The purpose of our procedure
Our procedure sets out how we manage academic misconduct, and the process for reporting, investigating and making determinations on alleged academic misconduct. It outlines possible outcomes, including escalations, appeals, and the recordkeeping requirements.
Please read this procedure in conjunction with our Academic Integrity Policy.
Who our procedure applies to
Our procedure applies to current and past students who are or have been enrolled in courses as part of either a coursework or non-award program. For current or past students enrolled in a research program, our procedure applies only to coursework components of the program.
Our procedure applies to staff and outlines their responsibility to identify and manage concerns about student academic misconduct.
Our procedure does not apply to
Research misconduct which is covered by our [Research Policy and Procedure], or staff misconduct which is covered by our [Staff Policy and Procedure].
Our Academic Misconduct Procedure
1. How we reduce the risk of academic misconduct
Our students receive education, advice, and support to help them understand the importance of academic integrity, and how to apply it in their studies.
[Course Coordinators] must take responsibility for assessing the academic misconduct risk of the [assignment types] they use.
When reviewing and revising assignments, staff must assess the level of risk associated with each assignment and implement measures to minimise the chances of academic misconduct, ensuring the student learning is authentically validated.
Software will be used to aid in the prevention and detection of possible academic misconduct. Staff with teaching responsibilities will be provided with support to stay up-to-date with prevention and detection methods.
2. How we manage alleged academic misconduct
[Colleges] will appoint Academic Integrity Officers [AIOs] for each [School/discipline] who will be responsible for receiving, investigating and determining allegations of academic misconduct (see section 7).
[AIOs] will receive regular training to effectively perform their role. Training will include systems, conflicts of interest, natural justice, assessment of cases, and how to determine outcomes on the balance of probabilities. Please refer to our [website] for a list of current [AIOs].
3. How to report alleged academic misconduct
Anyone, including staff, students, and members of the public, can raise concerns about possible academic misconduct at Adelaide University if they have reasonable grounds to believe it has occurred. Staff should report concerns using the online tool [website] and include as much supporting evidence as possible to help the [AIO] review the report.
Students or members of the public who wish to raise a concern of possible academic misconduct, can do so in writing [via email/website] to [Provost/Director Student Service/PVC]. The concern should be accompanied by evidence supporting the suspicion, concern or allegation of academic misconduct.
The [Central Unit] supports staff to understand how to identify academic misconduct and offers resources to keep detection methods up-to-date.
4. Our process for initial determination
[AIOs] will make sure they are not involved in any cases where they have an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest.
To determine if the case warrants investigation, an [AIO] will examine the information provided within five working days of a concern being reported and seek further details if required.
Once the information has been examined the [AIO] will make one of the following judgements:
- That no Academic Misconduct has occurred on the basis of one of the following:
- the concern reflects poor academic practice, rather than academic misconduct
- the evidence provided is insufficient to support an allegation of academic misconduct
- other reasons, to be documented by the [AIO].
- There is sufficient evidence to support an allegation of academic misconduct, which requires investigation.
No further action will be taken where the finding is that no academic misconduct has occurred, and the student will not be informed of the concern. In compliance with record keeping requirements a record of the decision will be made on [Adelaide University’s recordkeeping system], but not recorded on the [Academic Integrity Register].
In the event that poor academic practice is found, submitted assignments will be returned to the original marker and will be addressed through marking and feedback as part of our standard assessment processes.
Where it is determined that an allegation of academic misconduct requires investigation, please refer to the details in sections 5-11.
5. When an allegation of academic misconduct requires investigation
If the [AIO] determines there is sufficient cause for an investigation, they may seek further evidence and information and may request investigative assistance from the [Central Unit]. The [AIO] will then assess the severity of the alleged misconduct and make an initial determination regarding the likelihood of academic misconduct. Within five working days of the initial determination the [AIO] will email the student to either:
- provide the student with information regarding an Early Resolution (section 6), or
- invite the student to an Academic Misconduct Meeting (section 7).
