A range of information and resources are available to support unit coordinators and teaching staff to understand, identify and respond to potential academic integrity breaches. This page will cover:
An academic integrity breach involves any conduct that undermines the integrity of the University’s academic work and standards. Conduct may range from unintended and accidental failures to comply with academic standards or policies, to intentional acts to gain an advantage by unfair or dishonest means. Specific breach types are outlined in the University’s Academic Integrity Policy.
The University treats all suspected breaches seriously because of its commitment to upholding academic integrity.
Part 4 of the Academic Integrity Policy outlines the conduct that would amount to a breach of integrity. Part 5 outlines rules for ‘allowable assistance’ in assessments, including rules around digital tools and generative AI, as well as what constitutes legitimate cooperation with others.
Common behaviours associated with breaches of academic integrity include:
Plagiarism means presenting work that is not one’s own without acknowledging the original source of the work.
Plagiarism can include copying any material without correct referencing, regardless of the medium in which the original material was published. This includes material in hard copy (books, journals, theses etc), soft copy (internet, email attachments, e-journals etc), other digital formats (audio visual, MP3s etc) and live presentations (lectures, speeches etc).
The Academic Integrity Policy draws a distinction between plagiarism caused by a student's failure to understand appropriate referencing conventions and plagiarism that is dishonest.
Referencing is fundamental to academic integrity, as it enables students to distinguish between their own work and that of others. Developing strong referencing skills is crucial for student success. While no amount of plagiarism is acceptable, in the first instance, where a student has not understood the appropriate referencing conventions, the University will generally offer the student an opportunity to learn about referencing and potentially apply small mark penalties or an opportunity to correct the work.
Plagiarism may be considered dishonest when done knowingly or if a reasonable person can see that the student's original contribution to the work is overshadowed by the volume of copied or unacknowledged material.
The University encourages all students to build on the knowledge they have developed over the course of their studies. However, it does not permit students to recycle or resubmit work that has previously been assessed and for which credit has already been given.
Unit coordinators should seek to discuss with their students the difference between drawing on knowledge and ideas, and simply reusing previously submitted material.
Fabrication involves making up information, such as experimental or interview data. It can also include inventing sources by including citations to non-existent or incorrect sources.
With the rise of AI, there has been an increase in cases relating to fabrication, because AI-generated content often includes fabricated information or sources.
Collusion involves engaging in illegitimate cooperation with one or more other students in the completion of assessable work.
Cooperation is not legitimate if it unfairly advantages a student, or group of students, over others. It can include students working in pairs or groups to write an essay or report that is meant to be an individual piece of work. It can also include sharing quiz or test questions and answers with other students or sharing written assignments like reports and essays. This typically results in similarities within the work, which may be evident with direct text matching or follows the same pattern or structure, and included the same information, argument and references to sources.
Exam cheating can include:
Contract cheating is a term used to describe a range of behaviours that involve students seeking inappropriate assistance from a third party for their academic work and assignments. In the past, contract cheating cases primarily involved students purchasing entire assignments from essay mills, but in recent years we have seen a rise in the use of external “tutoring” companies and more systematic forms of collusion.
There are a range of behaviours that fall under the umbrella of contract cheating, which include:
Several behaviours associated with contract cheating are considered to be personal misconduct and, in some cases, may be against the law. For instance, students might:
Generative AI is defined in the Academic Integrity Policy as “software applications built on artificial intelligence that can generate content and complete tasks in response to user prompts. Uses for their outputs include: improving or amending writing, including by translating, paraphrasing, clarifying or making stylistic changes; generating text, code, data, images, multimedia or 3D artefacts; or controlling other software.”
Misusing digital technologies including generative AI can breach the Academic Integrity Policy. Examples include:
To find more information about the use of AI in assessable work, visit Teaching and Learning Response to Artificial Intelligence.
The proliferation of online document and file-sharing sites (for example, Course Hero, StuDocu, Thinkswap, StudentVIP, Bilibili) where users to access materials by purchasing “credits” or uploading their own documents has resulted in a significant volume of University-related material appearing on these sites.
If a student uploads their completed assignments to such sites, this constitutes a breach of academic integrity, as it gives other students an unfair advantage and may enable cheating. Furthermore, posting the University’s copyrighted teaching materials, such as lecture slides or assignment briefs, constitutes a copyright infringement and is also considered an academic integrity breach.
If you can identify a student who has posted material, you can lodge an academic integrity report against that student. If you believe there has been an infringement of University copyright, please notify the Office of Educational Integrity by sending links and screenshots of the relevant material to [email protected]. The team will review the material and advise on the best course of action.
The following provides guidance on how to detect breaches and the process for reporting them.
