Regulation on Unacceptable Academic Practice

1.1 Throughout this document the term 'University' refers to the Aberystwyth University. The terms ‘Chair of the Examination Board’, ‘Deputy Registrar with responsibility for Examinations )’, 'Academic Registrar' and ‘Pro Vice-Chancellor’ may include designated members of staff acting on behalf of these staff (‘nominee’).

1.2 Students and members of staff should read this document in conjunction with the relevant section of the Academic Quality Handbook.

1.3 The University will normally resolve all cases within six weeks of sending initial notification of the allegation to the student.

1.4 The university recognises that a referral to the Unacceptable Academic Practice process is often preceded by and/or accompanied by other adversity and an escalation in distress. Students are therefore urged to seek confidential support from Wellbeing, which does not disclose its work with the wider university except where there is a serious safeguarding risk. Students may also wish to seek support from the Students’ Union, who can help by guiding you through the process and can support you by attending the panel meeting with you.

2.1 It is Unacceptable Academic Practice to commit any act whereby a person may obtain, for themselves or for another, an unpermitted advantage. The Regulation shall apply, and a student may be found to have committed Unacceptable Academic Practice, regardless of a student’s intention and the outcome of the act, and whether the student acts alone or in conjunction with another/others. Any action or actions shall be deemed to fall within this definition, whether occurring during, or in relation to, a formal examination, a piece of coursework, the presentation of medical or other evidence to Examination Boards, or any form of assessment undertaken in pursuit of a University qualification or award.

For the purpose of UAP investigations, an assessment component is a specific task or element that contributes to the overall mark of a module. Assessment components include, but are not limited to: written and oral examinations, essays, lab practicals, reports, written and oral presentations, posters, portfolios, exhibitions, performances, dissertations, reports, MCQs, online exams. The purpose of different components is to assess the skills and learning (?) required to meet the learning outcomes of the module. The weighting of all assessment components shall add up to 100% of the overall module assessment. Some components may carry a higher weighting than others. Occasionally, an assessment component may be made up of several/multiple subcomponents, for example a number of in-class tests. Where a subcomponent of an assessment component is under investigation for UAP and the allegation is substantiated, the UAP penalty shall be applied to the subcomponent under investigation, not to the entire assessment component.

2.2 The University recognises the following categories of Unacceptable Academic Practice. These are not exhaustive, and other cases may fall within the general definition of Unacceptable Academic Practice.

(i) Plagiarism

Plagiarism is defined as using another person's work and presenting it as one's own, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Examples of plagiarism include:

• Use of quotation without the use of quotation marks
• copying another person's work
• unacknowledged translation of another person's work
• paraphrasing or adapting another person's work without due acknowledgment
• unacknowledged use of material downloaded from the internet
• use of material obtained from essay banks or similar agencies
• presenting work generated by AI as if it were your own
  
  

(ii) Collusion

Collusion occurs when work that has been undertaken by or with others is submitted and passed off as solely the work of one person. When the work of one or more individuals is submitted in the name of others with the knowledge of the originator(s) of the work, all parties concerned may be considered to have committed Unacceptable Academic Practice.

Students who upload copies of their own (or others') assignments to academic file-sharing sites may be deemed to have committed unacceptable academic practice on the grounds that such activity facilitates plagiarism and is tantamount to collusion, except where this is explicitly permitted by the department

Examples of collusion include (but are not limited to)

• two or more students working together and presenting the work as their own
• sharing data or other information which is presented without the knowledge or acknowledgement of the originators
• sharing answers during an online examination or timed assessment
• submitting examples of work to academic file-sharing websites

(iii) Fabrication of evidence or data

Fabrication of evidence or data and/or use of such evidence or data in assessed work include making false claims to have carried out experiments, observations, interviews or other forms of data collection and analysis. Fabrication of evidence or data and/or use of such evidence or data also include presenting false or falsified evidence of special circumstances to Examination Boards or Appeal Panels.

