Academic Conduct Policy and

Academic Misconduct Procedures

Student and Academic Services

November 2023
Academic Conduct Policy
1. Introduction and purpose page 3
2. Scope page 3
3. Responsibilities page 3
4. Expectations and requirements page 3
5. Types of assessment offences page 4
6. The use of text matching software page 6
7. Breaches of the policy page 6
8. Further guidance and support page 7
9. Ownership and oversight page 7
10. Version history page 7

Academic Misconduct Procedures page 8

1. Principles of investigation page 8
2. Scope of investigation page 8

Procedures for students on undergraduate and postgraduate taught page 9

programmes
1. Diagrammatic summary of investigational procedures page 9
2. Staff roles page 10
3. Initial review (Level 1) page 10
4. Meeting with an Assessment Offences Adviser (Level 2) page 10
5. College Assessment Offences Panels (Level 3) page 11
6. University Academic Misconduct Panel page 12
7. Appealing an assessment offence outcome page 12
8. Penalties page 12
9. Guidance to inform application of penalties page 14
10. Penalties and professional suitability page 14
11. Group work and assessment offences page 15
12. Reporting penalties to the field and award boards page 15

Procedures and penalties for Postgraduate Research degrees page 15

1. Expectations page 15
2. Regulations page 15
3. Scope of the investigation procedures page 16
4. Diagrammatic summary of investigative procedures page 17
5. Assessment Offences penalties page 18
6. Roles and responsibilities page 20
7. Initial allegation – an offence is suspected page 20
8. Initial investigation (Level 1) page 21
9. Meeting between the candidate and the College Director of PGR (Level 2) page 22
10. College PGR AO Panel provides further investigation and review (Level 3) page 23
11. The penalty to be imposed results in withdrawal of registration page 24
12. Additional procedures for the investigation of allegations arising during page 24
the final assessment process for PGR awards

Procedures for Partnership students page 25

1. Procedures for Partnership students page 25
2
1. Introduction and purpose
The University values a culture of honesty and mutual trust and expects all members of the
University to respect and uphold these core values. Every student of the University is
expected to act with integrity in relation to the production and representation of academic
work, and in acknowledging the contributions of others in their work. This is crucial to
maintaining the credibility and quality of academic standards and upholding the value of
degrees awarded. We describe this as “academic integrity.”

This policy sets out the responsibilities, expectations and requirements of staff and students
in promoting and maintaining academic integrity. It provides definitions of the types of
assessment offences that will be investigated under the university’s academic misconduct
procedures and outlines the frameworks that ensure academic standards are maintained.

Students’ commitment to ethical conduct is essential in maintaining the integrity of the

university’s academic standards. Students should have a baseline understanding of what
constitutes cheating in an academic context by the time they reach University-level study.

2. Scope
All staff and students are responsible for adhering to this policy.

Students who fail to adhere to the expectations of this policy will be subject to investigation
under the university’s academic misconduct procedures. The academic misconduct
procedures contain the operational detail that supports the delivery of this policy. They
explain the process of investigation when an assessment offence is alleged, and the
penalties that may be applied.

3. Responsibilities
Academic Board provides senior management oversight of academic integrity matters at the
University, with a reporting line through to the Board of Governors.

Executive Officers have oversight of assessment offences in their respective colleges.

The Student Voice and Academic Policy Team is the designated UWE contact for matters
concerning this policy and for advice and guidance concerning the application of the
academic misconduct procedures.

The Assessment Offences Advisers network provides contacts in individual college and
professional services that support the Student Voice and Academic Policy Team in the
fulfilment of their duties.

4. Expectations and requirements

The University will:
• Ensure that students are provided with appropriate information and learning opportunities
about good practice and scholarship, and how to avoid engaging in poor practice up to
and including misconduct;
• Promote good practice in assessment design as a proactive strategy to prevent
assessment offences by designing assessments that are clear, meaningful, and aligned
3
 with learning objectives so that students are motivated to engage in authentic, ethical
learning experiences;
• Be committed to ongoing staff development to effectively respond to technological
advancements that may have an impact on academic integrity;
• Provide appropriate support to students experiencing personal difficulties, thereby helping
them navigate challenges and reduce the likelihood of committing assessment offences;
• Ensure allegations of assessment offences are investigated robustly and fairly;
• Maintaining a culture of integrity and accountability by providing robust support for
whistleblowers who report assessment offences;
• Monitoring assessment offences on an annual basis and using this data to inform
academic practice.

Students are expected to:

• Be aware, as members of the academic community, of the ethical and academic standards
expected of them;
• Fully engage with the information and training opportunities provided by the University
aimed at developing their understanding of academic practice and skills such as
referencing, citation, paraphrasing and compiling a bibliography or reference list;
• Be responsible for their own work, avoid assessment offences, and not knowingly allow
others to commit assessment offences.

