academic honesty assignment

Prevent plagiarism, run a free plagiarism check.

• Knowledge Base

Academic Integrity vs. Academic Dishonesty

Published on March 10, 2022 by Tegan George and Jack Caulfield. Revised on April 13, 2023.

Academic integrity  is the value of being honest, ethical, and thorough in your academic work. It allows readers to trust that you aren’t misrepresenting your findings or taking credit for the work of others.

Academic dishonesty (or academic misconduct) refers to actions that undermine academic integrity. It typically refers to some form of plagiarism , ranging from serious offenses like purchasing a pre-written essay to milder ones like accidental citation errors. Most of which are easy to detect with a plagiarism checker .

These concepts are also essential in the world of professional academic research and publishing. In this context, accusations of misconduct can have serious legal and reputational consequences.

Table of contents

Types of academic dishonesty, why does academic integrity matter, examples of academic dishonesty, frequently asked questions about plagiarism.

While plagiarism is the main offense you’ll hear about, academic dishonesty comes in many forms that vary extensively in severity, from faking an illness to buying an essay.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Most students are clear that academic integrity is important, but dishonesty is still common.

There are various reasons you might be tempted to resort to academic dishonesty: pressure to achieve, time management struggles, or difficulty with a course. But academic dishonesty hurts you, your peers, and the learning process. It’s:

• Unfair to the plagiarized author
• Unfair to other students who did not cheat
• Damaging to your own learning
• Harmful if published research contains misleading information
• Dangerous if you don’t properly learn the fundamentals in some contexts (e.g., lab work)

The consequences depend on the severity of the offense and your institution’s policies. They can range from a warning for a first offense to a failing grade in a course to expulsion from your university.

• Faking illness to skip a class
• Asking for a classmate’s notes from a special review session held by your professor that you did not attend
• Crowdsourcing or collaborating with others on a homework assignment
• Citing a source you didn’t actually read in a paper
• Cheating on a pop quiz
• Peeking at your notes on a take-home exam that was supposed to be closed-book
• Resubmitting a paper that you had already submitted for a different course (self-plagiarism)
• Forging a doctor’s note to get an extension on an assignment
• Fabricating experimental results or data to prove your hypothesis in a lab environment
• Buying a pre-written essay online or answers to a test
• Falsifying a family emergency to get out of taking a final exam
• Taking a test for a friend

Academic integrity means being honest, ethical, and thorough in your academic work. To maintain academic integrity, you should avoid misleading your readers about any part of your research and refrain from offenses like plagiarism and contract cheating, which are examples of academic misconduct.

Academic dishonesty refers to deceitful or misleading behavior in an academic setting. Academic dishonesty can occur intentionally or unintentionally, and varies in severity.

It can encompass paying for a pre-written essay, cheating on an exam, or committing plagiarism . It can also include helping others cheat, copying a friend’s homework answers, or even pretending to be sick to miss an exam.

Academic dishonesty doesn’t just occur in a classroom setting, but also in research and other academic-adjacent fields.

Consequences of academic dishonesty depend on the severity of the offense and your institution’s policy. They can range from a warning for a first offense to a failing grade in a course to expulsion from your university.

For those in certain fields, such as nursing, engineering, or lab sciences, not learning fundamentals properly can directly impact the health and safety of others. For those working in academia or research, academic dishonesty impacts your professional reputation, leading others to doubt your future work.

Academic dishonesty can be intentional or unintentional, ranging from something as simple as claiming to have read something you didn’t to copying your neighbor’s answers on an exam.

You can commit academic dishonesty with the best of intentions, such as helping a friend cheat on a paper. Severe academic dishonesty can include buying a pre-written essay or the answers to a multiple-choice test, or falsifying a medical emergency to avoid taking a final exam.

The consequences of plagiarism vary depending on the type of plagiarism and the context in which it occurs. For example, submitting a whole paper by someone else will have the most severe consequences, while accidental citation errors are considered less serious.

If you’re a student, then you might fail the course, be suspended or expelled, or be obligated to attend a workshop on plagiarism. It depends on whether it’s your first offense or you’ve done it before.

As an academic or professional, plagiarizing seriously damages your reputation. You might also lose your research funding or your job, and you could even face legal consequences for copyright infringement.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

George, T. & Caulfield, J. (2023, April 13). Academic Integrity vs. Academic Dishonesty. Scribbr. Retrieved April 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/plagiarism/academic-dishonesty/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, how to avoid plagiarism | tips on citing sources, consequences of mild, moderate & severe plagiarism, what is self-plagiarism | definition & how to avoid it, what is your plagiarism score.

Academic Honesty: Why It Matters in Psychology

In psychology, academic honesty is about so much more than getting in trouble..

Posted April 17, 2021 | Reviewed by Abigail Fagan

• All colleges and universities have academic honesty policies with serious consequences.
• Websites that pay to write student papers violate academic honesty and are becoming more abundant and aggressive.
• Academic honesty is inherently psychological, involving questions of curiosity, trust, morality, and future orientation.

The other day, while looking for a free plagiarism checker to use in addition to the one provided by my institution, I came across a website blatantly selling papers to students. This particular site promises, for a high fee per page, to write students completely unique papers that won’t get caught as plagiarism. They’ll even write your Ph.D. dissertation for you (uh…good luck defending that).

All professors are familiar with these sites. The fact that students are paying others to produce work for them is not a secret, at all. Most of us have caught students doing this, or versions of it, and though it’s exhausting and demoralizing, we’ve learned to deal with it semester after semester.

What is academic honesty?

This behavior falls under the heading of “academic honesty.” All colleges and universities have academic honesty policies that address issues like plagiarism and cheating, including serious consequences for violating them. I, for one, am particularly adept at detecting copy/paste/change-a-few-words plagiarism. Frankly, half the time it’s obvious because it’s incomprehensible. As many professors will commiserate, if I wasn’t so good at detecting it, life would be much easier.

Most of us on the policy enforcement side can relate stories with versions of, “But I bought the paper! I didn’t plagiarize, the person who wrote it did! I shouldn’t be held responsible!” In fact, I receive more and more pushback like that every semester: “My cousin wrote the paper for me and I had no idea she plagiarized! She should get in trouble, not me!”

Where does academic dishonesty come from?

We certainly understand that issues like plagiarism may come from lack of confidence in one’s writing skills, being unprepared for college, pressure, inaccessible resources, and the like, but overall, I’ve found it to be a matter of buy-in. Either students buy in to the concept of academic honesty or they don’t, and this has implications beyond school.

How is academic honesty linked to psychology?

I’m less concerned with magically convincing students to follow academic honesty policies than I am in getting them to think about why it is important in the context of psychology. Though I am indeed a prevention practitioner, I’m not naïve enough to think I can change someone’s mind about the value of academic honesty. I am, however, hopeful that those studying psychology will consider the following connections (and then some):

• Learning – You’re not learning much if you’re not doing the work. I once listened to an NPR story about students purchasing papers in which a student said, “I feel like I am doing my own work because I’m using my own money.” Come on. Psychology is all about learning. It’s a topic in every introductory psychology course. It’s usually an entire chapter in introductory psychology textbooks. We have classes specifically focused on it. One of the foundations of learning is that the learner be…involved.
• Morality – “What is moral?” students ask. I can’t answer that, but I am pretty confident that cheating is not. Again, this is a topic that is usually covered in introductory psychology and then over and over again in developmental psychology, social psychology, and more. You’ll even find “moral psychology” as its own field. Psychologist Lawrence Kholberg asked if subjects would steal a drug. Today, he could ask if you’d buy a term paper.
• Future orientation – Personality psychology research suggests that those with a “future orientation” tend to have better outcomes than those with a “present orientation.” The idea is that if you have a future orientation, you tend to, well, look to the future and anticipate future outcomes more than those who are focused solely on the present. While a concern with consequences is associated with mortality (e.g. Kholberg’s theory), the ability or tendency to envision potential consequences is associated with a future orientation. Could there be a more psychological question than, “Is it worth it?”
• Conscientiousness and trust – Conscientiousness is a core personality trait. Trust is essential in development and relationships. Academic dishonesty violates trust and displays low conscientiousness.
• Human services – Students often take psychology because it’s required for medical careers, careers involving working with children, and other human service careers. Go back to the first point about learning. I once had a nurse who tried to inject Heparin directly into my muscle. I had to fight to get her to inject it subcutaneously, as directed. When you work in a hospital, on a general surgery floor, not knowing where to safely inject a blood thinner is alarming. When you don’t do your own work, you don’t have a chance to learn and for a discipline preparing students to work with humans, especially children, everything associated with academic honesty, all of the above, is essential.
• Personal fable – Simply put, this component of David Elkind’s adolescent egocentrism theory suggests that adolescents tend to think they are special and unique. “It might happen to you, but it won’t happen to me.” I can’t tell you how many students are shocked and very angry when caught. In fact, I once read a Twitter thread from professors about the very real dangers associated with catching plagiarism. Many students are still in adolescence , and thinking you’re an exception who won’t get caught is a sure sign.
• Entitlement and violence – Speaking of anger, the idea that you’re special is linked to entitlement , a very psychological concept. In fact, those who study education research “academic entitlement,” in which students feel they should get a good grade just because they attended class or just because they turned in work. Having worked in domestic and sexual violence for a very long time, I know that entitlement is often coupled with violence, as challenges to one’s sense of entitlement frequently result in anger and aggression . Linking homework to violence seems incredible, but it’s a very real possibility.
• Behavioral consistency – As much as we may want to, professors generally can’t share information about other students with other professors. There’s no, “Hey, watch out for this student, they told me their cousin is doing all their homework for them.” However, all academic honesty policies do require some level of reporting to campus administration and they know about behavioral consistency, another psychological concept. This concept suggests that people tend to behave in a consistent manner; they behave in ways that match their past behavior. Need I say more?

One of the main reasons for academic honesty is scientific integrity. I didn’t address it above because, frankly, I find that’s not a very convincing argument, especially when these “pay for us to do your homework” sites target students so aggressively. I found a few more of these sites and recently used their online chat tool. Before I disclosed that I am a professor, and subsequently got kicked off, every single one guaranteed that my professor and my institution “wouldn’t find out.” That’s appalling, not just for the reasons above, but because we do find out, and it can ruin a student’s entire academic career .

Psychology is fascinating and fun. Why wouldn’t you want to learn it, anyway?

Ashley Maier teaches psychology at Los Angeles Valley College.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Teaching Commons Conference 2024

Join us for the Teaching Commons Conference 2024 –  Cultivating Connection. Friday, May 10.

Academic Honesty and Stanford's Honor Code

Main navigation.

At Stanford University, the Honor Code is an undertaking of the Stanford academic community, individually and collectively, to uphold a culture of academic integrity in the classroom. Here we offer background information about academic integrity issues in higher education and pedagogic strategies to support and promote academic integrity.

A revised Honor Code was approved by the university community in Spring 2023 , effective September 1, 2023. 

The Office of Community Standards (OCS) oversees the Honor Code and alleged student violations. For policies and guidance about Stanford’s Honor Code and the student accountability process please visit the Office of Community Standards website . 

What is academic integrity?

The term academic integrity generally means a commitment to a set of fundamental values that support research, learning, scholarship, and service in academia.

At Stanford, the Honor Code is the university's statement on academic integrity, first written by students in 1921. It articulates university expectations of students and faculty in establishing and maintaining the highest standards in academic work.

The Stanford Honor Code

The revised Honor Code (effective September 1, 2023) has been clarified to encourage clear communication between faculty, instructors, and students.

Stanford’s Honor Code has three components:

• Students will support this culture of academic honesty by neither giving nor accepting unpermitted academic aid in any work that serves as a component of grading or evaluation.
• Instructors will support this culture of academic honesty by providing clear guidance, both in their course syllabi and in response to student questions, on what constitutes permitted and unpermitted aid. Instructors will also not take unusual or unreasonable precautions to prevent academic dishonesty.
• Students and instructors will also cultivate an environment conducive to academic integrity. While instructors set academic requirements, the Honor Code is a community undertaking that requires students and instructors to work together to ensure conditions that support academic integrity.

Practices for supporting academic integrity and student learning

Here are some practices that instructors and students in instructional roles can use to promote a learning environment that supports academic integrity and works to uphold the Honor Code.

Many strategies that help students abide by the Honor Code also enhance their learning. While there are many reasons why students, intentionally or unintentionally, might violate the Honor Code, this will likely hinder their learning and compromise their academic experience and, potentially, their future careers.

For details of these and similar strategies, see “ Teaching strategies to support the Honor Code and student learning ”.

Decide on your course policies

What constitutes permitted and unpermitted aid might be different for a course you are leading than for other courses. Depending on your course goals, this might include how to collect and cite research, student collaboration and group work, approved tools, exam protocols, and so on. Be thoughtful as you decide what is appropriate based on the goals of the course, the requirements of the discipline, your teaching philosophy, and the needs of your students.

Guidance on Generative AI

The Office of Community Standards’ (OCS) guidance on generative AI tools states that the use of generative AI tools, like chatbots, image generators, and code generators, is treated analogously to assistance from another person. In particular, using generative AI tools to substantially complete an assignment or exam (e.g. by entering exam or assignment questions) is not permitted. Individual course instructors are free to set their own policies regulating the use of generative AI tools in their courses, including allowing or disallowing some or all uses of such tools.

These pedagogic strategies for adapting to generative AI chatbots can help you determine how to best address generative AI in your course.

Clearly communicate expectations and policies to students and across instructional teams

Discuss the Honor Code and your own individual course policy on academic integrity in your course syllabus. The CTL course syllabus template contains samples of how to do this.

Consider providing examples of what is permissible or not, and review these expectations on the first day of class and before each assignment and assessment. Be prepared to respond to student questions.

Giving a quiz graded on completion to help students identify what is and is not plagiarism can be helpful to check for understanding.

Frame assessments as part of the learning process

Some students may view good grades—or simply submitting a finished assignment—as an end in itself, and so value the outcome more than the learning process. Others might see assessments as unfair or busy work, intended to create high pressure situations, or a way to rank students against each other, rather than to support their learning.

To provide students with a sense of purpose and fairness in assessment, it can be motivating for students to understand the purpose behind the design of the assessment and what you expect to see. Using rubrics for feedback and assessment can make grading more transparent and consistent, so students can demonstrate their learning.

Assessments can be opportunities for students to get valuable feedback, reflect on their learning strategies, and practice important skills. Explain how your assessments support the learning process and encourage them to do their best and be honest, so that the assessment can accurately inform you if they need more help.

Well-designed assessments can reveal where you might improve the course, or areas where students need more support, such as misconceptions they might pick up.

Design assessments that encourage students to demonstrate individual learning

Rather than just ask for an answer to a question that could be provided by another source, ask students to explain how they arrived at that answer. This can give you (and your students) more information to help identify where their gaps in understanding are and requires a more considered and unique response from each student.

Assessments can also be designed to encourage students to demonstrate reasoning and originality . For example:

• Include opportunities for students to demonstrate their problem-solving and reflect on their processes, such as project or problem-based assessments.
• Where suitable, include opportunities for students to demonstrate their originality, such as in personal response papers and creative work.
• Create assessments that require synthesis and critical analysis, such as combining sources and approaches, which also encourage higher-order thinking.
• Get students to show their drafting and editing process alongside finished work.
• Encourage students to think about and respond to contemporary issues or recent questions in the field, where there is less chance an answer that they can copy already exists.

Address the importance of integrity in your field

You can play a valuable role in discussing with students the value of academic integrity in the field of study. What happens if a researcher plagiarizes another scholar’s work? What are the consequences of misrepresenting one’s ideas or falsifying data?

Work with them to foster the habits of academic integrity, such as accurately noting and acknowledging research sources, and being transparent about their methods and sources.

Foster well-being and belonging

Although there are many reasons students may violate the Honor Code, addressing the reasons that students may feel pressured to complete assessments or perform well every time, or other stresses that can affect academic performance, may help mitigate some of these factors.

Consider these optional assessment strategies:

• Frequent and low-stakes assessments : Administering multiple low-stakes assessments reduces the overall weight and stress students associate with each assessment. Students may feel less pressure to take extreme measures to get every answer correct because an incorrect answer will not impact their grades as much. More frequent assessments also provide students with increased opportunities to practice and get feedback on their performance. 
• Consider instituting exam or assignment resubmissions : Consider allowing students opportunities to earn points back on questions that they missed. This can be particularly important if you must include an assessment in your course that is worth a large percentage of a student’s grade, but is helpful in any type of assessment to encourage reflection and growth in student learning. This practice not only incentivizes students to learn from their mistakes and fill in their gaps in understanding but also reduces the stress associated with the assessment. This technique also places value on student learning rather than student performance, as students are rewarded for improvement.
• Provide flexibility in final grade components : If an instructor offers a greater number of assessments during the quarter, more flexibility can be given to calculating a student’s final grade. Flexibility can be automatically built into a grading scheme for all students at the start of the quarter by allowing students to drop a number or percentage of assessments. Such flexibility also can assist students who face unexpected difficulties during the quarter without requiring them to disclose details to instructors.

Instructors can also support students’ sense of self-efficacy by regularly encouraging them to connect with various learning programs on campus, such as academic skills coaching , subject matter tutors , and writing tutors .

To mitigate student concerns about the consequences of poor performance, remind students of helpful policies about taking an incomplete or withdrawal . 

Consider short and synchronous assessments

Reducing the overall length of an assessment can make it less feasible for students to receive unpermitted help from websites or other sources. Synchronous assessments also remove the temptation or pressure for students to share assessment content with other students completing the assessment at a later time.

Work together with students

The third part of the Honor Code states that both parties must cooperate to establish optimal conditions. Trust between students and faculty is key. Communicate with your students about the Honor Code and consider working with them to adjust as needed your assessments, rubrics, and grading policies over time.

You might invite students into a dialogue about the purpose and uses of AI, collaboration, primary and secondary sources, and so on. Crafting a collaboration and resource policy together can be a valuable learning experience to reflect with students on the purpose of the course, be transparent about learning objectives and pedagogical choices, and encourage buy-in and community-building within the class.

By connecting to student interests and sharing your passion for the subject, students can become more intrinsically motivated to learn for the sake of learning, rather than learning for the sake of a grade (e.g., to perform on a test). This resource on promoting intrinsic motivation has strategies to help you.

What about plagiarism detection tools?

Tools such as Turnitin, Unicheck, and Plagiarism Checker from Grammarly typically compare uploaded student work to a database of other works to detect matches and help determine the originality and sources of the student work. Some plagiarism detection tools also leverage AI technology and can detect AI-generated text to varying degrees of accuracy, but this technology is new and not reliable.

Instructors may use plagiarism detection tools with clear advance notice. Students must be informed that their assignments will be checked with this technology.

See Tips for Faculty & Teaching Assistants on the OCS website for current policy guidance on plagiarism detection tools and the Honor Code.

See also Guidance on technology tools for academic integrity for a more detailed discussion.

What about proctoring exams?

The Honor Code has been clarified to encourage clear communication between faculty, instructors, and students. The revised Honor Code applies to cases filed after September 1, 2023 .

The approved proposal to update the university’s Honor Code includes the addition of new text to improve clarity and to launch an Academic Integrity Working Group (AIWG) to evaluate equitable practices for proctoring in-person examinations through a multi-year study.

The AIWG proctoring study

While the Honor Code no longer explicitly prohibits proctoring, such practices, defined as the reasonable supervision of exams by an exam administrator, are still prohibited unless done as a part of the Academic Integrity Working Group pilot program. 

The AIWG will begin its work during the 2023–24 academic year. The study is expected to span two to four academic years. During this time, proctoring will be limited to the few courses that are part of the study. Unless your course is part of the study, proctoring will remain forbidden, and there is no need to adjust your syllabi for proctoring at this time.

• Honor Code , Office of Community Standards (September 2023)
• Interpretations of the Honor Code , Office of Community Standards (Spring 2023)
• What is Plagiarism? , Office of Community Standards
• Tips for Faculty & Teaching Assistants , Office of Community Standards
• Exams and the Honor Code , Office of Community Standards
• Teaching strategies to support the Honor Code and student learning , Teaching Commons (2020)
• Filing an Honor Code concern , Office of Community Standards
• Guidance on technology tools for academic integrity , Teaching Commons

Beck, Victoria. 2014. “ Testing a Model to Predict Online Cheating—Much Ado about Nothing. ” Active Learning in Higher Education 15 (1): 65–75.

Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative. April 2015. Assessments That Support Student Learning .

G. Gibbs and C. Simpson. 2004. “ Conditions Under Which Assessment Supports Student Learning ,” Learning and Teaching in Higher Education , V. 1, pp. 3-31

International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI). 2021. The Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity . (3rd ed.).

