrication or misrepresentation
Fabrication or misrepresentation is the presentation or misrepresentation of fabricated data, results, references, evidence, or other material, including by use of generative AI where that is not permitted by the assessment information, for example:
- Claiming to have carried out experiments, observations, interviews, or other forms of research which a student has not, in fact, carried out.
- Falsely claiming to have obtained results or other evidence.
- In the case of professional qualifications, falsely claiming to have completed hours in practice or to have achieved required competencies when this is not the case.
- The inclusion of falsified and/or misrepresented references.
- Submitting a false claim/request under any academic process, such as academic appeals or extenuating circumstances, where the facts of the claim and/or evidence has been fabricated/falsified. This activity will be addressed as academic misconduct even if the claim is not approved or the related assessment(s) are formative rather than summative. It also applies to instances such as falsifying evidence used to support an absence from a required activity, such as placement.
Fabrication or misrepresentation can also take the form of failure to disclose previous experience or qualifications that are a bar to enrolment on a module (for example, enrolment on inter-faculty language modules).
2.3.6 Failure to obtain ethical approval
Failure to obtain ethical approval is where work is undertaken without obtaining ethical approval when there is a clear and unambiguous requirement to do so. This may be specified, for example, in module handbooks or in university research ethics policies.
2.3.7 Poor academic scholarship
Poor academic scholarship is conduct which breaches the standard of academic integrity expected by the university and which does not neatly fit into the definitions outlined above. Such behaviour could include the mishandling and inappropriate use of research data or the uploading of information (including live assessment material and criteria) onto a public forum.
2.4 Exclusions from this code
The declaration of falsified and/or counterfeit qualifications is where a student has declared a qualification which has later been found to be counterfeit or fraudulently gained and affects the student’s suitability to study for their qualification at the university. Such behaviour may be found during the process of investigating an allegation of academic misconduct. If this is the case, the student may be referred to the non-academic misconduct process (see section 6) for the relevant campus.
The university’s fitness to practise procedures (see section 6) may also be applied to students on programmes of study that lead to professional registration and whose actions are considered under these regulations. Findings of proven intent to commit academic misconduct will also be referred for consideration under the relevant fitness to practise process.
Students cannot use other procedures, such as extenuating circumstances or academic appeals, to request an outcome that would change a caution or penalty applied under this code.
2.5 Principles
This code upholds the OIA principles of good practice for academic disciplinary procedures, which outlines that they should:
- Be accessible and clear
- Be fair, independent and confidential1
- Be flexible, proportionate and timely
- Improve the student experience.
1 While information related to an academic misconduct case will be kept as confidential as possible, information provided in relation to the consideration of an academic misconduct case will sometimes need to be shared with relevant staff members in schools/departments and services across the university to allow for full consideration of any issues or circumstances raised.
The standard of proof is that of the balance of probabilities, meaning something is more likely than not to have occurred. Evidence indicating that, on the balance of probabilities, academic misconduct has occurred will be deemed sufficient for action under this code. It is for the university to demonstrate that academic misconduct is more likely than not to have occurred.
It is not necessary to prove intention to commit academic misconduct to make a finding of academic misconduct. However, proven intent to commit academic misconduct is likely to be considered an aggravating factor when determining an outcome. Examples of proven intent include, but are not limited to:
- False authorship or impersonation.
- Falsifying data.
- Falsifying content or evidence as part of an academic process claim/request, such as academic appeals or extenuating circumstances.
- Accessing any unauthorised websites (including Moodle) during an examination.
- Taking or accessing unauthorised, concealed, or pre-prepared items into an examination and where the materials are potentially relevant to the examination.
Although mitigating circumstances do not justify academic misconduct, such circumstances may be taken into account when determining an appropriate caution or penalty. Students are responsible for ensuring that they inform the university of any extenuating circumstances that they consider are affecting their ability to undertake an assessment at the time they occur to ensure appropriate support can be provided.
