1. The purpose of this procedure
This procedure sets out how Adelaide University manages academic misconduct, and the process for reporting, investigating and making determinations on alleged academic misconduct. It outlines possible outcomes, including escalations, appeals, and the recordkeeping requirements.
Please read this procedure in conjunction with the Academic Integrity Policy.
2. Who this procedure applies to
This procedure applies to current and past students who are or have been enrolled in courses as part of either a coursework or non-award program. For current or past students enrolled in a research program, this procedure applies only to coursework components of the program.
This procedure applies to staff and outlines their responsibility to identify and manage concerns about student academic misconduct.
2.1 Exclusions
- Research misconduct, which is covered by the Investigating and Managing Research Conduct Procedure
- Staff misconduct which is covered by the Staff Code of Conduct.
3. Academic misconduct procedure
3.1 Reducing the risk of academic misconduct
The University provides students with education, advice, and support to help them understand the importance of academic integrity, and how to apply it in their studies.
Course Coordinators must take responsibility for assessing the academic misconduct risk of the assignment types they use.
When reviewing and revising assignments, staff must assess the level of risk associated with each assignment and implement measures to minimise the chances of academic misconduct, ensuring the student learning is authentically validated.
Software will be used to aid in the prevention and detection of possible academic misconduct. Staff with teaching responsibilities will be provided with support to stay up-to-date with prevention and detection methods.
3.2 Managing alleged academic misconduct
Academic Units will appoint at least two Academic Integrity Officers AIOs for each School, or equivalent, who will be responsible for receiving, investigating and determining allegations of academic misconduct (see section 3.7).
AIOs will receive regular training to effectively perform their role. Training will include systems, conflicts of interest, natural justice, assessment of cases, and how to determine outcomes on the balance of probabilities. Please refer to the academic integrity website for a list of current AIOs.
3.3 Reporting alleged academic misconduct
Anyone, including staff, students, and members of the public, can raise concerns about possible academic misconduct at Adelaide University if they have reasonable grounds to believe it has occurred (see also the Academic Misconduct Protocol). Staff should report concerns using the online website tool and include as much supporting evidence as possible to help the AIO review the report.
Students or members of the public who wish to raise a concern of possible academic misconduct, can do so in writing via email to the Academic Integrity Team. The concern should be accompanied by evidence supporting the suspicion, concern or allegation of academic misconduct.
The Academic Integrity Team supports staff to understand how to identify academic misconduct and offers resources to keep detection methods up-to-date.
3.4. The process for initial determination
AIOs will make sure they are not involved in any cases where they have an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest.
To determine if the case warrants investigation, an AIO will examine the information provided within five working days of a concern being reported and seek further details if required.
Once the information has been examined the AIO will make one of the following judgements:
- That no Academic Misconduct has occurred on the basis of one of the following:
- the concern reflects poor academic practice, rather than academic misconduct
- the evidence provided is insufficient to support an allegation of academic misconduct
- other reasons, to be documented by the AIO.
- There is sufficient evidence to support an allegation of academic misconduct, which requires investigation (see the Academic Misconduct Protocol for examples of possible academic misconduct).
No further action will be taken where the finding is that no academic misconduct has occurred, and the student will not be informed of the concern. In compliance with record keeping requirements a record of the decision will be made on Adelaide University’s recordkeeping system but not recorded on the Academic Integrity Register. See also the Privacy Policy.
In the event that poor academic practice is found, submitted assignments will be returned to the original marker and will be addressed through marking and feedback as part of standard assessment processes.
Where it is determined that an allegation of academic misconduct requires investigation, please refer to the details in sections 3.5-3.11.
3.5 When an allegation of academic misconduct requires investigation
If the AIO determines there is sufficient cause for an investigation, they may seek further evidence and information from the Course Coordinator, and may request investigative assistance from the Academic Integrity Team in Academic Quality and Integrity. The AIO will then assess the severity of the alleged misconduct and make an initial determination regarding the likelihood of academic misconduct. Within five working days of the initial determination the AIO will email the student to either:
- provide the student with information regarding an Early Resolution (section 3.6), or
- invite the student to an Academic Misconduct Meeting (section 3.7).
If the student is invited to attend an Academic Misconduct Meeting they must respond to the email within five working days of it being sent to indicate whether they will attend. Regardless of whether the student indicates their intention to attend the Academic Misconduct Meeting, they will be given the option to provide a written response.
In complex cases, the timeframes for further investigation, meetings and decisions may vary.
The Academic Registrar & Executive Director, Student and Academic Services can determine whether an investigation is warranted, in situations where the alleged misconduct:
- does not relate to a particular course or assignment
- is particularly sensitive or complex in nature, or
- relates to one or more courses that a student has completed in a previous study period (historical).
