Academic Misconduct Guidance Notes for Staff
The University’s policy and procedures for Academic Misconduct can be found in section 2.9
of the Examination and Assessment Regulations Handbook.
For the complete sequence of events and what is required at each stage in the process
please see the Misconduct Process Flowchart Stages 1 - 3 and the accompanying flowchart
notes. The Flowchart Notes provide a concise description of the whole process.
For non-contributory work:
If the Module Tutor finds evidence of plagiarism (or other academic misconduct) in noncontributory work, the Module Convenor should refer the student to published guidance on
avoiding plagiarism and academic misconduct, and give advice as to future conduct.
The Module Convenor should then send the student a 'Notice of Advice' summarising the
advice given, using the Notice of Advice template. Copies of this should go to the Academic
Advisor, the School Curriculum and Assessment Officer and the Student Progress and
Assessment Office to place on record. For details, see 2.9.8 of the Academic Misconduct
Procedures.
For contributory work:
1. Copy the materials
Make a photocopy of relevant parts of source materials (books, websites, another student's
essay etc) from which you think text has been taken.
2. Mark up the material
Make a photocopy of the student's assignment and put this and the coversheet to one side.
Using pen or highlighter, underline or highlight the relevant sections of the text, both in the
original copy of the student's assignment and in the suspected source, and number each
instance. Try to identify as many plagiarised passages as possible, not just a sample, since
the quantity of material plagiarised will make a difference to the seriousness of the charge.
3. Mark the assignment
The Examiner should mark the work taking the plagiarism into account. If a piece of work is
plagiarised, in whole or in part, the mark should be reduced in proportion to the extent of the
plagiarism identified. Non plagiarised sections should be marked as standard. Therefore, the
final mark should reflect a combination of the extent of the plagiarised passages, and the
quality of the non plagiarised work; it may or may not be a fail mark. The Examiner should
provide a brief rationale for the reduction in the mark (i.e. how the mark was arrived at).
4. Inform the student and Academic Advisor (UG) / Course Convenor (PG)
The Module Convenor should inform the student and the student's Academic Advisor (UG) /
Course Convenor (PG) that the assignment is being investigated for potential academic
misconduct.
5. Submit the case to the Investigating Officer
The Module Convenor should send the following to his or her School Investigating Officer:
* the assessment in question with problems within it highlighted and annotated
* for a plagiarism case the sources that have been allegedly plagiarised
* the module handbook
* any relevant information on study skills/academic misconduct training the student would
normally have received
* the completed Academic Misconduct Cover Sheet.
NB: where the suspected work is for a module taken from a programme within another
School, this should normally be handled in the following sequence: The Investigating Officer
of the School owning the course, rather than the Investigating Officer of the School owning
the student, should do the initial review of the assignment. Once a determination has been
made as to whether the case is minor or major, the Investigating Officer should contact the
Curriculum and Assessment Officer of the School which owns the student, who should send
the School letter (see reference below). Thereafter the case follows the standard sequence.
Where the case is minor it will be referred to the Head of School (or nominee) which owns
the student.
What happens next:
The Investigating Officer will determine whether:
a. there is no case to answer
b. this is a prima facie case of minor academic misconduct
c. this a prima facie case of major academic misconduct.
If it is found that there is no case to answer, the Investigating Officer sends the evidence file
to the student's School Curriculum and Assessment Officer who informs the student,
Academic Advisor, Examiner and Module Convenor (and destroys the evidence file - see
Flowchart Notes).
If minor or major academic misconduct is found, the Investigating Officer informs the
student's School Curriculum and Assessment Officer, who informs the student, Academic
Advisor, Examiner and Module Convenor, using the School Letter Template. Meanwhile the
Investigating Officer sends the evidence file to the Student Progress and Assessment Office.
In the case of minor misconduct the Student Progress and Assessment Office sends the file
on to the Head of School. The Head of School (or a nominee) then interviews the student
and decides on an appropriate penalty or no penalty. For details, see 9.31-9.34 and 9.41 of
the Academic Misconduct Procedures. Guidance is also available on conducting minor
misconduct interviews.
In the case of major misconduct the Student Progress and Assessment Office arranges for a
meeting of the Academic Misconduct Panel, which the student can attend together with an
advisor. The panel decides on an appropriate penalty or no penalty. For details, see 9.359.40 and 9.42 of the Academic Misconduct Interviews.
For further advice please contact:
Mrs Carmel Oxley-King, Academic Development and Quality Enhancement Manager
(Standards), Sussex House Sh-302, c.oxley@sussex.ac.uk or telephone on (01273) 678130