Academic Misconduct Policy

Introduction

1. Northeastern University London (‘the University’) is fully committed to helping and supporting students understand the nature of, and expectations associated with, academic writing, and providing advice, guidance and self-help material so that students can fully understand what is unacceptable behaviour. With the support provided by the University, students are expected to make themselves fully conversant with what constitutes good academic conduct and consequently academic misconduct.
2. The University wishes its approach to be developmental rather than punitive, but in order to protect the standard and integrity of its awards the University will identify any incident that meets the definition of academic misconduct and bring this to the attention of the student, and where appropriate impose an academic penalty. It is expected that students will learn from this experience. Previous offences will be taken into account when determining penalties for subsequent offences. Proven academic misconduct will remain on the student’s record for the entire registration period and will include any period of suspension, repeat year or transfer of programme.
3. There are no time limits associated with the investigation of suspected academic misconduct, and where a case of suspected academic misconduct is identified, including after credit has been given, an award has been made or the student has left the University, the case will be fully investigated.
4. This Policy applies to all registered students on the following programmes:
   1. Mobility courses
   2. Undergraduate double degree programmes
   3. Postgraduate taught programmes (from 2023-24), and
   4. Higher and degree apprenticeship programmes (from 2023-24)
5. For students registered on other programmes being delivered by the University, please refer to the relevant policy on Canvas. 
6. The academic misconduct process applies to all summative assessments: any type of assessment that attracts university credits and/or directly contributes to an official transcript mark is eligible for academic misconduct consideration. It will not typically apply to assessments that do not attract university credits or directly contribute to an official transcript mark, usually referred to as formative assessments.

General Principles

7. The University is committed to:
   1. The determination of academic misconduct being an academic judgement;
   2. Having fair, effective, and timely procedures for handling allegations of student academic misconduct;
   3. The concept of natural justice: that students have the right to defend themselves in person against an allegation of major academic misconduct and that staff involved in any panels do not have a personal relationship with the student nor any involvement in the setting and marking of the work in question;
   4. Transparency and equity in terms of penalties imposed for the varying types of misconduct;
   5. Remedies for academic misconduct being developmental as well as punitive;
   6. Effective monitoring and reporting processes.
8. In allegations of academic misconduct, the burden of proof is upon the University to prove that academic misconduct has occurred.
9. In determining whether a case is proven or not, the standard of proof is on the ‘balance of probabilities’ rather than ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.
10. A student’s intention to commit academic misconduct is not a requirement to prove that academic misconduct has taken place, nor can a lack of intention excuse a student.
11. In the most serious cases, an Academic Misconduct Panel may recommend that a student be withdrawn from their programme. In such cases the recommendation must be approved by the Registrar.
12. If academic misconduct in group work is found and it is clear that it was the act of a specific member(s) of the group, then the appropriate penalties may be applied to that specific member(s). If it is impossible to clearly separate the work of complicit and non-complicit group members, the innocent parties will be offered an uncapped resit opportunity.
13. If academic misconduct is confirmed but it is still unclear who in the group the originator(s) was then all students in the group will have the appropriate penalties applied. 
14. Subsequent breaches of the academic misconduct regulations will normally receive a more severe penalty than earlier ones. 
15. Any office holder named in this Policy may delegate their functions/duties to an alternative office holder or department, at their discretion. 

