Academic Integrity

Academic Integrity Resources

The University provides a range of support services to help you with your academic skills.

LibGuides

LibGuides is a collection of online resources and guides to aid students with their academic practices. LibGuides also contains full guides on referencing conventions for reference systems used by the University.

You can find the full catalogue here.

Additionally, the Students' Guild has produced a Reference Right Website for all students to use: Reference Right (exeterguild.com). 

Study Skills Team (Exeter Campuses) and ASK: Academic Skills Team (Cornwall Campuses)

These teams can help students to develop personal learning strategies and discuss specific questions relating to students work. Students can develop their skills as critical thinkers and writers, learn new tips, and improve their academic performance. The teams run regular workshops on all aspects of study skills, provide online study guides and learning resources and offer individual guidance through one-to-one appointments.

For more information on the services available please visit their website. 

English Language Skills Development programme (Insessional Support)

English Language Skills Development (The Insessional programme) is a university-funded programme open to all students who are non-native speakers of English. They provide an extensive range of workshops, courses, online resources and one-to-one tutorials in English for academic purposes and social and cultural English. They can give guidance and advice on the many language factors associated with good academic practice, including: strategies for reading, paraphrase and summary, incorporating sources into writing, and referencing. You can find out more about the programme by visiting the website https://www.exeter.ac.uk/into/englishlanguage/about/.

In order to participate you should register with the programme here. If you are not sure which type of support is most appropriate, please email insessional@exeter.ac.uk. If you are a tutor and would like to refer a student for specific support, please email Emma Sweeney in the first instance. 

Workshops on Avoiding Plagiarism and Practical Skills for Paraphrasing

This class will offer opportunities to develop your skills for incorporating sources more effectively and responsibly. You will:

• Review academic honesty rules and what they mean for writing.
• Explore what effective paraphrase looks like.
• Complete a guided practical paraphrase task.

You will leave with a toolkit of practical strategies to use in future assignment writing.

If you feel you would benefit from a one-to-one appointment to discuss Avoiding Plagiarism and Practical Skills for Paraphrasing, you can email insessional@exeter.ac.uk.

Academic Honesty Resource and Quiz

The University has developed a resource designed to help you to understand academic honesty and integrity, as well as resources on academic referencing and the ethical use of AI tools. This interactive guide provides practical examples, videos and review quizzes to boost your understanding.

All students are expected to read the materials provided in this resource and complete the quiz located at the end. You are strongly encouraged to revisit the Academic Honesty Resource throughout your studies to refresh and update your knowledge and skills. The resource remains available throughout the year, and it is good practice to review it regularly as you progress through your studies, particularly in advance of assessment periods.

Depending on your prior knowledge and confidence, the resource should take 30-60 minutes to complete.  

The Resource can be accessed via: Introduction - Academic Honesty - LibGuides at University of Exeter

When concerns are raised about the Academic Integrity of a student's assignment during the marking process, these are considered by trained Academic Conduct Officers within each discipline. The Conduct Officers use their academic judgement to decide if the work needs to be referred into the Academic Misconduct process. The Academic Misconduct process will be used to determine whether an academic offence has occurred within the assignment.

We realise that in some cases a breach in Academic Integrity can occur unintentionally or unknowingly but in order to maintain the University's standards of academic honesty and integrity, and to be fair to all students we do have to carefully consider all concerns raised.

Information about the principles and procedures which will be observed by the University when considering concerns about academic integrity can be found in the Academic Conduct and Practice Handbook

The University has developed three levels of severity for academic offences.  These are:

1. Poor academic practice.  This may arise from a lack of understanding of academic protocols or a misunderstanding of expected academic conventions of the department.  In these cases there is no evidence that a student has set out to deceive a marker.
2. Academic misconduct.  This would involve behaviour and practices which, if undetected, would have deceived the marker and could lead the student to obtain an unfair advantage over another student.
3. Severe academic misconduct.  This would involve extensive evidence of plagiarism or cheating or clear evidence of behaviour which is designed to deceive the marker and/or to gain an advantage by the student who submitted the work.