5. Types of Assessment Offences

Behaviour that constitutes an assessment offence in the context of this policy and the
academic misconduct procedure includes but is not limited to:

Plagiarism
• Copying from another person’s work without the use of quotation marks;
• Copying from another person’s work without referencing/acknowledgement of the
sources;
• Summarising another person’s work by simply changing a few words or altering the order
of presentation;
• Paraphrasing material from a source without acknowledging the original author;
• Not respecting or acknowledging the copyright and intellectual property of others;
• Presenting concepts or designs that have been created by others without acknowledging
the original source;
• Copying another student’s work with or without their knowledge or agreement;
• Downloading material from the web and submitting it as your own work, or or submitting
work created by using AI tools without acknowledgement;
• Using course notes without referencing;

4
• Self-Plagiarism - you may not re-use work (wholly or in part) that has been submitted for
a different assessment for which credit has been/is due to be awarded.

Collusion
• Unethically collaborating with one or more students to complete an assignment, take an
exam, or engage in other academic activities with the intent to deceive or gain an unfair
advantage. This can include sharing answers or jointly submitting work when individual
efforts are stipulated;
• Assisting another person in the completion of work submitted as that other person’s own
unaided work;
• Sharing your work with another person and/or permitting them to copy all or part of it
and submit it as their own unaided work.

Contract Cheating
• Submitting as your own work which has been produced in whole or part by another
person on your behalf, e.g. by using a ‘ghostwriting service, essay mill or similar;
• Making available, or seeking to make available, material to another student or students
with the intention that it is used by them to commit an assessment offence e.g. posting
exam questions online.

Falsification
• Falsifying or misrepresenting the results of experimentation/research data;
• Falsifying your references and/or bibliography or in-text citations;
• Falsifying reports or projects.

Fabrication
• Reporting on experiments/research never performed or data never collected.
• Providing references or/and in-text citations that do not exist.

Research ethics breaches

• Breaches of the policies relating to Research governance and research ethics.

Cheating in controlled conditions assessments

• Having in your possession materials and/or devices which are not allowed for that
assessment;
• Fraudulent activity, e.g. gaining access to the questions or solutions in advance of an
assessment and using this to fraudulently complete the assessment;

5
• Unauthorised communications, including the use of online platforms to discuss online
assessments;
• Arranging for someone else to impersonate a student in an assessment.
• A combination of any of the above

6. The use of text-matching software

The University tests for assessment offences as part of its assessment of student work and
may subject work to scrutiny using text-matching detection software, or other resources, as
appropriate, on either a comprehensive or sample basis. The University will make available
to staff suitable software and other resources for this purpose as it deems appropriate.
Schools will determine their approach to the use of text-matching detection software. This
may include but is not limited to, electronic submission of student work (with or without an
accompanying hardcopy) in accordance with UWE online submission and anonymity policies.

It is important to note that the use of electronic detection software in this way is seen only
as an addition to the normal exercise of academic judgement, not as a replacement for it.

Where an assessment offence is suspected in a particular piece of work it may be scrutinised

using University-approved electronic detection software and/or other resources. Should
there be a case to answer, the student will be informed that the process has taken place
and they will be able to view the outcome report as part of the evidence gathered during
the investigation.

7. Breaches of the policy

The University is committed to upholding the standards of academic integrity and will
investigate any suspected breach of this policy. The investigation process is guided by the
Academic Misconduct Procedures that explain the steps to be taken when a breach is
identified. The procedures ensure fairness and transparency in addressing allegations of
academic misconduct.

Depending on the nature and severity of the breach, the University may apply a range of
sanctions, which could include written warnings, academic penalties, suspension, or even
expulsion. The sanctions applied will be determined after a thorough and impartial
assessment of the evidence, considering the circumstances and severity of the misconduct.

8. Further guidance and support

The Student Voice and Academic Policy Team can be contacted for further guidance and
queries concerning this policy and the application of the academic misconduct procedures.

The Academic Integrity web page provides guidance and support resources for students.

6
Intranet guidance for staff is available concerning the application of academic misconduct
procedures.

Web-based training concerning ethical approval is provided for research supervisors via the
Learning and Development Unit.

9. Ownership and Oversight

Document name: Academic Conduct Policy and Academic Misconduct
Procedures
Version number: 1.0
First approved by: Learning, Teaching and Student Experience Committee
This version was approved Learning, Teaching and Student Experience Committee
by:
Effective from: November 2023
Next review date: July 2026
Senior Policy Owner: Academic Registrar
Policy Author: Nick Biggs, Senior Policy Adviser, SAS
Overseeing committee: Learning, Teaching and Student Experience Committee

10. Version History

Version Date Summary of changes Author
V1.0 November Policy is replace the current Nick Biggs
2023 Assessment Offences Policy

7
Academic Misconduct Procedures
1. Principles of Investigation
Where the University suspects that an assessment offence has been committed it will apply
the procedures explained in this document. The procedures apply to all students studying
towards degrees at or validated by UWE Bristol. In most cases, the procedures will also
apply to UK partner colleges and international partners, but individual partnership
agreements should be checked before progressing an investigation.