In these circumstances, if it is decided that an investigation is necessary, the case will first be referred to a Review Committee (see section 3.7).
3.6 When an Early Resolution is offered
An Early Resolution offer may be made in cases where the AIO believes the nature of the alleged academic misconduct warrants an educational approach, combined with a warning or a mitigated outcome, and will be of benefit to the student. Early Resolution is only available to students who have no prior record of academic misconduct.
The decision to offer an Early Resolution should take into account:
- the type and severity of academic misconduct that has been reported
- the year level of the student
- whether the available evidence suggests that the reported behaviour demonstrates a lack of understanding, with no intent to breach the Academic Integrity Policy
- the complexity of the case and the nature of the evidence, including whether or not the case involves more than one person
- any other matters reasonably deemed relevant by the AIO.
An Early Resolution email will be provided to the student advising:
- they are being provided with an opportunity to make an early admission of their conduct and accept a warning or mitigated outcome
- this opportunity can be accepted, by responding to the email within five working days of it being sent
- if they accept the Early Resolution, they must complete the directed academic integrity education within a specified period of time
- if they accept the Early Resolution, the misconduct will be recorded on the Academic Integrity Register.
When a student accepts an Early Resolution, a finding of academic misconduct will be recorded on the Academic Integrity Register. No further investigation will occur, and the student has no right to appeal the outcome.
If a student declines an Early Resolution, or if the student does not respond within five working days, the student will be invited to an Academic Misconduct Meeting (section 3.7), and the range of outcomes under section 3.10 are available if academic misconduct is found.
3.7 The Academic Misconduct meeting
Where a meeting is held, there may be one or more decision makers. This depends on:
- the severity of the allegation
- the potential outcome category if the misconduct is confirmed (see section 3.11).
The decision makers will be:
- one AIO, for students with their first allegation of academic misconduct, or where the AIO anticipates outcomes in category 1 would be appropriate
- two AIOs, representing a Review Committee, for students with a second or subsequent allegation of academic misconduct, or where the AIO anticipates outcomes in category 1 and 2 would be appropriate
- a Formal Inquiry Committee (see section 3.9), if referred by an AIO who anticipates outcomes in category 1, 2, and 3 would be appropriate.
Unless there are extenuating circumstances, meetings will be held online, and students will be given details including the date, time, and access link via email. All outcomes will be determined on the balance of probabilities.
The student must provide a written response by email within five working days from the date of the email to advise whether they will attend the meeting and/or respond to the concern in writing.
If the student agrees to attend the meeting with the AIO, the meeting will usually take place within ten(10) working days of issue of the notification email. A shorter timeframe may be offered if the student’s academic standing is likely to be adversely affected.
If the student does not respond or attend the meeting, the AIO will determine whether academic misconduct has occurred. If the AIO determines that academic misconduct has occurred, the AIO will apply an outcome based on sections 3.10-3.12. This outcome may be reconsidered within five working days if the student demonstrates that there were extenuating circumstances which prevented them from responding by the specified timeframe.
If a meeting is held, the student may bring a support person. Staff from Academic Integrity and Quality (AQI) will be in attendance to provide executive support.
3.8 How students are notified of the decision
Following the meeting, the AIO(s) will decide that either:
- no academic misconduct has occurred
- academic misconduct has occurred.
Students will be notified of the outcome via email within five working days of the meeting. If academic misconduct has occurred, the AIO(s) will apply an outcome based on sections 3.10-3.12.
If the student elects not to attend the meeting, the decision will be made by the AIO(s) in their absence within five working days of the originally scheduled meeting time.
If the academic misconduct is reported in a designated Work Integrated Learning (WIL) course, the WIL Team in Academic Quality and Integrity will be informed.
3.9 The Formal Inquiry process
Where a Formal Inquiry is required the Dean Students from the relevant College (or delegate) will establish a panel comprising the following decision makers:
- the Dean Students, or equivalent, (or nominee) (Chair),
- an academic staff member with academic integrity responsibilities not previously involved in the investigation
- an academic staff member from the discipline area
- one representative from the Adelaide University Student Association.
The Formal Inquiry may invite other staff members as appropriate to the allegation, to provide information to the inquiry.
The Dean Students will inform the student that a Formal Inquiry has been initiated and invite the student to attend a meeting. Information and documentation of the alleged misconduct will be provided to the student.
The Formal Inquiry may proceed regardless of whether the student responds or attends.
