Plagiarism Procedure Document, Department of Sociology, University of Surrey.
Department of Sociology, University of Surrey
Procedure for Dealing with Cases of Plagiarism
This paper clarifies the way in which the Department of Sociology will deal with cases of plagiarism. The procedure is based upon the University of Surrey’s ‘Regulations for the Conduct of Examinations and Other Forms of Assessment’. The procedure applies to students on all undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. It should be read carefully by students, staff and associate tutors.
1 - Plagiarism Arbitrators
In order to ensure consistency, two members of the department’s academic staff will take on the role of plagiarism arbitrators for each academic year. For the academic year 2008-9, Ian Brunton-Smith and Christine Hine have been allocated to this role.
2 - Circumstances in which Plagiarism Procedure Should be Used
Plagiarism is defined by the University as ‘to take and use [the thoughts, writings, inventions, inventions etc of another] as one’s own’ (Concise Oxford Dictionary, 8th edition 1990) and the procedure outlined here will be utilised where there is concern that a student has committed this offence.
The procedure is intended both for cases of word-for-word reproduction of material and for those cases where students, through serious or consistent failure to acknowledge the source of material, pass off the ideas, arguments, evidence or work of others as their own, albeit without any word-for-word duplication. The distinction between this form of plagiarism and poor referencing practice by the student will necessarily be a matter of professional judgement on the part of the marker/module leader, although advice can be sought from the plagiarism arbitrator/s if this is felt to be appropriate.
Cases which are judged to be minor, sloppy, inconsistent or badly formatted referencing and hence not plagiarism, will be regarded as ‘bad practice’ and will be dealt with via the normal marking process. Students should refer to the department’s ‘Guidelines for Assessment’, in which poor referencing practices are listed as a deficiency which may contribute towards poor marks or even failure.
Cases judged to involve ‘extensive presentation of another’s ideas, arguments, results etc (not necessarily word for word) and/or sustained sections (e.g sequential sentences or whole paragraphs) word-for-word with no or inadequate acknowledgement’ will be regarded by the Department as plagiarism cases and will be subject to the procedure outlined below (see University Regulations Appendix VE).
Having provided students with extensive opportunities to ensure that they appreciate what plagiarism is and how to avoid it (e.g. discussion within teaching sessions, creation of online plagiarism FAQ, distribution of plagiarism procedure document and availability of staff to answer questions), the Department of Sociology regards it as the responsibility of students to ensure that they understand and comply with the academic rules and conventions relating to plagiarism. When they hand in assignments, students are asked to sign a statement confirming that they understand what plagiarism is, that they have read this document and that their work does not contain any plagiarism.
Students with any element of doubt should consult the Department’s online plagiarism FAQ () and/or approach one of the plagiarism arbitrators.
3 – Procedure
If plagiarism is suspected, the procedure will be as follows:
i)If the marker is an associate tutor, they will pass the case on to the appropriate module convenor, who will carry out ii). If the marker is not an associate tutor they will carry out ii) themselves.
ii)The marker (unless an associate tutor – see i)) will investigate, compile evidence and, if there is felt to be a prima facie case to answer, refer the case to one of the plagiarism arbitrators. Plagiarism arbitrators or other colleagues will assist in this initial process of investigation if their help is requested. If it is appropriate the student may be required to produce an electronic copy of their essay in order to facilitate the investigations.
iii)The plagiarism arbitrators will decide whether to instigate Academic Misconduct proceedings consistent with the circumstances set out in section 2. If it is decided that the assessment does not contain plagiarism, the assessment will be returned to the marker/module leader who, where appropriate, will deal with any referencing deficiencies via the normal assessment process. If it is felt that the assessment or some sections of the assessment involve plagiarism, the Head of Department will establish an Academic Misconduct Review Panel, in accordance with the University’s procedure for dealing with cases of Academic Misconduct.
iv)The Panel will contain 3 academic staff members, including a Chair, who shall not be the student’s Programme Director. The Panel will not include the module convenor responsible for marking/moderating the assessment in question. If the student has been found guilty of one previous offence of academic misconduct, the Panel should comprise of members not involved in the first hearing. If the student has been found guilty of two previous offences of academic misconduct the panel should comprise of members external to the faculty (the panel may ask for a member of the student’s faculty to attend to provideexpert advice on matters connected with the student’s programme of study).
v)A candidate against whom plagiarism is alleged shall be sent by the Chair of the Academic Misconduct Review Panel a written statement, setting out the grounds of the alleged misconduct, together with any relevant supporting documentation. At this stage the student’s personal tutor and programme director will also be informed of the allegation.
vi)The Chair shall inform the candidate of the date, time and location of the meeting of the Academic Conduct Review Panel at which the allegations will be considered, giving the candidate at least 5 working days’ notice of the meeting. The Chair shall give the candidate the opportunity to submit evidence on his or her behalf and to attend the meeting to defend himself/herself against the allegation, when he/she may be accompanied by a person of his/her choice. The student should notify the panel of the identity of the friend or of any witnesses to be called no less than 24 hours before the panel. Such proceedings are not legal proceedings and the student should not be accompanied by a legal representative. If the student is unable to attend the meeting of the Panel or formally declines to attend the Panel, he/she shall be invited to provide a written statement for the consideration of the Panel.
