Academic Misconduct Procedure

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; collusion; breach of examination regulations; fabrication of data; impersonation of others or the commissioning of work for assessment (this list is not exhaustive).

1.1

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:

1. in examination conditions (see 2.0).
2. in non-examination conditions (see 3.0).
3. in research degrees (see 6.0).
4. 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 below). Faculties/Schools may also choose to implement a system of random vivas in subject areas.

A University Academic Integrity Lead is appointed by the University to promote academic integrity and to deal with all University level cases. The University Academic Integrity Lead is supported in their role by two University Academic Integrity Case Officers who may assist them or deal with cases of academic misconduct on their behalf, in accordance with this Procedure. 

In investigating allegations of academic misconduct, the University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer, 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 to 2.4 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 provided with an estimated time scale for the conclusion of the case. 

Academic misconduct in examinations/assessment(s) 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, except as authorised by the Faculty/School;
• 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 allow 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 such a 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 to any subsequent investigation. The invigilator shall as soon as possible report the circumstances, verbally in the first instance and thereafter in writing, to the Examinations Officer who shall in turn notify the Faculty/School's Academic Integrity Officer and the University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer.

In cases where a student has written on their person, the invigilator may contact the 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.

2.2   Academic Misconduct in online-proctored assessments/examinations

In cases where online proctoring software is used to invigilate an examination the Faculty/School 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's Academic Integrity Officer and the University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer.

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, the invigilator should report the case to the Faculty/School's Academic Integrity Officer in the first instance, who in turn shall report the case to the University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer.

2.4   Unauthorised electronic devices in the examinations/online proctored assessments/invigilated in-class test 

In the case of a student being found in possession of any electronic device capable of storing or displaying data, including mobile phones, smart watches 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 as soon as possible report the circumstances, verbally in the first instance and thereafter in writing, to the Examinations Officer who shall in turn notify the University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer. In the case of online proctored examinations/assessments the Faculty/School shall report the case to the University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer.

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

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

       The penalty for a first breach shall be:

• the issue of a written reprimand to the candidate, a record of the reprimand should be kept.

       In cases of a second breach the penalty shall normally be:

• the cancellation of the candidate's marks for the whole examination paper.

Such students will have the right to request a final review of the outcome in accordance with the University’s Final Review procedures. The University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer may also decide not to issue a penalty but to refer the case to a Committee of Enquiry in accordance with regulation 2.6.

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 University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer who will determine whether a prima facie case of academic misconduct has been established (see 2.5).

2.5   Suspected Academic Misconduct detected during or subsequent to the marking period (cases in  invigilated examinations/online proctored assessments/invigilated in-class tests)

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's Academic Integrity Officer as soon as possible. They shall retain any relevant evidence and shall forthwith report the matter in writing to the University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer who will determine whether a prima facie case of academic misconduct has been established (see 2.6).

2.6   Further actions to be taken by the Director of Academic Integrity

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

The University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case 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 Faculty/School's Academic Integrity Officer or the Examination Officer shall, where appropriate, inform the candidate in writing that the matter is closed.

If satisfied that a prima facie case of academic misconduct exists, the University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer shall report the case in writing to the Director of Academic Services and shall send to the Director of Academic Services copies of any relevant supporting evidence. The procedure shown shall then operate as described.

Where an allegation concerns a joint case involving a student from The College, Swansea University on a non-integrated programme together with a Swansea University student and/or a student of The College, Swansea University on an integrated programme e.g. communicating in an examination etc, the case shall be dealt with by the University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case 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.

2.7         

The candidate shall be informed, in writing, by Academic Services of the allegation and that a Committee of Enquiry will be constituted to consider the case.

Plagiarism is defined as using, without acknowledgment, the work of another (person or system) and submitting it for assessment as though it were one's 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 persons or systems which have not been clearly identified as such by being placed in quotation marks and acknowledged;
• 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 the services (paid or un-paid) of 'ghost writing' agencies in the preparation of assessed work;
• The use of unacknowledged material downloaded from the Internet;
• The use of unacknowledged material produced by AI systems;
• The submission of another student's work as though it was one’s own.