The University’s definition of academic conduct and the procedures surrounding it are set out in in the Academic Conduct and Practice Handbook.

A flowchart of the Academic Misconduct process can be found here.

Definition of Offences

An academic offence is defined as an act or failure to act that if undetected gives, or aims to give, an advantage over other students, or any behaviour which may deceive those setting, administering and marking a piece of work. Academic offences can take a number of forms including but not limited to:

• Plagiarism, including self-plagiarism:  Plagiarism is the act of representing words, ideas, or work obtained from another source, without proper attribution or permission and presenting it as one's own original work. This can include copying and pasting text from a source without citation or attribution; paraphrasing source material without giving credit or by only changing a few words; using a concept or ideas obtained from another source without acknowledgement; or submitting another's work as your own.  Self-plagiarism is the act of reusing your own previously submitted work without citation.
• Collusion:  Collusion occurs where two or more students collaborate to produce work that is submitted as the individual work of one or more of the students. 
• Coercion: Coercion occurs when a student puts pressure on (or attempts to put pressure on) another student or member of staff to act in a particular way, with the intention of gaining an academic advantage. 
• Fabrication: Creation of false data, research or references with the intention of deceiving the marker.
• Falsification: Inappropriate manipulation or selection of data, images or consents with the intention of deceiving the marker. 
• Misrepresentation: Misrepresenting data, or the work of someone else as your own, in whole or in part. Note, evidence of an attempt to disguise any of the forms of plagiarism listed above (which might involve the use of paraphrasing systems or translation systems, or a translator or third party who acts as more than a proof-reader under the University’s regulations) will normally be treated more severely than plagiarism alone. 
• Contract Cheating: Contract cheating involves a student requesting a third-party to complete an assessment, or part of an assessment, on their behalf, which may or may not involve a commercial transaction.  
• Use or possession of unauthorised material in an assessment:  For example taking notes or electronic devices into an examination or assessment without expression to do so.
• Obtaining or sharing an examination paper ahead of its authorised release or obtaining/sharing another student's answer to an examination paper.
• Impersonation of another individual due to be sitting an assessment.

Examination Misconduct

There are important rules concerning exam conduct that all students, regardless of Faculty or level of study, are expected to follow. These are available online her: Guidance to Candidates.

Students who are caught breaking this guidance will be treated in accordance with the University's Academic Conduct and Practice Handbook,  which lists the following offences specifically relevant to exams:

1. The use or possession of unauthorised books, notes, software, electronic devices or other materials in an examination (unless specifically permitted).
2. Obtaining an examination paper ahead of its authorised release.
3. Attempting to impersonate or impersonation of another individual, due to be sitting a specific assessment.

Specific offences that the University has a zero tolerance approach to are:

• The possession of any form of electronic device, which includes mobile phones, iPods or MP3 players and any form of smart watch on or near your person during an exam whether it be switched on or off and;
• Being in possession of unauthorised material. This may be notes about the topic, or formula written on a hand or arm or other materials found on or near your person.

Please remember electronic devices and/or unauthorised material and exams don't mix!

Academic Conduct Officers

Each Discipline appoints an Academic Conduct Officer and each College appoints a Senior Academic Conduct Officer who provide information and guidance on the academic conduct process and good academic practice, as well as conducting any academic conduct investigation. Please note that for matters relating to in person invigilated exam conduct you will need to contact studentcases@exeter.ac.uk instead of your departmental Conduct Officers.

Please find a list below of Senior Academic Conduct Officers and Academic Conduct Officers below:

The Hub are one of the teams who are considered to have a business need to know details of an investigation. When we are informed that a piece of work is under investigation, we contact your Hub to instruct them to withhold the marks and feedback until the investigation outcome is complete. It may also be that we ask them to do this for further pieces of work once the Academic Conduct Officer has decided if other assessments need to be considered at Faculty or Department level. Once a meeting has taken place, we will inform your Hub of the outcome and give them instructions regarding any penalty that may have been applied. Your Hub will contact you regarding resubmission details if you have been asked to resubmit a piece of work by a specific deadline.

