University College Cork

Conditions et exceptions

Research theses and centrally scheduled written examinations excluded.

Academic Integrity for Continuous Assessments Policy Applicable to students registered 2026-2027 and beyond. Contents Contents Version Version: 3.0 Policy Owner: Deputy President and Registrar Approved by: Academic Board 13 May 2026; Academic Council 15 May 2026 Next review: Within 3 years subject to national and/or EU developments 1. Purpose of the Policy 1.1 Academic integrity is fundamental to the entire mission of the University in learning, teaching, research, public engagement, and public trust. Academic integrity is a core part of UCC’s values of integrity, respect, and accountability as set out in our strategic plan. Academic integrity is defined as: “Compliance with ethical and professional principles, standards, practices and a consistent system of values, that serves as guidance for making decisions and taking actions in education, research, and scholarship.1 An essential aspect of academic integrity is assessment integrity. Conversely, academic misconduct occurs when a student behaves in a way that undermines the integrity of the assessment. UCC is a member of the National Academic Integrity Network (NAIN). 1.2 This policy sets out UCC’s definition of academic integrity regarding continuous assessments; details forms of academic misconduct; signposts the supports available to staff and students; outlines the procedures for investigating alleged cases of academic misconduct in continuous assessments; and explains sanctions for academic misconduct and the register for recording those sanctions. 2. Scope 2.1 This policy applies to all work presented or submitted by registered students for assessment or credit in taught programmes. It applies to any actions or attempts from both current registered students and those who have already graduated or otherwise left the University to gain or help others gain an unfair academic advantage. It does not apply to allegations of academic misconduct in Research Theses (Doctorates and Masters by Research), which are handled by the UCC Code of Research Conduct. Where there is doubt as to which policy applies, the Deputy President and Registrar or their nominee shall make a binding determination in that regard. 2.2 This Policy applies to continuous assessment only. Suspected breaches of centrally scheduled written examinations fall under the Guide to Examinations and Assessments for Staff and Students. Under this Policy, continuous assessment includes practicals, projects, laboratory reports, essays, seminars, in-class tests, minor dissertations, and/or any other elements specified by the School, which are approved by ADSC.

Collecté: 2026-10-09 · 145–159
SHA-256: a1d4b8f0e98d31f39c0c723688bee320bba6b89849e8fb81df56c0ea5cac1fee

3.5 Forms of Academic Misconduct include, but are not limited to, the following: Poor Academic Practice – Actions that include, but are not limited to, poor academic writing skills (e.g., poor referencing or passing off someone else’s idea as your own), or small errors made through carelessness or misunderstanding. Cheating – Actions that attempt to get advantage by means that undermine values of integrity. Contract Cheating / Essay Mills – A form of academic misconduct where a person uses an undeclared and/or unauthorised third party, online or directly, to assist them in dishonestly producing work for academic credit or progression, whether or not payment or other favour is involved. Cumulative effect – Where continued poor academic practice and repeated minor instances of academic misconduct are treated as more severe forms of academic misconduct. Fabrication/Falsification – Making up data, experiments, or other significant information in proposing, conducting, or reporting research. This includes the fabrication or falsification of official University documents regarding credit and/or academic achievement. Impersonation – Undertaking in whole or in part any work required as part of a programme in the place of an enrolled learner, without permission from the provider. Unauthorised Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools – Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools include, but are not limited to, generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), agentic AI, wearable devices with integrated AI capabilities, etc. Academic integrity is breached if students submit the products of AI or use AI products to gain unfair academic advantage without acknowledgement and without authorisation to fulfil a task. Plagiarism - Presenting work or ideas taken from other sources without proper acknowledgement, whether done deliberately, carelessly, or inadvertently. Other acts that dishonestly use information to gain academic credit. Types of Plagiarism include but are not limited to: Collusion – A joint effort of work is presented by an individual without due recognition of the input of others. Collusion also applies to both parties when an individual student provides their work to another student, enabling them to present it as their own. Self-plagiarism – The use of one’s own previous submitted/presented work in another context without appropriate citation. Verbatim plagiarism – Word-for-word copy of work from another source without providing acknowledgement. 4. Roles and Responsibilities 4.1 University 4.1.1 The University is responsible for establishing and updating the policy and standards for academic integrity with reference to national and international standards.. 4.2 Students 4.2.1 Students are obliged to uphold academic integrity and adhere to this Policy; they are responsible for familiarising themselves with the concepts and practices of academic integrity, together with the Student Charter and Code of Honour. 4.2.2 Students are responsible for ensuring that all submitted work meets the University standards for academic integrity and for avoiding academic misconduct in all its forms including but not limited to the examples listed in Section 3 of this Policy. 4.2.3 Students are responsible for completing academic integrity training or any other skills development when directed to do so and within the specified timeframe. 4.2.4 Students are responsible for checking their emails regularly. Students will be notified of any suspected academic misconduct or any matter dealt with under this Policy via their UCC email address. 4.2.5 Prior to submitting any piece of work, each student should confirm any assessment statements to acknowledge that they are aware of their obligations regarding academic integrity and plagiarism under this Policy and confirm that they have not engaged in academic misconduct.

