Academic Misconduct (Taught Students)

Cardiff University have fundamental core values that they expect students to abide by in their academic work. These values are detailed in the University's Academic Integrity Policy and include integrity, honesty, openness, rigour, accountability, care, and respect.

As a student, you are expected to maintain high standards of academic practice and not engage in academic misconduct. Academic Misconduct, in principle, is working in a way that means you obtain an unfair advantage, or a higher mark, that you would otherwise not secure.

Academic Misconduct in coursework includes plagiarism, self-plagiarism, collusion, using an external writing service such as a ghost writer or essay mill, or acting dishonestly. Importantly, Academic Misconduct can take place irrespective of whether your actions or inactions were intended to gain an unfair advantage or not.

Importantly, Academic Misconduct can take place irrespective of whether your actions or inactions were intended to gain an unfair advantage or not.

For this reason it is very important to:

Seek help from academic staff if you are struggling with a piece of coursework;
Be very careful when seeking help or giving help to others. It is essential to understand the rules on sharing for each assignment. In some cases, helping each other is permitted, provided you do not actually share your work. In other cases, even the smallest amount of help is going too far;
Consider applying for an extension, submitting late but within 24 hours of the deadline, or not submitting at all and reporting Extenuating Circumstances if you have them. If you are rushing to meet a deadline you are most at risk of making mistakes. If you submit within 24 hours, your mark will be capped at the pass mark but, if you submit work that is not your own, or not properly referenced, you could be investigated and have the work marked to zero.
Know that many students who have been accused of Academic Misconduct have had some difficult circumstances that have affected their judgement. It is better to apply for Extenuating Circumstance than submit work that is not your own or not referenced properly;
Be aware that the University will not allow Extenuating Circumstances to be accepted if the University decides you are guilty of Academic Misconduct. You can explain any circumstances that may have affected your judgment during the investigation but, if the allegation is upheld, the Examining Board will not consider any circumstances reported through the Extenuating Circumstances procedure;
The University has very clear rules about how students should conduct themselves in exams. Make sure you know these rules.
When sitting an exam, double check your phone (or any other unauthorised material) is not in your pocket and put it in the box under then exam desk. Having a phone in your pocket is considered examination misconduct even if you don’t use it and it is turned off. Having notes in a dictionary is misconduct even if you did not know they were there.
Remember if you are on a Professional programme with a Fitness to Practise requirement, an upheld allegation of Academic Misconduct will be regarded and dishonesty and may prompt a Fitness to Practise Investigation.

What is Academic Misconduct?

The University's definitions are included in the Academic Integrity Policy, which states that Academic Misconduct includes;

Plagiarism: the use of someone else’s words, ideas, intellectual property, or work, without proper acknowledgment by use of correct referencing conventions, or necessary permissions. Words or ideas may include: text (including paraphrasing), diagrams, formulae, software.
Self-plagiarism: when work is reproduced or re-presented for assessment when it has already been part of another assessment. This includes work on your current programme of study or a previous programme of study at the University or at another educational institution.
External writing service: the use of an external writing service, for example essay banks, essay mills, ghost writers, or any external essay/thesis writing service, in place of or in addition to your own writing.
Collusion: presenting work as your own when it has been produced by, or with, someone else, or allowing work to be submitted in someone else’s name.
Examination Misconduct: any action in an examination venue which is against examination rules and/or which may lead to an unfair advantage over other students. This may include bringing unauthorised materials or items into an examination, copying the responses of another student, communicating with any person other than the examination invigilator in an examination by speaking, text, telephone, gestures or on any other platform, impersonating another student, or allowing yourself to be impersonated.
Dishonesty: when information or actions that are not true or authentic are presented or there is deliberate deception. This may include the creation of or fabrication of data, the inappropriate manipulation and/or selection of data or imagery etc., representing falsely or unfairly the ideas or work of others.
Breach of rule or protocols: all staff and students taking part in research are expected to familiarise themselves with, and comply with, the Research Integrity and Governance Code of Practice, and to adhere to the ethics requirements and other requirements which relate to the conduct of academic work. Contraventions of this Code of Practice might include the failure properly to protect privileged or private information on individuals collected during research, or the refusal to allow your methods, procedures, findings, or data to be available for scrutiny, within any agreed confidentiality arrangement.
Any attempt to gain an unfair advantage in an assessment.

The Investigation

For most cases of Academic Misconduct, you will be invited to attend an ‘investigatory’ meeting, to discuss the concern with the Academic Misconduct Coordinator for your School. The lecturer in that subject, or the person who marked the work, may also be present to explain why they reported concerns with your work.

