Academic Integrity for Examinations and Assessments Policy
Academic Integrity for Examinations and Assessments Policy
Version: 1.1
Review date: 18 September 2024
Policy Owner: Deputy President and Registrar
Approved by: Academic Board 18 September 2024; Academic Council 11 October 2024
Next review: Within 3 years subject to national and/or EU developments
Contents
- Purpose of the Policy
- Scope
- Definitions
- Roles and Responsibilities
- Best Practise
- Suspected Academic Misconduct
- Classification and Cumulation
- Major Alleged Academic Misconduct Procedures
- Conflicts of Interest
- Appeals
- Record Keeping
- Other Legal and Ethical Issues
- References & Resources
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 has behaved in a way which undermines the integrity of the assessment. UCC is a member of the National Academic Integrity Network (NAIN). This policy sets out UCC’s definition of academic integrity with regard to Examinations and Assessments; details forms of academic misconduct; signposts supports for staff and students; and, outlines the procedures for the investigation of alleged cases of academic misconduct for examinations and assessments.
2. Scope
2.1 This policy applies to all material presented or submitted by students for examination, assessment or credit apart from allegations of academic misconduct in Research Theses (Doctorates and Masters by Research) which are handled by a separate policy. Where there is doubt as to which policy applies, the Deputy President and Registrar or their nominee shall make a binding determination.
3. Definitions
UCC has adopted elements of the definitions of the National Academic Integrity Network (NAIN) as follows:
3.1 Academic Integrity – As described above in the introduction, and involves 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.
3.2 Academic Misconduct - Any action, or attempted action that undermines or contravenes academic integrity and may result in an unfair advantage or disadvantage for any member of the academic community or wider society.
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 Forms of Academic Misconduct include but are not limited to, the following;
- Cheating – Actions that attempt to get advantage by means 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.
- Cumulation effect – Where continued poor academic practice and repeated minor instances of academic misconduct are treated as a case of major academic misconduct.
- Unethical Use of AI – Academic Integrity is breached if students submit the products of GenAI as their own work without acknowledgement and without authorisation to use GenAI in fulfilling the task.
- Plagiarism - Presenting work / ideas taken from other sources without proper acknowledgement whether done deliberately, inadvertently or carelessly.
Types of Plagiarism include but are not limited to:
- Collusion – a joint effort 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 and allows them to present it as their own.
- 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.
4. Roles and Responsibilities
4.1 University
4.1.1 The University is responsible for establishing and updating the policy and standards for academic integrity with reference to national and international standards.
4.2 Students
4.2.1 Students are obliged to uphold academic integrity; they 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.
4.2.2 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.
4.3 Schools, Departments and Academic Staff
4.3.1 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.
4.3.2 Schools and Departments are responsible for record keeping related to cases of alleged
academic misconduct.
4.3.3 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.
4.3.4 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. Academic staff are also responsible for notifying students of any additional academic integrity requirements related to the discipline or course of study.
4.3.5 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 of academic misconduct.
4.4 Deputy President & Registrar’s Offices
4.4.1 The Examinations and Records Officer is responsible for investigating suspected cases of academic misconduct referred to them by Heads of Schools/Departments and maintaining appropriate records of cases.
4.1.2 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.
5. Best Practise
5.1 Staff and students are required to 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 presented and/or 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 and 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 the ethical use of GenAI 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. Suspected Academic Misconduct
6.1 Apart from allegations of academic misconduct in Research Theses which are handled by a separate policy, 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 academic misconduct arising from an invigilated or non-invigilated examination or assessment, then the marker or member of academic staff concerned 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 for the School or Department staff to engage with the student and remind them of the necessity of good academic practice 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 The cumulation effect of poor academic practices findings and alleged academic misconduct by students may also be considered. Repeated cases of poor academic practice, for example, may be considered as academic misconduct and may warrant level B or C being invoked to address same.
A. Poor Academic Practise
7.3 The Head of School/ Department or their nominee or School/ Department staff may make a determination that the allegation does not amount to academic misconduct or that it is a minor instance of poor academic practice which can be handled locally. The student is notified, reminded of the necessity of good academic practice and referred to further advice and support. A record is kept for potential cumulations effects. The work is marked as normal on its merits and without punitive marking. There is no right of appeal apart from the usual exam appeals process.
7.4 Suspicion of Academic Misconduct
If the Head of School/ Department or their nominee suspects that academic misconduct has occurred, they will inform the student in writing (via their UCC email address) of the allegation and prior findings, if any, of academic misconduct and provide the student with an opportunity to provide an explanation in writing (Personal Statement) within a specified timeframe. The Student must be advised that if they do not provide a response and/or a Personal Statement, the matter will be determined in the absence of same. The Student must be advised about sources of support such as those provided by Student Support services and by the Student’s Union. 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 decide upon one of the following outcomes depending on the severity of the case:
B. Minor Alleged Academic Misconduct (Local determination)
The Head of School 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 matter 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
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, 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 (if provided).
