Academic integrity and misconduct policy

SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO DOCUMENT

INTRODUCTION

Malvern considers academic integrity essential to the maintenance of academic standards. This means that students and staff are expected to adopt an honest approach to carrying out academic and scholarly work. Honesty is demonstrated by undertaking and completing one’s own work, citing the sources of ideas attributed to others and not relying upon, or allowing dishonest means to gain advantage.

Procedures aimed at promoting academic integrity include:

• Providing information about the academic integrity and misconduct policy at both student and staff inductions.
• Providing a secure system for handing in student work.
• Providing a secure system for returning student work.
• Ensuring that appropriate systems of identity checks and invigilation are in place for examinations/time constrained assessments.
• Ensuring that electronic plagiarism-detection software (such as Turnitin) is applied on assessed written work, where appropriate.
• Supporting staff development to improve learning and teaching strategies for academic integrity.
• Providing a policy and procedure dealing with sensitive relations amongst staff and between students that may affect academic integrity.

This policy follows the guidance provided by the UK Quality Code for Higher Education in its expectations for standards and for quality, particularly:

• Principle 11 that states “Providers facilitate a collaborative and inclusive approach that enables students to have a high-quality learning experience and to progress through their studies. All students are supported to develop and demonstrate academic and professional skills and competencies. Assessment employs a variety of methods, embodying the values of academic integrity, producing outcomes that are comparable across the UK and recognised globally.”

1.PURPOSE

MHEP is committed to upholding the highest standards of academic integrity and fairness across all its teaching and learning activities. Academic integrity is a cornerstone of quality education, fostering trust, accountability, and scholarly excellence among students and staff.

This policy sets out MHEP’s principles and responsibilities in promoting academic integrity and managing academic misconduct within its provision. It applies to all programmes delivered by MHEP, including those that are validated, franchised, or awarded by external university partners or pathway providers.

All students are subject to the academic integrity framework of their respective awarding institution. Where a student is registered on a programme validated, franchised, or awarded by a partner institution, the policies and procedures of that awarding body take precedence in matters of academic misconduct, investigation, outcomes, and appeal.

MHEP plays a critical supporting role in implementing these frameworks at local level. This includes:

• raising awareness of academic integrity expectations and embedding good practice within teaching, learning, and assessment
• detecting, documenting, and reporting suspected academic misconduct in accordance with partner requirements
• supporting students and staff through local processes for investigation and referral
• ensuring alignment between day-to-day academic delivery and the academic regulations of each partner institution

This policy outlines how MHEP fulfils these responsibilities and provides a clear framework for staff on how academic integrity is promoted and managed across the organisation.

2.SCOPE AND APPLICATION

2.1 Scope

This policy applies to all MHEP staff involved in:

• teaching and learning
• assessment design, marking, and moderation
• academic skills support
• quality assurance and academic governance
• all taught programmes delivered by MHEP under validated, franchised, or collaborative arrangements with partner universities and pathway provision delivered on behalf of pathway awarding organisations.

2.2 Application

This policy covers MHEP’s role in relation to:

• the promotion of academic integrity
• the prevention of academic misconduct
• the identification and initial handling of suspected breaches of academic integrity
• the escalation and referral of suspected or confirmed cases to partner institutions

This policy does not cover:

• the formal investigation or adjudication of academic misconduct
• the determination of penalties or sanctions
• the handling of academic misconduct appeals

These matters fall within the authority of the relevant partner institution and are governed by that institution’s regulations.

3.DEFINATIONS

For the purposes of this policy, the following definitions apply. In the consideration and handling of individual cases, the definitions and classifications used by the relevant awarding institution take precedence.

3.1 Academic Integrity

Academic integrity refers to the commitment to honesty, trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility in all academic work. It involves producing original work, acknowledging the contributions of others through appropriate referencing, and adhering to the principles of independent learning and ethical scholarship.

Upholding academic integrity is essential to maintaining the credibility of academic qualifications and the reputation of both MHEP and its partner institutions.

3.2 Academic Misconduct

Academic misconduct is commonly defined as any act whereby a person obtains, or attempts to obtain, an unpermitted academic advantage for themselves or for another. Misconduct may occur whether a student acts alone or in collusion with others.

Academic misconduct may apply to work undertaken in formal examinations, coursework, or any form of assessment submitted in pursuit of a qualification.