This list of examples is not exhaustive.

Self-Plagiarism is not recognised in Swansea University regulations as an offence of academic misconduct. Faculties/Schools are expected to take steps to ensure that the design of programmes/modules/assessments does not allow students the opportunity to submit the same work twice. In addition, Faculties/Schools should take steps to inform students that they cannot submit work or sections of their work on more than one occasion. A statement to this effect should be included on the coursework submission form. Where a student has self-plagiarised work, the Faculty/School will mark the work in accordance with the normal marking criteria.

Collusion is defined as two or more students or other persons working together without prior authorisation in order to gain unfair advantage and to produce the same or similar piece of work and then attempting to present this work entirely as their own. 

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 of work, which is the unauthorised act of paying for, or arranging for another (person or system) 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 (person or system).
• Downloading materials from essay exchange sites.
• Paying another for the collection, manipulation or interpretation of data, where this is a requirement of the student’s studies.
• Unacknowledged use of Artificial Intelligence systems.

Commissioning of work may also include the submission for assessment of the commissioned work as though it were the student’s own work.

Examples include:

• Purchasing material from internet sites or another and then presenting that material for assessment as though it were one’s own work.
• Paying for another (person or system) to write coursework which is then submitted as though it were the student’s own work.
• Paying for another (person or system) to write draft coursework which is then presented to a supervisor for scrutiny and feedback.

This list is not exhaustive. Falsification of the results of laboratory, field-work 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 level 

3.1.1

In cases where Faculty/School academic staff, the Faculty/School Academic Integrity Officer and/or the University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer has concerns about whether a piece of coursework, or any work completed under non-examination conditions, submitted by a student is their own work, the Faculty/School may invite the student 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 Academic Services. A student may be accompanied by a friend or representative from the Students’ Union Advice Centre and 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, feedback. If a student has had any third party assistance with their work (e.g proof reader) they will be advised to bring with them the original un-amended copy of the work to assist the panel in assessing the extent to which 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 2 members of Academic Staff, normally a Chair and a Subject Expert (normally the module leader or module marker). The Panel should not consist of any Faculty/School 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, 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 students’ knowledge of the work which 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, how ideas/arguments/data was formulated etc. The student may also be asked to explain particular statements, theories or terms used within their work. The student may also be asked 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 brought with them such as drafts, sources etc.

3.1.7

Where 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 Academic Integrity Officer and/or Academic Misconduct Committee of Enquiry.

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 then the Chair will provide to the Faculty/School Academic Integrity Officer or to the University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case 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 - normally within five working days of the date of the student’s academic integrity viva (in accordance with 3.4 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 in non-examination conditions at Faculty/School level (excludes Research Degree Theses) 

Each Faculty/School shall appoint a minimum of two Academic Integrity Officers to deal with Faculty/School level (first offence) cases. In each case one Academic Integrity Officer will carry out the investigation and make a recommendation on the case. A second Academic Integrity Officer will be responsible for determining whether an offence has been committed and for determining a penalty. The allocation of responsibilities shall be left to the discretion of the Faculty/School; however, it is the responsibility of the Faculty/School Academic Integrity Officers to ensure that all staff are aware of the reporting procedure.

In cases of suspected academic misconduct, in work completed under non- examinable conditions (excluding Research Degree Theses), Faculties/Schools will be expected to carry out the stages listed below. The burden of proof (duty of proving the allegation) shall rest on the Faculty/School 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.

3.3   Procedure for Investigating and Determining Academic Misconduct in non-examination conditions at Faculty/School level

3.4   Stage One - report to First Faculty/School 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 non-examination conditions (excluding the research degree thesis) they shall report the matter in writing or by email and provide any relevant evidence to the First Faculty/School Academic Integrity Officer, normally within five working days of their consideration of the student’s work or the student’s academic integrity viva.

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 Faculty/School Academic Integrity Officer/University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer, in accordance with 3.1 above.