Definitions

16. For the purpose of this Policy, ‘student’ refers to all students registered on undergraduate and postgraduate programmes, higher and degree apprenticeship programmes, Mobility courses and the Diploma.
17. For degrees, the term ‘programme’ is used to refer to the curriculum route that leads to a named award as defined in each programme specification. The term ‘course’ is used to refer to each component of study as defined in each Course Descriptor.
18. It is an offence for any student to be party to or commit academic misconduct in an examination or in the preparation of work that is submitted for summative assessment.
19. The practices listed below will automatically be deemed to constitute academic misconduct. This list of practices is not exhaustive and does not preclude the University from taking action where other forms of academic misconduct are identified:
    1. Plagiarism: where a student incorporates another person’s or body’s work by unacknowledged quotation, paraphrase, imitation, or other device, in any work submitted for assessment in a way which suggests that it is the student’s original work; 
    2. Collusion: where a student or students knowingly or negligently allow their work to be viewed by another student, in any form, and this work is subsequently incorporated in, or represented as, the work of another student; or the collaboration without official approval between two or more students in the presentation of work, which is submitted as the work of a single student;
    3. Falsification: where the content of any assessed work has been invented or falsely presented by the student as their own work;
    4. Replication: where a student submits the same or a similar piece of work, or substantial sections of the same work, which has already been submitted for any other summative assessment within the University or elsewhere. Equally, replicating formative work verbatim in an exam setting can be considered academic misconduct. An exception to this can be made at postgraduate level where a research course(s) supports the dissertation, and use of the research course work is explicitly permitted in the dissertation assessment brief. Students repeating an assessment, course or level are expected to produce new coursework for all assessments except where the referral brief allows students to re-work a failed assessment.
    5. Irresponsible use of AI:
       1. Where a student has failed to meet standards of ethical academic conduct by presenting AI-generated work as their own;
       2. Where a student has used AI (whether acknowledged or not) to complete an assessment where the use of AI was explicitly prohibited in the Assessment Brief;
       3. Where a student has failed to honestly and fully declare their use of AI where the use of AI was explicitly permitted in the Assessment Brief;
       4. Where a student has used AI in such a way that it has prevented them from demonstrating that they have met the Learning Objectives (e.g. excessive use or unmediated use);
       5. Where a student has used AI leading to falsification.
    6. That a piece of software has the ability to violate the University’s policy on responsible use of AI does not automatically mean that this software is prohibited. Uses of the following AI technologies are not immediately subject to disciplinary action:
       1. Citation generators (including citations available from search engine results or online library records):
          • Condition for use: Students must demonstrate knowledge of referencing conventions by populating generator fields and/or reviewing generator outputs for accuracy;
       2. Reference management software (e.g., Zotero, EndNote):
          • Condition for use: Students must demonstrate knowledge of referencing conventions by reviewing generator outputs for accuracy;
       3. Autocorrect on any word processing software (including the use of Grammarly Free):
          • Condition for use: Use must be limited to the correction of typographical errors and must avoid interfering with a student’s ability to demonstrate technical proficiency in English, unless allowed by AB;
       4. Editorial suggestions from generative AI software:
          • Condition for use: Use must be limited to the correction of typographical errors and must not interfere with a student’s ability to demonstrate technical proficiency in English, unless allowed by AB;
       5. Machine translators:
          • Condition for use: Use must be limited to verifying word choice in the target language, and may not involve converting text submitted for assessment into or out of English.
    7. Taking unauthorised notes or devices into an examination;
    8. Obtaining an unauthorised copy of an examination paper;
    9. Communicating, or trying to communicate, with another student or individual during an examination, or attempting to observe or copy another student’s written and/or electronic examination script;
    10. Providing assessments for the purpose of academic misconduct – where a student sells to, or writes or provides assessments for another student;
    11. Being a party to impersonation in relation to an examination;
    12. Failure to follow ethical approval, or breaching ethical approval, where this is a requirement of the assessment;
    13. Submission of work where the student has used a third party whose input is not allowed (‘contract cheating’; use of ‘essay mills’);
    14. Submitting a fraudulent Extenuating Circumstances claim.

Prevention

20. In order to prevent academic misconduct, all students are provided with appropriate guidance on referencing and a full explanation and definition of academic misconduct. The associated rules and regulations are covered as part of student induction, and a summary is included in guides which are available on the student website. Students will be required to take a Canvas course on Academic Misconduct, which incorporates a quiz, when they begin their programme and at the beginning of every subsequent year of study at the University.
21. All students are therefore expected to be fully conversant with the rules and regulations associated with academic misconduct.
22. In addition, students are required to confirm that the work submitted for assessment is their own work and has not been submitted previously for credit for another course assessment.

Detection

23. The University will use all appropriate mechanisms for detecting suspected academic misconduct, including, but not limited to, the opinions of faculty, the use of software packages, and viva (of the student by two members of faculty).
24. The University will ensure that suitable briefings are provided for all staff involved in detecting and handling student academic misconduct.

