3.0 Academic misconduct in non-examination conditions
Plagiarism is defined as using, without acknowledgment, the work of another person and submitting it for assessment as though it were your own work; for instance, through copying or unacknowledged paraphrasing. This constitutes plagiarism whether it is intentional or unintentional.
Examples include:
- The use of any quotation(s) from the published or unpublished work of other people which have not been clearly identified as such by being placed in quotation marks and acknowledged through appropriate citation;
- Summarising another person's ideas, judgments, figures, software or diagrams without appropriately attributing that person in the text and the source in the reference list;
- The use of unacknowledged material downloaded or copied from the internet;
- The submission of another student's work as though it was their own.
This list of examples is not exhaustive.
Self-Plagiarism is not recognised in Swansea University regulations. Where a student has self-plagiarised work, the Faculty/School/Partner Institution will mark the work in accordance with the normal marking criteria.
Swansea University regulations do not explicitly ban the use of generative artificial intelligence in the production of original work, but any such use must be within the guidance given for each assignment and be clearly acknowledged and referenced.
Using material generated by artificial intelligence, without due acknowledgment, and submitting it for assessment as though it were your own work may be considered an academic misconduct offence. Students are therefore advised to use such tools with extreme caution in order to ensure both the academic integrity and quality of their work. Examples of use that may constitute academic misconduct include:
- Generating a response to an assignment using ChatGPT or similar and submitting it in whole or in part with only minor amendments
- Copying passages of text generated by artificial intelligence into an assignment without proper acknowledgement or referencing to show where the text originated
- Using generative artificial intelligence to create data, graphs, images, audio or video or any other type of content without proper acknowledgement
This list of examples is not exhaustive.
Minor and unacknowledged use of generative artificial intelligence may be considered poor academic practice (see 3.6). Additionally, unacknowledged text or content that appears to have been generated by artificial intelligence but is considered unsubstantial and/or inconsequential may be reflected in the marking process leading to a lower grade being awarded rather than being treated as an academic misconduct offence.
The University’s Proofreading Policy contains updated guidance regarding the use of artificial intelligence tools and software designed for editing, paraphrasing and translating text. Students should be aware of what is permissible regarding their use when seeking to develop and improve their work.
Collusion is two or more people producing work together and submitting it as the work of an individual.
Examples include:
- Two or more students working together to develop data or other materials without prior authorisation. Such materials would then be presented for assessment without acknowledging the originator(s) of the work.
- Sharing data, materials or other coursework with another student(s) which is then presented for assessment without the knowledge or permission of the originator(s).
Commissioning is the act of paying for, or arranging for another person to produce a piece of work, whether or not this is then submitted for assessment, as though it were the student’s own work. Examples include:
- Commissioning an essay to be written by another person;
- Accessing or downloading materials from essay exchange sites;
- Paying another person for the collection, manipulation or interpretation of data, where this is a requirement of the student’s studies.
This list is not exhaustive. Falsification of the results of laboratory, fieldwork or other forms of data collection and analysis also constitutes academic misconduct.
3.1 Academic integrity vivas as a means of detecting academic misconduct in non-examination conditions at Faculty/School/Partner Institution level
3.1.1
In cases where Faculty/School/Partner Institution academic staff, the Faculty/School/Partner Institution Academic Integrity Officer and/or the University Academic Integrity Lead has concerns about whether a piece of coursework, or any work completed under non-examination conditions and submitted by a student is their own work, the Faculty/School/Partner Institution may invite the student to attend an academic integrity viva. The purpose of the academic integrity viva is to test the student’s knowledge of the work which they have submitted and to provide the student with the opportunity, prior to any academic misconduct proceedings, to demonstrate that the work is their own.
3.1.2
The student should be given no less than two days’ notification of the academic integrity viva in writing. A standard template must be used which will be available from Education Services. The student may be accompanied by a friend or representative from the Students’ Union Advice Centre (contact details for the Advice Centre will be included in the letter). However, such person(s) accompanying the student will not be able to respond to any questions on behalf of the student. The student will be advised to bring with them evidence of preparatory work relating to the submission such as drafts, sources and feedback.
If a student has had any third party assistance with their work (e.g. a proofreader), they will be advised to have available the original unamended copy of the work to assist the interview panel in assessing the extent to which any amendments have impacted on the quality of the work.
The viva will normally be conducted electronically via Zoom/video conferencing and all parties will be expected to enable their webcam.
3.1.3
The viva process would normally involve a panel of at least two members of academic staff, a Chair and a subject expert (usually the module leader or module marker). The panel should not consist of any Faculty/School/Partner Institution Academic Integrity Officers who have been or shall be involved in the particular case. A record of the viva must be kept; this may take the form of written minutes and/or an audio/media recording. At the discretion of the Faculty/School/Partner Institution, a third member of staff may be nominated to record/transcribe the viva.
3.1.4
The terms of reference for the viva panel shall be:
- To test the student’s knowledge of the work they have submitted
- To provide the student with the opportunity, prior to any academic misconduct proceedings, to demonstrate that the work is their own
3.1.5
The procedure during the viva meeting shall be as follows:
- The Chair will ask all participants to introduce themselves;
- The Chair will inform all participants of the terms of reference for the panel;
- The panel may ask questions relating to the work such as: how the student approached the work; what research was carried out; what sources were used and how these were chosen; what the key concepts of the work are, and how ideas/arguments/data was formulated. The student may also be asked to explain particular statements, theories or terms used within their work, and whether they received any help or support from any third party.