3.5   Stage Two - establishing a Prima Facie case

The Faculty/School's First Academic Integrity Officer or nominee shall first 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.

Cases involving students of The College, Swansea University on integrated programmes shall be dealt with by the Academic Faculty/School in accordance with regulations 3.3 to 3.12.  

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.

If no prima facie case of academic misconduct exists, no further formal action shall be taken. 

3.6   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 referencing 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 where there is a very small and/or relatively insignificant case 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
• 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 Academic Mentor, the subject librarian, online training courses and the Centre for Academic Success) for advice and guidance on correct referencing.

The School/Faculty 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.

3.7   Stage Three – Determining whether the case is dealt with by the Faculty/School or by the University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer /Committee of Enquiry

If the School’s First Academic Integrity Officer determines there to be a prima facie case of academic misconduct, they shall then determine whether the case can be heard at the Faculty/School level or referred to the University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer.

Faculties/Schools 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).

The Faculty support team shall contact Academic Services to clarify whether the student has any previous offences of academic misconduct.

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

The following cases will normally be dealt with at the School level:

• plagiarism - All taught student first and second offences* 
• collusion -All taught student first and second offences* 

*All taught student second offence allegations concerning plagiarism/collusion will be dealt with at School level, irrespective of the nature of the first offence.
Falsification of the results of laboratory, field-work or other forms of data collection and analysis also constitutes academic misconduct.

In the case of a subsequent offence of plagiarism or collusion the School Academic Integrity Officer shall consider whether the case is of a serious nature (e.g. a significant part of the assessment has been plagiarised or there has been major collusion). The First Faculty/School Academic Integrity Officer should take into account the following in determining whether it would be more appropriate to deal with the case at the Faculty/School level (in accordance with Stages Four to Six below), or refer the case to the University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer:

• the amount of work affected
• the weighting of the assessment within the module the number of pieces of work affected;
• the seriousness of the offence;
• the total number of credits affected;
• the level of study.

The School Academic Integrity Officer should refer initially to the guidance in the University's Code of Practice on Academic Misconduct, but may also approach Academic Services or the University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer for additional advice in determining whether a case should be dealt with by the Faculty/School or the University's Committee.

3.8 Academic Misconduct involving commissioning

Cases of this nature are not dealt with at Faculty/School level and should be forwarded to the University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer (see regulation 5.0).

3.9 Stage Four - student response to allegation

3.9.1  

If a prima facie case of academic misconduct exists and the First Academic Integrity Officer determines that the case should be dealt with at School level, they (or nominee) should inform the student concerned, in writing, of the suspected case of academic misconduct. Within the letter (a template of which will be available from Academic Services) the Faculty/School Academic Integrity Officer will either:

• invite the student to comment in writing (using the Student Response Form template) or;
• invite the student to attend for interview.

In exceptional circumstances and with the agreement of the student such cases may be dealt with in writing. If the student indicates that they do not wish to attend the interview, the interview 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 School 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.

3.9.2  

Where the student is invited to an interview, the student shall be entitled to be accompanied to the interview 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.

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 below). The student shall notify the School of the name of the translator in advance of the meeting.

Students wishing to have the hearing in Welsh shall notify the School, 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.

The interview would normally involve at least two members of staff, normally 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. 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 Faculty/School, a third member of staff may be nominated to record/transcribe the meeting.

Meetings will normally be conducted electronically via Zoom/Video Conferencing and all parties will be expected to enable their webcam.

Students should be provided with copies of evidence, normally this will be a copy of the marked-up essay and/or the Turnitin report, sources etc.

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).

3.9.3  

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 determine whether the allegation has been substantiated;
• to determine, in appropriate cases, the penalty which should be imposed.

3.9.4 

The procedure during the interview shall be as follows:

The First Academic Integrity Officer shall:

• Introduce themselves and any additional staff to the student;
• Inform the student that they and the second member of staff will question the student, calling witnesses and presenting evidence as they think fit;
• Outline the purpose of the interview and the possible consequences;
• 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;
• 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 Faculty/School, 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 Academic Mentor, subject librarian or the Academic Success Programme;
• Keep a record of the meeting.