It is for the University to prove whether or not an assessment offence has been committed,
and the standard of proof that is used in this policy is the ‘balance of probabilities. This
means that when considering all the evidence about a potential assessment offence, the
University needs to be satisfied that it is more likely than not that an offence has occurred.

The University applies a principle of ‘strict liability’ to assessment offences, this means that
the student’s intentions are not relevant to determining whether or not an assessment
offence has been committed. In practice this means that the University does not consider
whether the offence was an accident or was deliberate in concluding whether or not an
offence was committed, however, we do consider a student’s intentions when deciding on
an appropriate penalty once an offence has been proven.

2. Scope of investigation
• An assessment offence investigation may be commenced at any point whilst the student is
still registered with the university, irrespective of whether a module outcome has been
confirmed by an examination board.
• Should concerns arise in the course of an investigation about other modules’ assessments,
this can prompt further allegations and investigations.
• If an allegation of academic misconduct is made against an individual who is no longer a
UWE Bristol student, but the allegation relates to a time when they were a UWE Bristol
student, the university reserves the right to investigate. If upheld, this could potentially
result in an award being revoked.
• Where concurrent first Assessment Offences may have been committed, these will be
investigated together. A concurrent assessment offence is considered to be one where the
student has not yet been notified of the outcome of an ongoing first assessment offence
allegation. All further offences will be treated as independent offences.
• Cases will not be treated as concurrent where it is beyond reasonable doubt that there
was intent to cheat, deceive or gain an unfair advantage.

8
Procedures and penalties for students registered on
undergraduate and postgraduate taught programmes

1. Diagrammatic summary of investigational procedures

9
2 Staff roles
Assessment Offence Advisers will:

• Provide advice to staff members on whether a suspected assessment offence case should
be formally referred to the assessment offence process.
• Provide guidance and advice to individual students who have been formally referred to the
assessment offence process for poor scholarship/where an assessment offence has been
upheld; including advice on remedial action, support, and/or further training.
• Take an active role to identify and promote good practice and staff development in
relation to the detection and deterrence of assessment offences.
• Pronote good practice in assessment design as a key strategy for avoiding assessment
offences.
• Take an active role in monitoring and analysing assessment offence data and consider
suitable actions.

Executive officers or their nominees will:

• Be responsible for implementation and compliance with the policy within their college.
• Facilitate the formation of and chair college assessment offences panels where required.
• Facilitates communication of the panel outcome to all relevant parties.

An Executive officer is nominated by the Head of College and should be a Dean of College or
School Director/Associate Head of School (or equivalent)

3. Initial review (Level 1)

• An individual who considers that a student has committed an assessment offence should
report the allegation by providing supporting evidence to the Module Leader.
• If the Module Leader determines that there is no case to answer, the investigative process
will cease.
• If the Module Leader supports the allegation, they should refer the case to the relevant
Assessment Offence Adviser.
• In cases where the assessed work is found to display poor levels of scholarship, and it is
deemed appropriate to deal with this without formally recording an assessment offence,
the Module Leader will ensure the mark reflects the poor scholarship and that the student
is offered advice and support.
• In cases where the evidence clearly demonstrates that an assessment offence has
occurred, the student will be advised in writing of the nature of the offence and the
outcome/penalty. They will be signposted to support resources and/or advice as
appropriate. An Academic Misconduct Panel (See section 4.6) will be convened if the
recommended penalty is Band E or F.
• In cases where the evidence suggests an assessment offence has occurred, the student
will be advised in writing of the nature of the concerns and the proposed

10
 outcome/penalty. If the student denies the allegation they will be invited to meet with the
Assessment Offences Adviser. The student will have five working days to confirm whether
they will be attending.
• If the student does not respond or declines the invite, the penalty for the assessment
offence as determined by the Assessment Offences Adviser and confirmed by the
Executive Officer will be applied. The student will normally be notified of the outcome
within five working days of the date of their response to the initial communication.
• If the student confirms they wish to attend a meeting with the Assessment Offences
Adviser to discuss the allegation, the case proceeds to Level 2.