If the Formal Inquiry concludes that the student's actions warrant a suspension or expulsion from Adelaide University, the student will be advised as per the Academic Preclusion, Suspension and Expulsion Procedure (see section 3.10).
Students who choose to attend a Formal Inquiry may bring a support person. Staff from AQI will be in attendance to provide executive support.
3.10 Outcomes explained
Outcomes are the consequences or penalty imposed on a student where academic misconduct is found. The purpose of an outcome is to address the academic misconduct and uphold the standards of Adelaide University. Outcomes reinforce the importance of academic integrity, address unfair academic advantage and encourage students to uphold academic integrity in the future.
Outcomes can vary in severity depending on the nature, circumstances and extent of the academic misconduct and any mitigating or exacerbating factors (see section 3.11).
An AIO or Review Committee may refer an allegation to a different decision maker (section 3.7) if they believe an outcome from a different category would be appropriate
Where a decision is made that academic misconduct has occurred an AIO, Review Committee, or Formal Inquiry (section 3.7) will apply one or more outcomes from the relevant category.
3.11 Outcome categories explained
The categories relating to the level of outcomes are described below.
Category 1 Outcome
- the student is given a warning with no mark reduction
- direct the student to undertake prescribed academic integrity education
- reduced assignment marks are given proportionate to the severity (from total awarded marks)
- zero for the assignment.
Category 2 Outcome
- zero for the course.
Category 3 Outcome
- the student will be suspended from Adelaide University for a specified period
- the student will be expelled from Adelaide University.
Category 3 Outcomes should be considered in line with Adelaide University’s Academic Preclusion, Suspension and Expulsion Procedure, including obligations related to holders of international student visas.
Please refer to section 3.12 for details of appropriate outcomes for different types of academic misconduct.
3.12 Considerations, and mitigated and exacerbated outcomes
Adelaide University recognises that academic misconduct can occur because of a number of factors, including lack of familiarity with academic conventions. All outcomes for academic misconduct will be considered in context of the following:
- the extent of the misconduct
- the student’s evident intention
- the stage/level of the program
- any history of previous academic misconduct
- the academic conventions in the relevant discipline
- information provided to students about academic integrity as part of their course
- any other extenuating circumstances as per other policies if applicable.
Based on the evidence, the AIO will determine if either a mitigated outcome or an exacerbated outcome is applicable to the student. Previous breaches of the Academic Integrity Policy will also be taken into consideration.
A mitigated outcome takes into account factors such as:
- the student has no prior history of academic misconduct
- a misunderstanding of the rules or expectations regarding academic integrity, which is not the result of negligence or carelessness
- the student was facing significant personal challenges, such as family issues, health or other hardship that may have contributed to the misconduct (see section 1 of the Variations to Assessment Procedure)
- the student acknowledges the academic misconduct.
An exacerbated outcome takes into account factors or conditions that make the instance of academic misconduct more severe or more serious, such as:
- the student has previous academic misconduct demonstrating a pattern of unethical behaviour
- the misconduct was deliberate
- the breadth of the impact of the behaviour, such as affecting other students, the institution or the credibility of the assignment
- the misconduct involves a large portion of the work, on multiple assignments
- the student refuses to take responsibility or shows no understanding of the seriousness of the misconduct.
3.13 Applying outcomes for academic misconduct
The Academic Misconduct Protocol indicates the outcome levels students can expect to receive if academic misconduct is determined, including mitigated and exacerbated outcomes. The outcomes listed in the Protocol are not exhaustive and AIO discretion will apply in the application of outcomes.
AIOs will use the Protocol as a guide, for consistency in application, and as appropriate to individual cases of academic misconduct.
For any academic misconduct deemed to be serious, or for a pattern of academic misconduct, an AIO may consider referral to a Formal Inquiry for the application of a category 3 outcome.
3.14 When students can continue studying
A student with alleged academic misconduct at Adelaide University is able to continue their academic studies during the management of the allegation. If the allegation is substantiated and a penalty of suspension or expulsion is the outcome, the student may continue their academic studies until the end of any appeal (see the Student Appeals Procedure).
3.15 How to request an appeal of a decision
A student may appeal an academic misconduct decision under the Student Appeals Procedure.
3.16 Approach to recordkeeping
Adelaide University will keep records of allegations of academic misconduct in compliance with recordkeeping requirements.
Confirmed instances of academic misconduct and their outcomes will be recorded on the Academic Integrity Register.
The Academic Integrity Team is responsible for maintaining the Academic Integrity Register and recordkeeping files relating to investigations and outcomes in the University System.
Outcomes are not recorded on the student’s academic transcript.
