Academic Integrity for Continuous Assessments Policy

Version

Version:  3.0
Review date:  June 2025
Policy Owner: Deputy President and Registrar
Approved by: 15 May 2026
Next review: Within 3 years subject to national and/or EU developments

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. Academic integrity is defined as: “Compliance with ethical and 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.”¹ An essential aspect of academic integrity is assessment integrity. Conversely, academic misconduct occurs when a student behaves in a way that undermines the integrity of the assessment. UCC is a member of the National Academic Integrity Network (NAIN).

1.2    This policy sets out UCC’s definition of academic integrity regarding continuous assessments; details forms of academic misconduct; signposts the supports available to staff and students; outlines the procedures for investigating alleged cases of academic misconduct in continuous assessments; and explains sanctions for academic misconduct and the register for recording those sanctions.

¹NAIN (2021) European Network for Academic Integrity - Glossary for Academic Integrity Academic Integrity [Accessed 13th April 2021]

2. Scope

2.1    This policy applies to all work presented or submitted by registered students for assessment or credit in taught programmes. It applies to any actions or attempts from both current registered students and those who have already graduated or otherwise left the University to gain or help others gain an unfair academic advantage. It does not apply to allegations of academic misconduct in Research Theses (Doctorates and Masters by Research), which are handled by the UCC Code of Research Conduct. Where there is doubt as to which policy applies, the Deputy President and Registrar or their nominee shall make a binding determination in that regard.

2.2    This Policy applies to continuous assessment only. Suspected breaches of centrally scheduled written examinations fall under the Guide to Examinations and Assessments for Staff and Students. Under this Policy, continuous assessment includes practicals, projects, laboratory reports, essays, seminars, in-class tests, minor dissertations, and/or any other elements specified by the School, which are approved by ADSC.

3. Definitions

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

3.1    Academic Integrity – As described in Section 1: Compliance with ethical and 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.

3.2    Academic Misconduct – Any behaviour(s), action(s), or attempted action(s), intentional or inadvertent, that undermines or contravenes academic integrity and may result in an unfair advantage or disadvantage for a student or students. This also includes any behaviour(s) that transgresses ethical standards held in common between other individuals and/or groups in institutions of education, research, or scholarship.
 
3.3    Determination of Academic Misconduct – The result of an investigation into suspected academic misconduct whereby the level of academic misconduct and the resulting sanction are decided upon.

3.4    Academic Misconduct Register – A centralised record of academic misconduct that is managed by the Student Records and Examinations Office. When students are found to have engaged in any level of poor academic practice or academic misconduct as part of the processes outlined in this Policy, a record detailing the case, including the student’s details, the determination, and the sanction, are entered on the Academic Misconduct Register. This record will be held for the duration of the student’s programme of study.

3.5    Forms of Academic Misconduct include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Poor Academic Practice – Actions that include, but are not limited to, poor academic writing skills (e.g., poor referencing or passing off someone else’s idea as your own), or small errors made through carelessness or misunderstanding.
• Cheating – Actions that attempt to get advantage by means that undermine values of integrity.
• Contract Cheating / Essay Mills – A form of academic misconduct where a person uses an undeclared and/or unauthorised third party, online or directly, to assist them in dishonestly producing work for academic credit or progression, whether or not payment or other favour is involved.
• Cumulative effect – Where continued poor academic practice and repeated minor instances of academic misconduct are treated as more severe forms of academic misconduct.
• Fabrication/Falsification – Making up data, experiments, or other significant information in proposing, conducting, or reporting research. This includes the fabrication or falsification of official University documents regarding credit and/or academic achievement.
• Impersonation – Undertaking in whole or in part any work required as part of a programme in the place of an enrolled learner, without permission from the provider.
• Unauthorised Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools – Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools include, but are not limited to, generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), agentic AI, wearable devices with integrated AI capabilities, etc. Academic integrity is breached if students submit the products of AI or use AI products to gain unfair academic advantage without acknowledgement and without authorisation to fulfil a task.
• Plagiarism - Presenting work or ideas taken from other sources without proper acknowledgement, whether done deliberately, carelessly, or inadvertently.
• Other acts that dishonestly use information to gain academic credit.

