2026-27
Plagiarism & Academic Integrity Code
CONTENTS
- Introduction
- Plagiarism
- Generative Artificial Intelligence
- Ghost Writing
- Collusion/Inappropriate Collaboration
- Self-plagiarism
- Referral to the Head of School
- Further Investigation
- Procedure before the Head of School for non-honours cases that are first alleged breaches
- Right of Appeal
- Academic Misconduct in the Work of a Graduate
The Plagiarism & Academic Integrity Code (‘this Code’) is governed by Resolution No. 718 of the University Court.
Introduction
32.1 The University’s degrees and other academic awards are given in recognition of a student’s personal achievement. All work submitted by students for assessment is accepted on the understanding that it is the student's own effort. This means students’ work should not contain:
- any unacknowledged content that has been produced by another person, website, software, or Artificial intelligence (AI) tool; or
- content that has been prepared jointly with any other person (except where this is explicitly permitted); or
- content that has already been submitted for assessment by the student at this or any other institution.
Plagiarism
32.2 Plagiarism is defined as the submission or presentation of work, in any form, which is not one's own, without proper acknowledgement of the source(s). There does not need to be any deliberate attempt to deceive. Plagiarism can take several forms:
- a direct quotation but without quotation marks and full referencing;
- a close paraphrase, including wording within the same sentence and paragraph structures as the source;
- an unacknowledged summary of a source, including a summary produced by generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI);
- direct copying, translation or transcription.
If information or ideas are obtained from any source (including GenAI), those sources must be acknowledged according to the appropriate convention in that subject, and any direct quotation must be placed in quotation marks and the source and page number cited immediately beside the quote. Any failure to acknowledge adequately or to cite properly other sources in submitted work is plagiarism. In examinations, material learnt by rote, or close paraphrase, will be expected to follow the usual citation rules otherwise it will be considered as plagiarism. Schools should provide guidance on other appropriate use of references in examinations.
Generative Artificial Intelligence
32.3 Students must not use generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools or AI-powered websites in ways which breach assessment instructions, for example to generate content, answers, or references. This applies to both individual and group assignments. Schools will advise students of their specific rules and in assessment specifications, where appropriate. Where the use of AI is permitted, it must be verified and appropriately referenced in the work for transparency, with details of how it was used being provided.
Ghost Writing
32.4 The use of ghost writing services (whether paid or not) is strictly prohibited in all assessed work and, if identified, will be considered an extremely serious breach of the University’s regulations.
Collusion/Inappropriate Collaboration
32.5 While it is acceptable for students to learn and revise together, the final work they submit must be their own independent effort (except where pair or group work is explicitly permitted). Working jointly to prepare an assignment or examination answers is considered collusion. The use of shared notes is also likely to lead to allegations of collusion if these notes are copied into assessed work. The only scenario in which students may work together on assessed work is assessment that is expected to be submitted jointly (for example, group projects). Students will be given clear instructions when this is the case.
Self-plagiarism
32.6 Students must not re-use work they have submitted for assessment either at this University or any other institution, because this would result in credit being awarded twice for the same effort. All work should represent a new, original piece. If previous work is being built upon and a summary of it must be included in the new work, this must be referenced.
32.7 Academic misconduct of the types listed above is a breach of the University Code of Student Conduct. Alleged misconduct, at whatever stage of a student's studies, whether before or after graduation, will be investigated and dealt with appropriately by the University.
32.8 The University reserves the right to use University-approved systems, such as similarity checking software, to assist with the detection of plagiarism or generative AI misuse in the interests of improving academic standards.
Referral to the Head of School
32.9 Where a student is suspected of academic misconduct[1] the member of staff will refer the case to the Head of School[2] or their nominee along with all appropriate evidence (for example, the referral form, the piece of work in question, marked-up to show the areas of concern, a copy of the original source(s) copied from, the work of the student colluded with, Exploratory Interview notes (See §32.11), etc.). Marking of the work will be suspended until the procedures set out below have been completed. The student will be informed in writing that their marks have been withheld pending an investigation of the allegation. As part of any such investigation the University may review previously assessed material and rescind published marks or grades if necessary.
32.10 The Head of School will deal with allegations concerning non-Honours undergraduate students that are first breaches. The Head of School will refer all Honours and postgraduate level cases, and all repeat allegations, directly to the Student Conduct Team for investigation under the Code of Student Conduct.
Further Investigation
32.11 In some cases and for students at any level of study, it may be necessary to gather more information where there are concerns about the originality of work.