(iv) Unacceptable Academic Practice in formal examinations

Examples of Unacceptable Academic Practice in formal examinations include the following:

• introducing into an examination room and/or associated facilities any unauthorised form of material such as a book, a manuscript, data or loose papers, electronic device, information obtained via any electronic device, or any source of unauthorised information, regardless of whether these materials are of relevance to the subject in question
• copying from, or communicating with, any other person in the examination room and/or associated facilities except as authorised by an invigilator
• communicating electronically with any other person, except as authorised by an invigilator
• impersonating an examination candidate or allowing oneself to be impersonated
• presenting an examination script as one's own work when the script includes material produced by unauthorised means
• failing to comply with written directions to candidates in formal examinations, and verbal instructions by examination invigilators
  
  

An electronic device shall be considered to be within this Regulation if it is capable of any of the following: communicating electronically within or outside an examination room, connecting to the internet, being uploaded with digital data or information, making audio recordings, a digital memory or storing of audio recordings, uploading digital data or information to another device, displaying digital data or information or playing audio recordings.

All of the following fall into this category, but the list is not exclusive and other unspecified devices will fall under the Regulation: mobile telephones, smart watches, laptop computers, tablets, data storage devices, Bluetooth receivers, headphones, i-pods, electronic calculators other than those specifically allowed in university examinations.

(v) Recycling of data or text

Recycling of data or text in more than one assessment, when this is explicitly not permitted by the Department.

(vi) Presenting work generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) as one’s own work

Any use of generative AI in assessment should be explicitly acknowledged in the work and should comply with the University and departmental guidance on the use of AI. Any assessments that are generated in whole or part by AI without appropriate acknowledgment and/or referencing shall be considered Unacceptable Academic Practice. Students should refer to the General guidance on the use of AI and guidelines: https://www.aber.ac.uk/en/is/regulations/guidance-on-ai/. Further information about AI and its safe and ethical use is available at https://www.aber.ac.uk/en/is/help/ai/#using-ai-for-your-studies.

3.1 When it is suspected that a student is engaging in Unacceptable Academic Practice in a formal examination, the student shall be informed, preferably in the presence of a witness, that the circumstances will be reported. The student shall, however, be allowed to continue the examination and any subsequent examination(s) without prejudice to any decision that may be taken. Failure to give such a warning shall not, however, prejudice subsequent proceedings.

3.2 Where candidates fail to comply with written or verbal instructions in an examination the invigilator shall report the circumstances to the Deputy Registrar  who shall interview the student and decide a penalty (see section 7).

3.3 In the case of a student being found in possession of any unauthorised electronic device (as defined in section 2.1(iv)), which has not  been used or where there is no evidence that it has been used, the invigilator shall confiscate the device and report the circumstances to the Deputy Registrar. The Deputy  Registrar  shall interview the student then decide whether to issue a penalty (see section 7).

3.4 Where there is suspicion/evidence that the electronic device may have been used, the invigilator shall confiscate the device and report the circumstances to the Deputy Registrar  who shall, as soon as possible, submit a written report, with any evidence retained, to the Academic Registry, for referral to the Chair of the relevant Examination Board.

3.5 In the case of a student being found with unauthorised material, and where it can be clearly established that it is of no relevance to the exam paper, the invigilator shall confiscate the material and report the circumstances to the Deputy Registrar who shall interview the student and decide if the case is substantiated.

3.6 Where there is suspicion/evidence that unauthorised material is directly relevant to the examination, the invigilator shall confiscate the material and the Deputy Registrar shall, as soon as possible, submit a written report, with any evidence retained, to the Academic Registry, for referral to the Chair of the relevant Examination Board.

3.7 In cases where a student has written on their person a photograph of the evidence may be taken as evidence.

3.8 The Deputy Registrar may request that a member of staff from the academic department attend the examination and confirm whether unauthorised material is relevant to the subject/examination.

3.9 Where an invigilator suspects other forms of unacceptable academic practice not listed above this shall be reported to the Deputy Registrar who shall, as soon as possible, submit a written report, with any evidence retained, to the Academic Registry, for referral to the Chair of the relevant Examination Board.