Types of Plagiarism include but are not limited to:

• Collusion – A joint effort of work is presented by an individual without due recognition of the input of others. Collusion also applies to both parties when an individual student provides their work to another student, enabling them to present it as their own.
• Self-plagiarism – The use of one’s own previous submitted/presented work in another context without appropriate citation.
• Verbatim plagiarism – Word-for-word copy of work from another source without providing acknowledgement.

4. Roles and Responsibilities

4.1    University

4.2    Students

4.3    Schools and Academic Staff

4.4    Deputy President and Registrar’s Offices

4.4.1    The Records and Examinations Officer or their nominee is responsible for investigating suspected cases of academic misconduct referred to them by a Head of School or their nominee.

4.4.2    The Records and Examinations Officer or their nominee will keep appropriate records in the Academic Misconduct Register, in accordance with the UCC Records and Retention Schedules and the Data Protection Notice relevant to this Policy.

4.4.3    The Deputy President and Registrar or their nominee and Academic Integrity Representatives from a cognate School are responsible for investigating suspected cases of academic misconduct referred to them by the Records and Examinations Officer or their nominee at the appropriate stage within this Policy.

4.4.4    The Office of the Deputy President and Registrar is responsible for notifying the Records and Examination Officer or their nominee of the outcome of an Appeal or of referral of an appeal to the Appeals Committee under the Student Rules. Such a notification will detail whether the appeal was upheld or not and whether the Academic Misconduct Register needs to be revised to reflect the outcome. The Head of School or College should also be advised of the outcome of the appeal, as appropriate.

5. Best Practice

5.1    Staff and students are required to familiarise themselves with this Policy and with the supports for best practice in academic work, which are available from the Skills Centre and the Library.

5.2    In all presented and/or submitted work, 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 work.

5.3    Each School may have additional academic integrity requirements that identify any citation norms, as well as cultural, technical, or other issues that may arise within a particular discipline. Each School 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    AI is a fast-moving area. Academic integrity is breached if students submit the products of AI or use AI products to gain unfair academic advantage without acknowledgement and without authorisation. The University will provide guidance on the ethical use of AI 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 and their programme.

6. Suspected Academic Misconduct

6.1    Except for allegations of academic misconduct in Research Theses, all essays, dissertations, projects, portfolios, presentations, or other forms of academic submission in a taught degree, including all forms of research results presented for evaluation, may be checked for academic misconduct.

6.2    Where a University electronic system, supervisor, internal or external examiner, invigilator, or other person suspects academic misconduct arising from continuous assessment, then the marker or academic staff member concerned will consider whether the issue needs to be raised with their Head of School or their nominee in the first instance. In some cases, it may be sufficient for School staff to engage with the student and remind them of the necessity of good academic practice and academic integrity supports.

6.3    Investigations into suspected academic misconduct are not time bound to the period in which the assessment has been considered. Students should be informed that all marks are provisional until ratified by an exam board and, as a result, are subject to the application of this Policy. The University reserves the right to undertake retrospective investigations, including following completion of an academic programme or the granting of an award to a student.

6.4    The NAIN ‘Sample Matrix to Aid Detection of Academic Misconduct in Written Assessments’ may be used to guide investigations into suspected academic misconduct.²

6.5    The following principles are applicable to all individuals involved in investigations into suspected academic misconduct:²

1. Investigate: Reasonable evidence or concern should exist before an investigation into suspected academic misconduct is undertaken. The burden of proof rests with the University.
2. Collect, examine, and evaluate evidence: Depending on the allegation, a range of evidence may need to be gathered to determine whether a breach of this Policy occurred. Evidence should establish that, on the balance of probabilities, a breach may have occurred. Evidence may include but is not limited to: draft histories, version logs, and research trails which show the natural development of work. Metadata and comparative analysis across a student’s portfolio of work may be considered only as supplementary signals. Circumstantial evidence must be weighed carefully but cannot be considered proof that misconduct occurred.
3. Experience and expertise: The academic experience of the investigator(s) should be used to inform interpretation of the evidence. Guidance on the interpretation of evidence may be sought from Academic Integrity Representatives, academic staff, subject matter experts, and other members of staff involved in academic integrity matters.
4. Natural justice: Ensure the student has an opportunity to explain and/or demonstrate, either in person or in writing, how they developed their assignment.
5. Balance of probabilities: When investigating suspected academic misconduct, the accepted standard of proof is that the decision-maker believes that there is evidence that it is more likely than not that the allegation is true.

