Part L – Academic Offences 

1 Introduction 

  

1.1 Students are expected to behave with honesty and integrity in relation to assessments. It is a student’s responsibility to familiarise and act in accordance with conventions of academic writing and examination conduct, including appropriate referencing of sources, acknowledgement of assistance, acting ethically and complying with relevant instructions, policies or procedures. A student who does not comply with these requirements may be found to have committed an academic offence. 

  

1.2 The University applies the principle of strict liability to academic offences: this means a student’s intentions will not be considered relevant when judging whether they have committed an offence. For example, if a student submits an essay which contains, without necessary acknowledgement, substantial material produced by another person, they may be judged to be guilty of plagiarism even if they claim the lack of proper acknowledgement was mistaken or inadvertent. Whilst a student’s intentions are not relevant to whether they have committed the offence, they could be relevant when an adjudicator considers application of penalties for proven offences. The University recognises that students may make genuine errors. The process includes the opportunity to explain the circumstances and provides support and guidance. 

  

2 Academic Offence Definitions 

  

2.1 The following are examples of academic offences in respect of assessment (list not exhaustive): 

  

2.1.i Collusion, which is submitting work for assessment which has been done in collaboration with another person but presenting it as entirely one’s own, or collaborating with another student on work which is then submitted for assessment as that other student’s work. Collusion does not apply in the case of the submission of group projects, or assessments that are intended to be produced collaboratively. 

2.1.ii Plagiarism, which is passing off another person’s thoughts, ideas, writings, or images as one’s own in assessed work without appropriate acknowledgement.  

2.1.iii Self-plagiarism, which is a student using their own work that has previously been submitted for assessment (for which credit has already been awarded) at the University or elsewhere, without proper acknowledgement, in any subsequently assessed work. 

2.1.iv Misleading material: Inclusion of data or evidence which has been invented, falsified, improperly altered or obtained by unfair means. This includes passing off data from previous studies as if conducted by the student or by offering incentives to another person to provide material or otherwise to assist in producing evidence for assessment.   

2.1.v Cheating: which is, any irregular behaviour during live assessment such as unauthorised possession of notes; copying another candidate’s work; using programmable calculators or other equipment (such as phones and smartwatches) unless expressly authorised; unauthorised obtaining of examination papers. This also covers the use of any form of communication (whether verbal or digital) between students during live assessments in order to gain an unfair advantage.  

2.1.vi Contract Cheating: The outsourcing of assessment work, in whole or in part, to any third party, (i.e. commercial provider, current or former student, acquaintance or family member).    

2.1.vii Misconduct in Research: The fabrication or falsification of data; misrepresentation of data and/or interests and or involvement, or the failure to follow accepted procedures or to exercise due care in carrying out responsibilities for avoiding unreasonable risk or harm to research subjects or participants or the environment. This also includes improper handling of privileged or private information on individuals collected during the research. Allegations of misconduct in research made against postgraduate research students shall be dealt with under the UK Research Integrity Office's (UKRIO) Procedure for the Investigation of Misconduct in Research, and not under the Academic Offences Regulations. PGR Progression Boards shall decide, for each individual case referred to it, whether it is competent to examine the evidence and determine whether or not the allegation is proven, or whether the case should be referred to for consideration under the UKRIO procedure. 

2.1.viii Unauthorised use of artificial intelligence (AI): The unauthorised use of AI, in whole or in part, to mean - the use of AI tools or outputs in academic work without explicit, documented permission from the relevant academic staff. This includes, but is not limited to, submitting AI-generated content as original work (including generating substantive text, code or images), using AI to paraphrase or translate without disclosure, generation of references or relying on AI to complete assessments in ways that contravene assessment guidelines. Students are responsible for ensuring that any AI use complies with module-specific instructions and University policies. Supplementary to these regulations, the University advises reading the AI Academic Offence guidance document available here https://lncn.ac/aiaoguidance  

  

3 Reporting an alleged Academic Offence  

  

3.1 A member of staff may initiate these procedures at any point it is suspected that an academic offence has been committed, by notifying their Head of School (or nominee, such as the Subject Area Leads in the Lincoln  Business School) and providing evidence for the grounds of suspicion. Such suspicion may arise during the marking of a student’s work, review of work by an external examiner, exam invigilation, use of a plagiarism checking tool, or following a report made by another student or third-party.  

