Plagiarism and Cheating: Policy and Procedures

  1. Introduction

    Both the acts of plagiarism and cheating are considered by the University of Southampton to be acts of academic malpractice (or academic dishonesty) and, where proven, are therefore subject to the implementation, in the first instance, of academic procedures as set out in the policy which follows.

    The University seeks to deter the practice of plagiarism and acts of cheating. In attempting to achieve this, the University has instituted the following:

    • Revision of the definition of plagiarism to account for all possible forms of plagiarism across all subject disciplines, subject to update and amendment where necessary and appropriate.

    • Addition of a definition of cheating.

    • Revision of the relevant clauses in the University General Regulations to take account of the plagiarism and cheating policy.

    • Inclusion of the plagiarism and cheating policy in the University QA Handbook for as wide a dissemination of the policy as possible, and any amendments thereafter.

    • Advising all staff to ensure that students are actively aware of what constitutes appropriate academic writing in the discipline, including plagiarism issues, and referencing within the particular discipline and at the appropriate level of study. Staff should be aware of and address cultural interpretations (where 'plagiarism' of learned scholars' work may be considered desirable in students' own work). These matters should be raised explicitly with students and reinforced, for example, through study skills sessions, as well as being included in student handbooks and/or other documentation. Students should also be advised explicitly that downloading and using material from the Internet must be attributed in the normal way. Staff are advised that, when setting out the requirements of an assessment item, students should be reminded clearly that appropriate referencing or acknowledgement of another's work should always be made, and what form of referencing/acknowledgement is acceptable. The difference in cultural expectations should also be explicitly addressed. Staff should not assume that all students, including those educated through the UK school system, will necessarily understand that what we define as plagiarism is inherently 'wrong'. The expectation of what is acceptable at HE level in the UK HE system must be positively explained and reinforced. In advising students on plagiarism issues or academic writing more generally, staff should ensure that the language they use, while appropriate to the circumstances, is clear and unambiguous; references to the 'need to find one's own voice' or work being 'derivative' may not always be picked up by students.

    • Advising staff that, in setting assessments, they should ensure that they are using forms and versions of assessment which actively discourage plagiarism. Questions should be formulated in such a way as cannot easily be answered by the repetition of materials from existing sources, including material downloaded from the Internet. Assessments should focus on analysis and evaluation of knowledge rather than the repetition of facts and description of material.

    • The University-wide implementation of declaration statements for the submission of any assessment item, whereby the student (or group of students) sign(s) a form that indicates that the work submitted is their own. This statement may have a pivotal role to play in determining intention to commit plagiarism and thus must be regarded as a serious item (see section 7).

    • Ensuring that, where students are engaged in group work, the responsibilities of each student within the group are clearly stated so that students understand that, where work is to be submitted and marked on a group basis, they become liable for penalties if plagiarism is confirmed in a piece of work but investigation does not determine which student is responsible for the inclusion of the plagiarised material (see section 5).

    • Encouraging the use of electronic means for the deterrence and detection of plagiarism by means of the JISC anit-plagiarism service now available through Blackboard. This services is free until August 2005.

    Further useful information is available from JISC Plagiarism Advisory website at www.jiscpas.ac.uk. Within the University, Mr Bob Price in Information Systems Services is able to advise on the use of this service.

  2. Definition of 'plagiarism' and 'cheating' and the statement of General Regulations

    Clause 10 of the University's General Regulations reads:

    1. A student who is suspected to have committed an act of plagiarism in any element of work presented for assessment shall be subject to the implementation of academic procedures as detailed in the University plagiarism policy. A student who is found to have committed an act of plagiarism will incur a penalty in accordance with the penalty guidelines listed in the University policy. The severest cases of plagiarism may result in the reduction of class of degree award, deprivation of a University qualification, termination of course, and/or the implementation of disciplinary procedures.