If the student is invited to attend an Academic Misconduct Meeting they must respond to the email within five working days of it being sent to indicate whether they will attend. Regardless of whether the student indicates their intention to attend the Academic Misconduct Meeting, they will be given the option to provide a written response.
In complex cases, the timeframes for further investigation, meetings and decisions may vary.
The [Director (Central Area for Student Administration)] can determine whether an investigation is warranted, in situations where the alleged misconduct:
- does not relate to a particular course or assignment
- is particularly sensitive or complex in nature, or
- relates to one or more courses that a student has completed in a previous study period (historical).
In these circumstances, if it is decided that an investigation is necessary, the case will first be referred to a Review Committee (see section 7).
6. When an Early Resolution is offered
An Early Resolution offer may be made in cases where the [AIO] believes the nature of the alleged academic misconduct warrants an educational approach, combined with a warning or a mitigated outcome, and will be of benefit to the student. Early Resolution is only available to students who have no prior record of academic misconduct.
The decision to offer an Early Resolution should take into account:
- the type and severity of academic misconduct that has been reported
- the year level of the student
- whether the available evidence suggests that the reported behaviour demonstrates a lack of understanding, with no intent to breach the Academic Integrity Policy
- the complexity of the case and the nature of the evidence, including whether or not the case involves more than one person
- any other matters reasonably deemed relevant by the [AIO].
An Early Resolution email will be provided to the student advising:
- they are being provided with an opportunity to make an early admission of their conduct and accept a warning or mitigated outcome
- this opportunity can be accepted, by responding to the email within five working days of it being sent
- if they accept the Early Resolution, they must complete the directed academic integrity education within a specified period of time
- if they accept the Early Resolution, the misconduct will be recorded on the [Academic Integrity Register].
When a student accepts an Early Resolution, a finding of academic misconduct will be recorded on the [Academic Integrity Register]. No further investigation will occur, and the student has no right to appeal the outcome.
If a student declines an Early Resolution, or if the student does not respond within five working days, the student will be invited to an Academic Misconduct Meeting (section 7), and the range of outcomes under section 10 are available if academic misconduct is found.
7. About the Academic Misconduct meeting
Where a meeting is held, there may be one or more decision makers. This depends on:
- the severity of the allegation
- the potential outcome category if the misconduct is confirmed (see section 11).
The decision makers will be:
- one [AIO], for students with their first allegation of academic misconduct, or where the [AIO] anticipates outcomes in category 1 would be appropriate
- two [AIOs], representing a Review Committee, for students with a second or subsequent allegation of academic misconduct, or where the [AIO] anticipates outcomes in category 1 and 2 would be appropriate
- a Formal Inquiry Committee (see section 9), if referred by an [AIO] who anticipates outcomes in category 1, 2, and 3 would be appropriate.
Unless there are extenuating circumstances, meetings will be held online, and students will be given details including the date, time, and access link via email. All outcomes will be determined on the balance of probabilities
The student must provide a written response by email within five working days from the date of the email to advise whether they will attend the meeting and/or respond to the concern in writing.
If the student agrees to attend the meeting with the [AIO], the meeting will usually take place within 10 working days of issue of the notification email. A shorter timeframe may be offered if the student’s academic standing is likely to be adversely affected.
If the student does not respond or attend the meeting, the [AIO] will determine whether academic misconduct has occurred. If it is determined that academic misconduct has occurred, the [AIO] will apply an outcome based on sections 10-12. This outcome may be reconsidered within five working days if the student demonstrates that there were extenuating circumstances which prevented them from responding by the specified timeframe.
If a meeting is held, the student may bring a support person. A professional staff member will be in attendance to provide executive support.
8. How students are notified of the decision
Following the meeting, the [AIO(s)] will decide that either:
- no academic misconduct has occurred
- academic misconduct has occurred.
Students will be notified of the outcome via email within five working days of the meeting. If academic misconduct has occurred, the [AIO] will apply an outcome based on sections 10-12.
If the student elects not to attend the meeting, the decision will be made by the [AIO(s)] in their absence within five working days of receiving the student’s confirmation they will not attend.
