UC San Diego SearchMenu
UC San Diego Academic Senate Logo

Appendices

Appendix 2: UCSD Policy on Integrity of Scholarship

Enacted 5/23/78, Amended 3/2/82, 5/28/85, 1/27/87, 5/22/90, 5/28/91, 4/26/94, 11/22/94, 4/23/96, 11/25/97, 5/27/03, Effective 9/25/03, 4/25/06, 5/26/09, 3/1/11, 1/31/12, 6/3/14, Effective 9/29/14, 2/19/19

Integrity of scholarship, otherwise referred to as academic integrity, is essential for an academic community, including UC San Diego. Academic integrity is built on a foundation of honest, responsible, fair and trustworthy scholarly activity.[i] Without it, the degrees we confer, the research we conduct, and our reputation all diminish in value.

Thus, the University expects that both faculty and students will adhere to its standards of academic integrity. The UC San Diego Policy on Integrity of Scholarship (herein the “Policy”) states the general rules associated with student integrity of scholarship. The Procedures for Resolving Alleged Violations of the Policy (herein the “Procedures”) are found at http://senate.ucsd.edu/media/389895/procedures-for-resolving-alleged-ai-violations.pdf and authorized by the San Diego Division of the Academic Senate’s Educational Policy Committee.

The Policy applies to the following:

  • All persons matriculated at UC San Diego as undergraduate or graduate students.
  • All persons enrolled as students in UC San Diego undergraduate or graduate courses.

Medical students are governed by policies specified in the Handbook for School of Medicine Advisors and Students, as formulated by the School of Medicine Committee on Educational Policy. Pharmacy students are governed by the Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences (SSPPS) Policy on Integrity of Scholarship as formulated by the SSPPS faculty. A separate policy exists governing integrity of research.

[i] Definition from the International Center for Academic Integrity, https://www.academicintegrity.org/
  • I)
    Roles and Responsibilities for Upholding Academic Integrity
    • A)

      Students' Responsibility

      To uphold academic integrity, students shall:

      • Complete and submit academic work that is their own and that is an honest and fair representation of their knowledge and abilities at the time of submission.
      • Know and follow the standards of the class and the institution.

      Thus, no student shall engage in an activity that undermines academic integrity or facilitates academic integrity violations by others. This includes, but is not limited to, the following behaviors:

      • a)
        No student shall procure, provide, or accept any material that contains questions or answers to any examination or assignment unless the student’s possession of the material has been authorized by the instructor.
      • b)

        No student shall complete, in part or in total, any academic work (e.g., examination, assignment, paper) or obtain academic credit (e.g., attendance, participation) for another person.

      • c)

        No student shall allow any academic work or academic credit to be completed or obtained, in part or in whole, for themselves by another person.

      • d)

        No student shall plagiarize or copy the work of others and submit it as their own work.

      • e)

        No student shall employ aids in undertaking course work or in completing any exam or assignment that are not authorized by the instructor.

      • f)

        No student shall alter graded class assignments or examinations and then resubmit them for regrading without the instructor’s permission.

      • g)
        No student shall submit substantially the same material more than once without prior authorization from the instructor, such as a paper that was written and submitted in another class.
    • B)

      Instructors' Responsibility

      The instructor shall state in writing[i] how graded assignments and exams will contribute to the final grade in the course. If there are any course-specific rules required by an instructor for maintaining academic integrity, the instructor shall also inform students of these in writing.


      [i] “In writing” is defined as correspondence delivered either on paper or electronically via e-mail for the purposes of this Policy and the corresponding Procedures.

    • C)

      Instructional Assistants’ (IA) Responsibility

      A student acting in the capacity of an instructional assistant (IA), a category including but not limited to teaching assistants, readers, and tutors, has a special responsibility to safeguard academic integrity and report suspected violations to the instructor. In this role the student functions as an apprentice instructor, under the tutelage of the responsible instructor. An IA shall equitably grade student work in the manner agreed upon with the course instructor. An IA shall not provide any student with any information or collaboration that would aid the student in completing the course in a dishonest manner (e.g., providing access to unauthorized material related to tests, exams, and homework). An IA who violates these responsibilities may be subject to discipline under this Policy but also under employee policies.

  • II)

    Roles and Responsibilities for Resolving Academic Integrity Violations

    The responsibility for resolving academic integrity violations rests with two University authorities: the faculty and the administration. Under the Standing Order of the Regents, authority over courses and curricula is delegated to the faculty through the Academic Senate. The University of California’s Policy on Student Conduct and Discipline authorizes the UC San Diego administration to discipline students for academic misconduct (which are referred to as academic integrity violations in this Policy). Cases in which the student accepts or is found responsible for academic integrity violations will normally result in consequences, including but not limited to, academic integrity training, an academic sanction, and administrative sanction(s).

