Student Conduct

It is expected that Schools will follow the same process already in use for plagiarism and collusion cases in continuous assessment at L1 and L2. This process is already well established and is detailed here together with example letters.

For online exam cases where only one question is affected, the ‘in absentia’ process can also be used rather than inviting all students to interview. In these cases, Schools should email the student, advising that there is a concern about their answer and providing the evidence. The student should be asked to provide a written response to the allegation within one week. If the student admits to the allegation or denies (for example) an allegation of collusion but reveals that they have in fact plagiarised, then a penalty can be offered without the need for them to attend an interview. The student has the right to request an interview if they wish.

An example ‘initial email’ and outcome letters can be found at the link above.

In terms of determining whether plagiarism or collusion has occurred, the same principles used in coursework cases will apply. Even in open book exams, students can only receive marks for their own original and individual work – material copied or insufficiently paraphrased from textbooks, online sources, lecture notes, etc, or that has been produced jointly with other students, or that has been AI generated, does not demonstrate to the marker that the student has understood the material. Schools should provide the student with a copy of the Turnitin report (or marked up work, if Turnitin is not used) and the sources it is alleged they have copied from, so that the evidence to support the allegation is clear to the student. Students often state that they did not intend to plagiarise or collude, but lack of intention cannot be taken into account.

Collusion allegations can be more difficult to evidence but are supported by students presenting identical, unusual answers or calculations, particularly where the same errors are present, the same phrasing/strange wording/synonyms or grammatical/spelling errors. When two or more students are found to have submitted identical, or very similar, exam answers, it is reasonable to assume there has been collusion. However, the Senate Assessors have found that cases presented as collusion can turn out to be plagiarism, where the students have copied from the same source as each other, rather than colluded with each other. 

1.  The students have colluded – either by working on the answers together, or inappropriately collaborating, using jointly prepared revision notes or by one copying from another.
2. The students have copied from the same English language source.
3. The students have copied from the same non-English language source and used Google Translate or similar, resulting in the same translation.
4. The students have used an answer posted to an online Q&A site, such as Chegg.com, which other students have also accessed and used, or have generated their answers using AI.

All four scenarios represent a breach of the Code of Student Conduct, as the answers are not the students’ own work.

Cases involving students who are thought to be responsible for posting exam questions to Chegg.com or other websites, or who are suspected of using AI-generated answers, can be referred to the Senate Assessors as typically more substantial penalties are applied for these type of breaches.

Schools are asked to mirror the penalties being applied by the Senate Assessors at Honours and Postgraduate level, in order that there is consistency and fairness across outcomes. Typically, the following are applied for first offences of exam misconduct:

• Plagiarism from books, online sources or course materials, or collusion with another student[1] – a reprimand, and a mark of zero for the question affected by the misconduct. This should apply to the whole question, rather than subsections. If more than one question is affected, a grade of H should be applied for the whole exam. If the penalty causes the student to fail the course overall, a resit, capped at the pass mark, should be offered. If the exam is already a resit, no further opportunity can be given but you may allow the first attempt mark to stand. Depending on the understanding of plagiarism displayed by the student, a referral to SLD may also be appropriate.
• Use of online Q&A sites (e.g.Chegg)
  1. If the student has copied material, but did not post the question(s), the same penalty as above should be applied.
  2. If the student has posted the question(s) as well as copying the answer(s), this indicates a clear intention to gain an unfair advantage and has also facilitated misconduct by other students. They should receive a reprimand or severe reprimand, depending on the extent of the misconduct and their explanation, and a grade of H for the whole exam. Depending on how serious the School deems the offence to be they may or may not permit a resit opportunity. If a resit is allowed, the result must be capped at the pass mark. If the exam is already a resit, no further opportunity can be given but the first attempt result may be allowed to stand.
• Use of AI-generated content 
  • Typically, if this allegation can be evidenced, a grade of H with no resit opportunity, or refusal of credit, will be applied.  Evidence can highlight a conversational, rather than a reflective writing style; inclusion or unexpected omission of material relevant to topic; a lack of citation or quotation to evidence arguments; lack of alignment between sources listed in the bibliography with Turnitin, or confirmation of fictitious references. 

[1] If it comes to light that a student has copied work from another without their knowledge or agreement, no penalty should be applied to the student whose work was copied.

In all cases – whether dealt with via the in absentia process or by interview – outcomes must be copied to student-conduct@glasgow.ac.uk in order that we can keep our records up to date in case of repeat offences. The letter should also be copied to the member of staff who made the initial report and to the Chief Adviser of the student’s home College.

Students have the right to appeal against the decision reached by the School. This information is included in the template letters found in the links above.