Plagiarism is incorporating somebody else's work into your own without due acknowledgement of the source or proper referencing. This means using their material, text or ideas, whether directly copied or summarised, or where just a few words have been changed or reordered. It doesn't matter if the source material is published or unpublished, in hard copy or electronic. 

Plagiarism also includes copying (i.e. one student copying the work of another) and commissioning work from someone else. 

Self-plagiarism is where a student uses material from their own work which has been submitted for assessment previously, without properly referencing its source. It doesn't matter whether the previous work was assessed at this university or another, or for the student's current course or a different one, referring to your own work without referencing it correctly is self-plagiarism and is academic misconduct.

Buying or commissioning work from someone else and passing it off as your own is also known as ‘contract cheating’. This includes asking another person to write a (draft or final) assessment for you, buying an essay via internet ‘essay mill’ sites, or getting another person to collect or interpret data for you. It doesn’t matter if there is payment involved or not.

Cheating usually relates to formal exams, either written or oral. It covers any action which would or could give unfair advantage over other students, whether this is actual or attempted. For example, getting access to the question paper before it is released, taking unauthorised materials into the exam room, communication with or copying from another student (or allowing this to happen).

Collusion is where students work together to complete assessments which are supposed to be an individual effort. Or where one student allows another to copy their work and submit it for assessment.

This includes creating fictitious data in practical or project work (such as lab results or survey responses), or deliberately presenting data in a misleading way, or omitting certain data from reporting and analysis.

Personation is pretending to be someone else, for example sitting a formal exam in place of another student or writing an assessment for someone else. Buying or commissioning someone else to write an assessment for you is covered under Plagiarism.

Acts of bribery, fraud, ethical misconduct, etc may also constitute academic misconduct and will normally be investigated under the relevant process first, then academic misconduct procedure subsequently.

The university’s procedures allow for informal investigation. This is intended to enable staff to discuss a minor offence with a student(s) or find out more about a situation of potential academic misconduct. 

Informal discussion is particularly useful where the student(s) may have misunderstood the assessment brief or may be unfamiliar with academic referencing and good academic practice. The discussion may be brief, and may take place immediately, as soon as the issue occurs. This may be all that is needed to counsel the student, or to give them a ‘wake-up call’. 

An informal investigation may lead to:

1. No academic misconduct found and no further action.
2. Guidance to student highlighting poor academic practice and proper referencing protocols.
3. Admonition to student (informal warning).
4. Initiating formal investigation of suspected academic misconduct (but this doesn’t necessarily mean a serious offence is suspected).

On receiving a report of alleged academic misconduct, you and the member of staff should invite the student(s) to a formal interview. If you both agree the allegation is proven, and the misconduct is minor, you will apply an appropriate penalty, using your professional judgement (see evidentiary standards). You must advise the student of the outcome in writing. You should notify the student’s PAT and their local quality manager (and the university SQA Coordinator if the incident involves SQA provision). This will bring the incident to a close. 

If the student does not attend the interview, or if you decide that it is a case of serious academic misconduct, you will report the case to the Dean of Students to trigger the Academic Misconduct Panel. You will need to provide the relevant evidence. 

You can consult with other staff for guidance e.g. another member of the course team, or your local quality manager. 

You must ensure that the student’s record is updated to reflect any penalty applied, whether this is applied by yourself, or as an outcome of an Academic Misconduct Panel. This is particularly important in the event of a repeat offence.

If you suspect academic misconduct during an exam, you should advise the student(s) of this immediately, confiscate any relevant materials, and make a note on the student’s exam script. You must decide whether to allow the student to continue with the exam or ask them to leave, bearing in mind disruption to other students in the room. 

You must report the incident immediately after the exam to the local Examination Officer, together with any evidence. 

The Examination Officer will forward the report to the student’s Programme Leader for formal investigation.

If you are notified that a student has committed academic misconduct, you should discuss this with them to see if they need further support, e.g. signpost them to Essential Student Skills and other resources supporting good academic practice.

If the student has been given a penalty for academic misconduct, they may need to be advised on resit options or other implications for continuing their programme of study. You should direct students to support and guidance (see supporting the student) if they are going through an academic misconduct investigation.

You may be contacted by staff for advice and guidance on investigation procedures for academic misconduct, where to find student-facing support resources, or for discussion on particular incidents and penalties. 

You will receive and collate notifications of academic misconduct incidents for students enrolled at your HAP (even if investigation is undertaken by staff in other APs). 