    2. For the purposes of this regulation, the definition of plagiarism is "the reproduction or paraphrasing, without acknowledgement, from public or private (ie: unpublished) material (including material downloaded from the Internet) attributable to, or which is the intellectual property of, another including the work of students".

    3. The University recognises that plagiarism may be of written and also non-written form and therefore this regulation covers all assessments which includes the following (this is not an exhaustive list):

      essays, dissertations, theses, reports, laboratory books, projects, tutorial work, diaries, journals, articles, computer programs, mathematical/computer models/algorithms, computer software in all forms (including programs, macros, spreadsheets, web pages, databases), mathematical derivations and calculations, designs/models/displays of any sort, group work, diagrams, charts, graphs, tables, drawings, works of art of any sort, fine art pieces or artefacts, digital images, computer aided design drawings, GIS files, photographs, maps, music/composition of any sort, posters, seminar presentations, and tracing.**

    4. A student who is suspected to have committed an act of cheating in any assessment shall be subject to the implementation of academic procedures as detailed in the University's cheating policy. A student who is found to have committed an act of cheating will incur a penalty in accordance with the penalty guidelines listed in the University policy.

    5. For the purposes of this regulation, cheating is defined as "acting before, during or after an assessment or examination in such a way as to seek to gain unfair advantage or assist another student to do so".

    ** In some cases, the definition of plagiarism will cover seen examinations and this will be noted explicitly to students in assessment regulations.

  3. Procedures for cases of suspected plagiarism or cheating for all summative undergraduate and postgraduate instructional assessment.

    1. If, during the marking process, a marker/examiner suspects a case of plagiarism, or if there is suspicion that an act of cheating may have occurred, the marker/examiner shall cease the marking process for the assessment item.

    2. In the case of suspected plagiarism, the marker/examiner shall check whether or not the assessment items carries a declaration statement signed by the student concerned, and whether advice about appropriate referencing and avoiding plagiarism was given to students in such a way and in such time as they might reasonably have been expected to have received this advice including addressing the issue of cultural differences.

    3. The marker/examiner shall prepare a brief report noting the extent of suspected plagiarism or cheating in the assessment item and any details arising from discussion with the relevant programme/unit tutor.

    4. If the external examiner suspects a case of plagiarism that may have been missed by the internal markers/examiners, then s/he shall refer the matter to the relevant programme tutor/programme dirctor who shall then follow the steps (b) to (d) noted above.

    5. The brief report on suspected plagiarism or cheating, and the affected assessment item, shall be forwarded as soon as convenient to the Deputy Head (Education) or the named member(s) of the School to whom responsibility for dealing with plagiarism issues has been delegated, and also to the relevant external examiner.

    6. The Deputy Head (Education), or the named member(s) of the School to whom the responsibility for dealing with plagiarism issues has been delegated, shall decide, in consultation with the School Manager as appropriate and on the basis of the report and with advice from the external examiner, whether or not further procedures need to be followed (see section 4 for further guidance).

    7. If the Chair decides not to pursue the matter further, then a note must be made at the School Examination Board of the matter. The affected assessment item must be marked in accordance with the given marking scheme.

    8. If the Chair decides to pursue the matter further, then a meeting with the student concerned must be held. The meeting will involve a sub-group of the School Examination Board involving three members of the Examination Board (excluding the marker/examiner who originally suspected the plagiarism or cheating) and chaired by the Chair of the Examination Board. If it appears that the case may raise cultural or other sensitivities, the Chair may co-opt an additional member able to advise on these issues, or otherwise seek advice as s/he sees fit. The student must be advised that a meeting is to be held to investigate the suspected case of plagiarism or cheating, and that the student will be asked to offer an explanation to the sub-group. The student will be invited to attend the meeting accompanied by a member of the University if they so wish. Students invited to attend such a meeting should be strongly encouraged to seek the advice of colleagues in the Advice and Information Centre of the Students' Union.

