Academic Integrity

Purpose

1. The purpose of this document is to set out the procedure the Institute of Health and Management (IHM) will follow and use to ensure that standards of academic honesty and integrity befitting of a higher education institute are maintained.

Scope

2. This procedure applies to all documents and media produced by IHM staff and students, including but not limited to:

• 2.1 Work produced by students in response to assessment tasks,
• 2.2 Documents produced by staff such as curricula, study guides, research papers by staff and students and marketing materials.

Definitions

3. Definitions for key terms are presented in the Glossary of Terms.

Suite documents

4. This Policy is linked to the following Procedure:

• 4.1 Academic Honesty and Integrity Policy
• 4.2 Other documents as listed in the “Related Internal Documents” in Section 3 below.

5. Guidelines for students

• 5.1 Generative Artificial Intelligence is evolving rapidly, IHM students are advised to use these tools critically, effectively, and ethically.
• 5.2 IHM encourages students to develop the awareness, knowledge, and skills to use these technologies ethically and responsibly as digitally fluent citizens.
• 5.3 Students need to develop Artificial Intelligence literacy skills in addition to traditional information literacy skills and generic digital literacy skills. Artificial Intelligence literacy skills enable individuals to critically evaluate Artificial Intelligence technologies, communicate and collaborate effectively with Artificial Intelligence, and use Artificial Intelligence as a tool online, at home, and in the workplace.
• 5.4 Students should use Artificial Intelligence models in ethical and responsible ways that are consistent with IHM’s learning, assessment and Academic Honesty and Integrity Policy and procedure, and the terms of use of the Artificial Intelligence providers.
• 5.5 Ethical use of generative Artificial Intelligence includes an obligation to follow IHM’s policy, procedure, and guidelines regarding academic activities, including the use of generative Artificial Intelligence in any unit or course, and with an understanding that it may not be appropriate to use generative Artificial Intelligence in all circumstances.
• 5.6 Students should check any output from generative Artificial Intelligence against reliable sources of information and understand that they will be responsible for any errors or omissions in material generated by Artificial Intelligence.
• 5.7 Students are required to identify Artificial Intelligence models, tools and/or prompts that are appropriate for their discipline and acknowledge the use of Artificial Intelligence in written assessments following the Referencing and Style Guide (please see Section on AI Outputs).
• 5.8 If it is not possible to identify and cite the original sources used in the written assignment or report developed by using Artificial Intelligence tools, this may result in a finding of plagiarism and academic misconduct.
• 5.9 Students also need to be aware of the possibility of “hallucinated references” or the tendency of generative Artificial Intelligence language models to make up references from constituent parts of actual references.
• 5.10 Students should acknowledge the use of generative Artificial Intelligence language models in assessment tasks, following IHM policy and procedure. The student should describe the way they have used the tool and integrate the results into their work as appropriate to the specific guidelines within their discipline, unit or course.
• 5.11 The unauthorised use of Artificial Intelligence language models or paraphrasing tools may be a form of cheating and may result in academic misconduct. Students must make sure that the final product is their own work and not just copied from an Artificial Intelligence generator.
• 5.12 Students need to be aware that using the output from Artificial Intelligence models without appropriate acknowledgment may constitute academic misconduct. If unsure, students should confirm assessment requirements with teaching staff or seek advice on how to acknowledge the output from Artificial Intelligence from academic support services, such as their library or other academic services.
• 5.13 Where appropriate, students should familiarise themselves with any relevant expectations of or constraints on the use of generative Artificial Intelligence related to their future professional accreditation and be aware that these may be updated.

6. Guidelines for academic staff

• 6.1 Academic staff will help students to develop capabilities in the ethical use of generative Artificial Intelligence relevant to their discipline and future professional practice through ethical engagement with generative Artificial Intelligence tools in learning and teaching activities and assessment.
• 6.2 Existing and likely future uses of Artificial Intelligence in professional contexts and in platforms such as Microsoft Office and search engines need to be considered when developing unit or course learning outcomes, activities, and assessments.
• 6.3 Expectations regarding the appropriate use of generative Artificial Intelligence in assessment tasks and learning activities should be consistent with IHM policies and clearly communicated to students via instructions in student-facing documents such as Unit Outlines and the learning management system.
• 6.4 To ensure procedural fairness, it is important to communicate to students any inappropriate uses of generative Artificial Intelligence that may result in breaches of academic integrity.
• 6.5 Students should be aware that they are risking academic misconduct if using generative Artificial Intelligence without appropriate acknowledgement in accordance with referencing guidelines provided by IHM.
• 6.6 Having conversations with students early in regard to units and courses will improve a shared understanding of how and when they can use Artificial Intelligence tools.
• 6.7 Staff should educate students on how and when generative Artificial Intelligence can be used and acknowledged.
• 6.8 Staff should make students aware of the limitations of generative Artificial Intelligence such as biased or negative responses, hallucinations, and the limitation of currency.
• 6.9 Artificial Intelligence tools may be used within IHM policy, procedure and guidelines to support learning and assessment development and design. However, critical evaluation of generative Artificial Intelligence output is required to ensure appropriateness against learning outcomes.
• 6.10 Unit and course learning outcomes, assessment tasks and marking criteria may require review to incorporate the ethical use of generative Artificial Intelligence, or to indicate when such use is not permitted, following IHM policies, procedures and guidelines.
• 6.11 In designing formative and summative assessment tasks, teaching staff should consider the capabilities of generative Artificial Intelligence.