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 and the Head of the Relevant College 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 That a breach of this Policy has not occurred – the matter will end there with no penalty applied. The assessment component grade will stand.
8.5.2 That a breach of this Policy has occurred – one of the following decisions may be taken;
(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.
8.5.3 Refer the alleged instance, without any decision, but citing their reason(s) for being unable to make a determination or to consider the alleged instance, to the Deputy President and Registrar or their nominee and Chairperson of the Student Discipline Committee or their nominee for investigation and determination. In some contexts, a first instance may require direct referral e.g. if for a second or subsequent breach of the Policy (or the previous UCC Plagiarism Policy)
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, they will convene a meeting to consider the relevant information. The student will be invited to submit an explanation in writing (Supplemental Personal Statement) for consideration or to attend such a meeting in person to make a verbal presentation setting out their position/response 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. 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, based on the available evidence/information.
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 determinations:
8.8.1 That no breach of this Policy has occurred – the matter will end there with no penalty applied.
8.8.2 That a breach of the Policy has occurred – a penalty of one or more of either
(A) a reduction of marks of up to 15 percentage points for the examination/assessment concerned;
(B) assigning a mark of zero for the examination/assessment concerned;
(C) Assigning a mark of zero for the module of which the examination/assessment was a component part;
(D) requiring the student to complete an academic integrity digital badge or similar.
8.8.3 That the alleged breach of this Policy is a possible breach of the Student Rules and requires referral of the case to the Student Discipline Committee for consideration as a possible breach of the Student Rules.
8.8.4 That the alleged breach of this Policy is a potential breach of the Fitness to Practise Policy and requires referral for consideration as possible breach of the policy.
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 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.
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 to appeal the determination of either minor or major academic misconduct (B or C) 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
(a) new information, which was not, for good reason, available to the original decision makers;
(b) evidence of maladministration or mishandling of the appeal, which has impacted the outcome; or
(c) a disproportionate penalty was applied considering the level of academic misconduct.
10.2 In relation to claims of a disproportionate penalty, it should be noted that penalties relate to the level of academic misconduct (including cumulation effects) only and hardship or other issues cannot be taken into account.
10.3 Appeals against the determination of either minor or major academic misconduct (B or C) at the conclusion of these processes must be made in writing within 10 working days of receiving the determination by writing with the grounds of appeal to the Academic Secretary. The appeal will be considered by the DPR (or their nominee) and the Chair of the Student Discipline Committee (or their nominee) who will determine the outcome at their sole discretion.
10.4 Where a student wishes to appeal a determination made following referral of the case to either the DPR (or their nominee) and the Chair of the Student Discipline Committee (or their nominee) or following referral of the case to the Student Discipline Committee, they may use the Academic Council Appeal process outlined in the Student Rules.
11. Record Keeping
11.1 Appropriate records need to be kept by the School/Department and SREO to aid investigations and to consider alleged cumulation effects 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”.
1. NAIN (2021) Academic Integrity: National Principles and Lexicon of Common Terms drawing on ENAI Glossary
for Academic Integrity – Academic Misconduct. [Accessed 13th April 2021]
13. References & Resources
Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI)
- QQI (2021), Academic Integrity: National Principles and Lexicon of Common Terms, National Academic Integrity Network.
- 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.
UCC (2023), Short Guide 9: Assessment in the Age of AI
UCC Toolkit for the Ethical Use of GenAI
UCC Skills Centre: Academic Integrity
Glossary For Academic Integrity– ENAI
Academic Integrity - UCC Library
National Academic Integrity Network
Global Academic Integrity Network
UCC Student Supports Available
Appendix 1 - Table of Penalties
| Poor Academic Practice |
Marked appropriately for academic content without punitive reduction in marks Refer student to advice and support
Note: Record for cumulation effect |
| Minor |
One of the following:
Note: Repeat (if required) capped at pass mark Record for cumulation effect |
| Major |
One of the following:
Note: Repeat (if required) capped at pass mark Record for cumulation effect |
| Referred to DPR |
One or more of the following:
Or: Refer to Student Discipline Or: Refer to Student Fitness to Practise
Note: Repeat (if required) capped at pass mark Record for cumulation effect |
| Referred to Student Discipline Committee |
A range of penalties are outlined in the Student Rules |
| Referred to FTP |
A range of penalties are outlined in the Fitness to Practise Policy |
Review and Approval
| Approval Body | Date approved |
|---|---|
| Academic Board | 06-06-2024 |
| Academic Board | 18-09-2024 |
| Academic Council | 11-10-2024 |
Print to PDF
To save this document as a PDF using MicroSoft Windows use Control P (Ctrl P)
For MAC use Command P