Academic Integrity is being honest about your studies and doing your own work. It is a principle of best practice throughout your time at UEA but is also an expectation of behaviour outlined in UEA's Academic Integrity policy.

Academic Misconduct is a breach of the Academic Integrity Policy, and can constitute things like plagiarism, collusion, contract cheating and inappropriate use of Generative AI.

Plagiarism is using someone else’s work or ideas without acknowledging and referencing it properly and appropriately. This can include self-plagiarism, where you present older work you’ve done as something brand new.

Collusion is working with someone else to produce work that will be submitted by one or both of you, outside of an authorised group-work assignment. It can also mean attempting to collude with someone even if the final work submitted is just your own work.

Contract cheating is when your work has been completed for you, partially or fully, by someone else. This could be a friend, another student, an academic or a third-party provider – these are called essay mills. It’s contract cheating regardless of whether you've paid money for the work or not. It can also be uploading an assessment question to a website so that other people can answer it.

Inappropriate use of Generative AI or AI-assisted tools is when AI is used to complete some, or all, of an assessment when it hasn’t been specifically authorised in the assessment brief. It can also be not clearly acknowledging when AI has been used to help you formulate your argument, understand the assessment, moderate your work or generate academic ideas.

If a marker suspects there has been a breach of the Academic Integrity policy, they will continue to mark the work as normal. They will keep a separate copy of the annotated work as evidence and collect evidence of the potential academic misconduct, which they will send to the School Integrity Officer (“IO”) to review. Evidence could include the original material which has been used or copied and/or a report from ‘Turnitin’ – a text-matching software.

The IO will review the evidence and decide whether the suspected academic misconduct is of a low, medium or high level. If there is due cause, the IO may also look at other work you have completed on your course.

In low-level cases, the IO may decide not to call a meeting. See our Outcomes tab below.

If the concern raised is medium or high level, you will receive a letter inviting you to an Academic Integrity meeting to consider your case.

The letter will explain what type of academic misconduct has been raised as a concern, and may include additional notes from the Integrity Officer.

With this letter, you will usually receive a copy of the ‘Turnitin’ report and an annotated copy of the work in question so that you can see the areas of concern.

This meeting is to establish what has happened and why. You'll be given the opportunity to explain why you think there has been an issue and let the IO know of any exceptional circumstances that have been affecting you. If you notify advice(su) about your meeting invite with enough time, and subject to advisor availability, we can attend this meeting with you and provide support.

We’ve created a full guide for students who are invited to an academic integrity meeting (insert link here).

The Integrity Officer will have to consider the following criteria when making a decision about your case:

Experience of the student – how long have you been studying for, and how much opportunity have you had to understand the academic requirements and best practice for studying at UEA. They will also consider any previous incidents of academic misconduct during your time here.

Extent of academic misconduct - it’s hard for us to provide an exhaustive list of examples, as it can depend on the type of assessment and specific academic requirements for your course and module. In general, it relates to how much the academic misconduct may have impacted your ability to meet the learning outcomes of the assessment.

Intent of student to deceive- this is considered on the balance of probabilities, and is why it’s so important to be honest in an Academic Integrity investigation. This criteria reflects on whether the academic misconduct was accidental and unintentional; a product of academic carelessness; or a clear intentional act to cheat.

Nature of the academic misconduct– this can vary from lower-level misconduct like following poor academic practice that doesn’t fundamentally change the submitted work, to higher-level breaches that demonstrate clear misconduct, like copying significant portions of another student’s work.

Please note – these are examples and should not be taken as an absolute. Each case will be considered individually. 

The Integrity Officer will consider any exceptional circumstances that impacted you. Our student guide has more information about what can be relevant information to share in the meeting.

We can’t tell you what to do, but a big part of demonstrating academic integrity is being honest if you’ve made a mistake, even if it was accidental.

If you’ve done something that constitutes academic misconduct, we would always suggest admitting it at the earliest opportunity. This includes being honest with our team if you’re meeting with us before an Investigation meeting.

Being open and honest about what has happened, or any support you used, is something the Integrity Officer and University takes into account when considering your intent to cheat and the overall impact.

We’re not saying you should admit to something that you didn’t do. If you genuinely believe you have not breached the Academic Integrity policy, have a think about anything that might have led the marker to have concerns.

No case to answer: If there is sufficient evidence to indicate, on the balance of probabilities, that there has not been a breach of the Academic Integrity policy, the IO may decide there is no case to answer and the investigation will conclude with no further action.

Low-level cases: The Academic Integrity Officer will not impose a mark penalty but will issue a formal warning, which will be noted in your student record. You will also be offer support that could be an action plan or appropriate learning support packing, to help you avoid academic misconduct in future assignments.

If a student denies academic misconduct, but the IO feels that on the balance of probabilities it is likely there has been a breach of the Academic Integrity policy, they will decide whether it is appropriate to make a referral to the Senate Student Discipline Committee.

Medium-level plagiarism: The mark is adjusted to reflect what is your own work. For a formative item of assessment, the offence should be recorded as a medium level plagiarism offence.

If a student denies academic misconduct, but the IO feels that on the balance of probabilities it is likely there has been a breach of the Academic Integrity policy, they will decide whether it is appropriate to make a referral to the Senate Student Discipline Committee.

Medium-level collusion: Where two or more students have worked together and it is impossible to determine who has produced the work, the pieces of work will be marked as they stand and the highest mark of those awarded will be divided equally among the students believed to have colluded.

High-level cases: All high-level cases are referred to the Senate Student Discipline Committee (SSDC) for further action. Where your course is part of a professional qualification, the Head of School may refer your case to a Fitness to Practise Panel.

The sooner you tell us about the situation, the more we can help. Complete our enquiry form as soon as possible get in contact, providing as much detail as you can – this includes any letters or emails sent by the University about the academic integrity concern.

We can’t access your student records, so we only know what you tell us. Sharing UEA letters and emails helps us build a clear picture of what has happened and how we can support you best.

Where there is sufficient time and advisor availability, we will offer you an appointment before the Investigation meeting to discuss the situation and help you consider how you would like to approach things. We might suggest you work on a statement to take into the meeting, or encourage you to review the learning materials and resources used for your assignment. We can also attend the meeting with you, as a Companion.

The UEA Regulations state that Companions can provide support, and read your preprepared statement if you don’t feel able to. Companions cannot make arguments on your behalf, or give personal opinions about whether they think you breached the Academic Integrity policy or not.