Academic Misconduct Policy 2024/25

1.1 Academic misconduct occurs when a student does not follow good academic practice in an assessment, gaining unfair advantage and undermining academic standards. It is a fundamental principle that students are assessed fairly and on equal terms. Any attempt by a student to gain unfair advantage in the completion of an assessment, or to assist someone else to gain unfair advantage, is considered academic misconduct.

1.2 The University takes academic misconduct very seriously and has mechanisms to identify when it may have taken place. Where academic misconduct is suspected, it will be investigated in all cases. The Academic Misconduct Investigation may determine that there is no case to answer, or if poor academic practice can be addressed through further development. Where a case is proven, penalties will be applied in line with those laid out in Appendix 1. In the most serious cases, the penalty can be failure of the programme.

The type and nature of academic misconduct must be taken into consideration when deciding on the penalty for the behaviour identified. Where academic misconduct is such that it places other students or staff at significant risk, or it risks the reputation of the University, any other appropriate penalty including failure of the programme may be considered. In such cases an Assessment Disciplinary Panel will hear the case and will recommend the penalty.

1.3 The Academic Misconduct Policy applies to all registered students including doctoral students. This includes students studying on programmes at partner institutions, except where it has been contractually agreed that the partner’s procedures will apply.

1.4 All disciplinary aspects of this policy apply solely to academic misconduct that has taken place within summative assessment i.e. assessment that counts towards academic credit, level progression and final awards. Summative assessment includes (but is not limited to) formal exams, group work, essays, projects and dissertations.

1.5 For doctoral students, the policy applies to all summative assessments, which includes the thesis submission and work submitted for annual progress reviews and annual check-ins (part-time students). For professional doctorate programmes which include credit-bearing modules, these modules are subject to this policy for taught modules.

1.6 When academic misconduct is identified within formative assessment (which takes place in-year as part of the learning process and does not count towards academic credit) it will not be taken forward to an Academic Misconduct Investigation. It will be addressed through academic feedback and may lead to more developmental engagement to ensure that the student is able to maintain academic integrity in summative assessments.

1.7 Where Professional, Statutory or Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs) have specific procedures and penalties for academic misconduct, Manchester Metropolitan University policy, procedures and penalties will take precedence. The only exceptions to this would be where a variation to the Academic Misconduct Policy has been approved by the Education Committee. In these cases, the PSRB procedures and penalties should be communicated clearly to students and fully documented in the Programme Specification. If a student on a PSRB course is found to have committed academic misconduct, they may be referred by their academic department for further consideration under the Fitness to Practise procedure.

Back to top

The most common forms of Academic Misconduct are listed below, but this is not an exhaustive list. A more detailed list of offences can be found on the Academic Integrity and Misconduct webpage.

2.1 Plagiarism

There is no minimum threshold for plagiarism. The penalties for plagiarism relate to the context and impact on the academic submission of the plagiarised element(s). Consideration will be given to the impact that the plagiarised content has on the overall mark that the submission would have obtained had the plagiarism not been identified. This is a matter of academic judgement. Software such as Turnitin, or other packages to identify academic similarity reports, are indicative tools. A high or low similarity score does not result automatically in either action or inaction.

2.2 Collusion

Undisclosed collaboration of two or more people on an assignment or task, which is supposed to be completed individually. Academic judgement will be required to determine whether collusion has taken place and by which parties. Software such as Turnitin, or other packages to identify academic similarity reports, are indicative tools. A high or low similarity score does not result automatically in either action or inaction.

2.3 Self-plagiarism

Self-plagiarism is submission by the student of work or large elements of work that has been submitted previously for academic credit whether at this institution or another.

Students wishing to include content that has been marked previously as part of another submission must cite and reference their previous work.

There is no minimum threshold for self-plagiarism. The penalties for self-plagiarism relate to the context and impact on the academic submission of the plagiarised element(s). Consideration will be given to the impact that the plagiarised content has on the overall mark that the submission would have obtained had the plagiarism not been identified. This is a matter of academic judgement. Software such as Turnitin, or other packages to identify academic similarity reports, are indicative tools. A high or low similarity score does not result automatically in either action or inaction.

2.4 Exam misconduct

Examples of exam misconduct can include: copying from another candidate in an examination, bringing unsanctioned materials or devices into the examination room or gaining access to unauthorised materials prior to an examination. The Exam Regulations are appended to the Undergraduate and Postgraduate Taught Assessment Regulations.

2.5 Contract cheating

Contract cheating happens when a third party completes work for a student who then submits it to an education provider as their own. It can refer to situations such as friends or family members completing assignments for students in whole or in part, and does not always involve a financial relationship.

