Academic Integrity and Dishonesty Policy

Policy #4000

Effective Date: July 27, 2015
Revised: March 4, 2025
Annual Review: December 2027

I.  INTRODUCTION

Consistent with the International Center for Academic Integrity, Idaho State University  upholds the core values of academic integrity: “honesty, trust, fairness, respect,  responsibility, and courage” (ICAI, “The Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity,”  2019). These values are essential to the credibility of the institution and its faculty, staff,  and students.

II. DEFINITIONS  

A. Academic Dishonesty: Academic Dishonesty is a dishonest or unethical act that violates academic integrity in an educational setting by those engaged in  academic activities. It includes, but is not limited to, Cheating and Plagiarism. 

B. Academic Dishonesty Panel: A Panel that considers significant infractions of  academic honesty. It is the sole body with authority to assign the University-level  penalties of suspension or expulsion for Academic Dishonesty. 

C. Cheating: Cheating is defined as using or attempting to use materials,  information, or study aids in examinations or other academic work that are unauthorized by the instructor. Cheating includes, but is not limited, to the  following: 

1. Obtaining, providing, or using unauthorized materials or devices for an  examination or assignment, whether verbally, visually, electronically, or by  notes, books, or other means. 

2. Acquiring examinations or other course materials, intentionally possessing  them, or providing them to others without the explicit permission of the  Instructor. This includes buying or selling an assignment or exam, or  providing any information about an examination in advance of the  examination. 

3. Taking an examination in place of another person or arranging for someone  else to take an examination in one’s place. 

4. Submitting the same work or substantial portions of the same work in two  different classes without the explicit prior approval of all Instructors. This  practice is also known as “self-plagiarism.” 

5. Fabricating information for any report including internships, practicums,  rotations, independent studies, or other academic exercises. 

6. Fabricating or misrepresenting data. 

7. Copying down answers when provided during course testing or other  standardized testing and giving them to other students who have not taken  the test. This includes using smartphones to photograph and transmit  restricted test materials. 

8. Removing the test instrument or test information from the testing room or  other location without the Instructor’s explicit permission. 

9. Assisting another student and/or collaborating with another(s) after an  Instructor has prohibited such interaction. 

10.Deceiving Instructors or other University officials about academic work. 11.Altering grades on one’s own or another student’s work. 

12.Offering money or other remuneration in exchange for a grade. 

13.Engaging a third party to complete work for a course. Third parties can be  relatives, friends, an essay or homework website (whether free or fee-based),  or someone who is paid to complete the work. This practice is commonly known as “contract cheating.” 

14.Relying on generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) platforms to create or edit  work that is then submitted for an assignment when an Instructor has  expressly prohibited use of such AI platforms. If an Instructor allows students  to use generative AI platforms, that policy should be made explicit for the  assignment or course. 

D. Instructor/Faculty Member: Instructor/Faculty Member as used in this policy  is defined as a person who is responsible for the teaching of a class or laboratory  or other instruction. These terms include professors regardless of rank,  instructional staff, graduate assistants, visiting lecturers, and adjunct, affiliate or  visiting faculty. 

E. Plagiarism: Plagiarism is defined as presenting or representing another person’s  words, ideas, data, or work as one’s own. All work submitted must properly credit  sources of information. In written work, direct quotations, statements that are  paraphrased, summaries of the work of another, and other information that is not  considered common knowledge must be cited or acknowledged. Quotation  marks or a proper form of identification shall be used to indicate direct  quotations. Instructors require certain forms of acknowledgement or references  and may evaluate a project on the basis of proper form. Plagiarism includes, but  is not limited to: 

1. The exact duplication of another’s work and the incorporation of a substantial  or essential portion without appropriate citation. 

2. The act of appropriating creative works or substantial portions in such fields  as art, music, and technology and presenting them as one’s own. 

3. The permitted use of a chatbot/generative AI without appropriate citation  when required by the Instructor.

III. POLICY STATEMENT  

Academic integrity is expected of all individuals in academe. Academic Dishonesty in  any form is unacceptable. 

A. Academic Dishonesty, as defined above, includes, but is not limited to, Cheating  and Plagiarism. 

B. This policy applies to all forms of University educational activities.

C. Instructors are expected to include specific academic integrity and dishonesty guidelines in the course syllabus specific to the course format and evaluation  activities, as well as a link to this policy. 

D. Violations of academic integrity are subject to course-level penalties imposed by  the Instructor and may also be subject to University-level penalties imposed by  an Academic Dishonesty Panel

IV. AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES  

A. The Academic Dishonesty Policy is administered and supervised by Academic  Affairs. 

B. Authority to assign the penalties of suspension or expulsion from the University  rests with an Academic Dishonesty Panel. 