7. Guidelines for student support staff

7.1 All academic and student support staff (including library and teaching staff) are encouraged to support students to develop academic skills and academic integrity by:

• a) Promoting the ethical and responsible use of Artificial Intelligence tools in academic writing and research.
• b) Providing guidance on correct attribution and acknowledgement conventions to be used when incorporating generative Artificial Intelligence outputs.
• c) Providing advice and training to enable and enhance effective use of Artificial Intelligence tools.
• d) Providing information and links to approved Artificial Intelligence tools that are available for students.

8. Academic Integrity procedure when using Artificial Intelligence

• 8.1 All work submitted by an individual students must be their own. In case of group work, the individual contribution of each student must be their own work.
• 8.2 Students should ensure that the use of Artificial Intelligence does not compromise the integrity of the work.
• 8.3 If a student uses Artificial Intelligence software such as ChatGPT or Quilbot to generate material for assessment that they represent as their own ideas, research and/or analysis, they are NOT submitting their own work.
• 8.4 If a student uses Artificial Intelligence generated material in the preparation of their assessment submission, this must be appropriately acknowledged, disclosed and cited in their work, where relevant, in accordance with the Referencing and Style Guide.
• 8.5 Where Artificial Intelligence software has been used in the preparation of submitted work, students may be required to provide evidence of the prompts and transcripts to qualify the nature and extent of use of Artificial Intelligence software.
• 8.6 Students should ensure that the use of Artificial Intelligence is transparent and accountable, which includes documenting the use of Artificial Intelligence and making information available to relevant staff whenever requested.
• 8.7 Knowingly using a third party, Artificial Intelligence technologies, to write or produce any work (paid or unpaid) that a student submits as their own work for assessment is deliberate cheating and is considered as academic misconduct.

9. Similarity check procedure for student assignments

• 9.1 Before submitting any written assignment, students are required to check and confirm the similarity report in Turnitin, download the report, check highlighted words and phrases, and make amendments before submission.
• 9.2 Students are advised that each assignment they submit will be reviewed in context irrespective of any similarity score produced by Turnitin.

10. Ethical consideration and academic honesty when using Artificial Intelligence

• 10.1 Students must ensure that the use of Artificial Intelligence in academic work adheres to ethical considerations, including the privacy of individuals and the protection of data.
• 10.2 Students must consult with academic staff if they are unsure of the ethical implications of using Artificial Intelligence in their academic work.
• 10.3 Students are expected to uphold the principles of academic honesty, including not plagiarizing or falsifying academic work, even when using Artificial Intelligence.
• 10.4 Students should ensure that the use of Artificial Intelligence does not infringe on the academic integrity of their work.

11. General principles of managing breaches of academic integrity

• 11.1 IHM supports an educative response to first-time breaches of academic integrity where this is appropriate and possible.
• 11.2 All instances of potential breach of academic integrity are reviewed by at least 1 academic staff member before determining if and what penalties and further actions are deemed appropriate in accordance with this IHM procedure.
• 11.3 Students may appeal any decisions or actions taken in this process as per IHM Student Complaints and Appeals Policy and Procedure.
• 11.4 Any potential breach of academic integrity is reviewed and investigated according to IHM endeavouring that no person will suffer any discrimination or victimisation as a result of raising an allegation in good faith.
• 11.5 IHM staff involved in reviewing/investigating any breaches of policy and procedure are to conduct their activities based on a fair hearing and will respect the privacy and confidentiality of all parties.
• 11.6 Each academic staff must have strategies in place to ensure that students receive appropriate education about, and support to fulfil, the IHM’s expectations of students in terms of academic honesty and integrity.
• 11.7 It is the duty of the academic staff member who detects a potential breach of academic integrity to review available evidence and assess if further action is required as per Clauses 12 and 13.

12. Identifying breaches of academic integrity

• 12.1 Potential breaches of academic integrity are primarily identified through assessment marking and moderation procedures, plagiarism checking tools, and observation from academic team members.
• 12.2 Assessments are reviewed for originality, authorship and scholarship. Incorrect or failure to properly cite source material as per assessment criteria is considered a breach of academic integrity.
• 12.3 IHM employs an automated plagiarism detection tool (Turnitin). Any similarity detected indicates a potential breach of academic integrity and will be reviewed by the academic staff member to assess if further investigation is required.
• 12.4 Observation by any academic staff member that a student may have breached academic integrity by collusion, plagiarism, contract cheating, academic fraud, non-compliance, solicitation or other activities is to be reviewed by a senior member of the academic team.