You are required to provide an annual summary report of any formal investigations relating to students enrolled at your HAP to the Dean of Students, in order to collate an institution-wide overview.

Academic Misconduct Panel members will consider allegations of serious academic misconduct review, and cases where the student has not participated in the formal investigation. They will review the evidence submitted and written and/or verbal statements from staff and witnesses, and from the student(s) involved. The panel will decide whether academic misconduct has taken place. If they agree that it has, they will decide the appropriate penalty, depending on the seriousness of the case and its circumstances.

The Dean of Students is responsible for organising Academic Misconduct Panels, and communicating the outcomes, but is not involved in decision-making. Therefore, the Dean of Students remains able to provide objective advice to staff who may seek advice on complex or sensitive cases.

On receiving a report of alleged academic misconduct by a PGR student, the Dean of Research will undertake an initial informal investigation, drawing on the evidence available, seeking specialist advice as necessary, and interviewing relevant individuals, including the student(s) involved. If there is a suspected serious academic misconduct, they will report the case to the Dean of Students to trigger the Academic Misconduct Panel.

On receiving a student’s appeal against the outcome of a formal investigation, or an Academic Misconduct Panel, the Deputy Principal will review the case, together with any additional evidence. They will decide either to uphold or reject the appeal; if it is upheld, they can decide to review or rescind the original penalty.

The “burden of proof” determines whose responsibility it is to prove an issue. In an academic misconduct case we would expect the burden of proof to be on the university: that is, we must prove that the student has done what they are accused of doing. The student should not have to disprove the allegation. So, for example, if a student is accused of taking a mobile phone into an examination, it will be for the university to prove that they had the phone with them during the examination. Sometimes the student will need to prove that they have or have not done something, or that something has happened. For example, if two students are accused of plagiarism, and one student provides evidence that the original work was theirs and the other student copied it, the other student will need to rebut that evidence. Students will also need to prove any mitigating factors that they rely on when you consider the penalty.

The “standard of proof” is the level of proof required. In legal proceedings the standard of proof in criminal cases is normally “beyond reasonable doubt”, which is a very high standard. In civil cases, it is normally “the balance of probabilities”: that is, it is more likely than not that something happened. Although the “balance of probabilities” standard is lower than “beyond reasonable doubt”, decisions must still be supported by evidence. The standard is higher than simply believing that something is likely to have happened. 

Section 112 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 says that the civil standard of proof must be used in fitness to practise procedures. This standard should also be used in academic misconduct cases which may lead to fitness to practise proceedings against a student.

Many institutions apply the principle of “strict liability” to academic misconduct offences. Strict liability means that a student’s intentions are not relevant to whether or not they have committed the offence. For example, if a student accidentally takes notes into an exam they are still guilty of an examination offence, even if the student did not take the notes out of their pocket during the exam. Whether or not the student intended to use the notes during the exam is not relevant to the offence. Some procedures require the student to have acted intentionally for an offence to be committed. This is sometimes referred to as “premeditation”, “deception” or “dishonesty”. It is a question of fact whether the student intended to cheat or gain an advantage. In such cases the decision makers should consider the evidence regarding intention, including the student’s own account, and record the reasons for their conclusions. The student’s intention may not be relevant to whether they committed the offence, but it is likely to be a relevant consideration when the penalty is decided.

Identifying suspected academic misconduct and making decisions on disciplinary cases will often, but not always, involve academic judgment. Where an academic judgment is made, it should be evidence based. For example, an academic member of staff who says that the standard of an assignment is out of line with the student’s other work should be able to support that with examples from the student’s other work. The interpretation of academic misconduct detection software reports will involve academic judgment. It is good practice to share the academic analysis of such a report with the student as well as the report itself. Deciding questions of fact does not involve academic judgment. 

Questions normally involving academic judgment

• Is the standard of work so out of line with the student’s other work that it suggests cheating?
• Are the ideas copied from someone else’s work?
• Is the plagiarism serious or minor?
• Do the student’s working notes support their case that the submitted work is theirs?
• Are the ideas the student is referring to in such common usage that it is not plagiarism? 

Questions of fact that do not normally involve Academic judgment

• Did the student advertise for someone to do the work for them?
• Did the student buy an essay online?
• Did the student take notes into the examination?
• Are the quotations marked by indented text or quotation marks?
• Did the student intend to cheat? 

Decisions on the penalty to apply in academic disciplinary cases will not normally involve academic judgment.