New Policy Library

1. Objective

1.1. The objectives of this policy are to:

a) define and articulate the importance of maintaining academic integrity;

b) outline what constitutes major or minor cases of breaches of academic integrity, and the procedures for dealing with each;

c) provide a framework to ensure that academic standards and expectations are met;

d) assist in identifying academic misconduct;

e) ensure that student academic misconduct procedures are transparent, consistent, equitable and fair, and consistent with the principles of natural justice;

f) identify responsibilities and accountabilities for decisions and processes;

g) ensure that decision-making on academic misconduct is undertaken at appropriate levels of responsibility within the University;

h) provide for the membership of committees formed to consider student academic misconduct; and

i) define a framework of penalties which may be imposed for substantiated academic misconduct that are appropriate, proportionate and consistent.

2. Scope

2.1. This policy applies to all students of the University.

2.2. Where either:

a) allegations of academic misconduct relate to graduate research students; or

b) where allegations of research misconduct relating to students engaged in research, an investigation will be undertaken in accordance with the Research Integrity and Misconduct Policy (MPF1318).

3. Authority

3.1. This policy is made under the University of Melbourne Act 2009 (Vic), the University of Melbourne Statute and the Academic Board Regulation.

4. Policy

Student Academic Integrity Principles

4.1. The University maintains high academic standards in its courses and subjects and expects students to conduct themselves in a manner which is fair, honest and consistent with the principles of academic integrity, particularly when undertaking assessment and research.

4.2. Work submitted for assessment purposes must be the independent work of a student or approved groups of students to demonstrate their proficiency in course and subject objectives and learning outcomes.

4.3. The University provides clear guidance and assistance to students, regardless of their backgrounds, to ensure that they understand the requirement to maintain academic integrity and that they are aware that failure to maintain academic integrity constitutes academic misconduct which is defined in the Academic Board Regulation, Part 9 – Academic Integrity.

4.4. The University supports an educative response to first-time academic misconduct, plagiarism or collusion incidences where this is appropriate and possible.

4.5. The University provides students and staff who make an allegation of academic misconduct, or about whom an allegation is made, the opportunity to formally present their cases. No person will suffer any discrimination or victimisation as a result of raising an allegation in good faith.

4.6. University staff who are responsible for investigating an allegation of academic misconduct reach conclusions based on a fair hearing and will respect the privacy and confidentiality of all parties.

4.7. Each faculty must have strategies in place to ensure that students receive appropriate education about, and support to fulfil, the University’s expectations of students in terms of academic honesty.

4.8. All allegations of academic misconduct, whether dealt with by educative response or formal investigation, must be recorded in the Case Management System approved by the Academic Secretary.

5. Procedural Principles

Supporting integrity in submission of assessment

5.1. Deans are responsible for ensuring that:

a) the faculty has a strategy in place to educate students about:

i. the University's expectations of students in terms of academic honesty;

ii. the definition of academic misconduct detailed in the Academic Board Regulation Part 9, sections 42 and 43;

iii. plagiarism, collusion and copyright infringement and how to ensure that students do not use these strategies in completing assessment items;

iv. the requirements for completing assignments that involve background research and referencing of source material;

v. the use of appropriate citation conventions in all submitted work throughout their degree in accordance with the Assessment and Results Policy (MPF1326); and

vi. where the university’s regulation, policies, procedures and guidelines about academic integrity and academic misconduct are published.

b) educative materials are provided to students, including, for example, self-assessment exercises, by which students can assess their level of understanding of what constitutes plagiarism and other forms of academic misconduct and that the educative materials are to be available to students throughout their enrolment;

c) assessment tasks are designed to lessen the opportunity for cheating or plagiarising, in accordance with the Assessment and Results Policy (MPF1326);

d) written and online material is provided to students outlining the assessment tasks for each subject which indicates clearly and explicitly whether or not:

i. collaborative work is permissible or encouraged in any assessment task; and

ii. the extent of collaboration that is allowed in that assessment task;

e) all subject and course outlines set out expectations regarding adherence to the University’s requirements with regard to academic integrity including links to relevant regulations, policies and procedures.

5.2. Deans must ensure that students are directed towards materials regarding research integrity, academic honesty, plagiarism, collusion and copyright early in the teaching period through provision of links to policy and other materials on the Learning Management System (LMS).