The university is committed to ensuring that academic misconduct allegations are handled in accordance with this code. Occasionally, it may be sensible for the university to deviate from procedure if strict adherence to it could give rise to perceptions of prejudice or bias. Where this is required, the student will be given an explanation of the reasons for the deviation from usual procedure. Advice can be sought from the Investigations and Resolution team by emailing academic-misconduct@nottingham.ac.uk.
We will widely publicise information about academic misconduct procedures to students and staff.
Confirmed instances of academic misconduct and any caution or penalty given may be referred to in student references relating to a student’s academic achievement at university. For some courses, the university must notify the relevant accrediting body in line with professional standards and fitness to practice procedures (see section 6).
Allegations pertaining to assessments from previous academic years can be investigated retrospectively, provided that there is compelling evidence to instigate the investigation.
Allegations pertaining to concurrently submitted assessments will constitute one instance of academic misconduct, not multiple instances. For the avoidance of doubt, any assessment submitted prior to the outcome of a pending case of academic misconduct would constitute the same instance.
4.1 Overview of the academic misconduct process
The academic misconduct process has six potential stages. A case may not need to progress through all stages of the process. Decisions about which stages a case goes through will be led by the school/department from the reporting of the allegation of academic misconduct through to the school academic misconduct meeting (where one takes place), and thereafter by the relevant case handler from the Investigations and Resolution team (UNUK), Student Registry (UNM) or Academic Services Office (UNNC) (in conjunction with colleagues in schools/departments where appropriate). In the event of any disagreement between parties regarding these stages, the final decision will be made by the Head of Casework (UNUK), the Manager of Student Conduct and Appeals (UNM) or Director of Academic Services Office (UNNC).
The potential stages of the academic misconduct process are:
4.1.1 Reporting an allegation of academic misconduct
Where a member of staff suspects that academic misconduct has taken place, they will report the matter in writing to the relevant academic misconduct officer of the school/department in which the work was undertaken, providing reasons and any relevant evidence.
In cases of suspected misconduct in an examination, when an invigilator identifies an issue, they will write a report and the examination script will be annotated to indicate the point at which the suspected misconduct was identified. This report will be forwarded to the academic misconduct officer of the school/department in which the work was undertaken.
In cases of false authorship, the reporting staff member is expected to outline their reasoning for suspecting that the student is not the author of the work submitted and provide any pertinent evidence. This may include (but is not limited to): inconsistency in writing style, language, and grammar; the assignment not properly addressing the question set; inappropriate referencing and bibliography. This may also involve inconsistency in grades/standard of work, and allegations from third parties.
Where a student has reason to suspect a fellow student of academic misconduct, they may report this to the academic misconduct officer for the school/department in which the work was undertaken. Anonymity cannot be guaranteed as the reported student has a right of access to information pertaining to their personal data. If the reporting student does not give their consent for their identity to be revealed, this may limit what further action can be taken, unless additional and/or compelling evidence is identified by an academic member of staff. Reports which are motivated by malice will not be considered and will be addressed by the university’s Unacceptable Behaviour Policy and/or the relevant non-academic misconduct process.
Where a third party has reported a student as having committed academic misconduct and the academic misconduct officer believes there is compelling evidence to investigate further, the student will be made aware of all allegations made against them. Details of the case will not be shared with the reporting third party due to data protection, except where local regulations may require this.[E(20.1]
Where the student suspected of misconduct is registered in a different school/department to that in which the work was undertaken, the relevant academic misconduct officer will also be informed that an investigation is underway and of the outcome.
An academic misconduct officer for the school/department in which the work was undertaken is required to conduct an investigation.
4.1.2 Investigation by an academic misconduct officer
The academic misconduct officer will consider the evidence and may question appropriate people to gain additional information.
At this stage, the academic misconduct officer may conclude that academic misconduct has not taken place and no further action will be taken. Usually, the student would not be formally notified.
The academic misconduct officer will determine if the case meets the criteria for a desk-based approach or to hold a school academic misconduct meeting. A desk-based approach has more limited and less severe possible cautions and penalties.
