Academic Misconduct

J Academic Misconduct

J1 Introduction

J1.1 The University has a duty to help students to understand and appreciate the important characteristics of good academic conduct and will endeavour to do so throughout a programme of study. If students deviate from the expected standards of conduct then the University has a duty to protect the reputation of its awards through the use of these procedures. If a student is found to have committed academic misconduct it may result in the imposition of sanctions which could have severe consequences for the student's future and in the most serious of cases result in termination of registration.

J1.2 Academic Misconduct is any action by a student which gives or has the potential to give an unfair advantage in an examination or assessment, or might assist someone else to gain an unfair advantage, or any activity likely to undermine the integrity essential to scholarship and research. This procedure applies to all students engaged in any University assessment activity whether on or off site including collaborative programmes.

J1.3 This Academic Misconduct procedure is intended to help students to reach a clear understanding of Academic Regulations and to put minor misunderstandings right before they become serious.

J1.4 Students who are subject to the Academic Misconduct procedure are encouraged to take advantage of the advice and support available to them from the Union of Students. At all stages of this procedure students have the right to be accompanied by a friend who is not acting in a professional capacity and, if the student is under 18 years of age, their parent or guardian.

J1.5 Certain professional bodies impose their own standards of professional conduct. If a student does not keep to those rules or standards they may not gain the professional recognition regardless of learning achievement. Following the outcome of academic misconduct it may be appropriate to refer the student to the Professional Conduct and Professional Suitability procedure.

J1.6 Academic misconduct could be ‘confirmed’ where evidence supports misconduct in any of the following categories (outlined in Section J.2). Where evidence supports that the misconduct was committed on the ‘balance of probability’ (see J1.7) a student maybe confirmed as having committed an academic misconduct. The University also reserves the right to review work retrospectively.

J1.7 The University standard of proof applied is based on the balance of probability, that it is more likely than not something was or was not the case. The burden of proof lies with the University to show that misconduct has occurred. For the Academic Misconduct Appeal Panel, the burden of proof lies with the student to provide new evidence and/or show that procedures have not been followed (see J5.1).

J1.8 The University applies the principle of strict liability to academic misconduct. This means that a student’s intentions are not relevant to whether or not they have committed the misconduct, but are likely to be a relevant consideration when the penalty is decided

J1.9 The student may be required to demonstrate ownership of authorship during an investigation into alleged academic misconduct. The student may be asked to undertake a viva or another appropriate assessment at any step during the process.

J1.10 Where the term “relevant Research Committee” appears in this document, it relates to either a College Research Committee (or other similar body) or the University Innovation and Research Committee, as appropriate to the issue involved for a Postgraduate Research (PGR) Student.*

J1.11 Where roles are specified in this document for relevant PVC Deans or Directors, in instances where that PVC Dean or Director might themselves have been directly involved in the teaching, supervision, assessment or examination of the student concerned, the matter will be referred to a different PVC Dean or Director.

J2 Categories of Academic Misconduct

J2.1 Plagiarism:

(i) An offence occurs when a student submits as work of their own, work of which they are not the author.

(ii) Plagiarism has occurred when the student:

Does not acknowledge the work of another person or persons, or
Has not identified the source or cited quotations in any work presented for assessment, or
Presents as if own work material created by any form of Generative AI without appropriate acknowledgment of how the material has been utilised or amended, or
Has used illustrations, computer code, images, music, video, patents or other creative materials without acknowledgement of their provenance, or
Has copied another student’s work without their knowledge, or
Presents other people’s research findings as their own or
Has submitted the same piece of their own work for assessment and award of credit in two (or more) modules (self plagiarism). See J2.1 (v) for PGR students who include their own publications which are based on the research reported in the thesis as an appendix to the same thesis.

(iii) If a student's work is found to contain verbatim (or near verbatim) quotation from the work of others (including from Generative AI) without acknowledgement, then plagiarism has been committed

(iv) If the student has engaged a third party to significantly or partially create a piece of work on their behalf, then plagiarism has been committed. Third party engagement can take the form of paid or unpaid work.

(v) For PGR students it is good practice to publish their research during their programme of study. Copies of any publications should be included as an appendix to the thesis and appropriately referenced within the text of the thesis. Research students should consult the University’s PGR Regulations concerning rights to reproduce their own published papers, images etc.as part of their thesis or critical appraisal.