If you are invited to an investigation meeting, don't panic and don't respond in a hurry. It is really important to prepare and make sure you fully understand the concern before you say anything.

It is common in cases of collusion for all students involved in the concern to be invited to the same meeting. You can request a separate meeting if you feel that a joint meeting will mean you cannot present your case effectively and honestly. If, for example, you were pressured into sharing your work by another student, you may not feel comfortable saying that in front of them. The same is true if you have some extenuating circumstances that you do not want to share with other students. If this applies to you, you will need to contact the Academic Misconduct Coordinator and let them know.

You should be given 14 days’ notice of the meeting itself and also provided with evidence that supports the allegation at least 7 days before the meeting date. The Academic Misconduct Coordinator and/or the person who raised the concern, should fully explain the concerns and give you full opportunity to respond. You will need to explain what has happened from your point of view and we recommend reading the following in preparation:

The University’s Academic Integrity Policy outlines what the University expects from you in terms of academic practice and defines what the University deem as Academic Misconduct.
The University’s Academic Misconduct Procedure for Students on Taught Programmes is the procedure applied by the University when concerns are raised about your academic conduct. This explains what steps the University will take and possible outcomes.
The Good Practice Framework for Disciplinary Procedures, Part A: Academic disciplinary procedures is written by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA), an independent body set up to review student complaints about higher education providers. This Framework explains what the OIA deem as good practice in academic disciplinary matters such as Academic Misconduct.

Plagiarism

If the School’s concern relates to potential plagiarism, we also strongly advise you to look at the University’s Why, when and how, citing and referencing tutorial, which covers plagiarism, paraphrasing, summarising and referencing.

Specific tutorials and guides on the referencing rules for your course can be found on the University’s intranet page and in your Student Handbook. It is important to be familiar with the referencing rules for your course because allegations of Academic Misconduct normally arise due to a failure to follow them.

If you have used someone else’s work, you need to identify where words/ideas are not your own by using the referencing rules for your programme. If you do not reference properly, you are not telling the reader that they are someone else’s words/ideas and so are presenting them as your own. This is what the University usually class as plagiarism.

Preparing for the meeting

It is important that you prepare thoroughly for the meeting so you are able to respond to the allegations made against you. In Student Advice we refer to the OIA Best Practice Framework, which covers what an investigator and decision maker should consider (section 73 to 77).

In your preparation you will need to:

Make sure that you fully understand both the University’s rules on Academic Integrity, Academic Misconduct and the referencing rules for your course.
Look at the evidence that has been sent to you and try and work out what has happened. If the concern relates to potential plagiarism and you have been sent a Turnitin report, look through that report and check each section that is highlighted as matching another source to see if it includes the appropriate reference. If not, be prepared to explain why not. Was it accidental? Have you attempted to reference but not done so fully? Did you list the source in your bibliography?
If the concern relates to potential collusion, go through the evidence and details of the concern and look at where your work matches that of another student. Can you explain why areas of the work are the same? Can you explain how you completed the work and how you came to the answers you did? Are the matches coincidence and is this coincidence believable?
If the concern relates to potential self-plagiarism, go through the evidence and details of the concern and look at where this piece of work matches work that you have submitted previously. Can you explain why areas of the work are the same? Can you explain how you completed the work and how you came to use the same words/ideas as you did before? Are the matches coincidence and is this coincidence believable?
What was your intention when you wrote this piece of work? Did you intend to gain an unfair advantage? If not, what happened? The issue of intention is not relevant to the finding of Academic Misconduct (you can be found guilty of Academic Misconduct even if you had no intention) but it is relevant to the penalty imposed.
Ask yourself if there are any mitigating factors that might have affected your judgment and obtain evidence. Section 77 in Part A of the OIA Good Practice Framework above covers possible points of mitigation. We advise to think about points such as if this is this your first assignment of this type, if you missed study skills training, if English is your second language, or anything else you can think of that may mitigate what happened.
Did you have any Extenuating Circumstances at the time that may have affected your judgment? If so, be sure to include a full explanation of what was happening and how it affected your judgment and work at the time.
Ask yourself if there are any additional consequences if the mark is set to 0. Was this your final attempt at the assignment? If the mark for this piece of work is set to 0, will you be withdrawn? The OIA Good Practice Framework says that the University should consider any additional impact when deciding on a penalty.
The OIA Good Practice Framework also says that the University should consider how much benefit you would have gained from what happened. For example, if there was just one line of text, then this would give you much less benefit than a paragraph. Equally if there is an accusation affecting just one question, this would offer less benefit than multiple questions.
Write a list of all points you want to raise, so you can be sure you don’t miss anything.
Think about if there is any evidence you can get to support what you say and try to get the best quality evidence possible. Good quality evidence is evidence that is independent and time specific, e.g.. a doctor’s note that confirms you were unwell for the week of the assessment, or a letter from a Counsellor to say that you have been having ongoing sessions with them for anxiety that covered the period you submitted your work. Evidence should be in English or Welsh, signed, dated and on headed paper. It is a good idea to try and get it in advance of the meeting but, if this is not possible, you can explain what evidence you will get and submit it with your statement later.
Make notes in the meeting of any points you feel you would like to expand on in your statement later, or any questions you were asked that you were not expecting. This will allow you time to think and cover anything you want to say in more detail in your statement.

