The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

Report on Student Academic Misconduct

Important:

This report shall only be accessed and viewed by authorised officials. If you are not the intended receiver, please immediately inform the sender and remove your soft copy if any.

Notes

Anonymous allegations normally shall not be considered.

Invigilators should complete Section A and B for alleged breaches of the Rules for the Conduct of Examinations (http://acadreg.ust.hk/generalreg).

Instructors, students’ supervisors or other members of the University community who consider that a student or group of students has or may have committed cheating (other than during an examination/test), plagiarism or other academic misconduct as defined in the Regulations for Student Academic Integrity (http://acadreg.ust.hk/generalreg) should complete Sections A and C and submit a Report on Student Academic Misconduct for each student concerned.

Reports on Student Academic Misconduct will be reviewed by the relevant Head of Department / Division or Dean / DIPO, as below, or by their delegates; by the Senate Student Disciplinary Committee (SDC) where applicable; and, in the event of appeals, by the Provost or President, as appropriate, or their delegates.

Heads of Department / Division should complete Section D.

Deans / DIPO, where applicable, should complete Section E.

The Provost, in the event of appeals against the Head’s / Dean’s / DIPO’s decision, should complete Section F.

The Chair of the Senate Student Disciplinary Committee, where applicable, should complete Section G.

The President, in the event of appeals against the Senate SDC’s decision, should complete Section H.

While delegates may be nominated to review cases and meet students, decisions are the responsibility of the relevant Head of Department / Division or Dean / DIPO, and of the Provost and President, as appropriate, and not their delegates.

Please complete this form in BLOCK CAPITALS, either electronically into the Word template, or on paper in black ink.

Section A – Details of Alleged Student

Student’s Name:

Student ID No.: (if known)	Undergraduate Student Taught Postgraduate Student Research Postgraduate Student Others / Unknown
Program of Study:	Year of Study:
Department / Division:	School:

For alleged academic misconduct in a course

Course Code:

Course Title:

Section B – Alleged breach of the Rules for the Conduct of Examinations

Invigilators should complete Section A and provide details below:

Allegation Details:

Indicate here the time/place of the alleged breach, a summary of the allegation and the actions taken. List any documents that are attached to the Report on Student Academic Misconduct as evidence to support the allegation.

Invigilator Details:

Name:

Department / Division:

Email:	Phone:

Signature:	Date:

The Report on Student Academic Misconduct and any attachments should be sent to the Head of the Department / Division responsible for the course in question, via the Course Instructor where applicable.

Section C – Alleged cheating (other than in examinations / tests)¸ plagiarism or other academic misconduct

Instructors, students’ supervisors and other members of the University community should complete Section A and provide details below:

Allegation Details:

Indicate here the time/place of the alleged academic misconduct and a summary of the allegation. List any documents that are attached to the Report on Student Academic Misconduct as evidence to support the allegation, e.g. copies of original texts and the student’s work, highlighting any alleged plagiarism.

Details of Person Submitting this Allegation:

Name:	Student Staff / Faculty member Alumni Others

Department / Office:

Email:	Phone:

Signature:	Date:

The Report on Student Academic Misconduct and any attachments should be sent to:

(for Undergraduate / Taught Postgraduate Students): the Head of the Department / Division responsible for the course / program in question;

(for Research Postgraduate Students): the relevant Dean or Director, IPO.

Section D – Review by Head of Department / Division (or his/her delegate)

Heads of Department / Division should refer Report forms and any attachments to the relevant Dean / DIPO for review, with an explanatory note, where a case:

involves students who are not enrolled on a course or program under the Head of Department / Division; or

may pose a possible conflict of interest for the Head; or

involves persons who are not members of the University of community.

Heads of Department / Division (or their delegates), after consultation as deemed appropriate, should review the Report on Student Academic Misconduct and ask the student to attend a meeting to respond to the allegation and present any relevant evidence (review to be based on written evidence if the student refuses to / is unable to attend the meeting).

Review details:

Indicate here the date of the review and participants, and list any documentary evidence considered. Attach the evidence to the Report on Student Academic Misconduct with the Minutes / Notes of the review meeting / process.