J2.2 Collusion:

(i) Where there is a requirement for the submitted work to be solely that of an individual student, collaboration is not permitted. Students who improperly work together in these circumstances and/or who permit the copying of their work by others have committed collusion.

(ii) Where students are permitted or instructed to work together to achieve common outcomes, such group activity is regarded as approved collaboration. There may be a requirement for each student to identify their own contribution.

(iii) Where a PGR student is presenting as part of their thesis or critical appraisal collaborative research investigation or publications for examination the student should include as a preface to the thesis or critical appraisal, a full statement setting out clearly the part played by the student in the investigation. See ‘The Statement of Intellectual Ownership’ in the University’s PGR Regulations.

J2.3 Impersonation:

(i) A student who is substituted by another person in an examination, or who submits by substitution the work of another person as their own, has committed deception by impersonation. The offence of impersonation can be applied both to the student and the impersonator.

J2.4 Improper conduct in formal examinations:

(i) Academic misconduct is committed when a student possesses unauthorised paper, material, any form of notes, wearable devices or electronic devices, or communicates with another student during an examination.

(ii) If on entry to the examination room students find themselves inadvertently in possession of any such notes, material or device they must declare and surrender it at the earliest opportunity.

(iii) Academic misconduct is also committed if there is evidence of the use of unauthorised material in a student's response(s) to examination questions.

(iv) Students will be deemed to be aware of all regulations governing the conduct of examinations (Section H). Breaches of any of these regulations will constitute academic misconduct.

J2.5 Contract Cheating:

(i) Where a student uses a third party, to create an entire piece or part of academic work with the intention of submitting this as their own piece of work.

J2.6 Invention of data (fabrication / falsification of results):

(ii) Invention of data occurs where a student effectively misrepresents data (through fabrication or falsification) to make it appear that the data has been derived by appropriate measurement in the field, in the laboratory or other setting. Thus, the reader is deceived with regard to the true information and the researcher may use the invented data to substantiate a favoured hypothesis.

This is regarded as deception and is treated as serious academic misconduct (as per section J3.2.2 v)

J2.7 Any other form of misconduct:

(i) Any action through which students seek to gain an unfair advantage in assessment constitutes academic misconduct.

(ii) Failure to meet ethical, legal and professional obligations such as breach of confidentiality or abuse of research participants or materials.

(iii) Failure to follow correct procedures for undertaking research, including conducting research without ethics approval or in contravention of any approval that has been granted is considered academic misconduct.

J3 Procedures for Dealing with Academic Misconduct

J3.1 Breaches of examination room regulations

Following report to the Student Policy and Regulations Manager by the invigilator, a fixed penalty in accordance with J4.1(ii) will apply unless the breach of exam room regulations may be shown to have resulted in the student gaining an unfair advantage when the case will be referred to a Step 2 meeting.

J3.2 All other Academic Misconduct

J3.2.1 Step 1 Investigation Meeting

Where a tutor or examiner suspects that academic misconduct has taken place, they report it to the programme leader/Chair of relevant Research Committee or nominee.

(i) The programme leader/Chair of relevant Research Committee or nominee holds a meeting with the student in order to establish whether academic misconduct has been committed or not, whether the misconduct has arisen from inexperience or misunderstanding, and the effect of the misconduct on academic standards.

If the allegation is contract cheating this may include demonstration of authorship of works (J1.9)

(ii) The student will be given written notice of the time and place of the meeting, a clear statement of the nature of the alleged academic misconduct and supporting evidence. The period of notice will be at least 5 working days but may be reduced or increased with the agreement of the student, in the interests of natural justice.

In the event that the student fails to respond to a request to meet with the programme leader/Chair of relevant Research Committee or nominee the meeting will be concluded in the student’s absence on the basis of any information available.

(iii) The student is entitled to bring a friend who should be a member of the University or the Union of Students’ representative and, if the student is under 18 years of age, their parent or guardian. The friend may make representations on the student’s behalf with permission of the programme leader/Chair of relevant Research Committee or nominee.

Details of anyone accompanying the student must be notified to the programme leader/Chair of relevant Research Committee or nominee at least 4 working days before the meeting.

This process is internal therefore legal representation is not permitted to such meetings.

(iv) The student will be given the opportunity to present any mitigating circumstances or factors that they believe should be taken into account. Those factors are not normally relevant to deciding whether a student has committed misconduct. But they should normally be taken into account when deciding on the consequence if the student is found to have committed academic misconduct. Mitigating factors might include:

It is a first occurrence of academic misconduct;
The student admitted the offence at the earliest opportunity;
The student has expressed remorse;
The student was found in possession of unauthorised material in an exam but did not intend to gain an advantage;
The student has compelling personal circumstances that affected their judgment.