  

3.2 Whilst alleged academic offences in summative assessments will be investigated in accordance with these regulations, formative assessments are designed to support students to learn and develop their academic practice, including learning about the potential for academic offence. Therefore, no informal or formal investigatory procedures should be undertaken or penalties applied in relation to formative assessments. Where potential academic offences are identified within formative assessments, it is recommended a tutorial be arranged by the School with the student to explain the concern and how this can be rectified for future assessment. As per the University’s Management of Assessment Policy: 

  

3.2.i Formative assessment is used to monitor and evaluate how students are learning as they work through a module or programme of study. It is designed to help students learn more effectively by giving them feedback on their performance and how it can be improved and/or maintained. It begins with diagnostic assessment, indicating what is already known and what gaps may exist in skills or knowledge. Formative assessment does not contribute towards credit. 

  

3.2.ii Summative assessment sums up what a student has achieved at the end of a period of study. The assessment is used to certify that students have achieved an appropriate level of performance, and it will indicate how far a student has met the assessment criteria used to judge the intended learning outcomes of a module or programme 

  

3.3 Should another student, or third-party wish to raise a concern about a suspected academic offence, they should submit their concern to Legal and Compliance Services who will assess the report and make a decision whether to refer the report to the relevant Head of School (or nominee). A named record will be required as evidence and reasonable enquiries may be made to ascertain the validity of a reporting individual’s assertions. Reports by other students or third parties must normally be submitted within three months of the alleged occurrence of the offence. Anonymous allegations will not normally be acted upon. Details of how the report is handled and any associated outcomes will not be shared with the reporting party. 

  

3.4 The Head of School (or nominee) will appoint an investigator from within the School.  

  

3.5 Where the student is studying a programme in more than one School, the School that owns the module in which the allegation has arisen will be responsible for investigating the allegation.  

  

4 Investigation  

  

4.1 The Investigator will give written notice that an alleged academic offence is to be investigated, confirmation of the unit of assessment/module subject of the investigation and will set out the basis for suspicion. The Investigator will summarise the nature of the process, including whether the informal procedure is applicable in the student’s case and what this entails.  

  

4.2 In cases where a meeting takes place: 

4.2.i The student will be informed of their right to be accompanied to any investigatory meetings by a supporter and signposted to Student Support and the Students’ Union Advice Centre for advice and support.  

4.2.ii A supporter must either be a fellow student, a member of staff or a staff member from the Students’ Union Advice Centre and must not be related to the matter in any way. A supporter will not be allowed to contribute materially to the investigative procedure. If the supporter acts outside of these parameters the meeting will be suspended, and the supporter will be asked to leave. If the student is unable to continue the meeting without the supporter, it will be at the investigator’s discretion (based on the context of what has occurred and based on what evidence has been obtained at that point) as to whether one further attempt to hold the meeting shall be made. Further details on the role of supporters can be found here: https://lncn.ac/supporter 

4.2.iii Where a student is under the age of 18 they are entitled to invite a parent or guardian as a supporter.   

4.2.iv The Investigator can be accompanied to any investigatory meetings by a staff member whose role is to take minutes of the interview. 

4.2.v Where students are unable to attend the meeting they should notify the relevant staff members at least 24 hours prior where possible.  

4.2.vi Meetings will typically take place online, where students require a reasonable adjustment for the meeting to take place in person they should contact the staff member arranging the meeting.  

4.2.vii For meetings taking place online students will be asked to have their camera on to confirm the student's identity. 

4.2.viii Students can request to take breaks during the meeting or request to submit a written response instead. 

4.2.ix Notes are typically taken using an AI transcription feature and reviewed by the academic conducting the interview prior to a copy being sent to the student. Once the student has provided clarifications, or if they have not responded in the given deadline, the copy of notes will act as the sole record of meeting minutes moving forward and the transcript will typically be deleted, unless in exceptional circumstances.  

4.2.x Where parties do not wish for the AI transcription feature to be used, they should declare this no later than 2 workings days before the meeting so that a notetaker can be arranged. A new meeting slot may be necessary where notetakers are unavailable for the original slot. 

4.2.xi In some cases, a notetaker may be invited as well as using the AI transcription feature. Students will be informed of this in writing in advance of the meeting. 

   

4.3 An investigator may make enquiries as they deem reasonable as part of their investigation. 

  

4.4 If the student provides a satisfactory defence at any stage of the process, an investigator will dismiss the allegation and ensure this outcome is communicated to both the student and relevant School colleagues, in writing. 

