University of Kent

1.1 This Policy applies to all suspected breaches of academic integrity involving current students and graduates at the University and to the University’s Validated Institutions and Partner Colleges. (See Quality Assurance for Collaborative Provision for full details). 1.2 This Policy should be read together with the Glossary. Definitions 2.1 Academic Integrity is a positive commitment to approaching academic work with honesty, fairness, respect, and responsibility. As a fundamental value in higher education, it includes producing your own work, properly acknowledging the contributions of others, and adhering to established rules to ensure a fair learning environment for all. 2.2 Academic Misconduct is any act that “gives or has the potential to give an unfair advantage in an examination or assessment or might assist someone else to gain an unfair advantage, or any activity likely to undermine the integrity essential to scholarship and research. Any form of cheating poses a threat to the academic standards of Kent’s qualifications and to the integrity of qualifications awarded to the majority of students who achieve their qualification entirely by legitimate means” (Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education definition). Some examples of the most common forms of academic misconduct are (the list is not exhaustive): 2.2.1 Plagiarism - presenting someone else’s work or ideas as your own; 2.2.2 Self-plagiarism - submitting some, or all of the same work that you have already submitted for another assessment when this is not permitted; 2.2.3 Taking a copy of another student’s work without their permission; 2.2.4 Falsifying data, evidence or experimental results; 2.2.5 Collusion - working with someone else on an assessment which is intended to be your own work, and/or sharing work; 2.2.6 Contract cheating - submitting work created by someone or something else (including use of essay mills or buying work online); 2.2.7 Submitting materials to unauthorised academic support platforms - sharing University-owned materials, including assessments, briefs, study notes and other course and module materials, to unauthorised websites to obtain academic feedback. 2.2.8 Impersonation - Arranging for someone else to sit your exam or sitting an exam pretending to be someone else; 2.2.9 Cheating in examinations (or other formal assessment) - including possession of unauthorised material or technology during an exam, and attempting to access unseen assessment materials in advance of an exam; 2.2.10 Breaches of research and ethics policies - such as carrying out research without appropriate permission 2.2.11 Unauthorised use of artificial intelligence: Use of generative AI beyond the scope permitted for the specific assessment, or failure to appropriately acknowledge its use where allowed. If no specific guidance is provided for a specific assessment, generative AI use must be in-line with the University's Gen AI principles and guidance available at Using generative AI in your studies A student guide - Your studies - University of Kent.

Verzameld: 2026-10-08 · 17–32
SHA-256: 7e838410699ef0b43966806f2c94b6c04a13a3d60246be7ac4d05234b86df4f8

Many commonly used AI tools can store, share, or be trained on the data that you input. This means if you input personal information, such as names, email addresses, opinions about people, confidential information, or other people’s work into an AI model, that data will no longer be in your control and could be used in ways you did not expect, including forming part of the output generated for other people. Whilst data input into your ChatGPT Edu account is not used to train OpenAI’s models, this may not be the case for any personal accounts you have or any other AI tools you may engage with in the workplace. Furthermore, you should never put personal or sensitive data into ChatGPT Edu. You must therefore understand the risks of inputting data into AI models to help you keep your personal and academic information safe now and into the future. For these reasons, you should not enter personal information, confidential information or other people’s work into an AI tool. It is important to be aware that free AI tools don’t have the safety considerations in place that institutionally-approved tools may have. Where possible, you should use the University’s licenced AI products as these offer greater security in terms of how the input can be used by the technology provider through stronger contractual agreements.

Verzameld: 2026-10-08 · 306–326
SHA-256: cc39e1dbd9b25445a26e6d7ae32315b960cca901d709196363ec1503781e7037