5.3. Students must review the educative materials provided by the faculty and successfully complete any self-assessment as directed by the dean.

5.4. Students must complete a declaration in hard copy or online when submitting assignments. The declaration must include a statement:

a) that the student understands the University’s policy on student academic integrity and has reviewed the educative materials provided by the faculty;

b) about the originality of the work;

c) that the student has not assisted any other student in the completion of their work, unless the submission is for a collaborative assessment task;

d) that the student has not been assisted by any other person (collusion);

e) that the student has not used any sources without proper acknowledgment (plagiarism); and

f) that indicates the student’s individual contribution to the assignment.

5.5. Where an assessment task involves the submission of computer program or code, students must be advised that the work must include all of the following forms of acknowledgement:

a) a detailed comment stating which part of it, if any, is copied, stating who wrote the copied part, and include this comment at the start of the program or in a header file;

b) clear comments in the body of the program marking the start and end of the copied material. These comments must also give the name of the author;

c) if code has been obtained from elsewhere, then modified by the student, the modifications must be explained in a prominent component of the submission. For example, a comment might have the wording “The original code obtained from John Smith was modified to print more detailed error messages”. Each adaptation of the original code must be documented, both in a prominent location and in each part of the code that was modified;

5.6. For copyright material included in a graduate research course thesis, the documentation must also include a statement that permission was obtained from the author. An email address or web link where the permission can be verified must also be provided; and,

5.7. Where information is sourced from the internet, the full URL, the date and time of viewing must be cited.

Detecting breaches of research integrity and application of penalties

5.8. Potential research misconduct by students engaged in research (“researchers”) must be reported to the relevant dean. The dean will refer the matter to the Director, Office of Research Ethics and Integrity (OREI).

5.9. An investigation into an allegation of research misconduct may be undertaken in accordance with the Research Integrity and Misconduct Policy (MPF1318).

5.10. Following any investigation the Director (OREI) will notify the dean of the finding.

5.11. Where an allegation of research misconduct is upheld the dean must convene a committee comprising:

a) the faculty’s associate dean (research) or equivalent, who will chair the committee; and

b) two registered supervisors who are not members of the student’s department.

5.12. The committee must be convened within 10 business days of the notice from the Director (OREI) and must apply a penalty in accordance with the “penalties for academic and research misconduct” section of this policy.

5.13. The committee must notify the student of the outcome and penalty applied within 5 business days of the committee decision.

5.14. Nothing in this section prevents the Director (OREI) from directing the matter back to the dean. The dean must then conduct an investigation in accordance with this policy.

Detecting breaches of academic integrity

5.15. Academic staff or examination invigilators will usually identify potential breaches of academic integrity. Detection strategies include:

a) using search engine(s) to find sites that students are likely to find by using a likely search phrase;

b) letting students know of their awareness of particular sites; or,

c) making use of content matching or authenticity software.

5.16. To assist in identification, or exclusion, of potential breaches, students may be required to:

a) discuss or explain components of their assessment tasks; and/or

b) use content matching software to assist in verifying that original work has been submitted, and/or to supply reports generated by such software as part of the conditions of assessment for particular subjects or particular assessment items. The use of content matching software for this purpose must be clearly stated in the subject outline for the particular subject; and/or

c) authenticate their learning on the assessment task, for example, by showing notes/drafts/resource materials used in the preparation of the task.

After detecting breaches of academic integrity

5.17. In the first instance, an allegation of academic misconduct must be reported to the head of department (HOD) or equivalent in the relevant academic division (the academic division that "owns" the subject in which the academic misconduct is alleged to have occurred).

5.18. When dealing with allegations of academic misconduct, the HOD must determine whether the case represents an unintended, minor or major breach of this policy.

5.19. The student may be asked to attend a meeting with the HOD and the subject co-ordinator to discuss the assessment task in which the academic misconduct is suspected to have occurred.

5.19A. The student may bring a support person to the meeting.

5.20. The student must be warned that the meeting may lead to formalising an allegation of misconduct.

5.21. If it appears during discussions with the student that the incidence of academic misconduct was minor or unintended, the HOD may implement an educative response.