  

4.5 If, after being given reasonable notice and opportunity to respond in writing or attend an investigatory interview, the student does not attend/respond, the Head of School (or nominee) will determine whether a sufficient case of an academic offence exists based on the evidence available. The Head of School (or nominee) will then proceed as appropriate. 

  

Informal Procedure 

  

4.6 The informal procedure is intended to be educational and supportive. Whilst a written response to the allegations can suffice and should be prioritised, an interview may be more appropriate for the concern raised, or requested by a student as a reasonable adjustment. The conversation is about the correct application of academic conventions, albeit one which ensure the University upholds the integrity of its awards. 

  

4.7 The informal procedure is not available in any case where the allegation relates to misconduct in an examination, or where a previous allegation against the student has been upheld. 

 

4.8 Where students openly admit to an academic offence, a more lenient penalty (one of either penalties A or B as under and per paragraph 6.1) will be applied by the investigator. The investigator will ensure the penalty is communicated to both the student and School colleagues, in writing. Reassessment entitlements, as appropriate, will be granted at the next available opportunity by the Board of Examiners. 

  

4.9 If the student denies the offence, the Formal Procedure will commence. 

  

Formal Procedure 

4.10 The formal procedure will comprise the following:   

4.10.i The student will be invited to give their defence, and to provide appropriate evidence, including presenting any mitigating factors; 

4.10.ii The investigator will ask the student questions about the allegation, any defence or evidence the student presents, the assessed work or techniques used to complete it. 

 

4.11 If necessary, the investigator may adjourn the interview to allow further enquiries to be made, such as where the student introduces new material evidence during the interview, where an investigator determines specialist input into the investigatory interview is required, or where a student admits to an offence which was not originally being investigated. The outcomes of the further enquiries shall be communicated to the student and the interview shall then be rearranged as soon as possible. Should a specialist be called to ask the student questions about the work or the techniques used, this will be confirmed with the student in advance of the rearranged interview.    

 

4.12 Where a new or revised academic offence is identified during the investigatory process, students should be given opportunity to respond to this allegation. The student may be questioned on this during the interview or as per the above be invited to an additional meeting, or invited to fill in a questionnaire. Where the enquiries take place during the original meeting students should be given opportunity to provide any further evidence they wish to be considered to the investigator following the meeting. 

 

4.13 The minutes of the interview(s) shall be prepared promptly. The student will be provided with a copy of the minutes and invited to request amendments for accuracy as appropriate.  

 

4.14 The investigator shall provide the Head of School (or nominee) with the agreed investigatory interview minutes and copies of any further evidence obtained. The Head of School (or nominee) shall decide if a sufficient case of an academic offence has been established:   

4.14.i Where a sufficient case has been established, the Head of School (or nominee) shall arrange for all documentation as directed by the evidence checklist to be submitted to the College Academic Offences Committee via the Legal and Compliance Services team. 

4.14.ii If not, no further action shall be taken, and the student shall be notified accordingly. 

4.15 If a student admits to an offence within the formal procedure, and where a more lenient penalty would have been applied if eligible and admitted under the informal procedure, the investigator may revert to apply a penalty as under paragraph 4.10. 

 

4.16 The Legal and Compliances Team and the Panel can request further information from the school or student or request that a student be given further opportunity to respond where new allegations are identified and they have not already had the opportunity to respond to these. Where this has an impact on the students case going to the next panel they will be informed of this. 

 

5 College Academic Offences Committees 

5.1 Any person with involvement in the allegation or the investigation is precluded from the consideration of the offence or its penalty at College Academic Offences Committee meetings. 

 

5.2 College Academic Offences Committees comprise a Chair (as nominated by the Head of College), at least three senior members of academic staff, and a representative from the Students’ Union. Colleges may name a Deputy Chair to support case handling and oversight of academic offences, themes and trends within Colleges. The committee may request the attendance of colleagues specialising in digital pedagogies.  

 

5.3 College Academic Offences Committees delegate authority to their respective Chairs (or named Deputies in their absence) to make preliminary decisions on allegations of academic offences on the Committee’s behalf. This enables allegations to be dealt with in a timely manner when a higher volume of cases are submitted for decision. A log of all preliminary decisions made by the Chair will be provided to the College Academic Offences Committee at its next meeting for approval. Committee members may open any case handled in such a way to full Committee scrutiny upon request. 

 

5.4 The standard of proof required under these regulations is the balance of probabilities. To find an allegation proven, the Committee must be satisfied that it is more likely than not that the alleged offence in question occurred, based on available evidence. 