vii)In those cases where plagiarism is felt to involve the work of another student rather than external sources, both (or all) students involved will be sent a letter and invited separately to present their case to a meeting of the Panel.
viii)If the student fails either to attend the meeting or to submit a written statement without providing a satisfactory reason, the panel will consider that the student has declined the opportunity to present their case and will proceed with the case in the absence of any input from the student.
ix)If the Panel considers that the allegation is not proved, the Panel shall report its findings to the Board of Examiners and no further action will be taken. The Board of Examiners shall give the candidate full credit for any work submitted in his or her name and shall award the appropriate mark(s) without any penalty for academic misconduct. Students should note, however, that the ‘appropriate mark’ may in some cases include deductions deemed appropriate by the marker/examiner for poor referencing practices.
x)If the student admits the alleged plagiarism or if the panel concludes that an allegation of plagiarism has been proved, it shall consider what penalty should be applied in accordance with section 4 below and shall submit its recommendation to the Board of Examiners.
xi)The student will be invited to meet with one of the members of the Academic Conduct Review Panel, who will inform them of the panel’s recommendation. The student will also be sent a letter setting out the outcome of the proceedings in writing.
xii)The student will be informed that they have the right to appeal the recommendation of the Academic Misconduct Review panel and will be provided with details about the procedure for appeals and the limited grounds for appeal which are considered by the University. They will be informed that appeals must be submitted, within 14 days of the confirmation of the decision by the Board of Examiners, to the Dean of Students using the Academic Misconduct Appeal Form at
xiii)A copy of the letter will be placed in the student’s file and will be referred to if the student is accused of plagiarism in the future. Confidential minutes of the meeting will be retained in a separate file. At this stage, the student’s personal tutor and programme director will also be informed of the recommendation of the Panel.
xiv)The Board of Examiners will consider the recommendation(s) of the Panel and shall decide whether to accept the recommendation. The Board of Examiners will submit its recommendations to the Student Progress and Assessment Board.
xv)The Panel may, at its discretion, review any concurrent or previous assessments if it has reason to believe that other instances of plagiarism may have taken place in a student’s programme. If further evidence of plagiarism is discovered the Panel may recommend that previously awarded marks be amended or revoked.
4 – Plagiarism Penalties
Set out below are the maximum and, coincidentally, the normal penalties for plagiarism.
‘Extensive presentation of another’s ideas, arguments or results etc. (not necessarily word-for-word) and/or sustained sections (e.g. sequential sentences or whole paragraphs) word-for-wordwith no or inadequate acknowledgement.’ / First Offence:Award a mark of 0 for the assessed work. If the overall aggregate mark for the module falls below the module pass mark and the student would normally have the right to repeat the assessment, allow the student to repeat the assessment, capping the subsequent mark at the module pass mark.
Second Offence:
Award mark of 0 for the assessed work; do not allow the student to repeat the assessment or to offer an alternative module.
Or
If the application of the above second offence penalty will lead to programme termination and the student would normally have the right to repeat the assessment, the Board of Examiners may allow the student to repeat the assessment for credit, with a mark of 0 awarded for the assessed work.
Third Offence:
Terminate student’s programme but allow award of any intermediate award for which the student has qualified at that stage.
Notes on Penalties
1. The panel will draw no distinction between ‘word-for-word’ and ‘almost word-for-word’ (i.e. where the student has changed one or two words in every sentence). Therefore ‘word-for-word’ should be taken to include ‘almost word-for-word’.
2. If a student is subject to more than one allegation of academic misconduct which are similar in nature and which relate to assessments occurring at about the same time, the panel shall treat the allegations as a single offence. In other words, if the student has not previously been found guilty of plagiarism, all the allegations would be treated as ‘first offences’. If plagiarism is alleged and proven in the case of any assessment submitted after the imposition of a first penalty, then this subsequent plagiarism will be regarded as a second offence and so on.
3. In the case of a first offence the student will be given the opportunity to repeat the assessment during the normal resit period if the overall aggregate mark for the module falls below the module pass mark. The student will be required to complete an entirely new essay question, exercise, assignment or test. The mark for the repeated submission will be capped at the pass mark.
4. In cases where plagiarism involves use of the work of another student rather than external material, the panel will seek to ascertain which of the students is guilty of presenting the work of another as their own. Those found to have presented the work of another student as their own will receive a penalty in accordance with the scale presented in this document. Students who are found to have had their own work plagiarised, but are deemed not to have been guilty of plagiarism themselves, will not normally receive a penalty but may be warned about their conduct.If it is not possible to determine which of the students produced the original and which produced the copied version/s, or if both or all the students are deemed guilty of presenting the work of the other/s as their own, then the penalty normally will be applied to both or all the students.
1