Nottingham University

Academic Appeals

Grounds of Appeal

• Procedural irregularity - parts of the assessment procedure were not applied, and the irregularity disadvantaged the student and was significant enough to have materially affected the decision.
• Prejudice or bias - prejudice or bias on the part of one or more examiners took place and can be substantiated with evidence, or there are grounds to support a reasonable perception of prejudice or bias.
• Manifestly unreasonable decision - the decision was one which no reasonable person could find comprehensible. The student must provide a substantive argument explaining why no reasonable person could have reached the decision.
• New evidence - the student’s performance was materially affected by circumstances for which there is evidence which was not, and could not have been, made available to the Examination Board at the time of its original decision. The student must explain why the circumstances could not have been brought to the University’s attention sooner.

The standard deadline is 30 working days from the decision being appealed. Late appeals are only considered in the most exceptional circumstances and where there is good reason supported by evidence.

How an appeal is considered

• Initial assessment - the Investigations and Resolution team checks eligibility, evidence, deadlines and whether the student has established grounds.
• School/department response - normally within 10 working days. The School/Department may uphold the appeal and make a revised recommendation, not uphold it, or refer it to an Academic Appeal Panel.
• Academic Appeal Panel - considers the case on the papers. It may reject the appeal, uphold a revised recommendation, refer the matter back to the School/Department, substitute another decision, or refer the case to an Academic Appeal Hearing.
• Academic Appeal Hearing - may be used where, for example, the case would be adversely affected by not being heard in person, the Panel cannot agree on a course of action, or the appeal concerns certain professional competence decisions.
• New evidence - evidence not previously available may normally be submitted once. If submitted after the appeal outcome, it must normally be provided within 10 working days and explain why it was not previously available.
• Appeal review request - available following the formal appeal outcome.

Appeal Review

A review request must establish at least one of the grounds:

• Procedural irregularity in the handling of the appeal which disadvantaged the student and was significant enough to have materially affected the decision; or
• A compelling argument that the decision was not reasonable in the circumstances, supported by evidence and a clear rationale.

A review request must be submitted within 10 working days of notification of the original appeal outcome. It will normally be considered on the papers and will not involve a fresh investigation.

The reviewer may:

• require reconsideration by the original decision-maker;
• require consideration by an Academic Appeal Panel where the case was dismissed at initial assessment;
• uphold the review and substitute a decision; or
• reject the review.

Extenuating Circumstances

EC Deadlines

• Coursework: submit the EC claim before the original coursework deadline.
• Exams/assessments: submit before the exam where possible, and no later than 5 working days after the exam, provided the mark has not yet been released.

Late claims are only accepted in limited circumstances, including:

• Severe incapacitation making timely submission not reasonably possible, supported by evidence.
• New evidence which did not exist and could not reasonably have been known about when the original EC claim was made.
• Late diagnosis of a disability or long-term medical condition, where the relevant assessment took place during the current academic year without reasonable adjustments.

If the relevant Exam Board has already met, the student should use the Academic Appeals process instead.

Evidence

• Evidence should normally be submitted with the EC claim and may be submitted up to 10 working days after the coursework deadline or exam date. In severe cases, an extension may be possible if approved in advance by the School EC Panel.

Examples of circumstances

Usually acceptable:

• illness lasting more than 5 working days or acute illness;
• hospitalisation;
• acute injury;
• late diagnosis of a disability or long-term condition;
• pregnancy-related illness or hospitalisation;
• serious illness of a close relative where the impact is demonstrated;
• bereavement where a close relationship is demonstrated;
• acute personal/emotional circumstances where appropriate support is sought;
• being a victim of crime where the impact on study is demonstrated;
• exceptional and unforeseeable transport disruption;
• significant university representation;
• jury service where deferral has been refused;
• court attendance;
• qualifying religious observance.

Generally not acceptable:

• minor or short-term illness;
• ordinary exam stress or anxiety without medical diagnosis/evidence;
• pet illness or bereavement;
• IT/computer failure;
• ordinary accommodation problems;
• normal travel delays;
• holidays;
• misreading timetables or assessment deadlines;
• foreseeable or preventable circumstances;
• circumstances that were not disclosed through the correct procedure and within the published deadlines;
• paid employment/volunteering for full-time students, except in exceptional circumstances;
• circumstances which were within the student’s control.

