Appendix A: Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity and Misconduct Policy

The following policy on undergraduate academic, scholarly, and professional integrity was originally formulated by the University’s Academic Integrity Taskforce. It was adopted by the University Senate on May 1, 2023.

This appendix of The Student Code describes policy, the types of acts that shall be considered academic, scholarly, and professional misconduct by undergraduates, and it presents the process for resolving complaints of academic, scholarly, and professional misconduct.

Policy Statement:

All members of the university community, including administrators, faculty, staff, and students, have a shared responsibility to uphold the highest ethical standards of academic, scholarly, and professional integrity and to report any violations of those standards of which they are aware.

Purpose:

To ensure a commitment to academic, scholarly, and professional integrity and misconduct at all levels of the university community.

Such a commitment ensures that:

all individuals accept full responsibility for their own work and ideas;
all academic/scholarly credit awarded to an individual represents the work of that individual;
no student benefits from an unfair advantage;
faculty, staff, advisors and others who support the intellectual development of students are committed to fostering, guiding, and monitoring students for adherence to all principles of academic and scholarly integrity;
the grades earned, the degrees or certificate conferred were appropriately earned by the individual;
the reputation of the University with respect to academic and scholarly integrity are protected;
faculty, staff, and students adhere to the professional standards of conduct specific to each program offered at the university;
this policy is used consistently across the University, including undergraduate and graduating students and schools/colleges.

Applies To:

This policy applies to all members of the University Community engaged in academic and scholarly efforts in, but is not limited to, the following contexts in undergraduate and graduate education:

courses, including online courses (e.g., assignments, exams, projects, thesis);
experiential and service-learning courses and activities;
study abroad programs;
clinical and practice placements, internships, and externships;
program assessments (e.g., comprehensive exams, thesis, program reviews);
research, including undergraduate, graduate, postdoctoral scholar, and faculty research; and
processes involving submitting information (i.e., admissions, for scholarships/fellowships, for competitions, for awards, or other university programs); and
professional events and conferences.

All members of the University community are responsible for ensuring that the principles of academic and scholarly integrity are upheld. This policy applies to graduate students and postdoctoral scholars, with the exception of PharmD students in the School of Pharmacy and professional students with degrees conferred by the Schools of Dental Medicine, Medicine, or Law.

This policy does not apply to legal, regulatory, or compliance requirements that fall outside the Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity and Misconduct Policy. In addition, this policy does not remove any reporting requirements to the appropriate oversight authority in instances of noncompliance or alleged noncompliance.

Definitions:

Academic Integrity: a commitment by the University Community to uphold just and ethical behaviors, which includes truthfulness, fairness, and respect (ICAI, 2021).

Scholarly Integrity: a commitment by the University community to both ”… research integrity and the ethical understanding and skill required of researchers/scholars in domestic, international, and multicultural contexts. It is also intended to address ethical aspects of scholarship that influence the next generation of researchers as teachers, mentors, supervisors, and successful stewards of grant funds.” (p. xix, Council of Graduate Schools, 2012).

Professional Integrity: Standards of behavior defined by the various professions in which students are prepared through their degree or certificate programs.

Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Misconduct: Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Misconduct is defined as unethical academic and scholarly behavior during a course (e.g., on an assignment or exam), as part of other degree requirements (e.g., requirements regarding placement, capstone or comprehensive exams, or placement exams), or at other times during undergraduate, graduate, or professional study and performance, including during engagement in fieldwork, clinical placements, or research. These behaviors include:

Cheating: Unauthorized acts, actions, or behaviors in academic or scholarly areas.Examples of cheating include, but are not limited to:
1. providing or receiving help on an assignment or exam intended to reflect the individual student’s work product when not authorized to do so by the instructor;
2. buying, selling, circulating, or using a copy of instructional materials, assignment or test, including uploading such information to online services, or using materials prepared by services that sell or provide papers or other course materials;
3. asking someone to complete an assignment, exam, or other requirement on one's behalf or completing an assignment, exam, or requirement for another student;
4. failure to disclose unauthorized assistance on work submitted for evaluation, i.e., assistance obtained outside channels approved by instructors, that is used to complete a course, program, or degree requirement. This includes assistance from other students, teaching assistants, Quantitative Learning Center, Writing Center, or mediated support from the Center for Students with Disabilities.
Plagiarizing: Using one’s own previously published, presented, or disseminated material, or another person’s language/text, data, ideas, expressions, digital/graphic element, passages of music, mathematical proofs, scientific data, code, or other original material without authorization of the originating source or proper acknowledgement, attribution, or citation of the originating source.Examples of plagiarism include but are not limited to:
1. submitting as one’s own any work (in whole or part) completed by another individual, including any work that has been purchased from an individual, commercial research firm, or obtained from the internet;
2. submitting for evaluation or credit any work that was previously used or submitted for credit in another course or as part of a degree requirement (e.g., a thesis or dissertation) without authorization to do so from the instructor. (This includes self-plagiarism in the form of re-using, in part or whole, the content of a paper from another class or context).
3. submitting any work prepared for or used in a previous publication, academic competition, clinic, or other activity (e.g., grant or application submission) without prior approval and full disclosure or when permitted by established editorial or other policy. (This includes self-plagiarism in the form of using, in part or whole, the content of a paper that was previously published without attribution);.
4. unauthorized use of previously completed work or research for a thesis, dissertation, or publication.
Misrepresenting: Deliberately knowing and providing false or misleading information, including information about oneself or others.Examples of misrepresenting include but are not limited to:
1. engaging in “any omission or misrepresentation of the information necessary and sufficient to evaluate the validity and significance of research, at the level appropriate to the context in which the research is communicated” (D. Fanelli, Nature 494:149; 2013);.
2. making unauthorized alterations to any document or digital file pertaining to academic or scholarly activity, including assignments, exams, and research data;.
3. making up information for the purpose of deception (e.g., fabrication of data in research);.
4. making false, inaccurate, or misleading claims or statements, including claims/statements made when asking for assistance (e.g., requesting an extension on an assignment), applying for admission to an undergraduate or graduate program, applying for a scholarship or an academic, scholarly, or research award, or submitting manuscripts for publications;.
5. allowing someone to use one’s identity or using someone else’s identity for academic or scholarly advantage (e.g., signing in electronically for an absent student);.
6. accepting credit for work for which the individual did not contribute (e.g., misrepresenting an individual’s role in a group assignments).
Noncompliance: Failure to conform with codified and publicly available academic, scholarly, or professional standards, processes, or protocols. Examples of noncompliance include but are not limited to:
1. not attending to the professional standards governing the professional conduct of students in particular fields (e.g., pharmacy, nursing, education, counseling, and therapy);.
2. violating protocols governing the use of human or animal subjects;.
3. breaching confidentiality in academic and scholarly activity (e.g., disclosing the identity of study participants);.
4. disregarding the applicable university, local, state, or federal regulations that guide academic or scholarly activities.

Instructor: any faculty, teaching assistant, or any other person (e.g., lab supervisor, clinical supervisor, professional staff) authorized by the University to provide educational services (e.g., teaching, research, advising).

Instructor Expectations: To foster a culture of academic integrity, instructors are responsible for communicating the expectations for academic and scholarly integrity to students and for engaging in practices that mitigate violations of this policy. Specifically, instructors are expected to:

include a link to the Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity and Misconduct policy as part of course syllabi or documentation for any other academic/scholarly activity and include any additional unit-specific expectations.
review academic and scholarly integrity policy and any other disciplinary- or activity-specific expectations.
provide clear guidance for all assignments, activities, and assessments, including noting what resources can be used and whether collaboration is permitted.
ensure individuals engaged in research, creative, or professional activities understand the standards, protocols, and guidelines to which they must adhere.
adhere to the University processes for reporting misconduct, engaging in the review process, and assigning consequences to address violations, which should include opportunities for education and remediation.

Student Expectations: To uphold the principle of academic and scholarly integrity in all aspects of their intellectual development and engagement at the University. Students are expected to:

be responsible for their own work and their own actions related to all academic and scholarly endeavors.
assume they are to do independent work and seek clarification prior to collaborating with others or using outside resources.
understand and abide by the standards, protocols, and guidelines to which they must adhere in research, creative, or professional activities.

If students witness or become aware of a violation of academic or scholarly integrity, they are encouraged to communicate this to the appropriate University representative (e.g., faculty, staff, advisor).

A cumulative record is maintained of all academic or scholarly integrity violations and such record will be reviewed and considered as part of subsequent incidences. Individuals engaged in research are expected to follow all standards, rules and regulations that guide the proper conduct of research or creative activity.

Enforcement:

Violations of this policy and its related procedures may result in appropriate disciplinary measures in accordance with University By-Laws, General Rules of Conduct for All University Employees, applicable collective bargaining agreements, and the University of Connecticut Student Code.

Procedures:

UConn will continue to use the existing procedures administered by the Office of Community Standards for undergraduate education and The Graduate School for graduate education until such time that the university transitions to the new Procedures for Addressing Alleged Violations of the Policy on Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity Misconduct, which was approved by the Graduate Faculty Council and the University Senate. The following procedures are for undergraduate students.