9. About the Formal Inquiry process
Where a Formal Inquiry is required the [Dean], or delegate will establish a panel comprising [the Dean (or delegate), an AIO not previously involved in the investigation, an academic staff member from the discipline area, a student representative, and other staff member as appropriate to the allegation].
The [Dean] will inform the student that a Formal Inquiry has been initiated and invite the student to attend a meeting. Information and documentation of the alleged misconduct will be provided to the student.
The Formal Inquiry may proceed regardless of whether the student responds or attends.
If the Formal Inquiry concludes that the action of the student warrants suspension or expulsion from Adelaide University, the student will be advised as per our Academic Preclusion, Suspension and Expulsion Procedure.
Students who choose to attend a Formal Inquiry may bring a support person. A professional staff member will be in attendance to provide executive support.
10. Outcomes explained
Outcomes are the consequences or penalty imposed on a student where academic misconduct is found. The purpose of an outcome is to address the academic misconduct and uphold the standards of Adelaide University. Outcomes reinforce the importance of academic integrity, address unfair academic advantage and encourage students to uphold academic integrity in the future.
Outcomes can vary in severity depending on the nature, circumstances and extent of the academic misconduct and any mitigating or exacerbating factors (see section 11).
An [AIO] or Review Committee may refer an allegation to a different decision maker (section 7) if they believe an outcome from a different category would be appropriate
Where a decision is made that academic misconduct has occurred, an [AIO], Review Committee, or Formal Review (section 7) will apply one or more outcomes from the relevant category.
11. Outcome categories explained
The categories relating to the level of outcomes are described below.
Category 1 Outcome
- the student is given warning with no mark reduction
- direct the student to undertake prescribed academic integrity education
- reduced assignment marks are given proportionate to the severity (from total awarded marks)
- a request for the student to submit a corrected version, usually with a prescribed maximum mark (if agreed by [Course Coordinator]). Failure to submit the corrected version will lead to a zero for assignment
- zero for the assignment.
Category 2 Outcome
- zero for the course.
Category 3 Outcome
- the student will be suspended from Adelaide University for a specified period
- the student will be expelled from Adelaide University.
Category 3 Outcomes should be considered in line with Adelaide University’s Academic Preclusion, Suspension and Expulsion Procedure, including obligations related to holders of international student visas.
Please refer to section 12 for details of appropriate outcomes for different types of academic misconduct.
12. Considerations, and mitigated and exacerbated outcomes
Adelaide University recognises that academic misconduct can occur because of a number of factors, including lack of familiarity with academic conventions. All outcomes for academic misconduct will be considered in context of the following:
- the extent of the misconduct
- the student’s evident intention
- the stage/level of the program
- any history of previous academic misconduct
- the academic conventions in the relevant discipline
- information provided to students about academic integrity as part of their course
- any other extenuating circumstances as per other policies if applicable.
Based on the evidence, the [AIO] will determine if either a mitigated outcome or an exacerbated outcome is applicable to the student. Previous breaches of the Academic Integrity Policy will also be taken into consideration.
A mitigated outcome takes into account factors such as:
- the student has no prior history of academic misconduct
- a misunderstanding of the rules or expectations regarding academic integrity, which is not the result of negligence or carelessness
- the student was facing significant personal challenges, such as family issues, health or other hardship that may have contributed to the misconduct [as aligned with relevant extension/modified arrangements Policy]
- the student acknowledges the academic misconduct.
An exacerbated outcome takes into account factors or conditions that make the instance of academic misconduct more severe or more serious, such as:
- the student has previous academic misconduct demonstrating a pattern of unethical behaviour
- the misconduct was deliberate
- the breadth of the impact of the behaviour, such as affecting other students, the institution or the credibility of the assignment
- the misconduct involves a large portion of the work, on multiple assignments
- the student refuses to take responsibility or shows no understanding of the seriousness of the misconduct.