Academic Misconduct Procedures

25. Where faculty determines that there is likely to be academic misconduct in an assessment submitted by a student, or where academic misconduct is detected during an examination by an invigilator, the following should be submitted to the Student Regulatory Resolution Office:
    1. The assessment in question
    2. The corresponding assessment brief or examination paper
    3. Supporting evidence
    4. A completed Academic Misconduct Form stating the nature and extent of the academic misconduct
26. A mark for the assessment in question should be withheld from the student until the outcome of the referral is decided. A student may not normally present for reassessment in the affected component until they have been advised of the outcome of the investigation of the misconduct.
27. The Student Regulatory Resolution Office shall compile the documentation, seeking clarification where required. The Student Regulatory Resolution Office will inform the student that their assessment is under investigation for academic Misconduct and that their mark will be withheld while the Academic Misconduct Policy is followed.
28. Where a case is to be pursued via this Policy, the student will be informed that they are under investigation for either a Minor or Major Offence and provided with the opportunity to submit any information/comments they may wish, for consideration. Students have 7 days to provide further information.
29. Major and Minor Offence Classifications:
    1. A Minor Offence is defined as any first offence at all levels, except for where the academic misconduct allegation meets the criteria for a Major Offence;
    2. A Major Offence is defined as:
       1. Any second or subsequent offence at any level. Normally a breach will only be considered subsequent if at the time of committing the further offence the student could reasonably be assumed to have been aware that they had been found to have committed a first offence;
       2. Any multiple offence (two or more assessments) at any level where the academic misconduct is extensive;
       3. Obtaining an unauthorised copy of an examination paper, use of a third party whose input is not allowed, being a party to impersonation in relation to an examination, and providing assessments for the purpose of academic misconduct shall automatically be treated as a Major Offence.
30. When faculty have submitted their Academic Misconduct Form and supporting evidence, the Student Regulatory Resolution Office will make an initial assessment to determine the most appropriate course of action for considering the matter. This will include taking into account the criteria for a Minor/Major Offence, the student’s individual record and the Academic Misconduct Form and evidence regarding whether the offence is likely to be identified as a Minor or Major Offence. A case can be pursued via this Policy (and appropriate level), dismissed and/or responded to via an alternative mechanism, if appropriate.

Procedure for Minor Offences

31. In the case of an alleged Minor Offence, the Student Regulatory Resolution Office will ask the relevant Faculty Director to appoint an investigating officer. The Student Regulatory Resolution Office will send the documentation and any information from the student to the investigating member(s) of faculty.
32. The student will be notified that their work is being investigated for possible academic misconduct and will be advised that they may speak with Academic Advice, SSD, and / or representatives from NUSU, for guidance and advice. Students will have the opportunity to submit a written statement that the faculty will consider as evidence as part of their investigation.
33. The Investigating Officer may undertake any reasonable enquiries to investigate the case. The Student Regulatory Resolution Office will receive all information used to inform decision-making, and may contact parties for such information on behalf of the Investigating Officer.
34. The investigation will conclude within 14 calendar days or as soon as reasonably practicable. Where additional time is required, the student will be notified. The investigation conclusion will be determined on the balance of probability. The permitted outcomes are:
    1. Proven
    2. Not proven
35. Where the allegation is considered proven, the Investigating Officer has the authority to impose a penalty (or penalties) on the student, as prescribed from the University’s penalty tariff for a Minor Offence (Annex A). Any penalty imposed is at the discretion of the Investigating Officer, on the basis of all the circumstances of the case and noting the guidance contained in Annex A.
36. All outcomes will be communicated in writing (typically via a student’s University email address) within 7 calendar days of the investigation conclusion. This will include details of the reasoning for the decision regarding the allegation, and, if upheld, the penalty to be imposed. They will also be advised of their right of appeal, and the Student Regulatory Resolution Office will make the student aware of any relevant University support services for further help and guidance. The instructor alleging academic misconduct shall also receive the investigator’s report, detailing the grounds for the decision.
37. The investigating officer may, at any stage of the process, consider that the suspected offence should be reclassified and considered as a Major Offence. In such circumstances, the Student Regulatory Resolution Office will be notified and will take the matter to an Academic Misconduct Panel (AMP).