2.6 Generative artificial intelligence

Where a student has made unauthorised use of generative artificial intelligence within their assessment and has attempted to gain an unfair advantage by passing this work off as their own. The severity of the offence, and consequently the penalty, will depend on the student’s academic level, whether it is a first or subsequent offence, and the level of use.

This does not apply to third parties such as Studiosity that have been sanctioned by the University to provide guidance and assistance to students in specific assessment situations, or where the generation of content using artificial intelligence (AI) has been expressly authorised as part of the assessment component.

Students must refer to the assignment brief for details on the use of generative artificial intelligence within assignments, and must acknowledge its use in line with this.

Students who fail to follow the instructions in the assignment brief, and attempt to gain an unfair advantage by passing off work produced by generative artificial intelligence as their own, may be investigated for academic misconduct in line with this policy.

2.7 Falsification

Examples of falsification can include: changing data to fit in with a hypothesis, fabricating responses to questionnaires or any other research data, and creating false references. The latter includes ‘hallucinated’ references, for example in instances where they have been generated by artificial intelligence.

2.8 Non-compliance with ethics procedures

Examples of this can include: proceeding without the collection of data without ethical approval, and failure to secure appropriate consent to carry out research.

Back to top

Academic misconduct cases are divided into three levels of severity: minor, major or severe. The investigation process detailed in this section is the same for both minor and major cases of academic misconduct (any case that does not fall under the severe category). The Academic Misconduct Investigation meeting should take place before it is reported to Assessment Management. Severe Cases, such as suspected contract cheating, are managed by Assessment Management and covered in Section 6 of this policy.

3.1 Where a potential case of academic misconduct has been identified, the student will be invited to attend an Academic Misconduct Investigation meeting. Where a submission has been made to a module that has anonymous marking enabled, the identity of the student may be obtained by Assessment Management for the purposes of arranging a meeting. For minor breaches of exam regulations, it may not be appropriate to hold a meeting and a warning letter may be issued to the student instead, notifying the academic.

3.2 The person conducting the meeting is known as the Investigating Officer. This will be a Head of Department or their nominated representative. In some cases, it may be appropriate to allocate the Academic Misconduct Investigation to someone from outside the department.

For doctoral students, the Investigating Officer will be the Doctoral College Department Lead or other appropriate academic with a doctoral leadership role.

3.3 Assessment Management will provide guidance to academic staff for the meeting and reporting process.

3.4 The student will be provided with at least seven days’ notice of the meeting. The student may bring a representative to the meeting, normally an advisor from the Student Union Advice Centre. Legal representation at the investigation stage is not normally permitted. Students may seek wellbeing support at any time during this process from the University’s Counselling, Mental Health and Wellbeing team.

3.5 The student will be provided with the material that will be considered at the meeting and will be provided with at least seven days to consider the information presented.

3.6 The student will be expected to attend the meeting. If the student does not attend, and does not attempt to make alternative arrangements, the meeting can take place in the student’s absence. Where the student has advised that they are unable to attend, one further appointment will be made. If the student is unable to attend for a second time, the Academic Misconduct Investigation meeting can proceed in the student’s absence. Exceptionally, and where there is clear rationale from the student, discretion may be given by the Head of Department to rearrange the meeting again.

3.7 The purpose is to establish:

• whether academic misconduct has been proven or not proven
• if proven, what type(s) of academic misconduct has occurred
• if proven, whether the academic misconduct is minor or major.

3.8 All cases will be considered on the basis of evidence. The standard of proof at any stage of the investigation is that the University is satisfied that, on the basis of the evidence available, that academic misconduct is likely to have occurred.

3.9 At the meeting, the Investigating Officer will present the evidence of the case to the student, explain the potential penalties and make it clear that, if proven, the offence will be retained on the student’s formal record. The student will be given the opportunity to present their case and to provide any supporting evidence or information they wish to submit which, in their view, may have led to the alleged misconduct occurring.

Consideration of this information will assist the Investigating Officer but may not have an impact on the outcome or penalty.

3.10 The student can be advised verbally at the end of the meeting of the Investigating Officer’s conclusion as to whether academic misconduct has been proven or not proven.

3.11 If the Investigating Officer concludes that academic misconduct has been proven, any imposition of penalties will be communicated after the meeting has concluded and will not normally be given verbally at the meeting. Where it is determined that penalties are to be imposed, the following will be taken into consideration:

• a student’s prior record of academic misconduct including developmental engagement following academic misconduct
• the student’s level of study.

If multiple cases are identified within the same assessment period, they will be dealt with as one and will not count as a “history” of academic misconduct. However, the overall proportion of misconduct identified within each assessment will be taken into account when calculating the final penalty.