13. How we apply outcomes for academic misconduct
The table on the following pages indicates the outcome level students can expect to receive if academic misconduct is confirmed, including mitigated and exacerbated outcomes. The table is not exhaustive and [AIO] discretion will apply in the application of outcomes.
[AIOs] will use the following as a guide, for consistency in application, and as appropriate to individual cases of academic misconduct.
For any academic misconduct deemed to be serious, or for a pattern of academic misconduct, an [AIO] or Review Committee may consider referral to a Formal Inquiry for the application of a category 3 outcome.
Type of academic misconduct | Standard Outcome | Mitigated outcome | Exacerbated outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
Plagiarism Inappropriate use of Artificial Intelligence | Reduction of mark up to and including zero for the assignment | One of the following:
| One of the following:
|
| Collusion | Zero for assignment | Reduction of mark up to and including zero for the assignment | Zero for course |
Exam cheating | Zero for assignment | Reduction of mark up to and including zero for the assignment | One or both of:
|
Contract cheating | Zero for course | Zero for assignment | Both:
Or |
Falsification, fabrication or misrepresenting data or documents | Zero for assignment | One of:
|
and/or one of the following: |
File-sharing | Zero for assignment (and student must remove all material from the site) | A warning (and student must remove all material from the site) | Both:
Or |
Fabrication or falsification of information or student identity Solicitation | Zero for course And one of: | Zero for course | Both:
|
Promoting cheating | One of: | One of:
| Expulsion from Adelaide University. |
| Pattern of repeated or extensive misconduct across multiple assignments in a course or program | One of: | Zero for course | Expulsion from Adelaide University. |
14. When students can continue studying
A student with alleged academic misconduct at Adelaide University is able to continue their academic studies during the management of the allegation. If the allegation is substantiated and a penalty of suspension or expulsion is the outcome, the student may continue their academic studies until the end of any [University Appeals process].
15. How to request a review of a decision
[A student may have an academic misconduct decision made under this procedure reviewed under the [Student Appeals Policy].
A student must lodge a review request within 20 (twenty) working days of the outcome being sent.]
16. Our approach to recordkeeping
Adelaide University will keep records of allegations of academic misconduct in compliance with recordkeeping requirements.
Confirmed instances of academic misconduct and their outcomes will be recorded on the [Academic Integrity Register].
The [Central Unit] is responsible for maintaining the [Academic Integrity Register] and recordkeeping files relating to investigations and outcomes in the University System.
Outcomes are not recorded on the student’s academic transcript, see [relevant policy].
Internal data sharing is required for Adelaide University student administration functions, including but not limited to finalising grades under other university policies and procedures.
Information about a student's record of academic misconduct will be shared when there is a reasonable requirement to do so or a request for relevant information from regulators or government agencies (e.g. professional accreditation bodies, Law Society).
Records of training for [AIOs] will be kept by the [Central Unit].
Definitions used in our procedure
Student means a person enrolled in an enabling program, award or non-award coursework study, a research program, or a short course or microcredential at Adelaide University.
Working Days means the weekdays from Monday to Friday inclusive, excluding public holidays.
Academic Integrity means a commitment to act with honesty, trustworthiness, fairness, respect, and responsibility in all academic work.
Academic Integrity Officer (AIO) means a member of Adelaide University’s academic staff who has completed the relevant training to enable them to assess alleged academic misconduct for which they have no conflict of interest.
Academic Misconduct is an action or attempted action by a student to obtain an unfair academic advantage. Examples of academic misconduct may include, but are not limited to, the following:
Plagiarism - is presenting other people’s work or ideas as the student’s own without appropriate acknowledgement. Plagiarism can include:
- copying any material without acknowledging the source
- paraphrasing sentences or whole passages without referencing the source
- using the ideas, creation or concepts of others, without acknowledging the source.
Collusion - is unauthorised collaboration in preparation or presentation of work, including knowingly allowing personal work to be copied by others.
Contract cheating - is commissioning and/or submitting work which was completed by someone else, whether paid or unpaid. Contract cheating can include:
- knowingly submitting completed or partially completed assignment produced by a commercial service or paid contractor, by a friend, family member, student or staff member of Adelaide University
- arranging for another person to sit an exam, complete a task or quiz, or complete assignment.