    9. The reporting marker/examiner will outline to the sub-group:

      • the reasons for suspecting plagiarism or cheating;
      • the information given to students about how to avoid plagiarism and reference appropriately for the level and discipline (including coverage of cultural issues);
      • whether a declaration statement has been signed;
      • and, where appropriate, the extent of the plagiarism in the assessment item.

      The student will be able to respond. The sub-group will consider in private the facts of the case as presented. The student will be informed in writing of the outcome of the sub-group decision, including the imposition of any marking penalties. The Examination Board will record the outcome of the sub-group decision.

    10. Penalties that may be applied in cases where it is established that plagiarism has been committed shall differ in severity dependent on the extent and nature of the plagiarism ascertained by the sub-group, and they will have the remit to determine such penalties.

      1. For all cases of plagiarism the assessment item so affected shall be marked disregarding all sections/parts that are plagiarised or which contain an element of plagiarised material. Only the actual work of the student concerned shall be awarded marks in accordance with the given marking scheme. This should have some affect on the overall mark awarded to a student and, in the case of a piece of assessment that carries considerable weighting in the degree classification scheme, may also affect degree award made.

      2. In cases of considerable plagiarism, the sub-group may impose not only the penalty described in (i) but also the imposition of a reduction of degree class by one class.

      3. In the severest cases of plagiarism (including multiple cases of plagiarism by the student concerned), the sub-group may recommend termination of the programme or deprivation of degree award.

    11. Penalties that may be applied in cases where it is established that cheating has been committed shall differ in severity dependent on the extent and nature of the cheating ascertained by the sub-group and they will have the remit to determine such penalties. Penalties that may be applied in cases where it is established that cheating has been committed shall include:

      1. reducing the mark for the specific assessment or examination to zero;
      2. failure in the unit;
      3. failure in the year as a whole;
      4. reduction in degree class;
      5. termination of programme.

    12. Numbers of plagiarism sub-groups held within the School, and the outcomes, should be monitored and reported to the Faculty as part of the annual operating statement monitoring process.

    3.1 Summary of Plagiarism and Cheating Procedures

    To be added at a later date or available from Educational Development Service upon request.

  4. Guidance for Interpreting the Plagiarism Policy

    A Chair may decide not to pursue investigation of a case of suspected plagiarism if, for example, it appears in the initial evidence available that it is more a case of poor academic writing or careless referencing than copying another's work. The marking of such an item will note the careless referencing and will impose such penalties for careless referencing as the given marking scheme allows.

    If there is a signed disclaimer statement, and the suspected plagiarism does not seem to be a case of poor academic writing or careless referencing, then the Chair is advised to investigate the case fully following consultation with the School Manager.

    In cases where the suspected plagiarism or cheating has occurred within one disciplinary area of a Joint Honours or Major/Minor combination degree, then it would be advisable to ensure that the meeting held to investigate the matter involves representatives from both disciplinary areas concerned. This is especially important in the case of a cross-School degree combination where the suspected plagiarism or cheating arises in the School to which the student is not formally attached.

    If a student wishes to request a review of a decision relating to plagiarism or cheating, then the student must submit the request to the School in which they are registered.

    Formative Assessment

    If plagiarism or cheating is suspected in a formative assessment item (ie: one that does not count towards final degree classification or progression rules for the programme of study) then the relevant programme/unit tutor needs to notify the student concerned of the way in which the University views plagiarism and cheating, including discussing any differences in cultural approaches, and to offer further advice about academic writing and the appropriate forms of referencing for the discipline. No particular penalties or series of procedures needs to be followed, but the serious nature of the problem must be made clear to the student and a record should be kept of the discussions. Should a student submit further pieces of formative assessment in which plagiarism or cheating is suspected, then the programme/unit tutor should consult with the Head of School or other appropriate person in the School and, if judged necessary, the formal procedures may then be followed.

