VI. ACADEMIC INTEGRITY: POLICIES & PROCEDURES

• Plagiarism

• Unacknowledged paraphrase

• Cheating

• Fabrication of data

• Fabrication, alteration, or misrepresentation of academic records

• Facilitating academic dishonesty

• Unauthorized collaboration

• Misuse of otherwise valid academic work

• Misuse of academic resources

• Depriving others of equal access to academic resources

Plagiarism is the presentation of someone else’s ideas, writings, or statements as one’s own. Plagiarism is a serious breach of academic integrity, and anyone who is found to have committed plagiarism will be subject to disciplinary action.

Paraphrase is the act of putting someone else’s ideas into one’s own words. The use of paraphrase can be an acceptable practice under some circumstances if it is used sparingly and if the original text is properly acknowledged. Unacknowledged paraphrase, like plagiarism, is a serious breach of academic integrity

Any improper use of sources may constitute plagiarism. Every quotation from another source, whether written, spoken, or in electronic format, must be bound by quotation marks and be properly cited. Mere citation alone is not sufficient when a scholar has used another person’s words. Similarly, every paraphrase or summary (a more concise restatement of another's ideas) must be properly cited. A bibliographic entry alone is not sufficient to avoid the imputation of plagiarism for unacknowledged paraphrase or summary of another person’s ideas.

Cheating is the use or attempted use of unauthorized materials, information, or study aids in in-class examinations, take-home examinations, or other academic exercises.

Fabrication of data is the falsification or invention of data, research results, citations, or any other information used in examinations, papers, experiments, or other academic exercises.

Fabrication, alteration, or misrepresentation of academic records includes, but is not limited to, the falsification or invention of such records as resumes and CVs, transcripts, letters of recommendation, grade reports, and examination report forms.

Facilitating academic dishonesty is the assistance or attempted assistance of another to commit an act of academic dishonesty.

Unauthorized collaboration is a form of academic misconduct. Unless the responsible faculty member has explicitly authorized students to work collaboratively on a particular project, all academic work must be the student’s own. Students who participate in joint projects or collaborative exercises are expected to make themselves aware of and to adhere to their instructor's expectations for individual contributions to the joint effort as well as any purely individual work to be prepared and submitted for assessment.

Misrepresentation or misuse of otherwise valid academic work is a form of academic misconduct. For example, a paper submitted to satisfy the requirements for one course may not be submitted to satisfy a requirement for a second course without explicit permission of both instructors.

It is a violation of academic integrity to misuse academic resources, or to attempt to deprive other scholars, whether students or faculty, of equal access to academic resources, whether those resources are tangible (e.g., library or laboratory materials) or intangible (e.g., access to online or other electronic resources).

The Graduate School reserves the right to use all legal means, including submitting student work to electronic search engines, such as Turnitin.com, to investigate allegations that graduate students have engaged in academic misconduct. Students themselves are encouraged to use Turnitin.com to check their own work for improperly documented content.

Academic misconduct in any form is a serious offense against the academic community in general and against Georgetown University in particular. Students who are found to have violated standards of academic integrity will be subject to academic penalties. These penalties may include, but are not limited to, transcript notations, suspension or dismissal from the University, or revocation of degrees already conferred.

• Three faculty members, appointed to staggered three-year terms. 

• One Graduate School student who is pursuing a Ph.D.-degree program and one who is pursuing a professional doctoral program. Each student will be appointed to a one-year term with the possibility of reappointment. 

• The Dean may appoint additional faculty members or students to the Standing Committee as needed should a case brought to the Committee present possible conflicts of interest. 

• One Graduate School associate dean, who will serve as the non-voting Investigating Officer. 

• One non-voting ex officio member of the University Research Integrity Committee, to be appointed by the Chair of the University Research Committee. 

Faculty representatives on the Standing Committee will be drawn from the full range of the Graduate School’s doctoral programs, on the Main Campus, at the Medical Center, and in the School for Continuing Studies. The Dean shall designate a faculty member of the Standing Committee to serve as Chair.

The Standing Committee will meet at the beginning of each academic year to familiarize the members with standards of academic integrity expected of Graduate School students, the type of violations brought before the Committee, and the range of sanctions that may be imposed on those found responsible for academic misconduct. Unless circumstances warrant otherwise, the Committee’s subsequent business, including the assignment of adjudication committees, will be conducted without meeting as a group.

          b. Transmittal of Allegations and Decision to Investigate

When the Dean receives an allegation of academic misconduct by a doctoral student, the Investigative Officer will notify the student that an allegation has been received and that the Chair of the Standing Committee will assign an Adjudication Committee to review the allegations. The notice will include a copy of the allegations and a list of the members of the Standing Committee.

