Whenever you submit work as part of your studies you are reminded that academic misconduct is strictly prohibited. Academic misconduct encompasses all kinds of academic dishonesty which infringes the integrity of the conservatoire’s assessment procedures.

This refers to any attempt made by a student to gain an unfair advantage, whether intentional or unintentional, in summative assessments.

An unfair advantage is:

• When you hide something and aren’t transparent about your approach.
  
• When you take something directly from someone (or something) else and don’t reference or acknowledge.
  
• When you don’t use something in an appropriate way.

The conservatoire and its validating body, the University of Hull, takes any forms of academic misconduct very seriously. If you are found guilty, the penalties can range from a warning or a mark from your course. Allegations of such conduct are investigated and (if proven) penalised using the University of Hull’s Regulations – Academic Misconduct, which can be found in their Quality Handbook: Assessment. Academic Misconduct, also sometimes referred to as ‘unfair means’, can take many forms.

Aside from plagiarism and self-plagiarism, examples include:

• If you include other people’s work without acknowledging the original author or creator, this is very poor scholarly practice and you may be accused of plagiarism.
  
  
• If you submit work that is the same as, or broadly similar to, work you have previously been awarded academic credit for without proper acknowledgement, or submit the same piece of work for more than one assessment, this may result in self-plagiarism. Self-plagiarism may include work you have submitted or been awarded credit for at Leeds Conservatoire or another institution.
  
  
• Collusion: unauthorised collaboration between two or more students in the preparation and production of an assessment, which is then submitted by each of them individually as their own work. This may also include asking another student to edit your work or making your work available to another student.
  
  
• Cheating in an exam: this may include but is not limited to actions such as:
  • Continuing to write after the invigilator has announced the end of the examination
  • Copying, or attempting to copy, from any other candidate during the examination;
  • Communication of any kind with any other Person other than an authorised invigilator or other member of staff during an examination;
  • Possession of any written, printed or electronic materials in the examination room unless expressly permitted;
  • Involvement in impersonation of another during an examination or other assessment event.
    
    
• False authorship: submission of assessed work that is claimed as your own but has been produced by a third partly on your behalf. This includes work that has been improved by, commissioned or purchased from human agents (e.g. family members, friends, essay mills (contract cheating), or fellow students) or assistive technology (such as generative Artificial Intelligence). This includes content generated by AI when the use of such technology is not part of the assessment requirement and without appropriate acknowledgement of the source.
  
  
• Fabrication or falsification of data: submitting work containing data measured in the field, in the laboratory or other setting, any part of which is untrue, made up, falsified or fabricated in any way. This includes the presentation of data in reports, projects, theses etc. based on experimental work falsely purported to have been carried out or data obtained by unfair means. This also includes using false statements or presenting false evidence in support of a request to withdraw from an examination, obtain an assessment extension, or explain any form of absence.
  
  
• Research ethics misconduct: conduct that does not conform to the conservatoire’s Research Ethics Regulations, including the process of gaining ethical approval for research. You must obtain ethical approval for your project through the research ethics panel. Research ethics cannot be gained retrospectively. Failure to gain research ethics before undertaking any primary research may result in failure of the work, or sections of the work being unusable, and an academic misconduct case being raised.
  
  
• Artificial intelligence: Attempting to pass off work created by artificial intelligence as your own constitutes academic misconduct. For more guidance on this, please see section 8 of this guide.