Download The University of Manchester Academic Malpractice ... and more Lecture notes Ethics in PDF only on Docsity!
The University of Manchester
Academic Malpractice Procedure^1
Content
- Introduction
- Academic integrity
- Definitions: 3.1 Academic malpractice 3.2 Poor academic practice 3.3 Misconduct in research
- Detection: 4.1 General 4.2 Written assignments 4.3 Examination malpractice 4.4 Contract cheating
- Case handling
- Document control
1. Introduction
1.1. Paragraph 2(r) of Regulation XVII (Conduct and Discipline of Students) (the “ Regulation ”) defines academic malpractice as a type of misconduct which can be subject to the University’s disciplinary processes.
2. Academic integrity^2
2.1. Academic integrity means honesty and responsibility in scholarship. Assessments exist to help students learn; grades exist to show how fully this goal is attained. Therefore all work and all grades should result from a student's own understanding and effort. Academic integrity involves values such as avoidance of cheating or plagiarism; maintenance of academic standards; honesty and rigor in research and academic publishing. 2.2. It is the responsibility of the University and its constituent parts to ensure that all students understand the academic requirements expected of them. As a minimum students should be made aware of academic integrity and academic malpractice through handbooks and online resources. In particular this Procedure should be available to students. These responsibilities should be balanced against those of the students who must clearly indicate any lack of understanding concerning academic malpractice and must engage with the resources made available on this subject. 2.3. It is good practice for academic integrity to be highlighted to students throughout their programme and for students to be given the opportunity to think critically, to reflect, construct and revise arguments and to proof-read. 2.4. The University can minimise the opportunity for academic malpractice by: 2.4.1. Providing the information contained within this Procedure. 2.4.2. Varying assessment tasks, topics and questions from year to year. (^1) Any reference in this Procedure to a named officer should also be read as a reference to their delegated nominee. (^2) Academic Integrity is referred to in this Procedure within the context of academic malpractice. The concept of Academic Integrity is much broader.
2.4.3. Using forms of assessment that require demonstration of the understanding of knowledge rather than straightforward repetition of such knowledge. 2.4.4. Providing feedback in accordance with the Policy on Feedback to Undergraduate and Postgraduate Taught Students, or for Postgraduate Research Students, the PGR Code of Practice. 2.4.5. Passing written work through Turnitin (the University’s plagiarism detection software) where it is available. 2.4.6. Providing clear information on the expectations of work, assessment criteria and the assessment process. 2.4.7. Giving students the opportunity to engage with academic supervision where this is available for their level of study and assessment. 2.4.8. Anticipate that malpractice may occur when setting assessment conditions. 2.5. Study skills support should be available to students in their academic School. Support also exists within other areas of the University, such as through the Library’s My Learning Essentials.
3. Definitions
3.1. Academic malpractice 3.1.1. Academic malpractice is any activity – intentional or otherwise - that is likely to undermine the integrity essential to scholarship and research. It includes plagiarism, collusion, fabrication or falsification of results, examination malpractice, contract cheating and anything else that could result in unearned or undeserved credit for those committing it. Academic malpractice can result from a deliberate act of cheating or may be committed unintentionally. Whether intended or not, all incidents of academic malpractice will be treated seriously by the University. 3.1.2. Types of academic malpractice include: 3.1.2.1. Plagiarism: the presentation, intentionally or unwittingly, of the ideas, work or words of other people without proper, clear and unambiguous acknowledgement. It includes the copying of the work of any other person, including another student. Plagiarism may include the close paraphrasing, or minimal adaption of another person’s words, illustrations, computer code, graph, diagrams etc. Sources can be any available material, such as websites, articles, books and lecture slides. Where a student needs to synthesise material in an open book examination or assessment using a permitted source, the student should still look to appropriately acknowledge the source and not plagiarise. 3.1.2.2. Self-plagiarism: the submission, in whole or in part, of a student’s own work, where that work has been submitted for a different assessment, either at the University or at a different institution. Students who use a previous piece of work or publication in a future piece of work should ensure that they properly reference themselves and the extent of such use should not be excessive. 3.1.2.3. Collusion: when a student or students permit or condone another student or students, to share a piece of work subject to assessment in order to gain a mark or grade to which they are not entitled. Students who allow another student to copy their work are also committing collusion and both the copier and the provider of the work are liable to be penalised. The methods of collusion may include, but
