Academic Misconduct Procedure

Students may request reasonable adjustments to the procedures in line with the Equality Act. Requests will be considered individually and confirmed to the student in writing.   

Academic integrity reflects a shared set of principles which include honesty, trust, diligence, fairness and respect and is about maintaining the integrity of a student’s work and their award. Academic integrity is based on the ethos that how you learn is as important as what you learn.

Academic integrity is based upon a number of core principles. For students, this means:

• Taking responsibility for their own work and studies;
• Respecting the opinions of others, even if they do not agree with them;
• Respecting the rights of others to work and study within the ‘learning community’;
• Acknowledging the work of others, where it has contributed to their own studies, research or publications
• Ensuring that the individual’s contribution to group work is represented honestly;
• Supporting others to behave with academic integrity;
• Following the ethical requirements and, where appropriate, professional standards appropriate to the discipline;
• Avoiding actions which would give an unfair advantage over others;
• Ensuring that the results of research or experimental data are represented honestly;
• Complying with the assessment requirements.

Academic integrity is the guiding principle for all student assessment, from taking exams or in-class tests, making oral presentations, or writing assignments, dissertations or theses for assessment.

Academic misconduct includes: plagiarism, submission of unacknowledged material generated by artificial intelligence systems, collusion, breach of examination regulations, fabrication of data, impersonation of others and the commissioning of work for assessment (this list is not exhaustive).

It is academic misconduct to commit any act whereby a person may attempt to obtain for themselves, or for another person, an unpermitted advantage. This shall apply whether candidates act alone or in conjunction with another/others. An action or actions shall be deemed to fall within this definition, whether occurring during, or in relation to, a formal examination, a piece of coursework, or any other form of assessment undertaken in pursuit of an academic or professional qualification at Swansea University.

The University has a range of procedures and methods for detecting academic misconduct:

• In examination conditions (see 2.0);
• In non-examination conditions (see 3.0);
• In research degrees (see 6.0);
• After an award has been bestowed (see 8.0).

The University may employ appropriate means of detecting and investigating cases of academic misconduct, for instance, through the use of plagiarism detection software or by means of an academic integrity viva (see 3.1). Faculties/Schools/Collaborative Partner Institutions may also choose to implement a system of random vivas in subject areas. Academic integrity within the University is promoted and upheld by the University Academic Integrity Lead, Lead Faculty Academic Integrity Officers and School/Faculty Academic Integrity Officers.

In investigating allegations of academic misconduct, the University Academic Integrity Lead, on behalf of the University, reserves the right to consult with other universities or organisations, where appropriate, and to share relevant information.

Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, examples of academic misconduct are shown in sections 2.0 and 3.0 below.

The University will normally complete the initial investigation, the formal stages of the process and the determination of the case within 90 calendar days of the allegation being made to the student. Where delays occur, the student shall be informed of the progress of the investigation, including the reasons for the delay, and be provided with an estimated time scale for the conclusion of the case.

Where there is an ongoing academic misconduct investigation, the work under investigation would not normally be marked or the mark in the module concern released to the student, until the case has been concluded and where the case is substantiated, the penalty applied.

Academic misconduct in examinations/assessments or class tests can include (but is not restricted to) the following prohibited activities:

• Introduction into an examination/online proctored assessment/in-class test any unauthorised form of material such as a book, manuscript, data or loose papers, information obtained via an electronic device or any source of unauthorised information;
• Copying from, or communication with, any other person in the examination, without prior authorisation by the Faculty/School/Partner Institution;
• Communication electronically with any unauthorised person;
• Being in possession of any unauthorised electronic device capable of communicating with other devices or other people;
• Impersonating an examination candidate, or allowing oneself to be impersonated;
• Presenting evidence of special circumstances to examination boards which is false, or falsified, or which in any way misleads or could mislead examination boards;
• Presenting an examination script as one’s own work when the script includes material produced by unauthorised means.

2.1 Academic misconduct during a face-to-face examination

An invigilator who considers, or suspects, that a candidate is engaging in academic misconduct shall inform the candidate, preferably in the presence of a witness, that the circumstances will be reported. The candidate will, however, be allowed to continue the examination and any subsequent examination(s) without prejudice to any decision which may be taken. Failure to inform the candidate that the circumstances will be reported shall not, however, prejudice subsequent proceedings.

Where appropriate, the invigilator shall confiscate and retain evidence relating to any alleged unfair examination practice, so that it is available in any subsequent investigation.

Where the invigilator is appointed by the University’s Central Examinations Office and the examination is managed by the University’s Central Examinations Office, the invigilator shall report the circumstances as soon as possible, verbally in the first instance and thereafter in writing, to the Central Examinations Officer who shall, in turn, notify the Faculty/School Academic Integrity Officer.

In cases where a student has written on their person, the invigilator may contact the Central Examinations Office and request that a member of staff from the Faculty/School attend the examination and confirm whether the writing is relevant to the subject/examination. Where possible a photograph of the evidence may also be taken.

In cases involving an examination invigilated and managed by the School/Faculty/ Partner Institution, the invigilator shall report the case as soon as possible in writing to the Faculty/School/Partner Institution’s Academic Integrity Officer.

2.2 Academic misconduct in online proctored assessments/examinations

In cases where online proctoring software is used to invigilate an examination, the Faculty/School/Partner Institution shall review the examination recordings as required. Where the Faculty/School suspects that academic misconduct has occurred, the member of staff concerned shall, as soon as possible, report the circumstances to the Faculty/School Academic Integrity Officer/Partner Institution.

2.3 Academic misconduct in invigilated in-class tests

In the case of an unseen written test which contributes to the final module result, which is conducted under the aegis of the Faculty/School/Partner Institution, the invigilator should report the case to the Faculty/School//Partner Institution's Academic Integrity Officer.

