POLICY FOR DEALING WITH PLAGIARISM, COLLUSION AND THE FABRICATION OF DATA

1. Definitions

The following definitions are contained within Section 8.1 of the Code of Practice on
Assessment and apply to all types of work submitted by students, including, for example,
written work, diagrams, designs, charts, musical compositions and pictures:

1.1 Plagiarism

Plagiarism occurs when a student misrepresents, as his/her own work, the work, written or
otherwise, of any other person (including another student) or of any institution.
Examples of forms of plagiarism include:

the verbatim (word for word) copying of another’s work without appropriate and
correctly presented acknowledgement;
the close paraphrasing of another’s work by simply changing a few words or
altering the order of presentation, without appropriate and correctly presented
acknowledgement;
unacknowledged quotation of phrases from another’s work;
the deliberate and detailed presentation of another’s concept as one’s own.

When Plagiarism is suspected it should fall into one of two categories:

Minor Plagiarism: defined as a small amount of paraphrasing, quotation or use of diagrams, charts
etc. without adequate citation. Minor plagiarism may result from poor scholarship
(i.e. when a student, through inexperience or carelessness, fails to reference
appropriately or adequately identify the source of the material which they use).

Major Plagiarism: defined as:

extensive paraphrasing or quoting without proper citation of the source;
lifting directly from a text or other academic source without reference;
(Where material is taken directly from a text or other source the cited material
should be demarcated with quotation marks or in some other accepted way and
the source should be cited.)
the use of essays (or parts thereof) from essay banks, either downloaded from
the internet or obtained from other sources;
presenting another’s designs or concepts as one’s own;
continued instances of what was initially regarded as minor plagiarism despite
warnings having been given to the student concerned.

1.2 Collusion

Collusion occurs when, unless with official approval (e.g. in the case of group projects), two
or more students consciously collaborate in the preparation and production of
work which is ultimately submitted by each in an identical, or substantially similar,
form and/or is represented by each to be the product of his or her individual
efforts. Collusion also occurs where there is unauthorised co-operation between a
student and another person in the preparation and production of work which is
presented as the student’s own.

TQSD/Plagiarism, Collusion and Fabrication of Data – Policy (Senate summer 2009 CA)
2010-2011 v.2
1 of 7
1.3 Fabrication of Data

Embellishment occurs when a small amount of data is enhanced or exaggerated in order to

of Data emphasise data which has been obtained by legitimate means.

Fabrication occurs when a student creates and presents an extensive amount or significant
of data piece of data in order to conceal a paucity of legitimate data; or wholly fabricates
a set of data in the absence of legitimate data.

The University treats the decision as to whether plagiarism, collusion or the fabrication of data
1
has taken place as a matter for academic judgement and the penalties applied will vary
according to the individual case and the seriousness of the offence (for details of the range of
penalties see section 4 below.)

2. Dealing with Plagiarism. Collusion or Fabrication of Data

2.1 The University aims to provide advice and training in its staff development programme on how
to detect and deal with plagiarism, collusion and fabrication of data and on how to help
students to avoid them.

2.2 If plagiarism, collusion or fabrication of data is suspected in relation to work submitted by a

student, in the interest of helping students to avoid continued acts of plagiarism, collusion and
fabrication of data, cases should be investigated as promptly as possible.
2
2.3 Departments should require students, when submitting work for summative assessment, to
provide a signed declaration to confirm that they have not plagiarised material, nor have they
fabricated any of the data nor have they colluded in producing the work. The appended
coversheet may be used for this purpose, but departments may use their own
procedures/forms to obtain the necessary declaration.

2.4 Cases of suspected plagiarism, collusion or fabrication of data should be evidenced and
documented before the appropriate procedure is instigated.

3. Procedure

Minor Plagiarism or Embellishment of Data

3.1 If the examiner identifies minor plagiarism or embellishment of data, as defined above then
the student’s records should be checked for any previous cases of plagiarism (minor or major),
collusion, or embellishment or fabrication of data.