3.1.3.1.3. copied from others and which has been subjected to minor or superficial linguistic changes and presented as the student’s own work, with or without citation. 3.1.3.2. Collusion between students as evidenced by structure, sources, a block or blocks of copied text, (including copied text subjected to minor or superficial linguistic changes). 3.1.3.3. Blocks of copied illustrations, computer code, graph, diagrams or other resource taken from another student or the work of others without appropriate referencing. 3.1.3.4. Results or data which cannot be substantiated on the basis of the material submitted by the student. 3.2. Poor academic practice 3.2.1. Poor academic practice involves poor citation practice where there is evidence that the student did not apply the appropriate rules of academic writing and/or where the extent of copied material does not meet the level of significance such that it can be considered academic malpractice. Poor academic practice will not instigate disciplinary proceedings but can be taken account of through the marking process and the provision of advice and guidance. The work in question may include limited: 3.2.1.1. Material or copied text expressing ideas or concepts taken from the work of others in the student’s own words but without appropriate citation. 3.2.1.2. Material or copied text which is referenced in the bibliography but is not properly cited. 3.2.1.3. Material or copied text that has been subjected to minor linguistic changes with or without citation. 3.2.1.4. Collusion between students as evidenced by structure, source or copied text; this includes cases where the written work is original throughout. 3.2.1.5. Pieces of work which are largely constructed of the work and words of others. 3.3. Misconduct in research 3.3.1. For the purposes of student discipline, research misconduct is defined by the same types of research misconduct as listed under the Code of Practice for Investigating Concerns about the Conduct of Research (“ Code of Practice ”). Similarly, what is considered to be poor practice in research will also mirror the definitions under the Code of Practice. 3.3.2. Some types of academic malpractice may constitute types of research misconduct and vice versa. Where there is such an overlap, the disciplinary process will usually focus on considering the dominant allegation(s) against the student. 3.3.3. Research misconduct can be committed by a student at any level of study, as part of work that is being, or has been, conducted or produced for the purposes of assessment or publication. Where a concern regarding the conduct of research arises about a current student, this would normally be dealt with through the disciplinary process, rather than the Code of Practice_._
3.3.4. If the alleged conduct affects a published piece of research work or a supervisor is implicated in a complaint about research misconduct then the Code of Practice would usually take precedence in the first instance for the purposes of investigating the allegation being made. Allegations that might meet either of these criteria should be referred to the Head of Research Governance, Ethics and Integrity as per the Code of Practice. 3.3.5. At the conclusion of an investigation under the Code of Practice, disciplinary action may be recommended along with actions required to address the research misconduct e.g. requesting a publisher removes a piece of work.
4. Detection^3
4.1. General 4.1.1. Disciplinary action for academic malpractice can usually only be taken where a student has submitted summative assessment containing malpractice. Malpractice in formative assessment may be more appropriately addressed through feedback and the marking process and with advice and guidance (e.g. an informal warning without a disciplinary panel). Disciplinary action cannot usually be taken prior to submission unless there are credible reasons, such as clear evidence of engagement of an essay mill. If an academic member of staff notices malpractice in work prior to it being submitted, it is reasonable to expect that the member of staff would warn the student of the consequences of committing malpractice. 4.1.2. Suspected malpractice may be detected through different means depending on the assessment. For example, a student may be found with unauthorised material by an examination invigilator, a Turnitin Report may flag text similarity, or other individuals may report student misbehaviour. To reach a point of making an allegation against a student, it is important to have gathered and objectively reviewed an appropriate body of evidence leading to the allegation, so that there are reasons identified for bringing a case. A case cannot be considered for disciplinary without that evidence and narrative. The scale of information gathering and review will vary according to the case, for example, in a plagiarism case an assignment may only need review by an academic whereas in a collusion case there might need to be some preliminary interviews with the parties involved. The sections below identify some common methods of detection and review. If a case does not fit neatly into those categories colleagues can adopt a hybrid approach drawing on any good practice that is suitable to the case at hand. 4.1.3. Examiners should continue to mark the work where possible as though the work does not contain academic malpractice. The mark should be withheld from the student pending any disciplinary action (this may lead to a pause on a student's ability to progress on a programme until disciplinary action has concluded). It is acknowledged that marking can prove difficult in some cases especially when there is substantial academic malpractice. If examiners feel unable to mark the work then they should indicate this with the disciplinary referral. 4.1.4. The University should normally decide upon whether a disciplinary referral is required within 20 working days from when suspected malpractice is detected. This timeframe may be need to be extended depending on the level of information gathering required. Where a student has been contacted as part of an information gathering exercise, it is good practice to inform them at the conclusion of this process whether their case is being referred for formal disciplinary action or not. (^3) This links to the Assessment sections of the Procedure for Summary Disciplinary Panels and the Procedure for the University Disciplinary Panel.
