This is the print-friendly version of the following page:
[Return to original version]
Director, Governance and Legal Services
University Academic Board
Date of Next Review
5.3.3 Roles and responsibilities
5.3.4 Academic integrity and professional capabilities
5.3.5 Supporting students to conduct academic work and assessment with integrity
5.3.6 Academic misconduct
5.3.7 Identifying academic misconduct
5.3.8 Recordkeeping and reporting
QUT is committed to maintaining high academic and professional standards and expects students to undertake academic work and assessment in a manner which is fair, honest and accountable. This policy:
While the core concepts of academic integrity apply to all students undertaking any form of academic work, this policy applies to students undertaking undergraduate or postgraduate coursework studies. For research higher degree students, integrity matters are addressed in the QUT Code of Conduct for Research (D/2.6) and in the procedures for dealing with allegations of research misconduct (D/2.7).
Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching)
|Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Technology, Information and Library Services)||
|Chair, Faculty Academic Misconduct Committee||
|Teaching staff (including markers)||
Courses at QUT promote ethical behaviour, including honesty, fairness, accountability and the adherence to appropriate codes of practice relevant to a discipline or professional area (C/4.3.3). Academic integrity means adopting an approach to academic work and assessment that upholds these ethical principles. Adopting this approach enables students to develop professional capabilities that are based on strong ethical foundations.
QUT assists students to understand how to approach their academic work and assessment in a way that upholds appropriate standards of academic integrity by:
The following actions or practices by a student constitute a failure to maintain appropriate standards of academic integrity and may be dealt with as academic misconduct:
The University may impose penalties for substantiated major academic misconduct (E/8.1.8). A finding of academic misconduct may also have significant implications in professional contexts following graduation.
Academic misconduct includes:
(a) Cheating in examinations
Cheating in examinations involves any action or attempted action on the part of a student by which the student may gain an unfair advantage in the examination. Cheating in examinations includes:
Plagiarism involves representing as one's own work the language, ideas or expressions of another person/s. Plagiarism includes:
Self-plagiarism involves the re-use by a student of their own work without appropriate acknowledgment of the source.
Students should seek express consent from the unit coordinator prior to re-using their own work in an assessment submission, noting that this is usually permitted only in situations where all of the following conditions are met:
Collusion involves unauthorised collaboration on assessment items with any other person/s. Collusion includes:
(e) Other Forms
Other forms of academic misconduct include:
Teaching staff will normally identify suspected academic misconduct. If a member of the teaching staff suspects that a student may have failed to uphold appropriate standards of academic integrity, the unit coordinator must be notified. Relevant considerations for identification of academic misconduct are as follows.
(a) Determining nature of academic misconduct
In considering a suspected failure to uphold appropriate standards of academic integrity, it must be determined whether the case represents a possible case of minor or major academic misconduct.
The following considerations can be used to assist in assessing whether a case should be considered minor or major:
(b) Minor academic misconduct
Minor cases of academic misconduct are dealt with in accordance with E/8.1.6. Minor cases include:
Where it is determined that minor academic misconduct has occurred no penalty is applied and the assessment item is graded according to the assessment criteria. Deduction of marks or reduction of grade/s must be justified against the assessment criteria or marking guide for the assessment item.
(c) Major academic misconduct
Where not characterised as minor under C/5.3.7(b), allegations of academic misconduct are dealt with as major cases in accordance with E/8.1.7. If a major case of academic misconduct is substantiated, the Executive Dean or Registrar may impose the penalties set out in E/8.1.8.
(d) Content matching tools
To assist in identifying potential academic misconduct, students may be required to supply reports generated by content matching software as part of the conditions for submission of assessment for a unit or a particular assessment item. The use of content matching software for this purpose must be clearly stated in the unit outline for the particular unit.
(e) Authentication of learning
If a unit coordinator has reasonable concerns that a student’s actions could be dealt with as a case of major academic misconduct, the unit coordinator may require the student to authenticate their learning. The authentication process must provide the student with an opportunity to demonstrate their competence or knowledge in the subject matter of the assessment item in question, in a manner that is appropriate to the nature of the assessment item.
This might include (but is not limited to):
The following conditions apply to the authentication of learning process:
The unit coordinator will consider the outcome of the authentication of learning process in determining whether to deal with the matter as a case of major academic misconduct under the Management of student misconduct policy (E/8.1).
If authentication of learning has not previously been undertaken or attempted, a Faculty Academic Misconduct Committee may refer a case back to a unit coordinator to conduct an authentication of learning process, provided that no findings have yet been made on the allegations by the Committee.
Consistent with E/8.1.12, records must be maintained for minor and major cases of academic misconduct. An annual report on academic misconduct is prepared and presented to University Academic Board.
Appeals Committee reports to University Academic Board and Council annually, including on appeals for academic misconduct cases.Appendix 3 Schedule of Authorities and Delegations (C132).
MOPP C/4.3 Capabilities for QUT graduates
MOPP C/5.1 Assessment
MOPP D/2.6 QUT Code of Conduct for Research
MOPP D/2.7 Procedures for dealing with allegations of research misconduct
MOPP E/2.1 QUT Student Code of Conduct
MOPP E/6.2 Conduct during examinations
MOPP E/8.1 Management of student misconduct
|09.12.16||C/5.3.3||Enhancing the Student Experience REAL Difference Change Manager||Revised policy to include REAL Difference initiative, approved name change for position title, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Technology, Information and Learning Support) to Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Technology, Information and Library Services) - effective 03.01.17|
|07.12.16||C/5.3.6||Chair, University Academic Board||Revised to clarify academic misconduct - cheating in examinations|
|25.11.16||All||University Academic Board||Revised policy - effective 01.01.17|
|23.03.12||C/5.3.6||University Academic Board||Inclusion of specific information on the use of content matching software and other minor changes|
|02.12.10||All||Chairperson, University Academic Board||Periodic review - Minor changes executively approved|
|31.08.10||All||Governance Services||Policy revised to reflect introduction of new student discipline framework from 01.09.10|
|14.11.08||All||University Academic Board||Policy renumbered to C/5.3 (formerly C/9.3)|
|15.12.07||C/5.3.2||Vice-Chancellor||Removed reference to Executive Director, Northern Campuses (position disestablished from 31.12.07)|
|06.02.03||C/5.3.5||Chairperson, University Academic Board||Revised procedures for dealing with cheating in central examinations|
|29.11.02||All||University Academic Board||New procedures, effective from beginning of 2003 academic year (replaces procedures for dealing with cheating and plagiarism)|