4.1 All staff who suspect that Unacceptable Academic Practice has occurred should submit a written report to the Chair of the relevant Examination Board, along with the relevant documentary evidence, according to the Guidance on Academic Practice.

4.2 It is the responsibility of members of staff who submit a report of suspected Unacceptable Academic Practice to provide all relevant documentary evidence, including statements from witnesses and copies of suspected sources.

4.3 In the case of a test contributing to the final module result, which is conducted under the aegis of the Department, the invigilator shall report to the Chair of the relevant Examination Board.

4.4 An internal or external examiner or any other person who, whether during the marking period or subsequently suspects that a student has engaged in Unacceptable Academic Practice, shall report the matter in writing to the Chair of the relevant Examination Board as soon as possible.

5.1 If a member of staff or an examiner suspects Unacceptable Academic Practice in a research thesis or other work submitted for examination for a research degree, the case shall be referred to the Academic Registry, who will convene the University Panel to consider the case, according to section 11 of the Regulation.

5.2 If a member of staff or an examiner suspects Unacceptable Academic Practice in taught research training modules taken by a research student, the allegation should be reported and investigated as for taught modules (detailed in sections 2-11). The Faculty in which the student is registered shall convene a panel where a Faculty Panel is required.

6.1 On receipt of a written report concerning suspected Unacceptable Academic Practice, the Chair of the relevant Examination Board shall review the report and the evidence which has been provided, and apply one of the following procedures, after consulting the relevant section of the Academic Quality Handbook:

i) Investigation by Chair of the Examination Board;

ii) Investigation by Faculty Panel;

iii) Investigation by University Panel.

7.1 On receipt of a report concerning suspected Unacceptable Academic Practice in a formal examination, the Deputy Registrar shall proceed to consider the suspected case on the basis of the evidence which has been presented.

7.2 If the Deputy Registrar is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the allegation of Unacceptable Academic Practice has been substantiated, a written report shall be submitted to the Academic Registry. The Academic Registry will check that procedures have been correctly followed, and will inform the student of the outcome, and the penalty which will be applied. The student will also be informed of the right to request a review or request that the case is referred to the Faculty Panel for investigation.

7.3 If the Deputy Registrar is satisfied that there is no case of Unacceptable Academic Practice, a written report shall be submitted to the Academic Registry. The Academic Registry will check that procedures have been correctly followed before informing the student of the outcome, and that no further action will be taken.

8.1 On receipt of a report concerning suspected Unacceptable Academic Practice, the Chair shall proceed to consider the suspected case on the basis of the evidence which has been presented. In cases where there is a conflict of interest, the Chair of Exam Board shall nominate a different staff member to consider the case.

8.2 If the Chair is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the allegation of Unacceptable Academic Practice has been substantiated, a written report shall be submitted to the Academic Registry. The Academic Registry will check that procedures have been correctly followed, and will inform the student of the outcome, and the penalty which will be applied. The student will also be informed of the right to request a review or request that the case is referred to the Faculty Panel for investigation.

8.3 Once the outcome has been confirmed for students registered on professionally accredited courses, the Chair of the Examination Board will notify the scheme coordinator who should consider if a referral to the fitness to practise panel is also necessary.

8.4 If the Chair is satisfied that there is no case of Unacceptable Academic Practice, a written report shall be submitted to the Academic Registry. The Academic Registry will check that procedures have been correctly followed before informing the student of the outcome, and that no further action will be taken.

9.1 Where possible, panel members should not have been involved with previous cases of UAP for the same student.

9.2 A written record of a panel hearing or interview to determine authenticity of work shall be kept by a secretary, normally a member of the Faculty/Registry administrative team; the secretary shall not be a member of the panel.

9.3 Staff who have made the allegation of Unacceptable Academic Practice should not be members of the panel and should take no part in the decision. Staff who made an allegation of Unacceptable Academic Practice are, however, normally members of the interview panel as subject experts.