Information about a student's record of academic misconduct will be shared when there is a reasonable requirement to do so or a request for relevant information from regulators or government agencies (e.g. professional regulatory/accreditation bodies). See the Privacy Policy for further information.
4. Definitions used in this procedure
Please refer to the Adelaide University glossary for a full list of our definitions.
Student means a person enrolled in an enabling program, award or non-award coursework study, a research program, or a short course or microcredential at Adelaide University.
Working Days means the weekdays from Monday to Friday inclusive, excluding public holidays.
Academic Integrity means a commitment to act with honesty, trustworthiness, fairness, respect, and responsibility in all academic work.
Academic Integrity Officer (AIO) means a member of Adelaide University’s academic staff who has completed the relevant training to enable them to assess alleged academic misconduct for which they have no conflict of interest.
Academic Misconduct is an action or attempted action by a student to obtain an unfair academic advantage. For examples see the Academic Misconduct Protocol.
Academic unit means one that is responsible for either management or teaching of Adelaide University curriculum.
Balance of probabilities means the standard of proof to determine that academic misconduct has occurred. The decision maker must be satisfied that based on the evidence received, the academic misconduct was more likely than not to have occurred.
Exacerbated Outcome means an outcome which is more severe due to relevant factors and considerations.
Mitigated Outcome means an outcome which is reduced in severity due to relevant factors and considerations.
Natural Justice (also called ‘Procedural Fairness’) means acting fairly in administrative decision making and relates to the fairness of the procedure by which a decision is made, not whether the outcome is fair. Natural justice will be accorded based on the circumstances of the complaint.
Poor Academic Practice means concerns that clearly demonstrate a limited understanding of academic conventions typically due to insufficient development of academic skills. This can include errors like incorrect referencing, inadequate paraphrasing, or other concerns that do not meet the academic conventions but are not academic misconduct where errors are not extensive in nature.
Student means a person enrolled in an enabling program, award or non-award coursework study, a research program, or a short course or microcredential at Adelaide University.
Support person A support person is someone chosen by an individual to accompany them to informal meetings, or formal processes (such as formal meetings, investigations, or disciplinary proceedings). Their primary role is to provide cultural, emotional, and/or practical support, such as taking notes or requesting breaks.
A support person may observe proceedings and assist the individual to understand the process and matters discussed. They do not perform a legal role and, in most circumstances, will not speak on behalf of the individual or act as an advocate.
However, reasonable adjustments may be made where required, for example, where the individual has a disability or other specific need. In such circumstances, and by prior agreement, a support person may take a more active role, provided this does not compromise the integrity, fairness, or orderly conduct of the process.
5. How this procedure is governed
This Procedure is categorised, approved and owned in line with the governance structure of Adelaide University and the offices and officers listed below.
Parent policy | Academic Integrity Policy |
Policy category | Academic |
Approving authority | Vice Chancellor and President |
Policy owner | Deputy Vice Chancellor – Academic |
Responsible officer | Pro Vice Chancellor, Learning and Teaching |
Effective from | 14 January 2025 |
Review date | 3 years after date this version is approved |
Enquiries | Education Policy and Compliance |
Replaced documents | None |
6. Legislation and other documents related to this procedure
| Category | Documents |
|---|---|
| Related policy documents | IT Acceptable Use Procedure |
| Investigating and Managing Research Conduct Procedure | |
| Variations to Assessment Procedure | |
| Academic Preclusion, Suspension and Expulsion Procedure | |
| Privacy Policy | |
| Student Complaints Resolution Procedure | |
| Academic Preclusion, Suspension and Expulsion Procedure | |
| Student Misconduct Procedure | |
| Academic Misconduct Protocol | |
| Student Appeals Procedure | |
| Referenced legislation | |
Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 5.2 Academic and Research Integrity | |
National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018 Standard 8 Overseas Student Visa Requirements, section 8.8.1 |
7. History of changes
| Date approved | To section/clauses | Description of change |
|---|---|---|
| 14 January 2025 AD2025/22474 | N/A | New procedure |
| 10 December AD2026/158209 | Sections 3, 4, 5, 9, 15 and 16 | Changes identified that were not finalised at the time the procedure was initially developed. These changes provide clarification for the management of potential cases of Academic Misconduct. |
| 25 October 2026 AD2026/447009 | Sections 3.13, 4 and various | Table outlining indicative standard, mitigated and exacerbated outcomes moved to the Academic Misconduct Protocol. “Academic Misconduct” defined term simplified, and examples included in Academic Misconduct Protocol. Falsification, and its potential outcomes in the Protocol, has been divided into multiple categories to assist with AU processes, including academic misconduct and student misconduct investigations. |