3.9.5  

The Faculty/School Academic Integrity Officer does not have to take intent into consideration and 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. 

3.9.6  

After having considered the evidence and any response provided by the student, the First Academic Integrity Officer shall refer the case, 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 using the case report form available from Academic Services.

3.10  Stage Five - substantiating the case

The School’s Second Academic Integrity Officer shall consider the documentation and recommendation received from the First Academic Integrity Officer, and shall then determine whether on the evidence received the allegation of academic misconduct has been substantiated. The burden of proof (duty of proving the allegation) shall rest on the School 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 and 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 then 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 3.6

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 Six below.

3.11   Stage Six - Faculty/School Level Cases – 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, in the following cases:

• PGT Directed independent learning
• Second/subsequent offences

the second Academic Integrity Officer should contact Student Academic Services for ratification of the proposed penalty. A copy of the draft case report and case documentation should be sent to Student Academic Services along with the proposed penalty. The student should not be notified of the penalty until the case has been ratified by Student Academic Services.

The Second Academic Integrity Officer should consult 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, had 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, prior to the decision being made, those circumstances cannot subsequently be cited as grounds for review.

The second School Academic Integrity Officer may impose one of the following penalties:       

Taught assessment offences:

3.11.1

the issue of a written reprimand to the candidate and the text to be ignored when marking, resulting in a reduced mark;

3.11.2     

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

3.11.3     

cancellation of the candidate’s mark(s) for the module component(s);

3.11.4     

the cancellation of the candidate's mark for the module concerned;

3.11.5   

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

3.11.6

the cancellation of the candidate’s marks in all modules pursued for the level of study and disqualification from the University.

Dissertation offences:

3.11.6

Fail dissertation, with a right of resubmission

3.11.7

Fail dissertation, with no right of resubmisison

The decision whether to allow a student to retake work/assessment(s) shall be taken by the relevant Progression and Awards Board, in accordance with the assessment regulations for the programme. However, the School Academic Integrity Officer may, in light of a student’s mitigating circumstances, make a recommendation to the Progression and Awards Board in relation to retaking the work. In such cases the Chair of the Progression and Awards Board shall have the authority to accept or reject the recommendation.

3.12 Case Report

The School Academic Integrity Officer(s) shall draft a report on each case noting whether the allegation has been found substantiated, any penalty imposed and the reasons for the decisions reached (a template shall be available from Academic Services). The report, along with a copy of the letter shall be sent to Academic Services where a permanent record will be kept. The report may be considered in final review cases. A copy of the report will also be sent by the School to the student (see 3.11 below).

3.13 Informing the student

The School should inform the student in writing of the decision as to whether the allegation has been found substantiated and any penalty imposed (a template is available from Academic Services). A copy of the Case Report should also be provided 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). A copy of the letter shall be sent to Academic Services.

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

Where an allegation has been substantiated, and the student already has a professional registration 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.

3.14 Survey of penalties

In order to ensure consistency, the Student Academic Services may carry out a survey of penalties and report any findings to the appropriate University committee.

4.1        

Students shall be informed that they may request a final review of the outcome determined by the School Academic Integrity Officer in accordance with the University's Final Review Procedures.

5.1   Informing the University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer

The School's Academic Integrity Officer should inform the University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer in writing, who shall confirm one of the following:

i. a case exists and inform the Faculty/School (or nominee) and the Director of Academic Services that a Committee of Enquiry should be convened; 

ii. a case exists but that the case can be dealt with at the School level;

iii. that no case exists and that no further action should be taken.

In some cases, the University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer may decide that poor referencing has occurred. In such instances the student should be referred to their Academic Mentor for advice and guidance on referencing. Once they have met with their Academic Mentor students should then be asked to sign a statement confirming that they have received advice and understand referencing conventions. 