2.4 Unauthorised electronic devices in invigilated examinations and in-class tests, and online proctored assessments

In the case of a student being found in possession of any electronic device capable of storing or displaying data, including mobile phones, smartwatches or any other portable technology, which is not permitted in the rubric of the examination/assessment and which has not been used or where there is no evidence that it has been used, the offence shall be considered as a breach of examination/assessment regulations only.

The invigilator shall report the case as soon as possible in writing to the Faculty/School/Partner Institution’s Academic Integrity Officer.

The Academic Integrity Officer may interview the student and draw their attention to examination regulations. The Academic Integrity Officer shall then decide whether to issue a penalty (see below).

Penalties:

In order to ensure consistency in the application of penalties, the University provides guidance on penalties in the Academic Misconduct Code of Practice.

The penalty for a first breach shall be:

• The issue of a written reprimand to the candidate; a record of the warning should be kept.

In cases of a second/subsequent related breaches the Academic Integrity Officer may determine not to issue a further written warning and proceed to deal with the case in accordance with the academic misconduct procedure (see 4.0). 

Where there is suspicion/evidence that the electronic device may have been used (e.g. witnessed by the invigilator) such cases should be referred to the School/Faculty/Partner Institution Academic Integrity Officer who will determine whether a prima facie case of academic misconduct has been established.

2.5 Suspected academic misconduct detected during or subsequent to the marking period (cases in invigilated examinations and in-class tests, and online proctored assessments)

An internal or external examiner who, whether in the course of the marking period or subsequently, considers or suspects that a candidate has engaged in academic misconduct, shall report the matter in writing to the Faculty/School/Partner Institution’s Academic Integrity Officer as soon as possible.

The Academic Integrity Officer shall determine whether a prima facie case of academic misconduct has been established (see 4.2).

Where an allegation concerns a joint case involving a student from The College, Swansea University on either an integrated or non-integrated programme together with a Swansea University student (for example, communicating in an examination), the case shall be dealt with by the School/Faculty Academic Integrity Officer who shall determine whether, in light of all the circumstances, a prima facie case exists. Cases concerning only students of The College, Swansea University on non-integrated programmes shall be dealt with by The College, Swansea University.

2.6 Further actions to be taken: School/Faculty/Partner Institution examination 

On receipt of a report concerning an allegation of academic misconduct, the Academic Integrity Officer shall determine whether, in the light of all the circumstances, a prima facie case of academic misconduct has been established. 

The Academic Integrity Officer may deal with the allegation in accordance with 2.4 above, where they consider that there has been a breach of examination regulations.

If it is decided that no further action against the candidate shall be taken, the student will be informed in writing that the matter is closed.

If satisfied that a prima facie case of academic misconduct exists, the School/Faculty/Partner Institution Academic Integrity Officer shall process the case in accordance with point 4.0.

3.0 Academic misconduct in non-examination conditions

Plagiarism is defined as using, without acknowledgment, the work of another person and submitting it for assessment as though it were your own work; for instance, through copying or unacknowledged paraphrasing. This constitutes plagiarism whether it is intentional or unintentional.

Examples include:

• The use of any quotation(s) from the published or unpublished work of other people which have not been clearly identified as such by being placed in quotation marks and acknowledged through appropriate citation;
• Summarising another person's ideas, judgments, figures, software or diagrams without appropriately attributing that person in the text and the source in the reference list;
• The use of unacknowledged material downloaded or copied from the internet;
• The submission of another student's work as though it was their own.

This list of examples is not exhaustive.

Self-Plagiarism is not recognised in Swansea University regulations. Where a student has self-plagiarised work, the Faculty/School/Partner Institution will mark the work in accordance with the normal marking criteria.

Swansea University regulations do not explicitly ban the use of generative artificial intelligence in the production of original work, but any such use must be within the guidance given for each assignment and be clearly acknowledged and referenced.

Using material generated by artificial intelligence, without due acknowledgment, and submitting it for assessment as though it were your own work may be considered an academic misconduct offence. Students are therefore advised to use such tools with extreme caution in order to ensure both the academic integrity and quality of their work. Examples of use that may constitute academic misconduct include:

• Generating a response to an assignment using ChatGPT or similar and submitting it in whole or in part with only minor amendments;
• Copying passages of text generated by artificial intelligence into an assignment without proper acknowledgement or referencing to show where the text originated;
• Using generative artificial intelligence to create data, graphs, images, audio or video or any other type of content without proper acknowledgement.

This list of examples is not exhaustive.

Minor and unacknowledged use of generative artificial intelligence may be considered poor academic practice (see 4.3). Additionally, unacknowledged text or content that appears to have been generated by artificial intelligence but is considered  unsubstantial and/or inconsequential may be reflected in the marking process leading to a lower grade being awarded rather than being treated as an academic misconduct offence.

The University’s Proofreading Policy contains updated guidance regarding the use of artificial intelligence tools and software designed for editing, paraphrasing and translating text. Students should be aware of what is permissible regarding their use when seeking to develop and improve their work.

Collusion is two or more people producing work together and submitting it as the work of an individual.
Examples include:

• Two or more students working together to develop data or other materials without prior authorisation. Such materials would then be presented for assessment without acknowledging the originator(s) of the work;
• Sharing data, materials or other coursework with another student(s) which is then presented for assessment without the knowledge or permission of the originator(s).

Commissioning is the act of paying for, or arranging for another person to produce a piece of work, whether or not this is then submitted for assessment, as though it were the student’s own work. Examples include:

• Commissioning an essay to be written by another;
• Accessing or downloading materials from essay exchange sites;
• Paying another person for the collection, manipulation or interpretation of data, where this is a requirement of the student’s studies.

This list is not exhaustive. Falsification of the results of laboratory, fieldwork or other forms of data collection and analysis also constitutes academic misconduct.