32.12 In such cases, the School may arrange an Exploratory Interview with the student in order to assess their understanding of the work they have submitted. The student will be asked questions about how they have undertaken their work by academic staff members familiar with the topic. If the student satisfies the School that they have produced the work, the work will be marked as normal. If concerns remain, the process below will be followed (for undergraduate non-Honours cases that are first breaches) or the case will be referred to the Student Conduct Team (for Honours, postgraduate and repeat cases). The notes from the Exploratory Interview should be included in any referral.
32.13 Normally, the student is expected to be unaccompanied, however they may request to be accompanied by a supporter. The accompanying individual can be a family member, another student or friend, or a member of University staff. This individual must not assist the student in answering questions about their work.
Procedure before the Head of School for non-honours cases that are first alleged breaches
32.14 At all times the principles of natural justice will be observed. This means that at this stage, students have access to the same documentation and will have the opportunity to respond.
32.15 With respect to undergraduate non-Honours cases that are first breaches, the Head of School will interview the student concerned. They should also interview any student who has allegedly allowed their work to be copied. As soon as practicable, the student will be informed in writing of the allegation and of the requirement to attend an interview. The student must also be provided with a copy of the marked-up piece of work and the evidence gathered in advance of the interview.
32.16 The student has the right to be accompanied, assisted or represented at the interview by one of the following: a parent or guardian; another student or friend; an Adviser from the Students’ Representative Council Advice Centre; a member of University staff, or any other person. At the beginning of the interview, the Head of School will confirm who will speak (the student or a representative). However, the Head of School has the right to question the student directly, where necessary.
32.17 A second member of staff will be present to take notes.
32.18 At the interview, the student will be given a clear explanation of what is alleged and will be given the opportunity to respond, and to admit or deny responsibility.
32.19 If the Head of School is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that a breach has occurred they may impose an academic penalty, which will take account of the extent of the misconduct. The Head of School may reduce the grade by one or more bands, down to grade H. If a resubmission is permitted and available, the resubmission will be capped at the pass mark, as will the course to which it contributes. The student will be given guidance to help them avoid similar problems in future, which may include a referral to Student Learning Development or a requirement to complete a training course.
32.20 If the Head of the School determines that the case is significantly more serious than first believed, they may refer the case to the Student Conduct Team.
32.21 If the Head of School is not satisfied that a breach has occurred but considers that the student has engaged in poor academic practice, then the student should receive guidance about good practice and a warning.
32.22 The student will be notified in writing of the outcome by the School. The School will send a copy of this letter to the Student Conduct Team to be kept on record. This record may be disclosed to another School if it is needed to determine whether an alleged breach is a repeat allegation.
32.23 If it is decided that there is no case for the student to answer, the student will be informed in writing and the work in question will be marked without penalty. The Student Conduct Team does not need to be notified of such cases.
32.24 The Head of School will inform the Board of Examiners of any reduction in marks. The Board of Examiners does not have the authority to revisit or alter academic penalties imposed by this process.
Right of Appeal
32.25 The student has the right of appeal to the Senate Assessors for Student Conduct in respect of any penalty imposed by the Head of School. A student who wishes to appeal must do so in writing to student-conduct@glasgow.ac.uk within 10 working days of the date of the Head of School’s written decision. The procedures are set out in §33.108 - §33.139 of the Code of Student Conduct.
32.26 The Senate Assessors for Student Conduct will consider an appeal against the penalty imposed by a Head of School only on the grounds that:
a) the student has new material evidence that the student was unable, for valid reasons, to provide earlier in the process and which evidence is likely to have had a material bearing on a decision at the earlier stage;
b) the applicable procedure(s) have not been followed, to the material detriment of the student;
c) the finding of misconduct or sanction(s) imposed was clearly unreasonable.
The Student Conduct Appeal Form must clearly specify the details of any new evidence (and include the evidence itself), explain how the procedures were defective, or demonstrate how the student believes the Head of School has been mistaken in imposing a penalty. The outcome the Responding Student seeks must also be stated.
Academic Misconduct in the Work of a Graduate
32.27 The University will investigate any suspected case of academic misconduct in the work of a graduate, which has already been assessed for an award of the University, to determine if the nature and extent of the misconduct had been material to the award or classification of the degree, diploma or certificate.
32.28 All such cases will be considered as serious misconduct. The Head of School will investigate initially and refer the case to the Student Conduct Team.
---------------------
Footnotes
[1] If a student suspects another student of academic misconduct then they should speak to a member of staff in the School concerned..
[2] Where the Head of School is mentioned, this may also refer to their nominee. If the Head of School has a potential conflict of interest (e.g. teaches or examines on the course concerned) then they should pass the case to another senior member of academic staff in the School. In the case of small Schools, where it may not be possible to pass the case to another senior member of academic staff, the case should be passed to the Head of a cognate School.