5.22. If it appears during discussions with the student that deliberate and significant academic misconduct has occurred, the HOD must end the meeting and advise the student that the HOD intends to initiate the disciplinary process. The HOD must refer the matter to the Dean in the form of a written report.

5.22A. The notice of an informal meeting, all relevant papers, and the outcome to the student, must be recorded in the Case Management System, whether or not the case proceeds to a formal investigation.

Educative responses to academic misconduct

5.23. The HOD may determine that an educative response to plagiarism or collusion would be appropriate if it appears that this was unintentional and:

a) the case involves the first teaching period of the first year (or level one graduate) students, except when plagiarism or collusion appears to have occurred on a substantial scale;

b) where what appears to be plagiarism is minor, such as a few sentences or a very small percentage of the essay; or

c) in a case where a citation was provided but no quotation marks were used.

5.23A. In cases of any other form of academic misconduct, the HOD must determine whether an educative response is appropriate, or a formal investigation is warranted.

5.24. Where an educative response is decided the HOD must discuss with the student the matters at 5.16. Following the discussion, the HOD must email the student detailing any requirements the student must follow, which may include:

a) directing the student to review the educative materials provided by the faculty and, for example, successfully complete the self-assessment materials where relevant; and

b) directing the student to resubmit the assessment task having corrected the matters identified. The work will be marked and graded within the full range of marks available.

5.25. In the educative response meeting the HOD must warn the student about the consequence of any subsequent failures to maintain academic integrity.

5.26. The student may be required to meet with the HOD to discuss the results of the self-assessment, where directed by the HOD.

5.27. Where a student refuses to participate in an educative response as described at 5.24 - 5.26, the dean may move to a formal investigation.

5.27A. If the HOD becomes aware, or is aware, that the student has previously received an educative response related to a previous allegation, the HOD may choose to pursue a further educative response related to a previous allegation, the HOD may choose to pursue a further educative response and recuse themselves from the associated meeting with the student, or move to a formal investigation.

5.28. Formal investigations and disciplinary proceedings can only be brought against a student if the student has, as part of the course and/or subject, been:

a) directed to educative materials;

b) the University’s policy on academic misconduct; and

c) has been informed of the possible consequences that might then follow.

5.29. A penalty can only be imposed when a student has gone through the disciplinary process, which is a hearing before a formally constituted student academic misconduct committee (formal investigation.

Formal Investigations of Academic Misconduct – Student Academic Misconduct Committee Meetings

5.30. If the dean decides that an allegation of academic misconduct against a student, or students, is to be investigated the dean must, within 10 business days of the allegation being brought to the dean's attention:

a) refer the matter to a committee for determination in accordance with the procedural principles set out below; and

b) provide a notice to the student, or students, setting out the allegation of academic misconduct and containing the details set out in sections 5.34.

5.31. Where the allegation of academic misconduct involves more than one student, the students are heard individually.

5.32. Subject to the overriding discretion of the president of the Board to determine or vary the composition of a student academic misconduct committee, the composition must be:

a) where the student is enrolled in an undergraduate course, subject or group of subjects or program:

i. two senior members of the academic staff of the faculty nominated by but not including the dean (one of whom must chair the committee); and

ii. one student member of the University of Melbourne Student Union (UMSU) nominated by the President, UMSU who has received appropriate training recognised by the Academic Secretary; or

b) where the student is enrolled in a graduate coursework subject, group of subjects, or graduate program:

i. two senior members of the academic staff nominated by but not including the dean (one of whom must chair the committee); and

ii. one student member of Graduate Students Association (GSA) nominated by the President GSA who has received appropriate training recognised by the Academic Secretary; or

c) in all other cases three persons approvedby the president of the Academic Board (one of whom must chair the committee).

5.33. Members of a student academic misconduct committee must:

a) not have been involved with the allegation prior to the hearing;

b) avoid any real or perceived conflict of interest;

c) not be an examiner of assessment in the subject; and

d) in regard to the student member, must not be a member of University staff or a staff member of a student organisation.

