Assessment Malpractice Policy and Procedure

1. Purpose and scope

This policy covers student academic malpractice only. Staff misconduct, including staff involvement in assessment irregularities, is covered by the Staff Conduct, Grievance, and Whistleblowing Policy, not here.

This policy applies to all summative assessment, including work-based and workplace-assessed evidence, for all LIBT-awarded, QUALIFI-awarded, and LIBT Malta-awarded programmes.

Terms used here (academic malpractice, plagiarism, collusion, contract cheating, cheating, unauthorised use of AI) are defined in this policy and in the Glossary (LIBT Quality Glossary).

2. What counts as malpractice

Plagiarism: presenting someone else's work, words, or ideas as your own without acknowledgement, including copying from the internet, another learner's work, or a published source, with or without minor rewording.

Collusion: two or more people working together to produce work that is submitted as if it were solely the work of one person, without this being an authorised group task.

Cheating: passing off the work of others as one's own, or gaining an unfair advantage during an examination, for example by accessing material in advance, impersonating another learner, or using unauthorised aids.

Contract cheating: a student paying, commissioning, or otherwise arranging for a third party (a person, an essay-writing service, or a service accessed online) to produce work that is then submitted as the student's own. This includes impersonation in an exam or assessment. Contract cheating is always treated as a major case (see section 5) because, unlike plagiarism, it cannot be an innocent mistake.

Unauthorised use of AI: submitting work substantially generated by an AI tool (for example, an AI chatbot or writing assistant) and presenting it as the student's own original work, where the assessment brief requires the student's own analysis. This also includes submitting such work without declaring AI use where the programme's AI-use guidance requires declaration. Where a programme or module permits defined, declared use of AI tools (for example, for editing or idea generation), using AI within those declared limits is not malpractice. Using it beyond those limits, or without declaring it, is malpractice.

Fabrication: inventing or falsifying data, results, sources, or evidence.

See Appendix A for further examples of what is and is not considered malpractice, including in relation to AI tools.

3. Prevention

LIBT reduces the risk of malpractice in several ways. It makes this policy and its examples available to students at induction and at the start of every module. It requires assessors to make clear what collaboration is and is not permitted on each task. It checks submissions for similarity using Turnitin (see Appendix B). It also requires a student declaration of authorship, including AI use, on every submission.

4. Reporting and initial handling

Any staff member who identifies suspected malpractice completes the Malpractice Report Form (Appendix C) within 5 working days of detection. Every report is logged centrally, whether or not the student accepts the allegation.

• If the student accepts the allegation and the standard penalty proposed (see section 5), the tutor and student sign the form, the penalty is applied, and the case is closed and logged. There is no further appeal against a penalty a student has knowingly accepted.
• If the student disputes the allegation, or disputes the proposed penalty, the case is referred to a Malpractice Panel (section 6). The student's participation in the programme and their marks are not restricted while the case is pending.

5. Penalties

Penalties are set according to the severity of the case, so that similar cases are treated consistently:

Category	Examples	Standard penalty
Minor: limited in scope, likely unintentional	Poor/inconsistent referencing of a small portion of the work; minor unacknowledged paraphrasing	Resubmission required, capped at a Pass (per the Assessment Policy)
Moderate: deliberate but limited to part of the work	Plagiarism or collusion covering a significant but not total portion of the submission; first instance of undeclared AI use where declaration was required	Fail for the assessment, with one opportunity to resubmit an original piece of work, capped at a Pass
Major: deliberate and substantial, or a repeat case	Whole-submission plagiarism or collusion; contract cheating; fabrication of data or evidence; cheating in an exam; a second malpractice finding of any category	Fail for the module, with no right to resubmit that attempt; repeat or severe major cases may be referred to the Malpractice Panel for consideration of suspension or expulsion

A tutor may propose a Minor or Moderate penalty directly to the student (section 4). Major cases, and any case the tutor is not confident falls within Minor or Moderate, must go directly to the Malpractice Panel rather than being agreed with the student.

6. Malpractice Panel: disputed and major cases

Where a case is disputed or is a Major case, a Malpractice Panel hearing takes place within 10 working days of referral. The Panel consists of a chair (a member of the Academic Board not involved in the case), the relevant Programme Leader (or a nominee if they raised the case), and one other independent member.

• The student is notified in writing of the allegation, the evidence, and the date of the hearing, with at least 5 working days' notice.
• The student may submit written evidence, may be accompanied by a person of their choice, and may put their case to the Panel.
• The Panel considers all evidence, including any AI-detection or similarity report, and decides on the balance of probabilities whether malpractice occurred and, if so, at what level of severity.
• The decision, with reasons, is issued in writing within 3 working days of the hearing.
• A student's marks are not finalised until the case is resolved. Where a decision is outstanding at the point grades would otherwise be submitted, a "Result Withheld" status is recorded. This is replaced once the Panel decides.

7. Appeals

A student may appeal a Malpractice Panel decision under the Academic Appeals and Complaints Policy. A penalty the student has knowingly accepted under section 4 is not open to appeal.

8. Records

All malpractice reports, whether resolved by tutor agreement or by Panel, are retained centrally so repeat cases are identified and treated as such under section 5.

9. Review

This policy is reviewed annually by the Academic Board. Any change must be checked against the Cross-Reference Map, in particular against the Assessment Policy, the Academic Appeals and Complaints Policy, and the Staff Conduct, Grievance, and Whistleblowing Policy.

Company information: London Institute of Business & Technology Limited (LIBT) Hillary House, Prospect Hill, Douglas, IM1 1EQ, Isle of Man, British Isles.

---

Appendix A: Further examples

Less obvious examples of plagiarism include copying from another learner's work with or without their consent, copying and pasting from the internet without a reference, and having a friend or family member draft or dictate responses.

Less obvious examples of cheating include a learner claiming an invigilator assisted them, accessing a mobile phone during an exam, and encouraging or accepting unauthorised help from others.

AI use examples:

• Not malpractice: using an AI tool to check grammar, or to generate practice questions for revision, where this is not prohibited by the assessment brief.
• Malpractice: submitting AI-generated analysis, arguments, or written content as the student's own original work; using AI to generate fabricated references; using AI to translate or substantially rewrite work from another source without disclosure.

Appendix B: Referencing and similarity checking

LIBT uses the Harvard method, in the style of the British Journal of Management (BJM). Students using a different, internally consistent Harvard style are not penalised for that alone, but must not mix styles within one piece of work. Bibliographies of works not directly cited are not used. Only sources directly referred to appear in the References list, in alphabetical order by author surname, with no footnote referencing.

Submissions are checked for similarity using Turnitin (libt.turnitin.com). A similarity score above 20% is investigated by the marker before a grade is confirmed. A high similarity score is evidence to be assessed under section 2, not an automatic finding of malpractice.

Appendix C: Malpractice Report Form

Field
Student name
Enrolment number
Module name/code
Tutor/assessor
Nature of suspected malpractice
Category (Minor / Moderate / Major, per section 5)
Proposed penalty (if Minor/Moderate)

Student response (only where a Minor or Moderate penalty is proposed under section 4): I accept that the above took place and accept the proposed penalty. I understand this is final and not subject to appeal. ☐

Student signature/date: _______ Tutor signature/date: _______

If not accepted, the case is referred to the Malpractice Panel under section 6 and this form is forwarded with all evidence within 2 working days.