Contact
For advice and support, contact your faculty's educational integrity team.
Office of Educational Integrity
[email protected]
On this page you can find information about:
Before assessing student work for integrity issues, it’s important for markers to familiarise themselves with the Academic Integrity Policy and breach types.
If in doubt about whether to report a student, it is better to err on the side of caution and report it, even if the conduct seems relatively minor. This gives students the best chance at being redirected onto the right path for the remainder of their studies. It also ensures greater consistency of outcomes across the University, along with ensuring more accurate data about individual students and the student body as a whole.
If you’re unsure whether a student’s conduct constitutes a potential breach, you can ask a student to provide you with further details about how they completed their assignment, and check their understanding of the assignment. This will help determine whether the case warrants reporting. For more serious matters like contract cheating or unauthorised use of AI, obtaining more detail from the student as a matter of course can also improve the quality of any subsequent investigation. For more information see Obtaining more information from a student.
Unit coordinators (but not other makers) can report and resolve minor plagiarism and recycling cases locally, in one action, applying a small penalty. Please note that these cases must still be reported via the academic integrity dashboard.
For tutors, if you’re unsure about whether to report a student, your unit coordinator should be the first port of call. Any staff member can also email the Office of Educational Integrity at [email protected] for further advice.
If you’re unsure whether a student’s conduct constitutes a potential breach, you can ask a student to provide you with further details about how they completed their assignment, and check their understanding of the assignment. This is especially important where contract cheating is suspected.
It is important to note that it is not the role of the tutor/ unit coordinator to run a thorough investigation and/or determine whether a breach has occurred, only to determine that there is enough to warrant reporting it for further investigation. It’s also important to note to the student that at this stage, no formal allegation is being made; rather, the student is being provided with an outline of the concerns regarding their work.
During the meeting, you should:
After the meeting, the unit coordinator should send a brief summary of the discussion to the student. If the coordinator remains unsatisfied with the student’s explanation and/or suspects the work is not their own, the case can be referred for further investigation. This referral should include all relevant documentation and supporting evidence (e.g., emails sent to the student).
If the student has declined the invitation to meet/ respond to requests, the submission should still be referred, along with any available supporting documentation or evidence. Supporting evidence may include the examiner's general assessment of the student's participation and prior engagement with unit content in relation to the submission in question.
In the course of a meeting with their marker, some students may admit to contract cheating. In such cases, you may ask who completed the submission, the contact details of this person or company, and whether payment was involved and then make a formal report.
The Office of Educational Integrity has a specialist Investigations Team who conduct preliminary investigations into contract cheating using various tools, such as Turnitin’s Authorship tool, to view all written submissions, assessing student logins amongst many other things. The Authorship tool assesses all submissions made by the student to Turnitin, assessing the readability, metadata.
Under the Academic Integrity Policy, all suspected academic integrity breaches must be reported via the academic integrity dashboard (select Lodge Case).
Before you lodge a case, read through the Academic Integrity Reporting Quick Guide (pdf, 1062KB) for more detail.
If you are unit coordinator, and you think the conduct relates to low level plagiarism or recycling, you might be able to report and resolve the matter locally, in one step. Refer to Resolving minor breaches locally (unit coordinators).
Any staff member can lodge a case, but tutors/markers should check with their relevant unit coordinator about their preferred reporting process. Some unit coordinators prefer to lodge all cases themselves, or want a particular internal process to be followed, while others are happy for markers to lodge directly.
Incidents for up to 50 students may be reported at a time, providing all the incidents relate to the same assessment item.
When lodging a case, try to categorise the suspected breach accurately based on the information you have. You should include evidence and reasons why you believe there has been a failure to meet the requirements of academic integrity. This typically includes the Turnitin Similarity report or other forms of similarity detection, as well as any additional supporting information, such as correspondence with the student/ notes from a meeting with the student.
It’s important to provide a detailed analysis when outlining the reason for referral. Since teaching staff are most familiar with the assessment requirements and unit content, they are best equipped to collect reliable evidence for academic integrity investigations. Generally, the more varied the evidence, the stronger the case will be. The role of the person making the report is to provide as much information about their suspicions to enable the decision maker to assess the case.
After lodging the form, you will receive an email confirming your submission.
To check the progress of a case, access the dashboard, which is available for unit coordinators and case initiators. This will show any cases that you have reported directly. For unit coordinators, it will show any case that has been reported within all the units that you coordinate.
Unit coordinators receive the most information about case progress and case outcomes, including any penalties applied, because they have primary responsibility for the administration of the relevant unit of study. If you lodged the case but are not the unit of study coordinator, please contact them in the first instance for more information.
Once the case has been resolved, the case initiator and the unit coordinator will receive an email notifying of the outcome. Find out more about the investigation process.
To learn more about student communication during a case, refer to Communication with students about cases.
A minor academic integrity breach is the lowest kind of breach. It is characterised by instances of poor academic practice such as not fully understanding referencing requirements, how to paraphrase and use quotations, submitting work that is not entirely original (i.e. using parts of work previously submitted for another assessment – otherwise known as recycling).
Minor breaches are most commonly applied to first-year students. For a minor breach to apply, the student must have no prior reported cases.
Under the Academic Integrity Policy, unit coordinators (but not other markers) are able to report and resolve minor plagiarism and recycling cases locally, in one action, if they deem it appropriate. They can apply a minor breach finding and apply a small, remedial mark penalty. This allows these cases to be handled more swiftly, with less disruption to both staff and students. These cases must still be reported via the central dashboard, including an explanation for the decision and the penalty that was applied.
The dashboard will also prompt the unit coordinator to select the appropriate development activity for the student, which is usually the Avoiding Plagiarism: Referencing and Incorporating Sources module or the Academic Honesty Education Module.