Back to top

4.1 Minor cases will be dealt with in a supportive, developmental way.

4.2 The procedure for investigating academic misconduct will follow that set out in Section 3.

4.3 Minor cases are restricted to a first offence of poor academic practice where the academic misconduct does not constitute a significant proportion of the submission or does not substantially influence the grade that the student may otherwise have received had the poor practice not been identified.

Taught postgraduate students with recent experience (in the past four years) of Higher Education must be considered under the major and severe categories.

4.3.1 An offence by a doctoral student can only be classed as minor if:

• it does not have a material impact on the outcome that would have been given
• it is a first offence
• the student is in the first 12 months (or part-time equivalent) of their period of registered study, and prior to enrolling on their degree programme, had been out of Higher Education for four years or more
• it does not occur within the thesis submission.

4.4 Where a case is considered by the Investigating Officer to rest within the minor category, developmental activity can take place at the earliest opportunity, without requiring prior confirmation from Assessment Management. Where a case is proven, penalties will be applied in line with those laid out in Appendix 1. More serious penalties may be applied by Assessment Management if, for example, the team were in possession of other information that is material to the case, but not known to the Investigating Officer at the time of the Academic Misconduct Investigation meeting.

4.5 At the meeting, the student and the Investigating Officer will discuss the poor practice. The exact nature of the developmental engagement is a matter of academic judgement, but it is expected to involve advice on how to resolve the specific issues identified, broader guidance on good practice, and signposting of further information and resources. Find out more about ensuring academic integrity.

4.6 There will be no cap applied to the student’s assessment and the assessment will go forward as marked. Details of penalties are found in Appendix 1. The case will be noted on the student’s academic record. The student will be provided with the summary of the case outcome in writing along with information on how to appeal, and on what grounds.

Back to top

Major cases are those which do not fall into the minor or severe category, where the academic misconduct constitutes a significant proportion of the submission or substantially influences the grade that the student may otherwise have received had the poor practice not been identified.

Contract cheating will always fall under the severe category and is addressed in section 6 below.

5.2 The procedure for investigating major academic misconduct will follow that set out in Section 3 above.

5.3 Penalties are determined and administered centrally by Assessment Management, based on the information provided following the Academic Misconduct Investigation Meeting. When considering the level of penalty, the team will access the student’s academic record to determine whether the student has had a prior record of academic misconduct (including minor cases, as above) and to check on their level of study. Assessment Management will combine this with information from the Investigating Officer about the type of academic misconduct, its severity, and the proportion of assessment affected to determine the penalty.

5.4 As far as possible, the assessment should be given a mark that reflects the standard of the piece of work as presented irrespective of whether misconduct is subsequently proven. Where the extent of the academic misconduct means that it is impossible to give the work a mark, a 0 may be given. Penalties for proven cases are then applied by Assessment Management depending on the outcome of the meeting.

5.5 Assessment Management will inform the student of the penalty. The student will also be provided with the summary of the case outcome, including details of the penalty, if applicable. The student will be provided with information on how to appeal, and on what grounds.

5.6 The penalty decision will be communicated to the relevant Assessment Board, for incorporation in the student’s overall results.

Back to top

6.1 The main type of severe case is contract cheating. Contract cheating happens when a third party completes work for a student who then submits it to an education provider as their own. It can refer to situations such as friends or family members completing assignments for students in whole or in part, and does not always involve a financial relationship.

Other types of severe cases could include, but are not limited to, large-group collusion and cheating, major disruption of an exam and large-scale falsification of data. The default penalty for a severe offence is normally failure of the programme.

6.2 The role of Assessment Management

In all cases where severe academic misconduct is suspected, the academic department should make contact with Assessment Management at the earliest opportunity. Assessment Management will manage all procedural elements of the case including communication with relevant parties. In the case of doctoral students, Assessment Management will liaise with the Doctoral College.

6.3 The Assessment Disciplinary Panel 

6.3.1 The investigation of the case will include an interview with the student, undertaken by a panel. The Assessment Disciplinary Panel will be selected to give the following combination of elements:

• a Chair, who will be suitably senior and have appropriate experience/knowledge of academic misconduct
• academic expertise in the subject (usually local academic staff)
• an elected Sabbatical Officer or other student representative of the Students’ Union.

6.3.2 The student will be invited to a meeting of the Assessment Disciplinary Panel. The student will be given a minimum of seven days’ notice of the interview. Guidance and representation, normally by the Students’ Union Advice Centre, is encouraged.