Collecté: 2026-10-09 · 166–188
SHA-256: a1d4b8f0e98d31f39c0c723688bee320bba6b89849e8fb81df56c0ea5cac1fee

Conditions et exceptions

No compulsory admission or automatic shortcut for repeat/major cases.

7. Acceptance of Responsibility Forms 7.1 If a student is suspected of academic misconduct, the Head of School or their nominee may offer the student an Acceptance of Responsibility form only if the suspected academic misconduct does not appear to be major. 7.2 If the student completes the Acceptance of Responsibility form, they agree to the following provisions: The student accepts responsibility for the academic misconduct, as outlined by the Head of School or their nominee. The student confirms that they have no previous record on the Academic Misconduct Register and that they have not completed an Acceptance of Responsibility form previously. The student agrees to receiving a Level 1: Poor Academic Practice sanction. This means that the assessment will be marked on its merits, and the case will be recorded on the Academic Misconduct Register. The student agrees to complete the academic integrity training, as described in Section 12 of this Policy. 7.3 The student is not obligated to complete the form. If they do not complete the form, the case of suspected academic misconduct should be investigated according to the processes outlined in Section 10. 7.4 If the student provides false information on the form, the matter will be automatically escalated and the processes outlined in Section 11 will be invoked. 8. Classification and Cumulation effect 8.1 In the detection and investigation of alleged academic misconduct, levels of severity may be judged and classified by the Head of School or their nominee as follows: Level 1: Poor Academic Practice Level 2: Minor Academic Misconduct Level 3: Major Academic Misconduct 8.2 Instances of both Level 1: Poor Academic Practice and Level 2: Minor Academic Misconduct are usually handled on a local level and reported to the Student Records and Examinations Office for inclusion on the Academic Misconduct Register. Instances of Level 3: Major Academic Misconduct are referred to the Records and Examinations Officer or their nominee for further investigation. 8.3 After the level of academic misconduct has been determined and a sanction has been decided on, the Head of School or their nominee should determine whether a student already appears on the Academic Misconduct Register and whether the cumulative effect of poor academic practice and academic misconduct should be considered. 8.4 If the student has a previous record on the Academic Misconduct Register, the case will be treated as follows: Level 1: Poor Academic Practice will be treated as Level 2: Minor Academic Misconduct.

Collecté: 2026-10-09 · 233–250
SHA-256: a1d4b8f0e98d31f39c0c723688bee320bba6b89849e8fb81df56c0ea5cac1fee

11.10 Referral to the Deputy President and Registrar or nominee and an Academic Integrity Representative from a cognate School 11.10.1 If the case is referred to the Deputy President and Registrar or their nominee and an Academic Integrity Representative from a cognate School, a meeting will be convened to consider the relevant information. 11.10.2 The student will be invited to submit an explanation in writing (Supplemental Personal Statement) for consideration or to attend a meeting in person to make a verbal presentation, setting out their position/response at the sole discretion of the Deputy President and Registrar or their nominee and an Academic Integrity Representative from a cognate School. 11.10.3 If a student does not respond within 10 working days to the request for a Supplemental Personal Statement or a request to attend the meeting, then the determination will be arrived at without the student’s involvement. In this case, the available evidence/information will be considered to determine whether, on the balance of probabilities, the allegation is substantiated. 11.10.4 The Deputy President and Registrar or their nominee and an Academic Integrity Representative from a cognate School will consider the allegation, the student’s Personal Statement (if provided), and any other relevant information available (which will also be provided to the student). One of the following determinations will be made: A breach of this Policy has not occurred: The matter will conclude with no sanction applied. The assessment component mark will stand, and the case will not appear on the Academic Misconduct Register.

