Academic Integrity for Examinations and Assessments Policy

Academic Integrity for Examinations and Assessments Policy (from 01/08/2024)

Implementation from 1 August 2024 for 2024-2025 academic year. This version may be subject to amendment prior to 1 August.

Version: 1.0
Review date: 06 June 2024
Policy Owner: Deputy President and Registrar
Approved by: Academic Board 06 June 2024
Next review: Within 3 years subject to national and/or EU developments

Purpose of the Policy
Scope
Roles and Responsibilities
Definitions
Best Practise
Investigation of Suspected Academic Misconduct
Classification and Cumulation
A. Poor Academic Practise
B. Minor Alleged Academic Misconduct (local option)
C. Major Alleged Academic Misconduct
Major Alleged Academic Misconduct Procedures
Conflicts of Interest
Appeals
Record Keeping
Other Legal and Ethical Issues
References & Resources
Print to PDF

1. Purpose of the Policy

1.1. Academic Integrity is fundamental to the entire mission of the University in learning, teaching, research, public engagement, and public trust. Academic Integrity is a core part of UCC’s values of integrity, respect and accountability as set out in our strategic plan. UCC is a member of the National Academic Integrity Network (NAIN). This policy sets out UCC’s definitions of academic integrity; signposts supports for staff and students; and, outlines the procedures for the investigation of alleged cases of academic misconduct or plagiarism for examinations and assessments.

2. Scope

2.1. This policy applies to all material presented by students for examination, assessment or credit.

3. Roles and Responsibilities

3.1. The University is responsible for establishing and updating the policy and standards for academic integrity with reference to national and international standards.

3.2. Students are responsible for familiarising themselves with the concepts and practise of academic integrity; with this policy and with the Student Charter and Code of Honour.

3.3. Schools and Departments are responsible for informing students about the UCC policy on Academic Integrity for Examinations and Assessments, directing them to University materials and supports and providing advice when requested.

3.4. Academic staff are responsible for designing suitable assessments which support academic integrity and, where necessary, engaging with CIRTL and other University resources on assessment design.

3.5. Students are responsible for ensuring that all submitted work meets the University standards for academic integrity and for avoiding academic misconduct in all its forms including but not limited to cheating, plagiarism, use of essay mills, personation, and the unethical use of generative AI.

3.6. Academic staff in Schools and Departments are responsible for checking submitted work, highlighting suspected cases of academic misconduct and participating as required in any investigation.

3.7. Heads of Schools/Departments are responsible for initial determinations on suspected cases of academic misconduct and, where relevant, initiating and conducting investigations into suspected cases.

3.8. The Examinations and Records Officer is responsible for investigating suspected cases of academic misconduct referred to them by Heads of Schools/Departments.

3.9. The Deputy President and Registrar or nominee and the Chairperson of the Student Discipline Committee or nominee are responsible for investigating suspected cases of academic misconduct referred to them by the Examinations and Records Officer.

4. Definitions

4.1. UCC has adopted elements of the definitions of the National Academic Integrity Network (NAIN) as follows:

Academic Integrity – Compliance with ethical professional principles, standards, practices and a consistent system of values, that serves as guidance for making decisions and taking actions in education, research and scholarship.

Academic Misconduct - Any action, or attempted action that undermines academic integrity and may result in an unfair advantage or disadvantage for any member of the academic community or wider society.

Cheating – Actions that attempt to get advantage that undermine values of integrity.

Contract Cheating / Essay Mills – A form of academic misconduct when a person uses an undeclared and/or unauthorised third party, online or directly, to assist them to produce work for academic credit or progression, whether or not payment or other favour is involved.

Unethical Use of AI – Academic Integrity is breached if students submit the products of GenAI as their own work without acknowledgement or without authorisation to use GenAI in fulfilling the task.

Plagiarism - Presenting work / ideas taken from other sources without proper acknowledgement.

Types of Plagiarism include but are not limited to:

Collusion – where work is permitted to be copied/presented without appropriate attribution, is a form of plagiarism by both parties. Collusion also applies where a joint effort is presented by an individual without due recognition of the input of others.

Self-plagiarism – is the use of one’s own previous work in another context without appropriate citation.

Verbatim plagiarism – Word-for-word copy from another source without providing attribution.

5. Best Practise

5.1. Staff and students should familiarise themselves with this policy and with the supports for best practise in academic work which are available from the Skills Centre and the Library.

