Postgraduate Researcher Academic Misconduct Procedure

1. Academic misconduct is defined as ‘any attempt by a student or Postgraduate Researcher (PGR) to gain an unfair advantage in assessment’. It is important that PGRs familiarise themselves with the University’s expectations of Academic Integrity. 

2. It is expected that PGRs can work with others, interpret, and present other people’s ideas, and produce their own independent academic work in accordance with the University regulations on assessment and University expectations of Academic Integrity. When PGRs submit work for assessment they are asked to declare that it is their own work using the PGR Declaration of Academic Integrity.

3. The Procedure applies to all summative assessments (transfer and thesis). Where a PGR is suspected of submitting work for assessment in breach of University regulations they may be investigated and penalised for academic misconduct.

4. Where offences are identified in formative assessments (First Formal Progress Report or Annual Progress Reviews) Schools should provide feedback to PGRs on the University expectations of Academic Integrity and provide support for good study practice. 

5. Academic Misconduct offences undermine the value of the University’s academic awards. The penalties for academic misconduct reflect the seriousness of the offences. Within the range of penalties, PGRs may find that they receive a penalty which has an impact on their final award from the University, or they may be temporarily suspended or permanently excluded from the University community if found to have committed an academic misconduct offence. 

6. The PGR Academic Misconduct Procedure (‘the Procedure’) forms part of the Student Contract between PGRs and the University. The Procedure provides a clear statement of academic misconduct offences and a transparent process for investigation and determination of academic misconduct cases.

7. All University academic misconduct case investigations are investigative rather than adversarial. Allegations and investigations shall be private to the PGR under investigation, members of the University who are directly concerned with the investigation and consideration of the offence, and the PGR’s Head of Parent School. Findings of any offence and penalty given will form part of a student record. 

8. When an offence is alleged under the Procedure, PGRs are encouraged to seek independent advice and support from LUU Student Advice by emailing advice@luu.leeds.ac.uk. 

9. The range and details of the penalties are outlined later in the document. When academic misconduct is detected or suspected the University reserves the right to scrutinise and take action in respect of other work submitted by the PGR even if this has already been assessed and the marks published. 

10. This Procedure applies to the assessment of research elements of all postgraduate research degree programmes of the University, including

• the transfer submission and transfer viva; 
• the thesis submission and viva examination.

Types of Academic Misconduct Offence

11. The following are offences under this procedure

• Plagiarism: means students/PGRs presenting someone else’s work, in whole or in part, as their own. Work means any intellectual output, and typically includes but is not limited to text, data, images, sound or performance. Where someone else’s work is presented as part of an assessment, it must be correctly attributed and referenced.
• Examination misconduct: covers breaches of the University guidance governing the conduct of PGR transfer or thesis viva examination. This could include: 
  • Consulting unauthorised items or third-party material during the viva
  • Attendance of, or consulting with, an unauthorised third-party at the viva.
• Misuse of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI) and translation tools means submitting work that has been created with the use of Gen AI and/or translation software in a way that is not permitted by the published guidance on the appropriate use of Gen AI in PGR assessments. This has a three-tier categorisation (red, amber, green). Examples of misuse include:
  • using Gen AI to write work for submission.
  • using Gen AI to create or modify work for submission in a way that is not permitted by the use of Gen AI in PGR assessments, that has not correctly been acknowledged or referenced, that cannot be evidenced through saved outputs from the Gen AI tool, or that breaches any stipulation on data protection and privacy in the use of GenAI.
• Breach of the proofreading policy: means undertaking any activities or assistance with the transfer or thesis which breaches the Postgraduate Research Proof-Reading Policy and Guidance.
• Fabrication: means submitting work in whole or in part that presents fake or misrepresented research processes, materials, equipment, data, imagery and/or consents except where deception is the subject of the research, is declared, and presents no ethical concerns. This could also include fabrication of supporting evidence: means falsifying drafts, submission receipts or feedback. (Fabrication of transcripts, certificates or supporting information for mitigating circumstances may be considered under this offence but will normally be considered under the Student Discipline Procedure). 
• Falsification: means inappropriately manipulating and/or selecting research processes, materials, equipment, data, imagery and/or consents
• Misrepresentation of data: means including suppression of relevant results/data or knowingly, recklessly, or by gross negligence presenting a flawed interpretation of data
• Contract cheating: means submitting work that has been obtained from third parties, whether they are inside or outside the University and whether on a commercial or non-commercial basis. This includes purchasing work from essay mills or commercial websites, requesting or commissioning individuals to produce work for submission as the student’s own, and subscription use of online tutors and online homework sites, to create or modify assessments, for payment or otherwise.
• Misrepresentation, fraud and impersonation: means making a fraudulent declaration of academic integrity when submitting work for assessment or presenting as a candidate for assessment or examination. This includes impersonating another student, requesting someone else to impersonate a student, misrepresenting or defaming the work or opinions of others, submitting work that has been wholly or partly obtained by deceit or fraud, or submitting work where the content has been manipulated to avoid detection. It also includes the falsification or concealment of word counts, logs relating to placement or skills achievements, training plan and sign-offs.
• Facilitating academic misconduct: means inciting or conspiring with others to commit any academic misconduct offence, whether directly or indirectly. Indirectly facilitating misconduct includes uploading work to cheating websites or otherwise publishing or sharing work, feedback, examination questions or answers that can be used by other students for cheating. Coercing, pressuring or blackmailing someone else to commit or conceal an academic misconduct offence may also be considered under the Student Discipline Procedure
• Any other breach of the University’s published assessment rules and regulations may be investigated under this Procedure. PGRs may be investigated for multiple offences relating to the same assessment.