3.2 If no previous case has been recorded then the normal course of action is for the examiner to
issue a written warning to the student (see attachment for proposed wording); a note should
3
be placed in the student’s records, including their records in SPIDER , and the Assessment
4
Officer in the department which ‘owns’ the module concerned should be informed.

3.3 If the student’s record shows that two previous warnings for minor plagiarism/embellishment of
data have been issued, the examiner should initiate the procedure for dealing with major
plagiarism, collusion and fabrication of data (see 3.5, below).

1
It should be noted that where plagiarism is identified using plagiarism detection software, Examiners,
Assessment Officers and Board of Examiners must still exercise academic judgement in determining
whether plagiarism has taken place. [Guidelines s.8.5]
2
The departmental responsibility referred to here should fall to the relevant appropriate body in the case of on-
line programmes.
3
In respect of this and all references to SPIDER in this Policy it should be noted that for on-line programmes an
alternative records system may be used.
4
In respect of this and all references to the Assessment Officer in this Policy it should be noted that the
corresponding officer for on-line programmes is the Director of On-line Studies.

TQSD/Plagiarism, Collusion and Fabrication of Data – Policy (Senate summer 2009 CA)
2010-2011 v.2
2 of 7
3.4 If the student’s record shows that the student has previously been found to have committed
major plagiarism, fabrication of data or to have colluded in the production of assessed work,
then, notwithstanding that previous warnings for minor offences may not have been issued,
the examiner should initiate the procedure for dealing with alleged acts of major plagiarism,
collusion and fabrication of data (see 3.5, below).

3.5 A second warning for minor plagiarism/embellishment of data cannot be counted as such and
should be disregarded if a student has not yet received the first warning, as the student will not
have had an opportunity to take heed of the warning and improve their work. Similarly a third
warning, (which would lead to the procedures used for major plagiarism, collusion and
fabrication of data) would not count as a third warning and should be disregarded if the
student had not received the second warning; again the student will not have had the
opportunity to improve their work. This is intended to cover situations where assessments are
completed and marked within a short period of time. For this section to apply it needs to be
clear that the student has not received the earlier warning.

Major Plagiarism, Collusion or Fabrication of Data

3.6 When major plagiarism, collusion or fabrication of data is identified, the matter must be
reported to the Assessment Officer in the department which ‘owns’ the module concerned.

3.7 The Assessment Officer will investigate the allegation on behalf of the Chair of the appropriate
Board of Examiners by inviting the examiner to provide evidence and reasons for this/her
allegation and the student(s) to provide an explanation of the circumstances for the plagiarism,
5
collusion or fabrication of data.

3.8 The student(s) must be afforded the opportunity to make any representations that they may
wish to make. If the investigation involves a face-to-face (which the student(s) may request)
each student suspected of plagiarism, collusion or fabrication of data will be entitled to be
accompanied by another member of the University, e.g. a fellow student.

3.9 If, following the investigation, the Assessment Officer concludes that major plagiarism,
collusion or fabrication of data has taken place, the Assessment Officer will provide a report to
the Chair of the appropriate Board of Examiners detailing his/her findings, the circumstances
of the alleged major plagiarism, collusion or fabrication of data, the investigation undertaken
and the representations made by the student. A copy of this will also be made available to the
student(s).

3.10 The Chair of the Board of Examiners will consult with the Board of Examiners and decide
whether it deems the findings of the Assessment Officer appropriate and acceptable and apply
the appropriate penalty. No person who was involved with any aspect of the investigation and
drafting of the Assessment Officer’s report should be party to the decision made by the Board
of Examiners.