5.2. In all submitted material, there should be acknowledgement of the influence of all sources quoted directly and/or paraphrased (not quoted directly) must be made at the appropriate point throughout the work. The discipline-specific citation, referencing, credit and/or acknowledgement requirements must be applied in all submitted material. At a minimum a clear indication as to when any material is being quoted directly (e.g. by enclosing it in quotation marks [“ “] in the case of text) must be provided in addition to a citation of the source.

5.3. Each School/Department may have additional plagiarism requirements which identify any citation norms, cultural, technical or other issues that may arise within a particular discipline and each School/Department shall inform students of these additional requirements (if any) along with the overall University policy and direct students to UCC supports for academic integrity.

5.4. Generative AI (GenAI) is a fast-moving area. Academic Integrity is breached if students submit the products of GenAI as their own work without acknowledgement or without authorisation to use GenAI in fulfilling the task. The use of GenAI detection software for the detection or investigation of alleged academic misconduct is not sanctioned by the University. The University will provide guidance on its ethical use through CIRTL, the Skills Centre, and/or the Library. Students must familiarise themselves with this guidance which may change and update during the course of the academic year.

5.5. Prior to submitting any piece of work, each student will be required to complete an online self-certification form which confirms the student is aware of their obligations regarding academic integrity and plagiarism.

6. Investigation of Suspected Academic Misconduct

6.1. All essays, dissertations, projects, portfolios or other forms of academic submission, to include all forms of research results howsoever presented for evaluation, may be checked for academic misconduct and plagiarism. Where a University electronic system, supervisor, internal or external examiner, invigilator or other person suspects plagiarism or academic misconduct arising from an invigilated or non-invigilated examination or assessment, then the marker will consider whether the issue needs to be raised with their Head of School/ Department or their nominee in the first instance. In some cases, it may be sufficient to engage with the student and remind them of the necessity of good academic practise and academic integrity supports.

7. Classification and Cumulation

7.1. In the detection and investigation of alleged academic misconduct, levels of severity may be judged and classified by the Head of School/Department or other investigators as follows:

A. Poor academic practise
B. Minor alleged academic misconduct
C. Major alleged academic misconduct

7.2. Cumulation of poor academic practise and alleged academic misconduct by students may also be considered. Repeated cases of poor academic practice, for example, may be considered as academic misconduct.

A. Poor Academic Practise

7.3. The Head of School/ Department or their nominee may make a determination that the allegation does not amount to academic misconduct or plagiarism, or that it is a minor instance of poor academic practise which can be handled locally through the marking scheme and/or referral of the student to further advice and support. This outcome will be notified to the student.

7.4. If the Head of School/ Department or their nominee suspects that plagiarism or academic misconduct has occurred, they will inform the student in writing of the allegation and prior findings, if any, of academic misconduct or plagiarism and provide the student with an opportunity to provide an explanation (Personal Statement). The Head of School/ Department or their nominee will consider the allegation, Personal Statement (if provided) and any information available, including the student’s examination records and previous records of alleged academic misconduct, to take one of the following options depending on the severity of the case.

B. Minor Alleged Academic Misconduct (Local determination)

7.5. The Head or their nominee will determine the appropriate penalty, which will not exceed assigning a mark of zero in the piece of work to which the offence relates. This provision relates to the mark allocated to the full piece of work concerned and not the section or part deemed to have been in breach of this policy. No sanction from a Head of School/Department or their nominee may be extended beyond the result for the piece of work concerned. Where a sanction results in a FAIL judgement for the module, capping at the pass mark will be applied to marks achieved at the Supplemental Examination.

C. Major Alleged Academic Misconduct

7.6. The Head of School/ Department or their nominee will immediately make a full report in writing (including documents related to the outcome of any prior allegations of academic misconduct) to the Examinations and Records Officer, Student Records and Examinations Office (SREO), UCC in which case the procedures below will be invoked.

8. Major Alleged Academic Misconduct Procedures (SREO and/or referred determination)

8.1. Where a report is made to the Examinations and Records Officer, the student will be contacted by the Examinations and Records Officer or their nominee at the earliest possible time subject always to consideration by the Examinations and Records Officer or their nominee of the examination period. The student will be provided with copies of the relevant documents and invited to submit a written statement of events (Personal Statement) within a stipulated timeframe. The Examinations and Records Officer or their nominee may also request, where appropriate, additional input from the Head of the relevant School/Department and/or the Module Coordinator.