9.4 The student shall be officially informed of the date, place and time of the panel/interview meeting, and that they have the opportunity to attend the meeting. The student should be notified as to identities of panel members in advance of the meeting and can raise conflicts of interest prior to the meeting. The student should be notified as to of the meeting and can raise conflicts of interest prior to the meeting.

9.5 The student and the panel should be given reasonable notice to prepare for a panel/interview. This would normally be between 5-7 calendar days. Only in rare cases, and with good reason (for example, where progression may be dependent on the outcome of a UAP case), a shorter notice may be given.

9.6 The student shall have the opportunity to submit written evidence in advance of the panel/interview meeting, including evidence of special circumstances. Any evidence and supporting documentation should normally be submitted in one email, no later than 48 hours before the scheduled panel. The University recognises that this may not always be possible (for example, where the file size or collective size of documentation is too large to be included in (or attached to) a single email, or where a student might receive medical evidence less than 48 hours before the panel/interview meeting. Any evidence that is sent after the deadline will be considered by the panel after the panel/interview meeting, not during the meeting.

9.7 The student may be accompanied by an advisor from the Students’ Union. The advisor from the Students’ Union may attend the meeting to support the student but shall not advocate for the student or speak on their behalf. Attendance by any other persons shall be at the discretion of the Chair, and any requests for attendance of persons other than an advisor from the Students’ Union should be made in writing to the Chair in advance of the panel/interview meeting. Legal representation at the meeting will not normally be permitted.

9.8 Where a student, without good reason, fails to attend a panel/interview meeting, the meeting may proceed in their absence.

9.9 Where possible, panel/interview meetings should not be scheduled during examination periods or before a student has completed their examinations. Where a student is aware that there is a pending UAP investigation prior to examinations, they should be given the option to postpone the panel/interview to a period after they have finished their examinations, or for it to be held during the examination period.

9.10 Where necessary, the faculty/university panel may request that a subject expert be present at the meeting. The subject expert shall be a member of the AU staff, normally from the student’s academic department. The subject expert shall not be a member of the panel and shall not be present at the panel deliberation, nor shall they take part in the decision. The role of the subject expert shall be to provide subject-specific information and answer any subject-related questions that the panel may have. Where the student is in attendance, they shall be given the opportunity to raise any issues after the subject expert has left the meeting. This shall give the student the opportunity to speak freely and raise any issues that they may have concerning the subject expert. 

9.11 Following the outcome of the meeting, students registered on professionally accredited courses may be referred to the fitness to practise panel where necessary.

10.1 On receipt of a report concerning suspected Unacceptable Academic Practice, the Faculty shall convene a small panel to investigate the case. The panel shall be composed of the Assistant Faculty Pro Vice-Chancellor Education and Student Experience (AFPVC ESE) or nominee and at least one member of academic staff not associated with the assessment in question. A secretary shall be present to keep a record of the meeting.

10.2 Where a case is referred to a faculty panel after an interview to determine authenticity of work, interview panel members shall not be permitted to take part in the faculty panel. The secretary, who is not a panel member, may be the same as in the interview.

10.3 The information about the panel and the invitation to the panel meeting shall be communicated to the student by a member of the faculty administrative team.

11.1 On receipt of a report concerning suspected unacceptable academic practice where there is uncertainly if the work submitted by the student is their own, and where the member of staff is not able to find documented evidence to support a case of UAP , for example if it is suspected the work has been obtained from an essay bank or generated through AI software, the Chair of Examination Board may determine that an interview to determine authenticity of work be held to establish the authenticity of the work submitted.

11.2 Because there is reason to believe the work is not entirely a students’ own work, the purpose of the interview is to test the student’s knowledge of the work they have submitted and to provide the student with the opportunity to demonstrate the work is their own, prior to a UAP panel investigation (if appropriate).

11.3 TThe interview panel shall be composed of a Chair who is independent to the allegation, and a subject expert (normally the marker who raised the allegation, or module coordinator). A record of the interview must be kept in the form of written minutes by an interview panel secretary and may be added to the evidence of a UAP allegation.

