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).

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 below). Faculties/Schools/Collaborative Partner Institutions 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 University level cases. The University Academic Integrity Lead is supported in their role by University Academic Integrity Case Officers who may assist them or deal with cases of academic misconduct on their behalf, in accordance with this Procedure. Accordingly, all further references to the University Academic Integrity Lead in this Procedure will include the University Academic Integrity Case Officers and/or any nominee acting on behalf of the University Academic Integrity Lead.

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 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 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 and the University Academic Integrity Lead.

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.

Where the invigilator has been appointed by the University’s central Exams Office and the exam is managed by the University’s Central Exams Office, the invigilator shall report the circumstances as soon as possible, verbally in the first instance and thereafter in writing, to the University Examinations Officer who shall in turn notify the University Academic Integrity Lead. 

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

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. 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 2024-25.

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/Academic Integrity Officer may also decide not to issue a penalty but to refer the case to a Committee of Enquiry.

Where there is suspicion/evidence that the electronic device may have been used (e.g. witnessed by the invigilator) and the invigilator was appointed by the University’s Central Examinations Office, such cases should be referred to the University Academic Integrity Lead who will determine whether a prima facie case of academic misconduct has been established (see 2.5). Where there is suspicion/evidence that the electronic device may have been used examination in a Faculty/School/Partner Institution examination, the case should be referred to the Academic Integrity Officer (2.5).

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.

If the examination was managed by the University’s Central Exams Office, the Academic Integrity Officer shall retain any relevant evidence and shall forthwith report the matter in writing to the University Academic Integrity Lead who will determine whether a prima facie case of academic misconduct has been established (see 2.6). 

If the examination was managed by the Faculty/School/Partner Institution, the Academic Integrity Officer shall determine whether a prima facie case of academic misconduct has been established (2.6).

2.6 Further actions to be taken 

2.6.1 Further actions to be taken where the examination was managed by the University’s Central Examinations Office:

On receipt of a report concerning an allegation of academic misconduct, the University Academic Integrity Lead 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 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 shall report the case in writing to the Director of Education Services, sending copies of any relevant supporting evidence. The procedure detailed in 9.0 shall then operate as described.

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 University Academic Integrity Lead 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.

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

2.6.2 Further actions to be taken-Faculty/School/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 Faculty/School’s Academic Integrity 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 Academic Integrity Officer shall process the case in accordance with 3.9

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 3.6). 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 person;
• 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 Faculty/School/Partner Institution academic staff, the Faculty/School/Partner Institution Academic Integrity Officer and/or the University Academic Integrity Lead has concerns about whether a piece of coursework, or any work completed under non-examination conditions and submitted by a student is their own work, the Faculty/School/Partner Institution 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 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 and/or Academic Misconduct Committee of Enquiry. 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 or to the University Academic Integrity Lead (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 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/Partner Institution level (excludes research degree theses)

Each Faculty/School/Partner Institution shall appoint a minimum of two Academic Integrity Officers to deal with Faculty/School/Partner Institution level 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 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 Faculty/School/Partner Institution; However, it is the responsibility of the Faculty/School/Partner Institution 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/Partner Institutions 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/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.

3.3 Procedure for investigating and determining academic misconduct in non-examination conditions at Faculty/School/Partner Institution level

3.4 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 non-examination conditions (excluding research degree thesis) they shall report the matter in writing (via email) and provide any relevant evidence to the First Faculty/School/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 would not normally be 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 Faculty/School/Partner Institution Academic Integrity Officer/University Academic Integrity Lead, in accordance with 3.1 above.

3.5 Stage Two - establishing a prima facie case

The Faculty/School/Partner Institution’s 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.

Cases involving students of The College, Swansea University on integrated programmes shall be dealt with by the 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, the student should be informed and no further formal action shall be taken.

3.6 Poor academic practice

In cases where a student is early in their academic career 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.

The following groups of students would be considered as early in their academic career:

• Level 3 and 4
• The first teaching block of the programme for direct entry Level 5,6 and 7
• Top Up Degree students

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 AI (artificial intelligence) systems;
• A 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 award 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.