If the student is enrolled in a professional doctoral program, the notice will also include the name of a faculty member from the program or a related discipline who has no direct knowledge of the case at hand. This individual’s role will be limited to assisting the Adjudication Committee in determining whether the allegations primarily involve a breach of professional standards or of academic integrity, or some combination of the two.

The student will be informed that he or she has three business days to do either or both of the following: 

• Submit a written statement concerning the allegation that they wish the Adjudication Committee to consider when making the initial decision about whether the allegations merit investigation. The student is encouraged to make any such written submission at this stage short, preferably no longer than one page. If the Adjudication Committee determines that investigation and further adjudication of the allegations are warranted, the student will be given the opportunity to submit an additional written response. 

• Indicate their objection to having any specific member of the Standing Committee serve on the Adjudication Committee. A student in a professional doctoral program will also have the opportunity to object for cause to the faculty member proposed to assist the Adjudication Committee in determining the extent to which the allegations involve professional standards. If the student has concerns about any of these individuals serving on the Adjudication Committee, the student must notify the Investigative Officer in writing of the good faith basis for the objection within the three-day period. 

After the student has been notified and had an opportunity respond, the Investigative Officer will refer the allegations and any response submitted by the student to the Chair of the Standing Committee for assignment to an Adjudication Committee. In doing so, the Chair will consider any objection to membership submitted by the student, but the final decision regarding the membership of the Adjudication Committee will rest with the Chair.

An Adjudication Committee shall consist of two faculty and one student member of the Standing Committee. A Standing Committee member who is mentoring a thesis in which academic misconduct has been alleged may not serve on the Adjudication Committee handling that case. Nor may a faculty member with such a connection to the student assist the Adjudication Committee in reviewing professional standards as they related to the allegations.

Each member of the Adjudication Committee will be given a complete copy of the allegation, supporting materials, and any written response to the allegation's materials submitted by the student. If a faculty member has been named to assist the Adjudication Committee in reviewing professional standards, that individual  also will be given a copy of the materials. As soon as reasonably possible, the newly-appointed Committee will caucus to review these materials.

• If the student is enrolled in a Ph.D. program, the first responsibility of the Adjudication Committee will be to determine whether the allegations could reasonably constitute a violation of the standards of academic integrity.

• If the student enrolled in a professional doctoral program, the first responsibility of the Adjudication Committee and the assisting faculty member will be to determine whether the allegations primarily involve a breach of professional standards or of academic integrity, or some combination of the two. 

If it is determined that the allegations are solely professional in nature, the Adjudication Committee will refer the matter back to professional standards committee of the student's program. If that committee finds the student to be responsible for professional misconduct serious enough to warrant suspension or dismissal from the program, it can recommend such actions to the Dean of the Graduate School, in addition to whatever other sanctioning actions it may take. No further action will be taken by the Adjudication Committee and all copies of the allegations materials it received will be securely destroyed. No record of the allegations will be kept in the student’s file, unless they are resubmitted to the Dean by action of the program’s professional standards committee.

If it is determined that the allegations, in whole or in part, might constitute a violation of academic integrity, the assisting faculty member will leave the group and those members appointed from the Standing Committee will proceed to investigate the allegations under the Graduate School's normal procedures, beginning with a determination of whether the allegations could reasonably constitute a violation of the standards of academic integrity.

In either case, if the members of the Adjudication Committee determine that the allegations do not constitute a violation of the Standards of Academic Integrity, they will return the materials to the Investigative Officer with a recommendation that the allegations be dismissed. All materials received will be securely destroyed and both the student and the individual alleging academic misconduct will be informed that the case has been closed. No record of the allegations will appear in the student’s records.

If the Adjudication Committee determines that the allegations do warrant further investigation and adjudication, the members will so notify the Investigative Officer.

The Investigative Officer will send written notice to the student that an investigation has been initiated. This notice will include the names of the Standing Committee members who have been appointed to the Adjudication Committee. The student will be informed that they have five business days to (a) request an opportunity to meet with the Adjudication Committee and (b) to submit a written response to the allegations, not to exceed ten typewritten pages. A copy of this response will be provided to each member of the Adjudication Committee.

At the discretion of the Dean, a representative from the Office of General Counsel may serve as an advisor to the Standing Committee or any Adjudication Committee.

          c. Investigation of Allegations by the Adjudication Committee

Having determined that the facts as alleged could constitute a violation of the standards of Academic Integrity, the Adjudication Committee will initiate an investigation. The Committee may supplement the information it initially receives with any information that it deems necessary. Since the purpose of this investigation will be to make determinations of fact, it will be interrogatory rather than accusatorial in both format and approach.