Types of academic misconduct may vary between awarding institutions but commonly include:

• Plagiarism: presenting another person’s work, ideas, or data as one’s own without appropriate acknowledgement
• Collusion: unauthorised collaboration between students on an individual assignment
• Cheating: using or attempting to use unauthorised materials, information, or devices in an assessment
• Contract cheating: submitting work completed by a third party, including essay mills or paid services
• Use of unauthorised artificial intelligence tools: generating assessed work using AI tools where this is not explicitly permitted by the assessment brief or partner policy
• Fabrication or falsification: inventing, altering, or manipulating data, citations, or sources
• Impersonation: arranging for another person to complete an assessment or attend on a student’s behalf

The classification of misconduct, assessment of intent, and determination of outcomes are governed by partner institution regulations.

3.3 Poor Academic Practice

Poor academic practice refers to low-level or unintentional issues arising from a lack of understanding of academic conventions, rather than an intention to deceive.

This may include, for example:

• inadequate or inconsistent referencing
• misunderstanding of assessment requirements
• limited familiarity with UK higher education academic standards

Poor academic practice is most identified among students who are new to higher education or to the UK education system. Where permitted by partner regulations, such issues may be addressed through educational support and guidance rather than formal misconduct procedures.

3.4 Investigatory and Support Roles

The following roles may be involved in the identification, referral, and management of suspected academic misconduct:

• Head of Learning and Teaching (or equivalent)

A designated academic or programme lead responsible for initiating local fact-finding, gathering evidence, and supporting the student during the initial stages. This role also liaises with the awarding institution to escalate cases in line with partner requirements.

• University Academic Conduct Panel (or equivalent)

The formal body within the awarding institution responsible for investigating alleged misconduct, determining outcomes, and applying academic penalties in accordance with the institution’s regulations.

• Student Support Representative
• A member of MHEP’s Student Services team who may provide guidance to students navigating the process, including signposting relevant policies, procedures, and support resources.

Specific titles, responsibilities, and processes may vary depending on the awarding institution. MHEP will ensure alignment with each partner’s designated framework and will communicate relevant contacts and procedural information to students as required.

4.PRINCIPLES UNDERPINNING ACADEMIC INTEGRITY AT MHEP

MHEP is committed to upholding academic integrity through the following principles:

4.1 Fairness and Consistency

Staff should apply this policy and related procedures consistently, ensuring that all students are treated fairly and in line with partner expectations.

4.2 Transparency and Due Process

Students must be informed of concerns relating to academic integrity and directed to the appropriate partner regulations, with processes followed clearly and transparently.

4.3 Educational Support and Development

4.4 Protection of Academic Standards

Academic integrity is essential to maintaining the credibility of awards, the confidence of partner institutions, and MHEP’s academic reputation.

4.5 Respect for Partner Authority

MHEP recognises that final authority for academic misconduct decisions rests with partner institutions and will act in accordance with their regulations at all times.

Where permitted, MHEP emphasises preventative and educational approaches, supporting students to develop academic skills and understanding of integrity expectations.

5.ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

5.1 MHEP

MHEP has responsibility for promoting academic integrity and ensuring that suspected breaches are handled in a manner that is consistent, fair, and aligned with partner institution requirements.

MHEP is responsible for:

• embedding academic integrity principles across teaching, learning, and assessment
• ensuring staff are aware of and trained in academic integrity expectations and partner requirements
• providing appropriate academic skills support to students
• maintaining systems and processes for the identification and referral of suspected academic misconduct
• ensuring that suspected cases are escalated to the appropriate awarding institution in a timely and accurate manner
• implementing outcomes and actions confirmed by partner institutions

MHEP does not determine whether academic misconduct has occurred, nor does it determine penalties or outcomes, except where explicitly delegated by a partner institution.

For NCUK programmes, MHEP undertakes local investigation and applies provisional academic judgements and penalties in accordance with NCUK Academic Misconduct procedures, subject to moderation and ratification by NCUK.

5.2 Academic and Teaching Staff

Academic and teaching staff are responsible for upholding academic integrity within day-to-day academic delivery.