Recommendation: Academic misconduct *NOT proven / proven

Rationale for recommendation:

Review undertaken by:	(*Head of Dept./Div. / on behalf of Head)

Signature:	Date:

Head of Department / Division should indicate below their decision and action taken.

Decision and Sanction(s) (select one only of A, B or C below)

(A)	Academic misconduct not proven – no sanction and case dismissed

(B)	Academic misconduct proven – the following sanction(s) imposed (check below as applicable):

(i)	A verbal reprimand, of which no record shall be kept;

(ii)	A written reprimand, to be held on the student’s record *until graduation / for a specified period of time;

(iii)	A make-up assignment or test / examination;

(iv)	A requirement to resubmit work contributing to an award;

(v)	A reduced grade for the component of assessment in question or a reduced grade for the course, including a failed grade;

(vi)	Student required to undertake a period of mentoring or instruction, to enhance his/her ability to make good ethical choices.

The Report on Student Academic Misconduct and any attachments, and a copy of the Head’s letter to the student, should be sent to the Academic Registrar for retention and, where applicable, for recording the sanction against their student record.

(C)	Academic misconduct proven – referral to Dean / DIPO for further review and imposition of a sanction(s)

The Report on Student Academic Misconduct and any attachments (and all previous Misconduct Reports, where applicable) should be submitted to the relevant Dean / IPO for further review and imposition of sanction(s).

Rationale:

Indicate here the rationale for the decision and any imposed sanction. In the case of (C), also indicate why you consider the sanctions available to be insufficient but you should NOT recommend a sanction to the Dean / DIPO.

Authorisation

Heads should sign below and inform the student, in writing, of the outcome of the review and, where applicable, the details of any sanction(s) imposed and the appeal procedures.

Signature:	Date:

Head of Dept./Div.

Section E – Review by Dean / DIPO (or his/her delegate)

Where applicable, the relevant Dean / DIPO (or their delegates) should review the Report on Student Academic Misconduct (in relation to any previous misconduct Reports where applicable), ask the student to attend a meeting to respond to the allegation and present any relevant evidence (review to be based on written evidence if the student refuses to / is unable to attend the meeting).

Review details:

Indicate here the date of the review and participants, and list any documentary evidence considered. Attach the evidence to the Report on Student Academic Misconduct with the Minutes / Notes of the review meeting / process.

Recommendation: Academic misconduct *NOT proven / proven

Rationale for recommendation:

Review undertaken by:	(*Dean / DIPO / on behalf of Dean/DIPO)

Signature:	Date:

The Dean / DIPO should indicate below their decision and action taken.

Decision and Sanction(s) (select one only of A, B or C below)

(A)	Academic misconduct not proven – no sanction and case dismissed

(B)	Academic misconduct proven – the following sanction(s) imposed (check below as applicable):

(i)	A verbal reprimand, of which no record shall be kept;

(ii)	A written reprimand, to be held on the student’s record *until graduation / for a specified period of time;

(iii)	A make-up assignment or test / examination;

(iv)	A requirement to resubmit work contributing to an award;

(v)	A reduced grade for the component of assessment in question or a reduced grade for the course, including a failed grade;

(vi)	Student required to undertake a period of mentoring or instruction, to enhance his/her ability to make good ethical choices;

(vii)	University community service;

(viii)	Withdrawal or suspension of academic or other University benefits, rights or privileges, except the withdrawal or suspension of the right to continue with the student’s academic studies.

(ix)	Student required to take a reduced maximum credit load;

(x)	Academic Registrar requested to make a notation of academic misconduct on the student’s transcript, to be removed at the specified time, or upon graduation, or to be a permanent record;

The Report on Student Academic Misconduct and any attachments, and a copy of the Dean’s/DIPO’s letter to the student, should be sent to the Academic Registrar for retention and, where applicable, for recording the sanction against their student record.

(C)	Academic misconduct proven – referral to Senate Student Disciplinary Committee (SDC) for further review and imposition of a sanction(s)

The Report on Student Academic Misconduct and any attachments (and all previous Misconduct Reports, where applicable) should be submitted to the Senate SDC for further review and imposition of sanction(s).