5.34. The dean must provide the student with a written allegation notice:

a) setting out the regulations and policies which are alleged to have been breached as well as all relevant allegations of fact, action or omission in support of the allegation;

b) attaching copies of any primary supporting documents of which the dean is aware relating to the alleged misconduct;

c) offering the student an opportunity:

i. to provide in writing an explanation or submission or evidence in response to the allegation; and/or

ii. to be heard in relation to it;

d) naming the chair of the committee;

e) informing the student that they may seek independent advice from the Student Union Advocacy Services;

f) advising the student of possible outcomes that can include expulsion from the University or suspension of enrolment and referring them to support services; and

g) referring the student to the academic integrity provisions of the Academic Board Regulation and this policy.

5.35. Any notice to a student is emailed to the student’s allocated university email account or last known email address.

5.36. A notice is deemed to have been received on the day it was sent.

5.37. A copy of any notice sent to the student will be retained in the Case Management System and the University’s official record keeping system.

5.38. If a student wishes to attend the Student Academic Misconduct Committee meeting and/or make a written submission, the student must notify the chair of the committee by email or via the Case Management System Portal within 10 business days of the date of the allegation notice.

5.39. If a student does not respond to the allegation notice, or does not attend the hearing, the committee will hear the allegation in the absence of the student.

5.40. If the student advises that they wish to attend a hearing, or make a submission, the chair of the committee must convene a meeting of the committee within 20 business days of the date of the allegation notice to determine the allegation of academic misconduct.

5.41. Whether or not the student chooses to attend a hearing or fails to respond to the allegation notice, the student must be given at least five (5) business days’ notice of the time and place of the committee meeting during which the hearing will be conducted.

5.42. All committee meeting papers must be sent to the committee members and the student no less than five (5) business days prior to the hearing.

5.43. The meeting may be convened at any time of the calendar year. However, the student and the chair of the committee may agree in writing at any time to extend or shorten the time limits referred to in this policy or to reschedule the date, time and place for any meeting of the committee.

5.44. The student may, no later than 24 hours before the scheduled commencement of the Student Academic Misconduct, notify the chair of the committee that the student wishes to have a specified person present at the hearing (the “support person”). The support person may not be:

a) a person who was involved in, associated with, or alleged to have been involved in or associated with the misconduct alleged in the allegation notice; or

b) a qualified legal practitioner unless permitted by the chair of the committee.

5.45. The support person accompanying the student in a committee meeting has no right to be heard, except with the permission of the chair of the committee, and the support person may be excluded from the hearing by the chair of the committee if they disrupt or unreasonably impairs the conduct of the hearing.

5.46. The chair of the committee may adjourn and reconvene any meeting of the committee.

5.47. In determining an allegation of academic misconduct under this section, the committee:

a) may follow any procedure it considers appropriate;

b) is not bound by the rules of evidence or other technicalities or legal forms, and may inform itself in relation to any matter in any manner it thinks fit;

c) must act fairly in all the circumstances, having regard to the requirements of natural justice;

d) may not take into account prior findings of misconduct when deciding whether or not to uphold an allegation of misconduct; and

e) must allow the student to be accompanied by a support person nominated in accordance with this policy.

5.48. The student academic misconduct committee members must:

a) make a decision on the evidence before them on a balance of probabilities – i.e. that a proposition is more likely to be true than not;

b) balance the rights of the individual student with the need for fair and impartial decision-making for all students;

c) preserve the academic integrity of programs and standards on behalf of the University;

d) be scrupulously honest and exercise all due care and diligence in the performance of their duty;

e) avoid any action which could affect their judgement when dealing with committee matters;

f) treat each other and University staff and students with professionalism, courtesy, confidentiality and respect; and

g) not improperly influence other committee members.

Student Academic Misconduct Committee Investigation, Deliberations and Findings

5.49. The committee must either dismiss or uphold each allegation of academic misconduct.

5.50. The committee must dismiss an allegation of academic misconduct unless a majority of the members of the committee is satisfied that the allegation has been upheld.

5.51. Where the committee upholds an allegation of academic misconduct, it may impose a penalty on the student in accordance with the Academic Board Regulation and the Board’s schedule of penalties. Any penalty imposed must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence.

5.52. If a committee determines that the alleged misconduct is in the nature of general misconduct not academic misconduct, it must refer the matter to the Academic Registrar, and the provisions of the Vice-Chancellor Regulation, Part 6 – Student Conduct apply.