3.1 Academic integrity vivas as a means of detecting academic misconduct in non-examination conditions at Faculty/School/Partner Institution level

3.1.1

In cases where the School/Faculty/Partner Institution Academic Integrity Officer has concerns about whether a piece of submitted by a student is their own , the School/Faculty/Partner Institution Academic Integrity Officer may decide that a student should be invited to attend an academic integrity viva. The purpose of the academic integrity viva is to test the student’s knowledge of the work which they have submitted and to provide the student with the opportunity, prior to any academic misconduct proceedings, to demonstrate that the work is their own.

3.1.2

The student should be given no less than two days’ notification of the academic integrity viva in writing. A standard template must be used which will be available from Education Services. The student may be accompanied by a friend or representative from the Students’ Union Advice Centre (contact details for the Advice Centre will be included in the letter). However, such person(s) accompanying the student will not be able to respond to any questions on behalf of the student. The student will be advised to bring with them evidence of preparatory work relating to the submission such as drafts, sources and feedback.

If a student has had any third party assistance with their work (e.g. a proofreader), they will be advised to have available the original unamended copy of the work to assist the interview panel in assessing the extent to which any amendments have impacted on the quality of the work.

The viva will normally be conducted electronically via Zoom/video conferencing and all parties will be expected to enable their webcam.

3.1.3

The viva process would normally involve a panel of at least two members of academic staff, a Chair and a subject expert (usually the module leader or module marker). The panel should not consist of any Faculty/School/Partner Institution Academic Integrity Officers who have been or shall be involved in the particular case. A record of the viva must be kept; this may take the form of written minutes and/or an audio/media recording. At the discretion of the Faculty/School/Partner Institution, a third member of staff may be nominated to record/transcribe the viva.

3.1.4

The terms of reference for the viva panel shall be:

• To test the student’s knowledge of the work they have submitted;
• To provide the student with the opportunity, prior to any academic misconduct proceedings, to demonstrate that the work is their own.

3.1.5

The procedure during the viva meeting shall be as follows:

• The Chair will ask all participants to introduce themselves;
• The Chair will inform all participants of the terms of reference for the panel;
• The panel may ask questions relating to the work such as: how the student approached the work; what research was carried out; what sources were used and how these were chosen; what the key concepts of the work are, and how ideas/arguments/data was formulated. The student may also be asked to explain particular statements, theories or terms used within their work, and whether they received any help or support from any third party.

3.1.6

The student should be given the opportunity to demonstrate that the work is their own, including the opportunity to present any evidence which they have such as drafts, sources etc.

3.1.7

If the student fails to attend the academic integrity viva without good reason, inferences may be drawn in relation to the student’s failure to attend by the Faculty/School/Partner Institution Academic Integrity Officer. Alternatively, where a viva is deemed necessary in order to fairly determine a case, and the student has not attended or responded to an invitation(s) to attend, the student’s marks in the module concerned may be withheld until they engage with the academic misconduct process. The student’s progression/award results may also be withheld by the examination board.

3.1.8

Following the academic integrity viva, the Chair will prepare a report setting out their opinion on the student’s knowledge of the work which they have submitted and the reasons for their opinion.

3.1.9

If the panel, based on the academic judgment of the staff involved, determine that the student has not demonstrated that the assessment is their own work, the Chair will provide to the Faculty/School/Partner Institution Academic Integrity Officer (as appropriate) a copy of their report and the recording/transcription of the viva, in addition to the normal supporting paperwork relating to the case. This will normally be within five working days of the date of the student’s academic integrity viva (in accordance with 4.4 below).

If the Panel determines that, based on the academic judgment of the staff involved, the student has demonstrated that the assessed work is their own, the Chair will inform the module leader/marker that the work shall be marked in accordance with the normal assessment criteria for the module. The student shall be informed of this in writing and no further action shall be taken.

3.2 Investigating academic misconduct 

Each School/Faculty/Partner Institution shall appoint a minimum of two Academic Integrity Officers and a Lead Faculty Academic Integrity Officer to deal with  cases of academic misconduct. 

In each case, one Academic Integrity Officer will carry out the investigation and make a recommendation on the case (see below). A second Academic Integrity Officer will be responsible for deciding whether an offence has been committed and, if so, for determining a penalty.  The allocation of responsibilities shall be left to the discretion of the School/Faculty/Partner Institution; however, it is the responsibility of the School/Faculty/Partner Institution Academic Integrity Officers to ensure that all staff are aware of the procedure.

In all cases of suspected academic misconduct, Schools/Faculties/Partner Institutions will be expected to carry out the stages listed in section 4.0. The burden of proof (duty of proving the allegation) shall rest on the School/Faculty/Partner Institution and the standard of proof should be on the balance of probabilities: a fact will be established if it is more likely than not to have happened. Cases involving research degree theses should be dealt with as directed in section 6.0.

4.1  Stage One - report to First Faculty/School/Partner Institution Academic Integrity Officer

If a member of staff considers, or suspects, that academic misconduct has occurred in relation to any piece of work completed under exam/non-examination conditions they shall report the matter via the appropriate system and provide any relevant evidence to the First School/Faculty/Partner Institution Academic Integrity Officer, normally within five working days of their consideration of the student’s work or the student’s academic integrity viva. The work concerned would not normally be marked and the module result not made available to the student until the academic misconduct case had been concluded.

The member of staff (or their colleague) may require the student to attend an academic integrity viva to test the student’s knowledge of the work submitted before reporting the matter to the First School/Faculty/Partner Institution Academic Integrity Officer, in accordance with 3.1 above.

4.2   Stage Two - establishing a prima facie case

The Faculty/School’s/Partner Institution First Academic Integrity Officer or nominee shall firstly determine whether a prima facie case of academic misconduct exists by referring to the documentation/evidence and, where required, through discussion with the student.

