(1) This Guideline aims to assist academic and teaching staff to prevent, detect and respond to breaches of academic integrity by students. (2) This Guideline applies to: (3) (4) Collusion – Unauthorised collaboration on assessable work (written, oral or practical) with others. This can occur when a student presents group work as their own or as the work of another person. (5) (6) Plagiarism – The use of another person’s intellectual output, presented without appropriate acknowledgement, which creates the impression that the work is being claimed as one’s own. (7) (8) (9) See Academic Integrity Policy. (10) See Student Misconduct Procedure. (11) Academic integrity is important for any university in maintaining a high standard of student work and academic research. This involves the use of reputable academic resources and the full scholarly acknowledgement of the sources consulted in the creation of a piece of research. The integrity of the learning process must be maintained by the University - it is vital that plagiarism, contract cheating and other forms of cheating are minimised wherever possible. (12) Academic integrity breaches may include: (13) Some forms of academic integrity breaches may be more straightforward to detect, and address, than others. (14) Plagiarism involves the insufficient (or even non-existent) acknowledgment of the research materials used in creating a student's assessment. This may be accidental (eg. poor referencing skills) or intentional (eg copying uncredited material from the internet and passing it off as one's own work). (15) Plagiarism may constitute a deliberate attempt to deceive an assessor by claiming work as one's own or it may be an unintentional breach of academic integrity in circumstances where knowledge of citation/ attribution could have been reasonably expected. (16) Plagiarism can be detected in a variety of ways relevant to the nature of the work being undertaken. These include: (17) To prevent plagiarism, academics may wish to: (18) Plagiarism can be minimised by careful assessment design. This may include: (19) The University uses the pattern recognition software program Turnitin to check written work for potential plagiarism. This is an important tool for use by staff and students that has many benefits for the University. These tools compare submitted text to a comprehensive database of work from across the world on a word by word basis. (20) Originality Reports are not plagiarism reports, nor are percentage matches always necessarily indicative of levels of plagiarism - they are simply a tool to assist in bringing work with matching text to assessors' attention. Appropriate and accurate citation may well produce a higher score. As a result, the report requires interpretation and interrogation, and a case by case examination of whether plagiarism has occurred or not must still be performed. (21) Staff can use pattern recognition software to generate Originality Reports to assist in the identification of written work that may warrant further investigation for potential plagiarism. They can also use the tool as a teaching tool to assist in conveying good academic integrity practices to their students. (22) Students can use pattern recognition software to generate their own Originality Reports and to self-educate about appropriate acknowledgment. (23) “Washing" is a new form of plagiarism in which a student uses Google Translate to translate their assessment into another language and then back again into English. This process involves automatically substituted generated synonyms and phrases and creating an ostensibly "new" document. (24) Turnitin does not detect this process. However, if a substantial portion of the assessment is in clearly unidiomatic English, including odd synonyms or phrases or even gibberish, then the student has probably been washing and thus must be penalised for plagiarism. (25) Contract cheating usually involves the purchase of an assignment or piece of research from another party. This may be facilitated by a fellow student, friend or purchased on a website. Other forms of contract cheating include paying another person to sit an exam in the student's place. (26) Contract cheating can be detected by pattern recognition software as well as expert analysis by the academic of the student's work as a whole, taking into account student contribution to class. (27) To help prevent contract cheating, academic staff may: (28) Contract cheating may be reduced through careful course design. Academics may wish to: (29) Collusion involves the copying or uncredited collaboration of material between students of unit materials (that is, the work of multiple people credited only by a single author). (30) Collusion can be detected in a number of ways relevant to the nature of the work being undertaken, including: (31) The potential penalties for plagiarism or collusion may be either be in the form of an educative response or a punitive response. (32) Contract cheating is generally treated as serious misconduct and a punitive response is appropriate. (33) Educative responses rather than punitive responses may be applied to minor acts of plagiarism where some effort has been made to cite sources, or where collusion has occurred in an inadvertent fashion (eg students working closely together submitting similar assignments). (34) An academic staff member's choice to address inadequate acknowledgement in an educative manner does not result in a finding of Academic Misconduct and should not be recorded as an instance of misconduct or plagiarism on the student's file. However, it will still be recorded on the University's Register of Academic Integrity Breaches. (35) Educative response is by its nature non-punitive. An educative response does not include a deduction of marks beyond the usual marks assigned for referencing skills. Assigning a grade of zero for a breach of academic integrity is a punitive rather than educative response. (36) Educative responses may include: (37) In determining if an educative response is appropriate, staff members should consider: (38) A punitive response is more appropriate for serious breaches of academic integrity such as intentional plagiarism, contract cheating, washing and exam cheating. (39) Serious plagiarism involves copied or appropriated work formed with the clear intention to deceive an assessor, purchasing an assignment, premeditated cheating or other forms of misrepresentation. The effect of serious plagiarism is to compromise the assessment process. (40) Punitive responses are only delivered as the conclusion of the Student Misconduct process and are handled under the Student Misconduct Regulations 2019 and Student Misconduct Procedure. (41) Punitive responses to plagiarism are detailed in Part 6 of the Student Misconduct Regulations 2019 and may include: (42) Academics who decide to deliver an educative response must make a note of: (43) The centralised University Register is currently maintained by the Integrity Office. Instructions for submitting the information can be obtained from the Integrity Office. (44) The University will investigate allegations of serious academic integrity breaches which amount to academic misconduct. Investigation will be conducted in accordance with the processes established in the Student Misconduct Procedure or the misconduct processes established under the relevant industrial instrument for staff. (45) A referral by a Senior Officer to the Student Misconduct Panel can be made by lodging a Student Misconduct referral form via Integrity Office (as per the Student Misconduct Procedure). (46) Where the allegation involves a possible breach of the University's Research Integrity Policy, the senior officer should notify the VU Research as soon as possible. The senior officer will then consult the VU Research regarding the seriousness of the alleged misconduct and the appropriate allocation of responsibilities in dealing with the matter under the Research Integrity Policy. (47) Student Misconduct Procedure (49) TEQSA: Guidance Note: Academic Integrity (29 March 2019) (50) Buyer Beware: Study Finds Fake University Assignments Can Be Detected, Deakin University (51) Contract cheating - What Can I Do to Help Prevent it in My Unit, Curtin UniversityAcademic Integrity Guidelines
Section 1 - Summary
Section 2 - Scope
Top of PageSection 3 - Definitions
Section 4 - Policy
Section 5 - Procedures
Section 6 - Guidelines
Part A - Defining Academic Integrity Breaches
Part B - Plagiarism
How is Plagiarism Detected?
Assessment Design to Prevent Plagiarism
Using Turnitin to Detect Plagiarism
Part C - Washing
Part D - Contract Cheating
How to Detect Contract Cheating
Assessment Design To Prevent Contract Cheating
Part E - Collusion
How to Detect Collusion
Part F - Penalties
Educative Responses to Minor Plagiarism
Punitive Responses
How to Record an Educative Response
How to Pass on more Serious Matters to the Student Misconduct Process
How to Record Breaches involving Research
Section 7 - Supporting Documents and Information
View Document
This is not a current document. To view the current version, click the 'Current Version' tab above.
on the Register of Academic Integrity Breaches.