  5. Guidance on the procedures to be followed in the case of suspected plagiarism in group work (UG and PGI)

    The procedures as stipulated above for all UG and PGI assessment should be followed in cases of suspected plagiarism in group work with the following amendments.

    • In group work it is not always possible to ascertain which student did a particular item of work for the assessment, and thus any case of suspected plagiarism needs to be investigated fully (ie: the Chair of the School Examination Board must establish a sub-group to consider the case if it involves group work).

    • The reporting marker/examiner must check whether a disclaimer statement has been signed by all students in the group (disclaimer statements for group work are different from those used for individual work), and whether or not advice about appropriate referencing and avoiding plagiarism was given to students, including addressing the issue of cultural differences.

    • Each student will be advised of the establishment of a sub-group to consider the case of suspected plagiarism, and each student from the group will have to meet with the sub-group individually.

    • The sub-group will meet each student in turn and ask him/her how the group work was conducted, who had responsibility for particular parts/sections, and how the assessment item was finalised amongst the group. Once the facts have been clarified by the students, the reporting examiner will put forward the case of suspected plagiarism and its extent in the assessment item. The student will then be asked to offer an explanation for the suspected plagiarism or any other comment.

    • The sub-group will meet in private and consider the outcome and imposition of penalties as appropriate. If plagiarism is confirmed, and it is clear that it was the act of specific member(s) of the group, then the appropriate penalties may be applied equally to those members. If plagiarism is confirmed but it is still unclear who in the group was the originator(s), then all students in the group will have the appropriate penalties applied.

    • The threat of this application of penalties should act as a deterrent and also provide incentive, on the part of the students, for the true facts of the case to be obtained from discussion with the students. If plagiarism is not confirmed, but there has obviously been a lapse in presentation of the assessment item, then the assessment item must be marked in full (with the appropriate loss of marks for presentation errors).

  6. Further Plagiarism Issues

    AQSC has considered further instances of possible plagiarism cases in specific circumstances and has made refinements to the definition of plagiarism (incorporated above) in the light of these. These are noted below for reference.

    'Self-plagiarism'

    A case arose whereby an external examiner noted that work a student had done in one assignment was used again in another assignment. This raised the question as to whether 'self-plagiarism' was a possible concern that would need to be covered by the University plagiarism policy.

    It was emphasised that such a situation could not in any way be considered as 'plagiarism', but was more likely to be the symptom of poor assessment design or limited audit of assignment portfolios. While student-directed assessment and modular degree systems do potentially promote the opportunity for duplication in assessment, programme designers should be aware of this and tailor assessment strategies to avoid it.

    In some Schools, explicit checking of a student's portfolio of work was undertaken to ensure there was no 'double counting' of text in credit-rated units contributing to the award. Clearly students should not gain credit for work already done.

    AQSC resolved that all examiners should be aware of opportunities for overlap in assessment, either whilst designing new programmes or revising assessment requirements for existing provision, and ensure that such overlap is avoided.

    Plagiarism in Examinations

    A case arose whereby a group of students had undertaken a small credit-rated unit. This small unit covered a narrow range of topics making the items for assessment obvious. In the examination, the students had answered a question by reproducing the text from a lecturer's article. They had each independently memorised the text and reproduced it in the expectation that this would meet with the lecturer's favour. As it turned out, the reproduction of the text did not address the exam question appropriately. However, there was concern as to whether the present definition of plagiarism would be applicable in this case.

    It was noted that much of what a student does, particularly in answering exam questions, is to call upon the work of others, sometimes very directly (as in the case of mathematical proofs, for example). This would be a normal expectation of the exam process and thus penalty for 'plagiarism' would be inappropriate. It was argued that the 'pass' answer in an exam question is often that which relies upon basic recall of material 'learnt' in a lecture. Whilst memorised text would no doubt be a poor answer to an exam question, in itself it was 'recall' and thus merited some credit.