A desk-based approach may be undertaken when all the following criteria are met:
- It is the student’s first instance of academic misconduct
- The instance involves plagiarism only
- The affected assessment(s) in this instance of academic misconduct is worth no more than 20 credits
- In the academic misconduct officer’s opinion, the extent of the plagiarism identified is minor
- The student has not previously had a desk-based approach for an instance of academic misconduct (regardless of outcome)
- The case does not meet any of the criteria for referral to the Academic Misconduct Committee (outlined in section 4.1.4 of this code).
If any of these criteria are not met, or if the academic misconduct officer believes an appropriate penalty for the instance of academic misconduct is not available to them under the desk-based approach (see section 4.2.1 of this code), then a school academic misconduct meeting will be held.
A student can request a school academic misconduct meeting rather than a desk-based approach on receipt of their desk-based approach outcome letter. If they do so, the desk-based approach outcome would be nullified and the outcome from the school academic misconduct meeting will take precedence.
4.1.3 School desk-based approach
Where the academic misconduct officer is satisfied that all the relevant criteria are met and an appropriate caution or penalty is available, they will undertake a desk-based approach.
In order to make a desk-based approach, the academic misconduct officer is required to refer to the appropriate Turnitin similarity report in addition to any other evidence provided by the person who reported the matter, the identified original sources (where reasonably available), and an annotated version of the student’s assessment, as a minimum, in order to review the extent of the plagiarism. They will also ascertain what training/guidance was provided to students relating to academic misconduct and determine whether, upon submission of the piece of work, the student had declared that the work was their own.
The academic misconduct officer can make one of the following outcomes for a desk-based approach:
- A finding of academic misconduct
- A finding of poor academic practice (as defined in section 2.2 of this code)
- No finding of academic misconduct.
If the academic misconduct officer is satisfied that academic misconduct has not taken place, no further action will be taken in relation to the case and no formal record of the issue will be kept.
If the academic misconduct officer is satisfied that this is an instance of poor academic practice, they will ensure the student is provided with relevant guidance to enable them to develop their understanding of good practice. The student should be directed to seek opportunities to further their understanding (for example, accessing university website referencing training materials).
If the academic misconduct officer is satisfied that, on the balance of probability, academic misconduct has been found, the academic misconduct officer will write to the student, using the template provided in section 6 of this code and providing copies of the evidence considered, to inform them that academic misconduct has been identified. The student must be informed of the school/department’s proposed caution to be imposed.
The desk-based approach outcome will permit the student 10 working days to respond to the letter and:
- Accept the school/department’s desk-based approach outcome, or
- Request for their case to be considered at a school academic misconduct meeting.
A student can request a school academic misconduct meeting if they dispute the occurrence of academic misconduct, have additional information to provide, or for another reason wish their case to be heard in a formal meeting. A student has an opportunity to present any mitigating circumstances impacting on their assessment at a school academic misconduct meeting.
Any requests for a school academic misconduct meeting made within the timeframe above should be accepted and considered in line with section 4.1.4 of this code.
If the student fails to respond within the timescale, the academic misconduct officer will consider the desk-based approach outcome as final.
4.1.4 School academic misconduct meeting
The academic misconduct officer will ask the student to attend a meeting, giving the student at least 5 calendar days’ notice. A letter template for this is available in section 6 of this code. If an apprenticeship candidate is being investigated for academic misconduct, then the academic misconduct officer should consult with the programme director and the Professional and Work-Based Learning team before contacting the apprentice. Reasonable requests for a different notice period will be considered. Evidence to support the request may be required. Meetings may be held in person or online. For cases of suspected collusion, joint or group allegations may be considered at a single meeting with all students in attendance.
In the case of a student taking examinations at the time the investigation is initiated, notice of the meeting will be given after the student has finished their examinations. Meetings will not take place whilst the student has ongoing exams.
If a student wishes to bring a supporter to the meeting, as outlined in section 3.2 of this code, they should inform their school/department who will be attending as supporter in advance of the meeting.
If the student does not respond to a written request to attend the meeting, the academic misconduct officer may continue with the meeting without the student’s involvement and, provided the student has been given adequate opportunity to make representations, make a decision. The student will be sent written notification of the outcome.
