Check your assessment brief
Check which tools and collaboration the brief allows. Acknowledge sources and disclose permitted AI use as required.
Quality and learner support
Academic Integrity
Find out what is expected when you submit work, use sources or use AI tools for an assessment.
At a glance
Keep evidence of your work
Keep drafts, notes and sources. If a concern is raised, the published policy explains how you can respond.
Original work, fair assessment, and responsible use of sources and tools.
Principles & Scope
- Uphold honesty, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility in all learning and assessment.
- Applies to all Estudyquals programmes and partner‑delivered provision.
- Breaches are investigated fairly and proportionately; outcomes are recorded and reportable.
Definitions: What Counts as Misconduct
- Plagiarism: presenting others’ words, ideas, data or media without proper acknowledgement.
- Collusion: unauthorised collaboration that produces work submitted as individual.
- Contract cheating / impersonation: getting another person or paid service to produce work; sitting an exam for someone else.
- Fabrication: inventing or altering data, results, citations or signatures.
- Unauthorised aids: using notes/devices/communication where not permitted.
- AI misuse: submitting content generated by AI or similar tools where not permitted, or without required disclosure.
Use of AI & Digital Tools
Default rule: Unless your brief explicitly permits it, submit your own original work. If certain tools are allowed, you must disclose their use.
- Permitted with acknowledgement (when allowed by brief): grammar checking, accessibility aids, idea brainstorming, coding linters. Add a short "Tools used" note.
- Not permitted: full‑text generation of assignments, auto‑writing of literature reviews or code solutions, translation that replaces authorship, or any tool use that undermines assessment authenticity.
- Verification: you may be asked to discuss your work orally or provide drafts/notes to evidence authorship.
Responsibilities
- Learners: submit own work; keep drafts/notes; reference correctly; ask if unsure.
- Assessors: set clear briefs; state what tools/collaboration are allowed; mark consistently; record concerns.
- Quality Lead/IV: sample, standardise, and ensure actions are tracked.
Procedure (Investigation & Outcomes)
- Report: concern raised by assessor/IV or via system; evidence gathered (scripts, similarity reports, drafts).
- Invitation to respond: learner may submit a statement and attend a meeting.
- Decision: panel/assessor decides on balance of probabilities; outcome recorded.
- Action: penalty applied (see matrix) and academic support provided as needed.
- Right of appeal: see Appeals Policy within 10 working days.
| Example breach | Indicative outcome* |
|---|---|
| Minor poor referencing / first offence | Formal warning; resubmission with cap |
| Significant plagiarism / collusion | Zero on task; capped resit; academic integrity module |
| Contract cheating / impersonation / repeated offence | Removal from programme; report to awarding body |
* Actual outcomes depend on context, intent, evidence and awarding‑body rules.
Referencing & Use of Sources
- Use the citation style specified by your programme (e.g., Harvard/APA/MLA/Vancouver).
- Quote, paraphrase and summarise responsibly; always attribute ideas and data.
- Keep notes of sources and page numbers; use a reference manager if helpful.
Authenticity Checks
- We may use similarity tools, code review, or viva‑style checks to confirm authorship.
- Keep interim drafts, notebooks, datasets and version history for verification.
Support & Mitigating Circumstances
If you face issues affecting your ability to submit authentic work, contact your tutor early. Extensions or adjustments may be available under the mitigating circumstances process.
Version Control
Owner: Quality Lead · Effective: 13 October 2025 · Next review: October 2026
Quick links