Exam cheating - is a deliberate attempt to gain an unfair advantage, including:
- unauthorised early access to assignment/exam or answer sheet
- communicating with or copying from another person during the exam
- supplying, receiving or using unauthorised material in an exam
- any other conduct that would give an unfair academic advantage to a student.
Filesharing - is the unauthorised distribution of copyrighted course materials, assignment documents, exam questions, completed assignments, or the use thereof.
Self-plagiarism - is submitting work for which the student has received or intends to receive credit in the same course or other courses or attempting to gain credit for the same work twice.
Falsification - is presenting misleading or untrue information as part of an assignment submission. Falsification can include:
- submitting falsified, copied or inappropriately altered data or results as part of assessment
- altering or falsifying any document or record for the purposes of gaining academic advantage or meeting assignment requirements
- deliberate attempts to deceive about assignment submission times, word counts, attendance or participation in learning activities
- inclusion of citations to non-existent or incorrect sources
- sharing login credentials to pose as another student or enabling another person to pose as the student as per the [IT Acceptable Use and Security Policy].
Solicitation – is when a student offers or gives money or any item or service to an Adelaide University staff member or any other person to gain academic advantage for the student or another person.
Inappropriate use of artificial intelligence (AI) – is to subvert the aims of assignment or give the student an unfair academic advantage. Inappropriate use of AI can include but is not limited to:
- submitting work produced (or produced in part) by generative artificial intelligence as the student’s own work
- using information generated by artificial intelligence without acknowledgement or attribution
- using artificial intelligence or digital tools to submit work which significantly misrepresents the student’s level of competence
- using digital tools to disguise plagiarism, collusion, copying, contract cheating or any other Academic Misconduct.
- Promoting cheating - is promoting or being involved in facilitating ways to breach Academic Integrity. It is a criminal offence to advertise or offer Contract Cheating services.
Balance of probabilities means the standard of proof to determine that academic misconduct has occurred. The decision maker must be satisfied that based on the evidence received, the academic misconduct was more likely than not to have occurred.
Exacerbated Outcome means an outcome which is more severe due to relevant factors and considerations.
Mitigated Outcome means an outcome which is reduced in severity due to relevant factors and considerations.
Natural Justice (also called ‘Procedural Fairness’) means acting fairly in administrative decision making and relates to the fairness of the procedure by which a decision is made, not whether the outcome is fair. Natural justice will be accorded based on the circumstances of the complaint.
Poor Academic Practice means concerns that clearly demonstrate a limited understanding of academic conventions typically due to insufficient development of academic skills. This can include errors like incorrect referencing, inadequate paraphrasing, or other concerns that do not meet the academic conventions but are not academic misconduct where errors are not extensive in nature.
Support Person means any individual who is not a legal practitioner and provides support and assistance to a student.
How our procedure is governed
This Procedure is categorised, approved and owned in line with the governance structure of Adelaide University and the offices and officers listed below.
Parent policy | Academic Integrity Policy |
Policy category | Academic |
Approving authority | Co-Vice Chancellors/Vice Chancellor and President |
Policy owner | Deputy Vice Chancellor – Academic |
Responsible officer | [TBC] |
Effective from | 14 January 2025 |
Review date | 3 years after date this version is approved |
Enquiries | Interim Central Policy Unit/[Central Policy Unit] |
Replaced documents | None |
Legislation and other documents related to this procedure
Higher Education Standards Framework standards 5.2 Academic and Research Integrity |
National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018 Standard 8 Overseas Student Visa Requirements, section 8.8.1 |
History of changes
| Date approved | To section/clauses | Description of change |
|---|---|---|
| 14 January 2025 | N/A | New procedure |
Note on structures, positions and position titles:
At the time of writing, the organisational structure, positions and position titles for Adelaide University have not been confirmed. Accordingly, square brackets [ ] temporarily enclose position titles in this procedure until position titles for Adelaide University are known.