5.53. The following considerations may be used to assist in assessing whether the academic misconduct is minor or major:

a) the extent of the breach - how much of the assessment item is in question and what proportion of the marks for the entire subject does the assessment item represent;

b) the level of the student’s course (graduate or undergraduate) and how long the student has been a student of the University;

c) the student’s knowledge, understanding and exposure to the accepted practices, and cultural norms;

d) discipline practices and requirements. What are the accepted practices in the student’s discipline and the extent to which these practices have been made clear to the student; and

e) whether the student has been found to have breached the principles of academic integrity in the past. This can only be taken into account where the committee has agreed that academic misconduct has occurred, after the allegation has been upheld.

5.54. Minor cases of failing to maintain academic integrity, taking into account section 5.53, may include:

a) inadequate, incorrect or inconsistent citation and/or referencing of sources;

b) paraphrasing too close to the original;

c) minor copying of material, such as copying up to a few sentences (note that this may sometimes be inadvertent, for example, if a student mistakes a verbatim transcript in their notes as their own words);

d) copying of a small number of answers to questions at the end of laboratory practicals.

e) minor or first breaches of rules related to examinations.

5.55. All other cases of failing to maintain academic integrity are dealt with as major academic misconduct.

5.56. Within 5 business days of the student academic misconduct meeting the student must be provided with written notice of:

a) the decision of the committee;

b) the terms of the decision;

c) any penalty imposed or recommended;

d) any implications of the committee’s decision or recommendation which may impact the student’s visa or scholarship conditions;

e) the right to appeal; and

f) the availability of independent advice from the Student Union Advocacy Service.

5.57. All matters relating to the allegation, hearing and outcome must be managed through and stored in the Case Management System.

Penalties for student academic and/or student research misconduct

5.58. Where a committee upholds an allegation of academic misconduct against a student, it may impose a penalty.

5.59. Where a committee, constituted under section 5.11, applies a penalty for research misconduct, the committee may take into account any prior findings of misconduct and any prior penalties imposed when deciding on a penalty. The committee secretary must only disclose previous findings of academic misconduct against the student if and when the committee has upheld an allegation.

5.60. A committee may impose a penalty in accordance with the Academic Board Regulation, this policy and the Board’s schedule of penalties.

5.61. Where the committee refers the matter to the Vice-Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor must have regard to the terms of the decision and the recommendation made by the committee. The Vice-Chancellor is not required to accord a hearing to the student before imposing a penalty in such a case. The Vice-Chancellor may:

a) accept the committee’s recommendation and expel the student or suspend the student’s enrolment (as the case requires); or

b) refer the matter back to the committee with a recommendation that it reconsider the penalty imposed.

5.62. If a student is also a graduate of the University, the student misconduct committee may recommend to Council the revocation of any award in the following circumstances:

a) where the academic misconduct is held to be proven; and

b) where the academic misconduct is of a very serious nature; and

c) where the academic misconduct is demonstrated to have occurred in a manner that shows that the award or award(s) already made were obtained as a result of this misconduct.

5.63. Where a matter is referred back to the committee on a recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor, the committee must consider the matter, and within the next 5 business days, impose one or more of the penalties referred to in the Academic Board Regulation and the Board’s schedule of penalties.

5.64. Where Council refers the matter back to the committee, in accordance with the Revocation of Awards Policy (MPF1316) for further investigation, the committee must conduct a further investigation and make a finding in accordance with this policy.

Initiating allegations of combined academic and general misconduct

5.65. Where both academic misconduct and general misconduct are alleged to have been committed by a student arising from one incident or closely related incidents, the Academic Secretary will decide whether the matter is to be heard as academic or general misconduct.

Reinstatement Where Suspended and Forfeiture of Fees

5.66. A student’s enrolment must be automatically reinstated after the expiration of any period of suspension, provided that the student has complied with any terms and conditions imposed as part of the suspension.

5.67. The Vice-Chancellor may at the Vice-Chancellor's discretion, reinstate a student’s enrolment after the expiration of any period of suspension even though the student has failed to comply with any terms or conditions imposed as part of the suspension.