6.6    The use of AI detection software for the detection or investigation of alleged academic misconduct is not sanctioned by the University. Detection software cannot provide reliable results, and it is prone to both false positives and false negatives. These tools shift the burden of proof from the University to the student, undermine trust in academic judgement, and may perpetuate linguistic and cultural biases.

6.7    If a student is suspected of academic misconduct during an invigilated in-class test, the invigilator must make a report of the incident to the module coordinator immediately after the exam. This report must be sent to the Head of School or their nominee for investigation under Section 10 of this Policy.

6.8    If a student who is suspected of academic misconduct obtained their work from a classmate (either through copying or collusion) or somebody else in the University, then that person may also be subject to investigation for academic misconduct.

6.9    To ensure students receive appropriate support, take the following actions when investigating suspected academic misconduct:

1. Make the appropriate accommodations for students to ensure compliance with UCC’s EDI commitments.
2. Inform students that they are entitled to bring a support person of their choosing to any meeting concerning suspected academic misconduct. The details of the support person, including their name and relationship to the student, must be provided prior to the meeting. During the meeting, the support person may not speak for or on behalf of the student, as the student’s direct response is  required. If the support person does not abide by this rule, the meeting will be immediately stopped. In this instance, the Head of School or their nominee will determine if a new meeting can be scheduled, or if the matter will be investigated on the evidence gathered thus far.
3. Advise the student about sources of support, such as those provided by Student Support services and by the Students’ Union, at each stage of the process.

6.10    If there are credible grounds to believe that submitted work does not represent the student’s own work, the student may be required to orally defend their work to assess its originality, as well as their understanding of the topic(s) being assessed.

1. All investigations into suspected academic misconduct should follow the procedures outlined in Section 10 of this Policy.
2. An oral defence may include but is not limited to oral examination, code walk-through, studio critique, or equivalent dialogic exercise in which they account for and extend their submitted work.
3. The oral defence is a tool to investigate whether, on the balance of probabilities, academic misconduct occurred. If the student can demonstrate understanding, reasoning, and command of sources or methods, the oral defence may confirm authenticity. Conversely, inability to explain or extend the work may constitute strong evidence of inauthentic authorship.
4. Where possible, the oral defence should be conducted by the staff member who made the referral and the Head of School or their nominee, as well as another academic staff member with relevant expertise.

6.11    Meetings related to suspected academic misconduct may not be recorded by any attendee.

6.12    If a student has repeated instances of academic misconduct in the same School and to ensure impartiality, an Academic Integrity Representative from a cognate School may be consulted or brought in to investigate further suspected academic misconduct or to conduct an oral defence.

²NAIN (2023) NAIN Framework for Academic Misconduct Investigation and Case Management pdf [Accessed 15^th January 2026]

7. Acceptance of Responsibility Forms

7.1    If a student is suspected of academic misconduct, the Head of School or their nominee may offer the student an Acceptance of Responsibility form only if the suspected academic misconduct does not appear to be major.

7.2    If the student completes the Acceptance of Responsibility form, they agree to the following provisions:

1. The student accepts responsibility for the academic misconduct, as outlined by the Head of School or their nominee.
2. The student confirms that they have no previous record on the Academic Misconduct Register and that they have not completed an Acceptance of Responsibility form previously.
3. The student agrees to receiving a Level 1: Poor Academic Practice sanction. This means that the assessment will be marked on its merits, and the case will be recorded on the Academic Misconduct Register.
4. The student agrees to complete the academic integrity training, as described in Section 12 of this Policy.

7.3    The student is not obligated to complete the form. If they do not complete the form, the case of suspected academic misconduct should be investigated according to the processes outlined in Section 10.

7.4    If the student provides false information on the form, the matter will be automatically escalated and the processes outlined in Section 11 will be invoked.
 