3.11 If a student is found to have committed major plagiarism, to have colluded in an assessment
or to have fabricated data, the Board of Examiners should arrange for other work submitted by
the student for assessment to be scrutinised to determine whether such work contains
previously undetected instances of plagiarism, collusion or fabrication of data. The Board of
Examiners is responsible for ensuring that this is noted in the student’s records, including their
records on SPIDER, or the appropriate records in the case of Laureate programmes, and that
the minutes of the Board’s meeting accurately record the decision making process.

3.12 Students may appeal against the findings of the Assessment Officer and Internal Examiner but
only on the grounds of material irregularity, procedural or administrative error in the conduct of
the investigation into the alleged plagiarism, collusion or fabrication of data. Students may not

5
For on-line programmes, the investigation undertaken by the Assessment Officer with the examiner
and the student concerned often takes place under the auspices of a ‘Plagiarism Sub-Committee’ who
would make recommendations about allegations of plagiarism, collusion or fabrication of data to the
Board of Examiners.

TQSD/Plagiarism, Collusion and Fabrication of Data – Policy (Senate summer 2009 CA)
2010-2011 v.2
3 of 7
 appeal against the decision of the Board of Examiners other than in accordance with the Code
of Practice on Assessment, Appendix F, Assessment Appeals Procedure:
http://www.liv.ac.uk/students/student-administration-centre/policies-procedures/appeals.htm

4 Penalties

Minor Plagiarism or Embellishment of Data

4.1 If a student is found to have committed minor plagiarism or embellishment of data, and has no
record of a previous case, the student will be issued with a written warning but no penalty will
be applied. The examiner may, however, use academic judgement in determining an
appropriate mark for the assessment, in accordance with the relevant marking criteria and
taking into account, as appropriate, matters such as the quality/accuracy of the referencing
and citations, the quality of data presented, etc.

Major Plagiarism, Collusion or Fabrication of Data

4.2 If a student is found to have committed major plagiarism, collusion or fabrication of data, they
will be awarded a mark of zero for the assessment.

4.3 If, as a result, the student fails the module as a whole, they will be required to re-take the
assessment to which the plagiarism, collusion or fabrication of data related unless they are in
the final year of an undergraduate degree programme, in which case they will only be
permitted to re-take the assessment if failing the module would result in them being awarded a
pass degree or being awarded no degree. In the case of non-clinical undergraduate
programmes, the resulting mark for the module will be capped at the designated pass mark for
the module for carry forward and final assessment purposes. It should be noted that, where
permission has been granted for a re-sit opportunity not to be provided within a given session
for an assessment, then a student who is found to have committed major plagiarism,
fabricated data or to have colluded in that assessment may be unable to progress to the next
year of their studies. In the case of a master’s student (postgraduate taught degree) being
awarded zero and as a result failing their dissertation or project, the Board of Examiners will
decide whether they should be permitted to re-submit the dissertation or project, revised and
corrected, or whether they must complete and submit a whole new dissertation or project.

4.4 If two or more students are found to have colluded in producing a piece of assessed work (this
includes one student allowing another to copy his/her work and submit it as his/her own), then
each should be given a mark of zero for the assessment. If one or more students are found to
have copied the work of another student in any form without his/her knowledge, then this
should be treated as minor or major plagiarism (as appropriate) and any resulting warning or
penalty (as applicable) should apply only to the student(s) that copied the work.

4.5 If a student on postgraduate programme is found to have committed major plagiarism,

fabrication of data or collusion in respect of their dissertation or project and in the opinion of
the Board of Examiners it is of a serious nature or extensive in scale, the Board may decide
that the student’s studies be terminated. This is notwithstanding such an offence may be the
first instance of plagiarism, collusion or fabrication of data in their work.

4.6 If a student is found to have committed major plagiarism, collusion or fabrication of data on a
third occasion, namely three offences of the same type or any combination of major
plagiarism, collusion and fabrication of data, the Board of Examiners shall determine that the
student has failed to satisfy the requirements of the programme. It shall also determine in
those circumstances whether or not any award is to be made to the student. The student has
a right of appeal against the decision of the Board of Examiners through the assessment
appeals process
http://www.liv.ac.uk/students/student-administration-centre/policies-procedures/appeals.htm

4.7 Students should be aware that committing plagiarism, fabrication of data or collusion may
have serious consequences and that the University may choose not to award a Degree or
other award to those students who have committed one or more of these acts.

