GCAC-805 - Academic Integrity

Policy Statement

1. Graduate Students will not engage in or tolerate academic integrity violations. Acts of dishonesty violate the fundamental ethical principles of the University community and compromise the worth of work completed by others.
   1. An academic integrity violation is an intentional, unintentional, or attempted violation of course or non-course assessment policies to gain an academic advantage or to advantage or disadvantage another student academically.
2. Unless explicitly permitted by an instructor supervising the work, the following actions are prohibited in any academic context (including both courses and academic assessments that are not associated with credit-bearing courses such as qualifying exams, comprehensive exams, dissertations, other milestone assessments, SARI training or other non-course-based work). The following descriptions illustrate the range of academic misconduct; there may be academic misconduct that falls outside these categories.
   1. Unauthorized collaboration and/or accessing or using unauthorized or prohibited materials, information, tools, technologies or study aids. Also includes allowing another person to submit work or participate in academic requirements on one's behalf or assisting another to engage in any form of academic misconduct (e.g., facilitating academic misconduct).
      1. The limits of use of generative artificial intelligence on examinations and other formative or summative assessments must be defined by the course instructor or those responsible for the assessment.
   2. Plagiarism, including using another person's words, results, processes, or ideas in whole or in part without giving appropriate attribution, citation, or credit.
   3. Tampering with another student's work.
   4. Providing false information in an academic assignment, exercise, publication, or another requirement, including making up data, sources, efforts, events, or results, and recording, reporting, or using them as authentic. Also includes altering or adjusting graded work to receive a favorable regrade.
   5. Using the same academic work, in part or entirely, for credit more than once, unless specifically authorized by the instructor receiving the reused work.
   6. Retaining, recording and/or disseminating instructional content when prohibited, including course exams, or other intellectual property, without the express written permission of the instructor(s) or intellectual property owner, or as permitted by their Campus Disability Coordinator.
3. A Fox Graduate School-wide Graduate Academic Integrity Committee will be established. Its responsibilities are to address:
   1. alleged academic integrity violations in which the student contests either the accusation or the proposed outcome
   2. violations when the proposed outcome is either a transcript notation or discontinuation or termination from the academic program (regardless of whether the student accepted both responsibility and the proposed outcome or failed to respond by the deadline).

Note: issues of research misconduct are handled under University Policy RP02 Addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct. If there is a question of whether the alleged violation is an academic integrity violation or a research misconduct violation, the faculty member should first call the Fox Graduate School Associate Dean for Student Affairs and then the University’s Research Integrity Officer for assistance in making the proper determination.

Process

General Expectations and Responsibilities

Graduate Programs

1. Programs should support and maintain our academic integrity culture and academic integrity process by both reminding faculty members that engagement with the academic integrity process is required and supporting them as they engage with this required process.
2. Programs are strongly encouraged to provide resources, materials, training, opportunities, and activities that strengthen student understanding of the importance of academic integrity expectations and procedures within their discipline. Colleges are welcome to coordinate efforts across programs within their college.
   
3. Graduate programs must provide academic integrity statements for academic assessments that are managed by the graduate program and are not part of a credit-bearing course in the program handbook and in materials provided to students and faculty regarding the academic assessment. These assessments include those that are part of milestone exams, and other assessments that are part of the academic program. Expectations of academic integrity for the assessment should be clearly outlined and cover actions that lead to academic integrity violations such as receiving assistance from others, inappropriate source attribution, improper use of technological (e.g., generative artificial intelligence), and editorial assistance.
   1. Programs are encouraged to highlight this information in faculty training/mentoring, during new student orientations, at the start of each academic year for continuing students, on course syllabi, and when students are preparing for a milestone academic assessment not associated with a course. Programs are strongly encouraged to share information on academic integrity in multiple ways and should remind both faculty and students about this information on a regular basis.
4. Academic integrity violations can vary in severity as outlined in this policy. The Graduate Sanctioning Guidelines should be referenced in the program handbook to help graduate students and faculty members in the program understand differences between “minor,” “moderate,” and “major” academic integrity violations and the associated consequences.
   