6.1        

If after formal submission, a Supervisor/Examiner considers, or suspects, that academic misconduct has occurred in relation to a research degree thesis they shall report the matter in writing to the School's Academic Integrity Officer as soon as possible. In cases where academic misconduct is identified during the viva, the Examination Board should be suspended and the School informed.

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 Academic Integrity Officer, in accordance with 3.1 above.

6.2        

The School's Academic Integrity Officer shall first decide whether there is a prima facie case for treating the matter as a case of academic misconduct by referring to documentation/evidence. The School's Academic Integrity Officer should inform the student concerned of the suspected case of academic misconduct and inform the University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer, in writing, who shall confirm whether a prima facie case exists. The University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer should confirm either that:

i. a case exists and inform the School Academic Integrity Officer and the Director of Academic Services that a Committee of Enquiry should be convened;

or

ii. that no case exists and that no further action should be taken.

In some cases the University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer may decide that poor referencing has occurred. In such instances the student should be referred to their Supervisor and/or Subject Librarian for advice and guidance on referencing. Once they have met with their Supervisor and/or Subject Librarian, students should be asked to sign a statement confirming that they have received advice and understand referencing conventions.

6.3        

If a case exists, the candidate shall be informed in writing by the Director of Academic Services of the allegation and that a Committee of Enquiry will be constituted to consider the case.

7.1        

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

7.2        

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

7.3        

In joint cases dealt with by the University (7.1 above), a representative from The College, Swansea University may be involved in stages two to six (see 3.5-3.9).

7.4        

In cases dealt with by a University Committee of Enquiry a representative from The College, Swansea University may be invited to sit on the Committee in accordance with regulation 9.0.

8.1

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 Award.

8.2

The University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer shall initially consider the evidence and shall either dismiss the case, or confirm that a prima facie case of academic misconduct exists. The University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer will then refer the case to the Vice Chancellor or 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.

8.3

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 Senate on the outcome and any penalty to be applied.

9.1        

On receipt of confirmation of a prima facie case finding, submitted by the University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer shall arrange 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 Academic Services will normally act as Secretary to the Committee. The University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer shall present the case against the student and shall not act as Chair or Secretary to the Committee.

9.2        

Each Committee of Enquiry Panel shall consist of three members (selected by the Committee Secretary), namely an experienced Chair (selected from a list of approved Chairs), a member of academic staff of the University and a Students’ Union Full-time Officer. Where it is not practicable for the Secretary to arrange for a Students’ Union Officer to sit as a member of the Panel without this resulting in a significant delay to the scheduling of the Committee, the Secretary may select a third member of academic staff in place of the Students’ Union Officer.

In the case of an allegation concerning a student of The College, Swansea University, the Committee of Enquiry may include a fourth Panel member who is a member of staff from The College, Swansea University, normally the Director of Student Services or their nominee.

The Committee of Enquiry Panel shall not contain members of staff from the School in which the student is studying nor members who have had any prior involvement in the case concerned. A decision of the Committee Panel will be reached by a majority vote of the Panel members. 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.

9.3        

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: 

1. 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;
2. notify the University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer and 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. A student may bring 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 9.7 below). The student shall notify the Secretary of the name of the translator in advance of the meeting. 

The Committee of Enquiry will normally be conducted electronically via Zoom/Video Conferencing and all parties will be expected to enable their webcam.

9.4        

Any documentary evidence to be presented in the student's defence should be sent to Academic 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. 

9.5        

The Committee does not have to take intent into consideration and 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.

9.6        

Committee hearings should be held at Swansea University unless alternative regulations have been agreed upon e.g. Collaborative Partner's campus.

9.7        

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.

9.8        

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 have access to well-trained and resourced student support services and therefore will not normally need to seek legal advice or be accompanied at the meeting by anyone acting in a legal capacity. 

Students may however, request to  be accompanied by someone acting in a legal capacity, where they are enrolled on a Fitness to Practise programme. In such cases, the student should make representations to the Director of Academic Services. The Director of Academic 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 meeting by someone acting in a legal capacity, the accompanying person will be clearly informed of the nature of the proceedings, i.e., that they are not a legal process and will not be conducted as such. The Chair may invite contributions from the person accompanying the  student.