8. Classification and Cumulative Effect

7In the detection and investigation of alleged academic misconduct, levels of severity may be judged and classified by the Head of School or their nominee as follows:

1. Level 1: Poor Academic Practice
2. Level 2: Minor Academic Misconduct
3. Level 3: Major Academic Misconduct

8.2    Instances of both Level 1: Poor Academic Practice and Level 2: Minor Academic Misconduct are usually handled on a local level and reported to the Student Records and Examinations Office for inclusion on the Academic Misconduct Register. Instances of Level 3: Major Academic Misconduct are referred to the Records and Examinations Officer or their nominee for further investigation.

8.3    After the level of academic misconduct has been determined and a sanction has been decided on, the Head of School or their nominee should determine whether a student already appears on the Academic Misconduct Register and whether the cumulative effect of poor academic practice and academic misconduct should be considered.

8.4    If the student has a previous record on the Academic Misconduct Register, the case will be treated as follows:

1. Level 1: Poor Academic Practice will be treated as Level 2: Minor Academic Misconduct.
2. Level 2: Minor Academic Misconduct will be treated as Level 3: Major Academic Misconduct.
3. Level 3: Major Academic Misconduct will be dealt with under Section 11 of this policy.

8.5    Multiple cases of poor academic practice or academic misconduct that meet all the following criteria will not result in escalation in the level of academic misconduct:

1. occur in the same academic year;
2. occur before the student has completed the academic integrity training (or prior to the deadline to complete that training);
3. are classified as Level 1: Poor Academic Practice and Level 2: Minor Academic Misconduct; and
4. where the student has no previous record on the Academic Misconduct Register.

9. Escalation within this Policy

9.1    In cases where an alleged instance of academic misconduct is determined to be of a serious nature, or when the actions in question significantly undermine the integrity of the academic environment, the matter may be referred for investigation at an advanced stage of this Policy. Instances that may warrant such escalation include, but are not limited to:

1. Repeat Offences: When a student or individual is found to have committed multiple violations of academic misconduct over time, indicating a pattern of misconduct, as described in this Policy.
2. Severity of the Alleged Breach: When the nature of the alleged misconduct is of significant severity, such as large-scale plagiarism, falsification of academic records, or cheating on a high-stakes assessment, which may compromise the integrity of the educational institution.
3. Failure to Cooperate: If the student fails to cooperate with the initial investigation process or provides misleading, false, or incomplete information.
4. Impact on the Academic Community: When the alleged misconduct has a substantial adverse effect on the academic community, such as undermining public trust in academic credentials or creating unfair advantages.
5. Criminal or Legal Implications: When the alleged misconduct involves actions that also violate legislation or may result in criminal charges.

 9.2    When such instances arise, the referral to a more advanced stage of the Policy will trigger a more formal investigation, with potential consequences that may include suspension, expulsion, or other disciplinary actions as deemed appropriate by the relevant University policies

10. Process for Investigating Alleged Poor Academic Practice and Minor Academic Misconduct

10.1    If academic misconduct is suspected, the Head of School or their nominee will inform the student in writing (via their UCC email address) of the allegation at the earliest possible time (subject always to consideration of the examination period). They must provide the student with reasons for the allegation, as well as a copy of any work that is the basis of the allegation. If major academic misconduct is suspected prior to any investigation, the student should be notified that the matter will be referred to the Student Records and Examinations Office in the first instance, and the procedures in Section 11 will be invoked.

10.2    Where major academic misconduct is not suspected, the student should be invited to an informal meeting to discuss the allegation. The Head of School or their nominee may choose one of the following options:

1. Offer the Acceptance of Responsibility form as described in Section 7 of this Policy. If the student accepts responsibility, they will be found to have engaged in Level 1: Poor Academic Practice and the steps in Section 10.7 will be followed. If the student denies responsibility, the School should proceed to investigate the case, per Section 10.3.
2. Decide that the case should proceed to a formal investigation per Section 10.3.