3.7 Stage Three – determining whether the case is dealt with by the Faculty/School/Partner Institution or by the University Academic Integrity Lead/Committee of Enquiry

If the Faculty/School/Partner Institution’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/Partner Institution level or be referred to the University Academic Integrity Lead.

Faculties/Schools/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.

The Faculty/School/Partner Institution support team shall contact Education Services to clarify whether the student has any previous offences of academic misconduct.

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

The following cases will normally be dealt with at the Faculty/School/Partner Institution level:

• Plagiarism: All taught student first and second offences;
• Collusion: All taught student first and second offences;
• Falsification of the results of laboratory, field-work or other forms of data collection and analysis also constitutes academic misconduct.

Note: all taught student second offence allegations concerning plagiarism/collusion will be dealt with at School level, irrespective of the nature of the first offence.

In the case of a subsequent offence of plagiarism or collusion, the Faculty/School/Partner Institution 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/Partner Institution 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/Partner Institution level (in accordance with Stages Four to Six below), or refer the case to the University Academic Integrity Lead.

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

The Faculty/School/Partner Institution Academic Integrity Officer should refer initially to the guidance in the University's Academic Misconduct Code of Practice 2024-25, but may also approach Education Services or the University Academic Integrity Lead for additional advice in determining whether a case should be dealt with by the Faculty/School/Partner Institution or by a University Committee of Enquiry.

3.8 Academic misconduct involving commissioning

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

An allegation of commissioning may be amended during a hearing/investigation to allow the allegation to be amended to one of the other academic misconduct offences.

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 Faculty/School/Partner Institution level, they (or their 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 Education Services) the Faculty/School/Partner Institution Academic Integrity Officer will either invite the student to comment in writing (using the Student Response Form template) or invite the student to attend an interview. 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 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.

3.9.2

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.

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 be responsible for their fees (except for Welsh translation; see below). The student shall notify the Faculty/School/Partner Institution 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.

Students wishing to have the hearing in Welsh shall notify the Faculty/School/Partner Institution 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, 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. 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 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 terms of whether the allegation is substantiated/unsubstantiated and the severity 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 see 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, etc.;
• 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/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.

3.9.5

The Faculty/School/Partner Institution’s First 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.

3.9.6

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 1) whether the case is substantiated/unsubstantiated and 2) the severity of the case using the Case Report form available from Education Services.

3.10 Stage Five - substantiating the case

The Faculty/School/Partner Institution’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 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 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/Partner Institution level cases – determining penalties

In order to ensure consistency in the application of penalties, the University provides guidance on penalties in the Academic Misconduct Code of Practice 2024-25.

In addition to this guidance, in cases of PGT directed independent learning and second/subsequent offences, the Second Academic Integrity Officer should contact Education Services for ratification of the proposed penalty. A copy of the draft Case Report and case documentation should be sent to Education Services along with the proposed penalty. The student should not be notified of the penalty until the case has been ratified by Education 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, 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 prior to the decision being made, those circumstances cannot subsequently be cited as grounds for review.

The Second 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

The 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 of the modules for the particular level of study and disqualification.

Dissertation offences:

3.11.7

Fail dissertation, with a right of resubmission.

3.11.8

Fail dissertation, with no right of resubmission.

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 Faculty/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 Faculty/School/Partner Institution 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 Education Services). The report, along with a copy of the letter, shall be sent to Education 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 Faculty/School/Partner Institution to the student (see 3.19 below).

3.13 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 (a template is available from Education 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 Education Services.

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 .

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.

3.14 Survey of penalties

In order to ensure consistency, Education 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 Faculty/School/Partner Institution Academic Integrity Officer in accordance with the University's Final Review Procedures.