    There was concern that the current definition of plagiarism relied upon the 'copying or paraphrasing' of material attributable to others and that, to avoid cases being raised that involved the direct memorising of another's text, the word 'copying' might best be revised as 'reproduction'. It was suggested that the rubric of examination papers should note that references to others' work is required where this was felt to be appropriate (eg: open book and take-away exams).

    As a result of this case, the University definition of plagiarism was revised to replace the word 'copying' with the word 'reproduction', and a footnote was added to the list of assessment items in the general regulations to read: 'In some cases, the definition of plagiarism will cover seen examinations and this will be noted explicitly to students in assessment regulations.'

  7. Recommendations for University-wide Declaration Statements

    All Schools will be expected to incorporate signed declaration statements on a front sheet that has to be attached to the submission of assessed work. These declaration statements must be attached to all work that carries more than 15% weight in each unit assessment load. Where Schools already use front sheets, they can simply revise existing wording in accordance with the recommended statements below.

    Reference to Clause 10 of the General regulations, which specifies the definition of plagiarism used in the University, should be made to students either in student handbooks or other documentation provided to them regarding assessment.

    (UG and PGI) Course work:
    I the undersigned confirm that the attached work is all my own work. Reference to, quotation from, and discussion of the work of any other person has been correctly acknowledged within the work.

    Group work:
    We the undersigned confirm that the attached work is the result of our group effort alone. We are each aware of the contribution made to the work by each member of the group. Reference to, quotation from, and discussion of the work of any other person has been correctly acknowledged within the work.

    Where Schools are using the electronic plagiarism detection service, they are advised to add additional wording to the disclaimer to make this explicit.

    Should Schools wish to include more explicit declaration statements, they may do so provided that the approved University wording is also included. For example, the Faculty of Law, Arts and Social Sciences recommends that its Schools also include the phrase 'I have read the University's definition of plagiarism and the related regulations (SCHOOL WEB ADDRESS WHERE THESE CAN BE FOUND) and am aware of the potential penalties which may be incurred for breaches of these regulations' with the appropriate variant to be used for group work. It is advised that the wording of any such changes be checked with Legal Services.

Approved by ASQC (for implementation in 2000-01) : 24 May 2000
Revised by ASQC : 15 November 2000
Revised by ASQC to include Cheating Policy : May 2002
Revised by ASQC : July 2003

Revised by AQSC in the light of RRAA and for updating : June 2005

Approved by Senate : 22 June 2005

Plagiarism and Cheating : Policy and Procedures relating to Postgraduate Research Students

Deterring Plagiarism
  1. At doctoral level, staff should ensure that all students are actively aware of the demands of good academic writing, including plagiarism issues, and the expectations with regard to referencing within the particular discipline. It should be made clear to students both through skills sessions and in student handbooks what form of referencing/acknowledgement is acceptable for the discipline, within the UK system. Staff should be aware of cultural interpretations (where 'plagiarism' of learned scholars' work may be considered desirable in student's own work), and should not assume that all students, including those educated through the UK school system, will necessarily understand automatically that what we define as plagiarism is inherently 'wrong' - the expectation of what is acceptable at HE level in the UK HE system must be positively explained and reinforced. In advising students of plagiarism issues or academic writing more generally, staff should ensure that the language they use, while appropriate to the circumstances, is clear and unambiguous - references to 'the need to find one's own voice' or work being 'derivative' may not always be picked up by students.
Declaration of Authorship
  1. Theses, at the time of submission, should be accompanied by a signed declaration from the student that the material presented for examination is his/her own work and has not been submitted for any other award (and, where relevant, how it relates to a group project).
Procedures for Handling Suspected Cases of Cheating or Plagiarism by PGR Students in Written Work prior to the Final Thesis
  1. When allegations of cheating or plagiarism arise prior to the submission of the final thesis, for example work submitted as part of assessment of research training units, the procedures to be followed will be those for students on taught programmes. For allegations of cheating or plagiarism relating to a transfer thesis or other documentation submitted as part of the procedures for transferring from MPhil to PhD candidature, this will be investigated by the upgrade panel in consultation with the Head of School (under paragraph 4 to 8 below). In this instance, where it is established that plagiarism has been committed, the penalties that may be applied shall include: (i) a requirement to make amendments to the transfer thesis or other documentation within a specified timescale, addressing the plagiarised material, before upgrade to PhD candidature may be approved; (ii) in the severest cases, failure in the upgrade process and a recommendation for termination of programme.
Procedures for Handling Suspected Cases of Plagiarism in a Submitted Thesis for a Higher Degree
  1. Where plagiarism in a submitted thesis is alleged or suspected, the examiner identifying the suspected elements will consult with the other examiner, and the internal examiner will prepare and submit a report to the Head of School on the basis of this consultation. To determine whether further action is needed, the Head of School will institute an enquiry which may involve further consultation with the examiners and supervisor, and the Deanery, as necessary.