    • A)
      Academic Responsibilities 

      The instructor shall report all suspected academic integrity violations to the Academic Integrity Office (AIO), shall participate in the process according to this Policy and the corresponding Procedures, and, when the case is resolved, shall determine the academic sanction (the student’s grade in the course). Any violation of this Policy by the student may be considered grounds for failure in the course, although lesser consequences may be incurred in less serious circumstances. An instructor shall not assign an academic sanction for an academic integrity violation unless they have submitted an Allegation Report[i] to the AIO and there is an acceptance or final finding of responsibility. If the course concludes before a resolution is reached, the instructor will assign an “X” code for the course.

      An instructor may not withdraw a charge if a student has accepted responsibility or has been found responsible for an academic integrity violation.

      In cases where an academic integrity violation is reported in independent exams (exams held outside of coursework), such as placement exams and qualifying exams, or culminating academic work, such as undergraduate or graduate theses, dissertations, and independent study projects, the academic sanction will be determined by the faculty member or by the faculty committee that maintains ultimate responsibility for evaluating the exam or work. The sanction will establish both of the following:

      1. Evaluation of the exam results or work. This may include granting a student full, partial, or no credit.
      2. Provision to allow or deny a student the ability to repeat the exam or resubmit the culminating work.

      [i] See Section 1.2 of the corresponding Procedures.

    • B)
      Administrative Responsibilities

      There are many different administrators who have roles in the process of resolving academic integrity violations; in this Policy and the corresponding Procedures, they are all referred to as the Appropriate Administrative Authority (AAA). The responsibilities and title designations of the AAAs are as follows:

      Table 1. Appropriate Administrative Authorities (AAAs)

       Resolving AllegationsDetermining & Imposing Administrative Sanctions *Reviewing Appeals
      Undergraduate Students College Dean of Student Affairs or Designate** College Dean of Student Affairs (approved by Council of Deans of Student Affairs) Student's Provost (approved by Council of Provosts)
      Graduate Students Assistant Dean, Graduate Division or Designate** Assistant Dean, Graduate Division Dean, Graduate Division
      Visiting Summer Session Students Director, Summer Session or Designate** Director, Summer Session Chair, Council of Provosts
      Extension Students Extension Student Affairs Manager or Designate** Extension Student Affairs Manager

      Dean, Extension

      *This person is referred to as “the student’s AAA” in the Procedures document.

      **The AAAs can designate the AI Office as an AAA for resolving allegations.

      If students from two or more different units (e.g., colleges, Summer Session, Extension, or the Graduate Division) are allegedly involved in the same incident, one AAA will resolve all of the allegations.

      The AAA will impose Administrative Sanctions in accordance with guidelines authorized by the Educational Policy Committee. Administrative sanctions range in severity, but can be applied only when a student has accepted responsibility or has been held responsible.[i] Students with multiple confirmed academic integrity violations shall be subject to dismissal from the University.

      Appeal decisions by AAAs are final.


      [i] Sanctioning guidelines can be found at https://academicintegrity.ucsd.edu/.

      Am 6/9/20
    • C)

      Academic Integrity Office (AIO) Responsibilities

      The AIO is the administrative manager for this Policy and for the processing of reported academic integrity violations, and the coordinator of the AI review and appeal process. The AIO may gather the materials necessary to fully document suspected academic integrity violations, resolve allegations as designated by an AAA, and advise faculty and students throughout the process. The AIO may extend any timelines in the Procedures when practical exigencies so dictate, in which case all involved parties will normally be notified in writing. The AIO shall maintain a record of all cases and shall report annually to the Educational Policy Committee on the number, nature, and type of cases; the pattern of decision-making; the severity and type of academic and administrative sanctions; and other relevant matters. The AIO is responsible for monitoring and reviewing the procedures that accompany this Policy and chairs the committee that reviews and updates the procedures on an annual or bi-annual basis. Proposals from the AIO to revise the Procedures will be submitted to the Educational Policy Committee for approval.

  • III)

    Policies Governing the Procedures for Resolving Suspected Academic Integrity Violations

    The Procedures for resolving alleged academic integrity violations are found at: http://senate.ucsd.edu/media/389895/procedures-for-resolving-alleged-ai-violations.pdf. The Procedures must be in agreement with the following Policy requirements.