Rationale:

Indicate here the rationale for the decision and any imposed sanction In the case of (C), also indicate why you consider the sanctions available to be insufficient but you should NOT recommend a sanction to the Senate SDC.

Authorisation

The Dean / DIPO should sign below and inform the student, in writing, of the outcome of the review and, where applicable, the details of any sanction(s) imposed and the appeal procedures.

Signature:	Date:

*Dean of	/ Director, IPO

Section F – Appeal review by the Provost (or his/her delegate)

The Provost (or his/her delegate) should review the Report on Student Academic Misconduct and the student’s written appeal, and ask the student to attend a meeting to explain the grounds for appeal and present any relevant evidence (investigation to be based on review of written evidence if the student refuses to / is unable to attend the meeting).

Review details:

Indicate here the date of the appeal review and participants, and list any documentary evidence considered. Attach the evidence to the Report on Student Academic Misconduct with the Minutes / Notes of the review meeting / process.

Recommendation: Appeal *upheld / not upheld but has merit / not upheld

Rationale for recommendation:

Review undertaken by:	(*Provost / on behalf of Provost)

Signature:	Date:

The Provost should indicate below his / her decision and action taken.

Decision and Sanction(s) (select one only of A, B or C below)

(A)	Appeal upheld. Academic misconduct not proven – no sanction and case dismissed

(B)	Academic misconduct proven but the Appeal has merit – the following lesser sanction(s) imposed:

(C)	Appeal not upheld. Student misconduct proven – the following sanction(s) imposed (check below as applicable):

(i)	A verbal reprimand, of which no record shall be kept;

(ii)	A written reprimand, to be held on the student’s record *until graduation / for a specified period of time;

(iii)	A make-up assignment or test / examination;

(iv)	A requirement to resubmit work contributing to an award;

(v)	A reduced grade for the component of assessment in question or a reduced grade for the course, including a failed grade;

(vi)	Student required to undertake a period of mentoring or instruction, to enhance his/her ability to make good ethical choices;

(vii)	University community service;

(viii)	Withdrawal or suspension of academic or other University benefits, rights or privileges, except the withdrawal or suspension of the right to continue with the student’s academic studies.

(ix)	Student required to take a reduced maximum credit load;

(x)	Academic Registrar requested to make a notation of academic misconduct on the student’s transcript, to be removed at the specified time, or upon graduation, or to be a permanent record;

The Report on Student Academic Misconduct and any attachments, and a copy of the Provost’s letter to the student, should be sent to the Academic Registrar for retention and, where applicable, for recording or removing the sanction against their student record.

Authorisation

The Provost should sign below and inform the student, in writing, of the outcome of the appeal and, where applicable, the details of any sanction(s) imposed.

Signature:	Date:

Provost

Section G – Review by the Senate Student Disciplinary Committee (SDC)

The Senate SDC should review the Report on Student Academic Misconduct, ask the student to attend a meeting to respond to the charge of academic misconduct, and determine the sanction(s) to be imposed (review to be based on written evidence if the student refuses to / is unable to attend the meeting).

Senate SDC Meeting:

Indicate here the date of the meeting and participants, and list any documentary evidence considered. Attach the evidence to the Report on Student Academic Misconduct with the Minutes / Report of the Meeting.

The Senate SDC should indicate below their decision and action taken.

Sanction(s) imposed (check below as applicable)

(i)	A verbal reprimand, of which no record shall be kept;

(ii)	A written reprimand, to be held on the student’s record *until graduation / for a specified period of time;

(iii)	A make-up assignment or test / examination;

(iv)	A requirement to resubmit work contributing to an award;

(v)	A reduced grade for the component of assessment in question or a reduced grade for the course, including a failed grade;

(vi)	Student required to undertake a period of mentoring or instruction, to enhance his/her ability to make good ethical choices;

(vii)	University community service;

(viii)	Withdrawal or suspension of academic or other University benefits, rights or privileges, except the withdrawal or suspension of the right to continue with the student’s academic studies.