11.4 The information about the panel and the invitation to the interview panel meeting shall be communicated to the student by the Chair of Exam Board (or nominee).

11.5 Following the interview the panel will report their opinion on the student’s knowledge of the work and the reasons for this conclusion. This shall be reflected in the minutes of the interview.

11.6 Where the interview panel determine the student has not demonstrated the work is their own the Chair of the Examination Board will refer the case to a UAP panel to investigate an allegation of Unacceptable Academic Practice along with details of the allegation and the report from the interview.

11.7 Where a student admits that they committed unacceptable academic practice as part of the interview process the Chair of Examination Board will refer the case to the Academic Registry to determine the appropriate penalty. There will not be a requirement for a UAP panel to meet with the student. The student will have an opportunity to request that their case is considered by a UAP panel if the student is dissatisfied with the outcome of the interview.

11.8 Where the interview panel determine the student has demonstrated the work is their own the Chair of the Examination Board will inform the module coordinator that the work should be marked according to published departmental criteria and inform the student that no further action will be taken.

12.1 The University shall establish a Standing Panel to investigate suspected cases of Unacceptable Academic Practice. Each Faculty shall nominate members of academic staff to serve on the Standing Panel.

12.2 On receipt of an allegation of Unacceptable Academic Practice from the Chair of an Examination Board, the Academic Registry shall arrange for a University Panel to be convened. The Chair of the Examination Board shall submit a written report relating to the case, along with all relevant written evidence.

12.3 The University Panel shall consist of three members selected from the Standing Panel, one of whom shall be designated as the Chair, and a secretary to the panel who shall keep a record of the meeting. Where possible, no member of any University Panel shall be drawn from the student’s department(s). In cases where a panel member is drawn from the student’s department, the Chair shall make the student aware of this and the student may request a new panel if there is a conflict of interest. No member of a University Panel should have been involved with previous cases of UAP for the same students.

13.1 The function of such panels shall be:

i) to consider the evidence submitted to it on the suspected Unacceptable Academic Practice;

ii) to determine whether the allegation has been substantiated on the balance of probabilities;

iii) to determine, in cases where the allegation has been substantiated, any penalty to be applied.

14.1 When two or more students are suspected of related instances of Unacceptable Academic Practice, the Chair of the panel may decide to deal with the cases together. However, each student shall be given the opportunity to request that the cases be heard separately.

14.2 The Chair shall present an outline of the case against the student, referring to the evidence which has been submitted for consideration by the panel. The panel may ask questions of the student and the subject expert where one is present.

14.3 The student shall have the right to hear all the evidence relating to the case before responding to the allegation, and to make a response in person to the panel. Additional documentary evidence including evidence of special circumstances may not be presented to the panel on the day of the meeting without the express permission of the Chair.

14.4 When the presentation of the evidence and the student’s response are completed, all persons, other than members of the panel and the secretary, shall withdraw.

14.5 The Panel may, after the panel meeting or interview to determine authenticity of work, contact the relevant academic department to seek verification of any claims made by the student, or seek further information which it may consider when determining an outcome. Any false claims may lead to further disciplinary action. If false claims are identified after a penalty has been determined, the penalty may be reviewed.

14.6 If the panel is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the allegation of Unacceptable Academic Practice has been substantiated, a written report shall be submitted to the Academic Registry. The Academic Registry will check that procedures have been correctly followed, and will inform the student of the outcome, the penalty which will be applied, and also of the right to request a review.

14.7 Once the outcome has been confirmed for students registered on professionally accredited courses, the Chair of the Examination Board will notify the scheme coordinator who should consider if a referral to the fitness to practise panel is also necessary.

14.8 If the panel is satisfied that there is no case of Unacceptable Academic Practice, a written report shall be submitted to the Academic Registry. The Academic Registry will check that procedures have been correctly followed before informing the student of the outcome, and that no further action will be taken.