Free ChatGPT Edu access coming soon for all students! By Miriam Sandiford | 04 March 2026 The University of Kent is collaborating with OpenAI to give all students and staff free access to ChatGPT Edu – a version of ChatGPT built for universities. Designed for the education sector, ChatGPT Edu offers enhanced privacy and information security and ensures that conversations and data are retained within the University and are not used to train OpenAI’s models. ChatGPT Edu gives you access to an enhanced version of ChatGPT compared to the free public service. This includes higher usage limits, access to more capable AI models and features such as custom GPTs and larger context windows, which can improve the relevance and quality of responses. As a student, you also benefit from institution-wide access supported by training, guidance, and ongoing input from researchers and a dedicated AI team. This means you are not just given a tool, but support to use it effectively, responsibly, and in ways that genuinely support your learning. Professor Georgina Randsley de Moura, Acting Vice-Chancellor and President of the University of Kent, says: ‘At Kent we are committed to putting our students first, and this initiative will provide the environment needed for students to experiment and discover AI securely and with support, so they develop their confidence and skills. With the advance of AI and technology, this means a renewed focus on preparing students for a digital future, with the need for critical thinking, ethics, and creativity never greater. Giving all students access to ChatGPT Edu is an exciting step forward in our offer. AI is already proving to be one of the biggest disrupters to the job market, and we know how important it is for students to understand how AI works, and how it can be used for positive impact.’ Students will get access to ChatGPT Edu in April 2026. See our guide to using Generative AI in your studies. We have published some FAQs below, as well as some more technical ones on Moodle. If you have any further questions, you can email AIFeedback@kent.ac.uk.

Verzameld: 2026-10-08 · 7–15
SHA-256: ded6707e6295c5eb58d6e47749e6dd15d9cf48dd5548b1d18d0be44c40094465

Whilst data input into your ChatGPT Edu account is not used to train OpenAI’s models, this may not be the case for any personal accounts you have or any other AI tools you may engage with in the workplace. Furthermore, you should never put personal or sensitive data into ChatGPT Edu.

Verzameld: 2026-10-08 · 312–316
SHA-256: cc39e1dbd9b25445a26e6d7ae32315b960cca901d709196363ec1503781e7037

6.1 Markers or invigilators report cases of suspected misconduct through an online reporting tool, providing as much information as they can gather. 6.2 You will be informed in writing via email about the case. Your mark will be withheld while your case is investigated but feedback on your work will still be provided. 6.3 The case is reviewed by your School’s Academic Misconduct Lead (AML), an academic staff member trained to assess allegations, consider evidence and make related judgements. The AML determines if there is a case to answer. If there is a case to answer, they assess the severity and impose an appropriate penalty. If the module in question is from a different School or subject area, they will liaise with the AML from the other School or subject to ensure subject-specific input. 6.4 You will be informed of the decision in writing via email. If they determine that there is no case to answer, you will still be notified and the mark released as normal. If the AML determines that the severity of the breach is either a low or moderate case to answer a penalty will be recommended and you will be given the opportunity to respond and submit additional evidence within 15 working days of receipt of the outcome. 6.5 If the offence is deemed serious, an Academic Misconduct Panel will automatically take place to consider your case and any additional information that you provide. The Panel will decide on an appropriate outcome, and you will be informed of this, and the reasons behind the decision. See Section 7, below, for full details. 6.6 You have a right to appeal the decision through the formal appeals process (see Appeals section 9, below). Academic Misconduct Panels 7.1 The Academic Misconduct Panel will meet if a case is deemed serious, or if you wish to contest a low or moderate penalty. You must clearly explain why you are contesting and give evidence to support it.

Verzameld: 2026-10-08 · 64–71
SHA-256: 7e838410699ef0b43966806f2c94b6c04a13a3d60246be7ac4d05234b86df4f8