12. A separate Academic Misconduct Procedure applies to all taught elements of programmes of study at the University, including undergraduate programmes, taught postgraduate study and taught elements of research degrees.

13. This procedure is not intended to address minor instances of poor academic practice in a transfer report or thesis, where the submission is largely the PGR’s own work, and the concerns are limited to occasional referencing errors. Advice to Schools on responding to such concerns is available on the Doctoral College SharePoint.

14. Outside of the transfer or thesis submission, minor cases of poor academic or research practice are normally addressed through training and academic support, rather than formal misconduct procedures. If concerns such as plagiarism or other forms of academic misconduct are identified in formative assessments ( First Formal Progress Report or Annual Progress Reviews) or drafts they must be reported to the Director of PGR Studies or Head of School. Schools must provide feedback to the PGR on the University’s expectations regarding Academic and Research Integrity, and offer appropriate training (such as retaking the PGR Academic Integrity tutorials) and support. The Progress Support Process should be considered to support improvement and monitor progress. Further advice to Schools on responding to such concerns is available on the Doctoral College SharePoint.

15. Allegations about the conduct of research will normally be dealt with according to this procedure. However, if the alleged conduct affects a published piece of research work or the supervisor is implicated in the complaint then the ‘Protocol for Investigating and Resolving Allegations of Misconduct in Academic Research’ would apply. Work conducted in deliberate contravention of the decisions of an ethical review committee, or with deliberate disregard for the ethical review process, could be considered under the research misconduct protocol. Where there is doubt as to whether this PGR academic misconduct procedure or the research misconduct protocol should apply, advice can be sought on a case-by-case basis

16. Re-use of earlier work in the following scenarios is acceptable at PGR level and would not constitute an academic misconduct offence (for example, ‘Self-plagiarism’):

• Work presented for an earlier degree/qualification where this has been declared and approved in accordance with the regulations to Ordinance X; 
• Work presented as part of the transfer submission or Annual Progress Review which is then used in the thesis submission; 
• Work which is published by the PGR and is then presented and declared in the thesis. (In accordance with the Guidelines on the Use of Solely or Jointly-Authored Publications within a Thesis Submission).

17. Academic misconduct offences are treated by the University as ‘strict liability’ offences. This means that the University does not consider whether a student intended to commit an offence, or whether they were aware their actions were in breach of University rules, in determining whether an offence has occurred.

18. In determining whether an offence has occurred, in the first instance the University will not consider whether the PGR intended to gain an unfair advantage.