The meeting may be attended by a third-party, such as a module convenor, staff member from Student Services, personal tutor, or an examinations officer, who will take notes. The student will be notified in advance of the meeting of any other people who will be attending (for example to provide evidence or further information at the academic misconduct officer’s request).
Ordinarily, the student will be informed of the nature of the suspected misconduct and provided with the evidence of suspected misconduct in advance of the meeting, so the student is clear regarding the allegations. However, this may not be applicable in all cases, particularly concerning cases of false authorship and collusion. In cases where an academic misconduct officer believes it more appropriate to inform the student of the details of the allegation in person, it will be ensured that the student is not put at a disadvantage as a result and the student will be provided with the evidence prior to giving their response.
1. In the meeting, the academic misconduct officer will:
2. Ensure the student is aware of the definition of academic misconduct.
3. Outline the process and possible outcomes and cautions and penalties explained in this code.
Explain the reasons for suspecting the student of academic misconduct and ask the student if they understand these reasons. All material relating to the case should be made available to the student.
For cases of suspected plagiarism, where possible, the evidence will not rely solely on a Turnitin similarity report but should refer to the student's assessment and, unless unavailable for good reason, the original source(s) to demonstrate the extent of any plagiarism.
For cases where the authorship of the assessment is contested, the student will be asked questions regarding the assessment subject to the allegation in order to establish their knowledge and understanding of the topic. This will only be used as part of the investigation and not as a form of assessment.
Questions will be designed to give the student the opportunity to demonstrate that they are the sole author of the piece of work. Students may not refer questions to or provide answers produced by GenAI software. Students may be requested to provide drafts of their work and explain the development of the assessment. For these cases, it is recommended a subject specialist is present at the meeting to enable questioning to establish the student’s academic understanding of the work in question.
It is recognised that there are factors which may impact a student’s ability to respond to questioning, such as spoken English language ability, a specific learning difference or stress. Any decision made will take into account all available evidence (including responses to questioning) and a decision will be made on the balance of probabilities.
4. Ask the student about any training/guidance they had received relating to academic misconduct and, in the case of suspected plagiarism, determine whether, upon submission of the piece of work, the student had declared that the work was their own. The academic misconduct officer should also ascertain what training/guidance was available to the student.
5. Ask the student to respond, including providing details of any mitigating circumstances. Mitigating circumstances will not exempt a student from a finding of academic misconduct. However, if the school/department is satisfied that the mitigating circumstances have a direct impact on the case, they may take this into account when determining a proportionate caution or penalty, should academic misconduct be deemed to have taken place.
6. Ask the student to provide a brief, written, signed statement which:
a. acknowledges what it is the student is alleged to have done
b. acknowledges why what is alleged counts as academic misconduct
c. provides the student’s own account of events, which may include an explanation for their behaviour.
The academic misconduct officer will permit the student up to 5 working days to provide the written statement. If the student fails to submit the statement within this timescale, the academic misconduct officer will proceed based on the findings of the investigation. A final outcome and associated caution or penalty will not be given to a student until the student has had the opportunity to submit a written statement within the permitted timescales. However, if the academic misconduct officer is satisfied during the course of the meeting that academic misconduct has not occurred, it is not necessary to request this statement. Additionally, if the student clearly states, in writing, they do not wish to submit a statement, the academic misconduct officer may proceed with making a decision.
Once the meeting has taken place and the student has submitted their written statement (where they have chosen to submit one), the academic misconduct officer will write to the student summarising the case, giving their decision and the supporting rationale for the decision, and providing details of further action and/or outcomes, as applicable.
The academic misconduct officer can reach one of the following conclusions following a school academic misconduct meeting:
- A finding of academic misconduct
- A finding of poor academic practice (as defined in section 2.2 of this code)
- No finding of academic misconduct.
If the academic misconduct officer is satisfied that academic misconduct has not taken place, no further action will be taken in relation to the case and no formal record of the issue will be kept. The student will be informed of this outcome in writing.