The First Academic Integrity Officer may request that an academic member of staff conducts an academic integrity viva to test the student’s knowledge of the work submitted, in accordance with 3.1 above.

Schools/Faculties/Partner Institutions may also examine any other work previously submitted by the student (including work submitted in other Schools/subject areas where the student has pursued modules) for other possible instances of academic misconduct.

Cases involving students of The College, Swansea University on integrated programmes shall be dealt with by the Faculty/School in accordance with regulations noted in section 7.0.  

In cases involving only a student(s) of The College, Swansea University on a non-integrated programme, the case should be referred to The College, Swansea University.

The First Academic Integrity Officer shall not normally be informed of any previously substantiated allegations of academic misconduct before making their recommendation on the allegation under consideration. However, the Second Academic Integrity Officer should have this information before determining the penalty in appropriate cases.

If no prima facie case of academic misconduct exists, the student should be informed, and no further formal action shall be taken.

4.3   Poor academic practice

In cases where a student is early in their academic career (Level 3/4 or the first teaching block of the programme for direct entry Level 5 and Level 7 PGT students) and there are minor infringements, the Academic Integrity Officer may determine that a student has failed to understand the referencing requirements and poor academic practice, rather than academic misconduct, has occurred. 

Typical instances would include very minor and/or relatively insignificant cases of:

• Poor referencing;
• Incorrect (or an absence of) attribution for copied work inserted in an assignment;
• A small amount of work copied from another student or produced by generative artificial intelligence systems;
• Small amount of paraphrasing without adequate attribution.

In such cases the student will be issued an informal warning and be referred to appropriate sources of advice (such as the Personal Tutor, the subject librarian, online training courses and the Centre for Academic Success) for guidance on correct referencing and good academic practice. Normally, only one informal warning may be given. However, the Academic Integrity Officer, with reference to the above, may exercise their discretion and issue a further informal warning.

The School/Faculty/Partner Institution will mark the work in accordance with normal marking criteria. Such cases will be noted but will not be recorded as academic misconduct. Any subsequent offences will be considered under the academic misconduct procedures.

4.4   Processing an academic misconduct allegation once a prima facie case has been determined

The School/Faculty/Partner Institution First Academic Integrity Officer should determine whether the case is to be dealt with by interview or in writing.

In cases of alleged commissioning and cases concerning a PGR thesis, the School/Faculty/Partner Institution is required to interview the student(s) involved.

4.5   Stage Three - student response to allegation

4.5.1  

If a prima facie case of academic misconduct exists the student(s) concerned should be informed, in writing, of the suspected case of academic misconduct. Where a student is invited to an interview and the student has indicated that they do not wish to attend, the meeting will proceed in their absence. Normally a student may not send any other person to the interview in their absence unless this is authorised by the Faculty/School/Partner Institution Academic Integrity Officer prior to the interview. Where no response is received from a student, and after all reasonable means have been taken to contact them, the case shall proceed in their absence. In exceptional circumstances, provision may be made for one postponement.

4.5.2  

Where the student is invited to an interview, the student shall be entitled to be accompanied by a friend or colleague (who is a member of the University) or a Students' Union representative. The role of any person accompanying the student will be to support the student, and they will not normally be allowed to answer questions on behalf of the student.

Given that students have access to well-resourced and experienced student support services, they will not normally need to seek legal advice or be accompanied at the interview by anyone acting in a legal capacity.

Students may, however, request to be accompanied by someone acting in a legal capacity if they are enrolled on a Fitness to Practise programme. In such cases, the student should make representations to the Director of Education Services. The Director of Education Services has the absolute discretion to accept or reject an application and their decision will be final.

If the student is permitted to be accompanied at the interview by someone acting in a legal capacity, the accompanying person will be clearly informed of the nature of the proceedings, i.e., that it is not a legal process and will not be conducted as such.

The Faculty Academic Integrity Officers may also have access to similar legal advice consistent with that permitted to the student.

4.5.3  

A student may also be accompanied by an interpreter if it is felt that they will not be able to understand the proceedings fully. It is the student's responsibility to arrange such a translator and be responsible for their fees (except for Welsh translation; see below). The student shall notify the School/Faculty/Partnership Institution of the name of the interpreter in advance of the interview. The interpreter’s role is to translate the dialogue between the parties only; they may not answer questions on behalf of the student or add any representations of their own.

Students wishing to have the interview in Welsh shall notify the School/Faculty upon receiving notification of the interview date in order for translation services to be arranged by the University's Welsh Language office. Such services shall be provided free of charge to the student.

4.5.4  

The interview would normally involve at least two members of staff, usually the First Academic Integrity Officer and one other. The second member of staff may be the Second Academic Integrity Officer or another member of academic staff. If the Second Academic Integrity Officer is present at the interview, the First Academic Integrity Officer would still make a recommendation on the case following the interview and the Second Academic Integrity Officer would make a decision on this basis. In cases involving a PGR thesis, it is good practice to include a PGR Lead (who has not previously been involved in the case) as a third member of academic staff to advise on PGR processes and regulations.  However, the final decision shall rest with the School/Faculty/Partner Institutions Academic Integrity Officers.

4.5.5  

A record of the meeting must be kept; this may take the form of written minutes and/or an audio/media recording. At the discretion of the School/Faculty/Partner Institution, a member of staff may be nominated to record/transcribe the meeting.

Meetings will normally be conducted electronically via video conferencing and all parties will be expected to enable their webcam.

Students should be provided with copies of evidence.

In cases of collusion, students should be sent copies of all the work under investigation, or extracts as appropriate, and any evidence submitted in advance of the interview by the other student(s). Such evidence is not required to be anonymised.

4.5.6  

The terms of reference for the interview shall be:

• To consider the evidence submitted with regard to the allegation of academic misconduct;
• To make a recommendation as to the outcome of the case.