19. In determining the severity of the offence, and any penalty to be applied, the University may consider any or all of the aggravating or mitigating factors set out below, along with any other contextual factors identified in the investigation of the alleged offence.

20. Aggravating factors that increase the severity of the offence may include:

• the PGR is at an advanced stage in their academic integrity development 
• the offence appears to be intended or planned to gain an unfair advantage
• successful commission of the offence would give a clear advantage to the PGR over others
• the extent of misconduct within the assessment is significant
• the PGR cannot produce on request evidence of drafts, Gen AI outputs, evidence of proofreading annotations or other information to support their authorship of the work
• the offence is the second or subsequent offence, and the PGR has had the opportunity to develop their understanding of academic integrity since the first offence
• there are multiple concurrent offences
• the offence constitutes a serious breach of trust between the University and the PGR, for example where there are similarities with criminal conduct, such as theft, fraud or blackmail, or where the student may have coerced or pressured another member of the University community to commit or conceal an academic misconduct offence

21. Mitigating factors that reduce the severity of the offence may include:

• the PGR is at an early stage in their academic integrity training
• the offence does not appear to be intended or planned to gain an unfair advantage
• successful commission of the offence would give limited advantage to the PGR over others
• the extent of misconduct within the assessment is low
• the PGR can produce on request evidence of drafts, Gen AI outputs, evidence of proofreading annotations or other information to support their authorship of the work
• the offence is a first offence
• the offence is the second or subsequent offence, but the PGR may not have had sufficient opportunity to develop their understanding of academic integrity since the first offence
• the PGR may have been subject to coercion, pressure or blackmail to commit or conceal an academic misconduct offence 
• the student presents mitigating circumstances as defined by the PGR Suspension and Extension Policy and Guidance and as set out below.

22. PGRs who are found to have committed an academic misconduct offence will be given the opportunity to disclose any mitigating circumstances in advance of a penalty being set. Mitigation may lessen the penalty, but it does not excuse an offence. The consideration of mitigating circumstances will be in line with the PGR Suspension and Extension Policy and Guidance, and supporting information is expected in all cases.

23. It is expected that the transfer panel/examiners will raise any concerns about academic integrity and potential offences with the Director of PGR Studies for review. The Head of School, Director of PGR Studies and Graduate School should be informed immediately.

Where the Head of School or Director of PGR Studies is one of the assessors/examiners or the Supervisor, the Head of Graduate School should be informed.

The investigation will normally be led by the Director of PGR Studies as the nominee of the Head of School. If the Director of PGR Studies is also the Supervisor or assessor/examiner the Head of School will nominate an alternative to lead the investigation.

24. The oral examination/academic assessment of the work will be postponed pending the outcome of the academic misconduct investigation. Depending on the timing – and where a date for the transfer or final viva is imminent – it may be necessary for the School to arrange for the PGR to be informally advised that concerns have been raised so that the viva can be postponed. 

25. All allegations of academic misconduct will be reviewed by the School. In all cases it is recommended the Academic Integrity Officer for the School is consulted.

• Allegations of misconduct in a transfer or thesis viva examination: The School will consult with the transfer panel or examiners, and other parties present at the examination as appropriate (Independent Chair (if appointed), Supervisor (if in attendance). 
• All other allegations of academic misconduct: The School may request sight of drafts, Gen AI outputs, evidence of proofreading annotations, raw data, documentation, lab books, logs or other information to support their authorship of the work. 

26. After scrutiny at School level, and if concerns remain the Head of School (or nominee) must arrange for the case to be investigated following this Procedure. The School will assemble the case and supporting documentation. 