(v) The programme leader/Chair of relevant Research Committee or nominee will complete an investigation report based on their findings, including academic misconduct outcome as per J3.2.2. The College is responsible for storing investigation reports. For PGR students the investigation reports must be uploaded to PhD Manager.

(vi) The outcomes of the meeting will normally be communicated to the student immediately after the meeting. This will also be notified to the student in writing, with a copy placed on file and copied to the Student Policy and Regulations Manager, and may be taken into account in any subsequent offence hearings. All decisions will be reported to the relevant Assessment Board/relevant Research Committee.

J3.2.2 Possible outcomes to Step 1 Investigation meeting:

(i) Dismissed, academic misconduct not found. No further action will be taken and no entry made on the student’s record.

(ii) Academic misconduct found. A consequence as detailed in section J4.1(i) – (ii) of this procedure will be given. If the student is on a professional programme, it may be appropriate to refer the student to the Professional Conduct and Professional Suitability procedure if there are concerns regarding professional integrity.

(iii) If the offence is one of plagiarism which has been admitted by the student, the programme leader/Chair of relevant Research Committee or nominee will determine whether there are any factors that make it a significant threat to academic standards. These would include an element of collusion, contract cheating, impersonation, systematic and widespread plagiarism or repeat offending.

If the offence amounts to a serious threat to academic standards, the student will be referred to the Step 2 meeting with the relevant PVC Dean /Director or nominee with overall responsibility for their programme or module. The student will be informed of this in writing.

(iv) Where a student admits the offence of plagiarism or collusion, but there are none of the factors outlined in J3.2.2(iii), the programme leader/Chair of relevant Research Committee or nominee will implement a fixed penalty in line with J4.1 (ii)

(v) Refer case to a Step 2 meeting: If it is contract cheating, deception or invention of data; if the offence amounts to a serious threat to academic standards; repeat offending following a written warning; or where a satisfactory conclusion cannot be reached under the Step 1 approach.

J3.2.3 Step 2 Meeting:

Meeting with the relevant PVC Dean /Director or nominee

(i) The relevant PVC Dean / Director or nominee, holds a meeting with the student in order to consider the evidence and to determine the appropriate course of action.

Where the misconduct being investigated is felt to be systematic and widespread, representation of an experienced independent person from outside of the College/Department will be sought. Details of the meeting will be recorded by a relevant officer.

In the event that the student fails to respond to a request to meet with the PVC Dean/Director or nominee the meeting will be concluded in the student’s absence on the basis of any information available.

(iii) The student is entitled to bring a friend who should be a member of the University or the Union of Students’ representative and, if the student is under 18 years of age their parent or guardian. The friend may make representations on the student’s behalf with permission of the PVC Dean/Director or nominee.

Details of anyone accompanying the student must be notified to the PVC Dean/Director or nominee at least 4 working days before the meeting.

(iv) This process is internal therefore legal representation is not permitted to such meetings. Copies of any written material to be submitted to the meeting by the reporting Programme/Module Leader/Chair of relevant Research Committee or nominee and the names of any witnesses to be called by the PVC Dean/Director or nominee holding the meeting must be made available to the student at least 4 working days before the meeting unless these time periods are reduced with the agreement of the student.

(v) The Programme/Module Leader/Chair of relevant Research Committee will present a summary of the investigation to date.

(vi) The student is entitled to call witnesses and to present evidence to the meeting. Copies of any written material to be submitted to the meeting, and the names of witnesses to be called by the student, must be made available to the PVC Dean/Director or nominee holding the meeting at least 4 working days before the meeting unless the PVC Dean/Director or nominee agrees to reduce this time period or accept information at the meeting.

(vii)Witnesses will be asked to leave the meeting once their evidence has been presented and questioned. Once all the evidence has been heard, the PVC Dean/Director or nominee holding the meeting may ask the student and their friend (and parent or guardian) to leave the meeting whilst a decision is reached.

(viii) The PVC Dean/Director or nominee will make themselves aware of current guidance available and may impose one of the consequences set out in section J4.1i-vi.

The outcomes of the meeting will normally be communicated to the student immediately after the meeting. This will also be notified to the student in writing, with a copy placed on file and copied to the Student Policy and Regulations Manager, and may be taken into account in any subsequent offence hearings. All decisions will be reported to the relevant Assessment Board/relevant Research Committee.