In cases where the second Academic Integrity Officer is present at the interview, the terms of reference shall include:

• To consider the recommendation made by the First Academic Integrity Officer;
• To determine whether the allegation has been substantiated;
• To determine, in appropriate cases, the penalty which should be imposed.

4.5.7  

The procedure during the interview shall be as follows:

The First Academic Integrity Officer shall:

• Introduce themselves and any additional staff to the student;
• Outline the purpose of the Panel and the possible consequences;
• Inform the student of the allegation and summarise the evidence/facts of the case;
• Inform the student that they and the second Academic Integrity Officer/member of staff will question the student, calling witnesses and presenting evidence as they see fit;
• Allow the student and/or their representatives the opportunity to respond to the allegation and outline their case;
• Allow the student to present any evidence which they have brought with them such as drafts, sources, etc.;
• Assess the student’s understanding of academic integrity and academic misconduct;
• Ask the student whether they wish to provide any mitigation and remind the student that, where they could have reported such circumstances to the Faculty/School/Partner Institution prior to their decision being made, those circumstances cannot subsequently be cited as grounds for review;
• Provide the student with information regarding the timeline for their decision and the right to appeal against the decision;
• Where appropriate, refer the student for additional help and support, for example to the Personal Tutor, subject librarian or the Academic Success Programme
• Keep a record of the meeting.

An allegation may be amended during an interview/investigation where one of the other academic misconduct offences is considered more appropriate. 

4.5.8  

After having considered the evidence and any response provided by the student, the First Academic Integrity Officer shall refer the case along with all relevant evidence, any written response received from the student and any notes of any meeting held with the student to the Second Academic Integrity Officer together with their recommendation as to the outcome of the case. If the Second Academic Integrity Officer is present at the meeting, the First Academic Integrity Officer will make their recommendation to the Second Academic Integrity Officer who will make the final decision on the outcome.  

4.6   Stage Four - substantiating the case

The Faculty/School/Partner Institution’s Second Academic Integrity Officer shall consider all of the evidence and shall then determine whether the allegation of academic misconduct has been substantiated. The burden of proof (duty of proving the allegation) shall rest on the Faculty/School/Partner Institution and the standard of proof should be on the balance of probabilities: a fact will be established if it is more likely than not to have happened.

The Second Academic Integrity Officer does not have to take intent into consideration in relation to an allegation of academic misconduct - there can be no defence that the offence was committed unintentionally or accidentally. Such circumstances can, however, be submitted by the student as mitigation in relation to the penalty to be imposed.

Where the standard of proof is not met, the case should be dismissed and the student informed of this decision in writing.

In cases where it is felt that poor academic practice rather than academic misconduct has occurred, the case will be dealt with in accordance with 4.3.

If the Second Academic Integrity Officer finds that the allegation of academic misconduct has been substantiated, they shall then determine the penalty to be imposed in accordance with Stage Five below.

4.7   Stage Five - determining penalties

In order to ensure consistency in the application of penalties, the University provides guidance on penalties in the Code of Practice on Academic Misconduct.

In addition to this guidance, in cases of PGT directed independent learning, PGR thesis, commissioning and second/subsequent offences, a Lead Faculty Academic Integrity Officer shall ratify the proposed penalty. The student should not be notified of the penalty until the case has been ratified by a Lead Faculty Academic Integrity Officer.

The Second Academic Integrity Officer should refer to the University’s Code of Practice on Academic Misconduct and may consult with colleagues in arriving at a penalty.

The Second Academic Integrity Officer shall also consider the following:

• The seriousness of the offence;
• The implications of the penalty on the student;
• Case history;
• The candidate’s academic record (including any previous substantiated offences);
• Intent;
• Any mitigating circumstances brought to their attention in determining the penalty.

The Second Academic Integrity Officer should be convinced that any mitigating circumstances have a direct bearing on the case and, in particular, have influenced the action of the student(s) concerned. Candidates raising mitigating circumstances must provide evidence in support of the circumstances and provide clarity on their effect. Where a candidate could have reported such circumstances to the Faculty/School/Partner Institution prior to the decision being made, those circumstances cannot subsequently be cited as grounds for review. 

The Second Academic Integrity Officer may impose a penalty in accordance with the following:

• Penalties available for academic misconduct in examination conditions (see 5.1);
• Penalties available for academic misconduct under non-examination conditions (see 5.2);
• Penalties available for academic misconduct in Postgraduate Taught Directed Independent Learning/research degrees (see 5.3).

Penalties shall be recorded on the student’s academic record.

4.8   Case Record

The Faculty/School/Partner Institution Academic Integrity Officer(s) shall record each case noting whether the allegation has been found substantiated, any penalty imposed and the reasons for the decisions reached. A permanent record of the case will be kept and may be considered in final review cases.  The case record will also be made available to the student (see 4.9 below).

4.9   Informing the student

The Faculty/School/Partner Institution should inform the student in writing as to whether the allegation has been found substantiated and any penalty imposed. The case record will also be made available to the student.

The student will also be notified of the University's Final Review Procedure. However, students should note a final review of the outcome could result in a more severe penalty being imposed (e.g. if the current outcome is cancelled and the case is referred for a new investigation and determination). 

Where an allegation has been substantiated, and the Faculty/School/Partner Institution is concerned that this may affect the student’s fitness to practise, the case may also be referred to the Executive Dean PVC (or nominee) in accordance with the University’s Fitness to Practise Regulations.

Where an allegation has been substantiated and the student is already registered with a professional, statutory or regulatory body (for example, registration with the General Medical Council), the student is responsible for notifying the professional body of the outcome of the Committee of Enquiry.