5.68. A student whose enrolment has been suspended in accordance with this policy may not enrol in any course, subject or group of subjects at the University during the period of suspension without the written consent of the Vice-Chancellor. Consent will only be granted at the discretion of the Vice-Chancellor in exceptional circumstances.

5.69. No fees paid by a student relating to any period of suspension will be refunded.

Readmission Where Expelled and Forfeiture of Fees

5.70. A student who has been expelled in accordance with this policy may not enrol in any course, subject or group of subjects at the University without the written consent of the Vice-Chancellor. Consent will only be granted at the discretion of the Vice-Chancellor in exceptional circumstances.

5.71. Where a student is expelled under this policy no fees paid by the student will be refunded.

Record keeping

5.72. Academic misconduct must be managed via the Case Management System. This includes:

a) all findings of academic misconduct;

b) all penalties imposed in respect of such findings;

c) all records related to allegations, hearings, and outcomes; and

d) all cases of potential academic misconduct that result in an educative response, including the details of the nature of the educative response.

5.73. The records form part of the student’s disciplinary record and must form part of a student’s formal record. These records are retained in the Case Management System and the University’s formal Records Management System. They are not retained in the Student Management System. The file may be made available to persons within the University or outside the University in accordance with the University’s privacy policy.

5.74. Each faculty must ensure that all records relating to student academic misconduct are managed through the Case Management System.

Student Conduct Reports

5.75. The Academic Registrar issues, on request, a student conduct report, for graduates seeking admission to the Supreme Court of Victoria to practice law. Law graduates require a report from any institution where they undertook any tertiary study (including but not limited to their professional qualification) on disciplinary action arising from conduct in attaining the approved academic qualification. The report will be submitted to the Victorian Legal Admissions Board.

Academic Misconduct reports to the Board

5.75A. The Board will receive twice yearly academic misconduct reports:

a) identifying types of breaches of academic integrity in assessment, including faculty responses and penalties applied;

b) identifying any issues related to particular assessment types or online assessment tools; and

c) strategies faculties have put in place to address or mitigate academic integrity issues set out at (b).

Appeals

5.76. Appeals against a:

a) decision of the Student Academic Misconduct Committee; or

b) a decision of the Vice-Chancellor; or

c) a recommendation to Council by the Student Academic Misconduct Committee to Council,

made under this policy must be made in writing to the Academic Secretary within 20 business days of the date of the outcome of the student academic misconduct committee meeting or the committee meeting described at section 5.11, or the outcome from the Vice-Chancellor.

5.77. Where a student chooses not to access the appeal processes within the 20 business day period, withdraws from the process the original decision or recommendation, as the case may be, will stand.

6. Roles and Responsibilities

Role/Decision/Action	Responsibility	Conditions and limitations
Provision of educative materials on academic integrity to students	Dean or appropriate senior member of the academic staff authorised by the dean	Must be discipline appropriate
Design of appropriate assessment tasks	Dean or appropriate senior member of the academic staff authorised by the dean	Must be in accordance with the Assessment & Results Policy and the provisions of this policy
Conducting informal meeting with student	Head of Department (HOD) or appropriate senior member of the academic staff authorised by the dean	Authorisation to act on behalf of the dean must be given in writing
Establishing a student academic misconduct committee	Head of Department (HOD) or appropriate senior member of the academic staff authorised by the dean	Authorisation to act on behalf of the dean must be given in writing. Must be in accordance with sections 5.30 – 5.32 of this policy
Establish a committee to consider the application of a committee following an outcomes under the Research Integrity Policy	Dean or appropriate senior member of the academic staff authorised by the dean	Authorisation to act on behalf of the dean must be given in writing. Must be in accordance with sections 5.30-5.32 of this policy
Provision of allegation notice to students	Dean or appropriate senior member of the academic staff authorised by the dean	Authorisation to act on behalf of the dean must be given in writing. Must be in accordance with section 5.34 of this policy
Ensuring appropriate conduct of student academic misconduct committees	Dean or appropriate senior member of the academic staff authorised by the dean	Authorisation to act on behalf of the dean must be given in writing. Must be in accordance with the provisions of this policy
Ensure that all matters related to academic misconduct are managed via the Case Management System.	Dean or appropriate senior member of the academic staff authorised by the dean	Must be in accordance with sections 5.69-5.71 of this policy and the Records Management Policy
Application of appropriate penalty as required	Dean or appropriate senior member of the academic staff authorised by the dean	Authorisation to act on behalf of the dean must be given in writing. Must be in accordance with the provisions of the Academic Board Regulation and sections 5.58 – 5.62 of this policy
Recommend expulsion or suspension	Student Academic Misconduct Committee
Recommend revocation	Student Academic Misconduct Committee
Provision of outcome notice to student	Chair, Student Academic Misconduct Committee	Must be in accordance with section 5.56 of this policy.
Provision of academic misconduct reports to the Board or its committees	Office of Student Academic Integrity	In accordance with 5.75A