Unit coordinators and teaching staff are responsible for monitoring and responding to potential academic integrity breaches to ensure appropriate intervention and uphold academic standards. All suspected cases should be investigated to assure the integrity of assessable work and to educate students on acceptable practices.
If you are unsure whether a particular case needs to be reported, please seek advice from the unit coordinator, relevant faculty educational integrity team or the Office of Educational Integrity.
Policy requires all written work to be submitted to similarity detection software. We use Turnitin for this purpose. Turnitin searches for matches against a massive database of content, including internet sources, published work and student work previously submitted to Turnitin. After scanning the assignment, Turnitin generates a Similarity Report that provides an overall similarity percentage indicating the amount of matching text to sources in the Turnitin database. Each match is colour coded and numbered, with a detailed percentage of how much text is matched against the paper to the source identified by Turnitin. The percentage produced is dependent on the length of the document.
There is no specified level of similarity or defined percentage which indicates a breach of academic integrity. A high percentage does not necessarily mean that there is an issue with a paper, as some matched text is easily explained. Similarly, a low percentage does not mean that there are no issues with the paper and further investigation should be undertaken. Text matches give some indication as to how original the writing may be, but whether the student has engaged in plagiarism or another breach must always be determined by a marker or academic.
When reviewing the similarity report, each of the text matches should be considered for whether they may indicate a potential breach. For example: verify if exact text matches are appropriately cited and paraphrased content is sufficiently reworded, and the original source cited. Common phrases or technological terms may have been highlighted, and you will need to ensure whether what is highlighted is universally accepted knowledge or technological terms that don’t require citation.
Turnitin allows filters to exclude quotes, bibliography sections, or small matches. However, we recommend not excluding any matches initially as this will alter what is identified and may miss potential matches which do warrant further investigation.
Turnitin will prioritise matches to other student papers, but when drilling down, you can identify whether this may relate to the use of a common source.
Similarity to sources will help identify copied content or inadequate referencing. Identical or very similar assignments submitted by different students may indicate collusion, use of third-party material or external assistance.
A low similarity percentage does not necessarily mean that there are no issues with the paper and no further investigation should be undertaken.
While it’s relatively common for students to submit work that is purely descriptive and lacking in analysis, not quite on topic, or that does not explicitly address an assignment question or brief, these can also be indicators that the student has sought illegitimate external assistance.
On its own, this is not sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. However, as a marker, you should look for additional indicators that might suggest the student has potentially sought assistance, either through a third party or AI. Please refer to the indicators below for guidance.
Analysing document metadata for inconsistencies, such as creation dates or authorship, can reveal indicators that the work may not have been solely generated by the student. Unusual information in the file metadata, such as unexpected author names or very short time periods between file creation and completion are common indicators of contract cheating.
If you find irregularities, it is helpful to examine the assignment more closely for any additional concerns with the content, similarity, sources, and adherence to the assessment requirements. Please refer to the indicators below for guidance.
Review all references and sources cited in assignments for authenticity and relevance.
Be aware that AI-generated references and sources may contain false, non-existent, or inaccurate citations.
The following checklist outlines potential indicators of suspected academic integrity breaches. Identifying such breaches requires the examiner’s judgement, who is aware of the responsibilities involved in academic assessment. Markers serve as the frontline in preventing and detecting these breaches. Tools like web searches and similarity detection software assist in making this judgment.
| Conduct Type | Indicators | Recommended action |
|---|---|---|
| Plagiarism |
|
|
| Recycling |
|
|
| Collusion (or illegitimate cooperation) |
|
|
| Contract cheating |
|
|
| Unapproved or misuse of digital technologies including unapproved use of AI |
|
|
| Fabricating information, data or sources including AI-generated references |
|
|
| Use of file-sharing platforms |
|
|
|
|
|
If you suspect a student has engaged in a breach, report it for further action. All suspected breaches must be reported. Teaching staff/ tutors should consult with their unit coordinator to determine how breaches should be managed within the unit. Some unit coordinators prefer all breaches to be reported to them for review, while others are happy for tutors to lodge cases directly in the central reporting form.
For minor plagiarism and minor recycling breaches, these can be resolved locally by unit coordinators. They can apply a minor breach finding and apply a small, remedial mark penalty. But, these cases still MUST be recorded via the formal reporting form. There are several reasons for this – the main one being that the number and severity of prior breaches a student has against them can influence the penalty given for subsequent breaches. If breaches are not reported, there is not an accurate picture of the student’s history.
For advice and support, contact your faculty's educational integrity team.
Office of Educational Integrity
[email protected]
For advice and support, contact your faculty's educational integrity team.
Office of Educational Integrity
[email protected]