This includes responsibility for:

• designing assessments that promote academic integrity and reduce opportunities for misconduct
• clearly communicating assessment requirements and academic integrity expectations to students
• identifying indicators of potential academic misconduct
• using approved detection tools and academic judgement to review student work
• documenting concerns and evidence accurately and objectively
• referring suspected cases in accordance with Malvern procedures and partner requirements
• engaging with partner institutions as required during investigation or review processes

Academic and teaching staff must not make determinations regarding guilt, penalties, or outcomes.

5.3 Head of Learning and Teaching (or Equivalent)

The Head of Learning and Teaching (or equivalent designated academic lead) plays a central coordination role in the local handling of academic integrity matters.

This role is responsible for:

• overseeing initial fact-finding and evidence gathering
• ensuring consistency and fairness in the identification and referral of cases
• acting as the primary academic liaison with partner institutions
• supporting academic staff through the referral process
• ensuring students are informed of concerns and directed to the relevant partner regulations
• maintaining appropriate records of referrals and outcomes

5.4 Group Academic Director

The Group Academic Director is responsible for oversight, compliance, and continuous improvement in relation to academic integrity.

This includes responsibility for:

• monitoring academic misconduct trends and repeat cases
• ensuring alignment with partner regulations and contractual requirements
• supporting staff interpretation of partner academic integrity frameworks
• maintaining central records and reports for internal and partner review
• reporting academic integrity matters to Academic Board or relevant sub-committees, as appropriate

5.4 Group Academic Director

The Group Academic Director is responsible for oversight, compliance, and continuous improvement in relation to academic integrity.

This includes responsibility for:

• monitoring academic misconduct trends and repeat cases
• ensuring alignment with partner regulations and contractual requirements
• supporting staff interpretation of partner academic integrity frameworks
• maintaining central records and reports for internal and partner review
• reporting academic integrity matters to Academic Board or relevant sub-committees, as appropriate

5.5 Student Services and Support Staff

Student Services and Support staff provide procedural guidance and pastoral support to students involved in academic integrity processes.

This includes responsibility for:

• signposting students to relevant partner policies and procedures
• explaining process stages and available support
• supporting students to engage appropriately with investigations and referrals
• ensuring communication is clear, timely, and sensitive

Student Services staff do not provide advice on academic outcomes or attempt to influence academic decision-making.

5.6 Partner Institutions

Partner institutions retain full academic authority in relation to academic misconduct.

Partner responsibilities include:

• formal investigation and adjudication of alleged academic misconduct
• determination of penalties, sanctions, and outcomes
• consideration and handling of appeals
• communication of confirmed decisions to MHEP for implementation

MHEP will act in accordance with partner decisions and requirements at all times.

6.PREVENTATIVE MEASURES AND ACADEMIC INTEGRITY EDUCATION

MHEP is committed to a preventative and educative approach to academic integrity, recognising that clear expectations, academic skills development, and supportive teaching practices are central to reducing instances of academic misconduct.

6.1 Student Induction and Orientation

MHEP will ensure that academic integrity is addressed as part of student induction and orientation activities. This will include:

• introducing students to the concept and importance of academic integrity
• outlining general expectations in relation to independent learning, referencing, and ethical academic practice
• directing students to the academic integrity and academic misconduct policies of their awarding institution
• highlighting the consequences of academic misconduct under partner regulations

Induction materials will be reviewed regularly to ensure alignment with partner requirements.

6.2 Assessment Design and Communication

Academic staff are responsible for designing and delivering assessments in a way that promotes academic integrity and minimises opportunities for misconduct.

This includes:

• providing clear assessment briefs, marking criteria, and submission requirements
• clarifying expectations regarding collaboration, use of sources, and permitted tools
• specifying any permitted or prohibited use of artificial intelligence or digital tools within the assessment brief
• using assessment design approaches that encourage originality and authentic student engagement

6.3 Academic Skills Development and Support

MHEP will provide access to academic skills support to assist students in developing:

• effective academic writing and referencing skills
• understanding of plagiarism and appropriate source use
• assessment literacy and expectations within UK higher education
• ethical use of digital tools and technologies, in line with partner guidance

Academic skills support may be delivered through workshops, one-to-one sessions, online resources, or embedded curriculum activities, as appropriate.

6.4 Staff Training and Awareness

MHEP will ensure that staff receive appropriate guidance and training to support academic integrity. This may include:

• awareness of partner academic integrity and misconduct frameworks
• guidance on identifying indicators of academic misconduct
• use of approved detection tools and evidence-gathering practices
• appropriate handling of suspected cases and referral processes

Training will be updated as required to reflect changes in partner regulations or sector expectations.

