Academic Integrity Form - Calculator

Select the appropriate score (one for each criterion) and once all sections are complete, press 'Calculate indicative score'. Once you are satisfied you have the correct indicative score, print or save the form for submission to the Director of Teaching and Learning (Undergraduate or Postgraduate). To save the form you can select 'print to PDF'. Please ensure that you retain a copy for your records.

Before completing this form, please click here to familiarise yourself with the types of concern for Criterion 1. Note that the unauthorised and/or unacknowledged use of generative AI can represent a breach of academic integrity across a range of forms of misconduct, e.g. plagiarism, depending on the nature and extent of its use.

Type of concern	Description
Basic violations	Include, but are not limited to, submitting a limited portion of the same material more than once without prior authorisation; giving your own academic work to others even when doing so was not explicitly prohibited; attendance/participation points misrepresentation; violation of instructor policies if behaviour not listed elsewhere in the guidelines; poor academic writing skill e.g., poor referencing or the passing off of somebody else's ideas as if originally discovered by the learner, or small errors made through carelessness or misunderstanding
Limited plagiarism	Includes, but is not limited to, presenting work / ideas taken from other sources without proper acknowledgement. Paraphrasing from sources without attribution; verbatim copying from sources without attribution when what was copied was not a critical aspect (key, central ideas) of the assessment and impacted less than 30% of the assessment; looking online for a solution to an assessment and copying part of that solution/answer. The unauthorised use of Gen AI could fall into this category. Self-plagiarism could also fall into this category.
Extensive plagiarism	Includes, but is not limited to, plagiarism when the aspects copied are critical aspects of the assessment and/or constitute more than 30% of the assessment or impact the integrity of more than 30% of the assessment thus requiring a new assessment; extensively copying from another learner's assessment without acknowledgment of their contribution; limited or extensive plagiarism that includes false citations. Mosaic copying/ scaffolding/ substantial similarity: An unoriginal piece of writing composed of acknowledged or unacknowledged extracts from several different sources. Where the key points and structure of another person's work have been used as a scaffold (framework) for your own work, without acknowledging the source. This is plagiarism. The unauthorised use of Gen AI could fall into this category. Self-plagiarism that constitutes more than 30% of the assessment would also fall into this category.
Collusion	Undisclosed collaboration between two or more people on an assessment or task, which was supposed to be completed individually when clear information was provided to students. Collusion includes inappropriate or unauthorised collaboration by two or more people in the production and submission of assessment task; learners providing their work to another learner before the submission deadline, or for the purpose of the other learner’s plagiarism at any time. Allowing another (e.g., friend / relative /peer / tutor) to write / translate / significantly edit one's assessment without acknowledging that help.
Falsification / Fabrication	Includes, but is not limited to, altering a graded assessment provided by another person and submitting for re-grade; fabricating data for a lab or research assessment; submitting data you didn't yourself collect; lying/giving a false excuse to miss or receive unfair accommodation on an assessment. Types of major misconduct in an education, research or scholarship setting: Forging educational, research or scholarship content, images, data, equipment or processes so that they are inaccurately represented. Fabrication: Fabrication in the context of research means making up data, experiments, or other significant information in proposing conducting or reporting research.
Exam Cheating	Action or behaviour that violates rules in an attempt to give one learner an unfair advantage over another. Exam cheating includes, but is not limited to, copying from another person or allowing another person to copy during an examination; having an unapproved aid directly related to the exam (e.g., ‘cheat sheets’; course-related notes; textbook; whether electronically or hard copy); having ubiquitous smart technology (e.g., mobile phone, smart watch) accessible during an exam.
Fraud / Impersonation	Actions that are intended to deceive for unfair advantage by violating academic regulations. Using intentional deception to gain academic credit. Fraud includes some of the most egregious violations – e.g. stealing or fraudulently obtaining answers to an assessment prompt/exam before submitting the assessment for grading; changing/helping to change any recorded assessment or course grade on an instructor's or university record; illicitly obtaining an assessment completed by another (without their knowledge) and submitting it (in part or whole) as one's own; submitting fake or false documents (e.g. medical notes)
Contract Cheating	Form of academic misconduct when a person uses an undeclared and/or unauthorised third party, online or directly, to assist them to produce work for academic credit or progression, whether or not payment or other favour is involved. Contract cheating is any behaviour whereby a learner arranges to have another person or entity (‘the provider’) complete (in part or total) an assessment (e.g. exam, test, quiz, assessment, paper, project, problems) for the learner. If the provider is also a student, both students are in violation.