5.1 Informing the University Academic Integrity Lead

The Faculty/School/Partner Institution’s Academic Integrity Officer should inform the University Academic Integrity Lead in writing, who shall then confirm one of the following:

i. A case exists and they will inform the Faculty/School/Partner Institution (or nominee) and the Director of Education Services that a Committee of Enquiry should be convened;
ii. A case exists but that the case can be dealt with at the Faculty/School level;
iii. That no case exists and that no further action should be taken.

In some cases, the University Academic Integrity Lead may decide that poor referencing has occurred. In such instances, the student should be referred to their Personal Tutor for advice and guidance on referencing. Once they have met with their Personal Tutor, students should 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 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 the receipt of the initial referral from the Faculty/School, the Faculty/School/Partner Institution’s Academic Integrity Officer shall consider all evidence and refer the case to the University Academic Integrity Lead in writing with their own recommendation on whether there is a prima facie case using the appropriate template from Education Services. The Academic Integrity Officer may request further information/action from the Faculty/School. 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.

The Academic Integrity Officer should also inform the student concerned of the suspected case of academic misconduct and that the case has been referred to the University’s Academic Integrity Lead.

The University Academic Integrity Lead should confirm either that:

1. A prima facie case exists and inform the Faculty/School/Partner Institution Academic Integrity Officer and the Director of Education Services that a Committee of Enquiry should be convened;
2. That no case exists and that no further action should be taken. The Director of Education Services will write to the student to confirm this decision within seven days of receiving the University Academic Integrity Lead’s decision. The School/Faculty and Supervisor will also be informed of this decision and that the examination process should be resumed.

or

For the avoidance of doubt, the academic misconduct investigation and outcome must have concluded and been reported before the recommencement of the suspended research viva and associated processes and procedures.

In some cases, the University Academic Integrity Lead 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 Education Services of the allegation and that a Committee of Enquiry will be constituted as soon as practicably possible to consider the case A committee of Enquiry would normally be held within ninety days of the University Academic Integrity Lead’s determination that a prima facie case exists.

The student will be informed that whilst every attempt will be made to investigate the case promptly, there may be delays owing to the complexity of postgraduate research cases. Where there are delays, the student will be kept up to date on the progress of the allegation and when the case is likely to be concluded.

7.1

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.

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 3.5-3.10).

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 the Award.

8.2

The University Academic Integrity Lead 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 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.

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 the Senate on the outcome and any penalty to be applied.

9.1

On receipt of confirmation of a prima facie case finding by the University Academic Integrity Lead, 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. The University Academic Integrity Lead 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 College Services or their nominee.

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 the Partner Institution, normally the Director of the Partner Institution 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. 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.

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 (or nominated deputy) 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. The Committee of Enquiry will normally be conducted electronically via Zoom/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 9.7 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.

9.4

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.

9.5

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.

9.6

While Committee hearings will normally be conducted via Zoom/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).

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-resourced and experienced 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 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 meeting 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.

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

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

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 the Committee’s attention to 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 Education 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 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.

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 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.

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/Faculty/School/Partner Institution 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 Academic Misconduct Code of Practice 2024-25 (see Appendix). However, the Committee/Faculty/School/Partner Institution shall also take into consideration the implications of the penalty on the student, intent and any mitigating circumstances. The Committee/Faculty/School/Partner Institution 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:

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 relevant Executive Dean PVC or nominee who will decide whether to inform the professional body. In some instances, the Executive Dean PVC/nominee 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/Faculty/School/Partner Institution 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 Academic Misconduct Code of Practice 2024-25 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:

13.1.1

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

13.1.2

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

13.1.3

The cancellation of the marks for the module component;

13.1.4

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

13.1.5

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

13.1.6

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

13.1.7

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.

Dissertation offences:

13.1.8

Fail dissertation, with a right of resubmission;

13.1.9

Fail dissertation, with no right of resubmission.

13.2

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 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.

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 Academic Misconduct Code of Practice 2024-25 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:

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 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.

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 consult the Academic Misconduct Code of Practice 2024-25and 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:

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 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.

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 the 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 Education 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, 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 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.

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, Education 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 Education 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 Education 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 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.