The University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer presenting before the Committee of behalf of the University may also have access to similar legal advice consistent with that permitted to the student.   

9.9        

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.

10.1

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 which should be imposed.

11.1      

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 either party, 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.

11.2      

The University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer shall present the case, on behalf of the University, against the candidate(s), calling such witnesses and presenting such evidence as they think fit.

The University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer may question both the candidate and witnesses. The candidate may question the witnesses called by the University Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer.

11.3      

The candidate shall have the right to be accompanied, to hear all the evidence brought against them, to call and question witnesses, to submit other evidence and to draw to the Committee’s attention any mitigating circumstances (see 11.11). 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. 

11.4      

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.

11.5      

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

11.6      

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 Academic Services staff, if present, shall withdraw.

11.7      

The Chair of the Committee may approve an adjournment of the hearing following a reasonable request from either party or from the Committee itself. For example, to gain further evidence, such as to obtain 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 work.

11.8      

The Committee of Enquiry shall then consider whether on the basis of the evidence presented 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. 

11.9      

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 previous 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.

11.10   

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

11.11   

If the Committee finds that the case has been substantiated, it shall then consider the penalty to be imposed. 

The parties 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.

11.12

Penalties are divided into:

• Penalties available for academic misconduct in examination conditions (see 12).
• Penalties available for academic misconduct under non-examination conditions (see 13).
• Penalties available for academic misconduct in Research degrees (see 14).

11.13   

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.

12.1      

The Committee shall consult the Code of Practice for Academic Misconduct, case history and the candidate's 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, had influenced the action of the student(s) concerned. The full list of penalties available to the Committee of Enquiry shall be:

12.1.1  

The issue of a formal reprimand to the candidate;

12.1.2  

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

12.1.3  

The cancellation of the candidate's marks for the module concerned;

12.1.4  

The cancellation of the candidate's mark in the module concerned and the preclusion of redeeming the failure until the next academic session;

12.1.5  

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

12.1.6  

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 University examination;

12.1.7  

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 ability to practise in a particular profession, the case may also be referred to the Executive Dean or nominee who will decide whether to inform the professional body. In some instances the Executive Dean will be obliged to inform the Professional Body.  

Retrieval and Capping

The decision whether to allow a student to retake work/assessment(s) shall be taken by the relevant Progression and Awards Board, in accordance with the assessment regulations for the programme. However, the Committee of Enquiry may, in light of a student’s mitigating circumstances, make a recommendation to the Progression and Awards Board in relation to retaking the work. In such cases the Chair of the Progression and Awards Board shall have the authority to accept or reject the recommendation.

Where 12.1.4 or 12.1.5 is applied prior to the end of the session a candidate may be required to suspend their studies.

The penalty shall be recorded on the student's central record.

13.1      

The Committee shall consult the Code of Practice for Academic Misconduct, the case history and the candidate's academic record before imposing a 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, had influenced the action of the student(s) concerned. The full list of penalties available to the Committee of Enquiry shall be:

13.1.1            

The issue of a formal reprimand to the candidate;

13.1.2  

The text to be ignored when marking, resulting in a reduced mark;

13.1.3  

The cancellation of the marks for the module component;

13.1.4  

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

13.1.5  

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

13.1.6  

The cancellation of the candidate's mark in the module concerned and the preclusion of redeeming the failure until the next academic session;

13.1.7  

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

13.1.8  

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;

13.1.9  

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 Executive Dean or nominee in accordance with the University’s Fitness to Practise Regulations.

Where an allegation has been substantiated and the student already has a professional registration 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.

Retrieval and Capping

Where 13.1.3, 13.1.4 or 13.1.5 are applied, the decision whether to allow a student to retake work/assessment(s) shall be taken by the relevant Progression and Awards Board, in accordance with the assessment regulations for the programme. However, the Committee of Enquiry may, in light of a student’s mitigating circumstances, make a recommendation to the Progression and Awards Board in relation to retaking the work. In such cases the Chair of the Progression and Awards Board shall have the authority to accept or reject the recommendation.