Collecté: 2026-10-09 · 314–319
SHA-256: a1d4b8f0e98d31f39c0c723688bee320bba6b89849e8fb81df56c0ea5cac1fee

10.1 If academic misconduct is suspected, the Head of School or their nominee will inform the student in writing (via their UCC email address) of the allegation at the earliest possible time (subject always to consideration of the examination period). They must provide the student with reasons for the allegation, as well as a copy of any work that is the basis of the allegation. If major academic misconduct is suspected prior to any investigation, the student should be notified that the matter will be referred to the Student Records and Examinations Office in the first instance, and the procedures in Section 11 will be invoked. 10.2 Where major academic misconduct is not suspected, the student should be invited to an informal meeting to discuss the allegation. The Head of School or their nominee may choose one of the following options: Offer the Acceptance of Responsibility form as described in Section 7 of this Policy. If the student accepts responsibility, they will be found to have engaged in Level 1: Poor Academic Practice and the steps in Section 10.7 will be followed. If the student denies responsibility, the School should proceed to investigate the case, per Section 10.3. Decide that the case should proceed to a formal investigation per Section 10.3. 10.3 If a formal investigation is undertaken, the student must be provided with an opportunity to address the allegation in writing (Personal Statement) within a specified timeframe. The student may be invited to a further meeting to discuss the matter, where they may bring another person to provide support, per Section 6 of this Policy. The student must be advised that if they do not provide a Personal Statement or attend the meeting, the matter will be determined in their absence. In this case, the available evidence/information will be considered to determine whether, on the balance of probabilities, the allegation is substantiated. The student must be advised about sources of support, such as those provided by Student Support services and by the Student’s Union. 10.4 Following receipt or non-submission of the student’s Personal Statement and/or an initial meeting, if questions remain about the authenticity of the student’s work, the Head of School or their nominee may opt to conduct a more formal oral defence, as outlined in Section 6 of this Policy.

Collecté: 2026-10-09 · 267–272
SHA-256: a1d4b8f0e98d31f39c0c723688bee320bba6b89849e8fb81df56c0ea5cac1fee

14. Appeals 14.1 Students have a right to appeal the determination and/or sanction for either minor or major academic misconduct (Level 2 or Level 3) at the conclusion of these processes. Appeals must be made in good faith and respect the ethos of academic integrity and the Student Charter and Code of Honour. The sole grounds for appeal are: new information, which was not, for good reason, available to the original decision makers; evidence of maladministration or mishandling of the investigation, which has impacted the outcome; and/or a disproportionate sanction was applied. 14.2 In relation to claims of a disproportionate sanction, it should be noted that sanctions relate to the level of academic misconduct (including cumulative effects) only, and hardship or other issues cannot be considered. 14.3 Appeals against a determination of either minor or major academic misconduct (Level 2 or Level 3) must be made within 10 working days of receiving the determination. Level 2: Minor Academic Misconduct: Students can appeal the determination by writing to the Student Records and Examinations Office, noting the grounds of appeal and that the appeal relates to suspected academic misconduct. The student should include the Head of School or their nominee in their email. The appeal will be considered by the Records and Examinations Officer or their nominee and the Head of College or their nominee, who will determine the outcome at their sole discretion. Level 3: Major Academic Misconduct: Students can appeal the determination by writing to the Academic Secretary, noting the grounds for appeal. The appeal will be considered by the Deputy President and Registrar or their nominee and an Academic Integrity Representative from a cognate School, who will determine the outcome at their sole discretion. 14.4 If a student wishes to appeal a determination made by the Deputy President and Registrar or their nominee and an Academic Integrity Representative from a cognate School or following referral of the case to the Student Discipline Committee, they may use the Academic Council Appeal process outlined in the Student Rules.