Lang, James M. May 28, 2013. “ Cheating Lessons, Part 1. ” The Chronicle of Higher Education .

• Harvard Library
• Research Guides
• Harvard Graduate School of Design - Frances Loeb Library

Write and Cite

• Academic Integrity

Responsible research and writing habits

Generative ai (artificial intelligence).

• Citing Sources
• Fair Use, Permissions, and Copyright
• Writing Resources
• Grants and Fellowships

Need Help? Be in Touch.

•   Ask a Design Librarian
•  Call 617-495-9163
•  Text 617-237-6641
•   Consult a Librarian
•   Workshop Calendar
•   Library Hours

Central to any academic writing project is crediting (or citing) someone else' words or ideas. The following sites will help you understand academic writing expectations.

Academic integrity is truthful and responsible representation of yourself and your work by taking credit only for your own ideas and creations and giving credit to the work and ideas of other people. It involves providing attribution (citations and acknowledgments) whenever you include the intellectual property of others—and even your own if it is from a previous project or assignment. Academic integrity also means generating and using accurate data.

Responsible and ethical use of information is foundational to a successful teaching, learning, and research community. Not only does it promote an environment of trust and respect, it also facilitates intellectual conversations and inquiry. Citing your sources shows your expertise and assists others in their research by enabling them to find the original material. It is unfair and wrong to claim or imply that someone else’s work is your own.

Failure to uphold the values of academic integrity at the GSD can result in serious consequences, ranging from re-doing an assignment to expulsion from the program with a sanction on the student’s permanent record and transcript. Outside of academia, such infractions can result in lawsuits and damage to the perpetrator’s reputation and the reputation of their firm/organization. For more details see the Academic Integrity Policy at the GSD. 

The GSD’s Academic Integrity Tutorial can help build proficiency in recognizing and practicing ways to avoid plagiarism.

• Avoiding Plagiarism (Purdue OWL) This site has a useful summary with tips on how to avoid accidental plagiarism and a list of what does (and does not) need to be cited. It also includes suggestions of best practices for research and writing.
• How Not to Plagiarize (University of Toronto) Concise explanation and useful Q&A with examples of citing and integrating sources.

This fast-evolving technology is changing academia in ways we are still trying to understand, and both the GSD and Harvard more broadly are working to develop policies and procedures based on careful thought and exploration. At the moment, whether and how AI may be used in student work is left mostly to the discretion of individual instructors. There are some emerging guidelines, however, based on overarching values.

Since policies are changing rapidly, we recommend checking the links below often for new developments, and this page will continue to update as we learn more.

• Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) from HUIT Harvard's Information Technology team has put together this webpage explaining AI and curating resources about initial guidelines, recommendations for prompts, and recommendations of tools with a section specifically on image-based tools.
• Generative AI in Teaching and Learning at the GSD The GSD's evolving policies, information, and guidance for the use of generative AI in teaching and learning at the GSD are detailed here. The policies section includes questions to keep in mind about privacy and copyright, and the section on tools lists AI tools supported at the GSD.
• AI Code of Conduct by MetaLAB A Harvard-affiliated collaborative comprised of faculty and students sets out recommendations for guidelines for the use of AI in courses. The policies set out here are not necessarily adopted by the GSD, but they serve as a good framework for your own thinking about academic integrity and the ethical use of AI.
• << Previous: Home
• Next: Citing Sources >>
• Last Updated: Mar 27, 2024 1:18 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.harvard.edu/gsd/write

Harvard University Digital Accessibility Policy

Academic Integrity

The topic of academic integrity is often framed around misconduct and dishonesty, carrying both negative and punitive connotations. However, the dialogue is shifting towards an approach that is educative, preventative, and positive in promoting student success. With that shifting focus in mind, this page brings together information from a variety of sources across campus that promote academic integrity from multiple perspectives.

Read more to find out about ways to encourage academic integrity in your courses, what to do when a breach in academic integrity is suspected, and what students need to know regarding ensuring academic integrity, consequences of a breach, and procedures to follow if suspected of a breach in academic integrity.

How is Academic Integrity Defined at UC Berkeley?

There is no single agreed upon definition of academic integrity at UC Berkeley. However, most definitions found in the literature and across higher education institutions consider academic integrity to entail honesty, responsibility, and openness to both scholarship and scholarly activity.

The University defines academic misconduct as “any action or attempted action that may result in creating an unfair academic advantage for oneself or an unfair academic advantage or disadvantage for any other member or members of the academic community” (UC Berkeley Code of Student Conduct).

There is more detailed information related to this definition of academic integrity in the Code of Student Conduct .

See our Campus Policies page for a link to the relevant Berkeley policy.

Review the UC Berkeley Honor Code .

What does Academic Integrity Look Like?

There are countless examples of what academic misconduct and dishonesty look like, and how to avoid them, but too rarely are we given examples (or provide students with examples) of academic integrity, and how to ensure it. Whether it is a matter of semantics or framing, it is helpful to think about academic integrity from a goal-oriented perspective - something we strive to achieve - versus an avoidance perspective where it is something we merely guard against out of fear or anxiety. 

Depending on the discipline, instructor preference, goals for student learning, and the nature of the course itself, here are some examples of what academic integrity can look like:

In a class where collaboration is an essential skill to learn, and knowledge is collectively constructed or discovered, students work in small groups on homework assignments in a peer-to-peer learning model. Students still turn in homework individually.

In a writing intensive class, papers are broken up into smaller pieces or several drafts to solicit feedback on the use of and proper credit to the work of others and their ideas - addressing misunderstandings before a summative assignment is due.

In an upper division course, students are encouraged to draw on their previous and complementary coursework in articulating an emerging theoretical framework or analysis through appropriate citation of text and ideas from previous/concurrent writing assignments.

Academic Integrity Through Course Design

Learning environments that reduce the incentive and opportunity for students to cheat can also increase their motivation and mastery of course material. Many times, academic integrity and success are the result of careful planning, preparation, and awareness of resources on the part of the student. In addition to the list below of five potential aspects of a course designed to promote academic integrity and student learning, we have developed an assignment that can be given to students very early in a semester to help chart a Roadmap to Success in any given class.

-Adapted from Lang, J. (2013). Cheating Lessons: Learning from Academic Dishonesty. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. ( Available online via the UC Berkeley Library )

Foster Students' Intrinsic Motivation

Instead of thinking about a course as covering certain content in a field, frame the course as an opportunity for students to master the content through engaging open-ended, authentic problems, questions, or challenges.

Engage students in the course through articulating (by both you and them) the relevance of the course material to their current lives, the local community, or their future professions

Place Emphasis on Learning for Mastery Over Performance

Provide students with choices in how they demonstrate learning, whether via options within an assignment or options of assignments, to encourage focus on mastery learning over performance 

Use Frequent, Low-Stakes Assessments

Incorporate short breaks in a class, or in the very beginning or end, to ask students questions about content understanding and connections between course material

Decrease the pressure on each assignment as a motivation for dishonesty - in so doing, enable feedback on learning throughout a course, and build student self-efficacy...

Build Student Self-Efficacy

The belief that one is able to achieve the learning expectations of a course diminishes motivation for dishonesty, so instead of using early assignments to "weed students out," try to give students opportunities for early success (rigorous, but achievable)

Convey to students what it takes to be successful in a course (perhaps even quoting effective strategies/practices from former students who excelled in the course) 

Prepare Students for Ethical Considerations in the Field/Profession

Introduce students to what it means to have integrity as a psychologist, economist, historian, biologist, etc. and explain why integrity in the field matters

Discuss case studies from the field that reflect both ethical and unethical motives and their outcomes to give students a sense of why developing a habit of integrity in their work now will matter after they graduate

Information for Instructors and Department Chairs

Berkeley honor code.

Honor Code Exam Example

Ways to Incorporate the Honor Code in Your Syllabus

Understanding cultural logic, jason patent, for department chairs: steps to promote academic integrity.

• Columbia University in the City of New York
• Office of Teaching, Learning, and Innovation
• University Policies
• Columbia Online
• Academic Calendar
• Resources and Technology
• Resources and Guides

Promoting Academic Integrity 

While it is each student’s responsibility to understand and abide by university standards towards individual work and academic integrity, instructors can help students understand their responsibilities through frank classroom conversations that go beyond policy language to shared values. By creating a learning environment that stimulates engagement and designing assessments that are authentic, instructors can minimize the incidence of academic dishonesty.

Academic dishonesty often takes place because students are overwhelmed with the assignments and they don’t have enough time to complete them. So, in addition to being clear about expectations and responsibilities related to academic integrity, instructors should also invite students to  plan accordingly and communicate with them in the event of an emergency. Instructors can arrange extensions and offer solutions in case that students have an emergency. Communication between instructors and students is vital to avoid bad practices and contribute to hold on to the academic integrity values. 

The guidance and strategies included in this resource are applicable to courses in any modality (in-person, online, and hybrid) and includes a discussion of addressing generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools like ChatGPT with students. 

On this page:

What is academic integrity, why does academic dishonesty occur, strategies for promoting academic integrity, academic integrity in the age of artificial intelligence, columbia university resources.

• References and Additional Resources
• Acknowledgment

Cite this resource: Columbia Center for Teaching and Learning (2020). Promoting Academic Integrity. Columbia University. Retrieved [today’s date] from https://ctl.columbia.edu/resources-and-technology/resources/academic-integrity/

According to the  International Center for Academic Integrity , academic integrity is “a commitment, even in the face of adversity, to six fundamental values: honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility, and courage.” We commit to these values to honor the intellectual efforts of the global academic community, of which Columbia University is an integral part.

Academic dishonesty in the classroom occurs when one or more values of academic integrity are violated. While some cases of academic dishonesty are committed intentionally, other cases may be a reflection of something deeper that a student is experiencing, such as language or cultural misunderstandings, insufficient or misguided preparation for exams or papers, a lack of confidence in their ability to learn the subject, or perception that course policies are unfair (Bernard and Keith-Spiegel, 2002).

Some other reasons why students may commit academic dishonesty include:

• Cultural or regional differences in what comprises academic dishonesty
• Lack or poor understanding on how to cite sources correctly
• Misunderstanding directions and/or expectations
• Poor time management, procrastination, or disorganization
• Feeling disconnected from the course, subject, instructor, or material
• Fear of failure or lack of confidence in one’s ability
• Anxiety, depression, other mental health problems
• Peer/family pressure to meet unrealistic expectations

Understanding some of these common reasons can help instructors intentionally design their courses and assessments to pre-empt, and hopefully avoid, instances of academic dishonesty. As Thomas Keith states in “Combating Academic Dishonesty, Part 1 – Understanding the Problem.” faculty and administrators should direct their steps towards a “thoughtful, compassionate pedagogy.”

The CTL is here to help!

The CTL can help you think through your course policies and ways to create community, design course assessments, and set up CourseWorks to promote academic integrity. Email [email protected] to schedule your 1-1 consultation .

In his research on cheating in the college classroom, James Lang argues that “the amount of cheating that takes place on our campuses may well depend on the structures of the learning environment” (Lang, 2013a; Lang, 2013b). Instructors have agency in shaping the classroom learning experience; thus, instances of academic dishonesty can be mitigated by efforts to design a supportive, learning-oriented environment (Bertam, 2017 and 2008).

Understanding Student’s Perceptions about Cheating 

It is important to know how students understand critical concepts related to academic integrity such as: cheating, transparency, attribution, intellectual property, etc. As much as they know and understand these concepts, they will be able to show good academic integrity practices.

1. Acknowledge the importance of the research process, not only the outcome, during student learning.

Although the research process is slow and arduous, students should understand the value of the different processes involved during academic writing: investigation, reading, drafting, revising, editing and proof-reading. For Natalie Wexler, using generative Artificial Intelligence tools like ChatGPT as a substitute of writing itself is beyond cheating, an act of self cheating: “The process of writing itself can and should deepen that knowledge and possibly spark new insights” (“‘ Bots’ Can Write Good Essays, But That Doesn’t Make Writing Obsolete” ).

Ways to understand the value of writing their own work without external help, either from external sources, peers or AI, hinge on prioritizing the process over the product:

• Asking students to present drafts of their work and receive feedback can help students to gain confidence to continue researching and writing.
• Allowing students the freedom to choose or change their research topic can increase their investment in an assignment, which can motivate them to conduct their own writing and research rather than relying on AI tools. 

2. Create a supportive learning environment

When students feel supported in a course and connected to instructors and/or TAs and their peers, they may be more comfortable asking for help when they don’t understand course material or if they have fallen behind with an assignment.

Ways to support student learning include:

• Convey confidence  in your students’ ability to succeed in your course from day one of the course (this may ease student anxiety or  imposter syndrome ) and through timely and regular feedback on what they are doing well and areas they can improve on. 
• Explain the relevance  of the course to students; tell them why it is important that they actually learn the material and develop the skills for themselves. Invite students to connect the course to their goals, studies, or intended career trajectories. Research shows that students’ motivation to learn can help deter instances of academic dishonesty (Lang, 2013a). 
• Teach important skills  such as taking notes, summarizing arguments, and citing sources. Students may not have developed these skills, or they may bring bad habits from previous learning experiences. Have students practice these skills through exercises (Gonzalez, 2017). 
• Provide students multiple opportunities to practice challenging skills  and receive immediate feedback in class (e.g., polls, writing activities, “boardwork”). These frequent low-stakes assessments across the semester can “[improve] students’ metacognitive awareness of their learning in the course” (Lang, 2013a, pp. 145). 
• Help students manage their time  on course tasks by scheduling regular check-ins to reduce students’ last minute efforts or frantic emails about assignment requirements. Establish weekly online office hours and/or be open to appointments outside of standard working hours. This is especially important if students are learning in different time zones. Normalize the use of campus resources and academic support resources that can help address issues or anxieties they may be facing.  (See the Columbia University Resources section below for a list of support resources.)
• Provide lists of approved websites and resources  that can be used for additional help or research. This is especially important if on-campus materials are not available to online learners. Articulate permitted online “study” resources to be used as learning tools (and not cheating aids – see McKenzie, 2018) and how to cite those in homework, writing assignments or problem sets. 
• Encourage TAs (if applicable) to establish good relationships  with students and to check-in with you about concerns they may have about students in the course. (Explore the  Working with TAs Online  resource to learn more about partnering with TAs.)

3. Clarify expectations and establish shared values

In addition to including Columbia’s  academic integrity policy  on syllabi, go a step further by creating space in the classroom to discuss your expectations regarding academic integrity and what that looks like in your course context. After all, “what reduces cheating on an honor code campus is not the code itself, but  the dialogue about academic honesty that the code inspires. ” (Lang, 2013a, pp. 172)

Ways to cultivate a shared sense of responsibility for upholding academic integrity include: 

• Ask students to identify goals and expectations  around academic integrity in relation to course learning objectives. 
• Communicate your expectations  and explain your rationale for course policies on artificial intelligence tools, collaborative assignments, late work, proctored exams, missed tests, attendance, extra credit, the use of plagiarism detection software or proctoring software, etc. It will make a difference to take the time at the beginning of the course to explain differences between quoting, summarizing and paraphrasing. Providing examples of good and bad quotation/paraphrasing will help students to know what constitutes good academic writing. 
• Define and provide examples  for what constitutes plagiarism or other forms of academic dishonesty in your course.
• Invite students to generate ideas  for responding to scenarios where they may be pressured to violate the values of academic integrity (e.g.: a friend asks to see their homework, or a friend suggests using chat apps during exams), so students are prepared to react with integrity when suddenly faced with these situations. 
• State clearly when collaboration and group learning is permitted  and when independent work is expected. Collaboration and group work provide great opportunities to build student-student rapport and classroom community, but at the same time, it can lead students to fall into academic misconduct due to unintended collaboration/failure to safeguard their work.
• Discuss the ethical, academic, and legal repercussions  of posting class recordings, notes and/or class materials online (e.g., to sites such as Chegg, GitHub, CourseHero – see Lederman, 2020).
• Partner with TAs  (if applicable) and clarify your expectations of them, how they can help promote shared values around academic integrity, and what they should do in cases of suspected cheating or classroom difficulties

4. Design assessments to maximize learning and minimize pressure

High stakes course assessments can be a source of student anxiety. Creating multiple opportunities for students to demonstrate their learning, and spreading assessments  throughout  the semester can lessen student stress and keep the focus on student learning (see  Darby, 2020  for strategies on assessing students online). As Lang explains, “The more assessments you provide, the less pressure you put on students to do well on any single assignment or exam. If you maintain a clear and consistent academic integrity policy, and ensure that all students caught cheating receive an immediate and substantive penalty, the benefit of cheating on any one assessment will be small, while the potential consequences will be high” (Lang, 2013a and Lang, 2013c). For support with creating online exams, please please refer to our  Creating Online Exams resource .

Ways to enhance one’s assessment approach:

• Design assignments  based on authentic problems in your discipline. Ask students to  apply  course concepts and materials to a problem or concept. 
• Structure assignments into smaller parts  (“scaffolding”) that will be submitted and checked throughout the semester. This scaffolding can also help students learn how to tackle large projects by breaking down the tasks. 
• Break up a single high-stakes exam  into smaller, weekly tests. This can help distribute the weight of grades, and will lessen the pressure students feel when an exam accounts for a large portion of their grade. 
• Give students options  in how their learning is assessed and/or invite students to present their learning in creative ways (e.g., as a poster, video, story, art project, presentation, or oral exam).
• Provide feedback prior to grading  student work. Give students the opportunity to implement the feedback. The revision process encourages student learning, while also lowering the anxiety around any one assignment. 
• Utilize multiple low-stakes assignments  that prepare students for high-stakes assignments or exams to reduce anxiety (e.g., in-class activities, in-class or online discussions)
• Create grading rubrics and share them  with your students and TAs (if applicable) so that expectations are clear, to guide student work, and aid with the feedback process.  
• Use individual student portfolio folders  and provide tailored feedback to students throughout the semester. This can help foster positive relationships, as well as allow you to watch students’ progress on drafts and outlines. You can also ask students to describe how their drafts have changed and offer rationales for those decisions.
• For exams , consider refreshing tests every term, both in terms of organization and content. Additionally, ground your assignments by having students draw connections between course content and the unique experience of your course in terms of time (unique to the semester), place (unique to campus, local community, etc. ), personal (specific student experiences), and interdisciplinary opportunities (other courses students have taken, co-curricular activities, campus events, etc.). (Lang, 2013a, pp. 77).

Since its release, ChatGPT has raised concern in universities across the country about the opportunity it presents for students to cheat and appropriate AI ideas, texts, and even code as their own work. However, there are also potential positive uses of this tool in the learning process–including as a tool for teachers to rely on when creating assessments or working with repetitive and time-consuming tasks.

Possible Advantages of ChatGPT

Due to the novelty of this tool, the possible advantages that might present in the teaching-learning process should be under the control of each instructor since they know exactly what they expect from students’ work. 

Prof. Ethan Mollick teaches innovation and entrepreneurship at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and has been openly sharing on his Twitter account his journey incorporating ChatGPT into his classes. Prof. Mollick advises his students to experiment with this tool, trying and retrying prompts. He recognizes the importance of acknowledging its limits and the risks of violating academic honesty guidelines if the use of this tool is not stated at the end of the assignment.

Prof. Mollick uncovers four possible uses of this AI tool, ranging from using ChatGPT as an all-knowing intern, as a game designer, as an assistant to launch a business, or even to “hallucinate” together ( “Four Paths to the Revelation” ). For Prof. Mollick, ChatGPT is a useful technology to craft initial ideas, as long as the prompts are given within a specific field, include proper context, step-by-step directions and have the proper changes and edits.

Resources for faculty: 

• Academic Integrity Best Practices for Faculty (Columbia College & School of Engineering and Applied Sciences)
• Faculty Statement on Academic Integrity (Columbia College)
• FAQs: Academic Integrity from Columbia Student Conduct and Community Standards 
• Ombuds Office for assistance with academic dishonesty issues. 
• Columbia Center of Artificial Intelligence Technology

Resources for students: 

• Policies from Columbia Student Conduct and Community Standards
• Understanding the Academic Integrity Policy (Columbia College & School of Engineering and Applied Sciences)

Student support resources:

• Maximizing Student Learning Online (Columbia Online)
• Center for Student Advising Tutoring Service (Berick Center for Student Advising)
• Help Rooms and Private Tutors by Department (Berick Center for Student Advising
• Peer Academic Skills Consultants (Berick Center for Student Advising)
• Academic Resource Center (ARC) for School of General Studies
• Center for Engaged Pedagogy (Barnard College)
• Writing Center (for Columbia undergraduate and graduate students)
• Counseling and Psychological Services
• Disability Services

For graduate students: 

• Writing Studio (Graduate School of Arts and Sciences)
• Student Center (Graduate School of Arts and Sciences)
• Teachers College

Columbia University Information Technology (CUIT) CUIT’s Academic Services provides services that can be used by instructors in their courses such as Turnitin , a plagiarism detection service and online proctoring services such as Proctorio , a remote proctoring service that monitors students taking virtual exams through CourseWorks. 

Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) The CTL can help you think through your course policies, ways to create community, design course assessments, and setting up CourseWorks to promote integrity, among other teaching and learning facets. To schedule a one-on-one consultation, please contact the CTL at [email protected] . 

References 

Bernard, W. Jr. and Keith-Spiegel, P. (2002).  Academic Dishonesty: An Educator’s Guide . Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press.

Bertram Gallant, T. (2017).  Academic Integrity as a Teaching and Learning Issue: From Theory to Practice .  Theory Into Practice,  56(2), 88-94.

Bertram Gallant, T. (Ed.). (2008).  Academic Integrity in the Twenty-First Century: A Teaching and Learning Imperative .  ASHE Higher Education Report . 33(5), 1-143. 

Columbia Center for Teaching and Learning (2020).  Creating Online Exams . 

Columbia Center for Teaching and Learning (2020).  Working with TAs online . 

Darby, F. (2020).  7 Ways to Assess Students Online and Minimize Cheating .  The Chronicle of Higher Education.  

Gonzalez, J. (2017, February).  Teaching Students to Avoid Plagiarism . Cult of Pedagogy, 26.

International Center for Academic Integrity (2023).  Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity .

International Center on Academic Integrity (2023).  https://academicintegrity.org/

Keith, T. Combating Academic Dishonesty, Part 1 – Understanding the Problem. The University of Chicago. (2022, Feb 16).

Lang, J.M. (2013a).  Cheating Lessons: Learning from Academic Dishonesty . Harvard University Press.

Lang, J. M. (2013b).  Cheating Lessons, Part 1 .  The Chronicle of Higher Education. 

Lang, J. M. (2013c).  Cheating Lessons, Part 2 .  The Chronicle of Higher Education. 

Lederman, D. (2020, February 19).  Course Hero Woos Professors . Inside Higher Ed. 

McKenzie, L. (2018, May 8).  Learning Tool or Cheating Aid?   Inside Higher Ed.

Marche, S. (2022, Dec 6). The College Essay is Dead. The Atlantic.

Mollick, E. (2023, Jan 17). All my Classes Suddenly Became AI Classes. One Useful Thing.

Mollick, Ethan. (2022, Dic 8). Four Paths to the Revelation. One Useful Thing.

Wexler, N. Bots’ Can Write Good Essays, But That Doesn’t Make Writing Obsolete. Minding the Gap.

Additional Resources

Bretag, T. (Ed.). (2016). Handbook of Academic Integrity. Singapore: Springer Publishing.

Ormand, C. (2017 March 6).  SAGE Musings: Minimizing and Dealing with Academic Dishonesty . SAGE 2YC: 2YC Faculty as Agents of Change.

WCET (2009).  Best Practice Strategies to Promote Academic Integrity in Online Education .

Thomas, K.  (2022 February 16). Combating Academic Dishonesty, Part 1 – Understanding the Problem. The University of Chicago. Academic Technology Solutions.

______. (2022 February 25). Combating Academic Dishonesty, Part 2: Small Steps to Discourage Academic Dishonesty. The University of Chicago. Academic Technology Solutions.

______.  (2022 April 28). Combating Academic Dishonesty, Part 3: Towards a Pedagogy of Academic Integrity. The University of Chicago. Academic Technology Solutions.

______.  (2022 June 7). Combating Academic Dishonesty, Part 4: Library Services to Support Academic Honesty. The University of Chicago. Academic Technology Solutions.

Acknowledgement

This resource was adapted from the faculty booklet  Promoting Academic Integrity & Preventing Academic Dishonesty: Best Practices at Columbia University  developed by Victoria Malaney Brown, Director of Academic Integrity at Columbia College and Columbia Engineering, Abigail MacBain and Ramón Flores Pinedo, PhD students in GSAS. We would like to thank them for their extensive support in creating this academic integrity resource.

Want to communicate your expectations around AI tools?

See the CTL’s resource “Considerations for AI Tools in the Classroom.”

This website uses cookies to identify users, improve the user experience and requires cookies to work. By continuing to use this website, you consent to Columbia University's use of cookies and similar technologies, in accordance with the Columbia University Website Cookie Notice .

A Guide To...Academic Honesty and Academic Integrity

Academic integrity.

• Find your department's statement on Academic Integrity
• Take the quiz
• The Writer's Workshop at Holy Cross
• Schedule an appointment with a Librarian
• The Purdue OWL

Notable cases of plagiarism

Rand Paul (R)

Kentucky Senator 2011 -

Blake, A. (2013, November 4). Rand Paul's plagiarism allegations, and why they matter . The Washington Post.

Stephen Ambrose, 1936-2002

American historian and author

Kirkpatrick, D. D. (2002, January 5). 2 say Stephen Ambrose, popular historian, copied passages . The New York Times.

Alex Haley, 1921-1992

Fulwood, S. I. (2003). Plagiarism playing by the rules: in the academic world, in music and even in church, what constitutes plagiarism is under new scrutiny after journalism's wake-up call . Black Issues Book Review, (5). 24.

Academic Honesty  means being honest and ethical about the way that you do academic work. This includes citing and acknowledging when you borrow from the work of others. As Holy Cross students, you are required to follow the College's Academic Honesty policy. 

Excerpt from the College policy: 

All education is a cooperative enterprise between faculty and students. This cooperation requires trust and mutual respect, which are only possible in an environment governed by the principles of academic honesty. As an institution devoted to teaching, learning, and intellectual inquiry, Holy Cross expects all members of the College community to abide by the highest standards of academic integrity. Any violation of academic honesty undermines the student-faculty relationship, thereby wounding the whole community. The principal violations of academic honesty are plagiarism, cheating, and collusion.

It is the responsibility of students, independent of the faculty’s responsibility, t o understand the proper methods of using and quoting from source materials (as explained in standard handbooks such as The Little Brown Handbook and the Harbrace College Handbook), and t o take credit only for work they have completed through their own individual efforts within the guidelines established by the faculty.

The Scholarly Conversation

Tips for Avoiding Plagiarism

• What needs to be cited?
• Tips for the research process

What needs to be cited? In addition to citing exact quotations from your sources, you need to cite any ideas or words that you did not think up yourself. You should always cite:

• Anything you summarize from another source
• Websites (even if there is no author listed)
• Information you received from other people, such as information learned during interviews
• Graphs, illustrations, and any other visual items you use in your work. (This includes images from websites.)
• Video and audio recordings that you sample in your work.

Some things that you don't need to cite:

• Your own life experiences or ideas
• Your own results from lab or field experiments
• Any artwork or media you have created yourself
• “Common knowledge” (This is information that can be found undocumented in many places and is likely to be known by many people.)

Good practices for taking notes:

Before writing a note, read the original text over until you understand the meaning.

Use quotation marks around any exact phrasing you use from the original source.

While you are taking your notes, record the source for each piece of information (including page numbers) in you notes so that you’ll be able to cite the source in your paper.

Use a variety of sources in your research.   If you use only one source, you may end up using too many of that author’s ideas and words.

Plan ahead and leave yourself enough time to do your research and writing. If you are rushing to finish your paper, you’ll be more likely to improperly cite things or to accidentally plagiarize.

College policy and definitions

Academic Honesty Policy

-accessed 4/1/2019 from https://www.holycross.edu/sites/default/files/Registrar/academic_integrity_policy.pdf

Plagiarism is the act of taking the words, ideas, data, illustrative material, or statements of someone else, without full and proper acknowledgment, and presenting them as one’s own.

Cheating is the use of improper means or subterfuge to gain credit or advantage. Forms of cheating include the use, attempted use, or improper possession of unauthorized aids in any examination or other academic exercise submitted for evaluation; the fabrication or falsification of data; misrepresentation of academic or extracurricular credentials; and deceitful performance on placement examinations. It is also cheating to submit the same work for credit in more than one course, except as authorized in advance by the course instructors. Collusion is assisting or attempting to assist another student in an act of academic dishonesty.

At the beginning of each course, the faculty should address the students on academic integrity and how it applies to the assignments for the course. The faculty should also make every effort, through vigilance and through the nature of the assignments, to discourage and prevent dishonesty in any form. It is the responsibility of students, independent of the faculty’s responsibility, to understand the proper methods of using and quoting from source materials (as explained in standard handbooks such as The Little Brown Handbook and the Harbrace College Handbook), and to take credit only for work they have completed through their own individual efforts within the guidelines established by the faculty.

The faculty member who observes or suspects academic dishonesty should first discuss the incident with the student. The very nature of the faculty-student relationship requires both that the faculty member treat the student fairly and that the student responds honestly to the faculty’s questions concerning the integrity of his or her work. If the faculty is convinced that the student is guilty of academic dishonesty, he or she shall impose an appropriate sanction in the form of a grade reduction or failing grade on the assignment in question and/or shall assign compensatory course work. The sanction may reflect the seriousness of the dishonesty and the faculty’s assessment of the student’s intent. In all instances where a faculty member does impose a grade penalty because of academic dishonesty, he or she must submit a written report to the Chair or Director of the department and the Class Dean. This written report must be submitted within a week of the faculty member’s determination that the policy on academic honesty has been violated. This report shall include a description of the assignment (and any related materials, such as guidelines, syllabus entries, written instructions, and the like that are relevant to the assignment), the evidence used to support the complaint, and a summary of the conversation between the student and the faculty member regarding the complaint. The Class Dean will then inform the student in writing that a charge of dishonesty has been made and of his or her right to have the charge reviewed. A copy of this letter will be sent to the student’s parents or guardians. The student will also receive a copy of the complaint and all supporting materials submitted by the professor. The student’s request for a formal review must be made in writing to the Class Dean within one week of the notification of the charge. The written statement must include a description of the student’s position concerning the charge by the faculty. A review panel consisting of a ClassDean, the Chair or Director of the department of the faculty member involved (or a senior member of the same department if the Chair or Director is the complainant), and an additional faculty member selected by the Chair or Director from the same department, shall convene within two weeks to investigate the charge and review the student’s statement, meeting separately with the student and the faculty member involved. The Chair or Director of the complainant’s department (or the alternate) shall chair the panel and communicate the panel’s decision to the student’s Class Dean. If the panel finds by majority vote that the charge of dishonesty is supported, the faculty member’s initial written report to the Class Dean shall be placed in the student’s file until graduation, at which time it shall be removed and destroyed unless a second offense occurs. If a majority of the panel finds that the charge of dishonesty is not supported, the faculty member’s initial complaint shall be destroyed, and the assignment in question shall be graded on its merits by the faculty member. The Class Dean shall inform the student promptly of the decision made. This information will be sent to the student’s parents or guardians. The Class Dean may extend all notification deadlines above for compelling reasons. He or she will notify all parties in writing of any extensions. Each instance of academic dishonesty reported to the Class Dean (provided that the charge of dishonesty is upheld following a possible review, as described above) shall result in an administrative penalty in addition to the penalty imposed by the faculty member.

For a first instance of academic dishonesty, the penalty shall be academic probation effective immediately and continuing for the next two consecutive semesters. For a second instance, the penalty shall be academic suspension for two consecutive semesters. For a third instance, the penalty shall be dismissal from the College. Dismissal from the College shall also be the penalty for any instance of academic dishonesty that occurs while a student is on probation because of a prior instance of dishonesty. Multiple charges of academic dishonesty filed at or about the same time shall result in a one-year suspension if the student is not and has not been on probation for a prior instance of dishonesty. Multiple charges of academic dishonesty filed at or about the same time shall result in a dismissal if the student has ever been on probation for a prior instance of dishonesty. Suspension and dismissal are effective at the conclusion of the semester in which the violation of the policy occurred. Students may appeal a suspension or dismissal for reasons of academic dishonesty to the Committee on Academic Standing, which may uphold the penalty, overturn it, or substitute a lesser penalty. A penalty of dismissal, if upheld by the Committee, may be appealed to the President of the College.

• Next: Find your department's statement on Academic Integrity >>
• Last Updated: Mar 12, 2024 12:51 PM
• URL: https://libguides.holycross.edu/academichonesty

Ohio State nav bar

The Ohio State University

• BuckeyeLink
• Find People
• Search Ohio State

A Positive Approach to Academic Integrity

In 2017, 83 Ohio State students were reported for using an app called GroupMe to share quiz questions and answers (Bever, 2017). At universities across the nation, students have cheated using various apps and technology. Increased access to technology tools does provide additional avenues for cheating, but the availability of these new tools has not led to more cheating (see Lang, 2013). 

Still, preventing academic misconduct is a topic that weighs on many instructors’ minds. We want students to learn and to come by their degrees honestly. The good news is that the educator’s role in academic honesty does not always have to be punitive or after-the-fact. Proactively promoting academic integrity in positive ways can reduce the likelihood that students will commit misconduct.

In the United States, public attitudes about academic misconduct range from mild irritation at the existence of cheating to the moral outrage one might show toward hard criminal offenses. In an effort to reduce cheating, instructors often implement defensive measures. For example, using a digital plagiarism detector such as  Turnitin  is meant to deter students from plagiarizing in their writing and to catch the ones who do so. Setting time limits for synchronous online exams is a common tactic for reducing the time available for students to use the textbook or a website like  Chegg  to solve their problems for them. 

But telling students not to cheat—and what will happen to them if they do—only goes so far in deterring academic misconduct.  

Underneath those dos and don’ts are implicit values present in the American system of higher education. What if we openly communicated those values instead? 

What do we value? 

The concept of academic integrity is often taught with a focus on academic misconduct and how not to misbehave. Students navigate through college trying not to break the rules. Underneath those rules lie traits that are valued in our education system, and in scholarly work. For example, we trust that a student who can explain a concept in their own words rather than quoting a text has truly learned that concept. We also value original thought and the individual voice in scholarly conversation. We place importance on respecting what writers and researchers contribute to the conversation, and on distinguishing who said what.  

For a brief history on the development of intellectual property, see Bloch, 2012, Chapter 2. 

Do students understand what academic integrity is? 

Bretag and colleagues (2014) discuss two main types of research into academic integrity: student self-reports about their cheating behaviors and research on students’ understanding of academic integrity. Based on surveys of students at multiple institutions, they found that students had some idea of what academic integrity is but did not feel they received enough support for how to practice it effectively, beyond the generic information provided early in their college careers. In one of the surveys, students indicated that instructors’ expectations varied and that conventions were not uniform across courses, and that knowing what happens when you commit academic misconduct is not helpful. 

Learning disciplinary practices 

Nelms (2015) points out that many students plagiarize unintentionally on their way to becoming more expert in their fields. As novice students learn to use the language of their disciplines, they may begin by imitating the language that they are reading. He provides a positive view of plagiarism as an opportunity to help students develop their own voices and learn to participate in scholarly conversation. By viewing students first as learners, it is possible to create penalties that are educational rather than punitive (Morris, 2016).  

English language learners 

It’s especially critical to support English language learners writing in a non-native language to understand academic integrity expectations. Rhetorical styles and conventions vary around the world. Students who were not educated in the United States may have learned practices surrounding academic integrity that do not align with the Western conventions of incorporating and citing scholarly work, and therefore face a steeper learning curve. 

Explore  resources for supporting international students with writing  from Writing Across the Curriculum. 

The learning environment 

In  Cheating Lessons  (2013), James Lang examines how features of a learning environment might lead to increased academic misconduct. He argues that instructors can influence these features directly. They are (p. 35): 

Emphasis on performance : Students who are more concerned with doing well on a test than with learning are more likely to cheat on that test. If an instructor overemphasizes grades, the focus on performance can put pressure on students and become a dominant feature of the learning environment. 

High stakes : If a student’s grade is determined by one or two assessments, such as a midterm (at 50% of the grade) and a final (the other 50% of the grade), cheating is more likely. In such a class, students are not receiving regular feedback on their work, and only have two chances to demonstrate their learning. 

Extrinsic motivation for success : Many students are motivated by grades or other extrinsic motivators, such as pressure from parents. However, students who are motivated by grades or other extrinsic rewards are not necessarily only motivated by extrinsic rewards. 

Low expectation of success on the part of the student : A student who does not believe they have the necessary knowledge and skills to successfully complete an assessment are more likely to resort to cheating. 

In the next section, we’ll discuss how to address each of these characteristics so we can take a positive, rather than punitive, approach to teaching about academic integrity. 

In Practice

 From explicit communication to assessment design to student support, the strategies below will help you proactively promote academic integrity in your courses. 

Be transparent about expectations

Good course design, coupled with transparency, can go a long way to reducing academic misconduct. Explicitly communicate to students your expectations for the course, for individual assessments and assignments, and for academic honesty and other behaviors you want them to demonstrate. Include language in your syllabus around academic integrity and discuss openly what that means and looks like at the start of term. Ensure students understand both the university expectations for academic integrity and the specific expectations for your course.  

Align all assessments and assignments to learning outcomes and communicate that alignment clearly to students. Address any specific academic integrity expectations for a given assignment or assessment in the instructions. For example, make clear how resources should be used and cited, what types of collaboration are allowed or encouraged, how previous student work can be repurposed (if at all), and whether a quiz or test is “open book” or “open notes.” These clarifications will help students understand why their work matters, how it fits in the broader context of your course, and what they need to do to be successful while maintaining academic integrity.

Syllabus Language 

See this  sample syllabus statement for academic integrity and misconduct  and the additional considerations in the  Online and Hybrid Syllabus template  provided by the Office of Distance Education and eLearning. 

Communicate values 

Support students to understand the values and communication conventions within your discipline. While an introductory composition course may help them learn fundamental concepts or habits, that is just the beginning. Explain to students that they are participating in a scholarly conversation—just as they would with their friends, they should respect the ideas that everyone contributes, including their own. Openly encouraging them to find their own voices as distinct from others can reduce the likelihood of plagiarism. 

Beyond scholarly conversation, Lang suggests that educators must explain to students the importance of creating original work in their discipline. 

"… I think these two questions are ones that students might pose to faculty in any discipline: how do I produce my own work in this discipline, and why does it matter that I produce my own work? Those two general questions, it seems to me, are ones that each discipline—and perhaps even each faculty member and each course—has to answer distinctively. And those two questions, it also seems to me, can help form the basis for the more substantial conversation you have with your students about academic honesty and dishonesty in your courses, in addition to the general conversation they might be having through educational campaigns on campus."  (Lang, 2013, p. 194) 

Lang teaches literature, so for him, original work means creating meaningful connections to other works, or to current events in the world. He reminds readers that building these connections leads to deeper learning as students create a more sophisticated mental network (Bransford, et al., 2000, Chapter 2).  

If you teach in another discipline, your approach will be different. In the experimental sciences, for example, we often begin by replicating an experiment, fully or partially. We build on or extend it to test another hypothesis or look at the same hypothesis under different conditions. We get a result, we interpret the result, and this prompts more questions and hypotheses. In the sciences, we have a responsibility to be honest and accurate about those results (Committee on Science Engineering, and Public Policy, 1995). 

Teach for mastery to de-emphasize performance  

Students develop mastery when they acquire a set of skills, practice integrating those skills, and then know when to apply them (Ambrose, et al., 2010). They need opportunities to practice skills in isolation and in combination, and you should evaluate them in both situations. If students are weaker in some skills, provide additional support, perhaps in the form of tutorials or additional practice outside of class.  

Build in opportunities for students to apply important skills in different contexts. Some students excel with certain types of assessments and not others. Providing multiple opportunities—and options—for assessment allows students a variety of ways to demonstrate their knowledge and skills. 

Lower the stakes 

Among your assessments should be many lower stakes opportunities. For example, rather than giving one midterm and one final, include multiple exams or quizzes that are worth fewer points overall. Your students will benefit from the testing effect; Karpicke and Roedinger (2008) demonstrated that the more frequently students were tested on information, the more likely they were to retain that information.  

Plan ways for students to practice for graded assessments during class time or through ungraded asynchronous activities. Autograded  quizzes in Carmen  that present a random set of questions aligned to appropriate learning outcomes make it possible for students to take a quiz as many times as needed until they get the answers right. Shorter assignments that are worth just a few points can help students practice—and get feedback on—what they need to do for a bigger project. 

