Skip to content | Change text size

Plagiarism Procedures

Parent Policy

Plagiarism Policy

Plagiarism occurs when students fail to acknowledge that the ideas of others are being used. Specifically it occurs when:

  • other people’s work and/or ideas are paraphrased and presented without a reference;
  • other students’ work is copied or partly copied;
  • other people’s designs, codes or images are presented as the student’s own work;
  • phrases and passages are used verbatim without quotation marks and/or without a reference to the author or a web page;
  • lecture notes are reproduced without due acknowledgement.

1. Faculties must adhere to the University’s definition of plagiarism. Links to the Plagiarism Policy and Procedures must be incorporated into the University’s Student Services and Faculty websites. In addition, Faculties will provide statements that explain the nature of plagiarism as it applies to the faculty’s fields and disciplines. Faculties will make students aware that the Library provides assistance in essay writing and the appropriate use and acknowledgement of sources, including citation techniques.

Responsibility

Student Services
Faculty Managers

2. To minimise the incidence of plagiarism, students are required to submit an Assessment Cover Sheet (rtf 46kb) for non-examination assessment which should contain:

  • the approved definition of plagiarism;
  • a statement on collusion;
  • the approved Privacy Statement;
  • a certification by the student:

    a. that plagiarism or collusion has not occurred;

    b. whether the assignment is original or has been previously submitted as part of another unit/subject/course;

    c. that proper care of safeguarding their work and all reasonable effort to ensure it could not be copied was taken;

    d. that the assessor of the assignment may for the purposes of assessment, reproduce the assignment and:

    1. provide to another member of faculty; and/or
    2. submit it to a plagiarism service; and/or
    3. submit it to a plagiarism service (which may then retain a copy of the assignment on its database for the purpose of future plagiarism checking);

          e. that they [the student] understand the consequences of engaging in plagiarism as described in University Statute 4.1 Part III – Academic Misconduct.

Responsibility

Students

3. Staff involved in assessment will explain the meaning of collusion and will give students clear instructions as to whether they are permitted to work on an assignment jointly.

Responsibility

Staff involved in unit assessment

Findings regarding intent

4. When plagiarism is suspected, a staff member involved in unit assessment is required to put the matter to the student, identify the passages which are alleged to be plagiarised and their source and report the matter to the Chief Examiner (or nominee). If it is alleged that an internet site is the source of plagiarism, it would be advisable to print out the material in case the site is changed.

Responsibility

Staff involved in unit assessment

5. If collusion is suspected, the matter will be reported in accordance with University Statute 4.1 – Discipline.

Responsibility

Chief Examiner (or nominee)

6. Before the Chief Examiner (or nominee) makes a decision as to whether plagiarism was intentional the Chief Examiner (or nominee) must put the matter to the student and give them an opportunity to respond. This is best done by calling the student to a meeting, and giving them particulars of the plagiarism. The student should be informed of the provisions of the Statute 4.1 – Discipline as to what penalties may be applied if cheating is found to have occurred. If the student is unable to attend a meeting, particulars of the plagiarism should be put to the student in writing, and the student should be asked to respond within 10 working days from receipt of the written communication (see sample letter of notification rtf 6kb).

Responsibility

Chief Examiner (or nominee)
Student

7. The Chief Examiner (or nominee) is required to decide whether or not they believe that plagiarism was likely to have been intentional or unintentional. There are a number of factors that might be taken into consideration when deciding whether plagiarism was intentional or unintentional, e.g.:

  • the student is in the first year of the course and has not received a prior warning;
  • the student is from an educational background where different norms apply for the acknowledgement of sources;
  • a negligible amount has been plagiarised;
  • the student has made an inadequate attempt at referencing;
  • that the students in the cohort were given information on how to acknowledge extracts and quotations. The student was present/received written information and knew that the use of material without acknowledgement was unacceptable;
  • that the student had received a prior warning about plagiarism or has been disciplined for plagiarism.

Responsibility

Chief Examiner (or nominee)

Unintentional Plagiarism

8. Should the Chief Examiner (or nominee) have reasonable grounds to find that plagiarism was not intentional a decision will be made within 10 working days as to the course of action to be taken. Possible actions are:

  • warn the student and mark the paper without penalty (deduction of marks);  or
  • warn the student and mark the paper with penalty; or
  • warn the student, request resubmission, and mark the paper with penalty.

9. Warnings and outcomes must be communicated in writing to the student and will be kept on register (see Plagiarism Register). The Deputy University Solicitor has prepared a standard warning letter (rtf 6kb) to be sent to students in such instances. Students will be advised (in the letters) that copies of the letters will be retained on the plagiarism register while they are still enrolled or intermitted in any course.

Responsibility

Chief Examiner (or nominee)

Intentional Plagiarism

10. Before the Chief Examiner (or nominee) determines that cheating through intentional plagiarism has occurred, they must consider the student’ response (if any) to the allegation. If the Chief Examiner has delegated to a nominee the task of giving the student a hearing, the Chief Examiner must ensure that they have a full and accurate record of what the student said.

Responsibility

Chief Examiner (or nominee)
Student

11. If the student fails to respond to an accusation of intentional plagiarism or cannot convince the Chief Examiner (or nominee) that the plagiarism was unintentional, the Chief Examiner (or nominee) will disallow the work or report the matter to the Faculty Manager of the managing faculty.

Responsibility

Chief Examiner (or nominee)

12. If reported, the Faculty Manager of the managing faculty is required to establish a Faculty Discipline Committee within 10 working days of the misconduct being reported.

Responsibility

Faculty Manager of the managing faculty

13. Where work is disallowed by the Chief Examiner (or nominee), this must be reported in writing to the student and the Associate Dean (Teaching). The notification will be kept on the plagiarism register and must include the basis on which the staff member involved in unit assessment believes the plagiarism to be intentional. Students must be informed (in the letter) of appeal rights and timelines (see standard disallowance letter rtf 14kb).

Responsibility

Chief Examiner (or nominee)
Faculty Manager of the managing faculty

14. After receiving notification of disallowance of a piece of work, the student has 20 working days to appeal in writing to the Faculty Manager of the managing faculty.

Responsibility

Student

15. Once an appeal has been lodged, the Faculty Manager of the managing faculty has 20 working days to establish a faculty Discipline Committee as set out in University Statute 4.1 – Discipline.

Responsibility

Faculty Manager of the managing faculty

16. A Faculty Discipline Committee established as the result of a student appeal will determine that appeal. The student may appeal that decision to a Central Discipline Committee (Appeals) within 20 working days of the decision on grounds of excessive penalty, bias, significant procedural irregularity, or new evidence not reasonably available at the time.

Responsibility

Faculty Discipline Committee

Plagiarism Register

17. A register will be maintained to record:

  • warnings that have been given to students about plagiarism, even where no formal action has been taken or penalty applied;
  • penalties applied and the nature of those penalties.

18. Records regarding a student’s involvement in alleged plagiarism will be retained for seven years (if no disciplinary action was taken) or 15 years (where a penalty or disciplinary action was incurred), and otherwise for seven years.

Responsibility

Faculty Manager of the managing faculty

19. The register will be accessible only to staff authorised by Deans and the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) and where requested, students concerned will have access to their own details in the register.

Responsibility

Deans
Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education)

Monitoring of Websites relating to Plagiarism

20. Websites relating to electronic plagiarism, for example cheat sites, paper mills, detection software, and plagiarism education must be monitored by the Director of the Centre for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching (CALT) and be reported to the Education Committee.

Responsibility

Director, CALT

Content Enquiries: Education Policy Unit