10.3    If a formal investigation is undertaken, the student must be provided with an opportunity to address the allegation in writing (Personal Statement) within a specified timeframe. The student may be invited to a further meeting to discuss the matter, where they may bring another person to provide support, per Section 6 of this Policy. The student must be advised that if they do not provide a Personal Statement or attend the meeting, the matter will be determined in their absence. In this case, the available evidence/information will be considered to determine whether, on the balance of probabilities, the allegation is substantiated. The student must be advised about sources of support, such as those provided by Student Support services and by the Student’s Union.

10.4    Following receipt or non-submission of the student’s Personal Statement and/or an initial meeting, if questions remain about the authenticity of the student’s work, the Head of School or their nominee may opt to conduct a more formal oral defence, as outlined in Section 6 of this Policy.

10.5    The Head of School or their nominee will consider the allegation, the student’s Personal Statement (if provided), and any other relevant information available (which will also be provided to the student). One of the following determinations will be made:

1. A breach of this Policy has not occurred: The matter will conclude with no sanction applied. The assessment component mark will stand, and the case will not appear on the Academic Misconduct Register.
2. A breach of this Policy has or may have occurred at any Level (1, 2, or 3): Follow the appropriate steps in this section.

10.6    If a Level 1 or Level 2 breach of this Policy has occurred, the Head of School or their nominee should determine if the student has a previous record on the Academic Misconduct Register. This check may only occur after a determination is made, so that the appropriate sanction can be imposed.

10.7    Level 1: Poor Academic Practice

10.7.1    The Head of School or their nominee may decide that the allegation is a minor instance of poor academic practice, which requires a formal educational intervention. 

10.7.2    The work is marked as normal on its merits and without punitive marking.

10.7.3    There is no right of appeal under this Policy.

10.7.4    The Head of School or their nominee must notify the Student Records and Examinations Office of the determination, where a record will be kept in the Academic Misconduct Register for potential cumulative effects for the duration of the student’s programme of study.

10.7.5    The student will be contacted by the Student Records and Examinations Office regarding the completion of academic integrity training, as described in Section 12 of this Policy.

10.8    Level 2: Minor Academic Misconduct

10.8.1    One of the following sanctions will be applied:

1. Mark the assessment concerned for academic content with an appropriate reduction in marks;
2. Assign a mark of zero for the assessment concerned; or
3. Refer the alleged instance to the Records and Examinations Officer or the nominee and the Head of the Relevant College or their nominee. In some contexts, a first instance may require direct referral.

Where reasonably practicable, students will be able to re-submit the corrected piece of work, capped at pass mark. Where a sanction results in a FAIL judgment for a module, capping at the pass mark will be applied to marks achieved at the Supplemental Examination.

10.8.2    The Head of School or their nominee must notify the Student Records and Examinations Office of the instance of the determination and sanction, where a record will be kept on the Academic Misconduct Register for potential cumulative effects for the duration of the student’s programme of study.

10.8.3    The student will be contacted by the Student Records and Examinations Office regarding the completion of academic integrity training, as described in Section 12 of this Policy.

10.9    Level 3: Alleged Major Academic Misconduct

10.9.1    If Level 3: Major Academic Misconduct is suspected following an initial investigation, the Head of School or their nominee will immediately report the case to the Student Records and Examinations Office, and the procedures in Section 11 will be invoked.

11. Process for Investigating Alleged Major Academic Misconduct

11.1    Where a report is made to the Student Records and Examinations Office, the student will be contacted in writing (via their UCC email address) by the Records and Examinations Officer or their nominee at the earliest possible time (subject always to consideration of the examination period).

1. 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.
2. The Records and Examinations Officer or their nominee will consider the totality of the report received and all supporting documentation. Additional input may be requested, if needed. Additional documentation will be shared with the student, if provided.

11.2    The case will be considered by the Records and Examinations Officer or their nominee and the Head of the Relevant College or their nominee.

11.3    The student will be invited by the Records and Examinations Officer or their nominee to a meeting to discuss the matter. A student may bring another person to this meeting to provide support, per Section 6 of this Policy.

1. If a student attends the meeting, a determination will be made based on all the information provided, as well as any additional information provided by the student at the meeting.
2. If the student refuses to attend the meeting or does not otherwise engage with the process, a determination will be made in their absence. In this case, the available evidence/information will be considered to determine whether on the balance of probabilities the allegation is substantiated.