• For allegations of misconduct in an examination, documentation which will normally be required includes (a) full details of the allegation; (b) a report from the School including the results of consultations with the Panel/Examiners and other parties; (c) the evidence being relied on by the School; (d) Academic Integrity Declaration which accompanied the submission (GRAD).
• For allegations of plagiarism, documentation which will normally be required includes (a) full details of the allegation; (b) a marked-up copy of the transfer report/thesis (; (c) marked-up copies of sources; (d) Turnitin Similarity report; (e) Academic Integrity Declaration which accompanied the submission (GRAD). Note: Identifying, obtaining and marking up sources and material for consideration as part of the investigation may be undertaken by the member of staff who identified the original concerns, the Director of PGR Studies, Head of Graduate School, Academic Integrity lead for the School or other appropriate academic as nominated by the Head of School.
• For all other allegations of misconduct documentation which will normally be required includes (a) full details of the allegation; (b) the evidence being relied on by the School, including drafts of work and copies of work marked-up or annotated by a proof-reader, Gen AI outputs or other evidence; (c) Academic Integrity Declaration which accompanied the submission (GRAD).

27. The School will establish if there have been any other offences in order to determine whether the allegation under investigation would constitute a first offence. A second offence relates to a second piece of work submitted for assessment during the same candidature. If appropriate, the School will determine whether any further currently or previously submitted work by the PGR is subject to an academic misconduct investigation. This could include work for assessed taught modules which form part of the programme of study.

28. The matter must then be reported by the Director of PGR Studies to the PGR Policy and Compliance Manager in Doctoral College Operations with the information set out above. 

29. Doctoral College Operations will inform the PGR of the allegations made and will give the PGR not less than three working days’ notice in writing of: 

• the allegation(s); 
• the details of the piece(s) of work that will be discussed; 
• the evidence being relied on by the School, which the PGR will retain after the meeting; 
• the date of the investigation meeting with the School. 

30. The School meeting will: 

• be conducted in person or online at the discretion of the School
• normally comprise the Head of School or nominee and at least two other members of School staff, who are independent of the PGR and their candidature. 
  • Exceptional arrangements may be approved by the Head of School (or nominee) for some CDTs (or where other exceptional arrangements have been approved) where the PGR’s supervisor(s) are from outside the parent School. In such cases a Panel member from the home School of the Supervisor(s) might be appointed to the Panel. In all cases at least one member of staff from the PGR’s parent School must be appointed to the Panel. The parent School will retain responsibility for the investigation of cases regardless of the home School of the PGR’s supervisor(s).
  • Members of the supervisory team, transfer panel or internal examiner should not be appointed to the Panel.
• be minuted by a member of the Doctoral College (or School) attending the meeting; 
• address all the allegations faced by the PGR; 
• allow the PGR an opportunity to explain how they created the work submitted
• ask the PGR whether the offence is admitted or denied 
• determine on the evidence whether an offence has occurred on a balance of probabilities (i.e. more likely than not); 
• and permit the PGR an opportunity to justify the work and to offer any mitigating circumstances at the time of the assessment; 
• permit the PGR to be accompanied by a supporter 
• if necessary and appropriate, elect to hear separately from other interested parties for example the Supervisor(s), Director of PGR Studies or other appropriate personnel.

31. PGRs are encouraged to attend the School meeting with a supporter under the terms of paragraphs 75-79. The School is responsible for notifying the student of the role of the supporter, and may set other reasonable terms and conditions for the supporter’s attendance as relevant to the circumstances

32. PGRs should make all reasonable efforts to attend the meeting or request that it be rearranged. Where the PGR is absent from the meeting without good cause they will be presumed to have admitted the allegations. ‘Good Cause’ is at the discretion of the School but it is expected that there is independent evidence from a third party explaining why the PGR cannot attend at the date and time of the meeting. The School will progress the case as an admitted offence. 

33. If the meeting finds that the allegation of academic misconduct has not been proven the School will within 10 working days of the meeting, write to the PGR letting them know. The case will then be at an end and no records will be retained except for an anonymised summary in the School’s own Academic Misconduct records, which are retained for the purpose of reporting overall case numbers. The work submitted for assessment will be marked in accordance with normal arrangements and without penalty. 

34. Where the PGR admits the allegation(s) the School will decide whether it can give a penalty or whether it is necessary to forward the case to the Committee for a penalty to be given. 

35. Where the PGR denies the allegation(s), after the student has withdrawn from the Investigation Meeting, the School will determine whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the allegation(s) made on the balance of probabilities, i.e. that what is alleged is more likely than not to have happened. The Investigation Meeting will record the reasons and its findings as the conclusion of the minutes.