If the academic misconduct officer is satisfied that this is an instance of poor academic practice, they will ensure the student is provided with relevant guidance to enable them to develop their understanding of good practice. The student should be directed to seek opportunities to further their understanding (for example, accessing university website referencing training materials). The academic misconduct officer will report the finding of poor academic practice to academic-misconduct@nottingham.ac.uk (for UNUK cases) misconduct@nottingham.edu.my (for UNM cases) academic-misconduct@nottingham.edu.cn (for UNNC cases).
If the academic misconduct officer is satisfied, on the balance of probability, that academic misconduct has occurred, one of the following courses of action will apply and the student will be notified of the outcome in writing.
1. Referral to the Academic Misconduct Committee
A case will be referred to the Academic Misconduct Committee where at least one of the following criteria applies:
a) The academic misconduct officer has made a finding of false authorship and at least one of the following applies:
a. The student has had a previous finding of false authorship
b. The false authorship has been identified in multiple modules
c. The academic misconduct officer believes a third-party agent or essay mill has been used
b) The academic misconduct officer believes an appropriate caution or penalty for the instance is not available to them under this code, following consideration of any aggravating and mitigating factors.
c) The academic misconduct officer has made a finding of impersonation
d) The academic misconduct officer has made a finding that the student has falsified content or evidence provided as part of an academic process claim/request
e) The student has two or more previous instances of academic misconduct recorded against them, not including findings of poor academic practice, and where the subsequent instances occurred after the desk-based approach has concluded or the school meeting has been held in relation to the first instance. If multiple instances are discovered and investigated at the same time, or an instance occurs before the conclusion of the desk-based approach or the school academic misconduct meeting has been held for the first instance, this should be considered as one instance.
f) The student is a postgraduate research student (unless the misconduct has taken place in a first year taught module).
If any of these criteria are met, the academic misconduct officer will forward the decision letter and supporting evidence (a list of paperwork usually required from the school/department is in section 6 of this code) to academic-misconduct@nottingham.ac.uk (UNUK) misconduct@nottingham.edu.my (UNM) academic-misconduct@nottingham.edu.cn (UNNC) for the relevant team to organise for the case to be heard by a panel of the Academic Misconduct Committee. The referral must be made within ten working days of the student being notified of the school/department’s decision.
Where a case is referred for consideration by the Academic Misconduct Committee, the academic misconduct officer will inform the relevant board of examiners. The board of examiners must defer consideration of the work in question until the committee has made a decision on the case. The results for modules unaffected by the suspected misconduct should be considered by the board of examiners and released to the student. In the case of research students, the board of examiners comprises the internal and external examiners, and the joint report form should be deferred until the Academic Misconduct Committee has made its decision.
2. Referral to the relevant non-academic misconduct process
Where, as a result of the student’s actions, it is considered that a disciplinary offence may have been committed (such as coercion, forgery or theft) and/or where the student’s actions raise concerns about their fitness to practise, the academic misconduct officer will refer the case to the relevant non-academic misconduct process for consideration.
3. School academic misconduct meeting caution/penalty applied
If none of the criteria for referral to the Academic Misconduct Committee are met, and the case is not referred in whole to the relevant non-academic misconduct process for that campus, the academic misconduct officer will determine an appropriate caution or penalty from those available to them, as detailed in section 4.2.2 of this code and will notify the student of this in writing, explaining their decision. The academic misconduct officer will report the finding of academic misconduct to academic-misconduct@nottingham.ac.uk (UNUK) misconduct@nottingham.edu.my (UNM) academic-misconduct@nottingham.edu.cn (UNNC).
Where a student is dissatisfied with the outcome of a school academic misconduct meeting, and their case has not been referred to the Academic Misconduct Committee or referred in whole to the relevant non-academic misconduct process, they may request a review of this decision by following the steps outlined in section 4.1.6 of this code.