Procedure for Major Offences

38. Where the case is identified as a likely Major Offence, it will refer the matter to an Academic Misconduct Panel.
39. The Academic Misconduct Panel (AMP) will comprise:
    1. A Faculty Director, Associate Director or Head of Discipline, independent of any Faculty to which the student’s programme of study is related (Chair);
    2. Two members of faculty, independent of any Faculty to which the student’s programme/course is related.
40. A member of the Student Regulatory Resolution Office will act as Secretary.
41. Where the student has a record of a previous case(s) of academic misconduct, the outcome(s) of the case(s) are made available to the current AMP only after the Panel has made a determination regarding the allegation for the case being considered. Information about previous cases is provided only for the purposes of informing the decision regarding the penalty to be imposed. The current AMP must not include anyone who sat on a previous AMP(s) for the student.
42. The student will be invited to attend the AMP and may be accompanied by a fellow student, staff member or Student Union representative. An accompanying party is there to support a student engaging with this process. All questions will be directed to the student for response. The University must be informed in advance, giving 7 days’ notice, if a student will be accompanied. The University reserves the right to request a different individual be selected where there is a conflict or detrimental impact to the investigation.
43. A student cannot be represented by another person at an AMP meeting except in cases where there is a compelling reason (e.g. reasonable adjustment requirement). The University must be notified and agree in advance in such circumstances.
44. If the student does not attend the AMP meeting without giving a valid reason, or if the student formally confirms to the Secretary that they will not be attending or they accept the allegation, the Chair of the AMP shall have the discretion to proceed in the student’s absence.
45. All written papers relied upon during the AMP will be shared with the student 14 days before the scheduled meeting.
46. The student must ensure the University receives all written representations, documentation, and evidence they wish to rely upon 7 days before the scheduled meeting. New written submissions will not usually be permitted except at the discretion of the AMP Chair.
47. Exceptionally, the student can request the rescheduling of a meeting, providing reasonable notice is given, together with sufficient reason, or evidence of why the student is unable to attend on the scheduled day, e.g., accident, serious illness.
48. The AMP will normally interview the Faculty/staff member who identified the alleged misconduct. If they are unable to attend, the AMP will be provided with a written report(s).
49. Where appropriate, it may be possible to convene a meeting virtually, e.g., using a video conferencing platform. The decision to conduct the meeting of the AMP in this way rests with the Chair of the AMP.
50. On completion of the representations, the AMP will conduct its deliberations in private to decide whether the academic misconduct is proven or not proven:
    1. Where the academic misconduct is not proven, the student shall be informed in writing, within 7 calendar days, that the allegation was not upheld and no further action will be taken. Their work will be marked as normal. The outcome letter will summarise the AMP’s decision, including the grounds on which the decision was based;
    2. Where the academic misconduct is proven, the AMP will have the discretion to impose a penalty which it deems appropriate in all the circumstances of the case. The AMP will be informed by the penalty tariff guidance in Annex A, but is not tied to the guidance, where the AMP determines that there are relevant mitigating or aggravating factors. The student will be informed in writing within 7 calendar days, and the outcome letter will summarise the AMP’s decision, the grounds on which the decision was based, and the penalty to be applied. The student will also be informed of their right of appeal and will be referred to any relevant University support services for further help and guidance.
51. Where the findings of the AMP call into question the authorship of other assessments submitted by the student, the AMP will suspend its decision while a preliminary investigation into these other assessments is made. Where these preliminary investigations find a prima facie case, the AMP will reconvene to consider these assessments. Where the preliminary investigation finds no prima facie evidence, the AMP will make a penalty decision on the original assessment in which misconduct had been found.
52. Where the AMP considers that the student should be withdrawn from their programme, the decision must be reported to the Chair of Academic Board.
53. The student and members of staff will be sent copies of the outcome of the AMP, which will clearly state the process undertaken and a summary of the rationale for the outcome determined by the AMP.
54. The AMP has the authority to reclassify a case (major/minor) and impose an outcome, including a penalty where appropriate.

Academic Misconduct Investigations as a Developmental Process for Students

55. In order to improve student understanding of good academic practice, the University wishes to support students who have been found to have committed academic misconduct. To this end students will be encouraged to make use of office hours to discuss academic expectations for assessments. Students will also be encouraged to make use of the services in Academic Support and in the virtual learning environment.

Appeals

56. The student may appeal against the conclusion or penalty of an academic misconduct offence where any of the following apply:
    1. There has been a significant procedural flaw or irregularity that compromised the fairness of the process;
    2. There is new relevant material evidence, which must be supported by an explanation of why it could not reasonably have been provided at an earlier stage;
    3. There has been a bias or reasonable perception of bias during the procedure;
    4. An outcome, decision and/or penalty is considered unreasonable or disproportionate based on the evidence of the case.
57. An appeal must be lodged with the Student Regulatory Resolution Office using the Appeal Form for Students within 14 calendar days of the student receiving the formal notification of the outcome, or the student will be deemed to have accepted the conclusion. Exceptionally, this deadline may be waived where evidence is provided to show circumstances prevented an appeal being lodged sooner. The appeal will be considered by the Academic Registrar (or nominee) in the first instance.
58. Where no evidence or insufficient evidence is submitted, the student will be issued with a completion of procedures letter informing them that their appeal has been rejected and that they have exhausted the University’s internal appeals procedure relating to academic misconduct, and advising that any further request for redress will need to be made to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.
59. Where it has been determined that sufficient new evidence has been submitted to warrant referral to a panel, the case shall be referred to an Academic Misconduct Appeal Board (AMAB).
60. The AMAB will comprise:
    1. An Associate Dean or Associate Director, independent of any Faculty to which the student’s programme of study is related, and independent of the AMP (Chair);
    2. One academic member drawn from Academic Board or the Teaching, Learning and Enhancement Committee, independent of any Faculty to which the course where the misconduct has taken place is related, and independent of the AMP;
    3. One member of faculty not previously involved in the case and independent from the Faculty responsible for the course where the misconduct has taken place;
    4. A member of the Student Regulatory Resolution Office, who will serve as Secretary and will advise the panel on procedural matters and record decisions of the panel.