In the case of termination of registration from the programme, a summary of the meeting resulting in the termination decision must be presented to the Assessment Board for ratification on behalf of Academic Board; or, in the case of a postgraduate research degree student, to the relevant Research Committee.

(ix) If, exceptionally, the PVC Dean/Director or nominee is unable to reach a decision without further advice/consultation they will inform the student of an anticipated date by which the decision will be given.

This will normally be no longer than 5 working days after the meeting. If the PVC Dean/Director or nominee is still unable to reach a decision the case will be referred to be heard by an Academic Misconduct Panel (Step 3).

(x) If the nature of the misconduct warrants it, the PVC Dean/Director or nominee may also, depending on the nature of the misconduct, invoke either the University Disciplinary Procedure against the student or, if the misconduct has been committed by a postgraduate research student and might reasonably be deemed potentially to be an instance of scientific misconduct within the meaning of the University’s policy** on this, might take proceedings under that policy.

(xi) A student has the right to appeal the outcome of the meeting with the PVC Dean/Director or nominee, an appeal may be lodged through the procedures detailed in Section J5.

J3.2.4 Possible outcomes of Step 2 Meeting:

(i) Dismissed, academic misconduct not found. No further action will be taken and no entry made on the student’s record.

(ii)Academic misconduct found. A consequence as detailed in section J4.1(i) –(vi) of this procedure will be given. On occasion more than one consequence may be appropriate. If the student is on a professional programme, it may be appropriate to refer the student to the Professional Conduct and Professional Suitability procedure if there are concerns regarding professional integrity.

(iii) Refer case to Step 3 Academic Misconduct Panel – if exceptionally the PVC Dean/Director or nominee is unable to make a decision at Step 2.

J3.3 Step 3 Academic Misconduct Panel:

An Academic Misconduct Panel may be convened where the PVC Dean/Director or nominee is unable to reach a conclusion at Step 2.

Constitution of the Panel:

(i) The Panel will consist of three members of the University, together with a panel officer:

Chair: The Academic Misconduct Panel will be chaired by a relevant PVC Dean/Director or other senior academic manager approved by the Academic Registrar.

The Chair must not have been involved in the assessment of the student nor as Chair of the relevant Assessment Board nor in any prior investigation of the alleged academic misconduct.

Membership: Two other members drawn from Academic Board or Academic Development and Quality Committee or, in cases involving a postgraduate research degree student, including at least one member from the University Research Committee from outside the College/Department in which the Programme or module in the case is based.

They must not have been involved in the assessment of the student, the Assessment Board/relevant Research Committee or, in the case of a postgraduate research student, the supervision of the student, nor in any prior investigation of the alleged academic misconduct.

Officer: The Student Policy and Regulations Manager or nominee.

(ii) Panel may be advised by the Chair of the appropriate Assessment Board/relevant Research Committee on assessment issues but they have no voting rights.

(iii) The Academic Registrar or nominee is responsible for ensuring that there is proper separation of responsibilities within the panel.

The conduct of the Academic Misconduct Panel:

(iv) Hearings will be held in order to consider evidence, decide whether academic misconduct has been committed and if so the nature of its effect on academic standards, and to determine the appropriate course of action.

(v) The student will be given written notice of the time and place of the hearing, and the names and titles of the panel members and a clear statement of the nature of the alleged academic misconduct.

The period of notice is at least 15 working days but may be reduced or increased with the agreement of the student and in the interests of natural justice.

The student is entitled to bring a friend who should be a member of the University or the Union of Students’ representative and, if the student is under 18 years of age their parent or guardian. The friend may make representations on the student’s behalf with permission of the Chair.

Details of anyone accompanying the student must be notified to the Chair at least 5 working days in advance of the meeting.

This process is internal therefore legal representation is not permitted to such meetings.

In the event that the student fails to respond to a request to attend an Academic Misconduct Panel Hearing, the hearing will be concluded in the student’s absence.

(vi) Copies of any written materials to be submitted to the meeting by the reporting PVC Dean/Director or nominee and the names of any witnesses to be called by the Chair of the hearing must be made available to the student at least 5 working days before the hearing unless these time periods are reduced with the agreement of the student.

(vii) The case will be presented by the reporting PVC Dean/Director or nominee.

(viii) The student is also entitled to call witnesses and to present evidence to the hearing.