We realise that receiving a letter from us to say that concerns have been raised about your work can cause worry and we recommend you talk to someone about it for support. This could be a friend or a loved one but there is also support for you within the University.

If you are looking for guidance on what you can expect from this process you can contact the Students' Union Advice Team (Cornwall) on advice@thesu.org.uk or The Students’ Guild Advice Team on advice@exeterguild.com. These teams are experienced in helping our students through this process.

Our wellbeing service is here to support you and you can find further information here for students in Cornwall and here for students in Devon.

We won’t contact your personal tutor about this as it’s confidential. However, personal tutors can provide support, so you can contact yours to discuss this with them if you wish.

You are welcome to email the Faculty Cases team with any enquiries you have about the Academic Conduct process. In some instances, we will have to redirect you to another team if they are better able to respond to your queries. We also suggest the following:

• For enquiries about your programme of study such as marks for a piece of coursework or exam, a submission issue, or your course in general, it is best to contact your Hub. A list of Info Points and Hub contacts can be found here.
• For matters relating to your health and support with your studies the University Wellbeing team is best placed to support you. They can arrange appointments with AccessAbility or the Welfare team to discuss adjustments to student support. To contact them please see the Wellbeing Service website here or the FXPlus website here.
• For independent confidential, and impartial support students are encouraged to contact their Guild or Union. For students studying at the Streatham or St Luke’s Campus you can contact The Students' Guild Advice Unit at advice@exeterguild.com. For Students studying at the Penryn Campus, you can contact The Falmouth and Exeter Students’ Union at advice@thesu.org.uk. The Guild and Students’ Union can provide supporters to accompany you to meetings
• You are also assigned a Personal or Academic Tutor at the beginning of each academic year. We won’t contact your personal tutor about this as it’s a confidential matter. However, personal tutors can provide support, so you can contact yours to discuss this with them if you wish. Many departments also have Senior Personal Tutors, so speak to your Hub if you would like to be able to contact them.
• If you are an international student, please consider approaching the Insessional team who run the English Language Skills Development programme. They provide face-to-face classes and one-to-one support, which are bookable via their website, and offer an extensive range of online resources on their Guided Independent Learning site. If you are not sure what workshop to enrol in or what resources to use, please email insessional@exeter.ac.uk

We are sure you will appreciate that for data protection purposes we are only able to discuss your case with members of the University who have a genuine business need to know, and we cannot discuss these matters with third parties without your written consent. If you would like someone to be able to speak with us on your behalf, such as a parent or personal tutor, please email the Faculty Cases Team in advance to confirm that you give consent for us to discuss your case. If any third-party contacts us requesting such information, we are only able to respond to them in general terms regarding the University procedure, not about individual cases. As such, when it comes to having a supporter at your meeting, we assume that in inviting them you are happy for them to be privy to the information discussed. Please note it is your responsibility to forward any information you consider relevant for them to support you such as a meeting location, video link, or copies of the work in question.

If you are a student visa holder and you’re worried about how this might affect your visa please contact the International Student Support Team:  https://www.exeter.ac.uk/international-students/contact-us/

Possible updates in the second letter include:

1. The investigation is dismissed. Following review of your work, the Academic Conduct Officer (ACO) has decided that there are no concerns regarding your work and no further action will be taken. In this case your work will be returned for marking and your Hub will provide you with the marks and feedback for any assessed pieces that had been under investigation. Please note, the standard three-week turnaround for marks and feedback is superseded by this investigation so there may be a short delay in receiving your marks.
2. The ACO deems it is necessary for you to attend an academic honesty workshop, which covers less serious concerns of poor academic practice, and no penalty will be applied to the work in question: The ACO reviewing your work has determined that a meeting should be held to enable a decision to be made in the investigation. The letter will invite you to attend a meeting and will contain details of the date and time of the meeting, who will be in attendance and the documentation that will be considered at the meeting.