You will be offered the opportunity of submitting a written statement before the meeting but we strongly advise against doing so unless for very good reason you are unable to attend. We usually recommend sending your statement after the meeting, when you are fully aware of the concerns.

Attending the Meeting

As above, the purpose of this meeting is to establish the facts relevant to the allegation. During the meeting the Academic Misconduct Coordinator will discuss the concerns with you. Your module leader, or the person who marked the work, may attend to explain the concerns about your work. A note taker may also be present. During this meeting it is important that you answer the questions you are asked as honestly as possible. Keep in mind the University's core principles of integrity, honesty, openness, rigour, accountability, care, and respect.

As advised in the preparation section above, we recommend that you cover the following points in the meeting, where applicable to your case:

Reflection to show care and respect. You ideally look to show an understanding of why academic integrity is so important and why your work or conduct has caused concern;
Apology to show accountability and respect. Even if your work has breached the Academic Integrity rules unintentionally;
Intent. Did you intend to gain an unfair advantage? If not, what happened?
Context. Explain how you produced the work. Show that you understand it and point out if and where you have attempted to reference. Note if you reached out for help from a staff member. If the case record does not accurately capture your explanation of how you went about your work, how you understand it and/or why you think there may be similarities, explain this as best you can in your statement.
Benefit. If the allegation is upheld, how much advantage would you have gained from the academic misconduct?
Mitigation. Is this your first assignment of this type? Did you miss, or were you not offered, study skills training? Is English your second language?
Extenuating Circumstances. Was anything affecting you when you were writing the assignment/going into the exam?
Impact. Explain if a penalty will have additional impact on you, such as delaying graduation, or if you will be withdrawn because this was your final attempt.
Conclusion. What have you learned from this investigation? How are you going to prevent this from happening again? If you are denying the allegation, how important is honesty to you? How important is this course to you?

After the Meeting

Following the meeting, the Academic Misconduct Coordinator will complete a written record of the meeting for submission to the Chair of the Examining Board and will send this to you, normally by email. You have 7 days from receipt of this record in which to write to the Chair of the Examining Board, to either dispute the concern and/or add any comments you have about the content of the meeting record. This is your opportunity to say what you want to say to the Chair, who will then make a decision on your case. We strongly advise that you:

Take time to go through the case record and make comments on anything you feel is inaccurate or needs supplementing. The record is not supposed to be a verbatim record or minutes of the meeting but should cover all the main points raised. If it is so brief that it is not an accurate record of the meeting, e.g.. the meeting lasted 20 minutes but the case record is only a few sentences long, be sure to say this to the Chair.
Submit a clear statement of your case and respond fully to the record of the meeting. Your statement should cover all the points recommended above (reflection, apology, intent, context, benefit, mitigation, extenuating circumstances, impact, conclusion). The statement should be sent directly to the Chair of the Exam Board via email.
Submit good quality evidence where appropriate and possible.

The Chair of the Examining Board

The Chair of the Examining Board will then look at your work, the written record of the meeting, your statement and any other evidence you have submitted. They will decide if it is more likely than not that Academic Misconduct has taken place. They should also take into account;

the extent and nature of the concern;
your level of study;
any exceptional circumstances or mitigating factors that might have affected your judgment.

The Chair of the Exam Board can take the following actions:

Dismiss the concern.
Require your attendance at study skills sessions and advise of consequences of any future concerns (the study skills session may be provided online instead).
Award a mark of 0 for the assessment.
Award a mark of 0 for the module.
Refer to the University Academic Integrity Panel who will normally meet within 42 days of the referral being made. This would be when the case is considered very serious or there has been an allegation of Academic Misconduct before.
Refer you to other University procedures if relevant, e.g.. Fitness to Practise, Student or Staff Conduct Procedures.