36. Where the allegation(s) are considered to be proven by the Investigation Meeting, the School will decide whether it can give a penalty or whether it is necessary to refer the case to the Committee on Applications for final determination. If it is to be referred to the Committee, the School’s determination of the offence will be considered by the Committee as a preliminary finding.

37. Where a penalty is to be given by the School, the School should decide upon the penalty, inform the PGR, and record the reasons why a particular penalty has been applied, making reference to all available penalties. (All cases resolved at School or Faculty level will be entered into the PGR’s record).

38. The School should notify the PGR in writing of the offence(s) found, the penalty and the reasons for the penalty, along with a copy of the minutes of the Investigation Meeting, no later than 10 working days after the meeting. 

39. Where the case is to be forwarded to the Committee on Applications (the Committee) the School shall, within 10 working days of the School meeting, send to the PGR: 

• a letter informing them that the case is being sent to the Committee; and 
• a copy of the minutes including the School’s reasons, findings and conclusions. 

40. Where the case is to be forwarded to the Committee the School shall, within 10 working days of the meeting, send to the Student Cases Team

• a completed pro forma; 
• copies of documentation sent to the student including the invitation to the Investigation Meeting and the evidence; 
• a copy of the letter informing the PGR the case is being sent to the Committee; 
• the minutes of the School meeting (as provided to the PGR) and copies of all additional correspondence; 
• the assessed work relevant to the allegation. 
• copies of the PGR guidance and any other relevant published information, including the Code of Practice for research degree candidatures. 
• if the student is being referred to the Committee for a second or subsequent offence, copies of the documentation relating to the first offence.

41. Within 10 working days of the date of the letter notifying the PGR that the case is being sent to the Committee the PGR shall send to the Student Cases Team: 

• confirmation as to whether the allegation is admitted or denied; and 
• any statement in defence of the allegation or in mitigation. 

42. The PGR must ensure that no evidence or information is held over in the expectation that it can be presented later. If it is and it is judged that it could reasonably have been brought forward, it will be discounted. Where the statement is received after the deadline it will be accepted only at the discretion of the Committee.

43. A PGR may appeal to the Committee about a penalty imposed by the School. 

44. Such appeals must be made to the Student Cases Team not later than 10 working days after the Investigating School’s decision has been issued.

45. The Head of Student Cases (or nominee) will evaluate the request to ensure that it has been made in time and falls within the grounds for review. If it is to proceed, the request will be acknowledged in writing. If the decision is not to proceed, an explanation will be provided.

46. The Committee on Applications will review the penalty on the following grounds: 

• The School’s decision was unreasonable in the light of the evidence supplied; 
• The procedure for the School investigation was deficient in a way that materially prejudiced the case; 
• New evidence has emerged that was not available when the School Investigation Meeting was held and there is a good reason why it was not brought to the School’s attention earlier. 

47. In their penalty appeal, students should state the ground(s) for review, and provide any relevant evidence. Disagreement with the outcome is not in itself a ground for review. 

48. The student will not appear before the Committee unless the Committee so decides and the Committee’s decision will be final. The Committee will consider whether: 

• the School has followed the Procedure for investigation; 
• the imposition of a penalty was reasonable in the light of the case presented; 
• the penalty applied is within the range of penalties available to the School.

49. The Committee will not reopen the investigation. If the School is found not to have acted in accordance with the Procedure, not to have acted reasonably in imposing a penalty or not to have applied a penalty within the range available, it will be asked to reconsider the case. If the Committee determines there is no case to be found, it will dismiss the case.

54. The PGR may appeal to the Dean of the Leeds Doctoral College against either the findings of the Committee or the penalty that it has imposed. Such appeals must be made in writing to the Student Cases Team not later than 10 working days after the date of issue of the Committee's decision. 