6.5 Academic Integrity Statements and Declarations

Where appropriate, MHEP will incorporate academic integrity statements or declarations within assessment processes to reinforce student responsibility for academic honesty.

Such statements will be aligned with partner expectations and assessment requirements and may be used to:

• reinforce understanding of academic integrity
• confirm authorship and originality of submitted work
• highlight the consequences of misconduct

7.IDENTIFICATION AND INITIAL HANDLING OF SUSPECTED ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT

MHEP recognises that suspected academic misconduct must be handled promptly, consistently, and with due care, ensuring fairness to students and alignment with partner institution requirements.

7.1 Identification of Suspected Academic Misconduct

Suspected academic misconduct may be identified through a range of indicators, including but not limited to:

• unusually high similarity scores or anomalies identified through text-matching software
• inconsistencies in writing style, technical level, or use of sources
• evidence of unauthorised collaboration or third-party involvement
• discrepancies between assessed work and a student’s previous performance
• irregularities identified during examinations or supervised assessments
• Identification of potential misconduct does not constitute a determination of guilt.

7.2 Initial Review and Evidence Gathering

Where potential academic misconduct is identified, academic staff should undertake an initial review to determine whether there is a reasonable basis for concern.

This may include:

• reviewing the student’s submitted work and similarity reports
• comparing the work with previous submissions where appropriate
• gathering relevant assessment briefs, guidance, and communications
• documenting objective observations and evidence

At this stage, staff should focus on fact-finding only and must not reach conclusions regarding intent, severity, or outcomes.

For NCUK programmes, initial handling may include formal student interviews, evidence-based determination, and completion of NCUK Academic Misconduct Report Forms, in line with NCUK requirements.

7.3 Distinguishing Poor Academic Practice from Academic Misconduct

In line with partner regulations, staff may consider whether concerns indicate poor academic practice or potential academic misconduct.

Where partner regulations permit, issues arising from poor academic practice may be addressed through educational guidance and support, particularly for students new to higher education or the UK academic context.

Where there is evidence of intentional or repeated behaviour, or where partner regulations require formal handling, the matter must be treated as suspected academic misconduct and escalated accordingly.

7.4 Student Communication at Initial Stage

Students must be informed promptly and clearly where concerns regarding academic integrity arise.

Communication at this stage should:

• explain the nature of the concern in neutral, factual terms
• confirm that no determination has been made
• direct the student to the relevant partner institution’s academic integrity or misconduct policy
• outline the next steps in accordance with partner procedures

Communication should be sensitive and proportionate, recognising the potential impact on students.

7.5 Referral and Escalation

Where suspected academic misconduct is identified, the case must be referred in accordance with partner institution requirements.

This will include:

• submission of relevant evidence and documentation
• escalation via the designated academic lead (Head of Learning and Teaching)
• adherence to partner timelines and procedural expectations

MHEP will not determine outcomes or penalties and will not progress cases beyond its delegated role.

8.ESCALATION AND REFERRAL TO PARTNER INSTITUTIONS

MHEP will escalate and refer suspected cases of academic misconduct in accordance with the requirements of the relevant awarding institution or pathway provider. This ensures that cases are handled under the correct regulatory framework and by the appropriate academic authority.

8.1 Threshold for Escalation

A case must be escalated to the partner institution where:

• there is reasonable evidence to suggest academic misconduct may have occurred
• partner regulations require formal investigation, regardless of intent or severity

Where partner regulations permit educational resolution for poor academic practice, escalation may not be required. In such cases, staff must follow the partner’s published guidance and record the action taken locally.

8.2 Referral Process

All referrals to partner institutions must be coordinated through the designated academic lead (Head of Learning and Teaching).

Referral documentation will typically include:

• a summary of the concern and relevant assessment details
• copies of the student’s assessed work
• similarity reports or other supporting evidence
• relevant assessment briefs, guidance, and declarations
• records of initial communication with the student

All documentation must be factual, objective, and complete.

8.3 Partner-Specific Procedures

Referral processes, documentation requirements, and timelines will vary depending on the awarding institution or pathway provider.