14.9 Outcomes will be issued by email. Whether or not the finding of the panel is that the case has been substantiated, the student will not normally be informed orally of the outcome; there shall be no discussion of the decision with the student.

15.1 The Deputy Registrar shall apply one for the following penalties. These are outside of the points-based system and offences do not count towards other allegations of unacceptable academic practice.

(i) The penalty for a first offence shall be the issue of a formal written warning to the candidate. 

(ii) The penalty for a second or subsequent offence shall be a maximum mark of 39 where the pass mark is 40 or 49 where the pass mark is 50 for the assessment. The student may resit the module for a capped mark if the module is failed, subject to resit opportunities being available to them.

15.2 Compassionate Approach to Academic Integrity

The University recognises that initial or minor breaches of academic practice and conduct may in some instances result from different practice or requirements at a previous educational institution, or education system, a different academic culture, or because of a gap in understanding between leaving and re-entering education system/higher education, or lack of support to develop good academic practice and conduct in the past, or other circumstances. The University also recognises that under the points-based penalty system any subsequent offence, may result in a severe penalty which may have serious consequences for a student’s degree class or even their ability to complete a degree.

Where a substantiated allegation of Unacceptable Academic Practice is a first, and minor breach of academic practice in the student’s first year of attendance at Aberystwyth University, and points to a genuine mistake, resulting in poor academic practice rather than unacceptable academic practice, the UAP panel/Chair of Exam Board (or nominee) may decide to refer the case to the Educational Route where the student will be

• invited to complete the online academic integrity course (https://libguides.aber.ac.uk/referencing, and/or ) within a specified period of time (usually five working days) and provide evidence of completion (available on BlackBoard).
• required to attend any further good academic practice sessions as directed by their academic department.

If the student completes these steps in the timeframe set out, no penalty should be applied, and the assessment should be marked following the departmental marking criteria; if they do not then the department should report the student back to the Academic Registry and the original penalty which would have been incurred under the points based system may be applied at a later date.

Some examples of minor breaches of academic practice that result in poor academic practice rather than unacceptable academic practice include (but are not limited to) poor referencing and unintentional plagiarism.

The intention of including an educational approach to UAP is to effectively prevent further allegations from occurring. Any subsequent offences shall count as a second (or third, if appropriate) offence on the points-based system.

In cases where the UAP panel considers the Educational Route not to be appropriate, the penalties as defined in the penalty table should be applied.

15.3 Chairs of Examination Boards, and Faculty and University panels, shall apply one of the penalties which are set out in the Guidance on Academic Practice. Penalties shall be applied on the basis of a points-based system, with consideration of the following elements:

(i) Previous record of Unacceptable Academic Practice;

(ii) Extent and severity of Unacceptable Academic Practice;

(iii) Level of study.

15.4 Previous allegations of UAP should not be taken into account when determining if UAP has occurred and panels should not be made aware of previous allegations of UAP until it has been determined if the allegation is substantiated or not. Once a decision has been made the panel may consider prior substantiated cases of UAP in determining the penalty as set out in the points-based system.

15.5 Panels may not take special circumstances into consideration in determining whether Unacceptable Academic Practice has occurred. Panels may however take exceptional personal circumstances into consideration in applying penalties, where it can be shown that these are relevant to the case. In such cases the student must show good reason why such personal circumstances could not previously have been submitted to the Faculty so that an extension to the submission deadline, or other adjustments to the assessment concerned, could be considered. Recommendations to reduce penalties, usually by one level, on grounds of special circumstances shall be submitted to the Academic Registry for consideration by the Academic Registrar or their nominee. In rare cases, a recommendation to reduce a penalty by more than one level may be made and will normally be sent to the Academic Integrity Champion for consideration.

15.6 Panels may not take the impact on progression into consideration in determining whether Unacceptable Academic Practice has occurred. Panels may however take the impact on progression into account when applying penalties if the penalty is likely to have an unintended impact on the student. Recommendations to reduce penalties on grounds of unintended impact shall be submitted to the Academic Registry for consideration by the Head of Academic Registry or their nominee.