Scaffolding  assignments is another way you can lower the stakes. Break a larger project or paper into manageable pieces and ask students to show their progress on each piece, so you can see how their work unfolds over time. You will get a sense of which students need more support earlier in the semester, preventing unpleasant surprises later. 

Foster intrinsic motivation 

According to Bain (2004), “People learn best when they ask an important question that they care about answering.” Connecting your course material to students’ interests and personal lives beyond your class can increase their investment. For example, a freshman statistics seminar at Carnegie Mellon University, Statistics of Sexual Orientation, included rigorous statistical analysis while also dealing with theories about the LGBT population.     The following are additional techniques for fostering student motivation (Ambrose et al., 2010). 

Integrate real–world, authentic tasks so students can see the relevance of what they are learning. 

Connect your course content to other courses students are taking or will take so they understand its place in the larger context of their educations. 

Demonstrate how learned skills will be useful in students’ future professional lives. 

Build students’ self-efficacy 

In a chapter on student motivation, Ambrose et al. (2010) describe two parts to self-efficacy. First, students must believe they know what they need to know in order to succeed at a given task. Second, they must believe, when they begin that task, that they will succeed. Even if students have the necessary knowledge and skills, they may feel rushed on the task, that the instructor will not grade fairly, that other members in a group project will hinder their progress, or simply that they will not succeed. Imposter syndrome and stereotype threat can also affect students’ self-efficacy. 

Lang (2013) and Ambrose et al. (2010) describe a variety of strategies for supporting student self-efficacy. One important strategy is to help students develop  metacognition . Students who have an awareness of how they learn tend to be more successful learners. There are a variety of ways to support metacognitive thinking. For example, in STEM courses, separate problem-solving strategies from the actual computation to help students categorize problems into types and see deeper patterns. Ask students to review their graded work and reflect upon study strategies that worked or didn’t work for them (see “ exam wrappers ”). Explicitly guiding students to identify and leverage behaviors they can control, such as study strategies and time management, can increase their success. Sharing recommended study strategies and resources with students can give them options they may not have considered. 

Dive deeper into strategies for  Designing Assessments of Student Learning  and  Supporting Student Learning in Your Course . 

Learning for Mastery

Building a question bank, student tips for preserving academic integrity.

By taking proactive approaches, you can make the shift from the defensive prevention of cheating to the creation of an environment in which students are less likely to cheat in the first place.  

Key strategies for promoting academic integrity include: 

Focus on positive messages rather than fear or the threat of punishment . Emphasizing the consequences of academic misconduct does not support students to understand why academic integrity matters. 

Use good course design to reduce the chances of academic misconduct . Intentionally align assignments to learning outcomes and clearly communicate that alignment to students. 

Provide transparent and explicit instruction and support around academic integrity . Students come to college with diverse backgrounds and values around appropriate academic behavior. Openly discuss what academic integrity looks like at the university and in the context of your course. 

Explain the values and discourse of your discipline . Provide positive examples of how students can enact those values. This is a crucial piece of helping students see themselves as participants in the scholarly conversation of your discipline. 

Teach for mastery and lower the stakes . Focusing on learning over grades and allowing students many opportunities to practice—and make mistakes—will lessen the anxiety around performance on bigger exams or projects. 

Foster intrinsic motivation and help build students’ self-efficacy . Authentic assignments connected to student interests and a balance of challenge and support will keep students motivated. 

You may do everything you can to proactively promote academic integrity but still encounter the occasional student who cheats. In the event that you need to report academic misconduct, consult these  resources from the Office of Academic Affairs  to familiarize yourself with your responsibilities and the university procedure. 

• Academic Integrity and Misconduct (website)
• Academic Integrity in Online Courses (workshop recording)
• Cheating Lessons: Learning from Academic Dishonesty (e-book)
• Instructor Resources for Choosing and Using Sources (website)
• International Center for Academic Integrity (website)
• Plagiarism, Intellectual Property and the Teaching of L2 Writing (book)
• Setting up Question Banks in Carmen (help article)
• Using question banks to randomize exam questions in Carmen (help article)

Learning Opportunities

Ambrose, S.A., Bridges, M.W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., Norman, M.K. (2010).   How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Bain, K. (2004).  What the best college teachers do . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Bever, L. (2017). Dozens of Ohio State students accused of cheating ring that used group-messaging app.  The Washington Post , 13 Nov. 2017.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/11/13/dozens-of-ohio-state-students-accused-in-cheating-ring-using-group-messaging-app/

Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., and Cocking, R.R. (Eds.). (2000).  How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school . Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. 

Bretag, T., Mahmud, S., Wallace, M., Walker, R., McGowan, U., East, J., Green, M., Partridge, L., & James, C. (2014). ‘Teach us how to do it properly!’ An Australian academic integrity survey.  Studies in Higher Education   37 (7): 1150---1169. 

Bloch, Joel. (2012).  Plagiarism, intellectual property and the teaching of L2 writing . Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. 

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (1995).  On being a scientist: Responsible conduct in research . 2nd edition. Washington DC: National Academy Press.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK232224/   

DiPietro, M. (2009, Fall). Diversity content as a gateway to deeper learning: the statistics of sexual orientation.  Diversity & Democracy   12  (3).  https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/diversity-content-gateway-deeper-learning-statistics-sexual

Karpicke, J.K. and Roediger, H. L. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning.  Science   319 : 966-968. 

Lang, James M. (2013). Cheating lessons: learning from academic dishonesty . Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 

Morris. E.J. (2016). Academic integrity: A teaching and learning approach. Chapter 70 (pp. 1038-1051) in Bretag, T. (Ed.).  Handbook of Academic Integrity . Singapore: Springer Science and Business Media. 

Nelms, G. (2015, July 20).  Why plagiarism doesn’t bother me at all: A research-based overview of plagiarism as an educational opportunity . Teaching and Learning in Higher Ed.  https://teachingandlearninginhighered.org/2015/07/20/plagiarism-doesnt-bother-me-at-all-research/

Tatum, H. and Schwartz, B.M. (2017). Honor codes: Evidence based strategies for improving academic integrity.  Theory into Practice   56 :129-135. 

Related Teaching Topics

Shaping a positive learning environment, designing assessments of student learning, strategies and tools for academic integrity in online environments, related toolsets, carmencanvas, search for resources.

Chapter 10: College Policies

Academic honesty, how many ways are there to cheat.

Form a small group and brainstorm as many ways as you can think of to cheat. Once you have exhausted your ideas as a group, compare your ideas with the lists below. Be ready to share with the class how your list compared to what is in the textbook.

Consider the impact of cheating on:

• our community

I would prefer even to fail with honor than to win by cheating. —Sophocles

Academic Honesty and Dishonesty

At most educational institutions, “academic honesty” means demonstrating and upholding the highest integrity and honesty in all the academic work that you do. In short, it means doing your own work, not cheating, and not presenting the work of others as your own.

The following are some common forms of academic dishonesty prohibited by academic institutions:

Deception is providing false information to an instructor concerning an academic assignment. Examples of deception include taking more time on a take-home test than is allowed, giving a dishonest excuse when asking for a deadline extension, or falsely claiming to have submitted work.

Fabrication

Fabrication is the falsification of data, information, or citations in an academic assignment. This includes making up citations to back up arguments or inventing quotations. Fabrication is most common in the natural sciences, where students sometimes falsify data to make experiments “work” or make false claims about the research performed.

MCC’s Definitions of Cheating and Plagiarism

MCC has a clear and complete compilation of what is considered academic dishonesty and unacceptable academic behavior. The following are MCC’s definitions on cheating and plagiarism, examples of academic dishonesty, and a link to the complete Academic Honesty portion of the MCC College Catalog and Student Handbook.

1.8.1 Definition (2011)

Cheating is defined as the unauthorized use or exchange of information by students or others for the purpose of achieving an unfair advantage in the classroom or assessment process.

Plagiarism is using someone else’s work as if it were one’s own, whether or not it is done intentionally. This includes, but is not limited to: using the exact language, using nearly the exact language, and using ideas without showing they originated in another’s work. The work taken from another person or source (including publications, web sites, speeches, etc.) may be as little as an isolated formula, portions of a speech, a simple sentence, an idea, or as much as entire paragraphs, papers, or writings of professionals or other students; however, well-known, common knowledge is generally an exception. Omitting quotation marks when using language copied from another’s work, failing to use citations for ideas or language taken from other authors, or failing to use one’s own style of writing when summarizing and paraphrasing someone else’s work constitute plagiarism. Any form of plagiarism is essentially an act of cheating. Specific concerns should be directed to your professor.

The academic honesty policy pertains to all instructional delivery methods offered at the College, including but not limited to classroom and online instruction, and self-study.

Some examples of academic dishonesty include but are not limited to the following:

• Taking an exam for another student.
• Having another student take an exam for you.
• Paying someone to write a paper to submit as your own work.
• Writing a paper for another student.
• Submitting the same paper for grading in two different courses without permission.
• Arranging with other students to give or receive answers by use of signals.
• Arranging to sit next to someone who will let you copy from his or her exam.
• Copying from someone’s exam.
• Allowing another student to copy from you during an exam.
• Obtaining answers, information, translations, or material from a source (e.g., the Internet) without appropriate citation.
• Getting questions or answers from someone who has already taken the same exam.
• Working on homework with other students when the instructor does not allow it.
• “Padding”—adding items on a works cited page that were not used.
• Unauthorized use of information stored in the memory of an electronic device (e.g., programmable calculators and cell phones) on a test or assignment. No information stored in any electronic devices may be used without explicit permission.
• Altering or forging an official document.

Academic Honesty portion of MCC’s College Catalog and Handbook

Avoiding Plagiarism

Below are some useful guidelines to help you avoid plagiarism and show academic honesty in your work:

• Quotes: If you quote another work directly in your work, cite your source.
• Paraphrase:  If put someone else’s idea into your own words, you still need to cite the author.
• Visual Materials: If you cite statistics, graphs, or charts from a study, cite the source. Keep in mind that if you didn’t do the original research, then you need to credit the person(s) or institution that did.

The easiest way to make sure you don’t accidentally plagiarize someone else’s work is by taking careful notes as you do research. If you are doing research on the web, be sure to copy and paste the links into your notes so can keep track of the sites you’re visiting. Be sure to list all the sources you consult.

There are many handy online tools to help you create and track references as you go. For example, you can try using the  Son of Citation Machine . Keeping careful notes will not only help you avoid inadvertent plagiarism; it will also help you if you need to return to a source later (to check or get more information). If you use citation tools like Son of Citation, be sure to check the accuracy of the citations before you submit your assignment.

Lastly, if you’re in doubt about whether something constitutes plagiarism, cite the source or leave the material out. Better still, ask for help. Stop by the tutoring center or library for help. If you are an online student, check out the Library’s resources online for research help. Taking the time to seek advice is better than getting in trouble for not attributing your sources. Be honest about your ideas, and give credit where it’s due.

Consequences of Academic Dishonesty

In the academic world, plagiarism by students is usually considered a very serious offense that can result in punishments such as a failing grade on a particular assignment or the entire course or even being expelled from the institution. Individual instructors and courses may have their own policies regarding academic honesty and plagiarism; statements of these policies can usually be found in the course information sheet.

Cheating of any sort causes stress because of the worry of being caught and because those students don’t really know the necessary information. It also lowers self-esteem. Students who cheat are telling themselves that they are simply not smart enough to handle learning, which is almost always not the case. Students who cheat are robbing themselves of the feeling of satisfaction that comes from genuine success.

ACADEMIC HoNesty Research

• Describe three different actions that would violate your college’s academic honesty policy.
• Check out Indiana University’s clever list of different types of plagiarism by going to this link and reading through the various examples.  The names used for different types of plagiarism can help you learn how to avoid situations of academic dishonesty. Jot down a few notes on examples that are new to you.
• Find information about plagiarism in one of your courses. You may find information on the course syllabus and/or the course website. You may want to bookmark this information or make a note to yourself. Knowing your rights as a student may help if there is a misunderstanding.
• Academic Honesty. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Image of shortcutting sign. Authored by : Stephen Coles. Located at : https://flic.kr/p/pnpwKy . License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Academic Dishonesty. Provided by : Wikipedia. Located at : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_dishonesty#cite_note-22 . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• Plagiarism. Provided by : Wikipedia. Located at : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike

Privacy Policy

• About BYU-Idaho
• Financial Aid
• President's Office
• Registration
• Academic Schedule
• Career and Academic Advising
• Colleges and Departments
• Learning Model
• Online Courses and Programs
• Testing Center
• Get Involved
• Health and Wellness
• Student Employment
• Accessibility Services
• FAQ and Help Guides
• International Services
• Print & Copy Services
• Public Safety
• Technical Help
• University Store
• Directories
• CES Honor Code
• Endorsements

Academic Honesty

• Policies and Procedures
• Student Honor Investigations

Examples of Academic Dishonesty

Plagiarism is using other peoples’ words, ideas, or data without citing, quoting, or referencing the original author. Examples of plagiarism, including but are not limited to:

• Direct Plagiarism: copying others’ ideas, words, or data without citing, quoting, or referencing the author or source
• Incidental (accidental) plagiarism: this happens when a student uses another person’s words, ideas, or data, but does not cite, quote, or reference them appropriately
• Paraphrased Plagiarism: this happens when a student uses his or her own words to describe ideas, words, or data from another person or source without citing or referencing that person or source
• Plagiarism Mosaic: this happens when students borrow words, ideas, or data from another person or source. Then the student combines those words, ideas, or data into his or her own writing without citing or referencing the original author or source
• Insufficient Acknowledgment: partial or incomplete referencing of another person or source when borrowing words, ideas, or data from that person or source

Fabrication or Falsification

Fabrication or Falsification is creating false or fake information from an original source or author. Examples include but are not limited to:

• Citing a source that does not exist
• Creating fake information, words, or data and stating the fake information, words, or data come from an official author or source
• Stating that results come from an author or source when the original author or source did not claim those results
• Citing an author or source in a reference section or bibliography section when the author or source is not referenced in the assignment
• Purposefully changing the meaning or application of data, words, or information from another source or author
• Creating fake data or results to support conclusions

Cheating is copying other people's work during projects, assignments, tests, or other school work. Examples include but are not limited to:

• Copying from another person’s work during a test, a quiz, an assignment, or project.
• Allowing someone to copy work during a test, a quiz, an assignment, or project.
• Using notes or other materials during a test, a quiz, an assignment, or project without permission from the instructor.
• Working with other people on a test, quiz, assignment, or project without permission from the instructor.
• Completing a test, quiz, assignment, or project for another person without permission from the instructor.
• Allowing another person to complete a test or quiz for you without permission from the instructor

Academic Misconduct

Academic misconduct is lying or any other dishonest behavior regarding school work. Examples included but are not limited to:

• Giving or receiving help on assignments when the instructor has prohibited it
•  Making plans with another person to be academically dishonest
• Offering to give money or something of value in order to receive help on tests, or quizzes
• Offering to give help on tests or quizzes
• Changing or altering grades in official education records
• Obtaining answers to a test, quiz, or assignment without permission
• Providing answers to a test, quiz, or assignment without permission
• Entering a building or office, without permission, in order to access academic material or content
• Continuing to work on an assignment, quiz, test, or project if time has expired
• Trying to gain credit in different classes for the same assignment or project without permission from each course instructor
• Getting equal credit on group assignments when a student did less work than other students

Unauthorized Uploading Or Sharing

Uploading or sharing BYU-Idaho course content and material without permission is also a form of academic dishonesty. Students should not upload, share, or find course material without permission from the instructor. Your course instructor may also impose other restrictions on the use of course materials.

Consequences Of Violating The Academic Honesty Policy

Violations of the Academic Honesty Policy may result in consequences up to and including suspension or expulsion from the university.

Other Notes: A suspension means not being able to take BYU-Idaho classes for a certain amount of time. Expulsion means not being able to continue as a student at BYU-Idaho.

“When you are honest in every way, you are able to enjoy peace of mind and maintain self-respect. You build strength of character, which allows you to be of service to God and others. You are trustworthy in the eyes of God and those around you. If you are dishonest in your words or actions, you hurt yourself and often hurt others as well. If you lie, steal, cheat, or neglect to give the full amount of work for your pay, you lose your self-respect. You lose the guidance of the Holy Ghost”

University of Rochester

Search Rochester.edu

Popular Searches

Resources for

• Prospective students
• Current students
• Faculty and staff

Arts, Sciences & Engineering

Academic honesty.

• Academic Honesty Policy

The current Academic Honesty Policy was approved by Faculty Council in May of 2015. Revisions were approved by the Steering Committee of Faculty Council on January 18, 2016; November 1, 2016; February 21, 2017; December 19, 2017; and March 30, 2018. Additional revisions were approved by the full Faculty Council on November 2, 2020; May 6, 2021; March 2, 2022; and May 3, 2023.

Table of Contents

I. introduction, ii. who is covered under the policy, iii. educating the college community about academic honesty and the college policy, iv. honor pledge, v. violations of academic honesty, vi. addressing academic honesty in the classroom, vii. board on academic honesty, viii. reporting cases of suspected academic dishonesty: general guidelines, ix. procedures for reporting: instructor resolution processes, x. procedures for reporting: board resolution process, xi. board on academic honesty hearings, xii. sanctioning guidelines, xiii. disposition of cases, xiv. appeals, xv. confidentiality, records, internal and external reporting, and self-reporting by students, old academic honesty policy.

The students, faculty and administrators of the College comprise a community of scholars who are committed to the pursuit of excellence in learning, teaching, creativity and research. Academic honesty is the cornerstone upon which excellence in these endeavors is based, as it creates the necessary conditions of mutual trust and open communication that make intellectual inquiry and growth possible. The AS&E Academic Honesty Policy, in parallel to the College Statement of Communal Principles, recognizes our shared obligation to promote honesty and the related principles of respect and responsibility among all members of our institution. It establishes high standards of academic conduct, and requires that each individual meet those standards. All members of the College community further understand that adherence to our shared expectations for integrity requires not only clear communication about those expectations, but the individual and collective courage to uphold them.

Academic honesty means acting with truthfulness and sincerity in carrying out all aspects of our individual and collaborative work, maintaining ownership over our work and acknowledging our debt to the work of others.

Students can best meet their obligation to academic honesty by adhering to the Academic Honesty Policy in all academic matters. This includes completing their work through their own honest efforts and expecting and encouraging honesty among their peers.

Faculty members, course instructors, teaching assistants and staff have the responsibility to uphold the College policy, model integrity in their own practices and educate students about disciplinary standards.

Administrators have the obligation to model integrity through their leadership and to provide the resources necessary to promote best practices in teaching, learning, assessment, research and citizenship.

The specific policy measures that follow have been designed to promote a just and trustworthy community, and to ensure equity, clarity and consistency in our adjudication of all alleged academic dishonesty cases.

Top ↑

• College of Arts, Sciences and Engineering undergraduate students.
• College of Arts, Sciences and Engineering graduate students. Graduate students are covered by this policy, with the exception that this policy does not apply to misconduct in sponsored research.
• Students who are matriculated in both Arts, Sciences and Engineering and one or more other University of Rochester divisions will have all suspected violations adjudicated under the Arts, Sciences and Engineering policy if their primary campus designation is Arts, Sciences and Engineering at the time of the suspected violation, regardless of the division in which the suspected violation occurred. Students who are matriculated in both Arts, Sciences and Engineering and one or more other University of Rochester divisions and whose primary campus designation is not Arts, Sciences and Engineering will be adjudicated under the policy of their primary campus at the time of the suspected violation, including suspected violations that occur in Arts, Sciences and Engineering.
• All other students, matriculated or non-matriculated, who are enrolled in College courses.
• College of Arts, Sciences and Engineering faculty members, course instructors, staff and teaching assistants in their role as educators.
• Language expressing the central importance of academic honesty in the College will be included in student recruitment and admissions materials, and in the College’s offer of admission letter.
• Pre-enrollment communications with all incoming undergraduate and graduate students will include the Academic Honesty Policy and require students to sign off on their acceptance of the Policy prior to arrival on campus for orientation.
• The orientation program for first-year and transfer students at the undergraduate level will include a discussion of the Academic Honesty Policy.
• Departments will provide their incoming graduate students with an orientation to the policy.
• Course-specific materials such as syllabi and websites will refer to the Academic Honesty Policy and how it applies to the class.
• All new instructors of College undergraduate and graduate courses at all ranks and in all schools across the University and all new academic staff will receive an orientation to the Academic Honesty Policy through a combination of College-wide and departmental efforts.
• The College will aim to provide regular updates on the Academic Honesty Policy to all instructors of College courses and academic staff.
• The Dean of the College shall appoint a designated academic honesty liaison to provide confidential advising to students, faculty, and staff about the College honesty policy and to design and oversee the implementation of educational outreach measures described herein.Other means of engaging the College community in awareness of academic honesty issues will be overseen by mechanisms established by the Deans of the College.