55. The Dean of the Leeds Doctoral College (or nominee) will review the decision on the following grounds only: 

• The decision of the Committee on Applications was unreasonable in the light of the evidence supplied. 
• The procedure for the Committee on Applications’ meeting was deficient in a way which materially prejudiced the case. 
• New evidence has emerged which was not available when the Committee met and there is a good reason why it was not brought to the Committee on Applications’ attention during the meeting to discuss the case. 

56. In their request for review, PGRs should state the ground(s) for review, and provide any relevant evidence. Disagreement with the outcome is not in itself a ground for review.

57. The Head of Student Cases will evaluate the request for the review to ensure that it has been made in time and falls within the grounds for review. If it is to proceed, the request will be acknowledged in writing. If the decision is not to proceed, an explanation will be provided and a Completion of Procedures letter will be issued.

58. The Dean of the Leeds Doctoral College (or nominee) will review the written material submitted to the Committee, a written statement of the outcome of the investigation and the request for a review. 

59. The Dean of the Leeds Doctoral College (or nominee) will issue their decision as soon as possible and normally within 20 working days of receipt of the request for final review. The Dean of the Leeds Doctoral College may: 

• uphold the Committee outcome; 
• vary the Committee outcome; or 
• refer the matter back to the Committee for reconsideration. 

A Completion of Procedures letter will be issued. 

60. If a PGR is dissatisfied, they may complain to the OIA. The OIA will require evidence that a PGR has exhausted the University’s procedures, and that the University has issued a Completion of Procedures letter. To make a complaint a PGR must send the Completion of Procedures letter to the OIA within 12 months of the date of the letter, together with a completed copy of its complaint form, which the OIA will use to assess whether a case is eligible for review under its rules. Further and specific details about the OIA can be obtained from the OIA website. 

61. The University is committed to supporting Students to develop the understanding and skills needed to maintain the academic integrity of their work. At the same time this commitment must be balanced against the need to protect the academic standards of the University and issue penalties for academic misconduct offences where these standards may be jeopardised. 

62. The University is committed to thorough investigation of all allegations and careful discussion with Students about the circumstances of an offence before penalties are applied. 

63. The University will not tolerate cheating or deception of any kind in work submitted for assessment at any level of study. Since April 2022 it has been a criminal offence in England to provide or arrange for another person to provide assessment services for financial gain to students enrolled at a University in England. Students who commission third party services relating to assessment may therefore be engaging in criminal activity. The University will not tolerate this activity among its members at any level of study.
 
64. Penalties will normally be higher for those later in their candidature, who are expected to be aware of academic integrity expectations in a higher education context, and where an offence can directly undermine the academic standards of their University award. Penalties can be severe for repeat offences at this level. 

65. Escalation to Committee for a second or subsequent offence is where two or more academic misconduct cases have occurred during the same candidature. 

66. Penalties will be issued for Students who deny offences that are proven.

67. When considering a penalty, School Investigation Meetings and the Committee on Applications should make a decision that is just and proportionate to the overall misconduct, and should consider:

• The range of penalties applicable for the offence
• Any aggravating or mitigating factors, including mitigating circumstances
• The context of the offence in relation to the student’s development of academic integrity skills

68. There are no default penalties for each type, instance or severity of offence. Each case should be considered based on its merits, and Schools and the Committee on Applications should record their reasoning for the application of each penalty. Schools, Faculties, Chairs and Members may discuss anonymised cases as necessary in order to undertake standardisation/calibration of approach.

69. Where an offence has occurred, the submission will count as one of the attempts permitted under Ordinance X, the associated Regulations and the Programme of Study / Code of Practice for Research Degree Candidatures (all of which can be accessed from the Postgraduate research policy and procedures webpage), which only permit resubmission of the transfer or thesis on one occasion. No more attempts will be permitted than the Ordinance and Regulations/Code of Practice for Research Degree Candidatures provide for a PGR who has not committed academic misconduct. 

70. For a first submission, decisions between "Revise and Resubmit" and "Redact and Examine" should be based on an assessment of the extent of the submission affected by plagiarism (or other offence) and the quantity of the remaining, unaffected content.

Submission number: First or Resubmission
Penalty type: Written warning

If the viva was completed and the School post-viva investigation determines that misconduct occurred but was not significant:

• A written warning should be issued.
• The examiners’ recommendation should be submitted to the Doctoral College and proceed through the normal process.