13. Reviewing potential breaches of academic integrity

• 13.1 All potential breaches of academic integrity are to be registered in the academic integrity register, and the outcome of all decisions regarding status, penalties and further actions will be recorded.
• 13.2 Upon initial review of the evidence available to the academic staff member, if a breach is not found to be likely the instructor can report that they do not deem a breach of academic integrity has occurred as part of standard academic reporting processes.
• 13.3 If the instructor deems a breach of academic integrity to have been likely, the course coordinator must be notified with a request to review the available evidence.
• 13.4 If the course coordinator also deems the breach to have been likely, the student is to be notified in writing with advice regarding the course of action to follow.
• 13.5 In the instance of failure to properly acknowledge or properly cite use of Artificial Intelligence that has been confirmed by the student, supporting evidence of prompts and transcripts used in generating the assessment content may be requested.

14. Monitoring academic integrity breaches

• 14.1 Upon receipt of any work submitted by a student in response to an assessment task, academic staff are required to ensure that the student has signed a Plagiarism Declaration and review a Turnitin similarity report where applicable.
• 14.2 For written assignments, staff should check the highlighted words and phrases in the similarity report utilising the filters and contextual and scholarly judgement to assess validity of the detection.

15. Initial determination of breach status

• 15.1 When a breach of academic integrity has been judged probable, and verified by at least one other member of the academic staff, a decision regarding the status of the potential breach will be determined.
• a) The lecturer determines whether the breach was likely unintended or deliberate with knowledge of the actions constituting a breach of academic integrity.
• b) If the breach is the first occurrence for the student, an Academic Integrity Warning may be used to require the student alleged to have committed a minor breach to undertake an educative action.
• c) Academic Integrity Warnings are not considered academic misconduct or a penalty for that.
• d) If the breach is determined to be the first occurrence but is of a serious type or not a first occurrence, then the breach will be investigated as potential academic misconduct.

16. Academic integrity breach as academic misconduct

• 16.1 Academic misconduct is a deliberate and planned action that undermines academic integrity.
• 16.2 Allegations of academic integrity breaches will be reported in a prescribed form to the relevant Head of School for further investigation.

17. Investigation of academic integrity breaches

• 17.1 If the Head of School decides for further investigation, they will appoint an Academic Integrity Panel.
• 17.2 A member of Student Representative Council will be invited to be an observer on the Panel.
• 17.3 The Academic Integrity Officer must notify the student of the allegation and the process and inform the student of their right to participate and bring in a support person.
• 17.4 The Panel will investigate the allegation at a hearing attended by the student and will consider all relevant evidence.
• 17.5 The student may be accompanied by a support person at the hearing.
• 17.6 If the student declines to attend the hearing or fails to attend the hearing, the Panel will continue with the investigation in their absence.
• 17.7 The Panel will complete the investigation within five (5) working days from the day a decision to investigate was made by the Head of School.

18. Imposition of penalty, notification of outcomes

• 18.1 If the Panel decides that the student breached academic integrity, they will recommend an appropriate penalty.
• 18.2 The relevant Head of School will confirm that the recommended penalty is appropriate and will then issue an outcome letter to the student within three (3) working days from the day the Panel concluded the investigation.
• 18.3 The outcome letter must inform the student of their rights and obligations, especially their right to seek an internal review and make an appeal.

19. Internal review and appeal

• 19.1 If unsatisfied by the outcome, the student may apply to the Academic Dean to get the outcome reviewed.
• 19.2 The Academic Dean has the power to review the decision and award an appropriate penalty for the breach.
• 19.3 Any request to the Academic Dean for the review of the decision of penalty will be completed within three (3) working days from the receipt of such request.
• 19.4 If unsatisfied by the Academic Dean’s decision, the student may appeal to the IHM Appeals Committee in accordance with the Student Complaints and Appeals Procedure.

20.1 Penalties may be imposed only in accordance with this Procedure.

20.2 Once imposed, all penalty decisions should be recorded in the Academic Integrity Register.

20.3 The penalties per type of breach are described in Table 1 below.

21. Communication with the student

• 21.1 The student will be promptly communicated at all stages of the investigation and determination processes.
• 21.2 The Academic Integrity Officer will ensure that the Course Coordinator is informed of the outcomes of investigation under this Procedure.

22. Academic Integrity Register

22.1 A register will be maintained to record:

• a) Breaches of academic integrity as reported by educators.
• b) All entries, including assessment (review) of the allegation, investigation, and decision outcomes.
• c) Warnings that have been given to students even where no formal action for academic misconduct has been taken.
• d) Penalties applied in response to instances of breaches of academic integrity.
• e) Any other relevant information.

Accidental plagiarism, such as poor referencing or inadequate paraphrasing, is typically treated as incomplete academic practice. Your Course Convenor will address this through normal feedback processes. You may be asked to resubmit your work with proper references. However, it is your responsibility to learn and apply correct referencing practices, so take advantage of IHM’s academic skills support if you need assistance with this.