The Second Academic Integrity Officer should impose one of the following penalties:

5.1 Penalties available for examination offences

5.1.1 

The issue of a written warning to the candidate; a record of the warning should be kept;

5.1.2  

The cancellation of the candidate's marks for the examination paper;

5.1.3    

The cancellation of the candidate's mark in the module concerned;

5.1.4    

The cancellation of the candidate's marks in all of the modules for the particular level of study;

5.1.5    

The cancellation of the candidate's mark in all of the modules for the particular level of study and the disqualification of the candidate from any future University examination;

5.2 Penalties available for non-examination offences: taught modules

5.2.1     

The issue of a formal reprimand to the candidate and the text to be ignored when marking, resulting in a reduced mark (where applicable);

5.2.2   

The cancellation of the candidate's marks for the assignment;

5.2.3     

The cancellation of the marks for the module component;

5.2.4     

The cancellation of the candidate's mark in the module concerned;

5.2.5     

The cancellation of the candidate's marks in all of the modules for the particular level of study;

5.2.6     

The cancellation of the candidate's mark in all of the modules for the particular level of study and the disqualification of the candidate from any future University examination;

5.3 Penalties available for postgraduate taught masters directed independent learning and postgraduate research thesis

5.3.1

The candidate be awarded a decision of Fail, with a right of resubmission;

5.3.2

The candidate be awarded a decision of Fail, with no right of resubmission.

6.1

If, after formal submission, a supervisor/examiner considers or suspects that academic misconduct has occurred in relation a research degree thesis, they shall report the matter in writing to the Faculty/School/Partner Institution’s Academic Integrity Officer as soon as possible. 

In cases where the suspected academic misconduct is identified post formal submission but ahead of the viva, the examination process should be suspended until the investigation into the academic misconduct concerns has been concluded. The student should be informed promptly in writing (normally within seven days of the concerns being identified) that there are academic misconduct concerns, and that the examination process has been suspended whilst the matter is investigated. The Faculty/School and viva panel (if established) should also be informed.

In cases where suspected academic misconduct is identified during the viva, the Examination Board should be suspended, and the Faculty/School should be informed. The student should be notified in person at the viva and subsequently in writing within seven days that there is suspected academic misconduct, and that the examination process has been suspended whilst the concerns are investigated.

The referring academic may be the supervisor or examiner (or nominee). The referring academic may require the student to attend an academic integrity viva to test the student’s knowledge of the work submitted before reporting the matter to the Academic Integrity Officer, in accordance with 3.1 above.

Following the academic integrity viva, the viva panel chair shall prepare a report outlining their conclusions within a week of the student’s academic integrity viva in accordance with 3.1. This report shall be referred to the Academic Integrity Officer who shall consider the report alongside other documentation/evidence.

The referring academic may wish to consider the following evidence (this will depend on the nature of academic misconduct concerns):

• Turnitin report;
• Annotated sources matched to the thesis;
• Statements from supervisor/viva panel chair/internal examiner/external examiner/other academic. In some cases, it may be appropriate to consult an externa//internal subject specialist to ask for their assessment of the case;
• Academic Integrity Viva report, if appropriate;
• Third party statements (if appropriate and the third party has waived their right to anonymity).

This list is not exhaustive.

6.2

Following receipt of the initial referral the Faculty/School/Partner Institution’s Academic Integrity Officer shall consider all evidence The Academic Integrity Officer may request further information. For example, they may request that an academic integrity viva is held to test the student’s knowledge of the work submitted or that an independent subject specialist is appointed to undertake an assessment.

In cases of allegations involving a PGR thesis, it is required that the School/Faculty/Partner Institution interview the student involved.

Joint cases (first offences) involving students of The College, Swansea University on non-integrated programmes and Swansea University students and/or students of The College, Swansea University on integrated programmes shall be dealt with in accordance with the Swansea University procedures. 

Cases involving only students of The College, Swansea University on non-integrated programmes shall be dealt with by The College, Swansea University.

In joint cases dealt with by the University, a representative from The College, Swansea University may be involved in stages 2 to 5 (see 4.2 to 4.7).   

8.1 Initial stages

Where an allegation of academic misconduct arises after an Award has been bestowed, the University shall consider the case in accordance with the regulations governing revocation of the Award.

A Lead Faculty Academic Integrity Officer shall initially consider the evidence and shall either dismiss the case or confirm that a prima facie case of academic misconduct exists.The Lead Academic Integrity Officer will then refer the case to the Vice Chancellor or their nominee (normally a Pro Vice Chancellor) who will consider the request to establish a Committee of Enquiry. In arriving at a decision, the Vice Chancellor or nominee will consider the evidence available to substantiate the case, the time elapsed since the alleged offence and the broader interests of the University. If a prima facie case exists, they shall request that a Committee of Enquiry is established to hear the case.

The Committee of Enquiry shall be conducted in accordance with the regulations below. Where a case is substantiated, the Committee shall make a recommendation to the Senate on the outcome and any penalty to be applied.

8.2 Establishment of the University's Committee of Enquiry to deal with cases of academic misconduct after an award has been bestowed

8.2.1   

On receipt of confirmation of a prima facie case finding by the Lead Faculty Academic Integrity Officer, arrangements will be made for an appropriate Committee of Enquiry to be convened as soon as reasonably possible, normally within 90 calendar days of the allegation being made. Where delays occur, the student shall be informed of the progress of the investigation, including the reasons for the delay, and provided with an estimated time scale for the conclusion of the case. A member of staff from Education Services will normally act as Secretary to the Committee.

8.2.2   

Each Committee of Enquiry Panel shall consist of three members (selected by the Committee Secretary), namely an experienced Chair and two members of academic staff of the University.

In the case of an allegation concerning a student from a Partner Institution, the Committee of Enquiry may include a fourth Panel member who is a member of staff from that Institution, normally the Director of the Partner Institution or their nominee.

The decision of the Committee Panel will be reached by a majority vote of the Panel members, and the votes of the individual members will be treated as confidential. In the event of a tie decision, the Chair shall have an additional casting vote.