If the viva was paused and the School determines that misconduct occurred but was not significant:

• A written warning should be issued.
• The viva should be rescheduled.

If the School determines that significant misconduct occurred:

• The case should be referred to the Committee on Applications for further consideration.

Submission number: First or Resubmission 
Penalty type: Written warning

If a PGR has used GenAI tools or a third-party proof reader in line with the PGR Guidelines on the Use of Generative AI or Proof-Reading Policy, but has failed to properly acknowledge or reference that use:

• The School may issue a written warning.
• The acknowledgements page must be corrected to include appropriate references to the use of GenA/Proof-reader.
• Once corrected, the examination may proceed following the normal process.

Submission number: First
Penalty type: Redact and Examine

• The viva will proceed as a first attempt at assessment.
• The Transfer Panel or Examiners will be instructed to disregard any sections of the submission found to contain academic misconduct. Only the remaining, unaffected work will be assessed.
• The viva and assessment will follow normal procedures, with the outcome based on the redacted submission.
• The Examiners or Transfer Panel will make an academic judgement in line with assessment regulations. 
• All standard outcomes remain available, including referral or deferral for resubmission, in accordance with the number of permitted attempts.
• For a thesis submission: If the Examiners recommend an award, any redacted sections must be removed or rewritten as part of the required corrections. The corrected thesis must be approved by the internal examiner. If further misconduct (e.g. plagiarism) is identified in the corrected thesis, it will be investigated under the this procedure as a second offence.

Submission number: First
Penalty type: Revise and Submit

• The PGR may be required to revise and resubmit their transfer report or thesis as a final attempt at assessment (thereby forgoing the option of a referral/deferral for resubmission). 
• Normally a period equivalent to that of the normal referral/deferral period will be permitted.
• Following resubmission, a viva must be held. 
• The examiners/panel may not recommend referral/deferral for resubmission and a final outcome on the resubmitted work must be recommended. 
• Any concerns with plagiarism in the resubmitted work will first be investigated under this procedure as a second offence. 

Submission number: Resubmission
Penalty type: Redact and Examine

• The assessment process will proceed as a final attempt. 
• The Transfer Panel or Examiners will be instructed to disregard any sections of the submission found to contain academic misconduct. Only the remaining, unaffected work will be assessed.
• The assessment will follow normal procedures, with the outcome based on the redacted submission.
• The Examiners or Transfer Panel will make an academic judgement in line with assessment regulations. 
• The panel may not recommend referral/deferral for resubmission. A final outcome on the resubmission must be recommended. 
• A second viva may be held if the panel deem this necessary, in accordance with assessment regulations.
• For a thesis submission: If the Examiners recommend an award, any redacted sections must be removed or rewritten as part of the required corrections. The corrected thesis must be approved by the internal examiner. If further misconduct (e.g. plagiarism) is identified in the corrected thesis, it will be investigated under the this procedure as a second offence.

Submission number: First or Resubmission
Penalty type: Re-take the viva

• The PGR may be required to re-take the viva in a format as designated by the University, which may require attendance for an in-person viva

Submission number: First or Resubmission
Penalty type: Any penalty short of exclusion

• Any penalty short of exclusion (including those listed in the section above), with reference to the number of attempts/time limits for submission as prescribed in Ordinance X and the Code of Practice for Research Degree Candidatures. 
• Any other suitable penalty proportionate to the circumstances.

Submission number:All
Penalty type: Permanent Withdrawal

• The PGR will be permanently excluded from the University with no award. 
• The findings may be conveyed to any relevant professional body, grant-awarding bodies, the editors of any journals which have published work by the person against whom the allegation has been upheld and to any individual who has received references from the University. 
• In the event of an allegation(s) being proved after a PGR has graduated, any degree or award that is held by the PGR may be revoked.

72. A PGR cannot be issued with a transcript or have a degree conferred or an award presented while an allegation(s) remains unresolved. The PGR’s name will not appear on pass lists while an allegation is under consideration.