C. Faculty members are responsible for addressing suspected incidents of  Academic Dishonesty within their respective courses. Instructors are expected to  include an academic integrity policy in their course syllabus. 

D. Deans serve as appellate officers when students challenge the findings and  outcomes of Instructors.  

E. Revisions and modifications to this policy are managed by the Office of the  Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.  

V. PROCEDURES  

A. Students’ Rights 

Students alleged to have violated this policy may consult with the Dean of Students’  Office for guidance on rights and responsibilities.  

B. Academic Dishonesty Determination 

The Instructor of the course is responsible for investigating each suspected incident  of Academic Dishonesty. The Instructor is encouraged to consult first with the  Instructor’s Chair or Program Director, followed if necessary, by the Office of the  Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, the Academic Integrity Council,  and/or the Dean of Students Office for guidance on adhering to the policy process. 

Upon reasonable suspicion of Academic Dishonesty, the Instructor shall proceed as  follows:

1. The Instructor shall gather evidence to determine whether further action is  necessary. 

2. Except as discussed below, the Instructor shall, within twenty (20) working  days of the submission of the assignment in question, inform the student or  students involved, in writing, of a potential problem or of evidence of  Academic Dishonesty and request a meeting with the student.  

3. If more than twenty (20) working days have elapsed, the Instructor should not  bring a case against the student. In some cases, Academic Dishonesty cases  may not become clear within this time frame. Instructors are encouraged to act within a reasonable time frame for the sake of the student, the faculty, the  department, and the institution. 

4. If, in the process of pursuing an individual case, an Instructor discovers prior  instances of dishonest work by a student in a course, that prior dishonest  work may be included in the Instructor’s assessment of the case at hand and determination of the appropriate penalty. 

a. In the unusual event that the Provost or the Provost’s designee brings a  case against a student, the twenty-day (20) limit does not apply.  

5. If the student does not respond to a request for a meeting within three (3)  business days, the Instructor may proceed without the student. A student may  choose not to participate in a discussion with the Instructor without forfeiting the right to an appeal to the Dean. 

6. If the student does respond to the request for a meeting, the Instructor shall  then meet with the student, consider the student’s response (which should be  given either orally during the meeting or subsequently in writing), and collect  any available evidence and testimony from witnesses. A student who chooses  to respond in writing should do so within two business days of the meeting.  The Instructor may ask the student to supply the references used, and the  student must comply with such a request. 

7. On the basis of the preponderance of the evidence, the Instructor may decide  an act of Academic Dishonesty has occurred and impose a penalty. 

C. Imposition of Course-Level Penalties 

Any penalty imposed by an Instructor for Academic Dishonesty shall be based on  the Instructor’s professional judgment after affording the accused student due  process as described below. If the Instructor is unsure whether a penalty of a grade  reduction or failing the course is warranted, the Instructor is advised to seek  guidance from the department chair, the Academic Integrity Committee or the Dean  of Students. Withdrawal from a course does not exempt a student from penalties for  Academic Dishonesty. 

1. Course-Level penalties that may be imposed by the Instructor include, but are  not limited to, the following: 

a. Written Warning: The Instructor informs the student in writing that further  Academic Dishonesty will result in other penalties being imposed. 

b. Resubmission of work: The Instructor may inform the student in writing  that the work in question must be redone to conform to proper academic  standards or may require that a new project be submitted. The Instructor  may specify additional requirements in writing. 

c. Failing grade / grade reduction on the assignment: The instructor may  lower a student’s grade or assign a failing grade for a test, project or other  academic work. To impose this penalty the Instructor must follow the  procedure below in Section 3, below.  

d. Grade reduction in the course: The Instructor may lower a student’s grade in the course. To impose this penalty the Instructor must follow the  procedure below in Section 3, below. 

e. Fail the Course: The Instructor may assign an “F” for the course. To  impose this penalty the Instructor must follow the procedure in Section 3,  below. 

2. If the penalty imposed is only a written warning or a written demand that work  be resubmitted, then no further action is necessary. Instructors may still elect  to track such remedies within their respective programs. 

3. If the Instructor elects to impose a grade reduction on the assignment, a  grade reduction for the course, or a course failure: 

a. The Instructor shall inform the accused student in writing within ten (10)  working days following the Instructor-student meeting. The notification  should include sanctions (grade reduction, fail assignment or exam, fail  the course) and state that an incident report is being filed by the Instructor  that will include sanctions imposed. 

b. The Instructor shall fill out the online incident report, available both on the  Student Affairs website and the AIC website. This report will be forwarded  to all of the parties listed under point “c” below. The report shall include  the student’s name, Bengal ID, the date of the incident, the class in which  the incident occurred, a description of the incident and the available  evidence, and the Instructor’s decision regarding penalties. The report  shall state the specific penalties imposed—grade reduction, failing the  assignment, or failing the course. 