4. Meeting with an Assessment Offences Adviser (Level 2)

• The University will give reasonable notice of the meeting, normally a minimum of 5
working days. The student may be accompanied by a friend or adviser from the Students’
Union Advice Centre; however, they will not be able to speak on the student’s behalf.
• Meetings can be online or face-to-face, and may be recorded.
• An Assessment Offence Adviser can request that a subject-matter expert attend the
meeting to explore the student’s level of knowledge and understanding of the assessment
topic.
• In the meeting, the Assessment Offence Adviser will review the evidence including any
explanation provided by the student and consider the nature and extent of the alleged
offence. They will consider the contribution of the work item or component to the whole
module and whether the student has previously been found to have committed an
assessment offence.
• The student may be informed of the recommended outcome/penalty in the meeting.
• Within five working days of the meeting, the student will normally receive the final
decision of the Executive Officer in writing, unless further investigation is required.
• An Academic Misconduct Panel (see section 4.6) will be convened to confirm the outcome
if the penalty recommended by the Executive Officer is either Band E or F.
• If the Assessment Offences Adviser concludes that further review of the case is required,
a College Assessment Offences Panel will be convened and the case proceeds to Level 3.

5. College Assessment Offences Panels (Level 3)

College Assessment Offences Panel Terms of reference
• A College Assessment Offence Panel will be chaired by the Executive Officer or nominated
representative and a minimum of two members of academic staff from the college who
are unrelated to the investigation, ideally one of whom will be from the discipline area.
• A College Assessment Offences Panel will be convened by the Executive Officer or
nominated representative where the information and evidence concerning a case is
inconclusive and requires further exploration.

11
• College Assessment Offences Panel meetings can be online or face to face, and may be
recorded. The investigation will review the evidence, establish whether an offence
occurred and, if so, its nature and effect, and the appropriateness of any penalties to be
imposed. In the course of this investigation, it may be necessary to consider other module
assessments and further evidence may arise.
• A student may be invited to a College Assessment Offences Panel meeting. The University
will give reasonable notice of the meeting, normally a minimum of 5 working days. In
these cases, the student is encouraged to be supported through the assessment offence
process by a friend or adviser from the Students’ Union Advice Centre. The College
Assessment Offences Panel meeting may be rescheduled if the student is unable to
attend, but if the student declines a second invitation then it will proceed without their
attendance. A written statement by the student will still be taken into consideration if they
are unable to attend the panel meeting.
• In cases where two (or more) students may be involved e.g. collusion, the College
Assessment Offences Panel may request a joint meeting and/or share the statements and
evidence with those involved.
• The Executive Officer will report the decision of the College Assessment Offences Panel in
writing to the student, normally within five working days of the meeting.
• An Academic Misconduct Panel (see section 4.6) will be convened to confirm the outcome
of the penalty recommended by the College Panel is either Band E or F.

6. University Academic Misconduct Panels (Level 4)

• University Academic Misconduct Panel Terms of Reference

• A University Academic Misconduct Panel will be chaired by an Executive Officer or
nominated representative and a minimum of two members of academic staff, one of
whom must be from outside the college. All members of an Academic Misconduct Panel
must be unrelated to the investigation.
• Any assessment offence investigation which may result in a Band E or Band F outcome
will be referred to a University Academic Misconduct Panel to confirm the decision.

7. Appealing an assessment offence outcome

The only grounds for appealing the outcome of an assessment offences investigation are
where:

• The student believes there has been a material and significant administrative error or
other material irregularity in the management of the case or
• There is new evidence, which for valid reason was not previously available and might
have materially affected the outcome and penalty applied.

Students must appeal the outcome of an Assessment Offences investigation within ten
working days by contacting [email protected]

12
 8. Assessment offence penalties
Summary of applicable penalties for Assessment Offence cases at undergraduate and
postgraduate taught level.

Penalty Details
Band Nature of offence Further information
BAND A Not recorded as a formal • Poor scholarship For first offences, a student
offence but concerns are • Minor plagiarism receives a written warning,
noted and may be taken • Minor collusion e.g. student’s work is including signposting to
into consideration if an copied by another student support resources and/or
offence is committed • Minor breaches of research ethics advice as appropriate.
subsequently. There is an expectation for
Mark may be adjusted to the student to engage with
reflect the concerns. the support resources
BAND B Mark of 0 for the work • Evidence of substantial plagiarism provided. Non-engagement
item • Evidence of significant collusion with these can be taken into
• Previous concerns raised at Band A consideration in the
level application of penalties if
BAND C Mark of 0 for the work • The majority of work and/or critical further offences are
item with a mark elements are plagiarised or show committed.
reduction (40% levels 3- evidence of collusion
6, 50% level 7) applied to • Contract cheating
the work item if a resit • Falsification or fabrication of
or retake is required. data/content/references/citations
• Second offences at Band B level
• Using prohibited materials or devices
in an exam
BAND D Mark of 0 for the work • Second offences at Band C level In some instances, a Band E
item, and mark penalty may be deemed
reduction applied to the appropriate for second
whole module (40% offences at the Band C level
levels 3-6, 50% level 7) if (see Band E below).
a resit or retake is
required.
BAND E Not permitted to • Multiple offences (two or more) at Referral to other university
continue on the Bands C or D level depending on the procedures/policies including
programme (required to nature of the offence fitness to
withdraw) • practice/professional
suitability/student conduct
Student is permitted to Band E and F penalties will be
complete modules they approved by the Academic
are currently enrolled Misconduct Panel.
on, excluding the one
where the offence has
occurred
BAND F Immediate expulsion • Three or more offences at Band C or
from the university above
• Repeated deliberate and significant
undermining of assessment integrity