15.7 Penalties shall be applied according to the points-based penalty system. In exceptional cases the Chair of the relevant Examination Board / Chair of the Faculty or University Panel may recommend a more severe penalty. Recommendations should be submitted to the Academic Registry, providing a full case in writing in support of the recommendations. In such cases the Academic Registry in consultation with the Academic Integrity Champion may apply one, or a combination, of the following penalties:

(i) Exclusion of the student from the University for a specific period or permanently;

(ii) Disqualification of the student from any future examination in the University.

15.8 Cases where an inconsistency is identified shall be referred to the Academic Integrity Champion for a final decision.

15.9 In cases where a UAP penalty results in a P, F or N indicator being awarded for a module or modules, this indicator will not be overturnable by recommendations for an H indicator or by an academic appeal outcome - any special circumstances should have already been declared at the time of the panel (see 15.5), and if appropriate taken into account in the issuing of the penalty. Under the ‘false start’ arrangement at Part One the UAP penalty remains on the record and a student with more than 20 credits of N will not be permitted to take a false start.

16.1 The University shall apply one of the following penalties for Unacceptable Academic Practice in a research thesis or other work submitted for examination for a research degree:

i) Failure of the thesis, with an opportunity to resubmit;

ii) Failure of the thesis, with no opportunity to resubmit.

16.2 For research training modules Chairs of Examination Boards, and Faculty and University panels, shall apply one of the following penalties, taking into account extent and severity of Unacceptable Academic Practice and previous record of Unacceptable Academic Practice.

i) For a first offence, except for serious allegations which would normally require a university panel, a mark of zero for the assessment and a requirement to resit the assessment for a capped module mark.

ii) For a second offence, or a serious allegation that requires a university panel, a mark of zero for the module with a requirement to resit the module. For a third offence, permanent exclusion from the university.

iii) For a third offence, permanent exclusion from the university.

In the case of the first two penalties, this shall be reported to the relevant Faculty or Doctoral Academy PGR Monitoring Committees and taken into account in determining whether the student has demonstrated sufficient progress to be allowed to continue to the next year of study.

17.1 The University will not make any public pronouncements of decisions of Faculty/University panels unless a student, in respect of whom a determination has been made, requests the publication of any such determination.

18.1 If a case of suspected Unacceptable Academic Practice is under investigation at the time of the meeting of the relevant Examination Board, the Board shall defer consideration of the student's work until the outcome has been conveyed by the Academic Registry to the student and the Chair of the Examination Board.

18.2 Should a case be under investigation when a pass-list is due for completion, the name of the student concerned shall be withheld from the pass-list, and a supplementary pass-list issued subsequently as appropriate.

18.3 If a case of Unacceptable Academic Practice arises after the issue of the original pass list, or after a qualification has been conferred, the Examination Board shall have authority to cancel or amend a result previously confirmed and to issue a supplementary pass list.

18.4 If an allegation of Unacceptable Academic Practice is received after a student has completed their programme, the University will not normally investigate it once the AU retention period for assessed work has passed. This is in line with the University e-submission policy and the University Data Protection Policy.

19.1 If a student is dissatisfied with the outcome of the Unacceptable Academic Practice investigation, they can request a review, to be investigated by a Pro Vice-Chancellor. The Final Review procedure can be found at https://www.aber.ac.uk/en/academic-registry/handbook/fr/

20.1 The Academic Registry shall maintain records of all investigations into suspected Unacceptable Academic Practice and shall present an annual report for consideration by the appropriate committee of the University.

Information will be processed and retained as is deemed necessary for the University’s performance of tasks carried out in the public interest (General Data Protection Regulation Article 6(1)(e)) and under its contractual obligations (General Data Protection Regulation Article 6(1)(b)). It will be retained for one year after completion of your course, unless a Final Review is lodged with the University, or a complaint is lodged with the Office of Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, in which case the period may be extended.

Points-based Penalty System

 

Chapter updated: September 2024