There are three types of meeting, depending on the nature of the suspected offence and findings of the ACO:

• Department Level Meeting: concerns raised over poor academic practice, with possible penalties ranging from Tariff A to B
• Faculty Level Meeting: concerns raised that may be either poor academic practice or academic misconduct, with possible penalties ranging from Tariff A – D
• University Level Meeting: concerns raised that may relate to severe academic misconduct offences. Such a case would be referred to the University Student Cases Team. These are very rare, but more serious in nature, so we would look to provide additional support if this were to apply in your case.

Turnitin (TII) is a software used by the University to highlight all of the places where a piece of work contains phrases, sentences or paragraphs which can be found in other sources. Turnitin has access to a wide range of material, including books, journal articles, websites and assignments submitted by students to institutions across the world.

You’ll find a list of ‘sources’ at the end of the Turnitin report. These are the documents or websites that Turnitin has found matches to. Turnitin lists the sources that the software algorithm thinks are the most likely original source of the material. However, it does make mistakes (see below ‘Turnitin has identified sources that I have not used’ for further explanation).

Turnitin does not interpret the matches that it finds , which is why academic judgement is applied in all investigations to decide whether the matches are a problem. Not all matches will be of concern to the Panel, and other matters additional to the highlighting in the TII Report may be discussed. Sometimes academics will have identified problems which are not shown in the Turnitin report. There is no acceptable threshold in terms of percentage matches as it depends on what content is highlighted rather than how much is highlighted. If a TII score is very high, it can suggest a heavy reliance on a source or sources but does not necessarily mean there is academic misconduct.

Turnitin is a tool to help support the investigation and the Panel will explain their interpretation of it at the meeting to guide the conversation. The academic staff who deal with academic conduct issues are experienced in reading these reports and can separate out useful information from the generic details.

For example, the following matches can usually be discounted as not indicating e evidence of an offence:

matches with the assignment coversheet and any standard forms that are included in multiple student assignments, such as declarations of honesty;

correctly compiled footnotes, reference lists and bibliographies

correctly referenced quotations

small fragments of wording that are likely to be used in many student essays on a specific topic.

There are some offences where some of the examples above might be relevant, but the TII highlighting alone is not reason for you to worry.

The overall similarity score is not always an accurate indicator of good or poor academic practice. It is possible to have a high similarity score where no matches are of concern, because everything is quoted and referenced correctly. Similarly, a score of under 10% might still include plagiarism if material that has been copied is not correctly integrated and referenced.

Not all suspected offences show up in a Turnitin (TII) Report. It is used to identify similarity to other sources within the TII database, but this is a technical support solution and not always 100% accurate. The percentage figure for matched text given by TII is often not relevant in our discussion of your case.

For example, a marker may have flagged over usage of material from a source that is not accessible to TII for analysis or noticed incorrect or missing references to a source not in your bibliography. In such a case if there is a major source not identified by TII at all, you can expect to be sent that along with the other documentation in advance of the meeting. Even where TII correctly identifies a source it sometimes fails to match all words from that source. For example, they may be out of sequence, or words may switch between US/UK spelling, or individual words may have been changed, etc. preventing TII from accurately analysing the information. In such cases, some of the non-highlighted words may also be of concern. Furthermore, TII sometimes allocates to different sources sections of words that come from the same source. Whatever the reason behind the matches, and regardless of the final similarity score, you can expect the Panel to fully explain during the meeting which elements are of concern within your report.

It is also possible that there may be suspicions of a different offence in your work, not pertaining to plagiarism, in which case the similarities in the TII Report may not be pertinent to the case in question. If this is the case, you can expect to be told about the alleged offences in your meeting invitation letter.

Turnitin automatically assigns each set of words that it finds online to the first source that its algorithms identify. This is not necessarily the source where you originally read the material. In particular, if Turnitin gives the source as ‘University of X’, we do not assume that you have read another student’s essay at that university. The most likely scenario here is that you and the other student have accessed the same source online. Often, TII gives a generic source like a publisher’s name, but the academics dealing with your case are usually able to identify more specifically which source is involved. Please note that there is no need for you to prepare for the meeting in detail. However, if you want to understand the TII report and the where the source material has been flagged, we recommend you google any passages of repeated or sustained highlighting to find the source for them, putting the words in quotation marks in Google to find the exact match.