13
9. Guidance to inform an assessment offence penalty

Issues which may be considered when deciding an appropriate penalty for an assessment
offence include:

• Whether the student accepts an offence, if an offence has been committed, at the earliest
opportunity;
• Whether the student intended to deceive, and/or their honesty and integrity in dealing
with the investigation;
• Whether the student has committed any previous assessment offences;
• Volume/proportion of the assessment affected;
• Size of assessment with respect to the overall module, and credit-weighting of the
module;
• Level of study, amount/nature of previous study;
• Impact of penalty on progression;
• Issues identified concerning the clarity of the assessment brief.
• Personal circumstances

Penalties for assessment offences for students on awards validated or accredited by

professional or statutory bodies may be constrained by the regulations of those bodies. This
may include reporting the offence to the professional or statutory body.

10. Penalties and professional suitability

• The penalty confirmed for a student registered on a professionally accredited programme

will be communicated to the Head of School who may report the outcome to the
regulatory body if required.
• If a Band E or F penalty is confirmed for a student registered on a professionally
accredited programme, the Head of School will report the outcome to the regulatory body
and also decide whether the student is permitted study on a professional accredited
programme at the university in the future. This decision will be recorded in the
university’s record system.

11. Group work

Any penalty applied in the event of an assessment offence will normally be applied to all
members of the group. The two exceptions are:
a. where a member of the group acknowledges, in writing to the Assessment Offence
Adviser, that they have committed an assessment offence;

14
 b. where the offence can be shown to have been committed by (a) specific member(s)
of the group responsible for those sections of the work that are the subject of an
assessment offence.

In the case of these exceptions, the penalty will only be applied to the member(s) of the
group who has committed the assessment offence.

12. Reporting penalties to the Field and Award Boards

It is not within the remit of the Field or Award Board to determine whether an offence has
occurred or to decide on an appropriate penalty.

However, where an assessment offence is found to have occurred in relation to one or more
modules the Award Board may take these into account when considering decisions on:

• compensation of failed credit;

• Whether any further action is required such as referral to other UWE Bristol policies
and/or external bodies e,g. professional, statutory or regulatory bodies.

Investigation procedures and penalties for

Postgraduate Research degrees

1. Expectations
The University considers that all allegations of assessment offences relating to research
study undertaken by postgraduate researchers for the purpose of an MPhil or Doctoral level
award are serious and must be investigated accordingly. All students of the University,
including postgraduate researchers, are subject to the University’s published policy about
academic integrity and assessment offences.

2. Regulations
E10. Research Governance, Conduct and Assessment Offences

(i) Candidates must comply with the University (and/or the approved equivalent
collaborative partner institutions) policies and Code of Good Research Conduct as set
out in Regulation A5.

(ii) The Director of Studies and supervisory team will ensure that candidates have access
to information and training on the University’s expectations.

15
(iii) Allegations of misconduct will be investigated in accordance with the procedures set
out in the University’s Code of Good Research Conduct and/or the University’s
Assessment Offences Policy.

3. Scope of the investigation procedures

Assessment offence allegations made against postgraduate researchers (PGRs) registered on

an MPhil or doctoral level award (including those who are also members of University Staff
or affiliated Staff) will be investigated under the University’s Academic Regulations and
Procedures as follows.

1. Assessment offence allegations made against PGRs relating to the assessment of

taught elements of the award for which UWE credit is awarded (e.g., taught
modules) will be investigated in accordance with part D10 of the University
Regulations and procedures relating to taught programmes within this policy.

2. Assessment offence allegations made against PGRs relating to the assessment of

the research project, the thesis or the critical commentary (MPhil/DPhil by
publication), or any other element of research undertaken directly relating to the
award, will be investigated under regulations at D10 and E10and the procedures
described below. The investigation will align with the principles of the University
Code of Good Research Conduct as appropriate.

3. Allegations of research misconduct relating to any other area of research with

which the postgraduate researcher is connected will be investigated under
procedures set out in the University Code of Good Research Conduct. In addition
the investigating College Director of PGR or PGR Assessment Offence Panel Chair
may also refer an assessment offence case for consideration under the University’s
Research Misconduct Procedures at any stage where there are clear grounds to do
so.