A. Instructor’s Role

Instructors shall take reasonable steps to prevent academic, scholarly, and professional misconduct in their courses and to inform students of course- specific requirements.
When the instructor of record or designee believes that an act of academic, scholarly, and professional misconduct has occurred, the instructor is responsible for saving the evidence in its original form and need not return any of the original papers or other materials to the Copies of the student’s work and information about other evidence will be provided to the student upon request.
When an instructor believes there is sufficient information to demonstrate a case of academic, scholarly, and professional misconduct, the instructor shall notify the student in writing of the allegation of misconduct and the academic consequences that the instructor will impose. The appropriate academic consequence for serious offenses is generally considered to be failure in the For offenses regarding small portions of the course work, failure for that portion is suggested with the requirement that the student repeat the work for no credit. The written notification shall also inform the student whether the case has been referred to the Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity Hearing Board (Board) for consideration of additional sanctions. The instructor shall send the written notification and send a copy to the Office of Community Standards (Community Standards) within five business days of having discovered the alleged misconduct. Cases that are purely technical in nature, without any perceived intent to achieve academic advantage, may be reported at the discretion of the instructor.
In certain cases, the dean of a school or college or designee may become aware of alleged academic, scholarly, and professional misconduct and may bring a complaint forward to the Board.
The student has ten (10) business days from receipt of the written notice from the Office of Community Standards to respond to and/or to request a hearing (see “Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity Hearing Board”). If the student does not respond within the allotted time the instructor’s academic consequences and possible additional sanctions shall be imposed. If the student and the instructor reach a mutually acceptable resolution of the case, the instructor shall notify Community Standards of the agreement. The instructor shall also notify Community Standards if the instructor withdraws the allegation of misconduct. A student who has been notified about an accusation of academic, scholarly, and professional misconduct may not withdraw from the course in which the alleged misconduct has occurred without the approval of the instructor and the appropriate dean. If a student withdraws from a course during a pending academic, scholarly, and professional misconduct case, any academic sanction imposed will overturn the withdrawal.
If a semester concludes before an academic, scholarly, and professional misconduct matter is resolved, the student shall receive a temporary “I” (Incomplete) grade in the course until the instructor submits the appropriate grade following the resolution of the process.

B. The Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity Hearing Board

The Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity Hearing Board, which is administered by Community Standards, is comprised of two faculty members, two students, and a nonvoting chairperson, all of whom are appointed by the Director of Community Standards or designee. Hearing procedures will be in accordance with the hearing procedures described below. Community Standards will ensure that appropriate dean(s) and faculty are kept informed of the status of misconduct cases in a timely fashion.
The respondent or the accusing instructor may refer a case of alleged academic, scholarly, and professional integrity misconduct to Community Standards for it to be adjudicated by the Community Standards will review all academic misconduct cases as they are received to determine if a case needs to be heard by the Board to determine if additional sanctions need to be considered. After receiving written notification of the academic, scholarly, and professional integrity misconduct from the instructor, Community Standards may meet with students to discuss additional sanctions outlined in The Student Code to determine if an agreement about additional sanctions can be reached. If an agreement cannot be reached between a student and Community Standards, the case will be heard by the Board.