TQSD/Plagiarism, Collusion and Fabrication of Data – Policy (Senate summer 2009 CA)
2010-2011 v.2
4 of 7
5. RESEARCH DEGREES

The policy for dealing with plagiarism, collusion and fabrication of data in research degrees is
addressed in a separate policy document.

6. PLAGIARISM, COLLUSION, FABRICATION OF DATA AND FITNESS TO PRACTISE

6.1 For some vocational and/or professional programmes there may be requirements for students
to meet specified standards in respect of their fitness to practise in the relevant vocation or
profession. Where a finding of plagiarism, collusion and/or fabrication of data against a
student may call into question the student’s fitness to practise, this must be clearly stated in
the programme information provided to students.

TQSD/Plagiarism, Collusion and Fabrication of Data – Policy (Senate summer 2009 CA)
2010-2011 v.2
5 of 7
 PROCESS FOR DEALING WITH MINOR PLAGIARISM OR EMBELLISHMENT OF DATA

Case of minor plagiarism or embellishment of data identified by the examiner.

The examiner checks the student’s records. Has the student received a previous
warning about plagiarism and/or embellishment of data?

YES NO

If only one previous warning has Issue a written warning. Do

been issued, give the student a not apply a penalty. A copy of
second written warning. Do not the warning should be placed
apply a penalty. Place a copy of the on the student’s record and
warning on record and record the record the incident in
incident in SPIDER* SPIDER.

If two previous warnings have

been issued, initiate the
procedure for dealing with
major plagiarism, collusion and
fabrication of data.

* In this and the following flow chart, for all references to SPIDER it should be noted that for on-line programmes an alternative
records system may be used.

TQSD/Plagiarism, Collusion and Fabrication of Data – Policy (Senate summer 2009 CA)
2010-2011 v.2
6 of 7
 PROCESS FOR DEALING WITH MAJOR PLAGIARISM, COLLUSION AND FABRICATION OF
DATA

Examiner identifies major plagiarism, fabrication of data or collusion in a student’s work.

The Examiner reports the matter to the Assessment Officer in the department that
‘owns’ the module.

The Assessment Officer and the Examiner invite the student to provide an explanation
of the circumstances behind the suspected plagiarism or collusion and investigate the
matter.

If plagiarism, fabrication or collusion is If plagiarism, fabrication or

found, the Assessment Officer advises the collusion is not found, the matter
Chair if the Board of Examiners of the case. need not be progressed.

If this is the first or second instance of major

plagiarism, fabrication or collusion by the
student, the Chair consults with the Board
of Examiners

If the case is accepted, a mark of zero

should be awarded. In cases of collusion, all If the student has two previous
students involved should be awarded zero. cases of major plagiarism,
Record the incident in SPIDER fabrication or collusion on his
or her record, namely three
offences of the same type or
any combination of major
plagiarism, collusion and
If, as a result of the mark of zero, they fail fabrication of data, the Board of
the module as a whole, they will be Examiners shall determine that
required to re-take the assessment to the student has failed to satisfy
which the plagiarism, fabrication or the requirements of the
collusion related. For non-clinical programme. It shall also
programmes, the resulting mark will be determine in those
capped at the designated pass mark for circumstances whether or not
the module for carry forward and final any award is to be made to the
assessment purposes. Where a re-sit student. The student has a right
opportunity for the assessment is not of appeal against a decision of
available, students may be unable to the Board of Examiners through
progress to the next year of their studies. the assessment appeals
process.

TQSD/Plagiarism, Collusion and Fabrication of Data – Policy (Senate summer 2009 CA)
2010-2011 v.2
7 of 7