16
4. Diagrammatic summary of investigative procedures

17
5. Assessment offence penalties

Summary of applicable penalties for proven assessment offence cases in MPhil and
doctoral level awards

The penalty tariff is designed with due regard to:

• the intent to deceive;

• the proportion of the material affected;
• the level of study;
• the extent of previous skills support training having been undertaken;
• any previous offences having been recorded against the candidate by the University at
any level of study, but particularly at Masters level 7 and Doctoral level 8.

Offence Outcomes Nature of the Offence Normal penalty to be applied, or

committed range of penalties where there
is more than one available.
Poor scholarship Incomplete, inaccurate • Details of areas for concern are
or missing citation in a included in written feedback and
small number of sent to both the candidate and
instances. the Director of Studies (DoS), who
must meet to agree a plan of
action to improve the candidate’s
understanding of good academic
practice and any further training
needed.
• All examples must be rectified
within the work concerned.
• Poor scholarship within a thesis
submitted for final examination
will be raised as part of the viva
process and will require correction
and / or amendment as
appropriate.
• No offence will be recorded on the
candidate’s student file/record.
First and lesser Evidence shows • College PGR Director issues a
offence plagiarism or other formal written warning to the
(Not applicable for assessment offence of a candidate copied to the DoS,
offences found in a minor nature in terms of advising that further offences will
thesis submitted for volume with very little be deemed ‘serious’ and may
final examination) significance to the piece result in a severe penalty being
of work overall. applied from the range described.

18
 • The offences is recorded
candidate’s student file/record
until graduation.
• Candidate and DoS must meet to
agree an action plan as above
which will be subject to
College/School research degrees
committee scrutiny as
appropriate.
• All examples must be rectified
within the work concerned.
All other offences • Evidence shows • Affected material is redacted
including: plagiarism or other within the work and the
• First and serious assessment offence designated Examining Board
offence; that: permits the assessment to go
• Is not extensive and is ahead.
of relatively minor or
• Second / subsequent
significance to the • The candidate is required to
offences;
piece of work or resubmit the work or thesis for
thesis; assessment in a manner and
• All offences detected
or within a timescale approved by
within the thesis
• Is extensive the designated Examining Board,
after its submission
amounting to a no further resubmission outcome
for final examination,
considerable portion permitted;
other than instances
of the piece of work or or
of poor scholarship.
thesis, or there are • The candidate is required to
numerous occurrences withdraw by the designated
throughout the work. Examining Board and their
or registration is terminated, no
• Is significant and resubmission is permitted. The
compromises the candidate will not qualify for the
academic integrity of award on which they are
piece of work or thesis registered;
as a whole; and/or
or • The candidate is referred for
• The candidate has investigation under the University
committed a second / Research Misconduct Procedures.
subsequent offence,
where a proven • In all cases the offence will be
previous offence has recorded on the candidate’s
also been recorded student file/record and included in
against them. future academic references.

19
6. Roles and responsibilities

The Doctoral Academy will:

• Provide advice to staff members on whether a suspected assessment offence should be

referred to the PGR assessment offence process.
• Provide guidance and advice to individual PGR candidates who have been referred to the
assessment offence process.
• Take an active role in monitoring and analysing assessment offence data and provide
guidance on suitable investigative actions within the scope of the policy.
• Provide support and regulatory guidance to the College Director of PGR or Panel
throughout an assessment offence investigation.

The College Director of PGR (or equivalent) will:

• Be responsible for implementation and compliance with the policy within the College in so
far as it applies to postgraduate research and PG researchers.
• Take an active role to identify and promote good practice in relation to the detection and
deterrence of assessment offences within postgraduate research.
• Facilitate the formation of College PGR assessment offence panels where required and
support the College Dean of Research and Enterprise who will chair College PGR AO
panels.
• Facilitate communication of the investigation outcome to all relevant parties in conjunction
with the Doctoral Academy.

7. Initial allegation – an offence is suspected.

• A person who considers that a postgraduate researcher (PGR) has committed an

assessment offence within research work submitted for assessment or review must report
the allegation in writing as soon as possible to the Doctoral Academy. Preliminary
evidence to support the allegation should also be included. The Doctoral Academy will
liaise with the Director of PGR (or other designated person) for the College in which the
PGR candidate is registered.
• Where the allegation concerns work submitted for the Progression Examination the viva
may need to be postponed while the investigation is taking place. The Doctoral Academy
will inform the PGR candidate of this.
• Where the allegation concerns work that has already been submitted by the PGR for final
assessment (ie., the thesis or critical commentary) the Doctoral Academy PGR Assessment
Manager, or equivalent, will liaise with the College Director of PGR to determine whether
it is necessary to suspend the final assessment process or postpone the viva voce
examination while further investigation of the allegation is carried out.