5. For assessments not associated with a credit-bearing course that are evaluated by a committee (e.g., qualifying exam, dissertation, other milestone assessments), programs must establish mechanisms for committee members to reach a collective decision to move forward by submitting an academic integrity form and, if so, to propose an appropriate sanction.
6. In accordance with policy AD 11, information regarding academic integrity violations and outcomes must remain confidential and may be shared only with OSACR and others who have a legitimate educational need to know (e.g., those overseeing the assessment, the graduate program head and/or DGS, the associate dean of the college home (or equivalent), The Fox Graduate School, and staff, as appropriate). Programs must establish standards describing when a student’s dissertation, thesis, or culminating experience advisor may be informed of a student’s academic integrity violation; such standards must be announced in the program handbook.
7. After it has been determined through the formal academic integrity process that a student is responsible for an academic integrity violation, programs that wish to do so may consider the impact of an academic integrity violation on the student’s progress in the program. This consideration will happen outside of the academic integrity process and abide by the following steps.
   1. The Program Head will convene a Special Program Committee no later than four weeks after the chair of the Graduate Academic Integrity Committee (GAIC; see below) notifies the program. This committee should take care to complete their work expeditiously.
   2. The Special Program Committee will include:
      1. The Program Head
      2. The DGS/PIC. If the program does not have someone appointed as DGS, then a senior faculty member from the program
      3. The student’s academic, thesis, or dissertation adviser
   3. If the Program Head believes that there could be a conflict of interest involving a committee member, the committee member should be replaced with a senior faculty member from the program.
   4. Any disagreements about the constitution of this committee will be resolved by the appropriate Associate Dean or lead academic officer for the college/school.
   5. If this committee wants to terminate the student from the program, they must do so following policy GCAC-803 and notify the Fox Graduate School Associate Dean for Student Affairs.
   6. In accordance with University policy AD 11, information regarding academic integrity violations and outcomes must remain confidential and may be shared only with others who have a legitimate educational need to know; in most circumstances, this limits sharing to the dean of the college, the associate dean or academic administrator responsible for graduate education in the college / school, the graduate program head, the DGS, the student’s adviser.

Graduate Faculty Members (including individuals approved to teach graduate courses)

1. Each graduate program head will designate a member of their faculty to serve as the academic integrity liaison. This person will make reasonable efforts to ensure that members of the Graduate Faculty and each individual approved to teach graduate courses is familiar with the principles and procedures of this policy and in their Graduate Program Handbook. The graduate program head may assign other related responsibilities.
2. Faculty/Instructors should foster in their classes an environment that encourages adherence to the principles of honesty. At the beginning of each course or assessment, it is the responsibility of the instructor (or instructors if a team-taught course) to provide students with a statement clarifying the application of academic integrity policies to that course or assessment. Instructors should give specific directions concerning the nature of examinations and assignments, stating, for example, when collaboration is permissible, when students may consult sources in “open book” exams. Instructors should be clear with students about which technologies and tools (e.g., generative AI) may/may not be used, and the conditions and settings in which exams can be taken.
   Faculty/Instructors may not determine consequences for alleged academic integrity violations outside of the academic integrity process and must engage with the formal academic integrity process when they suspect or have evidence of a violation. Reporting affords opportunities for a student to deepen their understanding of the importance of the academic integrity process as a remediation process and provides a mechanism to detect repeated instances of academic misconduct. Instructors and assessment committees may not adjudicate the matter on their own or penalize the student for academic misconduct outside of the formal academic integrity process.
3. In accordance with policy AD 11: While faculty/instructors are encouraged to consult with colleagues about the academic integrity process or related issues, information regarding individual students or their specific academic integrity violations must remain confidential, among those involved including the faculty member/instructor, graduate program head, and/or DGS. A student’s dissertation or thesis advisor may be informed according to standards established by the program with expectations for remediation when appropriate.
4. Responsibilities:
   1. Faculty members supervising an assessment must report allegations of academic integrity violations on that assessment and will engage with the academic integrity process before violation consequences are applied.
      1. If there is a question of whether the alleged violation is an academic integrity violation or a research misconduct violation, the faculty member should first call the Fox Graduate School Associate Dean for Student Affairs and then the University’s Research Integrity Officer for assistance in making the proper determination.
   2. Faculty members will apply only the consequences determined through the academic integrity process.
   3. A faculty member who is not involved with the assessment or any student who becomes aware of an academic integrity violation on the part of another student should discuss their concerns with the faculty member or committee evaluating the assessment.
   4. Regardless of who initially identifies the alleged academic integrity violation, because suspicions of academic misconduct must be evaluated within the context of academic expectations and instructions, all academic integrity forms must be submitted by the faculty member or committee evaluating the assessment. If the faculty member/committee members are no longer with the university or available to complete the academic integrity process, the Program Head may identify a substitute faculty member for this process.