After a unit coordinator lodges the case, the system will automatically check if the student has any prior cases, and if there are none, a system-generated notification will be sent to the student, including the explanation provided and the penalty applied.
If there is a prior case on record (either active or resolved), the matter will be escalated to the Faculty Integrity Team (which is made up of an Educational Integrity Coordinator and a group of nominated academics) for investigation. It still might only result in a minor breach for the student, or even no breach, but not until further investigation has been carried out.
Once the case has been lodged and the system has determined that there are prior case/s on record, the unit coordinator will receive a notification that the case has been escalated to the Faculty Integrity Team. The student will not yet be notified by the automatic system.
When lodging a case via the reporting dashboard, it is only important to think about the level of potential breach if you are a unit coordinator and think the conduct in question could be a minor breach relating to low-level plagiarism or minor recycling, meaning you can potentially resolve it locally – see Resolving minor breaches locally (unit coordinators).
If the conduct in question is anything other than a minor breach, the most important thing is to focus on is the nature of the conduct and the type of breach, and provide as much information as possible. You do not need to consider the potential level of breach.
A minor academic integrity breach is the lowest kind of breach, for the least egregious conduct.
It is characterised by instances of poor academic practice such as not fully understanding referencing requirements, how to paraphrase and use quotations, submitting work that is not entirely original (i.e. using parts of work previously submitted for another assessment – otherwise known as recycling).
Minor breaches are most commonly applied to first-year students. For a minor breach to apply, the student must have no prior reported cases.
A minor breach outcome can be determined by a unit coordinator, or the relevant Faculty Integrity Team. The focus is remedial and educational, and students will be directed to complete a development activity. They might also have a small mark penalty applied.
A major breach is characterised by persistent or reckless disregard for referencing practice (particularly considering the student's level of experience), repeat offences of any kind, or where there is a high volume of unattributed content. A major breach also includes exam cheating, fabricating data, or any behaviour that undermines the integrity of the academic process. Consequences for engaging in a major breach generally include mark reductions, which may be a zero mark for the assessment or even for the entire unit of study.
A major breach outcome can only be determined by the relevant Faculty Integrity Team after a case has been correctly lodged in the dashboard and the student has been given an opportunity to respond.
Misconduct is the most serious kind of breach.
Matters which may constitute misconduct include repeated major breaches, contract cheating, serious exam misconduct, serious collusion, or where the conduct is so serious that it prejudices the good order, reputation or academic standard of the University or the integrity of an assessment item.
These matters will be referred to the Registrar (or their nominee) for investigation under the University of Sydney (Student Discipline) Rule 2016.
Consequences for misconduct can include suspension, exclusion, or having a degree revoked.
The Academic Integrity Policy and associated Procedures outline the process for investigating suspected academic integrity breaches and the relevant decision-makers.
Minor academic integrity breaches related to plagiarism and recycling can be reported and resolved locally by the unit coordinator if they wish, or determined by the relevant faculty’s Integrity Team (which includes an Educational Integrity Coordinator and nominated academics).
All other cases are first reviewed by the relevant faculty’s Integrity Team, except for contract cheating cases and unapproved use of AI cases, which are first assessed by the Office of Educational Integrity.
The relevant decision-maker will review the reported breach to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed and will assess the category of the suspected academic integrity breach.
If at this point the relevant decision-maker determines that there has been no breach, the case is closed without the student being notified.
The decision-maker may also determine at this point that the student has engaged in a minor breach. The student is notified and directed to take an approved development activity, and penalties could be applied, including small mark reductions. If the unit coordinator is not the decision-maker, they will be notified of the outcome and informed of any penalties applied.
The decision-maker may require the student to formally respond to the allegation. This could be in writing or at a meeting. The student will be sent an email to their University email address with a letter attached including details of the allegation, information about what to do next, and how to contact their faculty with any questions.
After considering the student’s response and all available evidence, the decision-maker will determine whether a breach has occurred and the level of the breach, as well as the penalty to be applied.
Students are notified of the outcome – no breach, minor breach, major breach or referred for investigation of misconduct. Unit coordinators will be informed of any penalties and actions required to update the grade.
If a decision-maker determines that the case warrants investigation for potential misconduct, it will be referred to the Registrar (or their nominee) for investigation under the University of Sydney (Student Discipline) Rule 2016.
When markers or unit coordinators are determining whether a student’s conduct constitutes a potential breach, they can ask a student to provide them with further details about how they completed their assignment, and check their understanding of the assignment. See Obtaining more information from a student.
If a unit coordinator is reporting and resolving a minor breach locally, in one action, the student will be sent a system-generated notification informing them of the outcome and penalty, providing they have no prior academic integrity cases. If the student does have prior cases on record, further investigation is required by the Faculty Integrity Team, and the student will not be automatically notified, but the unit coordinator will be sent an email. See Resolving minor breaches locally (unit coordinators).
Once an academic integrity case is lodged, the student’s mark for the assessment must be withheld until the case is resolved. A marker or unit coordinator can notify a student via a Canvas comment that a case has been reported to the Faculty Integrity Team, and to expect further communication. Markers should check preferred process for notification with their unit coordinator.
Although the grade must be withheld while a case is in progress, it is fine to leave other general feedback for the student. If the assessment is marked, markers should keep a record of the grade for later reference. If the case has not been resolved by the end of semester, a Result Incomplete (RI) grade will need to be submitted for the student.
If a student contacts a marker or unit coordinator asking about their case, tell them to contact the Office of Educational Integrity at [email protected] or the relevant educational integrity team. You can also direct them to the Academic Integrity Investigation page on the Current Students website.
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]