About this page
It is expected that all students see their studies at Central as an opportunity for discovery and investigation, and to understand that plagiarism, cheating or collusion prevents such learning. It is also a disciplinary offence that ultimately could result in a student’s studies being terminated.
The purpose of the School’s Academic Misconduct Procedures is to ensure equity of treatment for all students accused of academic misconduct, and to establish a clear and progressive tariff of penalties and define when each is appropriate.
Academic Misconduct Procedures
- Introduction
- Plagiarism
- Collusion
- False authorship
- Fabrication or misrepresentation
- Investigation
- Right of Appeal
- Further recourse
1.1 An assessment offence is defined as “any attempt whether successful or unsuccessful to achieve an unfair advantage in any element of assessment over other candidates participating in the assessment”. This policy may apply to any assessment submitted/attended as part of the formal assessment towards an award.
1.2 Assessment Offences are categorised as Plagiarism (including self-plagiarism, or recycling), Collusion, False authorship, and Fabrication or misrepresentation.
1.3 The purpose of these Procedures is to ensure equity of treatment for all students accused of academic misconduct, and to establish a clear and progressive tariff of penalties and define when each is appropriate.
1.4 These Procedures are reviewed annually. Adjustments and improvements are made as a consequence of any lessons learned through their enactment and/or because of changes to sector guidance and best practice.
2.1 Plagiarism can be defined as the submission for assessment of material (written, visual ororal) originally produced by another person or persons, without correct acknowledgement, in such a way that the work could be assumed to be the student’s own. Plagiarism may involve the unattributed use of another person’s work, including ideas, opinions, theory, statistics, graphs, models, paintings, artefacts, performance, computer code, drawings, quotations of another person’s actual spoken or written words, or paraphrases of another person’s spoken or written words.
2.2 Plagiarism can take a variety of forms and can include any of the following:
- copying a whole or substantial parts of a paper from a source text (e.g. a web site, journal article, book or encyclopaedia), without proper acknowledgement in either the text or the bibliography;
- summarising or paraphrasing another’s piece of work closely, with minor changes but with the essential meaning, form and/or progression of ideas maintained, without citing and including a reference to the work in the bibliography;
- piecing together sections of the work of others into a new whole;
- submitting another student’s work, with or without that student’s knowledge;
- submitting a paper written by someone else (e.g. a peer or relative) and passing it off as one’s own;
- representing a piece of joint or group work as one’s own.
2.3 Self-plagiarism, or recycling, is also considered an academic offence. Recycling is defined as the uncited submission of material that a student has previously used in another assessment, whether at Central or at a different institution.
2.4 Plagiarism can occur in any piece of work. This policy applies to any alleged case of plagiarism in any piece of work submitted for formal assessment at the School.
2.5 A student who knowingly assists another student to plagiarise (for example: by willingly giving them their own work to copy from) is committing an assessment offence.
3.1 An assessment offence is committed if a piece of work is produced with the help or collusion of another person, or persons, when the assignment was to have been undertaken and completed by a student working individually. This includes cases where two or more students submit work for assessment that is identical in its entirety or in substantial parts. It also includes cases where help has been given to improve the style of written language in the work submitted, although help with basic proof-reading for typographical and grammatical errors is normally permitted. If working with others collaboratively, it is important that all contributors are identified and acknowledged.
4.1 False authorship is where a student is not the author of the work that they have submitted. This includes procuring or commissioning a paper from an individual, essay mill, or tutoring service (also known as contract cheating). The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) software to generate an assessment submission is also considered an academic offence.
5. Fabrication or misrepresentation
5.1 Fabrication or misrepresentation involves the presentation of invented or fabricated data, results, references, or other material, or the misrepresentation of same. It includes a deliberate attempt to represent falsely or unfairly the ideas or work of others, and falsely claiming to have obtained results or other evidence.
5.2 The submission of false or fabricated information or evidence within a mitigating circumstances application or an academic appeal will also be addressed as academic misconduct, even where the application or appeal are not upheld.
6.1 If an internal marker or external examiner suspects or finds evidence of academic misconduct or an attempt to gain unfair advantage in a piece of assessed work, they must refer the matter promptly to the Examinations Officer for the programme, with a brief written note explaining the grounds for suspecting an attempt to gain unfair advantage. If the work in question is written, the marker should, if possible, annotate the script(s) (or a copy thereof) to show the location of passages which have given rise to suspicion of plagiarism, collusion, or work undertaken by a person other than the student. If there is evidence of plagiarism from an external source known to the marker, the note should state the source. Referral to the Examinations Officer must not, however, be delayed by an attempt to identify the source.