Copies of any written material to be submitted to the hearing and the names of witnesses to be called by the student, must be made available to the Chair of the hearing at least 5 working days before the hearing unless the Chair agrees to reduce this time period or accept information at the hearing.

(ix) Witnesses will be asked to leave the hearing once their evidence has been presented and questioned. Once all the evidence has been heard the Chair of the hearing may ask the student and their friend (and parent or guardian) to leave the hearing whilst a decision is reached.

(x) The Panel will reach its decision as to whether misconduct has been committed or not by simple majority vote with the Chair having a casting vote: the officer to the Panel is not entitled to vote.

The Panel will make itself aware of current guidance available and may invoke consequences as set out in section J4.1 (i)–(vi).

The Panel will then report its decision to the relevant Assessment Board (Professional Qualification Board, Postgraduate Assessment Board or relevant Research Committee) and to the Student Policy and Regulations Manager who will communicate the outcome to the student in writing.

J4 Consequences of Committing Academic Misconduct

J4.1 The following outcomes may be used when academic misconduct has been found to have been committed. The severity of the penalty is dependent on details of the case.

(i) An advisory note.

If the academic misconduct was committed as a result of inexperience or misunderstanding, or contributing factors, or a first occurrence of misconduct.

The advisory note will include further action to be undertaken relating to study skills and/or support to address the lack of understanding/ inexperience, and will include clarification of the academic regulations.

Any action to be taken to address the issues identified will be noted within the advisory note and subsequently monitored by the programme leader/Chair of relevant Research Committee or nominee.

The work will be marked on its own merits, with a grade and feedback given to the student.

This will be confirmed to the student in writing, copied to the programme leader/Chair of the relevant Research Committee or nominee for implementation and monitoring.

A copy of the advisory note will be forwarded to the Student Policy and Regulations Team, in the Registry, for the central file. In the case of a PGR student, Research Student Office being copied in and the copy of the advisory note uploaded onto PhD Manager and reported at the next relevant Research Committee. It may be taken into account in any subsequent academic misconduct hearings.

(ii) Fixed penalty failed assessment, with written warning

If the academic misconduct is not deemed to be a serious threat to academic standards, is repeat misconduct, student admitted plagiarism (as per J3.2.2 iv), or breaches of examination room regulations.

Where the effect of the misconduct on academic standards is limited the assignment(s)/examination in which the misconduct occurred will be failed and a numerical grade of 0 (Zero) is recorded.

The student will be permitted to resubmit with the final assignment/examination mark limited to a minimum pass mark.

The student is expected to submit the referral/sit the referral exam. If the student elects not to resubmit, the overall mark for the module they take to make up the credit deficit will be limited to a minimum pass mark.

Where the misconduct is committed on a referral, the module will be failed and the student will be allowed to retake the module (subject to programme specific regulations) with the appropriate assignment/examination mark limited to a minimum pass mark.

If the student elects to take a different module to make up the credit deficit, that module will be limited to the minimum pass mark.

The written warning states that any further academic misconduct committed while the student is registered with the University will normally lead to termination of registration and enrolment. The outcome may be taken into account in any subsequent hearings.

A copy of the fixed penalty will be forwarded to the Student Policy and Regulations Team, in the Registry, for the central file. In the case of a PGR student, Research Student Office being copied in and will upload the details of the fixed penalty onto the student’s record on PhD Manager. and reported at the next relevant Research Committee.

(iii) Fixed penalty failed module, with written warning

Where the academic misconduct is deemed to be more serious threatening the maintenance of academic standards, the module(s) in which the misconduct occurred will be failed and a numerical grade of 0 (Zero) recorded.

The student will be allowed to retake the module(s) with the final module grade limited to a minimum pass mark except where consequence J4.1 (v) is also given. If the student elects to take a different module to make up the credit deficit, that module will be limited to the minimum pass mark.

PGR students will not be permitted to progress (including as appropriate applying for, transferring of, or confirming registration) until they have clearly addressed the issues which have been investigated and may in some cases have their programme terminated. Any data evidence or results collected/obtained up to that point cannot normally be used in any subsequently submitted thesis.

(iv) All credits earned in concurrent modules may, at the PVC Dean/Director or nominee, or Panel’s discretion, be suspended with the student being required to retake the modules in order to gain the credits necessary for the stage/award.

The grades recorded for these modules will be the lower of the original grade or that achieved on re-assessment.