11.4    The Records and Examinations Officer or their nominee and the Head of College or their nominee will consider the allegation, the student’s Personal Statement (if provided), and any other relevant information available (which will also be provided to the student). One of the following determinations will be made:

1. A breach of this Policy has not occurred: The matter will conclude with no sanction applied. The assessment component mark will stand, and the case will not appear on the Academic Misconduct Register.
2. A breach of this Policy has occurred at any Level (1, 2, or 3): Follow the steps in this section.

11.5    If a breach of this Policy has occurred, the Records and Examinations Officer or their nominee will determine if the student has a previous record on the Academic Misconduct Register. This check may only occur after a determination is made, so that the appropriate sanction can be imposed.

11.6    One of the following sanctions will be applied:

1. Mark the assessment concerned as normal on its merits and without punitive marking;
2. Mark the assessment concerned for academic content with an appropriate reduction in marks;
3. Assign a mark of zero for the assessment concerned; or
4. Refer the alleged instance to the Deputy President and Registrar or their nominee and an Academic Integrity Representative from a cognate School for investigation and determination. In some contexts, a first instance may require direct referral.

Where a sanction results in a FAIL judgment for a module, capping at the pass mark will be applied to marks achieved at the Supplemental Examination.

11.7    The Records and Examinations Officer or their nominee will inform the student and the Head of School and other relevant parties of the determination and sanction.

11.8    The Records and Examinations Officer or their nominee will record the determination and sanction on the Academic Misconduct Register, where a record will be kept for potential cumulative effects for the duration of the student’s programme of study.

11.9    The student will be contacted by the Student Records and Examinations Office regarding the completion of academic integrity training, as described in Section 12 of this Policy.

11.10    Referral to the Deputy President and Registrar or nominee and an Academic Integrity Representative from a cognate School 

11.10.1    If the case is referred to the Deputy President and Registrar or their nominee and an Academic Integrity Representative from a cognate School, a meeting will be convened to consider the relevant information.

11.10.2    The student will be invited to submit an explanation in writing (Supplemental Personal Statement) for consideration or to attend a meeting in person to make a verbal presentation, setting out their position/response at the sole discretion of the Deputy President and Registrar or their nominee and an Academic Integrity Representative from a cognate School

11.10.3    If a student does not respond within 10 working days to the request for a Supplemental Personal Statement or a request to attend the meeting, then the determination will be arrived at without the student’s involvement. In this case, the available evidence/information will be considered to determine whether, on the balance of probabilities, the allegation is substantiated.

11.10.4    The Deputy President and Registrar or their nominee and an Academic Integrity Representative from a cognate School will consider the allegation, the student’s Personal Statement (if provided), and any other relevant information available (which will also be provided to the student). One of the following determinations will be made:

1. A breach of this Policy has not occurred: The matter will conclude with no sanction applied. The assessment component mark will stand, and the case will not appear on the Academic Misconduct Register.
2. A breach of this Policy has occurred at any Level (1, 2, or 3): Follow the steps in this section.

11.10.5    If a breach of this Policy has occurred, the Academic Integrity Representative from a cognate School will determine if the student has a previous record on the Academic Misconduct Register. This check may only occur after a determination is made, so that the appropriate sanction can be imposed.

11.10.6    One or more of the following sanctions will be applied:

1. Mark the assessment concerned as normal on its merits and without punitive marking;
2. Mark the assessment concerned for academic content with an appropriate reduction in marks;
3. Assign a mark of zero for the assessment concerned;
4. Refer the case to the Student Discipline Committee for consideration as a possible breach of the Student Rules; and/or
5. Refer the case for consideration as a possible breach of the Fitness to Practise Policy and/or the Fitness to Continue Study Policy.

Where a sanction results in a FAIL judgment for a module, capping at the pass mark will be applied to marks achieved at the Supplemental Examination.

11.10.7    The determination and sanction will be communicated to the student, Records and Examinations Officer, Head
of School, and other relevant parties.