 

7. Definitions

academic integrity means honesty, responsibility and the maintenance of academic standards in scholarship. Honesty in scholarship means that all academic work results from an individual student's own efforts and that credit is given to other peoples' ideas. Maintaining academic integrity involves a student:

·         creating and expressing their own ideas in their work;

·         acknowledging all sources of information;

·         completing assignments independently or acknowledging collaboration;

·         accurately reporting results when conducting research or in clinical or laboratory work; and

·         honesty during examinations.

academic misconduct has the meaning given to it in Part 8, Division 2 – Academic Misconduct - of the Academic Board Regulation.

Academic Registrar means the office holder duly appointed with that title, or with a title including that term, and includes a person duly appointed to act in the place of that officeholder for the time being.

affiliated educational establishment means an educational or residential establishment affiliated with the University where such educational establishment constitutes a school or department of the University.

assessment materials means any resources that support any part of the assessment process.

Board means the Academic Board of the University of Melbourne.

business day means any day (on which the University is open for business and excludes all Saturdays, Sundays, public holidays that are observed by the University and University holidays declared on an annual basis (such as Easter Tuesday and Christmas shutdown periods).

computing and network facilities includes, but is not limited to, computers, computer systems, data network infrastructure, dial-in network access facilities, email and other communications and information facilities together with associated equipment, software, files and data storage and retrieval facilities, all of which are owned or operated by the University and form part of the central facilities or the local facilities, as the case may be.

dean means:

(a) where an allegation of academic misconduct relates to a single subject pertaining to or assigned for administrative purposes to a faculty, the dean of that faculty;

(b) where an allegation of academic misconduct relates to a group of subjects, a course or research higher degree pertaining to or assigned for administrative purposes to a faculty, the dean of that faculty or, where there is more than one faculty, the dean of the faculty nominated by the president of the Academic Board;

(c) where an allegation of academic misconduct relates to a course, subject or group of subjects offered at an affiliated educational establishment, the director or dean of that affiliated educational establishment; and

(d) where an allegation of academic misconduct relates to any other course, subject or group of subjects, the dean or other person determined by the president of the Academic Board to be the dean for the purpose of this policy.

educative response means an action focused on assisting a student to understand the error and learn better techniques. For example, educative responses are used where it is found that a student unknowingly or unintentionally used non-original material in an assessment task without acknowledging the source of that material.

exclusion except where the context indicates otherwise, means denial of access to all or specified university premises, facilities, activities, subjects, lectures or tutorials and exclude and excluding have a corresponding meaning.

faculty means an academic unit established as a faculty under section 11 of the Council Regulation. This includes a graduate school established as a faculty.

first teaching period means the first semester, term or teaching period of a student’s enrolment.

head of department means the head of the teaching department or school in a faculty. In a single department faculty this means the person appointed by the dean to act in this role for the purpose of this policy.

premises means land or buildings.

research means diligent and systematic enquiry into a subject to discover facts and principles.

researcher in this policy means a student engaged in a research project capstone subject or coursework thesis in a coursework degree, or the research component of a graduate research course.

revocation of award means the recall and permanent destruction by the University of a degree, diploma, certificate or other award conferred or granted by the University or an antecedent or affiliated institution.

senior member of the academic staff means a member of staff of the rank of senior lecturer or above.

senior member of the professional staff means a member of the professional staff appointed at or above UOM 10 (SM1 or SM2) level.

student in this policy has the meaning given to it in Part 8, Division 1 - Student Misconduct - of the Academic Board Regulation includes:

(a) a person who is enrolled in a course, a subject or a group of subjects at or offered by the University;

(b) a person who is enrolled in a course, subject or group of subjects at or offered by an affiliated educational establishment which is approved as an award course, subject or group of subjects by the Board;

(c) a student of another university or higher education institution who is granted temporary or on-going rights of access to University premises or facilities;

(d) a person who was a student at the time of any alleged misconduct;

(e) a person who became a student after having allegedly done so by misleading or false means;

(f) a person who has consented in writing to be subject to the statutes, regulations and policies of the University;

(g) a person who was at the time of any alleged misconduct a member of a class of persons designated pursuant to section 9(2)(c) of the Act or pursuant to any statute or regulation to be a student;

(h) a person who is on leave of absence from or who has deferred enrolment in a course, subject or group of subjects at or offered by the University or by an affiliated educational establishment which is approved as an award course, subject or group of subjects by the Board; and

(i) a person who is seeking admission or enrolment at the University.

subject means a subject offered on an assessed or a non-assessed basis.

suspension means the suspension of a student’s enrolment at the University for a specified period and exclusion from the University during this period without any right to enrol or re-enrol in any course or subject at the University, or any right to access University premises, facilities, services, activities, except with the consent of the Vice-Chancellor. At the end of the specified period the student's enrolment is reinstated unless otherwise requested by the student. Suspend has a corresponding meaning.

teaching period means a defined period of delivery of subjects, such as a semester or term.

termination means the cancellation of a student’s enrolment at the University, without any right to enrol or re-enrol in any particular course or subject at the University, except with the consent of the Vice-Chancellor. Terminate has a corresponding meaning.

University means the University of Melbourne or any affiliated educational or residential establishment and associated premises and property or any establishment with which the University has an agreement for the purposes of a professional placement, or in which the student is participating in a University activity.

POLICY APPROVER

Academic Board

POLICY STEWARD

Academic Secretary

REVIEW

This policy is to be reviewed by 21 July 2024.

VERSION HISTORY

Version	Approved By	Approval Date	Effective Date	Sections Modified
1	Academic Board	7 April 2016	21 July 2016	New policy arising from the revision of the University’s regulatory framework and the Policy Consolidation Project.
2	President, Academic Board	6 June 2016	21 July 2016	Revoke section 2.3, new sections 5.62, 5.64 and amendments to 5.63 to allow inclusion of matters to do with revocation. New section 5.74 student conduct reports.
3	Academic Secretary	2 November 2016	3 November 2016	Correction to section reference in section 5.54.
4	Academic Secretary	9 January 2017	9 January 2017	Correction to section reference in section 5.30.
5	Academic Secretary	11 September 2019	13 September 2019	Editorial changes removing gendered pronouns – 5.22, 5.30, 5.35, 5.41, 5.44, 5.45, 5.61, 5.67
6	President, Academic Board	8 October 2020	13 October 2020	Added 'assessment materials' to definitions.
7	President, Academic Board	16 November 2020	17 December 2020	Updates to address diversity and inclusion requirements at section 4.3.
8	President, Academic Board	8 April 2021	9 April 2021	Updated to reflect changes to the Academic Board regulation and the Vice-Chancellor ‘s Regulation. Updates throughout to indicate that all allegations of academic misconduct, educative and formal, are to be managed and recorded via the Resolve Case Management System. Removal of requirement to provide allegation/academic misconduct committee outcome to the Academic Registrar as all records will be retained in the Resolve Case Management System/ HPE Content Manager (University’s official record keeping system). Clarification of language and process throughout.
9	President, Academic Board	17 June 2021	18 June 2021	Changes consequent upon changes to the Academic Board Regulation.
10	Academic Secretary	21 June 2021	23 June 2021	Addition of 'business' to clarify meaning of days in 5.38.
11	Academic Secretary	31 August 2021	1 September 2021	Corrected reference to notice given to students in 5.41 and minor editorial change to 5.53(b).
12	President, Academic Board	20 September 2021	8 October 2021	New section 5.75A - academic misconduct reports to the Board.
13	Academic Secretary	24 November 2022	30 November 2022	Amendment to Section 6 – Responsibility for providing academic misconduct reports to the boards or its committees reassigned to the Office of Student Academic Integrity.