6.2 The Examinations Officer should determine whether the scale of plagiarism is such that it could be considered a minor infringement (6.3-6.4) or is more serious (6.5).
Scale of Plagiarism
6.3 Minor plagiarism would include cases of sloppy referencing and should apply to cases where it is believed that there was no intent to plagiarise. An example of a minor plagiarism case would be where a student has clearly made an attempt to reference by providing details of their source in the bibliography and/or made an attempt of referencing within the text. Minor plagiarism should be only used where the plagiarism is confined to a small number of sentences. Where entire paragraphs or more are plagiarised or there is no attempt at referencing section 6.5 should apply.
6.4 Where the Examinations Officer believes that there is clear evidence of minor plagiarism AND it is the student’s first offence, the Examinations Officer should meet with the student and present the evidence. Provided the student does not dispute the evidence, and accepts that it is a case of academic misconduct, the matter need not be investigated further. However the evidence should be provided to the Academic Registrar for a decision by the Academic Misconduct Panel regarding the penalty. The Panel may:
- issue an oral or written warning (normally only in respect of assessment at level 4 or a pass/fail assessment, not contributing to the classification of the award);
- award a reduced mark for the element of assessment affected;
- award a reduced overall mark for the assessed unit (normally because no marks are given for the part of the work affected by misconduct);
- determine that the case is more serious and therefore begin proceedings as below:
6.5 In all other cases (including where a student disputes a case) the Examinations Officer will liaise with the Academic Registrar to investigate the suspected academic misconduct. Investigation may include:
- consideration of the assessment brief;
- where relevant, scrutiny of the script or scripts (or equivalent for work which is not written) to establish the extent of similarity between the work of students if collusion or plagiarism are suspected;
- efforts to locate the source of suspected plagiarism;
- an investigation of discrepancies in handwriting or writing style if it is suspected that the work was done by someone other than the student.
6.6 A similar investigation will be carried out if an allegation of misconduct is made by a third party (normally another student on the course). Anonymous allegations will not be investigated.
6.7 If investigation reveals no persuasive evidence of misconduct, the work will be marked on its merits. The mark given may take account of the student’s poor referencing or failure to follow the scholarly protocols expected at the relevant academic level.
6.8 If, after initial investigation, the Examination Officer considers that there are continued grounds to suspect misconduct, the student(s) will be notified in writing of the investigation and will be invited to an interview with the Academic Misconduct Panel.
6.9 The Academic Misconduct Panel will comprise:
- A nominee of the Vice-Principal who will act as Chair;
- A nominee of the Academic Registrar;
- A representative from the Students’ Union.
6.10 The process to be followed will be at the discretion of the Chair of the Academic Misconduct Panel, and may be desk-/paper-based or may involve a meeting at which the student is called to attend.
6.11 The information regarding the case may be sent to the External Examiner in advance for any comment that they may wish to provide.
6.12 Where a student is invited to attend a meeting, they may choose to be accompanied by a friend, relative, or a representative of the Students’ Union. Legal representation is not normally permitted, although the School, at its sole discretion, may permit legal representation in an exceptional case in the interests of fairness. The purpose of the meeting is to give the student an opportunity to explain the matters which have given rise to suspicion of academic misconduct. The Examinations Officer for the programme will be present at the Panel meeting and may ask questions of the student however will not be involved in determining any penalty that may be applied.
6.13 If the independent individual work of two or more students shows a degree of similarity which could not have occurred by chance, but all or both deny any misconduct and investigation fails to identify who is at fault, the Panel may decide that it is not possible to determine whether either or any of the students has met the learning outcomes for the unit, and may decide either that a penalty should be imposed on all, or that both or all should be reassessed as if for the first time, normally on the basis of a different assessment task.
6.14 The Academic Misconduct Panel will determine whether, on the balance of probabilities, the allegations made against the student are proven. If the Panel determines that the student has committed an academic offence, the panel may consider the imposition of one or more of the following penalties:
- an oral or written warning (normally only in respect of assessment at level 4 or a pass/fail assessment, not contributing to the classification of the award);
- a reduced mark for the element of assessment affected;
- a reduced overall mark for the assessed unit (normally because no marks are given for the part of the work affected by misconduct);
- failure in the element of assessment with opportunity to resit the element if the regulations permit this (resit mark capped at the pass mark).
- failure in the entire unit, with opportunity to resit all elements if the regulations permit this (resit marks capped at the pass-mark).
6.15 The most serious offences may have the following penalties applied. These offences may include but are not restricted to third offences, the use of essay mills and cheat sites, significant (more than 50%) plagiarised material with no attempt at citing within the text or including a reference in the bibliography, and the unattributed use of another person’s data.