3.1.6
The student should be given the opportunity to demonstrate that the work is their own, including the opportunity to present any evidence which they have such as drafts, sources etc.
3.1.7
If the student fails to attend the academic integrity viva without good reason, inferences may be drawn in relation to the student’s failure to attend by the Faculty/School/Partner Institution Academic Integrity Officer and/or Academic Misconduct Committee of Enquiry. Alternatively, where a viva is deemed necessary in order to fairly determine a case, and the student has not attended or responded to an invitation(s) to attend, the student’s marks in the module concerned may be withheld until they engage with the academic misconduct process. The student’s progression/award results may also be withheld by the examination board.
3.1.8
Following the academic integrity viva, the Chair will prepare a report setting out their opinion on the student’s knowledge of the work which they have submitted and the reasons for their opinion.
3.1.9
If the panel, based on the academic judgment of the staff involved, determine that the student has not demonstrated that the assessment is their own work, the Chair will provide to the Faculty/School/Partner Institution Academic Integrity Officer or to the University Academic Integrity Lead (as appropriate) a copy of their report and the recording/transcription of the viva, in addition to the normal supporting paperwork relating to the case. This will normally be within five working days of the date of the student’s academic integrity viva (in accordance with 3.4 below).
If the Panel determines that, based on the academic judgment of the staff involved, the student has demonstrated that the assessed work is their own, the Chair will inform the module leader/marker that the work shall be marked in accordance with the normal assessment criteria for the module. The student shall be informed of this in writing and no further action shall be taken.
3.2 Investigating academic misconduct in non-examination conditions at Faculty/School/Partner Institution level (excludes research degree theses)
Each Faculty/School/Partner Institution shall appoint a minimum of two Academic Integrity Officers to deal with Faculty/School/Partner Institution level cases. In each case, one Academic Integrity Officer will carry out the investigation and make a recommendation on the case.
A second Academic Integrity Officer will be responsible for deciding whether an offence has been committed and, if so, for determining a penalty. The allocation of responsibilities shall be left to the discretion of the Faculty/School/Partner Institution; However, it is the responsibility of the Faculty/School/Partner Institution Academic Integrity Officers to ensure that all staff are aware of the reporting procedure.
In cases of suspected academic misconduct, in work completed under non- examinable conditions (excluding research degree theses), Faculties/Schools/Partner Institutions will be expected to carry out the stages listed below. The burden of proof (duty of proving the allegation) shall rest on the Faculty/School/Partner Institution and the standard of proof should be on the balance of probabilities: a fact will be established if it is more likely than not to have happened. Cases involving research degree theses should be dealt with as directed in section 6.0.
3.3 Procedure for investigating and determining academic misconduct in non-examination conditions at Faculty/School/Partner Institution level
3.4 Stage One - report to First Faculty/School/Partner Institution Academic Integrity Officer
If a member of staff considers, or suspects, that academic misconduct has occurred in relation to any piece of work completed under non-examination conditions (excluding research degree thesis) they shall report the matter in writing (via email) and provide any relevant evidence to the First Faculty/School/Partner Institution Academic Integrity Officer, normally within five working days of their consideration of the student’s work or the student’s academic integrity viva. The work concerned would not normally be marked and the module result would not normally be made available to the student until the academic misconduct case had been concluded.
The member of staff (or their colleague) may require the student to attend an academic integrity viva to test the student’s knowledge of the work submitted before reporting the matter to the First Faculty/School/Partner Institution Academic Integrity Officer/University Academic Integrity Lead, in accordance with 3.1 above.
3.5 Stage Two - establishing a prima facie case
The Faculty/School/Partner Institution’s First Academic Integrity Officer or nominee shall firstly determine whether a prima facie case of academic misconduct exists by referring to the documentation/evidence and, where required, through discussion with the student.
The First Academic Integrity Officer may request that an academic member of staff conducts an academic integrity viva to test the student’s knowledge of the work submitted, in accordance with 3.1 above.
Cases involving students of The College, Swansea University on integrated programmes shall be dealt with by the Faculty/School in accordance with regulations 3.3 to 3.12.
In cases involving only a student(s) of The College, Swansea University on a non-integrated programme, the case should be referred to The College, Swansea University.
If no prima facie case of academic misconduct exists, the student should be informed and no further formal action shall be taken.
3.6 Poor academic practice
In cases where a student is early in their academic career and there are minor infringements, the Academic Integrity Officer may determine that a student has failed to understand the referencing requirements and poor academic practice, rather than academic misconduct, has occurred.
The following groups of students would be considered as early in their academic career:
• Level 3 and 4
• The first teaching block of the programme for direct entry Level 5,6 and 7
• Top Up Degree students
Typical instances would include very minor and/or relatively insignificant cases of:
• Poor referencing;
• Incorrect (or an absence of) attribution for copied work inserted in an assignment;
• A small amount of work copied from another student or produced by generative AI (artificial intelligence) systems;
• A small amount of paraphrasing without adequate attribution.
In such cases the student will be issued an informal warning and be referred to appropriate sources of advice (such as the Personal Tutor, the subject librarian, online training courses and the Centre for Academic Success) for guidance on correct referencing and good academic practice. Normally only one informal warning may be given. However, the Academic Integrity Officer, with reference to the above, may exercise their discretion and award a further informal warning.
The School/Faculty/Partner Institution will mark the work in accordance with normal marking criteria. Such cases will be noted but will not be recorded as academic misconduct. Any subsequent offences will be considered under the academic misconduct procedures.