How to Deal with an Allegation of Academic Misconduct (For Heads of School)

This process should be used for interviews conducted by the Head of School or their nominee for Level 1 and 2 students and for cases at any level returned by the Senior Senate Assessor for Student Conduct. This includes cases relating to online exams at Level 1 and 2 – more information can be found here.

Schools should not interview students at Honours or postgraduate level unless the case has been reviewed by the Senior Senate Assessors already and returned. If you think a case is minor and likely to be returned to you, seek advice from us first by emailing student-conduct@glasgow.ac.uk.

This process largely mirrors the process used by the Senate Assessors.

Before the Interview

  • Inform the student of the allegation and invite them to an interview. Give at least five working days’ notice and provide the student with the full details of the allegation, including the Turnitin report and the marked-up source materials. Remind them of their right to be accompanied and provide a link to the Plagiarism Statement. An example letter is provided as Appendix 1.
  • Ask the student to confirm they will attend. If they can’t attend, they can either submit a written statement or, if you wish, you can reschedule once. If the student does not attend or request a postponement, you should reach an outcome in their absence.

During the Interview

The meeting can take place in person or on Zoom/Teams as you prefer. You should have a colleague attend to take notes. The format of the interview is as follows:

  • Introduce those present and ask the student to confirm their student number and identify any supporter they have brought. Check that the student is happy to speak for themselves (their supporter may speak on their behalf, but you have the right to ask questions directly to the student and receive their answer).
  • Explain what the allegation is, the procedure that will be followed during the interview, and that the student will have the right to appeal the outcome. Ask them to confirm they understand,
  • Ask the student if they admit or deny the allegation. They can then explain what happened and advise on any mitigating circumstances. You can ask questions and ask the student to supply evidence of any mitigation they describe.
  • Ask the student to leave the room or put them in the virtual waiting room, while you consider whether misconduct has occurred, based on the evidence and the student’s explanation. This should be determined on the balance of probabilities (that is, is it more likely than not). See below for the range of outcomes that can be reached.
  • Invite the student back in to tell them the outcome and, if relevant, advise them on ways to improve their practice. You can recommend or require them to attend Student Learning Development or undertake some other training.
  • Tell the student that they have the right to appeal to the Senate Assessors for Student Conduct against the outcome you have reached and that details of this will be in the outcome letter they will receive within the next ten working days. Tell them that a copy of the outcome letter will be sent to the Student Conduct Team.

After the Interview

  • The staff member who took notes should draft the outcome letter – example letters for various outcomes can be found here. The letter should be approved by the Head of School or their nominee. Cc the person who made the referral, the College Chief Adviser, and the Student Conduct Team. Please also send the Interview Report Form (Appendix 3) to the Student Conduct Team.
  • Arrange for the work to be marked, where relevant.
  • Inform the Board of Examiners of the reduction. The Board of Examiners does not have authority to alter misconduct penalties. The External Examiner can be advised that the reduction is for conduct reasons, but no additional detail should be given.

Possible Outcomes

If you believe misconduct has occurred, you can impose any of the following outcomes (or a combination):

  • A reprimand
  • A grade reduction to H, or a small reduction of one or more secondary bands
  • A recommendation or requirement to attend SLD or undertake some other training
  • A capped resubmission attempt, or no resubmission attempt (note that all resubmissions due to misconduct should be capped at assignment level, as well as the overall course grade being capped as per reassessment regulations)
  • If the misconduct is more serious than first thought, you can decide to refer the matter to the Senate Assessors

In deciding on the penalty, you should consider the extent of the misconduct, any attempts to reference correctly, their expected level of understanding of good practice and any mitigation they have presented. Intent cannot be judged.

If you think there has been poor academic practice but not plagiarism (e.g. the student has relied too heavily on a source, or has misused quotation marks) you should provide instruction about good practice and advise the work will be marked without penalty.

If you do not believe there is any case to answer, advise the work will be marked without penalty.

Resources and Links