 

5.5 Where allegations are proven, penalties will be applied with the Committee having taken into consideration all the evidence presented including any mitigating and aggravating factors which might mean either a more lenient or severe penalty should be applied. Such factors include:  

  

5.5.i Continuity: Repeat academic offences should generally be dealt with more severely than a first offence. The Committee will not normally apply an ‘enhanced’ penalty for a first-time offence which removes the possibility of continuation, completion or graduation unless the circumstances are severe.   

5.5ii Premeditation: A planned act will normally be considered more serious than an impulsive or inadvertent action.    

5.5iii Scale and Extent: The quantum and severity or extensive use of academic misconduct will be dealt with more severely than a lesser amount.    

5.5iv Theft of Materials: An academic offence that involves the theft of another person’s assessed work will be dealt with more severely.    

5.5.v Other Students: A more severe penalty may apply where the academic offence adversely affects other students.    

5.5.vi Engagement: Expression of remorse, level of understanding and transparency in an investigatory procedure may mean a proven offence is dealt with more leniently.    

5.5.vii Personal Circumstances: Compelling, relevant and evidenced, personal circumstances which affected a student’s judgment, may mean a proven offence is dealt with more leniently.    

5.5.viii Impact: The potential impact on the continuation, completion and/or award classification of the student will be considered.  

 

5.6 Outcomes will be communicated to students in writing within 5 working days of Committee meetings, the minute of the meeting will give a clear explanation of  the reasons for each decision and any penalty. This will include an explanation as to why any lesser penalties were deemed not applicable in the student’s case. The student will be informed of their right to appeal.  

 

6 Penalties  

6.1 One or more of the below penalties may be applied in cases of proven offences. The Investigator (informal procedure) or College Academic Offences Committee (formal procedure) will, where applicable and in respect of the penalty applied, make a recommendation to the Board of Examiners whether or not to restore the right to reassessment.   

 

A. Warn the student against any future academic offence but impose no other penalty. 

B. Record a mark of zero for the piece of assessed work or examination only. 

C. Record a mark of zero for every assessment item within the module. 

D. For undergraduate and postgraduate taught students, to reduce by a single classification the final award to be conferred at the conclusion of the programme, or, where the final award is the lowest classification available, that the award be reduced to the prior intermediate award.  

E. Record a mark of zero for every assessment item within all modules during the academic level. 

 

6.2 The Committees will recommend applicable penalties consistently, with due consideration of the potential impact on the continuation, completion, and/or award classification of the student. 

6.3 Where the outcome of a proven academic offence removes the right to re-assessment, even after initial failure, this may result in failure of an award and could remove a student’s ability to continue to the next level of study or complete programme. 

6.4 Where an allegation relates to a resit examination and Penalty B is applied, the original mark achieved at the first attempt shall be reinstated, provided that the first attempt was not itself subject to Penalty B as the outcome of a separate academic offence investigation. 

6.5 In addition, a student against whom an academic offence is proven may also be subject to action under the Student Misconduct Regulations and/or the Fitness to Practise Regulations. 

 

7 Appeals   

  

7.1 A student may submit an appeal within 10 working days of being notified of any finding or penalty under either of the informal or formal procedures. Appeals must be logged on the designated proforma available from the Legal and Compliance Services team. 

  

7.2 The only grounds on which a student may appeal are:   

7.2.i Irregularity in application of the relevant procedure under these regulations; 

7.2.ii The student has new material evidence that they were incapable, for valid reasons, of providing earlier in the process.  

  

7.3 Appeals will be heard by a nominee of the Head of College, who has had no prior involvement in the case, with a decision made within 10 working days of them receiving the appeal. 

  

7.4 A successful appeal will result in reconsideration of the decision, by a Head of School in informal cases, or by the College Academic Offences Committee in formal cases.   

  

8 Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education  

  

8.1 A student dissatisfied with the final decision of the University regarding the handling of an academic offences allegation has the right to submit a complaint to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA), an independent review body, for the outcome to be reviewed independently of the University. 

  

8.2 The right to complaint to the OIA can normally only be exercised when the University’s internal processes have been completed, and a completion of procedures letter has been issued. 

  

8.3 An OIA Complaint Form must be completed, and this must be submitted to the OIA within 12 months of the date of the Completion of Procedures letter. 

  

8.4 Guidance on making a complaint to the OIA can be found on the OIA’s website. 

  

8.5 Students may seek advice about OIA complaints from the Student Support and Advice Centre and the Students’ Union Advice Centre.