Home › Policies › Malpractice & Plagiarism Policy

Malpractice & Plagiarism Policy

Centre: ACLAS Global International Education Group

Effective: 2025-07-05 | Review Date: 2026-07-05

Policy Owner: Centre Quality Lead

1. Purpose

This policy defines what constitutes malpractice, maladministration, and plagiarism at ACLAS Global International Education Group, sets out the procedure for investigating suspected cases, and states the consequences for those found to have committed an offence. The Centre is committed to protecting the integrity of OTHM qualifications and the value of the certificates it issues.

2. Scope

This policy applies to all learners and all staff (including contractors). It covers all OTHM qualifications delivered by the Centre through any mode of study.

3. Definitions

Malpractice (by Learners)

Any act or attempted act by a learner that compromises or could compromise the assessment process or the integrity of a qualification. Examples:

  • Plagiarism: Presenting someone else's words, ideas, data, or creative work as one's own without proper acknowledgment. This includes copying from published sources, other learners' work, internet sources, or AI-generated content without attribution.
  • Collusion: Working with another person to produce work that is then submitted as individual work, unless collaboration is explicitly permitted by the assessment brief.
  • Contract cheating: Paying or instructing a third party (including essay mills, freelancers, or friends) to complete assessment work.
  • Impersonation: Having someone else complete an assessment or examination on the learner's behalf.
  • Fabrication: Inventing or falsifying data, sources, quotations, or references.
  • Misuse of AI: Using artificial intelligence tools to generate substantive assessment content and presenting it as the learner's own work, in violation of the Centre's AI guidance (see Section 4).

Malpractice (by Staff)

Any act or omission by a staff member that compromises the assessment or quality assurance process. Examples:

  • Assisting a learner to gain an unfair advantage
  • Falsifying assessment records, marksheets, or IQA reports
  • Losing, damaging, or altering learner work without authorisation
  • Failing to report known malpractice

Maladministration

Failure to follow OTHM or Centre procedures, including:

  • Failing to register learners within 28 days of course commencement
  • Persistent errors in record-keeping that affect learner results
  • Failing to cooperate with OTHM, its EQAs, or the Centre's own quality assurance processes

4. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

In line with the OTHM Guidance Statement to Centres on the Risk of AI:

  • Learners may use AI tools for research assistance, brainstorming, or language editing, provided they acknowledge such use.
  • Learners must not use AI tools to generate complete assessment responses and submit them as their own work. Doing so constitutes malpractice.
  • The Centre uses plagiarism-detection software (integrated with Moodle) that may also flag AI-generated content.
  • Assessors are trained to identify indicators of unauthorised AI use.

5. Prevention

The Centre takes the following steps to prevent malpractice:

  • All learners receive guidance on academic integrity, referencing, and plagiarism during induction.
  • All learners acknowledge in writing that they have read and understood this policy.
  • Assignment briefs are designed to require application and reflection, reducing the potential for generic or AI-generated responses.
  • Assessors and IQAs receive training on detecting malpractice, including the use of plagiarism-detection tools.
  • Standardisation meetings include discussion of borderline malpractice cases to ensure consistent handling.

6. Reporting Suspected Malpractice

Anyone who suspects malpractice or plagiarism must report it to the Centre Quality Lead ([email protected]). Reports may be made in person, by email, or anonymously. The Centre protects anyone who reports in good faith from retaliation.

7. Investigation Procedure

1. Initial assessment — The Centre Quality Lead reviews the allegation within 5 working days to determine whether a full investigation is warranted.

2. Notification — If an investigation proceeds, the individual concerned is notified in writing of the allegation and the process.

3. Investigation — An impartial investigator is appointed. The investigation may include:

- Review of the assessment evidence and any plagiarism-detection report

- Interview with the individual concerned, who may be accompanied by a supporter

- Interview with any witnesses

- Review of metadata (document properties, version history, IP logs)

4. Report — The investigator produces a written report within 15 working days, setting out findings and recommending any sanctions.

5. Decision — The Centre Director makes the final decision on sanctions, informed by the investigator's report.

6. Notification — The individual is notified in writing of the decision, the reasons, any sanctions, and their right to appeal.

8. Consequences

For Learners

| Offence | Possible Sanction |

|---------|------------------|

| Minor, first-offence plagiarism (e.g., poor referencing) | Written warning; resubmission required; guidance on referencing |

| Significant plagiarism or collusion | Disqualification from the unit; resubmission of a new task may be permitted |

| Contract cheating, impersonation, or repeated serious offences | Disqualification from the qualification; notification to OTHM |

For Staff

| Offence | Possible Sanction |

|---------|------------------|

| Minor procedural failure | Written warning; retraining |

| Serious or repeated malpractice | Removal from assessment/IQA duties; termination of contract; notification to OTHM and relevant professional bodies |

9. Notification to OTHM

The Centre notifies OTHM of any confirmed case of malpractice or maladministration that could affect learner results or the integrity of qualifications, in accordance with OTHM's reporting requirements.

10. Appeals

A learner may appeal a malpractice decision through the Appeals Policy. A staff member may appeal through the Centre's internal grievance procedure.

11. Record Keeping

All investigation records are retained for a minimum of 3 years.

12. Policy Review

This policy is reviewed annually.

Approved by: ______________________ (Centre Director)

Date: ______________________