Plagiarism Procedures

1. Plagiarism Procedures

2. Principles of the Revised Arrangements • A framework based upon a series of stages • Greater control of process by the department • Individual members of staff taking action when there is an allegation of plagiarism at early stages • Provision for a progressive approach in terms of actions and penalties • Greater link between the procedures and the University’s plagiarism policy • Continued emphasis on the promotion of fairness • Emphasis on record keeping

3. Principal Changes Compared with Previous Arrangements • Removal of distinction between minor and major plagiarism • Emphasis on supporting and educating students in academic skills in the earlier stages • Emphasis on departmental and programme role in investigating allegations of plagiarism • Special arrangements for first year undergraduate students • A move from automatically holding panels

4. Principal Changes Compared with Previous Arrangements • Greater flexibility in the application of penalties at the departmental and faculty stage • Removal of recourse to Plagiarism Review Panel - student would make representations solely through the Academic Appeals process • Removal of “Student Declaration Form” at the end of a plagiarism process – this is not a declaration that there is no plagiarism in a piece of work • Removal of the requirement to offer a preliminary meeting

5. A Staged Approach • A four -staged approach to investigation and imposition of penalties • No matter where students were in their studies, the investigation would be undertaken in sequence • If a student in the third year of the undergraduate programme faced allegations of plagiarism for the first time, Stage 1 would apply • The stages entail a progressive increase in the penalties • Option of a referral from Stages 1 and 2 to a Faculty Panel where there is a prima facie case of gross misconduct

6. Stage 0 – First Year Undergraduate • Applies only to the first year of the undergraduate programme or below • Special provision for providing advice without the application of penalties • Intention is to explore with the student the nature of the alleged plagiarism and how it came about • Advice normally be provided by the person marking the work – but process controlled by programme/scheme director • Applicable on two occasions

7. Stage 1 – Module Level • Investigation at the module level • Instigated by programme director • Investigation carried out by one academic; tutors from other departments within faculty may occasionally be engaged • Although the primary purpose is disciplinary, there will be some emphasis on providing support, so • ... application of penalties and support for the student • Applies irrespective of level of study – includes taught masters, but not research degrees • Finding might be to refer to a Faculty Panel

8. Stage 2 – Departmental Level • Instigated by head of department • Investigation by two academics, but with option of three members of staff depending on the nature of the plagiarism and the circumstances • Investigate allegations, and where substantiated determine the appropriate punishment and recommend further remedial measures

9. Stage 3 – Faculty Level • Investigation undertaken by a panel of three • Normally undertaken when previous interventions at Stage 1 and Stage 2 failed to prevent further breaches • Reviews gross misconduct • Harsher penalties likely to be imposed, including recommendation the student be required to withdraw from the programme • Once at Stage 3, further breeches investigated at Stage 3 • Engagement of Registry