Misconduct is said to have taken place when a student has not been academically honest. This can be intentional or unintentional. The University has developed three levels of severity to reflect this. Determining what category an offence falls into is an exercise of academic judgement. The categories are:

• Poor academic practice
• Academic misconduct
• Severe academic misconduct

There are different definitions of these terms, and we will clearly explain what they mean for you in relation to your own work during your meeting, but broadly speaking:

Academic Honesty is displayed by ensuring full credit is given for any other people's contributions to our own achievements, and by ensuring the authenticity of any research that we present, for example, by full and correct referencing, never falsifying the results of any research etc.

Poor Academic Practice may arise from lack of understanding of academic protocols or a misunderstanding of expected academic conventions of the Department.

Academic Misconduct is defined as an act, or failure to act, that gives, or aims to give, an advantage if undetected, or any behaviour which may deceive those setting, administering, and marking a piece of work. The definitions of potential academic misconduct offences can be found here.

Severe Academic Misconduct may be a second offence, or involve evidence of extensive plagiarism or cheating, or clear evidence of behaviour that is designed to deceive those setting, administering and marking the assessment, and/or behaviour designed to obtain advantage on the part of the student.

There are a variety of offences that can be investigated. The most common of these are:

• Plagiarism
• Collusion
• Coercion
• The use or possession of unauthorised materials
• Obtaining an examination paper ahead of its authorised release.
• Attempting to impersonate or impersonation of another individual, due to be sitting a specific assessment.
• Fabrication
• Falsification
• Misrepresentation
• Contract cheating

Definitions of each of these can be found here.

The piece of work in question will have been attached along with your invite to attend an AHW. The issues identified in your assessment will have been judged not serious enough to warrant a formal misconduct hearing. As such, no penalty will be awarded, and the meeting is purely educational. The markers may have found issues with your approach to writing, such as poor paraphrasing or the way you have undertaken referencing may not be correctly formatted to your Department’s referencing style. These workshops are designed to be an educational opportunity to develop and improve your understanding of the academic expectations at the University. In learning how to correct these you can improve the quality of your future work and help to avoid further suspicions of misconduct in the future. The workshops are often more informal group meetings and will include an opportunity for students to raise questions.

If you are called to an AHW you are expected to attend. The FCT will keep a record of students who have attended, and those who have chosen not to. There are no punitive outcomes but failure to attend may result in issues remaining unaddressed in your work. If suspicions of poor practice or misconduct are identified in your future work, it will have to be dealt with more seriously, therefore we strongly recommend attendance.

Department level meetings are normally chaired by the ACO for your Department who will discuss alleged offences found in your work as described under Tariff A and B. As part of the meeting invite the FCT will attach each piece of work under investigation, and any supporting documentation relevant to the suspected offence. This might include possible sources of plagiarism, for example, or a summary report written by an expert witness, showing where highlighted sections of your submission are a cause for concern. These documents are provided to ensure that you fully understand why your work is being investigated and to present you with the opportunity to submit a defence to the Chair of the meeting, either in writing or in person. Your letter also invites you to provide a written statement, call witnesses, or have a supporter with you on the day of the meeting if you so wish.

On the day, an administrator from the FCT will be in attendance to take notes during the meeting. The ACO will discuss the alleged offence with you and may seek clarification as to how the errors have occurred within your work. During the meeting, the Chair will likely want to hear from you about how you created your work, what processes you normally use, and ask what you understand about academic honesty. This meeting is your chance to tell the Chair anything you think is relevant in relation to the concerns about your work. You will be given an opportunity to explain your actions and, if appropriate, will be provided with advice on how to address these issues.

If you need reasonable adjustments in order to access the meeting and take part, please let us know as soon as possible and we will do our best to accommodate you.