8.2.3   

As soon as reasonably practicable after the appointment of the Committee of Enquiry, and bearing in mind the University's expectation that such cases should normally be heard within 90 calendar days of the allegation being made, the Secretary shall:

• Send to the candidate copies of statements of witnesses and any other evidence to be placed before the Committee of Enquiry, and offer the candidate an opportunity to indicate any statement or documents which may be in dispute
• Notify members of the Committee of Enquiry of the date, place and time of the meeting and supply them with copies of the allegation and of any statements or documents

The Secretary shall, at the same time, inform the candidate of the date and time when the Committee of Enquiry intends to meet and that they shall have the right to be accompanied. The Committee of Enquiry will normally be conducted electronically via video conferencing and all parties will be expected to enable their webcam. A student may be accompanied by an interpreter if it is felt that they will not be able to understand the proceedings fully. It is the student's responsibility to arrange such a translator and to be responsible for their fees (except for Welsh translation; see 8.2.7 below). The student shall notify the Secretary of the name of the interpreter in advance of the meeting. The interpreter’s role is to translate the dialogue between the parties only; they may not answer questions on behalf of the student or add any representations of their own, unless invited to do so by the Chair.

8.2.4   

Any documentary evidence to be presented in the student's defence should be sent to Education Services prior to the date of the meeting and circulated to members of the Committee. The candidate shall be required to inform the Secretary whether or not they intend to attend the meeting of the Committee of Enquiry. If the candidate indicates that they do not wish to attend the meeting, the Committee of Enquiry shall proceed in their absence. Normally a student may not send any other person to the meeting in their absence unless this is authorised by the Chair prior to the meeting. Where no response is received from a student and, after all reasonable means have been taken to contact the candidate, the meeting shall proceed in their absence. In exceptional circumstances, provision may be made for one postponement.

Any further evidence made available on the date of the meeting may be presented to the Committee, but only with the express permission of the Chair. 

8.2.5   

The Committee does not have to take intent into consideration in relation to an allegation of academic misconduct; there can be no defence that the offence was committed unintentionally or accidentally. Such circumstances can, however, be submitted by the student as mitigation in relation to the penalty to be imposed.

8.2.6   

While Committee hearings will normally be conducted via video conferencing, should a hearing be held in person, it should be held at Swansea University unless alternative regulations have been agreed upon e.g. for the meeting to be held at a Collaborative Partner's campus.

8.2.7   

Committee hearings shall be held in English or, at the request of a student, in Welsh. Students wishing to have the hearing in Welsh shall notify the Secretary upon receiving notification of the hearing date in order for translation services to be arranged by the University's Welsh Language office. Such services shall be provided free of charge to the student.

8.2.8   

The student shall be informed of their right to be accompanied at the meeting. A student who intends to be accompanied shall inform the Committee Secretary of the person accompanying them in writing in advance of the Committee.

Students may request to be accompanied by someone acting in a legal capacity. In such cases, the student should make representations to the Director of Education Services. The Director of Education Services has the absolute discretion to accept or reject an application and their decision will be final.

If the student is permitted to be accompanied at the interview by someone acting in a legal capacity, the accompanying person will be clearly informed of the nature of the proceedings, i.e. that it is not a legal process and will not be conducted as such. The Chair may invite contributions from the person accompanying the student.

8.2.9

Should a candidate not attend the meeting of the Committee of Enquiry, having previously indicated to the Secretary that they would attend, and provided that all reasonable means have been taken to contact the candidate, the meeting shall proceed in their absence.

8.3   Functions of the Committee of Enquiry and procedure during the meeting after an award has been bestowed

8.3.1

The functions of the Committee of Enquiry shall be:

• To consider the evidence submitted to it with regard to the allegation of academic misconduct
• To determine whether the allegation has been substantiated
• To determine, in appropriate cases, the penalty to be imposed

8.3.2   

Subject to the procedure outlined below, the process of the Committee meeting shall be at the discretion of the Committee Secretary and Chair. The Secretary/Chair may impose time limits on the oral representations of the parties/witnesses.

The Chair has the authority to consider postponing or adjourning the meeting on the request of the student or Panel members, or if the Chair considers such postponement/adjournment to be necessary.

In cases where two or more candidates are accused of related offences, such as in the case of collusion, the Chair may decide to deal with the cases together. However, each candidate must be given the opportunity to request that the cases be heard separately. The decision will be made by the Chair.

8.3.3   

The Chair shall:

• Introduce themselves and any additional staff to the student
• Outline the purpose of the Panel and the possible consequences
• Inform the student of the allegation and summarise the evidence/facts of the case
• Inform the student that the Panel will question the student and any witnesses
• Allow the student and/or their representatives the opportunity to respond to the allegation and outline their case
• Allow the student to present any evidence which they have brought with them
• Assess the student’s understanding of academic integrity and academic misconduct
• Where appropriate, ask the student whether they wish to provide any mitigation and remind the student that, where they could have reported such circumstances to the Panel prior to their decision being made, those circumstances cannot subsequently be cited as grounds for review
• Provide the student with information regarding the timeline for their decision and the right to appeal against the decision

8.3.4   

Notwithstanding the fact that a student may be accompanied at the Committee meeting, the Panel will still wish to hear directly from the student in their own words and will require the student (not the person accompanying the student) to answer questions.

8.3.5   

Witnesses can only be concerned with evidence relating directly to the allegation and shall normally withdraw after questioning. The Chair may wish to consider allowing witnesses to remain in the hearing throughout the procedures provided that both parties agree to this in advance or the Chair considers it pertinent to the case for a witness to remain.

8.3.6   

Additional documentary evidence may only be presented to the Committee on the day of the hearing with the express permission of the Chair. 

8.3.7   

When the submission of evidence and the questioning of witnesses are completed, all persons, other than the members of the Committee, the Secretary and other Education Services staff, if present, shall withdraw.