4.1.5 Academic Misconduct Committee
Following a school/department referral to the Academic Misconduct Committee, cases will usually be heard by a panel in the form of a formal hearing. This can be in person or online. The panel will comprise three members, who will be academic staff members of the Academic Appeals and Academic Misconduct Committee. One of the academic staff members will act as chair. The student whose case is being heard may insist that the panel does or does not include a student representative. If the student insists that the panel includes a student representative and such a representative is available, they will replace one of the academic staff members. Panel members will have had no prior involvement with the student whose case is being considered and will not be from the same school or department as the student. The panel will be supported by a case handler from the team at the relevant campus who will act as secretary.
The Academic Misconduct Committee can reach one of the following conclusions following a paper-based consideration or an Academic Misconduct Committee hearing:
- A finding of academic misconduct
- A finding of poor academic practice (as defined in section 2.2 of this code)
- No finding of academic misconduct.
Paper-based consideration
In some circumstances, the case may be considered without the need for a formal hearing or for the student or school to be in attendance. In this instance, the evidence and student representations considered by the school/department are sent to three academic staff members of the Academic Misconduct Committee. A paper-based consideration can be requested using the paper-based form provided.
The Investigations and Resolution team determines the more appropriate approach, even if not requested by the student. As a minimum, all of the following criteria should be met:
- The student does not dispute the school/department’s finding of academic misconduct.
- The facts of the case are not in dispute and there is no additional evidence to present (other than that already presented at the school academic misconduct meeting)
As the finding of academic misconduct is not disputed as a condition of a case being eligible for a paper-based consideration, the scope of the consideration is to make a decision on the appropriate penalty or caution.
Students will be informed of the outcome in writing. Students who are dissatisfied with the outcome can request a review of the decision by following the steps in section 4.1.6 of this code. Students cannot request a review of the finding of academic misconduct but may request a review of the outcome only on the grounds that a different caution or penalty should be imposed. Claims that amount simply to an expression of dissatisfaction with the caution or penalty imposed will not be considered.
Academic Misconduct Committee hearing
If the case is not to be heard by a paper-based panel, the school/department representative and the student will be notified of the date of the next available Academic Misconduct Committee hearing with a minimum of five calendar days’ notice. Reasonable requests for a different notice period will be considered. For cases of suspected collusion, joint or group allegations may be considered at a single meeting with all students in attendance. A school/department representative is required to attend to present their case. If the student is unable to attend, and they do not provide a compelling reason for their absence, the hearing will take place in the student’s absence and the chair will have a duty to ensure that the members of the panel are fully aware of all the facts, including the points made in the student’s statement. If the student provides a compelling reason for being unable to attend the hearing, the panel may consider if a postponement of the hearing can be accommodated.
The hearing documentation will be circulated five working days in advance of the hearing and will include the original academic misconduct officer’s decision letter, supporting evidence and details of who will be in attendance at the meeting. The student will be invited to submit an additional written statement for inclusion in the documentation and given a deadline for its submission.
Panel members, the student and the school/department representative will all have access to the same documentary and verbal evidence. An exceptional arrangement may be made at the discretion of the chair, if a student wishes to request that additional evidence be made available to the panel only (e.g. properly certified medical evidence that the student felt unable to share with the school/department).
If the student has a previous finding of academic misconduct on their record, the panel will only be told of this after a decision is reached but before a caution or penalty is decided upon (if appropriate). The only exception to this will be if, in making their case to the panel, the student chooses to disclose a previous instance or makes false representation about previous instances of academic misconduct, in which case the school/department or secretary may correct matters of fact.
The school/department and the student may invite witnesses to attend.
If a student wishes to bring a supporter to the meeting, as outlined in section 3.2 of this code, or any witnesses, they must notify the team from the relevant campus at least three working days in advance of the hearing.
A panel of the Academic Misconduct Committee acts with the full delegated authority of Quality and Standards Committee. In addition to the cautions and penalties listed in section 4.2 of this code, the student may be required to undertake appropriate remedial action. The Academic Misconduct Committee has the power to:
a) require members of the staff of the university to make written submissions, attend, give evidence and answer questions
b) apply a caution or penalty if it is satisfied, on the balance of probability, that academic misconduct has taken place.