73. A student can permanently withdraw from a programme while an allegation(s) remains unresolved, but they cannot receive any credits or award. The investigation will be continued and a finding recorded.

 74. PGRs are responsible for retaining copies of their case papers, correspondence and other records.

75. PGRs are expected to respond to the allegations and submit all correspondence personally and they cannot delegate these responsibilities to a third party. This does not affect the PGR’s right to a supporter. All substantive correspondence will be addressed directly to the PGR personally, but may be copied by a School or the Student Cases Team to a third party or to the supporter on request. 

76. A supporter can be anyone of the PGR’s choosing (e.g. family member, friend, fellow PGR/student (although they cannot have any involvement in the allegation)), but the supporter can neither act as an advocate for the PGR nor attend if the PGR is not present. The supporter will not be a member of staff at the University.

77. It is the responsibility of the PGR to invite the supporter to attend any meeting and notify the supporter of the time and place of the meeting (including the joining link, where the meeting is online). The PGR is responsible for providing any documentation they wish their supporter to receive. 

78. The PGR is responsible for the conduct of their supporter and the University will not pay any costs of a supporter, including legal or other professional fees that a PGR may have chosen to incur. PGRs are encouraged to access independent support from Leeds University Union (LUU) Help and Support.

79. A meeting may be stopped if the supporter does not conduct themselves in accordance with the University expectations on preventing bullying and harassment. Students may be asked to nominate a new supporter or they may choose to continue without a supporter.

80. If the PGR believes that a procedural irregularity has occurred at any point in the Procedure, this must be drawn to the attention of the Student Cases Team immediately and by way of an email headed ‘Procedural Irregularity’. Notice of such irregularities embedded in the response or other correspondence or papers will not be accepted.

In response the Student Cases Team will either offer an explanation or appropriate action will be taken to ensure that the Procedure is followed.

If the PGR remains dissatisfied with the explanation or the action taken the University Student Complaints Procedure may be invoked either by the PGR or, if the PGR so declines, by the Student Cases Team in order to secure a resolution of the disputed explanation or action. Pending this resolution, the case will be halted. 

81. If a procedural irregularity is raised at or immediately prior to the hearing of the Committee on Applications it will be set aside by the Committee if it is judged that it could have been raised in time for appropriate corrective action to be taken. 

82. In the event of an allegation(s) being proved after a PGR has graduated, any degree or award of the University that is held by the PGR may be revoked by the Committee. 

83. All correspondence in relation to an allegation will be to the PGR’s University email account, unless the account has closed. It is a PGR’s responsibility to ensure access to their University email account throughout a period of investigation and regularly check their emails. 

84. The University may review anonymous concerns or reports of academic misconduct, but the reporting party should be aware that any potential action will be limited if we are not able to substantiate the concerns that have been raised. The School may request evidence from the reporting party to support any claims made. Any action taken to investigate or substantiate anonymous reports is at the discretion of the School. 

85. The University holds and retains information about an investigation in accordance with the University Student Privacy Notice. Personal information about third parties should not be submitted to the University as part of a PGR/student case at any stage unless necessary. If third party information is included it must be accompanied by consent for the University to process the data. 

86. At the University of Leeds, everyone in our community has the right to study and work in a supportive environment that values compassion and integrity. If there is unacceptable behaviour by a student or their supporter towards any other party in the Procedure, the University reserves the right to suspend or cease consideration of a case and/or to take action under the Student Discipline Procedure.

87. You can email the Student Cases Team at studentcases@leeds.ac.uk. 

88. Contact details for the LUU Help and Support team (which is located on the ground floor of the Union building) are as follows:

• LUU Help and Support webpage
• Email the LUU Help and Support team at advice@luu.leeds.ac.uk
• Phone the LUU Help and Support Team on 0113 380 1290

89. General information about the Procedure can be obtained from the Secretariat at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/secretariat/student_cases.html . The Student Cases Team will be pleased to give procedural advice but will not comment on or offer advice upon any part of the case itself. 

90. Doctoral College Progression and Examinations Team can be contacted by email at rp_examinations@adm.leeds.ac.uk