    • A)
      Instructors shall report all suspected academic integrity violations to the AIO so that the formal procedures can be initiated. The Procedures explain the rights of students, which include the right to be notified of the alleged violation, the right to be heard, the right to accept or deny responsibility, the right to have the case evaluated by a Review Panel, and the right to appeal. If an instructor imposes an academic sanction without reporting the suspected academic integrity violation to the AIO, the student has the right to refer the case to the AIO to determine if formal procedures should be initiated.
    • B)
      If a student does not follow the Procedures within the established timelines, they will be presumed to have decided to accept responsibility.
    • C)
      If it is a multiple student case, the outcome (per Section 2.3-2.4 of the Procedures) for each student must be known before the cases proceed to the sanctioning phase or an AI Review.
    • D)
      If the student does not accept responsibility, the case proceeds to an AI Review. If the possible administrative sanctions do not include suspension or dismissal from the University, the case will be scheduled for an AI Review I. If the possible administrative sanctions do include suspension or dismissal from the University, the case will be scheduled for an AI Review II.
      • 1)

        If during an AI Review I, the Review Panel determines that the violation is different than originally classified and may result in administrative sanctions that do include suspension or dismissal from the University, the case will be referred back to the AIO for an assessment of the case. If the Review Panel’s assessment is supported by the AIO and the AAA, the case will be scheduled for an AI Review II.

      • 2)

        If one of the involved students is non-responsive and any of the other involved students are proceeding to an AI Review, the non-responsive student’s case should also proceed to the same AI Review.

    • E)
      If the student is held not responsible through an AI Review I or II, the matter shall be dismissed without further action against the student and the student shall be permitted either to complete the course without prejudice or to retroactively withdraw from it without indication on the student’s transcript. However, if the student does not notify the AIO of their decision within the timeline specified in the Procedures, it will be assumed that they are electing to receive the earned grade.
    • F)

      If a case of an alleged academic integrity violation might also be a violation of the Policy on Integrity of Research, then the AIO will consult with the Office of Research Affairs (ORA). If the AIO and the ORA concur that the alleged violation falls under both policies, the Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, in consultation with the AIO, may make modifications to procedure as are necessary to coordinate the two inquiries.

    • G)

      A student may appeal a responsibility determination of an AI Review I or II, the academic sanction determined by the instructor, and/or an administrative sanction of suspension or dismissal.

      • 1)

        The basis for appeal of the AI Review I or II determination shall be: (i) the stated procedures were not followed; or (ii) there exists newly discovered important evidence that has substantial bearing on the determination of the Review Panel. If an AI Review appeal is granted, the student will receive a new Review in front of new Panel members.

      • 2)
        Except in cases of such appeals, the determination of the AI Review I or II shall be final.
      • 3)

        Appeals of the academic sanction will be considered in accordance with San Diego Senate Regulation 502. Grade Appeals.

      • 4)
        The basis for appeal of the administrative sanctions shall be the student’s sanctions are out-of-line with the sanctioning guidelines. Am 6/9/20
    • H)
      A record of the administrative sanction(s) shall be maintained by the AIO and the appropriate AAA.
    • I)

      Until an allegation of an academic integrity violation has been resolved, the assigned “X” grade for the course will remain, but the student’s transcript will show a blank grade for the course. The Office of the Registrar will note in the text attached to the course (i.e., not on the student’s transcript) that the grade was held due to a “Pending Charge of Academic Dishonesty”. The grade hold will not be removed until notification from the AIO that the case has been resolved.

    • J)

      A student shall not be allowed to withdraw from a course if an instructor has filed an Intent to Report[i] or an Allegation Report to the AIO within the timeline specified in the Procedures. If a student does withdraw from the course, they will be administratively reenrolled in the course by the Office of the Registrar. A student may withdraw from a course if the instructor does not submit an Intent to Report and the withdrawal occurs between the instructor’s deadline for filing an Intent to Report and the filing of the Allegation Report. However, in such cases the resolution process will proceed as described but no academic sanction will be applied.


      [i] See Section 1.1.c of the corresponding Procedures.

    • K)

      If a student has been found responsible for an academic integrity violation, the grade assigned by the instructor will be counted in the GPA even if the course is retaken. The Office of the Registrar will permanently note in text attached to the course (i.e., not on the student’s transcript) that the grade was given as a result of “Academic Dishonesty”.

    • L)

      If a passing grade is assigned to a student found responsible for an academic integrity violation and a conflict arises because of the student’s enrollment in a duplicate, crosslisted, or equivalent course taken after the charge has been resolved, the Office of the Registrar shall ensure that the grade given in the course with the Academic Dishonesty charge is not removed from the GPA. All other academic regulations pertaining to duplicate course enrollment will be enforced.

    • M)

      If a student is not enrolled at UC San Diego at any point during the resolution of a case, the process will continue as indicated in this Policy and the Procedures. Any administrative sanction less severe than dismissal shall be imposed if and when the student returns to the University.

    • N)

      If the administrative sanction is suspension or dismissal, the fact that a student was suspended or dismissed for academic dishonesty must be posted on the academic transcript for the duration of the sanction.

  • IV)

    Review of this Policy

    The Educational Policy Committee shall periodically review this Policy and propose changes as it deems necessary.