20
8. Initial investigation (Level 1)

• The College Director of PGR and the Doctoral Academy will consider the preliminary
evidence and carry out additional investigation to determine whether there is a case to
answer, and if so the likely seriousness of the offence.
• If there is the potential for a conflict of interests the allegation will be investigated by
another member of the College Research Degrees Committee (or equivalent body), or by
the Director of PGR for another College.

No case to answer
• If the Director of PGR decides that there is not case to answer the investigation process
will cease. No offence will be recorded on the PGR candidate’s student record.

Poor Scholarship

• If the Director of PGR decides at this preliminary stage that the issue is one of a poor
level of scholarship, they will inform the PGR candidate and their Director of Studies (DoS)
of this in writing. The work must be corrected as part of ongoing supervision and the DoS
will provide advice and guidance to the candidate on good research practice and discuss
what further training should be undertaken.
• Where poor scholarship is identified in work submitted for final assessment this will be
addressed as part of the viva process through required amendments.
• In either event no offence will be recorded on the PGR candidate’s student record.

The evidence suggests an offence has occurred.

• Where the evidence suggests that an offence has occurred it is for the College Director of
PGR to determine both the volume and significance of the suspect work to the research
project as a whole, and the seriousness of any offence.
• In doing so they may consult colleagues with subject or technical expertise to assist in the
investigation. Individuals called upon in this way will be unconnected with the PGR
candidate or the research project concerned.
• In the case of work submitted for final assessment the PGR Director may also consult the
appointed PGR examiners where this is appropriate (ie., where the examiners have had
sight of the work).
• From this point onwards the PGR candidate’s Director of Studies (DoS) and supervision
team will play no part in the investigation, other than to provide information or evidence
as required by the College Director of PGR.
• The nature and complexity of allegations about doctoral level work means that this
investigation stage may take some time. Where the investigation is likely to take more
than 10 working days from the date the allegation is received, the Doctoral Academy will
write to the candidate (cc the DoS) to explain this and provide an estimate of when the
investigation stage is likely to be concluded. Updates will be issued if the investigation
takes significantly longer than estimated.

21
• Once the Level 1 investigation stage is complete the College Director of PGR will write to
the candidate to explain the allegation and the potential penalties that may be imposed.
The candidate will be invited to meet with the Director of PGR to discuss the allegation.
The candidate will have five working days to respond to this letter.
• The letter will be sent to the candidate’s UWE email address and by post to their
registered address.
• The letter will signpost the candidate to University sources of support and advice including
the Student Union Advice Centre and Wellbeing Service support.
• If the candidate declines the meeting or does not reply without good reason, the Director
of PGR will move to consider the outcome of the investigation and the proposed penalty,
forwarding the case for further review or confirmation if the seriousness of the offence
requires it. The candidate will have no further opportunity to meeting to explain their
actions or submit further evidence at this stage.
• If the candidate confirms they wish to attend the meeting the case proceeds to Level 2.

9. Meeting between the candidate and the College Director of PGR (Level 2)

• The University will give reasonable notice of the meeting, normally a minimum of five
working days. The candidate may be accompanied by a friend or adviser from the
Student’s Union Advice Centre; however, they will not be able to speak on the candidate’s
behalf.
• A face-to-face meeting is preferred, but the meeting can be conducted online where
necessary. The meeting may be recorded.
• A member of the Doctoral Academy will attend the meeting to advise on regulatory
matters and in absence of suitable recording equipment will take a written note of the
proceedings for subsequent circulation to attendees.
• The Director of PGR may also invite another member of staff with subject or technical
expertise who may also put questions to the candidate about the work under scrutiny.
• The candidate will have an opportunity to present any additional evidence or mitigating
explanation at this point. The Director of PGR will review the evidence, including any
mitigation and will consider the nature and extent of the offence.
• The candidate may be advised of the likely outcome and proposed penalty at the meeting
if it is appropriate to do so but will receive written confirmation of the outcome from the
Director of PGR within ten working days.
• Where it is found that there is no case to answer the process will stop and no offence will
be recorded on the candidate’s student record. Assessment of the work may then resume
as normal.
• Where the offence is found to be first and lesser this outcome confirmation will comprise
a written warning to the candidate, copied to the Director of Studies.
• Where the offence is found to be first and serious, but the penalty proposed will not affect
the candidate’s ongoing registration on the award the designated Examining Board will
subsequently confirm the penalty in writing.
22
• Where the offence is found to be first and serious or higher and the proposed penalty has
consequences for the candidate’s ongoing registration on the award, or where the
Director of PGR concludes that further investigation is required, the case will be referred
to the College PGR Assessment Offence Panel and proceed to Level 3.