Once the panel has made its decision the student and school/department will be notified of the outcome in writing, normally within five working days. Where this is not possible, students will be notified of an alternative timeframe in which they can expect to receive the outcome.
If the panel identifies any shortcomings in the school/department procedure, details of these will be recorded by the team from the relevant campus who will report them to the school/department.
4.1.6 Academic misconduct review request
Students who consider that the university has failed to carry out its duty to act fairly in the application of this code may request a review of:
- Their school academic misconduct meeting outcome (if their case is not referred to the Academic Misconduct Committee or referred in whole to the relevant non-academic misconduct process)
- Their Academic Misconduct Committee outcome.
A student who is dissatisfied with the outcome of a desk-based approach has the opportunity to request a school academic misconduct meeting as explained in section 4.1.3 of this code.
Dissatisfaction with the outcome alone does not constitute grounds for requesting a review. In order for a review request to be considered, the student must establish at least one of the following grounds:
- A procedural irregularity occurred in the handling of their case of academic misconduct.
- A compelling argument that the decision and/or caution or penalty was unreasonable and/or disproportionate.
To request a review, the student must submit a review request form (linked in section 6 of this code) to academic-misconduct@nottingham.ac.uk. Eligible review requests are undertaken by a member of the Academic Appeals and Academic Misconduct Committee who has had no prior involvement in the case being considered. When making a review request, a student will usually need to provide evidence in support of the grounds they are seeking to establish. A student who wishes to provide evidence that was not provided at an earlier stage of the academic misconduct process must explain why this evidence was not available sooner.
Such requests should be made within ten working days of the student being notified of the decision of the school academic misconduct meeting or the Academic Misconduct Committee. The relevant decision provided to the student will confirm the date by which they must submit their request for a review.
The review stage will not usually consider the issues afresh or involve further investigation. The reviewer can:
- Reject the claim and issue the student with a completion of procedures letter.
- Uphold the claim and substitute a decision on behalf of the university.
After the internal university processes have been exhausted, students have the opportunity to have their case independently reviewed by the OIA.
4.2 Caution and penalties available through the academic misconduct process
Whenever a penalty is applied that impacts the marks of an assessment, it will be applied in conjunction with any other penalty. Academic misconduct penalties will be applied prior to further penalties, such as those for late submission or exceeding the word count.
All cautions and penalties should be appropriate and proportionate, taking into account the nature of the misconduct, the evidence presented by the school/department and the student and the impact of the caution or penalty. In addition to the cautions and penalties listed below, the student may be required to undertake appropriate remedial action.
Where a finding of poor academic practice is made (as described in section 2.2 of this code), no additional caution or penalty will be applied.
4.2.1 Caution available following a desk-based approach
Where a desk-based approach has made a finding of academic misconduct in relation to work undertaken in a taught module or as part of a taught programme of study, the academic misconduct officer will impose a caution. The matter will be recorded on the student’s record as a case of academic misconduct and reported to the team at the relevant campus when the student is notified of the decision.
The only caution available to the academic misconduct officer for a finding of academic misconduct following a desk-based approach (which necessarily requires that the criteria for a desk-based approach are met) is:
- A written warning (where relevant, the lower standard of the piece of work will be reflected in the mark awarded).
If appropriate, the school/department will provide the student with relevant guidance to enable the student to develop his or her understanding of good practice.
4.2.2 Caution and penalties available following a school academic misconduct meeting
Where a school academic misconduct meeting has made a finding of academic misconduct in relation to work undertaken in a taught module or as part of a taught programme of study, the academic misconduct officer will impose a caution or penalty. The matter will be recorded on the student’s record as a case of academic misconduct and reported to the team at the relevant campus when the student is notified of the decision.
The caution and penalties available to the academic misconduct officer for a finding of academic misconduct following a school academic misconduct meeting, assuming the criteria for referral to the Academic Misconduct Committee are not met, are:
- A written warning (where relevant, the lower standard of the piece of work will be reflected in the mark awarded)
- A mark of zero for the specific material which is the subject of the academic misconduct. The amount of material deemed to be academic misconduct is a matter of academic judgment and cannot be determined by a Turnitin report alone.