(ix)	Student required to take a reduced maximum credit load;

(x)	Academic Registrar requested to make a notation of academic misconduct on the student’s transcript, to be removed at the specified time, or upon graduation, or to be a permanent record;

(xi)	Cancellation of academic credits already earned;

(xii)	Ineligibility for honors on graduation;

(xiii)	Discontinuation of studies and suspension from the University for a set period, with re-admission being subject to satisfactory fulfilment of conditions where specified;

(xiv)	Termination of studies;

(xv)	Any other sanction(s) deemed appropriate, as detailed below:

Rationale for imposed sanction:

Indicate here the rationale for the imposed sanction:

The Report on Student Academic Misconduct and any attachments, and a copy of Senate SDC Chair’s letter to the student, should be sent to the Academic Registrar for retention and, where applicable, for recording the sanction against their student record.

Authorisation

The Senate SDC Chair should sign below and inform the student, in writing, of the outcome of the review, the details of any sanction(s) imposed and the appeal procedures.

Signature:	Date:

Chair, Senate SDC

Section H – Appeal review by the President (or his/her delegate)

The President (or his/her delegate) should review the Report on Student Academic Misconduct, the Senate SDC’s Report and the student’s written appeal, and ask the student to attend a meeting to explain the grounds for appeal and present any relevant evidence (investigation to be based on review of written evidence if the student refuses to / is unable to attend the meeting).

Review details:

Indicate here the date of the appeal review and participants, and list any documentary evidence considered. Attach the evidence to the Report on Student Academic Misconduct with the Minutes / Notes of the review meeting / process.

Recommendation: Appeal *upheld / not upheld but has merit / not upheld

Rationale for recommendation:

Indicate here the rationale for the recommendation

Review undertaken by:	(*President / on behalf of President)

Signature:	Date:

The President should indicate below his / her decision and action taken.

Decision and Sanction(s) (select one only of A, B or C below)

(A)	Academic misconduct not proven – no sanction and case dismissed

(B)	Academic misconduct proven but the Appeal has merit – the following lesser sanction(s) imposed:

(C)	Appeal not upheld. Academic misconduct proven – the following sanction(s) imposed (check below as applicable):

(i)	A verbal reprimand, of which no record shall be kept;

(ii)	A written reprimand, to be held on the student’s record *until graduation / for a specified period of time;

(iii)	A make-up assignment or test / examination;

(iv)	A requirement to resubmit work contributing to an award;

(v)	A reduced grade for the component of assessment in question or a reduced grade for the course, including a failed grade;

(vi)	Student required to undertake a period of mentoring or instruction, to enhance his/her ability to make good ethical choices;

(vii)	University community service;

(viii)	Withdrawal or suspension of academic or other University benefits, rights or privileges, except the withdrawal or suspension of the right to continue with the student’s academic studies.

(ix)	Student required to take a reduced maximum credit load;

(x)	Academic Registrar requested to make a notation of academic misconduct on the student’s transcript, to be removed at the specified time, or upon graduation, or to be a permanent record;

(xi)	Cancellation of academic credits already earned;

(xii)	Ineligibility for honors on graduation;

(xiii)	Discontinuation of studies and suspension from the University for a set period, with re-admission being subject to satisfactory fulfilment of conditions where specified;

(xiv)	Termination of studies;

(xv)	Any other sanction(s) deemed appropriate, as detailed below:

The Report on Student Academic Misconduct and any attachments, and a copy of the President’s letter to the student, should be sent to the Academic Registrar for retention and, where applicable, for recording or removing the sanction against their student record.

Authorisation

The President should sign below and inform the student, in writing, of the outcome of the appeal and, where applicable, the details of any sanction(s) imposed.

Signature:	Date:

President

Allegations of academic misconduct that include an allegation of misconduct as defined in the Regulations for Student Conduct (http://acadreg.ust.hk/generalreg) or which are ambiguous in nature should be referred to the Dean of Students via a Report on Student Misconduct (http://acadreg.ust.hk/generalreg) who will decide whether the case initially should be reviewed under the Regulations for Student Academic Integrity or the Regulations for Student Conduct. Other research misconduct (“Research Misconduct”) should be referred and dealt with under the “Policy on Research Conduct and Integrity”.