University Academic Integrity Panel

The Chair of the Examining Board can refer the case to the University Academic Integrity Panel if:

There is more than one incident of alleged academic misconduct;
There has been a previous case of academic misconduct;
The extent of misconduct is considered to be serious;
The alleged case is at a higher level of study, i.e.. level 6, 7, or 8;
There is an aggravating factor, for example bribery, threatening behaviour, or intimidation.

If your case is referred to an Academic Integrity Panel, a Student Adviser can help you to prepare for the hearing. It is important to contact us as soon as possible if you would like us to do so.

The panel will be made up of 3 members of academic staff, all from outside of your School. One panel member will act as Chair and a member of Student Cases staff will oversee the hearing, to ensure that the panel follow procedure as they should. A note taker is usually present and the Academic Misconduct Coordinator for your School will be there to present the concerns.

At least 14 days before the date of the panel, the University will write to you with:

information of the allegation;
copies of any documentation to be considered by the panel, along with the details of any witnesses who will be called;
the date, time, and venue of the panel meeting and ask if you would like the panel conducted through the medium of English or Welsh.

You must reply within 7 days and confirm if you plan to attend or not. If you do not reply within the expected time, do not attend the panel, and all reasonable efforts have been made to contact you, the panel may proceed in your absence.

You must also send any additional information you want to be considered and the names of witnesses you intend to call and/or the name of anyone who will accompany you. This includes an additional statement should you want to submit one.

Preparation

Preparing for the panel is much the same as preparing for the initial investigation. One important difference is that the Academic Integrity panel are able to impose much harsher penalties and, if your case is referred to one, it is likely because the Chair feels that a harsher penalty is appropriate.

Whether or not you decide to submit a further statement depends on whether or not you want to change or add to anything you have already said. If, for example, you denied the allegation earlier but now want to admit it and apologise, it is important to submit another statement with an updated reflection and sincere apology.

If you are on a course that leads to professional registration and you are found to have been dishonest to a formal panel, you risk further investigation and potentially serious consequences under the Fitness to Practise procedure.

If you are on a course that leads to professional registration and you are found to have been dishonest to a formal panel, you risk further investigation and potentially serious consequences under the Fitness to Practise procedure.

Conduct of the Panel

The Academic Misconduct Procedure covers what happens and when. It dictates the following order:

The Chair of the Examining Board/Academic Misconduct Investigator (or nominee) will present the concerns for the panel and bring witnesses, if appropriate.
The panel and you (or your representative) may ask questions of the Chair, the Investigating Officer, and the witnesses.
You will have the opportunity to give evidence and call witnesses.
The panel members and the Investigating Officer will ask questions of you and any witnesses. If you are denying the allegation, be prepared to answer a lot of questions. If, for example, the allegation is plagiarism, the panel may ask you to go through every single highlighted part of the text and explain how and why that is a direct match to another source. If your answer is simply that it is a coincidence, is that coincidence believable?
You will have a final opportunity to make any additional comments.
The panel will then withdraw to consider all the evidence and make a decision about the case and any penalty that may be appropriate and proportionate.
The panel will usually provide the decision to you on the day but, If this is not possible, the outcome will be sent to you in writing within 7 days.

The decision

The panel's role is to consider the available evidence and;

Determine whether or not the allegation is substantiated;
If the allegation is not substantiated, the panel will dismiss the concern;
If the allegation is substantiated, determine the penalty that should be imposed, taking into account any mitigating factors. The sanction will be proportionate to the case being considered and will take into account any previous substantiated cases of academic misconduct.

If the allegation is substantiated, the sanctions available to the panel are:

Require your attendance at study skills sessions and advise of consequences of any further concerns (the study skills session may be provided online instead).
Issue a formal reprimand.
Award a mark of 0 for the assessment component or module.
In exceptional circumstances, where the mitigating circumstances warrant this, you may be permitted a further attempt at the assessment with the mark to be either uncapped or capped.
Require you to be reassessed in a module or unit of study before progression or completion of your programme of study.
Recommend to the Academic Registrar that you are excluded temporarily for a specified period of up to 1 academic year.
Recommend to the Vice-Chancellor a reduction of the degree result by 1 level/class.
Recommend to the Vice-Chancellor that you are excluded from the programme, from University study, and from all future examinations for a fixed number of years or permanently.
Recommend to Awards and Progress Committee and Senate that the award of the degree be rescinded.

Appeal

If you are not happy with the outcome of the investigation, you can challenge the decision under the University Review Procedure.