The following Honor Pledge will be copied and signed by all students on all examinations: “I affirm that I will not give or receive any unauthorized help on this exam, and that all work will be my own.”

It is recommended that course instructors also require the following wording as a sign-off for other graded assignments:

“I affirm that I have not given or received any unauthorized help on this assignment, and that this work is my own.”

Suggested for group projects, to be signed by each group member:

“I accept responsibility for my role in ensuring the integrity of the work submitted by the group in which I participated.”

Note: Students are responsible for upholding the AS&E Academic Honesty Policy whether or not they are instructed to write and sign a pledge.

A. General Principles 

In the academic work of students in the College, “the ability to rely on the truth of someone or something is a fundamental pillar of academic pursuit and a necessary foundation of academic work. Members of the academic community must be able to trust that work … is not falsified and that standards are applied equitably” (International Center for Academic Integrity,  Fundamental Values 2021). Dishonest behavior undermines the trust that is fundamental to academic enterprise—indeed, that is fundamental to how we build knowledge in and for society—and threatens the intellectual freedom upon which our community thrives. 

There are many different forms of academic dishonesty (also referred to as honesty violations). The following list of honesty violations and their descriptions is not meant to be exhaustive. Rather, it provides examples of the most common kinds of unacceptable academic conduct by students. The policy also covers dishonest actions committed by students when the effects extend beyond the University and are judged to be prejudicial to the work or the reputation of the University. 

Intent—or lack thereof—should never be taken into account when deciding whether or not an action or set of actions violated the honesty policy. However, fairness dictates that intent may be considered when proposing penalties (for individual instructors) or when applying sanctions (for hearing Boards).

Similarly, neither degrees of (in)experience nor extenuating circumstances should be taken into account when determining whether or not a student or students’ behavior amounted to policy violation. Once the question of responsibility has been addressed, either or both may be considered when deliberating on what outcome(s) are in order. Ignorance of the policy does not excuse actions that violate its requirements.

Dishonest conduct that is detected after the end of a course, or after a student graduates or otherwise leaves the College, is subject to being reported and adjudicated under the Academic Honesty Policy. Assigned grades and earned degrees may be affected as a result of the decision made in such a case.

B. Violations

1. Receiving, Using or Having Access to Unauthorized Aid:

Using unauthorized notes or other study aids during an examination; using unauthorized technology during an examination; improper storage of prohibited notes, course materials and study aids during an exam such that they are accessible or possible to view; looking at other students’ work during an exam or in an assignment where collaboration is not allowed; attempting to communicate with other students in order to get help during an exam or in an assignment where collaboration is not allowed; obtaining an examination prior to its administration; altering graded work and submitting it for re-grading; allowing another person to do one’s work and submitting it as one’s own; submitting work done in a class taken at the University of Rochester or at another school for credit in another class without the instructor’s permission; submitting work done in a prior semester without the instructor’s permission, when the student is retaking that course; obstructing or interfering with another student’s academic work; undertaking any action that attempts to confer (whether carried through or not) or has the appearance of conferring (whether actually conferred or not) unfair advantage over other students.

2. Giving Unauthorized Aid:

Aiding another person in an act that violates the standards of academic honesty. Examples include allowing other students to look at one’s own work during an exam or in an assignment where collaboration is not allowed; unauthorized editing or revising of another student’s work; providing information, material, or assistance to another person in a form that is likely to be used in violation of course, departmental, or college academic honesty policies; failing to take reasonable measures to protect one’s work from copying by others.

3. Plagiarism:

Broadly understood as the representation of another’s work as one’s own, and/or use of  “... language, ideas, or other original (not common-knowledge) material without acknowledging its source” (Council of Writing Program Administrators, December 2019:

http://wpacouncil.org/aws/CWPA/pt/sd/news_article/272555/_PARENT/layout_details/false).

The reuse of an idea or phrase, or the borrowing of significant influence or contribution(s) from a written, spoken, visual source or a technology (such as text-generative tools or translation software) should be clearly and transparently signaled at the place of use in a work for which the student claims authorship. Expectations to signal contributions from other people, sources, or technologies apply whether the sources themselves or the students' work appears in written, spoken, visual, or in some other form. When students submit assignments that build on their own previous work, the expectation remains that they will signal how much of the work is original to the current assignment and how much is drawn from past assignments.

Attribution specifics—how, where, and when to appropriately signal contributions from other people, sources, or technologies—vary according to discipline, field, or mode of communication. It remains each student’s individual responsibility to ensure that their instructors and other audiences know, at any point while reading or grading the student’s work, which words and idea(s) belong to that student and which originated from other people, sources, or technologies (including the student’s own previous work).

Act(s) of plagiarism or misattribution of source material will therefore reflect a range of seriousness and a range of intent (or lack thereof). Some examples include, but are not limited to, the following:

• misrepresentation of source material used in a work for which the student claims authorship, as in (1) failing to signal the extent to which sources have influenced the overall organizational structure of a student’s work, or (2) starting from paragraphs and sentence patterns devised by another person or AI technology then making superficial, word-by-word line edits to incorporate synonyms selected by the student;
• treating as common knowledge material that which an instructor expects to be cited, including but not limited to personal communication, information delivered in face-to-face or online lectures, overreliance on language from course material (assignment instructions, essay prompts, and so on), or overreliance on material generated by AI tools (Grammarly, ChatGPT, DALL-E, translation software, or similar);
• submission of work such as laboratory reports, computer programs or coding, journals, reflections, or other types of papers, which have been copied from work done by other students, either in whole or in part, with or without these students’ knowledge or consent;
• submission of work such as laboratory reports, computer programs or coding, journals, reflections, or other types of papers, which have been copied from comments made by instructors or instructor-created materials; as when a student includes parts of a group project or borrows from assignment instructions to create professional profiles via online platforms like Github, without having obtained written permission to do so in advance;
• submission of work that duplicates or substantially borrows from assignments the student has turned in previously, earlier in the same semester or previous semesters, if an instructor stated or could reasonably have been assumed to expect original work (known as double submission or “self-plagiarism,” this will vary in severity depending on the context of a course or assignment);
• use of papers and projects that are purchased or otherwise bartered for, then turned in as the student’s own original work (known as “contract cheating,” this is always taken very seriously).

Students can avoid the suspicion of plagiarism (i.e., misattribution of source material or technologies) in written papers, oral presentations, and other coursework by clearly and transparently indicating the source of any idea, wording, or visual reference they did not produce themselves, either in footnotes or within the paper, presentation, or other work. Indication may be given in a list of references (a works cited page or bibliography), or through some other form of attribution relevant to the genre, discipline, or professional setting, as expected/agreed upon by the instructor(s) who assign and assess the work. Credit to source material or source technologies (DALL-E, ChatGPT, or similar) must be given regardless of whether the idea, phrase or other material is quoted directly, or whether a student subsequently paraphrases or summarizes into their own words. In addition to any and all other citation information required (e.g., page numbers), verbatim quotes must always be placed in quotation marks.

4. Misconduct in Group Projects:

Failure to carry out the work in adherence with the academic honesty guidelines and expectations established by the course instructor.

5. Fabrication and Falsification:

Falsifying or inventing any information, citation, text or data; using improper methods of collecting or generating data and presenting them as legitimate; misrepresenting one’s qualifications or one’s status in the University, as in an application for a fellowship or employment on campus or externally.

Forging signatures or falsifying information on official documents for the purpose of academic gain. Examples include: drop/add forms, incomplete forms, petitions, letters of permission, applications for positions or awards in the College, course attendance sheets, email communications and physician’s notes.

6. Denying Others Access to Information or Material:

Any act that deliberately hinders the use of or access to library or course materials. Examples include: the removal of pages from books or journals or reserve materials; the removal of books from libraries without formally checking out the items; the intentional hiding of library materials; the refusal to return reserve readings to the library.

7. Unauthorized Recording, Distribution or Publication of Course‐Related Materials:

Students may not audio or video record class lectures or other classroom or laboratory activities without the instructor’s permission.

The sharing of course materials on an individual level for educational purposes (e.g., working with groups or with a tutor) is permitted, provided that it has not been prohibited by the instructor. Students may not publish, distribute, or sell--electronically or otherwise--any course materials that the instructor has developed in any course of instruction in the University (e.g., presentation slides, lecture aids, video or audio recordings of lectures, and exams) without the explicit permission of the instructor. The sharing or distribution of course materials for purposes of giving or gaining unfair advantage in a course is prohibited. Students must further respect the requirements of copyright protection for materials that are made available for instructional purposes.

8. Misuse of a Student’s Username and Password:

The username given to students and the password that they set authorize student access to course materials through Blackboard or other password-protected sites. Students are responsible for protecting their access to these materials, many of which are copyrighted. It is a violation of the University Information Technology Policy and the Academic Honesty Policy to allow unauthorized access to protected materials by the sharing of any usernames and passwords.

9. Impeding the Investigation or Conduct of Any Board on Academic Honesty Matter:

Providing false information, including false alibis, to any member of the Board on Academic Honesty (hereafter also called the Board).

Providing false testimony during a hearing.

Causing or requesting another person to provide a false alibi or other false information in connection with a Board matter.

A. Course-specific Academic Honesty Statement

Because academic honesty is of vital concern to the College and because each discipline may have its own specific expectations and protocols, all course instructors must include an academic honesty statement on each course syllabus or on the course Blackboard page or website indicating any unique way in which the policy applies in the course. This may take several forms, e.g., an appended set of guidelines formulated by the instructor or by the department, the address of a website that contains this information, a course-specific statement linked to an “Academic Honesty” button on Blackboard, or simply a link to the policy. During the first two weeks of class, the course instructor must call attention to this information during at least one class session.

B. Assignment-specific Requirements

In addition, course instructors should make any discipline-specific or otherwise unique expectations and guidelines for academic honesty clear for each assignment given. This assignment-specific orientation may be conveyed in written or oral form early in the semester, or it may occur throughout the semester as assignments are given. The academic procedures that vary from discipline to discipline, such as proper and improper forms of academic collaboration and citation, demand particular attention on a course-by-course basis.

The Board on Academic Honesty exists to hear and adjudicate cases of alleged academic dishonesty brought by any member of the College teaching, administrative or support staff against any student, matriculated or non-matriculated, who is or was enrolled in College courses.

B. Composition and Selection of the Board

• The Board on Academic Honesty is composed of a Chair, at least eleven faculty members, at least eleven undergraduate students, and at least two graduate students.
• The Chair of the Board is a tenured faculty member selected by the Dean of the College from among faculty members who have previously served on the Board or are current Board members. The length of the Chair’s term is four years, and is renewable.
• Faculty members of the Board on Academic Honesty are selected and invited by the Dean of the College from among full-time faculty (tenured, pre-tenure and non tenure-track). The Dean may consult with the Chair of the Board on Academic Honesty, the Arts, Sciences and Engineering (AS&E) Dean of Graduate Studies, department chairs and others as appropriate. Members serve for four-year terms, and may be reappointed once for a second continuous term. Terms will be staggered in order to achieve a balanced mix of new and experienced members each year. In the case of the early resignation by a member, the person appointed to replace that position will serve out the remainder of the term and may then be appointed for a full term, with the possibility of reappointment for a second full term. The faculty cohort on the Board will represent all of the disciplines in the College: humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, and engineering.
• The process for selecting undergraduate student representatives shall be decided and conducted by the Center for Student Conflict Management in collaboration with the All-Campus Judicial Council.
• At least two graduate students are selected by the AS&E Dean of Graduate Studies, who may consult with the President of the Graduate Students Association and others as appropriate. Graduate student members serve for two-year terms, with at least one new member per year joining the Board.

C. Training

All Board members will undergo uniform training on the policy, hearing procedures and proper conduct of hearings on an annual basis

D. Responsibilities of Chair and Board Members

1. Responsibilities of the Chair:

Participate in the selection of faculty members of the Board on Academic Honesty; serve as a resource for faculty, staff, students and parents in Board matters; oversee training of new and continuing Board members, as well as all aspects of the work of the Board; supervise the work of the Board Secretary; carry out other tasks specified in the Policy.

2. Responsibilities of All Board Members:

Faculty and student members of the Board on Academic Honesty will share as equally as possible in service on the Hearing Boards that are scheduled throughout the year. Board members are expected to be available to participate in hearings on the days and times established by the Chair and the Board Secretary.

A. Requirement to Report

• The “College Faculty Rules and Regulations” require that all cases of suspected academic dishonesty be reported to the Board on Academic Honesty through one of the Instructor Resolution processes or the Board Resolution process. Course instructors may not come to a private agreement with a student in a case of suspected academic dishonesty. Course instructors may not ask or allow a student to drop or withdraw from a course, or impose a penalty of any kind on a student through any means that fall outside of the procedures for reporting cases outlined below. The one exception is when an instructor, after meeting with a student about a suspected violation, is convinced that no violation was committed. In this situation, the case no longer counts as a suspected violation and does not need to be reported.
• When a course instructor becomes aware of an incident of suspected academic dishonesty committed in a course they are teaching, s/he should contact the  academic honesty liaison . Course instructors who have had experience with submitting similar cases in the past may proceed directly with the Instructor or Board Resolution process. Any reporting person always has the option of  contacting the Chair of the Board  at any point in the process with questions or for assistance in understanding and complying with our procedures.

Exam proctors (students, course instructors or staff members) who observe suspicious behavior during a quiz or exam, and teaching assistants who detect evidence of dishonest behavior in an assignment that they are grading must speak with the course instructor. They must provide a written report and all pertinent documentation to the instructor. The instructor must then follow established procedures for reporting the case. Originals of exams, lab reports, essays, homework or other written, electronic, recorded or visual work must be retained by the course instructor to submit with the case, and should not be returned to the student or students in question. In the case of suspected dishonesty during an oral presentation, the student’s electronic presentation and/or handouts should be retained by the instructor.

• If false information is given by a student in communications with any member of the Board on Academic Honesty, that member should  alert the Chair of the Board , who will write up and submit the case on behalf of the Board using the Board Resolution process.
• They may report an incident to the course instructor if the incident involves coursework.
• They may  contact the Chair of the Board with information about an incident of suspected policy violation (through in-person meeting, phone call, email, or use of the ‘ Academic Honesty Concern Report ’; reporting persons may request their names be kept private, but anonymous reports cannot be acted upon).
• They can also always contact the academic honesty liaison for confidential, impartial, non-binding advice about how to proceed. Some violations are not related to a specific course and incidents of suspected academic dishonesty will not always or exclusively be detected by course instructors, as in the following situations:

Administrative, academic and support staff members in AS&E are strongly encouraged to report potential violation(s) to the relevant course instructor if they learn about an incident that involves coursework. They are required to report when they suspect a policy violation is practiced against them (e.g., their signature falsified, their permission to add/drop a course misrepresented, or something similar), and must  contact the Chair of the Board to report any such violations. As with faculty and students, staff can always contact the academic honesty liaison for confidential advice in these kinds of situations.

All notices of all kinds that must be sent to students and/or reporting persons will be sent by email to their University of Rochester email account. The Board on Academic Honesty Decision Letter resulting from a hearing will also be sent to the student’s CMC. In the case of a student who is on suspension or is no longer enrolled in the College, the notification will be sent to the most current email address on file, if one is available, and mailed in hard copy form to the most current permanent address that is on file with the College.

A. Instructor Resolution Warning Letter: Undergraduate Students Only

• If improper academic conduct committed by an  undergraduate  student is judged to be minor and resulting from inexperience, the Warning Letter procedure may be followed at the instructor’s discretion. Consultation with the  Director of Academic Honesty/Academic Honesty Liaison  or the  Chair of the Board  prior to meeting with the student is strongly recommended.
• The Warning Letter resolution may only be used to settle incidents that fall into the category of “Minor Violations” as described in  Section XII , “Sanctioning Guidelines.” They pertain for the most part to coursework, and therefore are usually handled by course instructors. The determination of a student’s relative experience or inexperience in the type of assignment or course in which the incident occurred will be made by the instructor upon speaking with the student. The Warning Letter may not be used in cases involving graduate students.
• The Warning Letter option recognizes that the incident is best addressed as an educational opportunity. It is never required that a suspected incident be handled through the Warning Letter resolution. It is an available option to be used at the instructor’s discretion.
• The instructor becomes aware of evidence of improper academic conduct and determines if the allegation has merit and is minor. That person will consult with either the academic honesty liaison or Chair of the Board and will contact the student to set up a meeting. They will meet in a confidential setting to discuss the allegation and show the evidence. The student will have a chance to respond to the allegation by asking questions about the evidence and/or providing an explanation to demonstrate that they are not responsible for the alleged academic misconduct.
• If the instructor is convinced that no academic misconduct occurred, no further action is required, as stated above ( Section VIII.A ).
• If the instructor is convinced that improper conduct was committed the instructor will log in to the Incident Report Portal and prepare a Warning Letter following the instructions in the Portal. The instructor will be able to describe the case, attach evidence, propose educational measures, and select the length of time the student will have to respond. Once the instructor submits the form, the Board Secretary will check if the student has a prior infraction. If the student has a prior infraction, the Secretary will not approve the form and the instructor will be notified that the case must be resolved with a Board Resolution ( Section X ). If the student does not have a prior infraction, the Secretary will request that a “C” hold (confidential hold) be placed on the student’s record (as transcripts may not be sent out until the case is fully resolved) and will approve the form to be reviewed by the Chair of the Board. The Chair may either approve the form or ask for modifications. The instructor will be notified if modifications are required and respond to the Chair’s requests using the Portal. Once the Chair approves the form, the student will receive an email indicating how many days they have to log in to the Portal to accept responsibility.
• If the student accepts responsibility, they will complete the educational measure specified by the instructor (a rewrite of the work in question or an alternative equivalent assignment), which will not be for credit or a grade. Upon notification of approval of the Letter (as above, Section VIII.B ), the instructor will assign a grade to the assignment as originally submitted, discounting the parts under question as appropriate. The student must complete a required academic honesty tutorial. The "C" hold will remain in place on the student's record until the Board Secretary has received confirmation that the student has completed the assigned tutorial. In the case of a violation that is not connected to a course, the "C" hold will remain in place until the Secretary has received confirmation that the student has completed the assigned tutorial.
• A Warning Letter does not affect the student’s option to drop, withdraw or declare the S/F grading option as permitted under College rules. If a student drops or withdraws from the course in question, the "C" hold will remain on their record until the academic honesty tutorial has been completed.
• If the student declines to sign the Letter, the incident must be reported using the Board Resolution process ( Section X ).
• If the Letter is the first academic misconduct of any kind submitted for the student, it will open a Board on Academic Honesty file on that student.
• If a student with a prior finding of academic dishonesty on file is reported again by either of the Instructor Resolution processes, a hearing must be held and the reporting person will be asked to complete a  Board Resolution Form  ( Section X ). The Warning Letter on file will be taken into account when determining a sanction for a subsequent finding of responsibility for academic dishonesty and may result in a more severe penalty than is typical for a first offense in light of the educational measures that have been offered.

The Instructor Resolution with Penalty process is appropriate for many cases involving undergraduate students. However, instructors using this process may not assign XE or XF grades (see  Section XII.D.1 ), nor impose suspension or expulsion, nor impose sanctions listed under Academic Disciplinary Probation. These are reserved for Board actions based on a hearing. The reporting person (r.p.), that is, the person who completes and submits the form, will most often be a course instructor, but may also be a University staff member or administrator. The reporting person will never be a student.

• The reporting person becomes aware of evidence of dishonesty and determines if the allegation merits further investigation. That person will consult either with the  academic honesty liaison  or with the Board Chair, or at a minimum review  Section XII , “Sanctioning Guidelines” before contacting the student to set up a meeting.
• The r.p. will meet with the student in a confidential setting to explain the allegation and show the evidence. If more than one student is involved, individual meetings are required. The student will have the opportunity to respond to the allegation by asking questions about the evidence and/or providing an explanation to demonstrate that s/he is not responsible for the alleged violation. 
• If the r.p. is convinced that no violation was committed, no further action is required, as stated above ( Section VIII.A.1 ).
• Students may not drop, or withdraw from, or choose the S/F grading option for the course during this process or when an Instructor Resolution with Penalty Form has been signed and filed. If the student drops or withdraws, s/he will be reinstated in the course. The S/F option will be rescinded whether declared prior to or after the violation. If the student accepts responsibility, the student must complete a required academic honesty tutorial. The "C" hold will remain in place on the student's record until two conditions are met: The student's semester grade has been submitted by the course instructor; and the Board Secretary has received confirmation that the student has completed the assigned tutorial. In the case of a violation that is not connected to a course, the "C" hold will remain in place until the Secretary has received confirmation that the student has completed the assigned tutorial.
• If the student does not accept responsibility and declines to sign the form, the reporting person will submit the case on a Board Resolution form ( Section X ).