8.4 Communication Following Referral

Once a case has been referred:

• the student will be informed that the matter has been escalated to the partner institution
• MHEP will not speculate on outcomes or penalties
• further communication relating to investigation, outcomes, or appeals will be led by the partner institution, unless otherwise directed

MHEP will support the implementation of confirmed outcomes as required.

8.5 Limitation of Malvern Authority

Following referral, MHEP’s role is limited to:

• supporting partner-led investigation processes where requested
• facilitating communication between the partner institution and the student
• implementing confirmed academic outcomes

MHEP will not:

• conduct formal investigations
• determine academic misconduct or penalties
• hear or adjudicate appeals

9.OUTCOMES, PENALTIES, AND APPEALS

Academic outcomes, penalties, and appeals relating to academic misconduct are the responsibility of the relevant awarding institution or pathway provider and are governed by that institution’s academic regulations.

MHEP does not determine:

• whether academic misconduct has occurred
• the classification or severity of misconduct
• the penalties or sanctions to be applied
• the outcome of any academic misconduct investigation
• the handling or adjudication of appeals

Where a partner institution has reached a formal decision, MHEP will:

• communicate the confirmed outcome to the student where required
• implement academic outcomes in line with partner instructions and operational responsibilities
• support the student to understand next steps, including signposting to the partner’s appeals process

For NCUK provision, penalties applied by MHEP are provisional and subject to confirmation, adjustment, or rejection by NCUK Assessment Boards.

Students wishing to appeal an academic misconduct decision must do so through the partner institution’s appeals procedures. MHEP will not consider appeals relating to academic misconduct decisions.

10.AUTHORITY, PRECEDENCE, AND GOVERNANCE

10.1 Authority and Precedence

This policy operates within the context of collaborative provision and must be read alongside the academic integrity and academic misconduct regulations of MHEP’s partner institutions.

Where any aspect of this policy conflicts with, or is inconsistent with, the academic regulations, policies, or procedures of an awarding institution or pathway provider, the partner institution’s regulations shall take precedence.

Final academic authority in matters relating to academic misconduct, including investigation, determination of outcomes, and appeals, rests with the relevant awarding institution or pathway provider.

10.2 Governance and Oversight

Oversight of academic integrity within MHEP is the responsibility of the Group Academic Director, acting on behalf of Academic Board.

This includes responsibility for:

• ensuring institutional alignment with partner academic integrity frameworks
• monitoring the effectiveness of this policy in practice
• escalating risks or systemic issues to Academic Board or relevant sub-committees
• ensuring appropriate staff guidance and training are in place

Academic Board retains ultimate responsibility for approving this policy and receiving assurance on its implementation.

11.RECORDING, MONITORING, AND REPORTING

MHEP will maintain appropriate arrangements for the recording, monitoring, and reporting of academic integrity matters to support quality assurance, regulatory compliance, and continuous improvement.

11.1 Recording of Academic Misconduct Matters

MHEP will maintain internal records of:

• suspected cases of academic misconduct that have been identified and referred
• outcomes confirmed by partner institutions

Records will be maintained for monitoring and assurance purposes only.

11.2 Monitoring and Quality Assurance

The Group Academic Director is responsible for ensuring that information relating to academic integrity is monitored through the Annual Monitoring and Enhancement Process to:

• identify trends, risks, or emerging issues
• support consistency in the application of this policy
• inform staff training, guidance, and preventative activity
• provide assurance to Academic Board and partner institutions

Monitoring will focus on process effectiveness and compliance, rather than re-evaluation of academic decisions.

11.3 Reporting and Escalation

Summary information relating to academic integrity matters may be reported, as appropriate, to:

• MHEP Academic Board
• relevant academic governance sub-committees
• partner institutions

Reporting will be undertaken in a manner that respects confidentiality and data protection requirements and will not include personally identifiable information unless necessary and authorised.

12.REVIEW AND APPROVAL

This policy is approved by the MHEP Academic Board and applies to all relevant academic activity delivered by MHEP.

The policy will be reviewed annually, or sooner where required, to ensure continued alignment with:

• partner institution academic integrity and academic misconduct regulations
• regulatory and sector expectations
• changes to collaborative provision arrangements

The Group Academic Director is responsible for overseeing the review of this policy and for recommending any amendments to the MHEP Academic Board for approval.

Minor operational updates that do not materially affect the intent or application of this policy may be approved in accordance with MHEP’s delegated authority arrangements.