- An overall percentage reduction to the piece of work reflecting the percentage of the work which is the subject of academic misconduct, as determined by the academic misconduct officer. This could also include a reduction in marks to a lower spot mark if the published marking criteria use spot marks. The amount of material deemed to be academic misconduct is a matter of academic judgment and cannot, for example, be determined by a Turnitin report alone.
- A mark of zero for the entire assessment in which the academic misconduct has occurred. In the case of misconduct in an examination, a mark of zero will be recorded for the examination in question.
- A mark of zero for the module with the requirement for the student to take a different module as a reassessment (where a reassessment opportunity is permitted), to be applied in relation to ‘failure to disclose previous experience or qualifications that are a bar to enrolment on a module’ only.
Where an academic caution or penalty is not appropriate (e.g. where a student has been found to have assisted another student to gain an unpermitted advantage, but the assisting student is not enrolled on the module in which the collusion has occurred), the academic misconduct officer may report the issue for consideration under the non-academic misconduct process for the relevant campus.
In all cases where a finding of academic misconduct is made, the school/department will provide the student with relevant guidance to enable them to develop their academic skills.
4.2.3 Caution and penalties available following an Academic Misconduct Committee panel/hearing
Following a finding of academic misconduct, a panel/hearing of the Academic Misconduct Committee has the power to apply one or more of the following caution and penalties:
- Any of the caution and penalties listed in sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 of this code
- Award a mark of zero for the entire module in which the academic misconduct has occurred
- Award a mark of zero for all the assessments in the semester (even where this will lead to, for example, a reduction in degree class or the award of a lower qualification). In the case of year-long modules, the panel may apply this penalty to both semesters.
- Award a mark of zero for the whole year (even where this will lead to, for example, a reduction in degree class or the award of a lower qualification)
- Require the student to take reassessments (as a result of being awarded zero marks) at the next available opportunity before being allowed to progress or complete their course, in order to demonstrate their ability to meet the learning objectives of the module.
- In the case of PhD students, confirm the student’s probationary status and require the student to undertake another annual (confirmation) review in line with Quality Manual guidance
- Require a research student to resubmit a thesis with or without a viva
- Require a research student to register for a period of supervision before being allowed to resubmit a thesis
- Suspend or terminate the student’s course
- Withdraw the award of a degree or other qualification from a former student of the university.
Any of the caution and penalties above may also be applied to a student found to have committed academic misconduct during the completion of a reassessment. Where the caution or penalty would lead to the termination of the student's course through the automatic application of university regulations (i.e. because the student has exhausted their reassessment opportunities), the committee may exercise its discretion and decide to grant the student one further reassessment opportunity notwithstanding regulations.
4.3 Expected time limits
The OIA Good Practice Framework stipulates that the handling of academic misconduct casework will normally be completed within 90 calendar days of the start of the investigation of academic misconduct allegations. This timeframe requires students to meet any deadlines set by the university. Delays in information or evidence being provided will require this timeframe to be extended. If a student requires an extension to any of the timescales set out in this section, they must request this from their school/department (if at the school/department stage of the process), from the team at the relevant campus (if at the Academic Misconduct Committee stage) or from the Investigations and Resolution team (if at the review stage) prior to the deadline.
If a student fails to proceed within the given deadlines of the academic misconduct process, as explained in the procedural steps detailed in sections 4.1.1 to 4.1.6 of this code, they may not be able to progress through the entirety of the internal academic misconduct mechanisms of the university. Requests for a school academic misconduct meeting (where the case has only been considered through a desk-based approach) and review requests that are submitted outside of the timescales stipulated in this code will only be considered in the most exceptional circumstances and where there is good reason, supported by evidence, for the late submission.
4.4 Standard of evidence
Independent, reliable evidence may be required to support claims made by a student during the academic misconduct process. Details of the types of evidence required can be found in the ‘Standards of evidence regulation'.