A written warning will be issued through the Student Policy and Regulations Manager or, in the case of a postgraduate research student, Research Student Office. A written warning states that any further academic misconduct committed while the student is registered with the University will normally lead to termination of registration and enrolment. The outcome may be taken into account in any subsequent hearings.

This option is not appropriate PGR students on the independent research phase of their programme.

(v) Where the academic misconduct is found to be widespread and systematic or as a result of impersonation, termination of the student's registration, cancellation of enrolment and the annulment of all assessments for concurrent modules will normally be recommended.

In the case of a PGR student registration will be terminated and they will not be awarded the degree and will not be permitted to be reassessed. Student termination must be recorded on PhD Manager and reported at the next relevant Research Committee.

Termination normally prevents a student from applying for further study for a period of two full calendar years. For further details Part D1.5.

(vi) Academic Development and Quality Committee, on behalf of Academic Board, may on the basis of evidence presented to it instigate a review of credit previously obtained by students who have committed serious academic misconduct. If the Committee concludes that any or all of such credits were not properly earned, it may recommend to Academic Board that they be cancelled.

(vii) The record will be taken into account in any subsequent academic misconduct hearings or in giving any reference on behalf of the student and UCAS may be informed.

J4.2 Contract Cheating:

(i) A contract cheating offence will normally result the sanction detailed in J4.1 (iii) for the students involved.

(ii) Where the contract cheating is found to be widespread and systematic this will normally result in the sanction detailed in J4.1 (v).

J4.3 Impersonation:

(i) Impersonation will normally result in the sanction detailed in J4.1 (v) for the students involved either as the impersonator or the person knowingly impersonated.

J4.4 Repeat Academic Misconduct

(i) Where a student is found to have committed any further offence after a previous written warning a consequence of termination will normally apply to the student. This may also include failure and removal of credit of concurrent modules.

J4.5 Academic Misconduct found after an Award has been made

(i) Where an individual is found to have committed academic misconduct after they have been conferred an award of the University, the University reserves the right to revoke the award. If the result of the Academic Misconduct Panel is to revoke the award, this recommendation will be submitted for final ratification to Academic Board.

(ii) All award documentation including the Award Certificate will become invalid, reference requests to the University and electronic records will be updated to show that no valid award exists.

(iii) Attempted use of previously issued documentation would amount to deception.

J5 Academic Misconduct Appeals

J5.1 Right to Appeal:

(i) Students have the right to appeal against the outcome of a Step 2 meeting, an Academic Misconduct Panel Hearing or fixed penalty decision.

(ii) An appeal will only be allowed if new evidence is available and/or it can be shown that the correct procedures were not followed.

(iii) For the Academic Misconduct Appeal Panel the burden of proof lies with the student to provide new evidence and/or show that procedures have not been followed

(iv) Appeals must be submitted to the Academic Registrar, in writing, within 10 working days of written notification of the outcome following the meeting, hearing or fixed penalty decision, explaining the reasons for the appeal.

(v) The Academic Registrar (or nominee) will consider whether there are grounds for appeal. Where an appeal has been accepted an Academic Misconduct Appeal Panel will be convened to consider the case.

J5.2 Hearing the Appeal

The Academic Misconduct Appeal Panel will be constituted and operate in the same way as the Academic Misconduct Panel (J3.3) but will consist of different members of the University if the appeal results from a decision made by an Academic Misconduct Panel.

J5.3 Outcome of the Appeal:

(i) The outcome of an appeal can be to confirm or amend the original decision and may confirm or reduce the original consequence(s).

(ii) The appeal decision is final.

J6 Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education

The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA) runs an independent scheme to review student complaints. The University of Derby is a member of this scheme. If you are unhappy with the outcome you may be able to ask the OIA to review your academic misconduct case. You can find more information about making a complaint to the OIA, what it can and cannot look at and what it can do to put things right if something has gone wrong via: https://www.oiahe.org.uk/students

You normally need to have completed the Academic Misconduct procedure before you complain to the OIA. We will send you a letter called a “Completion of Procedures Letter” when you have reached the end of our processes and there are no further steps you can take internally. If your academic misconduct appeal is not upheld, we will issue you with a Completion of Procedures Letter automatically. If your academic misconduct appeal is upheld or partly upheld you can ask for a Completion of Procedures Letter if you want one. You can find more information about Completion of Procedures Letters and when you should expect to receive one via: https://www.oiahe.org.uk/providers/completion-of-procedures-letters