8.3.8   

The Chair of the Committee may approve an adjournment of the hearing following a reasonable request from the student or from the Committee itself. For example, to gain further evidence such as documentary evidence in support of an oral statement made or to test a student's knowledge of the work in question if there remains uncertainty that the work is the student's own.

8.3.9   

The Committee of Enquiry shall then consider whether, on the basis of the evidence, the allegation has been substantiated. The burden of proof (duty of proving the allegation) shall rest on the University and the standard of proof should be on the balance of probabilities: a fact will be established if it is more likely than not to have happened. 

8.3.10

The Committee of Enquiry shall not normally be informed before reaching its verdict on the allegation under consideration, of any evidence of previously substantiated allegations of academic misconduct; the Committee should be so informed before determining the penalty in appropriate cases. However, in exceptional cases, evidence of previously substantiated acts of academic misconduct may be disclosed prior to the verdict of the Committee where such evidence:

• Rebuts a claim of previous good character made by the candidate/representative
• Is relevant to the allegation under consideration (other than merely showing that the candidate had a disposition to commit the facts alleged) and its prejudicial effect does not outweigh its probative value

8.3.11               

The Committee does not have to take intent into consideration. However, mitigation may be considered in relation to the penalty.

8.3.12

If the Committee finds that the case has been substantiated, it shall then consider the penalty to be imposed. The full list of available penalties is available in section 8.4.

The student shall be allowed to make representations as to outcome and to present any mitigating circumstances to the Committee before the Panel decides upon an appropriate penalty or outcome. Candidates raising mitigating circumstances must provide evidence in support of the circumstances and provide clarity on their effect. Where a candidate could have reported such circumstances to the Committee prior to the decision being made, those circumstances cannot subsequently be cited as grounds for review. The Chair may invite contributions from the person accompanying the student.

8.3.13               

If the Committee finds that the case has not been substantiated, the candidate shall be informed of the outcome in writing. All record of the case shall be removed from the student's file.

8.4   Penalties available to the Committee of Enquiry in cases of academic misconduct after an award has been bestowed

8.4.1  

The Committee shall consult the Code of Practice for Academic Misconduct and the candidate’s case history and academic record before imposing any penalty. In order to ensure consistency in the application of penalties, the University provides guidance on penalties in the Code of Practice on Academic Misconduct (see Appendix). However, the Committee shall also take into consideration the implications of the penalty on the student, intent and any mitigating circumstances. The Committee should be convinced that the mitigating circumstances have a direct bearing on the case and, in particular, have influenced the action of the student(s) concerned. The full list of penalties available to the Committee of Enquiry shall be:

8.4.2    

The cancellation of the candidate’s marks for the whole or part of a module;

8.4.3    

The cancellation of the candidate’s marks in all of the modules for the particular level of study;

8.4.4    

The disqualification of the candidate from any future examination;

8.4.5    

The cancellation of the candidate’s marks in all of the modules for the particular level of study and the disqualification of the candidate from any future examination;

8.4.6    

Reduction of a degree result by one class or the deprivation of a distinction*, as appropriate;

*Distinction refers to any classification of the Award including distinction/merit/commendation, etc.

8.4.7  

In the event of a Committee deciding that the above penalties are inappropriate, the Committee may use its discretion to decide upon an appropriate penalty.

Where an allegation has been substantiated, and this may affect the candidate’s fitness to practise, the case may also be referred to the relevant Executive Dean or their nominee in accordance with the University’s Fitness to Practise Regulations.

Where an allegation has been substantiated and the student is already registered with a professional, statutory or regulatory body (for example, registration with the General Medical Council), the student is responsible for notifying the professional body of the outcome of the Committee of Enquiry, where appropriate.

8.5   Retrieval and Capping

Where the Committee chooses to implement 8.4.2 and 8.4.3, the Committee shall also consider whether the candidate shall be permitted to redeem the work in question for a capped mark, in accordance with the assessment regulations for the programme of study.

8.6   Action to be taken following the Committee of Enquiry in cases occurring after an award has been bestowed

8.6.1  

When the Committee of Enquiry has investigated the facts of the alleged academic misconduct, the Secretary shall in their report state whether or not the allegation has been substantiated and shall state any penalty to be imposed. The report shall be submitted to the Senate as soon as possible after the Enquiry has been completed. 

8.6.2  

The student shall be informed of the outcome of the hearing.

8.6.3  

A candidate shall be informed of their right to request a final review of the outcome determined by the Committee of Enquiry within 14 working days of the date of the letter/email to the student confirming the outcome of the Committee of Enquiry, in accordance with the University’s Final Review procedure (see section 9.0 below).

8.6.4  

Normally, the University would not make any public pronouncements of decisions of Committees of Enquiry. However, the University will maintain a record of all cases, which will be available to the public on request.

In investigating allegations of academic misconduct, the University reserves the right to consult with other universities or organisations, where appropriate.

8.6.5  

The final outcome of the case shall be reported to the Senate, together with any recommendation for further action, such as deprivation or revocation of a qualification, if warranted, as well as details of any subsequent action e.g. investigations into irregularities in the conduct of the procedures. The Senate shall make a determination in the case including a decision to deprive a person of a qualification or to revoke a qualification if warranted.

Students shall be informed that they may request a final review of the outcome  for all academic misconduct cases in accordance with the University's Final Review Procedures.

Requests for a Final Review must be submitted to the Director of Education Services within 14 working days of the date of the letter/email to the student confirming the outcome of the academic misconduct case, in accordance with the Final Review Procedure. Students should note that a final review of the outcome could result in a more severe penalty being imposed (e.g. if the current outcome is cancelled and the case is referred for a new determination).

An annual report on issues relating to academic misconduct shall be submitted to the Student Cases Board.