Proceedings of an Academic Misconduct Appeal Board

61. An AMAB will normally meet to consider an appeal within 28 calendar days from receipt of the appeal.
62. The student may be invited to attend the AMAB and may be accompanied by a friend or Student Union representative¹. The student will be provided with copies of the documentation presented to the panel.
63. The student does not have to attend the AMAB, but it is in their interest to do so.
64. A student cannot be represented at AMAB except in cases where a student is not capable of representing themselves (e.g., they are suffering from evidenced mental health issues).
65. The AMAB will normally interview any person(s) whom the AMAB believes may be able to provide relevant information, including the student and Faculty. If individuals are unable to attend, they will provide the AMAB with a written report.
66. The Chair of the AMAB, with agreement from the other members, can postpone the process to gather more information relating to the case. The Secretary will reconvene the Board when the additional information is collected.
67. The AMAB will review the original evidence, the reports provided by the AMP and faculty, where applicable and the evidence on which the appeal is based. The AMAB will then decide whether the allegation of academic misconduct is proven or not proven:
    1. Where the academic misconduct is not proven, the penalty shall be withdrawn, and the student shall be informed that no further action will be taken;
    2. Where the academic misconduct is proven, the AMAB will either confirm the original penalty recommended or impose an alternative penalty based on the published penalty guidelines at Annex A. The AMAB cannot raise the penalty from that initially imposed prior to the appeal. The student will also be referred to University Academic Support for further help and guidance if required.
68. This marks the end of the appeal stage. The student will be issued with a Completion of Procedures (COP) letter confirming that they have exhausted the University’s internal appeals procedure relating to the case of academic misconduct and advising that any further request for redress will need to be made to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA).

Withdrawal of Student and/or Withdrawal of Credit/Award

69. Where an AMP recommends that the student be withdrawn from their programme, or have a credit or an award withdrawn, this must be approved by the Chair of Academic Board.

Office of the Independent Adjudicator

70. The Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) is an independent body set up as a result of the Higher Education Act 2004 to run a student complaints scheme. Membership of the OIA is a requirement of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 and the Office for Students.
71. At the end of the procedure, the student will receive a Completion of Procedures letter. At this point if the student remains dissatisfied, they have the right to refer the decision to the OIA within 12 months of the date of the Completion of Procedures letter. Details are available here.

Monitoring, Reviewing and Reporting

71. The University will have effective arrangements through Academic Board to monitor, evaluate, and improve the effectiveness of this Policy.
72. The Student Regulatory Resolution Office will maintain a record of academic misconduct outcomes and appeals and ensure that appropriate action has been taken.
73. An annual report on academic misconduct and appeals will be reported to Academic Board.
74. No report will identify an individual student.

Version History

Annex A: Penalty Tariff and Guidelines

Guidelines

1. Plagiarism in group work. If plagiarism is confirmed, and it is clear that it was the act of a specific member(s) of the group, then the appropriate penalties may be applied to those specific members. If plagiarism is confirmed but it is still unclear who in the group was the originator(s), then all students in the group will have the appropriate penalties applied.
2. In a case of alleged collusion, where for one or more of the students it is a second or subsequent case of academic misconduct, it will be automatically referred to an Academic Misconduct Panel. This is for all students named in the allegation regardless of whether it is another student’s first offence and has been deemed a Minor offence. However, the penalty imposed on each individual will still be in line with the penalty tariff below.
3. An offence will be deemed sequential if, at the time of committing the second offence, the student could reasonably be assumed to be aware that they were committing a second offence. 

Penalties

4. Please note there are different penalties listed in the tariff for an unauthorised copy of an examination paper, contract cheating, impersonation in relation to an examination, and providing assessments for the purpose of academic misconduct.

Undergraduate, Postgraduate and Degree Apprenticeship Programmes

Diploma

Footnotes

¹ The definition of friend excludes professional representation, unless the case is made that this would not be natural justice, and cannot be another student who is involved in the academic misconduct case.

² Level 6 or Level 7 Dissertation/Capstone Project: the reworking of the piece of work may be permitted. This will be decided on a case by case basis. The panel will discuss this with the course leader / project supervisor to ascertain whether this is practicable.