6.3.3 The student will be expected to attend the Assessment Disciplinary Panel meeting. If the student does not attend, and does not attempt to make alternative arrangements, the meeting can take place in the student’s absence. Where the student has advised that they are unable to attend, one further appointment will be made. If the student is unable to attend for a second time, the investigation meeting can proceed in the student’s absence.

6.3.4 At the Assessment Disciplinary Panel meeting, the student will be invited to make a statement and present any additional evidence that the student considers to be relevant to the case. The panel will then question the student based on the information supplied by the student in advance of, and during, the Assessment Disciplinary Panel meeting.

6.4 Outcomes

6.4.1 The default penalty for a severe case is normally failure of the programme.

6.4.2 The Assessment Disciplinary Panel may conclude that an offence has been committed but does not fall into the category of severe or may conclude that no offence has been committed. In these cases, the Assessment Disciplinary Panel will make a recommendation to Assessment Management regarding the application of any penalty.

6.4.3 The student will be notified in writing following the panel meeting. This will include details of the penalty, if applicable, and how to appeal and upon what grounds.

6.4.4 The decision will be communicated to the relevant Assessment Board which will make adjustments to the student’s results.

Back to top

7.1 A student who is in receipt of a penalty decision from a minor, major or severe case has the right to appeal against the decision. The appeal should be made within 14 days of the date on which the decision outcome is sent. Appeals will be considered by an Appeals Panel.

7.2 A student may appeal against an academic misconduct penalty decision, on one or more of the following grounds:

• that there was mitigation for their actions that they did not submit at the Academic Misconduct Investigation or Assessment Disciplinary Panel stages.
• that the proceedings of the investigation or Assessment Disciplinary Panel were not conducted in accordance with the relevant regulations or that some other material irregularity had occurred and that the conduct or irregularity was of such a nature as to cause reasonable doubt as to whether the decision might have been different had it not occurred.
• that there is new material evidence that they were not, for valid reasons, able to submit at an earlier stage of the process.
• that the penalty imposed was disproportionate, or not permitted under the policy.

7.3 The core membership of an Appeals Panel will normally consist of:

• A Chair (normally a Senior Officer of the University)
• Two senior academic members of staff with appropriate experience and no prior involvement in the case
• an elected Sabbatical Officer or other student representative of the Students’ Union.

Further members may be appointed as appropriate, for example, in considering cases relating to doctoral students.

7.4 The Appeals Panel can take the following factors into account:

• facts (including new evidence if made available)
• newly-disclosed circumstances, submitted by, or on behalf of, the student
• a student’s prior record of academic misconduct
• a student’s level of study.

7.5 The Appeals Panel will normally consider the full written appeal submitted by the student, including any supporting evidence, without the student present.

7.6  There may be occasions where the Appeals Panel considers it important to invite the student to attend a panel meeting. If this is the case, the student will be invited to attend with a representative and will be given at least seven days’ notice. The case will be considered in the student’s absence if the student fails to attend.

7.7 Please refer to the Procedure for Academic Appeals and Review of Assessment-Related Matters for details of the timescales for the conclusion of cases.

7.8 The Appeals Panel will consider the available evidence. Panel members will use their academic judgement in considering the extent to which the appeal makes a case for an adjustment to the penalty. The Appeals Panel is empowered to recommend to the Assessment Board for the penalty to be amended.

7.9 The Appeals Panel will produce a report of its deliberations and the rationale for its decisions. This will be made available to the student when notifying the student of the panel’s decision and will include information regarding the review stage.

Back to top

8.1 In circumstances where the University becomes aware of an allegation of academic misconduct against a student after they have been granted an award, retrospective action can be taken. Such cases will always be considered by an Assessment Disciplinary Panel.

8.2 If the Assessment Disciplinary Panel decides that misconduct has occurred, they will apply a penalty equivalent to that which would have been applied had the student still been enrolled on the course.

8.3 If the effect of the penalty results in failure of the programme, the Assessment Disciplinary Panel will recommend that the award is revoked, and no opportunity for further reassessment will be provided. If a lesser penalty is applied, but that penalty includes the removal of credits in which misconduct occurred, the Assessment Disciplinary Panel will ask for the award to be revoked the and consider whether reassessments should be granted to potentially allow the student to regain the award. Reassessments will normally only be granted where the misconduct is identified within 12 months of the award being made.

8.4 Any decision to revoke an award will be made by the Academic Registrar on behalf of Academic Board.

Back to top

9.1 Reviews will take account of all factors i.e. findings, context and mitigation. Reviews will also examine the way in which the investigation was conducted and the extent to which other factors were taken into consideration when allocating penalties and considering appeals.