11.10.8    The Records and Examinations Officer or their nominee will record the determination and sanction on the Academic Misconduct Register, where a record will be kept for potential cumulative effects for the duration of the student’s programme of study.

11.10.9    The student will be contacted by the Student Records and Examinations Office regarding the completion of academic integrity training, as described in Section 12 of this Policy.

11.10.10    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 sanction it sees fits in accordance with the Student Rules. If the 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.

12. Academic Integrity Training

12.1    Students who have engaged in any level of poor academic practice or academic misconduct must complete academic integrity training and notify the Student Records and Examinations Office of completion. This sanction is designed to promote understanding and prevent future academic misconduct.

12.2    In the first instance, students will be required to complete an online academic integrity training course. For further instances of poor academic practice or academic misconduct, students will be required to meet with the Academic Integrity Education Officer or their nominee in the Skills Centre.

12.3    Students must complete this training and provide proof of completion within one month of receiving instructions from the Student Records and Examinations Office.
 
12.4    If they do not complete the training, the marks for the module will be withheld. Marks will only be released when proof of completion is provided.

12.5    Students who complete the Acceptance of Responsibility form and who do not complete the academic integrity training may be subject to a full investigation of academic misconduct under Section 11 of this Policy.

13. Conflicts of Interest

13.1    In the course of any investigations under this Policy, staff must be aware of any actual or potential conflict of interest in
carrying out their duties. Refer to the Conflict of Interest Policy | University College Cork.

14. Appeals

14.1    Students have a right to appeal the determination and/or sanction for either minor or major academic misconduct (Level 2 or Level 3) at the conclusion of these processes. Appeals must be made in good faith and respect the ethos of academic integrity and the Student Charter and Code of Honour. The sole grounds for appeal are:

1. new information, which was not, for good reason, available to the original decision makers;
2. evidence of maladministration or mishandling of the investigation, which has impacted the outcome; and/or
3. a disproportionate sanction was applied.

14.2    In relation to claims of a disproportionate sanction, it should be noted that sanctions relate to the level of academic misconduct (including cumulative effects) only, and hardship or other issues cannot be considered.

14.3    Appeals against a determination of either minor or major academic misconduct (Level 2 or Level 3) must be made within 10 working days of receiving the determination.

1. Level 2: Minor Academic Misconduct: Students can appeal the determination by writing to the Student Records and Examinations Office, noting the grounds of appeal and that the appeal relates to suspected academic misconduct. The student should include the Head of School or their nominee in their email. The appeal will be considered by the Records and Examinations Officer or their nominee and the Head of College or their nominee, who will determine the outcome at their sole discretion.
2. Level 3: Major Academic Misconduct: Students can appeal the determination by writing to the Academic Secretary, noting the grounds for appeal. The appeal will be considered by the Deputy President and Registrar or their nominee and an Academic Integrity Representative from a cognate School, who will determine the outcome at their sole discretion.
   
   14.4    If a student wishes to appeal a determination made by the Deputy President and Registrar or their nominee and an Academic Integrity Representative from a cognate School or following referral of the case to the Student Discipline Committee, they may use the Academic Council Appeal process outlined in the Student Rules.
   
   14.5    If a student is successful in their appeal, the record of this instance on the Academic Misconduct Register will be removed in its entirety.
   
   

15. Record Keeping

15.1    Appropriate records will be kept by the Student Records and Examinations Office to aid the sanction (if any) to be imposed and to consider the cumulative effects in cases where academic misconduct is determined to have occurred.

15.2    Schools are responsible for notifying the Student Records and Examinations Office of all sanctions of all poor academic practice and academic misconduct for inclusion on the Academic Misconduct Register.

15.3    The Office of the Deputy President and Registrar is responsible for notifying the Student Records and Examinations Office of any successful appeals, as outlined in Section 4 of this Policy.

15.4    The following details will be kept on the Academic Misconduct Register:

• Academic Year
• Student Name
• Student Number
• College
• School
• Programme (i.e., QUAL code)
• Module
• Academic Misconduct Type
• Level of Academic Misconduct
• Sanction
• Supporting Documentation (e.g., email communications with the student and/or reports generated by the School, the student’s Personal Statement, the student’s acceptance of any sanction, the assessments in question, Turnitin Reports, etc.)