i. When more than one student is involved in Academic Dishonesty for a  course assignment, to ensure FERPA rights are protected, the Instructor will prepare individual reports for each student involved. No  reports should identify the names of other students involved in the  incident; the report, and any other evidence that is shared with a  student, should be redacted in such a way that all personal identifiers  of other students are removed.  

c. When the report is filed, the Instructor shall receive a copy of the report.  The Instructor shall then ensure that the following individuals are provided  copies of the report:  

i. The student, 

ii. The Chairperson (or designee) of the department in which the  Instructor holds an appointment, 

iii. The Dean (or designee) of the college in which the Instructor holds an  appointment, 

iv. The Academic Integrity Council, 

v. The Dean of Students Office,  

vi. The Office of the Registrar. A copy of the incident report shall be  placed in the student’s permanent file in that office. 

In order to ensure consistency in report maintenance and handling, every  Academic Dishonesty report at ISU will be sent to the Dean of the college  in which the infraction occurred, to the Dean of Students, and to the  Academic Integrity Council. 

d. The Instructor shall also inform the student of the procedures for appeal  outlined in Section D below. 

D. Student Appeal of Course-Level Penalties 

The following pertains to appeals of Instructor-imposed penalties for Academic  Dishonesty. Such appeals will be directed to the Dean (or designee) of the college in  which the course was offered. Penalties for Academic Dishonesty may not be  challenged through the scholastic appeals process. 

1. The appeal to the Dean (or designee) must be filed, in writing, no later than  ten (10) business days after the student has received written notification of  the Instructor’s final decision and penalties regarding Academic Dishonesty. 

2. When a student files an appeal, the Dean (or designee) shall within fifteen  business days set a date for a formal hearing to discuss the allegations and  penalties. If the student’s appeal is filed at the end of fall or spring semester,  the Dean will schedule the hearing for the beginning of the following semester  when all parties are available.  

3. The Dean (or designee) shall chair and conduct the hearing and keep a written record of the hearing.  

4. The hearing shall include the Instructor, the student, and the Chair (or  designee) of the department in which the Instructor holds an appointment.  

5. In addition, the student may bring one support person (faculty, staff or  student), but this individual does not participate in the hearing. (An ADA  support specialist or interpreter does not count as this support person.)  

6. Within ten (10) business days following the hearing, the Dean (or designee)  shall issue a final determination in writing of responsibility or non responsibility based upon a preponderance of the evidence. 

7. If the formal hearing results in the student being exonerated of all charges of  Academic Dishonesty, the Dean (or designee) of the college in which the  course was offered shall prepare a letter or memorandum stating that the  

student has been exonerated and requesting that all other reports about the  alleged act of dishonesty be destroyed, other than the Dean’s own record of  the hearing. The Dean (or designee) shall send copies of the letter of  memorandum to: 

a. The Instructor, 

b. The student, 

c. The Chair of the department in which the Instructor holds an appointment, d. The Academic Integrity Council,  

e. The Dean of Students Office, 

f. The Office of the Registrar. That office shall remove all records about the  alleged dishonest conduct from the student’s permanent file. 

8. If the student is not exonerated of all charges, then the Dean (or designee) of  the college in which the course was offered shall send copies of the written  record of the formal hearing to all parties. 

9. If the penalty is reduced or rescinded as a result of the hearing, the Dean (or  designee) of the college in which the course was offered shall direct the  Registrar to make any changes in the student’s grade. 

10.For incidents that are unable to be resolved before the end of semester, the  Instructor will issue an incomplete grade to the accused student(s). Once  back on contract, the Instructor shall proceed with an investigation and  resolution, per the procedures outlined above. Once the Instructor has  rendered a decision and imposed a penalty, the Instructor shall write a report,  per the procedures outlined above. The Instructor shall file a change of grade  form to change the incomplete grade to the updated grade. For incidents that  are unable to be resolved before the end of spring semester, the Instructor will issue an incomplete grade and take up the case again at the beginning of  fall semester. 

11.In the rare event of a dishonesty case requiring a hearing in the summer  when faculty are not on contract, a member of Academic Affairs may chair a  panel made up of faculty who are on ten- or eleven-month contracts or who  are willing to serve for a stipend. Academic Affairs will maintain a shortlist of  faculty who are available to provide this service. 

E. Off-Contract Period Academic Integrity Cases 

1. If the case that triggers a hearing occurs at the end of spring semester, the  Chair of the AIC will confer with Academic Affairs to decide upon an  appropriate timeline to proceed. Because many faculty are not on contract in  the summer, such hearings will take place as soon as possible when school  resumes in the fall.  

a. In the event that an AIC panel decides upon the suspension or expulsion  of a student, the AIC Chair in consultation with the Provost (or designee)  and Dean of Students may choose to postpone that penalty until the end  of the semester in order to mitigate its impact on the student.