Where 13.1.6 or 13.1.7 are applied prior to the end of the session a candidate may be required to suspend their studies.

        The penalty shall be recorded on the student's central record.

14.1      

The Committee shall consult the Code of Practice on Academic Misconduct, the case history and the candidate's academic record before imposing a 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, had influenced the action of the student(s) concerned. The full list of penalties available to the Committee of Enquiry shall be:

14.1.1  

The issue of a formal reprimand to the candidate;

14.1.2  

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

14.1.3  

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

14.1.4  

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 in a particular profession, the case may also be referred to the Executive Dean or nominee in accordance with the University’s Fitness to Practise Regulations.

Where an allegation has been substantiated and the student already has a professional registration 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.

Retrieval and Capping

The decision whether to allow a student to retake work/assessment(s) shall be taken by the relevant Progression and Awards Board, in accordance with the assessment regulations for the programme. However, the Committee of Enquiry may, in light of a student’s mitigating circumstances, make a recommendation to the Progression and Awards Board in relation to retaking the work. In such cases the Chair of the Progression and Awards Board shall have the authority to accept or reject the recommendation.

The penalty shall be recorded on the student's central record.

15.1      

The Committee shall make a recommendation to Senate regarding an appropriate penalty. The Committee should consult the Code of Practice on Academic Misconduct, case history and the candidate’s academic record before imposing a 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 wish to 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 had influenced the action of the student concerned. The full list of penalties available to the Committee of Enquiry shall be:

15.1.1  

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

15.1.2  

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

15.1.3  

The disqualification of the candidate from any future examination;

15.1.4  

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;

15.1.5  

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.

15.1.6  

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.

15.1.7

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

Where an allegation has been substantiated and the student already has a professional registration 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.

        Retrieval and Capping

Where the Committee chooses to implement 15.1.1 and 15.1.2, 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.

16.1      

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 Senate as soon as possible after the Enquiry has been completed. 

16.2      

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

16.3      

A candidate shall be informed of their right to request a final review of the outcome determined by the Committee of Enquiry. Any such request must be submitted to the Director of Academic Services 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. 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).

16.4      

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 Academic Integrity Lead/University Academic Integrity Case Officer on behalf of the University, reserves the right to consult with other Universities or organisations, where appropriate.

16.5      

The final outcome of the case shall be reported to 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. 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.

17.1

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.   

17.2

If the finding of the Committee of Enquiry is that a case has not been substantiated, the Chair of the Committee of Enquiry may inform the candidate verbally of this. Irrespective of whether or not the candidate is informed verbally, Academic Services shall notify the candidate, formally in writing, of the Committee of Enquiry's findings and that the matter is therefore closed.

17.3

If the finding of the Committee of Enquiry is that the allegation has been substantiated, the Chair of the Committee of Enquiry may inform the candidate verbally, but there shall be no discussion of the Committee's decision with the candidate. Irrespective of whether or not the candidate is informed verbally, the Director of Academic Services shall inform the candidate of the findings, in writing, and the penalty imposed.

17.4

A candidate shall be informed of their right to request a final review of the outcome determined by the Committee of Enquiry. Any such request must be submitted to the Director of Academic Services 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. 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).

17.5

Where the allegation has been substantiated, the relevant Examining Board will determine the candidate's overall progression/award decision, in light of the penalty imposed by the Committee of Enquiry.

17.6

If the Committee of Enquiry has decided that the mark obtained for the unit of assessment, in which academic misconduct has occurred, shall be cancelled, the Examining Board shall award a mark of zero for the unit and shall then determine the candidate's overall result.

17.7

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.

17.8

An annual report on issues relating to academic misconduct shall be submitted to the relevant University Committee.

18.1

To request a final review of the outcome of the academic misconduct case, please see Swansea University's Final Review Procedure. Students should note that any request for a final review must be submitted to the Director of Academic 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.