C. Instructor Resolution with Penalty: Graduate Students

Course instructors and other reporting persons (r.p.s) may offer Instructor Resolution with Penalty to graduate students, following processes described above for undergraduates, after required consultations with both the Chair of the Board on Academic Honesty (who will check for prior violations) and the AS&E Dean of Graduate Education and Postdoctoral Affairs (who will help determine the appropriate penalty to offer in accordance with Section XII “Sanctioning Guidelines”). Only first reports at graduate level are eligible for resolution through IRWP—as with undergraduate students, all second and subsequent reports for graduate students must be resolved with a Board hearing.

If the student accepts responsibility, the signed Instructor Resolution with Penalty form will be submitted by the reporting person in hard copy or electronic form to the Board Secretary. A "C" hold is placed on the student's records by the AS&E Graduate Studies Office, as transcripts may not be sent out until the case is fully resolved.

The student must complete a required academic honesty tutorial. The "C" hold will remain in place until two conditions are met: The student's semester grade has been submitted by the course instructor; and the Board Secretary has received confirmation that the student has completed the assigned tutorial.

In the case of a violation that is not connected to a course, the "C" hold will remain in place until the Secretary has received confirmation that the student has completed the assigned tutorial.

If the student declines to accept the Instructor Resolution, then the case will go to a hearing before a Board on which the two student members are graduate students.

• The course instructor chooses to refer the matter directly to the Board.
• The reporting person is not a course instructor.
• The student declines to accept responsibility and/or the offered penalty when the Warning Letter or Instructor Resolution with Penalty Form has been offered.
• A review of the Board database reveals a prior finding or findings of responsibility for academic dishonesty when a Warning Letter or an Instructor Resolution with Penalty Form is received.
• The case involves a graduate student and a violation in the moderate or major category under Section XII , “Sanctioning Guidelines.”
• Under limited circumstances (e.g., only with first reports and only for those who were not offered a Warning Letter or an Instructor Resolution with Penalty), students who were initially reported via Board resolution may request that their case be resolved via Chair’s resolution. For information about rights, responsibilities, and what the Chair’s resolution process entails, refer to Section X.D, “Preparing for the Hearing,” below.
• The reporting person completes a Board Resolution Form and submits it with all pertinent documentation in hard copy or electronically to the Board Secretary. Instructors should retain a copy of all materials submitted. The r.p. may, but is not required to, notify the student that s/he has taken this action.
• For undergraduate students The Board Secretary will request that a "C" hold (confidential hold) be placed on the student's records, as transcripts may not be sent out until the case is fully resolved.
• For graduate students: A “C” hold is placed on the graduate student’s records by the AS&E Graduate Studies Office as transcripts may not be sent out until the case is fully resolved.For all students: The "C" hold will remain in place until two conditions are met: The student's semester grade has been submitted by the course instructor; and the Board Secretary has received confirmation that the student has completed the assigned tutorial. In the case of a violation that is not connected to a course, the C-hold will remain in place until the Secretary has received confirmation that the student has completed the assigned tutorial.
• The student (undergraduate or graduate) is notified of the receipt of the Form and the need for a hearing to resolve the case (as above, Section VIII.B ).
• With the notification, the student will be directed to review the Academic Honesty website and will be informed of the availability of consultation with the academic honesty liaison .
• Students may not drop, or withdraw from, or choose the S/F grading option for the course during this process or when an Instructor Resolution with Penalty Form  has been signed and filed. If the student drops or withdraws, s/he will be reinstated in the course. The S/F option will be rescinded whether declared prior to or after the violation.
• The Chair of the Board on Academic Honesty will review the Form and the other materials submitted within one week of receipt, and will contact the reporting person if any additional materials are required to complete the case file or if any clarification of the report or the evidence is needed.
• Once a reporting person has submitted a board resolution form, the reporting person may submit additional evidence. In undergraduate cases, the reporting person may not retract the form unless the Chair of the Board on Academic Honesty and the reporting person both approve the substitution of a signed Instructor Resolution Warning Letter   or Instructor Resolution with Penalty Form . In graduate cases, the reporting person may not retract the form unless the Dean of Graduate Studies and the reporting person both approve the substitution of a signed Instructor Resolution with Penalty Form . In undergraduate cases, only the Dean of the College, upon the recommendation of the reporting person and the Chair of the Board, has the right to retract a board resolution form without the substitution of a signed Instructor Resolution Warning Letter or Instructor Resolution with Penalty Form . In graduate cases, only the University Provost, upon the recommendation of the reporting person and the Dean of Graduate Studies, has the right to retract a board resolution form without the substitution of a signed Instructor Resolution with Penalty Form .

C. Scheduling Hearings

• A hearing will generally be held within one month of the receipt of the Form, except when College recesses, the summer break or an excess number of cases to be heard make it impossible to schedule a hearing within the one-month time frame.
• Hearings will be scheduled with knowledge of the student’s class schedule and will not be scheduled during his or her class hours. A student’s employment or extracurricular activities schedule will not be taken into account.
• The student will be notified of the hearing date, time and location as specified above at least five business days in advance of the hearing.
• The student is permitted to review the case file by making an appointment with the Board Secretary. In order to protect the confidentiality of Board documents, the student must review the file in the College Deans’ Office and is not permitted to photocopy, photograph or otherwise reproduce the documents contained in the file, although s/he may take notes on the contents of the file to assist in formulating a response to the allegation. A student may invite one person to accompany him or her to review the file, but such person may not photograph, photocopy or otherwise reproduce the case documents.
• The student may submit a written response to the allegation for distribution to the Board in advance of the hearing, but this is not required. The student may seek advice from the academic honesty liaison in writing a response.
• Members of the Hearing Board will have access to the case file in electronic form at least five business days in advance of the hearing.
• The Presiding Officer of the Hearing Board will contact the reporting person once prior to the hearing.
• Cases reported after students have left campus at the end of the Fall semester will be heard no later than in the first four weeks of the Spring term. Cases reported after students have left campus at the end of the Spring semester will be heard no later than in the first four weeks of the following Fall term.
• Eligible students who wish to accept responsibility for the reported infraction(s) without going to a full Board hearing should indicate interest in filing a Chair’s Resolution with Penalty by contacting the Chair of the Board on Academic Honesty. Students may indicate this interest before or after viewing their case file, but must do so at least 48 hours before their hearing is set to take place.
• Upon receiving this email, the Board Chair will schedule a meeting with the student to discuss accepting responsibility for the alleged infraction(s) and to agree upon a penalty or penalties proposed in accordance with the Sanctioning Guidelines ( see section XII ).
• Once penalties have been formally proposed, the student will have 48 hours to consider signing a Chair’s Resolution with Penalty form. As is also true of Instructor Resolution, this window may (but does not have to) be extended at the Chair’s discretion.
• Signing a Chair’s Resolution indicates acceptance of responsibility as well as agreement with the proposed penalties. By signing the form, a student forfeits their right to appeal either the finding of responsibility or the penalties involved. As is also true of Instructor Resolution, students are encouraged to consult the Academic Honesty Liaison while considering whether to sign the Chair’s Resolution form.

A. Who Attends a Hearing

• The student who has been reported via a  Board Resolution Form  is expected to attend the hearing. If the student does not attend, the Hearing Board may proceed to deliberate, reach a determination of responsibility and assign a penalty, or decide to exonerate the student in the student’s absence.
• Under exceptional circumstances (e.g., unavoidable scheduling conflicts or conflicts of interest) , trained graduate students may substitute for one (1) or both undergraduate board members. At a hearing for a graduate student, student Board members must be graduate students.
• Ordinarily, a hearing may not be held without all four members present, whether in person or over Zoom. The role of the Board Chair is to oversee the hearing process, being available to review process and cast tie-breaking votes if needed. In cases where a scheduling conflict would cause unacceptable delay, the Chair may substitute for one (1) of the designated faculty Board members or may select an appropriate proxy (e.g., a Deputy Chair or Associate Dean) to serve instead.
• If the scheduling conflict that occurs is with a student Board member, hearings may proceed with two faculty members and one student as long as a reported student gives their consent ; however, a reported student will always have the option to reschedule the hearing for a later date. Hearings may not proceed with fewer than two (2) faculty Board members; in general, three-member hearing boards should be the exception and not the rule.The hearing board will consist of two faculty members and two student members of the Board. At a hearing for an undergraduate student, the student Board members will be undergraduate students—unless scheduling conflicts that would cause unacceptable delay preclude an undergraduate board member from serving. One faculty member of the Hearing Board will be designated in advance to serve as the Presiding Officer with the role of reading the opening and closing statements, determining if a line of questioning is appropriate, moderating the post-hearing deliberations, counting ballots when votes are taken, and drafting the decision letter. The Presiding Officer will have a vote, but their vote shall not outweigh that of any other Hearing Board member; ties in voting will be broken by the Board Chair after a thorough review of case file/hearing records. If the Board Chair has substituted for one of the two faculty Board members due to scheduling conflicts, they may designate an appropriate proxy to review the case and break the tie.
• The reporting person for the case will not be present at the hearing, but s/he must be available by telephone to answer questions during the hearing except under circumstances pre-approved by the Chair of the Board on Academic Honesty.
• Board on Academic Honesty hearings will be held in a quiet, confidential setting.
• All hearings will be recorded, but not transcribed. The recording will be limited to the introductions of those attending the hearing, the opening statement made by the Presiding Officer, the student’s statement, the question period and the closing of the hearing. Any Board deliberations during the hearing when the student is excused from the room and the final deliberations of the Board will not be recorded. The recordings will be kept confidential and will be used only by the Hearing Board during deliberations, by the Board Chair or designated proxy in case of a tie-breaking vote, or by administrators with a need to know. Recordings will be maintained for a period of seven years after the date of the hearing, then they will be destroyed.
• Every student who is suspected of academic dishonesty will be given an individual hearing; two or more students will never be heard together.

The following rules governing the hearing process are intended to provide consistency across hearings, and are meant to permit the student and the Hearing Board to come to as clear and complete an understanding of evidence in the case as possible. Civil or criminal court procedures are not applicable.

• The Presiding Officer will open the hearing by having all individuals present introduce themselves. Then they will read an opening statement that outlines the hearing process.
• Next the student will be asked to make a statement addressing the allegation and the evidence contained in the case file. The student may read a prepared statement, speak extemporaneously, or present a combination of the two.
• After the student has finished the statement, the Hearing Board will ask questions of the student. These questions may pertain not only to the case under consideration, but also to the student’s academic experience in other courses as it may be relevant to the alleged violation. The Presiding Officer may excuse the student from answering a question that they consider too leading, irrelevant, or otherwise not pertinent to the proceeding.
• If any member of the Hearing Board wishes to ask the reporting person a question, s/he will write down their question and notify the Presiding Officer, who will determine if it is advisable to contact the reporting person by phone. If a Hearing Board member wishes to consult with other members about a more extensive matter than a single question for the reporting person, the Presiding Officer may excuse a reported student and their person of support (if applicable) from the room (and/or the virtual hearing) during consultation. A call will be placed on speaker phone to the reporting person once the student has returned to the room. Any questions posed to him or her and the answers given will be heard by the student and the Hearing Board. If the student wishes to ask a question of the reporting person, the student must address the question directly to the Presiding Officer, who will determine the question’s relevance If deemed relevant, the Presiding Officer will pose the question to the reporting person on behalf of the Board. The reporting person and the student should never engage in a direct exchange of questions or comments.
• When the Hearing Board agrees by informal consensus that they have no further questions to ask a reporting person, the phone call will be terminated. Follow-up calls by the Hearing Board will be permitted, provided that the procedures in (d) above are followed.
• When the question period is concluded, the student will be invited to make a final statement, but is not required to do so. The Board will have an opportunity to respond to a student’s closing statement. When the student is finished speaking and Board responses are complete, the Presiding Officer will read a closing statement that outlines next steps and explains the confidentiality of our hearings and decisions. At that time, all except the Hearing Board members will be excused from the room.

C. Deliberations and Decision

• The Hearing Board will deliberate on all of the evidence presented and may review the recording as needed. When Board members determine by informal consensus that their deliberations are complete, the Presiding Officer will conduct a vote using secret ballots to find the student responsible or not responsible for a violation of academic honesty. Ordinarily, this decision will be reached by majority vote. In cases where initial voting results in a tie, at their discretion, the Presiding Officer may exercise one of two options: they may request additional discussion and deliberation among the members of the Board, or they may suspend proceedings so the Board Chair (or designated proxy) can review the case file/hearing recording and cast a tie-breaking vote.
• The standard of proof is preponderance of evidence, that is, if it is more likely than not that a student acted (or failed to act) in a way that amounts to either a warning letter or a policy violation.

If the student is found responsible for either a warning letter or a policy violation (either by vote of the original hearing board members and/or by vote that includes a tie-breaking vote cast by the Board Chair or designated proxy), the Presiding Officer will open an envelope provided by the Board Secretary to see if the student has any prior violations or warning letters in their confidential Board record.

• If the student has a prior violation or warning letter, the current hearing board must issue a finding for policy violation ( misconduct ) in the current case—as students may not be found responsible for warning letter behavior (i.e., an educational issue or failure to meet policy expectations through oversight) more than once.
• The current Hearing Board will have the opportunity to review the file from any prior case(s) if they determine this information necessary for deliberation or for selecting appropriate sanction(s) in the current case. The Hearing Board will determine a sanction, consulting with the Chair of the Board as needed regarding fair interpretation of Sanctioning Guidelines as well as consistency with Board precedent.
• While Board members should have substantial input in the process, both individually and collectively, it is ultimately up to the Chair’s discretion to approve sanctions (because it is the Chair’s duty to oversee fair and consistent application of policy). If the Board Chair has substituted for one of the two faculty Board members and voted as to responsibility, it is recommended (not formally required) for the Chair to seek the advice of an outside proxy such as the Deputy Chair in selecting appropriate sanction(s).

If the final vote is tied at the hearing for an undergraduate student, the Chair will be informed immediately and they will cast the deciding vote at their earliest opportunity, after reviewing the case file and (as needed) the hearing recording. If a responsible finding is reached, the Hearing Board will reconvene to determine a sanction (with the option to include the Chair during their deliberations as needed). Board members may reconvene over email; at Chair’s discretion (e.g., in cases where the Board members are at an impasse), they may be required to reconvene on Zoom or in person.

If the final vote is tied at the hearing for a graduate student, the AS&E GEPA Dean will be informed immediately and they will cast the deciding vote after reviewing the case file and (as needed) the hearing recording. If a responsible finding is reached, the Hearing Board will reconvene to determine a sanction (with the option to include the AS&E GEPA Dean during deliberations as needed). As with undergraduate hearings, Board members may be asked to reconvene over email, via Zoom, or in person (at the Dean’s discretion).

This concludes the hearing process.

The free exchange of ideas is the foundation of our academic community and rests upon the integrity of all members of the University and on our trust in that integrity. Violating that integrity and trust undermines our core purpose by deeply damaging academic endeavors. For this reason, violations of the Academic Honesty Policy are considered serious breaches of our accepted codes of conduct; the related sanctions reflect the seriousness with which these breaches of conduct are viewed by the University.

Sanctions are based on the following principles:

• The Policy is founded on the conviction that all students in AS&E, undergraduate and graduate alike, must accept responsibility for understanding and upholding its provisions. Ignorance and/or failure to verify policy expectations ahead of time will not be grounds for exoneration or avoiding responsibility.
• Repeat offenses require sanctions that are graduated in severity and in their impact on a student’s academic career.
• Sanctions for similar offenses should generally be consistent. The Chair of the Board has the responsibility to ensure the fairness and the consistency of sanctions.

B. Sanctioning Guidelines for Undergraduate Students

The following provisions apply to all offenses:

• All first-time offenders must complete a designated academic honesty tutorial.
• Effective with courses taken starting in Fall 2015, any failing grade of E or XE that results from a finding of academic dishonesty will be recorded as a permanent grade for purposes of the calculation of the student's grade point average (GPA). If the student repeats the course subject to the College repeat policy, both the original grade of E or XE and the new grade will count towards the student’s GPA. The grade and credit policies listed here will go into effect beginning with courses taken in the semester when the registrar’s system is updated and capable of their implementation:  Any semester grade that results from a finding of academic dishonesty reached through either the Instructor Resolution with Penalty process or the Board Resolution process will be recorded as a permanent grade for purposes of the calculation of the student’s grade point average (GPA). If the student repeats the course subject to the College repeat policy, both the original grade and the new grade will count towards the student’s GPA. If the student earns credit with a grade of D- or higher as a result of a finding of academic dishonesty, and then decides to repeat the course, no additional credits will be awarded.
• With the exception of the XE and XF grade, grades recorded as a result of a Board on Academic Honesty decision will not be marked as such on the transcript.

C. Three Categories of Violations

Refer to  Section V  for more complete descriptions of the violations categorized below. 

• Submitting work that misrepresents or does not fully or fairly acknowledge the contributions of others due primarily to inexperience.*
• Unauthorized collaboration on assignments when the identical work constitutes a small portion of the work submitted.

*Note: “primarily” and “inexperience” are determinations made by individual instructors and/or hearing Boards, under the guidance of the Board Chair, in consideration of such factors as students’ previous training, clarity of assignment instructions, and overall judgment of how much responsibility students demonstrated and/or how much initiative they took for knowing, clarifying, and following rules set by the policy and applied within individual courses or assignments.

• Submitting work that misrepresents or does not fully or fairly acknowledge the contributions of others. A moderate level violation typically shows an attempt to credit at least some of the language or ideas that influenced the work in question. Although attribution may be inconsistently executed and not all source(s) may be properly acknowledged, the majority of the work remains under the intellectual control of the student(s) who submitted it. These behaviors fail to meet expectations, and are thus considered policy violations, but fall somewhat short of the whole-scale intentional cheating and/or transgressive borrowing represented in Section XII.C.3.a (Major violations).
• Submission of work done for another course, or work done in a previous attempt of a repeated course without instructor permission.
• Providing a fraudulent excuse for missed coursework or when requesting an extension on an assignment or a rescheduled exam.
• Facilitating or permitting copying of one’s own work by another student.
• Falsifying a signature on any official university document (e.g., drop/add form, UHS form, attendance sign-in sheet).
• Misuse of College-issued username and password.
• Plagiarism (any instance beyond that described in  XII.C.1.A  or in  XII.C.2.A ). Submitting work that does not fully or fairly acknowledge the contributions of others, because there is specific and demonstrable intent to deceive or because the quality or quantity of mis- or unattributed work are so great as to make other explanations implausible.
• Receiving unauthorized assistance on quizzes and exams
• Deliberately denying others access to library or course materials.
• Facilitating or permitting cheating by another student on a quiz or exam.
• Submitting an altered exam for re-grading.
• Fabrication or falsification of data, information, citations, etc.
• Unauthorized distribution or publication of course-related materials.
• Impeding the investigation or conduct of any Board on Academic Honesty matter.
• Obtaining an examination prior to its administration.

The following are the most typical penalties to be assigned by the Board, which may also be considered by individual instructors in proposing penalties through the Instructor Resolution process. These are guidelines not mandates, and the Board is not limited to these actions, although fairness requires that precedent be taken into account in determining what constitutes an appropriate sanction. The penalties that affect a student’s grade or that involve time away from the University are listed in ascending order of severity for first and second offenses.   

Additional sanctions that do not affect the student’s grade are listed in  Part E , “Academic Disciplinary Probation.” A combination of both types of sanctions may be assigned by the Board, or as recommended by the Chair of the Board in the case of either type of Instructor Resolution Process.  

The Hearing Board will take into account the seriousness of all violations on record with the Board when determining a penalty. Fairness dictates applying less severe penalties for an offense classified as minor, particularly when it is a first offense.

Moderate and major offenses will be sanctioned at more severe levels. Planning or pre-meditation to commit a violation, involvement of another student in a violation, compromising the integrity of the work of another individual or an entire class when committing a violation, contract cheating, lying to Board members and/or knowingly impeding the progress of a Board investigation—known as “aggravating factors”—may increase the severity of the act. 