4.3. Examination malpractice 4.3.1. Students must be informed of examination conditions before the start of the examination e.g. that they should not have any unauthorised materials on their person. Students are expected to complete examinations themselves independently, but sometimes allowances may be made to allow use of certain resources e.g. textbooks, websites. The responsibility to check and comply with examination conditions rests with the student. 4.3.2. Physical/’in-person’ examinations (i.e. examinations taken in a physical exam hall/venue): Invigilators monitor the conditions of physical examinations, including checking student identification and checking for unauthorised material. Where exam malpractice is detected, the preliminary details of the incident should be recorded, such as the type and content of the material/malpractice, the time it was found, the examination title and start time etc. Students may be asked to leave the examination at the point unauthorised material is detected whilst the above details are obtained and the material is confiscated, but they may later be allowed to return to complete the examination in the time remaining. 4.3.2.1. The student will normally be asked to attend a post-examination interview with a member of staff at the Student Services Centre (Scheduling Team) within the Division of Student and Academic Services (if the examination was arranged centrally) or their academic School (if the examination was arranged locally). At the interview additional information will be sought from the student. As per the Assessment stage of Regulation XVII, it may be determined that there is no case to answer, that the case can be addressed with advice and guidance or that the case requires referral to a disciplinary panel. Should a disciplinary panel be deemed appropriate, any information collected must be substantial enough for presentation to a disciplinary panel. 4.3.2.2. For centrally arranged examinations, the Scheduling Team will notify the student and the student’s academic School of a referral. The School may need to provide further details for the case to be actioned e.g. academic impact of penalties. The case will then be handled by the Division of Campus Life (Advice and Response Team). 4.3.3. Online examinations: the handling of cases will depend on the format of the examination and whether it is invigilated. Where an online examination is invigilated then an invigilator should speak with the student at the time highlighting their concerns and gathering preliminary details similarly to 4.3.1. The invigilator's report will then be passed for further consideration to the School Officer, or AUO, from the area with responsibility for administering the examination. The School Officer or AUO may complete a documentary review of the information available and/or gather more information to help make a decision by contacting (e.g. an email or meeting) the student, or others involved, before confirming whether the case requires formal disciplinary action. 4.3.4. Where examination malpractice is detected after an examination has ended, then the School Officer or AUO from the area responsible for administering the examination should review the information that has led to the allegation to determine whether a formal disciplinary referral needs to be made. The School Officer or AUO may identify that further correspondence or meetings with parties involved are required before a decision can be reached. 4.4. Contract cheating
4.4.1. If there is a reasonable suspicion that a student may have commissioned a piece of work from a third party, but there is no direct evidence of this, then in agreement with the School Officer a viva voce can be arranged to give the student the opportunity to demonstrate that they: 4.4.1.1. Produced the work; 4.4.1.2. Undertook the reading and research themselves; 4.4.1.3. Undertook the preparatory work themselves; 4.4.1.4. Understand what they have written. 4.4.2. If a viva voce is held, the following principles shall be met: 4.4.2.1. If a viva voce is to be conducted it should not normally take place more than 30 working days after the assessment feedback deadline. 4.4.2.2. The student should be given at least five working days’ notice of the requirement to attend the viva voce. An explanation of what a viva voce is, the purpose of it and the potential outcomes should be outlined in the invitation. It should be made clear that the viva voce is arranged due to the detection of potential academic malpractice and it is to allow the student an opportunity to demonstrate that the work is their own; it will not contribute to any mark obtained for the piece of work. 4.4.2.3. Two members of academic staff (at least one of whom must be a subject specialist) must conduct the viva voce; this will normally be the School Officer and the examiner of the assessment. 4.4.2.4. The student may be accompanied by a person of their choice for support only (normally a fellow student, member of staff or Students’ Union representative). Any individual accompanying the student should under no circumstances participate in the viva voce. 4.4.2.5. Reasonable adjustments must be made to ensure that candidates with additional support needs are not disadvantaged for reasons relating to a long-term medical condition, sensory impairment, specific learning difficulty and /or disability. 4.4.2.6. The viva voce will not normally exceed 45 minutes. 4.4.2.7. Depending on situational circumstances, the viva voce can be conducted via video link. 4.4.2.8. Intensive questions are expected. The questions asked should provide the student with the opportunity to demonstrate that the work is their own. 4.4.2.9. An accurate record of the viva voce should be taken; this record may be used to form the evidence base for any future disciplinary hearing. It may be necessary for an administrative member of staff to be present at the viva voce to make the record. The student is entitled to have a copy of the record. 4.4.3. The viva voce can have one of two outcomes:
● PGT programmes dissertation element – any subsequent offence ● PGR taught element – subsequent offence ● PGR progression assessment, thesis or viva – first offence ● Any student – a significant offence Head of Research Governance, Ethics and Integrity ● Misconduct in research by a student at any level of study if the criteria under 3.3 has been met. 5.4. Where it is alleged that a student has committed significant academic malpractice they will normally be referred to the UDP. In addition to the table under paragraph 5.2, the following may be of consideration in deciding whether a case is significant: 5.4.1. The suspected amount of malpractice is a particularly high proportion of the assessment. 5.4.2. The assessment containing suspected malpractice is high credit bearing and/or important to a student’s award or progression. 5.4.3. It is suspected that multiple assessments in a single assessment period contain academic malpractice. 5.4.4. The penalty applied in any previous case. If a student has already had the maximum penalty applied for a first offence at summary level, then a subsequent offence may attract a penalty that is open only to the UDP. 5.4.5. The penalties open to summary level do not reflect the severity of the offence i.e. it is considered that the student’s overall degree award should be reduced e.g. from an Honours degree to a Diploma. 5.4.6. Where there is prima facie evidence of substantial efforts to commit malpractice and avoid detection. 5.5. If the same offence relates to multiple students, but for one or more students it is a subsequent offence, then the University will aim to treat all students at the same level as the subsequent offence for consistency in the decision making. Having, or not having, a previous offence on file can be taken into account in the application of a penalty. However, as part of any investigation or review, it is important for the School Officer or AUO to attempt to identify each student's role in the misconduct. Where a case relates to a large number of students, such that it would be impractical for all to be considered at the same hearing, consideration may be given to handling cases at different levels based on the table divisions in 5.3 with a logical ordering of cases identified and dialogue maintained between case handlers. 5.6. Disciplinary hearings that relate to malpractice should be academic led. As per the Procedure for Summary Disciplinary Panels, it is recommended that SDPs considering first- offence allegations of academic malpractice comprise at least two persons, with the Chair being a Senior Lecturer (or above) or an academic with equivalent experience or substantial knowledge of malpractice. Where an allegation relates to a subsequent offence, given the penalty applied might be higher and the consequences more severe, it is recommended that the panel is extended to three persons. Members of Professional Services will normally support malpractice disciplinary hearings but may, where they have a substantive knowledge of malpractice and experience in discipline, be a member of a Summary Disciplinary Panel. 5.7. Examples: 5.7.1. A student has a first offence of academic malpractice on file for plagiarism from their first year. This was dealt with by a School-based SDP. A second offence arises, but
this relates to unauthorised material in a second year examination; this is dealt with by a Student Services Centre-based SDP. 5.7.2. A student has a first offence on file relating to unauthorised material that was dealt with by a Student Services Centre-based SDP. A second offence of academic malpractice (plagiarism) arises and so this is dealt with by a Faculty-based SDP. 5.7.3. A Postgraduate Taught student is believed to have committed substantial plagiarism in a high credit bearing piece of work (dissertation). Although it is a first offence, the malpractice is considered to be significant and so is referred to the UDP. 5.7.4. Three level 5 Undergraduate students are believed to have colluded in a piece of work. One of the students has a previous offence of malpractice on file. The Faculty- based SDP differentiate the penalties applied, with the student who had a first offence on file, receiving a higher penalty. Related procedures:
● Procedure for Summary Disciplinary Panels
● Procedure for the University Disciplinary Panel
6. Document control
Document control box Policy / Procedure title: Academic Malpractice Procedure Date updated: May 2022 (in effect May 2022 ) Approving body: Student Conduct and Discipline Committee Version: Unknown (at least 4) Supersedes: Academic Malpractice Procedure (May 2021) Previous review dates: Unknown Next review date: Summer 202 3 Related Statutes, Ordinances, General Regulations: ● Statute XXI (Conduct, discipline and academic progress of students) ● Regulation XVII (Conduct and Discipline of Students) Equality relevance outcome: High / Medium (delete as applicable) Related policies/procedures/guidance: ● Procedure for Summary Disciplinary Panels ● Procedure for the University Disciplinary Panel Policy owner: Sarah Littlejohn (Director of Campus Life) (Sarah.Littlejohn@manchester.ac.uk) Lead contact: Matthew Valentine (Advice and Response Manager) (matthew.valentine@manchester.ac.uk) Amendment history Version Date Reason for change 1 07/ 2 04/2019 Substantive re-write of the procedure, including definitions and detection. 3 05/2021 Multiple changes, to reflect change in practice. Main updates concern examination misconduct, due to move to online assessments, and collusion.