Challenging an EC decision

• If dissatisfied with an EC decision, students should first clarify the decision or support measure with the relevant School/Student Services contact.
• Before the relevant Exam Board has met:
  • grounds of procedural irregularity, prejudice/bias or manifest unreasonableness may be pursued through the Academic Appeals process;
  • new evidence should normally be sent to the School within 5 working days of receiving it, with an explanation of why it could not have been submitted earlier.
• After the Exam Board has met, grounds 1-4 may be pursued through Academic Appeal, subject to the appeal deadline. The deadline runs from the progression/classification decision, not the earlier EC decision.

Academic Misconduct

Process

There are six potential stages:

1. Reporting an allegation
2. Investigation by an academic misconduct officer
3. School desk-based approach
4. School academic misconduct meeting
5. Academic Misconduct Committee
6. Academic misconduct review request

A case will not necessarily go through every stage.

Desk-based approach

A desk-based approach may be used where all of the following apply:

• it is the student's first instance of academic misconduct;
• the misconduct involves plagiarism only;
• the affected assessment is worth no more than 20 credits;
• the plagiarism is considered minor;
• the student has not previously had a desk-based approach; and
• the case does not require referral to the Academic Misconduct Committee.

The student receives the evidence and proposed outcome and has 10 working days to:

• accept the outcome; or
• request a School academic misconduct meeting.

School academic misconduct meeting

The student must normally receive at least 5 calendar days' notice.

The student may:

• respond to the allegation;
• see the relevant evidence;
• provide mitigating circumstances;
• bring a supporter; and
• provide a brief written, signed statement.

The student is allowed up to 5 working days to provide the written statement after the meeting.

The outcome may be:

• a finding of academic misconduct;
• a finding of poor academic practice; or
• no finding of academic misconduct.

Mitigating circumstances do not exempt a student from a finding of academic misconduct, but may be considered when determining a proportionate caution or penalty.

Referral to the Academic Misconduct Committee

A case must be referred where specified circumstances apply, including:

• certain findings of false authorship;
• suspected use of a third-party agent or essay mill;
• impersonation;
• falsification of content or evidence in an academic process;
• two or more previous instances of academic misconduct;
• the appropriate caution or penalty is not available to the academic misconduct officer; or
• the student is a postgraduate research student, subject to the stated exception.

The Committee may consider a case on paper where the student does not dispute the finding of misconduct and the facts are not in dispute. In that situation, the consideration concerns the appropriate penalty or caution.

Academic Misconduct Committee hearing

The Committee may find:

• academic misconduct;
• poor academic practice; or
• no academic misconduct.

The student and School/Department have access to the same documentary and verbal evidence. A student may bring a supporter and witnesses, subject to the applicable notice requirements.

The Committee applies the balance of probabilities and may impose a caution or penalty and require appropriate remedial action.

Academic misconduct review

A student may request a review of:

• a School academic misconduct meeting outcome, where the case was not referred to the Academic Misconduct Committee; or
• an Academic Misconduct Committee outcome.

The grounds are:

1. Procedural irregularity in handling the case; or
2. A compelling argument that the decision and/or caution or penalty was unreasonable and/or disproportionate.

The review request must normally be made within 10 working days of notification of the decision.

The review will not usually reconsider the case afresh. The reviewer may:

• reject the claim and issue a Completion of Procedures letter; or
• uphold the claim and substitute a decision.

Cautions and penalties

Desk-based approach

The available caution is:

• written warning (with the lower standard of work reflected in the mark where relevant).

School academic misconduct meeting

Possible cautions/penalties include:

• written warning;
• zero for the specific material;
• percentage reduction to the work;
• zero for the entire assessment; or
• zero for the module with a different module required as reassessment in the specified circumstances.

Academic Misconduct Committee

The Committee may impose the above penalties and may additionally:

• award zero for the entire module;
• award zero for all assessments in a semester;
• award zero for the whole year;
• require reassessment;
• require further research-student review or thesis resubmission;
• require a period of supervision;
• suspend or terminate the student's course; or
• withdraw a degree or other qualification.

Penalties should be appropriate and proportionate, taking account of the nature of the misconduct, the evidence and its impact.