• For warning letters, the requirement to redo the assignment (or equivalent task) so that it meets expectations, with zero and/or reduced credit on the assignment, without further penalty. For policy violations, zero on the assignment (with or without opportunity to redo) plus further reduction in the semester grade of 1/3, 2/3, or one full grade level, based on the severity of the infraction. Any penalty applied should be independent of the value of the work in question (relative to the student’s grade, or to their academic progress if the work is not directly graded/course-based).
• Any provision listed below for Academic Disciplinary Probation.
• Assigned failing grade of E or F (“F” in the case of a course offered for all students on the P/F basis).
• XF or XE grade.  Note : The XF and XE grades are indicated on the student’s transcript as resulting from a violation of the academic honesty policy. The XE or XF grade is not generally used for a first offense, except when the offense is moderate or major and aggravating factors—one or more of the behaviors described above—exist. (Note: As described below, the XE or XF grade is not required but may be more commonly applied in first-time offenses for graduate students.)
• Suspension for one semester—or in more extreme cases, up to three semesters. Credits earned at another institution during the period of suspension may not be transferred back to the University of Rochester. Suspension of any length of time is not generally applied for first offense except when the offense is moderate or major, and aggravating factors exist.
• Expulsion from the University, only in very rare and egregious cases of a severe nature. 
• One sanction that must be considered but will not be automatically imposed for second offenses is the XF or XE grade and a suspension of one or more semesters. If both violations were minor, or one was minor and one was moderate, the XE/XF grade will not typically be imposed without aggravating circumstances.  
• Assigned failing grade of E or F (“F” in the case of a course that is offered for all students on the P/F basis), when both offenses were minor.  
• Any provision listed below for Academic Disciplinary Probation.  
• XF or XE grade.  
• XE grade and up to four semesters of suspension. Credits earned at another institution during the period of
• suspension may not be transferred back to the University of Rochester.  
• Expulsion from the University, only to be considered when the first offense was moderate or major and the second offense is major.
• Expulsion from the University.

The following may be used for course-related violations, or when academic dishonesty is not associated directly with coursework. The purposes of academic disciplinary probation sanctions, which are applied at the discretion of hearing Boards and will depend on the nature of the violation(s) committed, are both punitive (meant to reflect the seriousness of students’ behavior) as well as educative in nature (meant to help shape students’ decision-making so they can avoid similar behaviors in the future).

Sanctions described below are not expected to replace any sanctions that affect a student’s course grade when the offense involves coursework, but may be assigned as additional measures in any cases. A student’s failure to comply with the requirements of probation may result in further charges.  

Conditions of Academic Disciplinary Probation are in effect for up to two semesters and may include:  

• Prohibition from course overloads.  
• Exclusion from extracurricular activities, including athletics and Student Association.  
• Requirement to meet with the  academic honesty liaison or other designated University resource during the period of probation.  
• Higher likelihood of suspension or permanent separation, based on the severity of the violation, for any subsequent finding of responsibility during the period of probation.

Graduate students may be in violation of the Academic Honesty Policy in their coursework or for any other infraction defined in  Section V . These violations, with the exception of misconduct in research, are handled through the Board on Academic Honesty procedures, and they may range in seriousness as described in the preceding paragraphs. Violations raise immediate concerns about the student’s ability to conduct original scholarship as required for graduate degrees. They also undermine the trust that a mentor, dissertation committee, or an academic department must have for a graduate student in the pursuit of new knowledge.

Such breaches of trust must therefore be subject to a range of sanctions that reflect the gravity of these concerns, and may result in expulsion from the University.

• Depending on the student’s prior experience and educational background, first-time offenses by graduate students that are considered minor as defined in the previous paragraphs may present important opportunities for education. In collaboration with the AS&E GEPA Dean, the Board should take into account different grading options for AS&E graduate students.
• Students found responsible for violating the policy will be further required to complete a designated academic honesty tutorial, and may also be subject to additional sanctions from their home/sponsoring department(s) or from the Board itself. Such sanctions may include, but are not limited to, ineligibility for supplemental stipends or teaching awards for a period of time designated in the decision letter.
• Second-time or subsequent offenses at any level of severity must go to a hearing of the Board as described above. A responsible finding normally results in the recommendation of expulsion from the graduate program. Following consultation with the department’s director of graduate studies and the AS&E GEPA Dean, a subsequent responsible finding may result in an XE grade and additional department sanctions rather than expulsion; however, exceptional mitigating factors would have to be documented as present, and this should be the exception rather than the rule.
• Graduate students who engage in academic dishonesty in the pursuit of sponsored research, also known as “misconduct in research,” will not be subject to the AS&E Academic Honesty Policy presided over by the Board. Such violations are in conflict with Federal statutes that bind funding agencies and must therefore be dealt with by department procedures that are approved by the AS&E GEPA Dean. Disciplinary actions following from such procedures range from expulsion to revocation of advanced degrees.
• The Presiding Officer will draft a decision letter stating either exoneration or a finding of responsibility and send it electronically to the other Hearing Board members for discussion, revision and approval.
• For cases involving undergraduate students, the decision letter will be forwarded by the Presiding Officer to the Chair of the Board. S/he will review it to ensure that the exoneration or the finding of responsibility and the sanction conform to established guidelines and precedents, and the wording of the letter is consistent with the Policy and with College rules.
• The Chair may contact the Presiding Officer of the Hearing Board to discuss the decision and the sanction if s/he has questions or finds any discrepancy with the Policy. The Presiding Officer will communicate with the other members of the Hearing Board and respond to the Chair’s questions. The Chair, at his or her discretion and after listening to the hearing recording, may reconvene the Board to discuss and reconsider the finding.
• The Chair will finalize, sign and send out the letter to the student and simultaneously to the reporting person (as above, Section VIII.B ).
• For cases involving graduate students, the Hearing Board letter will be sent to the AS&E Dean of Graduate Studies, who will review the finding, the sanction and the wording of the letter and follow up if needed as specified above ( Section XIII A.2 and 3 ). The Dean will forward the finding and his or her recommendation to the University Dean of Graduate Studies as per the University “Judicial Process for Academic Misconduct by Graduate Students.” The University Dean of Graduate Studies will issue the final decision letter.

B. New Evidence and Reconsideration of Previously Resolved Cases

• If new evidence comes to light, a case may always be reopened. The finding from a previously resolved case may always be revisited (whether as a continuation of that same case or as wholly new case and set of allegations).
• When a case is reopened and the file from a previously resolved case still exists (within 30 days for an exoneration or within seven years for a responsible finding), the original case file will be considered in any additional deliberations (regardless of whether the original hearing Board reconvenes or a new hearing Board convenes as described in points [4] and [5], below).
• New evidence may be added to that original case file, if the file still exists; if the file does not exist (i.e., it is beyond the 30 day or seven year window and has been destroyed), the reporting person must submit (or as the case may be, resubmit) all evidence that they wish the Board to consider.
• When new evidence is considered and the case is continued (i.e., a decision letter has not yet been issued, and the Chair determines that the new evidence is sufficient to a) change Board members’ assessment of behavior(s) originally under review, or that b) it brings to light other behavior(s) of which the Board was previously unaware), it must be considered by the same Board that heard the original case .
• When new evidence is considered and the case is reopened i.e., a decision letter has already been issued, but the Chair determines that the new evidence is sufficient to a) change Board members’ assessment of behavior(s) originally under review, or that b) it brings to light other behavior(s) of which the Board was previously unaware), it must be considered by an entirely different Board from the Board that heard the original case.
• In no way are either type of hearing Board (whether it is the same Board considering the continuation of a previous case, or a new Board considering a new case) beholden to their original decisions.

A. Officer to Whom Appeals Are Made

• Undergraduates may appeal the decision of the Hearing Board with regard to the finding of responsibility (criterion one [1] or three [3], below) and/or the sanction (criterion two [2], below) to the Dean of the College.
• Graduate students may appeal the decision of the Hearing Board with regard to the finding of responsibility (criterion one [1] or three [3], below) and/or the sanction (criterion two [2], below) to the University Provost.
• Appeals must be submitted in writing within seven days of the date of the decision letter. The decision of the College Dean (undergraduate appeals) and/or University Provost (graduate appeals) will be final. The letter answering the appeal should be sent to the student and the Chair of the Board on Academic Honesty (undergraduate appeals) or to the student, the Chair of the Board on Academic Honesty, and the AS&E GEPA Dean (graduate appeals). If and only if some modification to the finding and/or sanction is granted, the appeal response letter will also be sent electronically to the reporting person.
• Criterion one: Procedural error (if the error is substantive enough to alter the decision).
• Criterion two: Excessive or inappropriate sanction.
• Criterion three: New information exists that was not available at the time of the hearing (if this information is sufficient to alter the decision).
• If new information is provided to the Dean or Provost that s/he determines potentially meets criterion three and is sufficient for a reconsideration of the case, the case will be referred back to its original hearing board for a further meeting with the student and (re)determination of a finding. If the Dean or Provost believes referring the case back to its original hearing board would cause an undue delay in the resolution of a case or is inadvisable for any other reason, s/he will reconsider the case in consultation with one member of the Board on Academic Honesty jointly identified by either the Dean and the Chair of the Board (cases involving undergraduates), or the Provost and the AS&E GEPA Dean (cases involving graduate students).

The finding of a reconvened Board or group as described above will be final.

Reporting persons and Board members must refrain from sharing the names of students involved in reported cases with any other individual or organization except under the conditions described below for Reporting. Instructors who are jointly overseeing academic work, such as co-instructors of a course or dissertation committee members, may confer with each other about suspected or reported violations in the work over which they have joint oversight.

• The files for cases that result in exoneration will be destroyed within thirty days of the date of the exoneration letter.
• All paper and electronic records and recordings of cases that result in a finding of responsibility after a hearing, will be kept by the College for a period of seven years after the date of the signed Warning Letter or Instructor Resolution with Penalty Form, or the Hearing Decision Letter, and then they may be destroyed. The Board database will be kept permanently.
• XF or XE grades will be noted on the transcript as due to academic dishonesty.
• Suspension will be noted on the transcript as due to academic dishonesty during the period of suspension.
• Expulsion will be noted permanently on the transcript as due to academic dishonesty.
• Within the University, applications for on-campus employment, Students’ Association positions, membership on the Board on Academic Honesty, Study Abroad, fellowships, scholarships or other awards for undergraduate or graduate students may include a waiver   for the student to sign giving permission for the person in charge of the process to request information about the student’s Board on Academic Honesty history.
• Findings of responsibility will be reported, with the following exception: when a Warning Letter is the only report on file, it will not be reported.
• Without a signed waiver , no information will be released internally for the purposes described in paragraph 1.a.
• Any record created pursuant to this policy may be disclosed with or without a waiver if required by law (e.g., subpoena, court order or valid discovery request in pending litigation).
• Findings of responsibility for academic dishonesty will be reported upon request to external entities when a waiver  has been signed by the student or when the student submits a request for disclosure directly to the College, as when applying to transfer to another school or for admission to graduate school, or for employment.
• As for internal reporting, a Warning Letter will not be reported externally unless it is one of multiple findings of responsibility.
• The Warning Letter process is an educational intervention for matters that do not rise to the level of a reportable violation subject to institutional disciplinary action. Therefore, Warning Letters should not need to be self-reported as a violation of the AS&E Academic Honesty Policy.
• Questions about academic disciplinary history, whether on internal or external applications for graduate school, employment, licensure, security clearance, fellowships, scholarships and awards, for example, will vary.
• Therefore, definitive guidance on how to answer all such questions cannot be given. If a student is at all in doubt about whether to disclose the existence of a Warning Letter in response to a particular question, being honest and forthright is the recommended approach. A student may fairly describe the Warning Letter as an educational tool that is not considered by the University of Rochester as a violation of the AS&E Academic Honesty Policy.
• Findings of responsibility for academic dishonesty arrived at through the Instructor Resolution with Penalty or Board Resolution processes are properly considered to be reportable violations under our Policy.

The academic honesty policy was updated in fall 2015. The old policy still applies to classes taken prior to fall 2015.

Academic Honesty Scenarios

by Jessica Plotner | 23 Aug 2013

Need to reduce the level of dishonesty in your classroom? The purpose of this activity is to generate discussion about academic honesty with the ultimate goal of reducing plagiarism and other forms of academic dishonesty. It’s well organized complete with scenarios your students can discuss and decide whether someone is honest or dishonest

Audience: University

Audience Language Proficiency: Beginner

Duration: 30-45 minutes

1. “A Letter to My Students” (1 copy per student) 2. Your school’s Honor Code/Student Conduct Code (1 copy per student) 3. “Anticipation Guide for Academic Honesty Readings” (1 copy per student) 4. “Academic Honesty Scenarios” (1 copy per student or 1 copy cut into strips)

• Skill areas: reading, writing, listening, and speaking. This activity can be modified to focus primarily on listening/speaking.
• Goal: To improve small group discussion skills, critical thinking skills, and reflective writing skills and to improve student comprehension of academic honesty principles.

Activity Description:   This activity would ideally be introduced at the beginning of a semester to stimulate student discussion of and understanding of principles of academic honesty.

Blum, S. (2009). Academic integrity and student plagiarism: a question of education, not ethics.   The Chronicle of Higher Education , 55(24), Retrieved from   http://chronicle.com/article/Academic-IntegrityStud/32323/

Useful Link: www.academicintegrity.org/educational_resources/ai_articles.php / www.plagiarism.org www.chronicle.com Your local/school librarian Your Honor Code/Judicial Affairs Office

Supporting Files: Academic Honesty Scenarios 1.pdf Academic Honesty Scenarios 2.pdf Academic Honesty Scenarios 3.pdf Academic Honesty Scenarios 4.pdf

TESOL Interest Section: Higher Education

This website uses cookies.  A cookie is a small piece of code that gives your computer a unique identity, but it does not contain any information that allows us to identify you personally. For more information on how TESOL International Association uses cookies, please read our   privacy policy . Most browsers automatically accept cookies, but if you prefer, you can opt out by changing your browser settings.

CICS Academic Honesty

• Scenarios 2 - 4
• Resources for Students

Your Librarian

Academic Integrity

"Honesty is the foundation of good academic work." -- Academic Integrity at MIT

Academic integrity means: 

• to be honest and fair in your studies,
• to be forthright about the effort you are putting into your work,
• to respect others’ contributions,
• to value your own contributions.

The best way to demonstrate academic integrity is to attribute your sources or your influences. This includes those ideas, pieces of writing, or pieces of code that you use to build your own ideas, writing, or code. When you do this, it not only demonstrates that you have done work and put in effort required of you, but it also highlights your own original contributions.

In an academic computer science setting much of this depends on context. Here, the emphasis is on learning. Therefore, collaboration may be permissible, but copying from external sources may not be.  Always check with your instructor on their collaboration policy and expectations around completion of assignments before you begin working on an assignment. 

How Academic Dishonest is defined at UMass

Academic DIS honesty at UMass Amherst is defined as

• copying answers from another student
• collaborating with others on homework, lab reports, computer programs, or other academic assignments without the permission of the instructor
• Fabrication
• failing to quote exact wording
• failing to cite or attribute your sources
• submitting others' work as your own
• Facilitating Dishonesty

University of Massachusetts of Amherst Academic Honesty Policy, Sen. Doc. No. 16-038A .

Below are some examples of language from Academic Honesty statements from CICS syllabi.  They are not CICS policy, but are examples of how different instructors approach academic integrity in their courses.

Each example addresses academic dishonesty in different ways, so it is important to always familiarize yourself with your instructors' expectations. What is common among them is the emphasis on learning and the expectation that you submit your own original work and are familiar with the Academic Honesty policies and procedures of the University. 

• You must do all assignments, and exams by yourself unless teams are explicitly noted as permitted for programming assignments and are declared beforehand. You may discuss the interpretation of a question with a classmate, and we recommend using public posts on the class discussion forum for that, but you must deduce and write up your own solution . Borrowing solutions or hints from others or lending them yours is academic dishonesty. If you are having trouble with any assignment or need more time for university-approved reasons, please talk to the instructors as early as possible.  
• If caught violating the problem set or quiz rules, students will receive a 0% on the assignment for the first violation, and fail the class for a second violation. Any cheating on the midterm or final will lead to failing the class. For fairness, we apply these rules universally, without exceptions.  
• You may discuss assignments with other students - in fact we encourage this as a learning experience. But what you turn in must be your work. Copying is not allowed, and collaboration so close that it looks like copying is not allowed . Remember to tell us who you worked with as well.  We do employ tools such as similarity checkers, and be aware, they are not easily fooled!... Assignments are designed to apply and test your knowledge and understanding of the material. Plagiarism and academic honesty of any sort may seem like an easy way to solve an immediate problem (which it is not), however, it can have a substantial negative impact on your career as a computer science student.   
• If you have questions or are unsure if something constitutes plagiarism, please reach out to us.  A good rule of thumb to avoid plagiarism is: don’t leave a meeting with other students/helpers (except course instructors) with anything written down (in whatever form) that you did not have when you entered the meeting. That way the learning is in your brain.  
• It is a violation of policy of the College of Information and Computer Sciences, and of this course, to post answers, code, etc., in public places that might facilitate someone else’s copying them. Such violations are treated under the Academic Honesty Policy.
• Tutorial: Academic Integrity Introduce yourself to the concept that information has value, and that acting with academic integrity and ethical behavior is essential to success as a student and as a participant in the scholarly conversation.
• Video: Plagiarism This video provides examples and explanations of specific types of plagiarism, such as cloning, aggregation, and self-plagiarism, as well as strategies to prevent plagiarizing and a reminder of the possible consequences of academic dishonesty.
• What is Academic Integrity? MIT's website exploring Academic Integrity and the do's and don'ts of plagiarism.
• Next: Scenario 1 >>
• Last Updated: Mar 20, 2024 9:18 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.umass.edu/cics_ahw

© 2022 University of Massachusetts Amherst • Site Policies • Accessibility

Academic Honesty

The College Writing Program has a zero-tolerance policy regarding plagiarism. Students who submit plagiarized work will be subject to consequences ranging from a grade of "F" on the assignment to suspension from the University. For more on academic dishonesty and its consequences, see the  Code of Student Conduct .

The Center for Student Conduct offers the following  definition of plagiarism :

"Plagiarism is defined as use of intellectual material produced by another person without acknowledging its source, for example:

• Wholesale copying of passages from works of others into your homework, essay, term paper, or dissertation without acknowledgment.
• Use of the views, opinions, or insights of another without acknowledgment.
• Paraphrasing of another person's characteristic or original phraseology, metaphor, or other literary device without acknowledgment."

In addition, College Writing has these definitions of plagiarism:

• Use of generative AI, such as ChatGPT, to write parts of an assignment without disclosing it.
• The use of auto-translation, such as Google Translate, to translate passages from another language into English without disclosing it.
• Submitting assignments written for another class.

Consequences

The Berkeley Academic Guide states the following about  plagiarism and its disciplinary consequences :

"Achievement and proficiency in subject matter include your realization that neither is to be achieved by cheating. An instructor has the right to give you an F on a single assignment produced by cheating without determining whether you have a passing knowledge of the relevant factual material. That is an appropriate academic evaluation for a failure to understand or abide by the basic rules of academic study and inquiry. An instructor has the right to assign a final grade of F for the course if you plagiarized a paper for a portion of the course, even if you have successfully and, presumably, honestly passed the remaining portion of the course. It must be understood that any student who knowingly aids in plagiarism or other cheating, e.g., allowing another student to copy a paper or examination question, is as guilty as the cheating student."

A to Z | Search

Augsburg University News and Announcements

eLearning Update: Moodle Assignments and Academic Honesty

submitted by lindn@augsburg.edu

February 16, 2024

Dear Augsburg Faculty,

We hope your semester is off to a great start!

This week in the CTL Workshop “AI in Higher Education”, there were several questions pertaining to academic honesty in the age of AI. As we pursue various avenues to encourage academic honesty, we would like to share with you a simple idea that could help in this area.

In this week’s eLearning update we will cover:

How to enable a setting in Moodle Assignments that requires students to accept a submission statement agreeing to submit their own work, except where they have acknowledged the use of the works of others, and adhere to : Augsburg University’s Academic Honesty Policy.

Enable “Submission Statement” in Assignment Settings

In “Assignment Settings, click on the “Submission settings” drop down and select “Yes”.

If you enable the “Submission statement” in Assignment Settings, the students will see this when they submit their work.

Give it a go in your Moodle Assignments, and take note if it makes a difference. We look forward to hearing from you. As always, if you have any questions or concerns regarding eLearning, we are here to help you. Please feel free to contact us at your convenience.

Your eLearning team,

Susan, Jad, Shane, Nathan

For additional help, contact your LFC or Instructional Design Technologist.