  2. If, on the basis of this enquiry, the Head of School concludes that further action is required, (s)he will appoint a formal Panel to investigate the allegation fully. This Panel will be drawn from members of the School not directly involved with the case, and should include a senior representative from the Faculty. If it appears that the case may involve cultural or other sensitivities, the Chair may co-opt an additional member able to advise on these issues, or otherwise seak advice as s/he sees fit.

  3. The student must be advised that a meeting is to be held to investigate the suspected case of plagiarism and that the student will be asked to offer an explanation to the Panel. The student will be invited to attend the meeting, accompanied by a member of the University if (s)he chooses. Students invited to attend such a meeting should be strongly encouraged to seek the advice of colleagues in the Advice and Information Centre of the Students' Union.

  4. The Panel will ask the internal examiner, on behalf of the examining team, to detail the reasons for suspecting plagiarism and the extent of the plagiarism in the thesis. The student will then be invited to respond, and the Panel may ask questions of both the internal examiner and the supervisor.

  5. The Panel will then consider in private the facts of the case. If necessary, the Panel may decide that further information or consultation is needed, for example with the external examiner; however, any new information which arises from these discussions must be shared with the student, normally in writing. The findings of the Panel should be discussed with the external examiner who, in cases where plagiarism is proven, should be consulted about the appropriate penalty to be applied.

  6. Where, in the Panel's view, it is established that plagiarism has been committed, the Panel will prescribe a penalty. Penalties that may be applied in cases where it is established that plagiarism has been committed shall include:

    9.1 a requirement to make amendments to the thesis within a specified timescale, addressing the plagiarised material;

    9.2 failure in the thesis and permission to re-submit a revised thesis within a specified timescale;

    9.3 failure in the thesis and termination of the course, with no right to re-submit.

  7. The student will be informed in writing of the Panel's decision.

  8. The decision of the Plagiarism Panel must be reported to the School Board.

  9. Should plagiarism be identified or suspected in a thesis subsequent to the award being made, the Head of School shall consult the Head of Legal Services as to the appropriateness of pursuing further enquiries and the most effective means of pursuing the matter if appropriate. Should plagiarism be proven in such an instance, Senate has the power to withdraw the award previously made.

  10. Students wishing to appeal against the decision of a plagiarism panel are referred to the Regulations Governing Appeals by Postgraduate Research Students.
Cheating
  1. Cases of suspected cheating will be dealt with according to the procedures outlined above. Possible examples of cheating may include collusion in the production of data for a thesis, creation of fictitious data for use in the thesis, etc. Should cheating be proven, penalties will apply as set out in paragraph 9 above, except that in para 9.1 the material to be addressed will be that which has been the subject of cheating.
Monitoring
  1. Numbers of plagiarism sub-groups held within the School, and the outcomes, should be monitored and reported to the Faculty as part of the annual operating statement monitoring process.
Existing regulations expanded for clarity and in the light of RRAA.

(Approved by AQSC : June 2005)
(Approved by Senate : 22 June 2005)