Students

1. Students must familiarize themselves with this policy and the academic integrity requirements of their graduate programs. Students are responsible for conducting themselves in accordance with these policies.
2. Students have the right to have allegations of academic misconduct resolved in the format outlined in this policy including the option to accept or contest allegations of academic misconduct and/or proposed sanctions whether in a course or in an assessment not associated with a credit-bearing course.
3. Students have the responsibility to provide honest responses to inquiries regarding potential academic integrity violations and materials for consideration by the GAIC.
4. Students have the responsibility to participate in this process to resolve allegations. Students should not ignore communications from the program, an academic integrity administrator, or the GAIC on these matters. If a student fails to sign and submit their portion of an academic integrity form before the response deadline, their claim will be handled as if they did not contest either the allegation(s) or the outcome(s) proposed by the educator.
5. Any student assigned a developmental or educational outcome as part of this process has the responsibility to complete the outcome as assigned.
6. During the academic integrity process, students may seek guidance from members of the university community, including the graduate ombudspersons. However, throughout the academic integrity process, students must advocate for, and represent themselves, exclusively.
   1. If a student is not comfortable discussing academic integrity issues directly with the instructor or committee raising the allegation, they may discuss the situation with the appropriate Graduate Program Head or PIC/DGS, who may share the concerns with the faculty member or committee evaluating the assessment for their evaluation.

Graduate Academic Integrity Committee (GAIC)

1. The Fox Graduate School will establish the Graduate Academic Integrity Committee (GAIC) to oversee the academic integrity process for graduate students. The GAIC will include at least one member of the Graduate Faculty and one graduate student from each school or college offering graduate programs. Faculty and graduate student members will be appointed by the academic administrator in charge of graduate education at each college or school. Faculty members will be appointed to staggered 3-year terms. Graduate student members will be appointed to 1-year terms. All terms may be renewed.
2. When a case is brought to the GAIC, a hearing committee of at least 5 members will be formed by the GAIC chair, in consultation with both the Fox Graduate School and the academic administrator in charge of graduate education of the college/school that is the academic home of the student’s program(s). The hearing committee will consist of at least 2 faculty members and 2 graduate students from the GAIC and one additional member of the Graduate Faculty with subject matter expertise (who may or may not be a member of the GAIC). The chair of the Hearing Committee will be appointed by the chair of the GAIC. All members must be in good standing. One member of this committee must be a tenured faculty member from the program housing the educator(s) that filed the academic integrity claim, preferably the appropriate Director of Graduate Studies. If the program cannot provide a qualifying faculty member, the graduate program head may request the qualifications be waived by The Fox Graduate School. To provide information in support of due process, the committee may also include a non-voting representative of The Fox Graduate School and/or a non-voting member with a strong understanding of academic integrity procedures. None of the hearing committee members may have a current professional or personal relationship with the student facing allegations.
3. The hearing committee’s decisions will be determined by a simple majority vote. The chair of the hearing committee votes only in cases of a tie.
4. Reporting: Once the GAIC has made its determination, the chair will communicate the outcome to i) the Office of Student Accountability & Conflict Response, and ii) the student’s Program Head. If the student is enrolled in an IUG, Concurrent, or a Joint degree program, each program leader will be notified.

Academic Misconduct vs Research Misconduct

Given the nature of graduate education, some cases may require a determination whether an action involves academic or research misconduct or both as described below.

1. The following allegations of misconduct involving research activities fall under the purview of the current academic integrity policy:
   1. Allegations of plagiarism, fabrication, or falsification in a thesis or dissertation in draft form
   2. Allegations of research misconduct involving research completed for a course (other than a finalized and submitted publication)
   3. Allegations of research misconduct involving research completed for any other non-course-based assessment that is not published.
2. The following allegations of misconduct involving research activities fall under the purview of RP02: Addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct.
   
   1. Allegations of plagiarism, fabrication, or falsification in a research report, manuscript, or other scholarly work not related to a thesis, dissertation, or other work undertaken in fulfillment of a course requirement.
   2. Allegations of plagiarism, fabrication, or falsification related to sponsored research, including proposals, required reports to sponsors, etc.
      
   3. Allegations of plagiarism, fabrication, or falsification related to sponsored research, including proposals, required reports to sponsors, etc.
      
3. If there is a question as to whether the alleged violation involves an academic integrity violation, research misconduct, or both, the Office for Research Protections should be contacted to determine how to proceed. Please see https://www.research.psu.edu/orp, https://www.research.psu.edu/researchmisconduct and https://policy.psu.edu/policies/rp02 for more information. If the allegation involves both academic and research misconduct, the research misconduct process should conclude before the academic integrity process begins when possible.
   

Revision History

Approved by Graduate Council, February 19, 2025. Effective date: TBD

• New policy.