Posted on ← See all posts from February 16, 2024

• Bearcat Bookstore
• Baruch Forward
• Blogs@Baruch
• Degree Works
• Digital Measures
• Email (starting May 3, 2022)
• Email (thru May 2, 2022)
• Student Email
• President's Office
• News Center

• Provost Home
• Online/Hybrid Learning
• Mental Health Awareness Week 2024
• Artificial Intelligence Think Tank
• Experiential Learning
• Organization Charts
• Academic Honesty
• Support for Students
• Support for Faculty
• Reappointment, Tenure, CCE, and Promotion
• List of Department Chairs
• Representatives to Faculty Personnel Committees
• Faculty Workload Reporting and Compliance
• Faculty Leaves
• New Faculty
• Chair Resources
• Faculty Forms
• Data-driven Decision Making
• Program Review
• Interview with MSCHE Liaison, Dr. Tiffany Lee
• Specialized Accreditation
• NYSED – Academic Program Registration
• National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)
• College Agreements
• Institutional Effectiveness
• Faculty Convocation
• Faculty Handbook
• From the Provost
• From the Associate Provost for Teaching and Learning
• From the Associate Provost for Academic Admin. and Research

Academic integrity statements for your syllabi

January 24, 2020

Dear Colleagues,

Please consider including on your syllabus a statement about academic integrity. Students suggest that faculty members who ignore these issues are signaling that they do not care about them. Our students expect such information and they expect members of the faculty to reinforce and model these values in discussion and in practice on assignments and during exams. Sample statements and some further discussion appear below, but first :

Students’ statements written on exams or assignments

Asking students before they take exams to write and sign statements affirming that they will not cheat sharply reduces cheating—see, for example, Dan Ariely, The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty (HarperCollins 2012). Ditto for writing assignments and plagiarism on papers.

We suggest that members of the faculty ask students to write and sign such statements. They are most effective when students write the statements themselves (i.e., as opposed to students signing a statement that you circulate). And they should written before the students take the exam. Any such statement should be brief, such as:

“I will neither give nor receive unauthorized assistance on this exam.”  or   “The work in this assignment is my own. Any outside sources have been properly cited.”

Three sample academic integrity statements for your syllabus

Syllabus statements can be as simple or elaborate as you wish, but please include whatever range of academic sanctions you plan to impose for violations. Any of the three sample statements below may be cut and pasted, or revised, or can serve to inspire your own. Also included are working definitions of plagiarism. Providing such definitions (feel free to devise your own) helps to inform students and to protect faculty members. Directing students to the online plagiarism tutorial (cited in the Statement #3 below) or to the Writing Center (see below) also can be helpful. You should also know that Baruch subscribes to Turnitin.com , an online plagiarism-detecting resource (see below for more information on Turnitin.com). The items below include some links to other resources as well.

Statement #1

  I [ or the Department of X ] fully support(s) Baruch College’s policy on Academic Honesty, which states, in part:

“Academic dishonesty is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Cheating, forgery, plagiarism, and collusion in dishonest acts undermine the college’s educational mission and the students’ personal and intellectual growth. Baruch students are expected to bear individual responsibility for their work, to learn the rules and definitions that underlie the practice of academic integrity, and to uphold its ideals. Ignorance of the rules is not an acceptable excuse for disobeying them. Any student who attempts to compromise or devalue the academic process will be sanctioned.”

Academic sanctions in this class will range from an F on the assignment to an F in this course.   [ Note to faculty members: academic sanctions are at your discretion. Please note that in light of CUNY policies that permit students to retake and expunge from their GPA several courses they have failed, some members of the faculty prefer to award D’s in place of F’s. ] A report of suspected academic dishonesty will be sent to the Office of the Dean of Students. Additional information and definitions can be found at http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/academic/academic_honesty.html

Statement #2

  Cheating and plagiarism are serious offenses.  The following definitions are based on the College’s Academic Honesty website at http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/academic/academic_honesty.html :

Cheating is the attempted or unauthorized use of materials, information, notes, study aids, devices or communication during an academic exercise. Examples include but are not limited to:

• Copying from another student during an examination or allowing another to copy your work
• Unauthorized collaborating on a take home assignment or examination
• Using unauthorized notes during a closed book examination
• Using unauthorized electronic devices during an examination
• Taking an examination for another student
• Asking or allowing another student to take an examination for you
• Changing a corrected exam and returning it for more credit
• Submitting substantial portions of the same paper to two classes without consulting the second instructor
• Preparing answers or writing notes in a blue book (exam booklet) before an examination
• Allowing others to research and write assigned papers including the use of commercial term paper services

Plagiarism is the act of presenting another person’s ideas, research or writing as your own, such as:

• Copying another person’s actual words without the use of quotation marks and footnotes (a functional limit is four or more words taken from the work of another)
• Presenting another person’s ideas or theories in your own words without acknowledging them
• Using information that is not considered common knowledge without acknowledging the source
• Failure to acknowledge collaborators on homework and laboratory assignment

My policy is to give a failing grade [or insert the academic sanction you prefer; best is to include a range of possible sanctions] to any assignment that has been plagiarized or an exam in which you have cheated. [ Again: academic sanctions are at the discretion of the faculty member, including a D or F for the course. ] In addition, I am required by College policy to submit a report of suspected academic dishonesty to the Office of the Dean of Students. This report becomes part of your permanent file.

Statement #3

  Learning involves the pursuit of truth, which cannot be pursued by presenting someone else’s work as your own. By following the procedure outlined below, you will establish a basis of trust that will remain unless you provide reason to suspect it has been violated:

• Visit the college’s Academic Honesty Policy web site: http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/academic/academic_honesty.html
• Read the material it contains.
• Send me an email (or bring a signed statement to class) truthfully stating that you have read the web page, understood it, agree to act according to the principles it expresses, and that you understand that sanctions for academic dishonesty range from an F for the assignment to an F for the course. [or the range you prefer]

For further discussion of plagiarism and clarification of its parameters, see the online plagiarism tutorial prepared by members of the Newman Library faculty at http://newman.baruch.cuny.edu/help/plagiarism/default.htm . If questions remain, ask me. Ignorance is not an acceptable excuse for unacceptable practices. For the record, if you violate the precepts of academic integrity you will receive a zero for the assignment [or insert the academic sanction you prefer] and your name will be forwarded to the Office of the Dean of Students, where a notation will become part of your file at Baruch.

Baruch’s Writing Center The Writing Center supports students as they evaluate and cite sources, distinguish their voices from others’, and learn about academic integrity. In  one-to-one consultations , students can share their notes, drafts, and research materials with a professional writing consultant to cite sources strategically, accurately, and ethically. The Center also offers the following  in-class  and  small-group workshops , each of which focuses on a different element of effective source use:

• Understanding Plagiarism and Citation
• Ethical Writing and Source Use
• Summarizing and Responding to Sources
• Summarizing, Paraphrasing, and Quoting
• Using Sources Strategically

Faculty members can request an in-class workshop  here ;  lesson plans  for all workshops are also available for use in Faculty classrooms. More information is available at  http://baruch.cuny.edu/writingcenter .

  Resource on plagiarism and how to avoid it

Purdue’s Online Writing Lab  (a free, often updated site) may be a helpful resource for both you and your students.

Please report violations of academic integrity to the Office of the Dean of Students

The functions of reporting are: 1) to take advantage of the educational moment to make sure the student understands what is at stake; and 2) to track whether incidents involving the student have been reported before. The reporting form is now available as an online report at https://www.pavesuite.com/Baruch/PublicPortal/HomePage . Academic sanctions for uncontested or resolved cases are at the discretion of the instructor . Students are, of course, entitled to due process; however, contested cases very rarely move as far as a hearing. The process usually unfolds quickly once you have reported the incident to Dr. Annie Virkus-Estrada , Associate Dean of Students (Office of the Dean of Students and Academic Integrity Officer):  646-312-4570  or  [email protected] .

A Definition of Plagiarism

  Plagiarism means presenting the work of others as your own. The “work of others” means other people’s words and/or ideas. “Presenting…as your own” means including that work in your assignment without adequate citation. Therefore, a slightly longer definition would be “Plagiarism means including in your assignment other people’s words and/or ideas without citing them correctly.” Here are some hints about citation: When you include the actual words of others, be they from a printed source, from the web, or from a live presentation, they must appear within quotation marks and you must indicate from where and from whom the words came. Otherwise you are plagiarizing. When you include another person’s ideas, you must indicate where you found those ideas, even when you are paraphrasing them. Following someone else’s sequence of ideas, even if you paraphrase them, also is plagiarism. (An example would be paraphrasing a paragraph from someone else’s work, sentence by sentence, even if you include a citation of that author.) If you have any questions about these definitions, please discuss them with me. You can also refer to Baruch’s online plagiarism tutorial http://newman.baruch.cuny.edu/help/plagiarism/default.htm or to Baruch’s Academic Honesty website: http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/academic/academic_honesty.html . In addition, Baruch’s Writing Center offers workshops that focus on effective and ethical use of sources.

Turnitin.com

The college subscribes to the online plagiarism-detecting resource, Turnitin.com through Blackboard. To learn about its use, please contact Kevin Wolff (Instructional Designer, BCTC) at [email protected] or 6646-312-1010.

Other Statements, Sources , Resources

– Several other statements/approaches may be found at…

http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/facultyhandbook/Academic_Integrity_Related/Academic_Integrity_Syllabus.doc

– Students may also be directed to the Student Guide to Academic Integrity at Baruch, available at…

http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/facultyhandbook/documents/StudentGuidePDF.pdf

– Please feel free to peruse our academic integrity summary for faculty…

http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/facultyhandbook/documents/Ac_Integr_Summary.htm

– Baruch College’s Academic Integrity website…

http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/facultyhandbook/AcademicIntegrity.htm

– On Creating and Proctoring Exams…

https://www.baruch.cuny.edu/facultyhandbook/documents/ProctoringBrochure.pdf

Finally, as suggested above, while a syllabus item is helpful, the importance of discussing the meaning and significance of integrity within the academic environment can’t be overstated. That importance, of course, extends beyond student practice to include faculty and administrative practices as well. Devising exams that are at the appropriate level of difficulty, grading them and other assignments fairly and promptly, and turning in final grades on time also are issues of academic integrity.

Suggestions and comments are welcome.

Dennis Slavin, PhD

Associate Provost and Assistant Vice President

Baruch College, CUNY

646-660-6504 (phone); 646-660-6531 (fax)

[email protected]

http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/provost/teaching_learning.htm

• Office of the Provost

Academic Honesty Policy

Contact Information

For questions, please contact Heidi Kennedy, Assistant Dean, Undergraduate Academic Affairs, at 713-743-9187 or by email at  [email protected].

Instructor Role in the Process

Waiver of departmental hearing, departmental hearing process, college hearing process.

High ethical standards are critical to the integrity of any institution, and bear directly on the ultimate value of conferred degrees. All UH community members are expected to contribute to an atmosphere of the highest possible ethical standards.

Maintaining such an atmosphere requires that any instances of academic dishonesty be recognized and addressed. The UH Academic Honesty Policy is designed to handle those instances with fairness to all parties involved: the students, the instructors, and the University itself.

All students and faculty of the University of Houston are responsible for being familiar with this policy.

The official University of Houston Academic Honesty Policy appears in the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs.

• Undergraduate Catalog
• Graduate Catalog

Download a printable version of the Instructor Role in the Academic Honesty Process

Download a printable version of the Waiver of Departmental Hearing Process

Download a printable version of the Departmental Hearing Process

Download a printable version of the College Hearing Process

WAIVER CHECK

Within five class days of discovering or receiving a report of an alleged academic honesty violation, the instructor notifies the Department Hearing Officer in writing of the case. The Department Hearing Officer consults with the Provost Office representative to verify if students are eligible for waiver of department hearing as determined by case history (no prior academic honesty waiver/violation).

  Click here to submit a request for a waiver check  to verify student eligibility to waive department hearing.

You may need to sign-in under your UH Cougarnet access. You will be requested to provide information including student name, student ID # , and related course information. For circumstances or questions that exceed the waiver check form, contact Heidi Kennedy,  [email protected]  , 713-743-9187.

STUDENT REQUEST to REMOVE NAME from Academic Honesty Case List If you are a student who has graduated and wish to request that your name be removed from the academic honesty case list,  submit a request HERE  .

Eligible students have graduated from UH and their academic honesty case was resolved by signing a waiver of department hearing. If a student's academic honesty case resulted in a violation decided by department or college hearing, the record is permanent and the name may not be removed from the academic honesty case list.

Frequently Asked Questions on the Academic Honesty Policy

See the Academic Honesty Policy FAQs for  students  and for  faculty  in this website.

Please also note that, in addition to the fundamental UH Academic Honesty Policy, the professional schools such as the Law Center, the College of Optometry, the College of Pharmacy, and The Graduate College of Social Work may each have their own approved academic honesty policies. For further information, please contact the individual college.

Additional Resources for Academic Integrity

• Bauer College of Business Academic Integrity
• Cullen College of Engineering
• Graduate College Social Work
• UH Turnitin
• Respondus lockdown browser
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Citing Sources
• Incorporating Sources

Main Navigation

Academic honesty & dishonesty, responsibilities and definitions for students.

Irvine Valley College actively promotes academic and institutional honesty. Academic dishonesty runs counter to a healthy intellectual environment and tarnishes the educational opportunities offered.

Students may be disciplined for academic dishonesty as described in the following. Disciplinary actions range from a verbal reprimand, to a written reprimand, to disciplinary probation, to suspension, to expulsion. For further information, students may contact the Office of the Vice President for Student Services, 949-451-5214.

Falsification

• Forging signatures on official documents such as admissions cards/documents and financial aid applications.
• Changing or attempting to change official academic records without proper sanction.
• Misrepresenting or falsifying successful completion of prerequisites.
• Providing false information, such as immigration materials, during the admission or matriculation process.
• Falsifying one's identification or falsely using another's identification.
• Logging in or otherwise gaining access to a computer, computer network or protected website using the password or identity of another.
• Citation of data or information not actually in the source indicated.
• Including in a reference list of works cited a text or other information source which was not used in constructing the essay, paper or other academic exercise.
• Submission in a paper, lab report or other academic exercise of falsified, invented, or fictitious data or evidence, or deliberate and knowing concealment or distortion of the true nature, origin, or function of such data or evidence.
• Submitting as the student's own work any academic exercises (e.g., written work, printing, sculpture, etc.) prepared totally or in part by another.
• Taking a test for someone else or permitting someone else to take a test for the student.

Students should be advised to state the source of ideas when these are known, since this lends strength to their answers and is part of the ethics of scholarship.

Plagiarism is any conduct in academic work or programs involving misrepresentation of someone else's words, ideas or data as one's original work, including, but not limited to, the following:

• Intentionally representing as one's own work the work, words, ideas or arrangement of ideas, research, formulae, diagrams, statistics, or evidence of another.
• Taking sole credit for ideas and/or written work that resulted from a collaboration with others.
• Paraphrasing or quoting material without citing the source.
• Submitting as one's own a copy of or the actual work of another person, either in part or in entirety, without appropriate citation (e.g., term-paper mill or Internet derived products).
• Sharing computer files and programs or written papers and then submitting individual copies of the results as one's own individual work.
• Submitting substantially the same material in more than one course without prior authorization from each instructor involved
• Modifying another's work and representing it as one's own work.

Cheating is the use of any unauthorized materials, or information in academic work, records or programs, the intentional failure to follow express directives in academic work, records or programs, and/or assisting others to do the same including, but not limited to, the following:

• Knowingly procuring, providing, or accepting unauthorized examination materials or study aids.
• Completing, in part or in total, any examination or assignment for another person.
• Knowingly allowing any examination or assignment to be completed, in part or in total, for himself or herself by another person (e.g., take-home exams or online assignments which have been completed by someone other than the student).
• Copying from another student's test, paper, lab report or other academic assignment.
• Copying another student's test answers.
• Copying, or allowing another student to copy, a computer file that contains another student's assignment, homework lab reports, or computer programs and submitting it, in part or in its entirety, as one's own.
• Using unauthorized sources of information such as crib sheets, answers stored in a calculator, or unauthorized electronic devices.
• Storing answers in electric devices and allowing other students to use the information without the consent of the instructor.
• Employing aids excluded by the instructor in undertaking coursework.
• Looking at another student's exam during a test.
• Using texts or other reference materials (including dictionaries) when not authorized to do so.
• Knowingly gaining access to unauthorized data.
• Altering graded class assignments or examinations and then resubmitting them for regrading or reconsideration without the knowledge and consent of the instructor.

Most Visited Pages

• Irvine Valley College
• Class Schedule
• Student, Faculty and Staff Email
• Career Education
• Steps to Start at IVC
• The IVC Library
• Programs of Study
• Academic Calendar

Select a Language

Skip to Content

Other ways to search:

• Events Calendar

How to avoid Honor Code violations

We might sometimes make mistakes when things are hectic, like during finals week. These mistakes could be a true accident or an intentional choice to cut corners. Whatever our intentions, actions that violate the Honor Code have consequences that could seriously impact your time at CU.  

With finals around the corner, here are the most common Honor Code violations and tips to avoid them. 

Cheating includes: 

• Using prohibited notes or study aids, including online resources like Chegg, when not permitted. 
• Collaborating on coursework or tests unless expressly permitted by faculty, including using shared group notes to complete exams. 
• Allowing someone else to complete your work or exam and turning it in as your own. 
• Copying another student’s coursework. 
• Failing to abide by specific written course instructions. 
• Using electronic devices or online sources when not expressly permitted. 

To avoid cheating:  

• Read your syllabus. If you have questions about what is allowed, ask your professor. 
• Pay special attention to any collaboration policies.  
• Know what is expected of you regarding your work.  
• Can I use online sources?  
• Can I use course material, like textbooks or lecture notes in Canvas? 
• Can I use my own notes?   
• If you are taking an online or hybrid course, be aware of when you can and cannot use outside resources. If an exam is open-note, that does not mean it is open-internet. Ask your professor if you are unsure what you can use.  
• Put your phone away and close all other tabs while you are engaged in coursework unless explicitly permitted. Don’t look at other websites, your phone or other technology while taking exams.  
• Ask your professor or TA for help if you're confused or stuck. 

Plagiarism is submitting someone else’s work or ideas as your own or using paper writing services and technology, such as essay bots or artificial intelligence, whether paid or unpaid.  

It also includes failing to cite your sources correctly. The important thing to remember to avoid plagiarism is to give credit to the source you use. Academic resources like the Writing Center and University Libraries can help. With these resources, you can: 

• Learn how to properly cite and paraphrase to avoid plagiarism.  
• Learn how to use someone else’s ideas to support your own opinion. 
• Recognize when to use someone else’s ideas and when to use only your own ideas. 

To avoid plagiarism: 

• Cite your sources as you go, including in-text citations and works cited, references or bibliography. 
• Start early so you have plenty of time to cite, proofread and edit. 
• Do not copy and paste material into your paper, even if you intend to go back and delete it later. 
• Ask your professor if and how you can use artificial intelligence in their class.  

Aiding academic dishonesty

We all want to help our friends when they are feeling overwhelmed. However, helping another student gain an unfair academic advantage can lead to an Honor Code referral.  

To avoid aiding academic dishonesty:  

• Do not share your work with others from when you took the class. This includes essays, spreadsheets, exams or course notes.  
• If your final exam is not in person, schedule a room on campus or work in your household to take exams alone and in a quiet space. 
• Remind your friends to use their faculty’s office hours and other academic resources .  
• Close and lock your computer when you step away from it.  

When stress is high, you may be more likely to inadvertently make a mistake that violates the Honor Code. That’s why being prepared and managing your time are critical to your success. 

Practice good study habits by setting up consistent study sessions to review class material and eliminate distractions. Make sure you start early on assignments, papers and studying. Then, you will have more time to ask questions if needed. 

Finally, use campus resources if you need help! Talk to your teaching assistants, connect with the Writing Center and check out other academic support and resources . Your academic department may also have more support options specific to your major. 

Learn more about the Honor Code . 

Academic Misconduct

Academic Misconduct includes any act in which a student gains or provides, or attempts to gain or provide, an unfair academic advantage over other students. 

The Honor Code was designed to uphold CU Boulder's standards of academic integrity and intellectual honesty. It provides quick resolution of reports of student academic misconduct. All CU Boulder students are subject to the Honor Code for academic matters. Students who violate the code may be subject to discipline. 

Embattled Harvard honesty professor accused of plagiarism | Science

Academic chapter and two books authored by Francesca Gino appear to copy from sources including student theses, blogs, and news reports. Elizabeth Umphress, professor of management at the UW, is mentioned.

Be boundless

© 2024 Foster School of Business, University of Washington | Seattle, WA