If specialized knowledge is deemed necessary to investigate a case, the Adjudication Committee may ask the Dean to appoint an appropriate expert to assist the Adjudication Committee in its investigation. The expert will serve as a consultant to the Adjudication Committee and will neither deliberate with the Adjudication Committee nor vote. Copies of any materials provided to the Adjudication Committee by such an expert will also be provided to the student.

If the student so requests, the Committee will meet with and question the student. The student may also propose relevant witnesses from which it would like the Committee to hear. If the student wishes to propose witnesses, the student must submit their names in writing to the Adjudication Committee, along with their relationship to the student, if any, and the nature of their testimony. The Committee will decide whether to hear from these witnesses.

Because the meeting between the Committee and the student is fundamentally an academic proceeding, not a legal one, the student is expected to represent themself and to speak on their own behalf. The student may not be represented by counsel, nor may anyone participate in the meeting who is not a material witness. The student may be accompanied by one person, such as a friend or family member, but that individual may not participate in the proceedings. Should that person also be an attorney, they have a professional obligation to so inform the Committee in advance, in which case the Committee reserves the right to have a representative from the Office of General Counsel present.

The Committee may also interview additional witnesses or review any additional material that it believes would be helpful or relevant to its decision-making process. The student against whom the allegations are brought shall have the right to be present as an observer to all witness interviews conducted by the Adjudication Committee. Interviews conducted by the Adjudication Committee may be recorded at the discretion of the Graduate School.

          d. Determination of Responsibility for Academic Misconduct

The Adjudication Committee will determine by simple majority vote whether it believes the student is responsible for academic misconduct and whether it will recommend that sanctions be imposed on the student. The Adjudication Committee will deputize one of its members to report its determination of responsibility and any recommended sanctions in writing to the Dean of the Graduate School.

Upon receipt of the Committee’s report, the Dean of the Graduate School may: 

• accept the findings and recommendations of the Adjudication Committee; or

• refer the case back to that Adjudication Committee for further investigation or more detailed written explanation of its findings and recommendations; or

• reject the Adjudication Committee’s findings or sanctioning recommendations and explain the rationale for accepting a different interpretation of the facts or imposing different sanctions.

The Dean of the Graduate School will provide the student against whom the allegations have been made with a written statement of the final decision and, as appropriate, any recommended sanction. The Dean’s letter imposing sanctions for academic misconduct will become part of the student’s permanent file.

A one-page summary report of the facts of the case and its outcome will be provided to the Standing Committee. These summaries will be maintained in a sanction precedent file by the Graduate School and will contribute to the body of precedent to guide future adjudication committees in establishing appropriate sanctions for comparable violations of academic integrity.

          2. Sanctions

Sanctions recommended by a Graduate School Adjudication Committee may include but are not limited to a transcript notation, suspension or dismissal from the University, and revocation of degrees already granted.

Sanctions that may be imposed directly by the Dean of the Graduate School include but are not limited to a transcript notation, suspension, dismissal, or revocation of previously awarded degrees. The student’s department or program must comply with any such sanctions communicated to them by the Dean of the Graduate School. The Dean of the Graduate School is the only person authorized to impose such sanctions on a doctoral student for violations of academic integrity. The department or program shall not impose additional penalties.

      3. Transcript Notations

If the Adjudication Committee finds a doctoral student responsible for academic misconduct, it will recommend to the Dean of the Graduate School one of the following notations be placed on the student’s transcript:

• Suspension will be noted as “Suspension for Academic Misconduct”;

• Dismissal will be noted as “Dismissal for Academic Misconduct";

• Revocation of a previously awarded degree will be noted “[Degree] revoked for Academic Misconduct.”

The Dean either will approve the recommended sanction or impose a different sanction. Such transcript notations will remain a permanent part of the student’s record.

     4. Appeals

A doctoral student who has been found responsible for academic misconduct shall have the right to appeal those findings as well as any sanctions that may have been imposed.

Appeals of findings or sanctions will be considered only if the student is able to demonstrate either that new evidence has become available since the case was considered by an Adjudication Committee or that they were harmed by substantial procedural irregularity in the process. Such requests must be filed within thirty days of the date of the Dean’s letter imposing penalties and must include a description of the grounds for appeal. Dissatisfaction with the decision is not in itself sufficient grounds to warrant granting an appeal.

A student whose sanctions include termination from a degree program should refer to Section III.G.2. Termination for Findings of Academic Misconduct.

The Dean of the Graduate School will determine whether there are sufficient grounds for appeal.

If the Dean determines there are not sufficient grounds for appeal, the student will be so notified in writing. Such a determination shall be final.

If the Dean determines that there are sufficient grounds for an appeal, the case will be sent back to the original Adjudication Committee or the Honor Council for further investigation. In extremely rare cases in which personnel changes or allegations of substantial procedural irregularities make it impossible or impractical to reconvene the original Adjudication Committee, a new Adjudication Committee may be convened.