Collecté: 2026-10-09 · 341–350
SHA-256: a1d4b8f0e98d31f39c0c723688bee320bba6b89849e8fb81df56c0ea5cac1fee

Conditions et exceptions

Accommodations and natural justice; detector prohibition separate from plagiarism similarity checks.

6.5 The following principles are applicable to all individuals involved in investigations into suspected academic misconduct:2 Investigate: Reasonable evidence or concern should exist before an investigation into suspected academic misconduct is undertaken. The burden of proof rests with the University. Collect, examine, and evaluate evidence: Depending on the allegation, a range of evidence may need to be gathered to determine whether a breach of this Policy occurred. Evidence should establish that, on the balance of probabilities, a breach may have occurred. Evidence may include but is not limited to: draft histories, version logs, and research trails which show the natural development of work. Metadata and comparative analysis across a student’s portfolio of work may be considered only as supplementary signals. Circumstantial evidence must be weighed carefully but cannot be considered proof that misconduct occurred. Experience and expertise: The academic experience of the investigator(s) should be used to inform interpretation of the evidence. Guidance on the interpretation of evidence may be sought from Academic Integrity Representatives, academic staff, subject matter experts, and other members of staff involved in academic integrity matters. Natural justice: Ensure the student has an opportunity to explain and/or demonstrate, either in person or in writing, how they developed their assignment. Balance of probabilities: When investigating suspected academic misconduct, the accepted standard of proof is that the decision-maker believes that there is evidence that it is more likely than not that the allegation is true. 6.6 The use of AI detection software for the detection or investigation of alleged academic misconduct is not sanctioned by the University. Detection software cannot provide reliable results, and it is prone to both false positives and false negatives. These tools shift the burden of proof from the University to the student, undermine trust in academic judgement, and may perpetuate linguistic and cultural biases. 6.7 If a student is suspected of academic misconduct during an invigilated in-class test, the invigilator must make a report of the incident to the module coordinator immediately after the exam. This report must be sent to the Head of School or their nominee for investigation under Section 10 of this Policy. 6.8 If a student who is suspected of academic misconduct obtained their work from a classmate (either through copying or collusion) or somebody else in the University, then that person may also be subject to investigation for academic misconduct. 6.9 To ensure students receive appropriate support, take the following actions when investigating suspected academic misconduct: Make the appropriate accommodations for students to ensure compliance with UCC’s EDI commitments. Inform students that they are entitled to bring a support person of their choosing to any meeting concerning suspected academic misconduct. The details of the support person, including their name and relationship to the student, must be provided prior to the meeting. During the meeting, the support person may not speak for or on behalf of the student, as the student’s direct response is required. If the support person does not abide by this rule, the meeting will be immediately stopped. In this instance, the Head of School or their nominee will determine if a new meeting can be scheduled, or if the matter will be investigated on the evidence gathered thus far. Advise the student about sources of support, such as those provided by Student Support services and by the Students’ Union, at each stage of the process. 6.10 If there are credible grounds to believe that submitted work does not represent the student’s own work, the student may be required to orally defend their work to assess its originality, as well as their understanding of the topic(s) being assessed. All investigations into suspected academic misconduct should follow the procedures outlined in Section 10 of this Policy. An oral defence may include but is not limited to oral examination, code walk-through, studio critique, or equivalent dialogic exercise in which they account for and extend their submitted work. The oral defence is a tool to investigate whether, on the balance of probabilities, academic misconduct occurred. If the student can demonstrate understanding, reasoning, and command of sources or methods, the oral defence may confirm authenticity. Conversely, inability to explain or extend the work may constitute strong evidence of inauthentic authorship. Where possible, the oral defence should be conducted by the staff member who made the referral and the Head of School or their nominee, as well as another academic staff member with relevant expertise. 6.11 Meetings related to suspected academic misconduct may not be recorded by any attendee.

Collecté: 2026-10-09 · 213–231
SHA-256: a1d4b8f0e98d31f39c0c723688bee320bba6b89849e8fb81df56c0ea5cac1fee