7.4 The Panel meeting is your opportunity to discuss your case, including the reasons why you feel the allegation against you should not be classed as a breach of the regulations, and/or to review the proposed penalty. The panel may ask you questions about how you produced your work, tools you used, research methods, etc., so you should prepare for this. Please ensure you have read all provided details and evidence in advance of the meeting. 7.5 The Panel will review any written representation and evidence you provide, information about any previous cases, and the original referral report and evidence. You may submit further evidence to the Panel during the online meeting (verbally and/or via email). Your case documentation, including any additional statements and evidence, will be shared with the Panel members, including the student representative. Should you wish for any information not to be shared, please inform the secretary at least 48 hours before the panel is scheduled. 7.6 If you wish to attend the Panel, you may be accompanied by a member of staff, a student at the University, a relative or a member of staff of the Students’ Union. Supporting parties cannot interrogate the Panel, they are there to provide personal support only. Panels are not legal proceedings, and a legal representative may not normally accompany you, even if the legal representative is a member of staff or a student at the University or a member of staff of the Students’ Union or a relative. However, in complex misconduct cases, or cases where the outcome can potentially lead to a serious consequence, students may be permitted to have legal representation. Please let us know if you wish to be accompanied during the Panel, or if you have any special requests for accessibility reasons. 7.7 Panel meetings take place online via MS Teams. You will be sent a link prior to your allotted time and may be asked to wait in a virtual lobby while other cases are heard. Information to help you prepare for the meeting will be sent to you in writing (via your Kent email) at least seven calendar days prior to the hearing. 7.8 You should confirm your intention to attend the Panel meeting at least 24 hours in advance. It is not mandatory to attend the meeting but if you do not attend without good reason there is no obligation for your School to arrange another meeting (but you will still have the right to appeal as below). 7.9 Panel members will not include any members with a close relationship to you, anyone who you have previously made a formal complaint about or the original reporter of the offence. If you feel that any member of the Panel is unsuitable (i.e. you don’t believe they can be neutral), you should raise this at the earliest opportunity and no later than 48 hours before the hearing.

Verzameld: 2026-10-08 · 78–83
SHA-256: 7e838410699ef0b43966806f2c94b6c04a13a3d60246be7ac4d05234b86df4f8

11. Support 11.1 You can access advice and guidance in relation to any allegation of academic misconduct via Kent Students' Union Advice Centre or the Hub Medway as applicable. 11.2 You may also wish to speak to the Student Support and Wellbeing team and/or School Support Teams. 11.3 For academic skills support, including advice on referencing, paraphrasing and avoiding academic misconduct please contact the Skills for Academic Success team or your Academic Adviser.

Verzameld: 2026-10-08 · 146–149
SHA-256: 7e838410699ef0b43966806f2c94b6c04a13a3d60246be7ac4d05234b86df4f8

Penalties 8.1 Penalty decisions will be based on some or all of these points, as applicable: i. The type and severity of academic offence. ii. Your level of study and previous educational background. iii. Whether you admit or deny the allegation. iv. Previous or simultaneous academic offences. v. The impact of the penalty on your progress or award. vi. Any aggravating or mitigating factors. vii. The suggested mark to be awarded for the work, including sections identified as potential misconduct. 8.2 If you have previously been found guilty of committing a similar offence, or failed to complete required training, the applied penalty may be greater. If you admit to committing an offence, this will be taken into account when considering your penalty. 8.3 Academic Misconduct Leads and Panels have discretion to apply appropriate penalties, or a combination of penalties, but must ensure that they are consistent in their approach and there is a justified rationale. 8.4 All students will be required to complete the Understanding and Avoiding Plagiarism Moodle module if they have not already done so. Academic support referrals (where you will be given one-to-one advice on upholding academic integrity, including how to correctly reference and paraphrase, etc) may also be requested at the request of the Academic Misconduct Leads and Panels, regardless of the severity of the case.

Verzameld: 2026-10-08 · 84–95
SHA-256: 7e838410699ef0b43966806f2c94b6c04a13a3d60246be7ac4d05234b86df4f8

L1 Low Formal warning Record kept in case of future breaches. Repeated unintentional poor academic practice. No advantage gained over other students. M1 Moderate Marks reduction Assessment mark is reduced to reflect the severity of the breach, Academic Misconduct Lead in liaison with academic referrer. Lengthy incidences of material inappropriately close to the original source, significant failure to attribute material, lengthy inappropriate manipulation of data, part of the work completed by a third party (including undeclared AI), student deemed to have gained an advantage or placed other students at a disadvantage. M2 Moderate Fail assessment Assessment is given a mark of zero. Little or no independent academic value, repeat offence of the same nature, fabrication or falsification of data, work largely or wholly completed by a third party (including undeclared AI), clear intention to deceive, student gained a significant advantage (e.g. by exam misconduct, impersonation by third party, or influencing and examiner). S2 Serious Termination of registration or revocation of award Student’s registration on the course is terminated. May be given an alternative exit award if appropriate. Significant and repeated or large-scale deliberate misconduct that seriously undermines academic integrity and, potentially, the reputation of the University.