9.2 A student may request a review of an academic misconduct appeal decision, on one or more of the following grounds:

• that there was mitigation for their actions that they did not submit at the Academic Misconduct Investigation or Assessment Disciplinary Panel or Appeal stages.
• that the proceedings of the Academic Misconduct Investigation or Assessment Disciplinary Panel were not conducted in accordance with the relevant regulations, or that some other material irregularity had occurred, and that the conduct or irregularity was of such a nature as to cause reasonable doubt as to whether the decision might have been different had it not occurred.
• that there is new material evidence that they were not, for valid reasons, able to submit at an earlier stage of the process.
• that the penalty imposed was disproportionate, or not permitted under the policy.

9.3 For taught students, the review will be undertaken by a senior academic such as a Head of Department or Faculty Director of Education who has had no prior involvement with the case.

For research students, the review will be undertaken by the Chair of the Research Degrees Committee, or their nominee who has had no prior involvement in the case.

9.4 A student may request a review of the decision made by the Appeals Panel within 14 days of the outcome of appeal letter being sent. Outcomes will be sent by email.

9.5 The review stage will normally be completed within 28 days of the receipt of the request for review.

9.6 Student Case Management will compile a full case file for the Reviewer including all evidence received at all stages of the case.

9.7 On the basis of their analysis, the Reviewer will reach a judgement as to whether:

• procedures were followed correctly
• all evidence was taken into consideration, including mitigation at the appeal stage
• judgement was applied impartially and consistently
• the penalty was proportionate to the offence.

9.8 The Reviewer will then advise on whether the case outcome should stand or whether it should be reconsidered by the Appeals Panel. The reviewer may decide to retain the case outcome but lessen the penalty that had previously been applied.

9.9 The Reviewer will, with the assistance of Student Case Management, produce a summary of the rationale for their decision.

9.10 The student will be informed of the Reviewer’s decision and the rationale for it (or the Appeals Panel’s decision if the case has been referred back to them). The student will be advised of their right to appeal to the Office for the Independent Adjudicator.

Back to top

At the conclusion of the University’s internal processes under this policy, the student shall be issued with a Completion of Procedures letter, as prescribed by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA). A student who is dissatisfied with the outcome of their case may a submit a complaint to the OIA under the rules of its scheme within 12 months of the issue of the Completion of Procedures letter. Information on the process can be obtained directly from the OIA at http://www.oiahe.org.uk.

Back to top

11.1 Information on investigation outcomes and penalties will be used in an anonymised format as part of the annual report on academic misconduct that is presented to Academic Board.

11.2 A record of the penalties applied in relation to academic misconduct will be retained in accordance with the University’s Records Retention and Disposal Schedule.

Back to top

The University is proud of its diverse community of staff, students and visitors and is committed to equality of opportunity and to creating a positive environment where everybody is treated with dignity and respect.

The University is proactively committed to providing equitable opportunities to all, irrespective of: age, disability, sex, gender identity, marital or civil partnership status, neurodiversity, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief (or no belief), and sexual orientation.

The University will ensure that treatment is equitable regardless of an individual’s identification with one or more protected characteristics, their nationality, socio-economic background, family and caring responsibilities, or any other appropriate distinction. This is underpinned by the University’s Equality and Diversity Policy and Inclusive and Diverse Culture Strategy.

In addition, this regulation and all relating policies and procedures have undergone an Equality Impact Assessment to ensure we are paying due regard to the Equality Act (2010)

Indicative penalty ranges for doctoral students

Minor offences (see definition in 4.3.1)

• Developmental engagement
• Relevant sections to be removed from the work

Major offences for students previously out of higher education

This applies when:

• it is a first offence
• the student has been out of higher education for four years or more prior to enrolment on their current academic year

Details of the penalty:

• Relevant sections to be removed from the work
• Work follows submission arrangements for first submission or resubmission as applicable         

Major offences for students previously in higher education

This applies when:

• it is a first offence
• the student has been on a higher education programme within the last four years  

Details of the penalty:

• Thesis is given an outcome of ‘resubmission’
• The revised thesis to be resubmitted within the resubmission period
• Possible outcomes limited to those available for resubmitted theses

• Version 3.0
• Date EIA Approved: March 2024
• Owner: Patrick Gannon, Director of Assessment Management
• Author: Victoria Thompson, Head of Assessment Governance
• Approved by: Academic Board
• Last review: June 2023
• Date for review: March 2025
• Changes in last review: 
  • The unauthorised use of generative AI is now its own offence, rather than being classed as a form of contract cheating. It can be considered as Minor, Major or Severe academic misconduct.
  • The appendix listing potential offences has been removed from the policy, and relocated to the student-facing academic integrity webpage