You are not obliged to attend; however, it is helpful if the Panel can speak with you and ask questions. It also allows you to ask any questions you may have and give you the opportunity to respond directly to questions from the Panel. If you are concerned about your understanding of proceedings during the meeting or answering questions, you may arrange to bring a supporter with you. More information on the role of the supporter can be seen below but in short, the supporter is there for moral support, so they are not able to answer questions for you, but they can explain if something is unclear. If you choose to be accompanied by a supporter remotely, we are happy to facilitate this, please forward any information you consider relevant for them to support you, such as a meeting location, video link, or copies of the work in question.

If you are not able to attend the meeting it will proceed without you. Please note, we do not normally rearrange meetings even in the event of technical issues preventing a student from joining the online meeting, therefore you may wish to submit a supporting statement to ensure that the Panel is still able to consider your situation.

The Panel will discuss your written statement (if you have provided one) and will come to a judgment of the basis of the evidence available to them.

A copy of the notes from the meeting (minutes), along with the outcome will be emailed to you within ten working days of the meeting. Please see 12.17.10 of the Academic Conduct and Practice manual for more details. Whilst the academic misconduct meeting is a formal meeting, it is also considered to be an educational opportunity so it will be most valuable to you if you can attend.

The use of audio recording equipment will not normally be allowed and would only be permitted at the discretion of the Chair. You will receive a set of minutes from the meeting as a record of proceedings, which you can refer to if required.

The Panel will briefly meet before you arrive, so when you join the meeting, you can expect the conversation to move forward quite quickly. Typically, a standard meeting will last between 20 – 40 minutes, though some cases are more complex or may involve more pieces of work. We also appreciate that some people find these meetings more stressful and prefer to take their time to help reduce their anxiety. Therefore, we try to allow time for this wherever possible. The meetings are intended to be learning opportunities for you so make the most of the time you have in the meeting. There will be time for questions at the end, but if you want to clarify any specific points during the discussion, please feel free to do so; the Panel will be happy to advise.

It is important to remember that you might not be found guilty of anything and that your case may be dismissed after the initial investigation, or you could be found not guilty after further discussion and the meeting has taken place. However, in the event it is deemed that a student has committed an offence, a penalty is applied. A full list of the Tariff, Description of Offence and Penalty options can be found here. Faculty Cases meetings only look at penalties up to and including Tariff D. If an ACO, during the point of investigation, believes that you have committed an offence that is potential Severe Academic Misconduct (Tariff E to G), your case will be referred to a University Committee of Academic Enquiry overseen by the University Cases team.

Some of the Tariff outcomes will require you to resubmit your work with the poor academic practice removed. In some cases (Tariff B outcomes) this will be for an un-capped mark, whereas in others (Tariff C) the mark will be capped. The outcome letter and accompanying minutes you receive following your meeting will explain what is required and what changes you should make (and should NOT make) to your assignment. It is really important that you read your outcome letter and minutes carefully and ensure you understand what changes are being requested. The minutes will make clear the extent to which you may change your assignment. The purpose of a resubmission is to enable the marker to award the original piece of work a fair mark in relation to other students on the module.

If you are not sure what is being requested, you can ask for clarification from the Faculty Cases team.

For offences identified in non-invigilated examinations you will be required to sit the examination again during the next assessment period.

If you are asked to resubmit your work as part of your outcome, your resubmission will be considered by the ACO before being passed on to the marking team. The ACO will check that you have corrected your work and removed the poor academic practice. They will check that you have followed the instructions followed in the minutes of the meeting.

If when considering your resubmission, the ACO determines that you have not corrected your work to the required standard and/or have not followed the instructions provided in the minutes of the meeting, then you will be awarded a mark of zero for the work.

You have ten working days to appeal your outcome decision from the date of the outcome letter we email you. Details on how to appeal can be found here. You should be mindful of the timeframes involved and the grounds on which you can base such an appeal. To ensure appeals are considered objectively they are handled by the University Student Cases team rather than members of the FCT, who may have already been involved in your case. Therefore, if you have any questions about submitting an appeal for a review of your Academic Misconduct outcome, you should contact studentcases@exeter.ac.uk.