15.5    Records of a student’s completion of any academic integrity training will also be kept.

15.6    Records will be kept for the duration of the student’s programme and then deleted in accordance with the UCC Records and Retention Schedules: Records Retention Schedules | University College Cork.

15.7    Poor academic practice or academic misconduct will not appear on the student’s transcript.

16. Quality Control

16.1    The Student Records and Examinations Office will conduct an annual review of poor academic practice and academic misconduct cases across the University. The Student Records and Examinations Office will collate a random selection of approximately ten cases each of Level 1: Poor Academic Practice, Level 2: Minor Academic Misconduct, and Level 3: Major Academic Misconduct from the Academic Misconduct Register. Each case will be anonymised and a review of the cases will be conducted to ensure this Policy has been followed. Proof of completion of academic integrity training will also be checked.
16.2    An anonymised report will made to Academic Board at the end of each academic year, indicating the number, School, and type of cases that appear on the Academic Misconduct Register.

17. Other Legal and Ethical Issues

17.1    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.
17.2    Changes to Irish legislation in 2019 gave power to the QQI to bring prosecutions under section 43A of the Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Act 2012 that may result in fines of up to €100,000 and/or imprisonment for up to five years for those who facilitate a learner to cheat in any way.
17.3    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”.

1. NAIN (2021) Academic Integrity: National Principles and Lexicon of Common Terms drawing on ENAI Glossary [http://w academicintegrity.eu/wp/glossary/]for Academic Integrity – Academic Misconduct [http://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/glossary/ ] . [Accessed 13th April 2021]

2. NAIN (2023) NAIN Framework for Academic Misconduct Investigation and Case Management pdf [Accessed 15^th January 2026]

18. Reporting Forms

•    Staff Reporting Form
•    ‘Acceptance of Responsibility’ Form

19. References and Resources

• Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI) [https://www.qq ie/]
  • QQI (2021), Academic Integrity: National Principles and Lexicon of Common Terms, National Academic Integrity
  • QQI (2021) , Academic Integrity Guidelines, National Academic Integrity Network
  • QQI (2023), Generative Artificial Intelligence: Guidelines for Educators, National Academic Integrity Network
  • QQI (2023), Framework for Academic Misconduct Investigation and Case Management, National Academic Integrity Network
• ERC (2023), Current position of the ERC Scientific Council on Artificial Intelligence
• Glossary For Academic Integrity – ENAI
• National Academic Integrity Network
• Global Academic Integrity Network
• UCC Student Rules
• UCC Code of Conduct
• Fitness to Practice Policy
• Fitness to Continue Study
• Conflict of Interest
• Records Retention Schedules
• UCC Skills Centre: Academic Integrity
• UCC (2023), Short Guide 9: Assessment in the Age of AI
• UCC Toolkit for the Ethical Use of GenAI
• Academic Integrity - UCC Library
• UCC Student Supports Available
• UCC Groupwork Guidelines

Table of Sanctions

Downloadable PDF of Table of Sanctions

Level 1: Poor Academic Practice    
Level 2: Minor Academic Misconduct    
Level 3: Major Academic Misconduct    
Referral to Deputy President and Registrar

 Level 1: Poor Academic Practice

Possible Penalties

• Marked appropriately for academic content without punitive reduction in marks 

Education and Support

• Refer Student to advice and support
• Student to complete online academic integrity training in the first instance

or

• Student to meet with Academic Integrity Education Officer or their nominee in the Skills Centre

Recording

Level 2: Minor Academic Misconduct

Possible Penalties

• Marked for academic content with an appropriate additional reduction in marks. The sanction will not exceed assigning a mark of zero in the piece of work to which the matter relates.

Note: Where reasonably practicable, students will be able to re-submit the corrected piece of work, capped at pass mark. 

Education and Support

• Refer Student to advice and support
• Student to complete the Academic Integrity Fundamentals Course in the first instance

or

• Student to meet with Academic Integrity Education Officer in the Skills Centre or nominee

Recording

Print to PDF

To save this document as a PDF using MicroSoft Windows use Control P (Ctrl P) 

For MAC use Command P