10. College PGR Assessment Offence Panel provides further investigation and
review (Level 3).

College PGR Assessment Offences Panel terms of reference

• A College PGR Assessment Offence Panel will be chaired by the College Dean for Research
and Enterprise (or nominated representative) and comprise a further two members of
academic staff, one of whom will be the College Director of PGR and the other a
representative from outside the College who is an experienced research supervisor. In
addition, a subject or technical expert nominated by the Chair may be added to the panel.
• No member of the panel will have a connection to the PGR, the supervisory team, or the
research project.
• A member of Doctoral Academy staff or the Officer to the Doctoral Academy Sub
Committee with responsibility for PGR Regulations will attend the panel to provide
regulatory advice.
• The Panel will be convened by the College Dean for Research and Enterprise where the
outcome of a Level 2 investigation is not conclusive, or where the proposed penalty has
consequences for the candidate’s ongoing registration on the award.

Level 3 panel process

• A face-to-face meeting of the College PGR Assessment Offence Panels is preferred, but
meetings may be conducted online where necessary. Meetings may be recorded.
• In the absence of suitable recording equipment, the Doctoral Academy staff member or
DASC Officer with responsibility for PGR regulations will take a note of the proceedings for
subsequent circulation to attendees.
• The candidate may be invited to a College PGR Assessment Offence Panel meeting.
Where Chair of the Panel decides that this is appropriate the University will give the
candidate reasonable notice of the meeting, normally a minimum of 5 working days. The
candidate is strongly advised to be accompanied at the Panel by a friend or adviser from
the Student’s Union Advice Centre.
• The Panel may be rescheduled if the candidate has been invited but is unable to attend,
but if the candidate declines a second invitation, then it will proceed without their
attendance.
• A written statement by the candidate can be considered by the Panel if they are unable to
attend.
• The Panel will review the evidence, decide the outcome of the investigation, and identify
an appropriate penalty that will be recommended to the designated Examining Board for
confirmation.

23
• The Chair of the Panel will report the outcome decision to the candidate normally within
10 working days of the meeting. The penalty will subsequently be confirmed in writing by
the designated Examining Board
• In addition to, or instead of an outcome decision and penalty from the range available at
3. above, the Panel may decide to refer the case for investigation under the University’s
Research Misconduct Procedures.

11. The penalty to be imposed results in withdrawal of registration.

• Where the penalty confirmed by the designated Examining Board requires the PGR
candidate to withdraw, their registration will be terminated, and no award will be made.
In such cases the penalty decision will override any right of the candidate to defend their
work at a viva voce examination of their work.

12. Additional procedures for the investigation of allegations arising during the
final assessment process for PGR awards.

• A PGR examiner who suspects an offence may have occurred while scrutinising the thesis
or submitted work prior to the viva should contact the Doctoral Academy as soon as
possible as at section 5. of these procedures above.
• Where concerns arise once the viva voce examining panel has assembled or during the
viva itself the examiner should raise their concern with the Independent Chair who is
responsible for the conduct of the viva.
• Following a brief discussion with the examining panel in camera (in private) the Chair will
decide whether the viva should continue or, in extremis, should be stopped. The
Independent Chair may contact the Doctoral Academy for advice on this point, and must
contact the Doctoral Academy immediately if it is deemed necessary to stop the viva.
• Where the viva continues the examiners may question the candidate about areas of
concern within the thesis/submitted work and this should be clearly recorded in the
examiners’ outcome report. If at the end of the viva the examiners are not confident that
the thesis/submitted work is the candidate’s own work, then this should be indicated in
the relevant section of the report.
• The Doctoral Academy will liaise with both the College Director of PGR and the Chair of
the designated Examining Board to determine the necessary course of action or ensuing
investigation as per the procedures described above.
• Where an assessment offence is found to have occurred in the thesis/submitted work
after it has been examined but before the degree has been awarded the designated
Examining Board may decide to disagree with the assessment outcome decision of the
examiners, and delay the award subject to further investigation, or to withdraw the award
and terminate the candidate’s registration.
• Where a serious assessment offence is found to have occurred in a thesis or submitted
work after an award has been conferred, the University reserves the right to investigate
further and rescind the award if necessary, and to inform any journal or other publication
24
 in which the research contained within the PGR project has been published that an
assessment offence or research misconduct has occurred.

Partnership students
The procedures detailed in this document also apply to students studying at UK partner
colleges and international partners.

UK Partnership students

• The partner is responsible for reporting all alleged assessment offences to the relevant
Faculty Assessment Offence Adviser at UWE.
• The partner has the responsibility for investigating and providing evidence of an
assessment offence to UWE.
• UWE has the final decision regarding the outcome of the investigation and will
communicate the decision to the student.

International partnership students

• The partner is responsible for reporting all alleged assessment offences to the
Partnerships Team at UWE.
• The partnership agreement confirms that assessment offence identification and
investigation are conducted by the relevant Module Leader and Assessment Offence
Adviser at the partner location.
• UWE is informed of the outcome of the assessment offence investigation and the penalty
recommended by the partner.
• The partner is responsible for notifying the student of the outcome.

25