8.2. The case will be considered by the Examination and Records Officer or their nominee or the Head of the Relevant College or their nominee. The student will be invited by the Examination and Records Officer or their nominee to a meeting to discuss the matter. A student may bring another person to this meeting to provide support but not to advocate or to make representation on that student’s behalf.

8.3. If the student cannot attend the meeting or does not engage with the process, a determination will be made based on the written material (Report and related documents, examination records, outcome of previous alleged academic misconduct (if any), Personal Statement).

8.4. If a student attends the meeting, a determination will be made based on all the information provided to the Examinations and Records Officer or their nominee as above and any additional information provided by the student at the meeting.

8.5. The Examinations and Records Officer or their nominee and the Head of College or their nominee can make one of the following three determinations:

8.5.1. No case to answer
The matter will end there with no penalty applied.

8.5.2. Case to answer
A penalty of either
a) a reduction of marks of up to 15 percentage points for the examination/assessment concerned
or
b) assigning a mark of zero for the examination/assessment concerned.
or
c) Refer (citing their reason(s)) to the Deputy President and Registrar or their nominee and Chairperson of the Student Discipline Committee or their nominee for investigation and determination.

8.6. The Examinations and Records Officer or their nominee will inform the student and the Head of School/Department and other relevant parties of the decision taken. Where a sanction results in a FAIL judgement for the module, capping at the pass mark will be applied to marks achieved at the Supplemental Examination.

8.7. Referral to the Deputy President and Registrar or nominee and Chairperson of the Student Discipline Committee or nominee

8.7.1. Where referred to the Deputy President and Registrar (DPR) or Nominee and the Chairperson of the Student Discipline Committee or Nominee will meet and consider relevant information. The student may be invited to present an explanation in writing (Supplemental Personal Statement) or in person at the sole discretion of the DPR or Nominee and the Chairperson of the Student Discipline Committee or nominee. Should a meeting take place, the student may bring another person to this meeting to provide support but not to advocate or to make representation on that student’s behalf.

8.8. Determination by the DPR or nominee and the Chairperson of the Student Discipline Committee or nominee

The DPR or their nominee and the Chairperson of the Student Discipline Committee or their nominee can make one of the following three determinations:

8.8.1. No case to answer
the matter will end there with no penalty applied.

8.8.2. Case to answer
a penalty of either
a) a reduction of marks of up to 15 percentage points for the examination/assessment concerned;
or
b) assigning a mark of zero for the examination/assessment concerned;
or
c) Assigning a mark of zero for the module of which the examination/assessment was a component part.

8.8.3. Serious case to answer
a penalty from the above and referral of the case to the Student Discipline Committee for consideration.

8.9. This determination will be communicated to the student, Examinations and Records Officer, Head of School/Department and other relevant parties. Where a sanction results in a FAIL judgement for the module, capping at the pass mark will be applied to marks achieved at the Supplemental Examination.

8.10. Where the case is referred to them, the Student Discipline Committee will consider the matter in accordance with the Student Rules and, if deemed appropriate, may impose any penalty it sees fits in accordance with the Student Rules. If Chairperson of the Student Discipline Committee or their nominee has been involved in the determination under this policy, they will recuse themselves from dealing with the case in the Student Discipline Committee.

9. Conflicts of Interest

9.1. In the course of any investigations under this policy, staff will be aware of any actual or potential conflict of interest in carrying out their duties and refer to the University Conflict of Interest Policy.

10. Appeals

10.1. Students have a right of appeal, where they believe that they have been treated unfairly by the academic integrity and plagiarism procedures. Such appeals are dealt with through the standard UCC Examination Appeals process.

11. Record Keeping

11.1. Appropriate records need to be kept by the School/Department and SREO to aid investigations and to consider cumulation in alleged cases of academic misconduct.

12. Other Legal and Ethical Issues

12.1. In some cases, particularly in the professional academic arena, plagiarism may also be a breach of copyright, which may expose the copier to civil and/or criminal proceedings if within the timeframe of the copyright.

12.2. Changes to Irish legislation in 2019 give power to the QQI to bring prosecutions under Section 43A of the Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) (Amendment) Act with may result in fines of up to €100,000 and/or imprisonment for up to five years.

12.3. The Scientific Council of the European Research Council have reminded those preparing proposals “that use of external help in preparing a proposal does not relieve the author from taking full and sole authorship responsibilities with regard to acknowledgements, plagiarism and the practice of good scientific and professional conduct”.