C. Hearing on Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity Misconduct

An essential component of any academic, scholarly, and professional integrity misconduct hearing is the determination and the weighing of the facts that pertain to the allegation(s). Therefore, it is vital that personal statements and other information be presented clearly and All participants are expected to be respectful of each other’s purpose in the hearing process and to conduct themselves according to the direction of the Board.
Normally, academic, scholarly, and professional integrity misconduct hearings will be conducted within fifteen (15) business days of the respondent being notified of the hearing.
The complainant (instructor or designee) and the respondent shall each have the right to:
1. Be notified of all alleged violations by means of the address (University e-mail, residence hall address, or permanent address) provided by the student via the Registrar’s Office. Typically, this will be done via e-mail which will provide a link to the documentation.
2. Review any written complaint(s) and supporting documents.
3. Be informed about the hearing process.
4. A reasonable period of time to prepare for a hearing.
5. Request a delay of a hearing due to extenuating circumstances. The decision to grant or deny any such request is within the discretion of the hearing body.
6. Submit a written account, a personal statement regarding the incident and/or any relevant documentation or All documentation must be provided by the date established by the Hearing Coordinator or designee. Documentation will not be accepted past the established deadline and failure to provide documentation by the established deadline will not be an acceptable reason for an appeal. The decision to not present information is not an admission of responsibility.
7. Provide the names and contact information of incident witnesses, those who have direct knowledge of the incident, and provide a list of questions for any incident witnesses, including the involved This information must be provided by the date established by the hearing coordinator. Failure to provide witness information by the established deadline will not be an acceptable reason for an appeal. The Case Manager will make every effort to interview those witnesses with direct knowledge; however, the witness cannot be compelled to speak.
8. Be notified of the identity of witnesses who have been called to speak at the hearing or who have been asked to provide additional written information by the Board.
9. Be accompanied by a support person during the portions of the hearing in which the student is participating. A student should select a support person whose schedule allows attendance at the scheduled date and time for the academic, scholarly, and professional integrity hearing because delays will not be allowed due to the scheduling conflicts of a support person.
10. Be present at the pertinent stages of the hearing process as indicated by the Director of Community Standards. The deliberations of the hearing body are private.
11. Present a personal or community impact statement to the hearing body upon a finding of “In Violation.”
An academic, scholarly, and professional integrity misconduct hearing shall be conducted by the Board in accordance with the procedures listed below:
1. Formal rules of process, procedure, and/or technical rules of evidence, such as are applied in criminal or civil court, are not used in these proceedings.
2. A hearing shall be conducted in private.
3. Admission of any person into the hearing room shall be at the discretion of the The Board shall have the authority to discharge or to remove any person whose presence is deemed unnecessary or obstructive to the proceedings.
4. When a hearing involves more than one respondent, the Director of Community Standards may, at the Director’s discretion, permit the hearings concerning each student to be conducted either separately or jointly.
5. If a respondent or complainant, after receiving notification, does not appear for a hearing, the hearing will proceed without the absent party.
6. Except as directed by the chair, the support person shall limit his/her role in a hearing to that of a consultant to the respondent or complainant.
7. The identity of any witnesses must be provided to the Board at least two business days before the hearing. The Board may elect not to permit one or more witnesses to participate in the hearing if the information they are expected to provide is not relevant to any material issue and is deemed unnecessarily redundant of other information already in the record.The party proposing a witness is responsible for any communication with the witness regarding attendance at the hearing. The Board may request the attendance of witnesses not proposed by the parties. The Board cannot compel the attendance of witnesses at the hearing.
8. The respondent, complainant, and any witnesses will provide information to and answer questions from the Board. Questions may be suggested by the respondent or complainant to be answered by each other or by other This will be conducted by the Board with such questions directed to the Board, rather than to the individuals directly. This method is used to preserve the educational tone of the hearing and to avoid creation of an adversarial environment. Questions of whether potential information will be received shall be resolved at the discretion of the chair.
9. Any additional information may be accepted for consideration by the hearing body at its discretion as long as such information was provided in accordance with The Student Code. Information presented by a student during a hearing that indicates a potential violation of The Student Code may be investigated at a future time.
10. The Board shall determine whether the respondent has violated the Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity Misconduct Policy. The Board’s determination shall be made on the basis of whether it is more likely than not that the respondent violated the policy.
11. When a respondent has been found “In Violation,” the Board shall examine the student’s previous academic, scholarly, and professional conduct history, accept impact statements by both the respondent and complainant, and then impose the appropriate sanction(s).
12. All procedural questions are subject to the final decision of the Board.
If the Board finds that the student is “Not in Violation” for the alleged misconduct, the Board shall not impose any sanctions and the instructor must reevaluate the student’s course grade in light of the Board’s finding.
If the Board finds that the student is “In Violation”, the instructor’s academic consequence shall be imposed.
Upon consideration of a student’s record of academic, scholarly, and professional misconduct and/or the nature of the offense, the Board may impose additional sanctions. The Board should apply these sanctions in proportion to the severity of the misconduct. These sanctions may include any sanction as described in The Student Code.
All academic, scholarly, and professional integrity misconduct hearings will be recorded and the University will maintain the audio recordings as required by Connecticut state law and are the property of the Participants are prohibited from making their own recording. Upon written request, a respondent or complainant may review the audio recording and make appropriate arrangements for it to be transcribed on University premises. Arrangements for a transcriber and all associated costs involved in the transcription will be the responsibility of the requesting individual.

D. Hearing Appeal

The decision of the Board may be appealed to the Provost or designee. An appeal is not a new hearing. It is a review of the record of the hearing.
An appeal may be sought on three grounds:
1. On a claim of error in the hearing procedure that substantially affected the decision.
2. On a claim of new evidence or information material to the case that was not known at the time of the hearing.
3. To determine whether any additional sanction(s), not including academic consequences, imposed by the Board were appropriate for the violation based on the student’s conduct history and/or significance of the violation.
Appeals on such grounds may be presented, specifically described, in writing within five business days of the announcement of the Board’s decision.
The decision of the Provost or designee is final. There will be no further right of appeal.
The Provost or designee shall have the authority to dismiss an appeal not sought on proper grounds.
If an appeal is upheld, the Provost or designee shall refer the case with procedural specifications back to the original Board who shall reconsider the case accordingly.

08/21/26