- failure in the unit without opportunity to resit (this could prevent the student from meeting the requirement for the qualification for which they are registered and thus would subsequently fail the course);
- failure in all units in the relevant level (this will normally be applied when multiple instances of misconduct have been reported within the current level and the student has been found previously to have committed misconduct at a lower level of study);
- a recommendation to the Principa or Vice-Principal that the student’s studies be terminated immediately (this will normally be reserved but not limited to instances of third occurrences of misconduct or where the level of misconduct is such that it is deemed inappropriate for someone to remain on the course such as when the majority of a substantial piece of work contributing to the award is affected, such as a dissertation).
- revocation of the student’s degree award, if it has already been awarded by the Examination Board.
6.16 The Examination Board may not compensate a unit that has been failed due to academic misconduct.
6.17 The student will be informed in writing, normally within 14 calendar days of the date of the Academic Misconduct Panel convening, of the decision of the Panel including any penalties imposed, with reasons, and of their right to appeal that decision.
7.1 A student may appeal against a penalty imposed for academic misconduct, and must make their appeal in writing to the Academic Registrar within 14 calendar days of the date of the Completion of Investigation letter.
7.2 An appeal received later than 14 calendar days will not normally be accepted and evidence would need to be provided for exceptional consideration to be given. If no appeal is received, then the student will, upon request, be issued with a Completion of Procedures letter detailing the final outcome of the academic misconduct investigation.
7.3 The possible grounds for appeal are:
- material procedural irregularity;
- bias in the determination of the outcome;
- new material evidence that was not previously reasonably available; and/or
- the decision is unreasonable and/or any penalty disproportionate.
7.4 An appeal will not be accepted for any other reasons than those given in paragraph 7.3 above.
7.5 On receipt of an appeal of the outcome of an academic misconduct investigation, the Academic Registrar will determine whether valid grounds for appeal are disclosed.
7.6 If the Academic Registrar determines that the appeal does not disclose any valid grounds for appeal under paragraph 7.3 above, the request will be rejected and the original decision will remain. The student will be issued with a Completion of Procedures letter (normally within 5 calendar days of the date the appeal request was received by the Academic Registrar) to notify them of the decision.
7.7 If the Academic Registrar determines that the appeal discloses valid grounds for appeal, they will refer the matter to an Appeal panel. This panel will be chaired by the Vice-Principal, and will normally include at least one senior manager of the School and a representative from the Students’ Union who has had no prior involvement in the academic misconduct process. In constituting the panel, due regard will be paid to its impartiality. The student will be given the opportunity to raise an objection about the involvement of any member of the Panel, in writing to the Academic Registrar. Objections will normally only be considered on the grounds of an actual or perceived conflict of interest.
7.8 An appeal will be by way of a review of the academic misconduct decision and not a rehearing of the original allegation. It may be desk-/paper-based or may involve a meeting at which the Chair of the Academic Misconduct panel and/or the student is called to attend. Where a student is invited to attend a meeting, they may choose to be accompanied by a friend, relative, or a representative of the Students’ Union. Legal representation is not normally permitted, although the School, at its sole discretion, may permit legal representation in an exceptional case in the interests of fairness. The student will normally be given a minimum notice of 1 week, in writing, if they are invited to attend an appeal meeting.
7.9 Following consideration of an appeal, the Appeal panel may uphold or dismiss the appeal in whole or in part, and may take one or more of the following actions:
- overturn the decision of the Academic Misconduct Panel and determine that no further action should be taken against the student;
- substitute a new decision and/or apply a different (but not normally greater) penalty or penalties;
- refer the case back to the Academic Misconduct Panel for further consideration and/or determination;
- refer the case to a new Academic Misconduct Panel for fresh consideration and determination.
7.10 The decision of the Appeal panel will be final. The student will be informed in writing of the decision of the Appeal panel, with reasons, normally within 5 calendar days of the panel convening, and the letter will constitute a Completion of Procedures letter and refer the student to their entitlement to complain to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education.
8.1 A student who has received a letter from the School confirming that the Academic Misconduct Procedures have been concluded (a Completion of Procedures letter), and who is unhappy with the outcome, may complain to The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA). The OIA provides an independent scheme for the review of student complaints about a final decision of a Higher Education Provider’s disciplinary or appeal body. Full details, including further information about what it can and can’t look at and what it can do to put things right, can be found on the OIA website.
8.2 The University of London does not deal with appeals, complaints or disciplinary matters from students of its constituent Colleges.