Verzameld: 2026-10-08 · 111–130
SHA-256: 7e838410699ef0b43966806f2c94b6c04a13a3d60246be7ac4d05234b86df4f8

Appeal Deadlines For any reason other than asking for a clarification of what your penalty means, you can submit a formal appeal within 28-calendar days of receiving the outcome of your case. We will treat this as a valid reason for not submitting an early resolution request. OR You can submit an early resolution request only if you want to to ask for a clarification of your penalty within 7-calendar days of receiving the outcome of your academic misconduct case. You will receive an outcome from your Division within 14 calendar days. If you are dissatisfied with the Division’s response, you will need to submit a formal appeal within 7 calendar days of receiving the outcome from the Division.

Verzameld: 2026-10-08 · 321–326
SHA-256: 2a98b39587265c34cccaff05afcf65b17dbada16b22c28c291cc5ab859d5e8cb

Appeals 9.1 You may appeal against an academic misconduct outcome via the formal appeals process on the following grounds: When there is clear, objective evidence of an administrative, procedural, or clerical error that may have influenced the outcome. New evidence can be provided that could not reasonably have been shared earlier and raises doubt about the outcome’s reliability. That the outcome and/or penalty were unreasonable or not justified given the evidence which was available at the time. There is evidence of prejudice or bias or the reasonable perception of prejudice or bias against you. 9.2 Appeals are managed by the Appeals, Conduct and Complaints Office as per the Academic Appeals Policy. 9.3 If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of a formal appeal and any subsequent appeal review request, you have a further right to appeal through the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) within 12 months of the Completion of Procedures Letter. Full guidance is available on their website: www.oiahe.org.uk/students/.

Verzameld: 2026-10-08 · 131–138
SHA-256: 7e838410699ef0b43966806f2c94b6c04a13a3d60246be7ac4d05234b86df4f8

Administrative, Clerical or Procedural Error lifebuoy Illness or Other Extenuating Circumstances layers-crossed Bias warning Unreasonable outcome

Verzameld: 2026-10-08 · 332–338
SHA-256: 2a98b39587265c34cccaff05afcf65b17dbada16b22c28c291cc5ab859d5e8cb

5.1 If it is suspected that academic misconduct has occurred, it is the responsibility of the reporter and the investigator to prove the allegation against you. The standard of proof required is the “balance of probabilities”. A balance of probabilities means that it is more likely than not that academic misconduct has occurred. 5.2 The University considers academic misconduct using the concept of “strict liability”. This means that your intention or negligence is not considered when determining whether or not academic misconduct has taken place. For example, if you accidentally take notes into an exam, you are still guilty of an offence, even if you did not take the notes out of your pocket during the exam. Whether or not you intended to use the notes during the exam is not relevant to the offence. 5.3 Identifying suspected academic misconduct will often, but not always, involve academic judgement. This is based on the scholarly and/or professional knowledge and expertise that academic staff draw upon in reaching academic decisions about assessment. Examples of academic judgement might include deciding the extent of the plagiarism or other academic misconduct (for example, by interpreting a Turnitin similarity report, or by assessing whether content has been appropriately or inappropriately paraphrased); in cases of alleged collusion, determining whether identical answers across more than one student’s assessments is outside of common usage in the subject area; or deciding whether the standard of work is out of line with your other assessments, or whether your notes and drafts support a case that the submitted work is your own. 5.4 The University recognises that academic misconduct may be caused by poor academic practice, particularly at the outset of your studies. Investigations and subsequent penalty decisions will consider some, or all, of these points, as applicable to your case: i. The type and severity of the academic offence. ii. The level of study and your previous educational background. iii. Whether you admit or deny the allegation. iv. Previous or concurrent academic offences. v. The impact of the penalty on your progress or award. vi. Any aggravating or mitigating factors

Verzameld: 2026-10-08 · 51–60
SHA-256: 7e838410699ef0b43966806f2c94b6c04a13a3d60246be7ac4d05234b86df4f8