Actions which weaken the educative process (such as copying data in the laboratory, sharing CAD drawings or programming tasks) or dishonest actions (such as quoting in essays or reports from books, handouts, module resources or the work of other students without explicitly stating that this is being done) are firmly discouraged in WMG. Senate has formulated Reg. 11 Academic Integrity (from 4 Oct 2021) (warwick.ac.uk) about suspected academic misconduct. Academic misconduct are acts or omissions by a student which give or have the potential to give an unfair advantage in an examination or assessment or might assist someone else to gain an unfair advantage, or an activity likely to undermine the integrity essential to scholarship and research. Academic misconduct requires the intention to obtain an unfair advantage, or knowingly engaging in a behaviour that has the potential to give an unfair advantage, irrespective of whether such advantage is obtained.  

There is no penalty for poor academic practice: marks are not deducted - they are simply not earned under the marking criteria. Marks reflecting poor academic practice may have a significant impact, and since there is no appeal, Module Tutors should produce a mark reflecting the academic worth of the work. 

The Department applies the full formal procedures of Regulation 11 to assessments.  

Where Academic Misconduct is suspected, Regulation 11 affects the candidate as follows: 

1. When a marker has concerns about a piece of assessment and is clear that the case is one of poor academic practice, he or she should mark it accordingly. If the mark produced is likely to have a significant impact, or if the marker is unclear whether the case is one of poor academic practice, the assessment should be passed to the relevant Academic Conduct Lead. If the Academic Conduct Lead s clear that the case is one of poor academic practice, or that there is no case to answer, the assessment is returned to the marker to provide an outcome determined by the Module Marker. 

1. If the Academic Conduct Lead is unclear whether the case is one of poor academic practice, or if the Academic Conduct Lead believes that academic misconduct has occurred, the matter should be referred to the Academic Conduct Panel. The student will be asked to attend a meeting with the Academic Conduct Panel to give their explanation of the case and this provides the student with a reasonable opportunity to make representations on his or her own behalf. 

1. As part of the academic conduct panel, the student may be subjected to a short viva examination by subject expert if there is a suspicion that contract cheating has taken place. The viva will be conducted in a collegiate manner and the student will be treated fairly. The viva examination is the student’s opportunity to defend their work and so can present evidence, such as date-stamped draft copies of work, to support their claim. The subject expert will ask questions about the work to ascertain whether the student understands what they have submitted and have met the relevant learning outcomes. The viva will not determine whether the allegation is substantiated, but rather gather evidence that will be considered by the panel. 

1. At the end of the meeting, the Academic Conduct Panel will make a recommendation to the Head of Department and the student will be informed of the recommendation and afterwards will be able to make additional written representation to the Head of Department. 

1. In all cases of Academic Misconduct, the Academic Conduct Panel will refer the matter to the Head of Department. If it is confirmed that an offence has occurred, the Head of Department shall confirm the outcome / penalty If there is evidence of a serious case of academic misconduct, the Head of Department may refer the case to the Academic Integrity Committee of the University. The student shall be informed of the outcome. The student is also informed that they have a right to appeal to an Academic Integrity Committee against the decision. If the student accepts the penalty / outcome, the matter ends, and the outcome is reported to the Examination Board. If the student appeals, the procedure relating to an Academic Integrity Committee is invoked. 

1. Penalties available are a reduction in mark for the piece of work in which the plagiarism has occurred to reflect the impact of the academic misconduct (with or without the opportunity to resubmit or undertake a further assessment). The mark may be reduced up to the zero limit. 

Where a student has been penalised for academic misconduct by WMG, subsequent instances may be reported to the Academic Registrar. In addition, where academic misconduct or copying has been identified in a piece of work, WMG reserve the right to re-examine earlier submitted assignments for similar infringements and apply suitable penalties, retrospectively if necessary. 

To avoid being accused of academic misconduct students should note the following points of Departmental practice: 

• Acknowledgement of quoted work should take the form of a properly stated reference (author, work, date, page number), and the quoted part should be clearly denoted by suitable paragraphing, quotation marks, etc. (see below) 
• Work Previously Written by yourself: Submitting work that you have done previously (as part of this course or an earlier one) should be treated like any other reference source – just because you wrote it yourself does not mean that it is acceptable to “re-use” it without acknowledgement. This would be termed auto-plagiarism or self-plagiarism.  
• Working together: WMG expects all Post Module Assignments to be individual pieces of work, except where the module tutor explicitly calls for and accepts a joint group report on a particular task. Whilst it is appropriate to discuss your ideas with colleagues in preparing for your assignments, the structure, content, and particularly "Discussion" and "Conclusion" sections should always be under sole authorship. Common working used by more than one student engaged on writing up the same task in a report (PMA/Project) submitted for credit should be acknowledged by a short note explaining the joint authorship. Within reason, this practice, if acknowledged, will not be discouraged or penalised, but joint authorship should be agreed in advance with the module tutor or Academic Supervisor. 

 

ALL MODULE ASSIGNMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED IN ELECTRONIC FORM; TUTORS WILL THEN PASS THE WORK THROUGH AN AUTOMATIC SOURCE MATCHING SERVICE IN ORDER TO CHECK THE ORIGINALITY OF THE WORK AGAINST PUBLISHED MATERIAL, INCLUDING WWW SOURCES AND WORK SUBMITTED PREVIOUSLY BY WMG STUDENTS. STRICT PENALTIES WILL BE APPLIED WHERE SUCH COPYING IS IDENTIFIED. 

You should note the advice provided by the University on how to avoid plagiarism and student information related to the use of a source matching system provided on here   https://warwick.ac.uk/services/academictechnology/support/guides/other-guides/plagiarism-technology  

 

Specifically, you should note that the processing of your work is necessary for the legitimate interests noted above and is justified under Ground 6 of Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act 1998. 

 

In addition, you are STRONGLY advised to visit the University provided self-learning resources , which will take you through information to help you avoid being accused of plagiarism and collusion and to understand proper referencing techniques. 

 

Links to these resources can be found here:  

 

Course: Avoiding Plagiarism (21/22) (warwick.ac.uk) 

Course: Introduction to Referencing (21/22) (warwick.ac.uk) 

 

Useful Links:

University self-learning tool, Plato