Plagiarism and Unfair Advantage Policy

1.0 Policy Principle

In all assessed work, participants should take care to ensure that the work presented is their own and that they fully acknowledge the work and opinions of others. It is also the responsibility of the participants to ensure that they do not undertake any form of cheating or any other form of unfair advantage (referred to in this document as ‘academic irregularities’).

This policy and the subsequent procedures contained within it applies to all submissions and assessments carried out whilst studying with iungo Solutions. Where Awarding Organisations (AOs) have their own published procedures, these will take precedence over the iungo Solutions plagiarism policy.

“Representatives” is a collective term used herein to describe all iungo employees and contractors acting on behalf of iungo Solutions. All representatives have a responsibility to give full and active support to this policy by ensuring that it is known, understood and implemented. The aim of this policy is to provide a guide for our participants on what will be expected of them when submitting any form of assessment and to provide our representatives with a process to follow in the event of an academic irregularity being identified.

2.0 What constitutes an Academic Irregularity?

If a participant submits any evidence or piece of work that contains work that is not their own, without indicating this to the Assessor by acknowledging its sources within the text of a submitted written document, they are committing ‘plagiarism’ and this is an offence. This might occur in a submission when:

using a choice phrase or sentence
that they have come across. copying word-
for-word directly from a text.
paraphrasing the words from a text very closely. using text downloaded from the internet.
borrowing statistics or assembled facts from another person or source.
copying or downloading figures, photographs, pictures or diagrams without acknowledging its sources.
copying from the notes or submissions of fellow participants.
copying from their own notes, on a text, tutorial, video or workshop, that contain direct quotations.

Although participants are encouraged to show the results of their research by referring to and quoting from works within the subject area, copying from such sources without acknowledgement is deemed to be plagiarism and will not be accepted by iungo Solutions. This means that the participant must make it clear which words and ideas are theirs and which have come from elsewhere, through the use of quotation marks as well as in- text citations, where necessary.

There are different forms of “academic irregularities” all of which may be the subject of the procedures described later within this policy. However, it is not possible to state categorically that, in all cases, every perceived academic irregularity will be proved once that matter is investigated. Each case will have to be considered on its merits and on the basis of the strength of evidence provided.

2.1 Use of Artificial Intelligence

The use of AI when completing assessment for any qualifications is identical in regulation to any of the plagiarisms as shown above. You cannot use AI to create any part of your evidence submission, unless you reference it and then prove that you understand the work submitted by the AI. It is acceptable for you to engage AI in your research but not to submit that research as your own work. The whole point to assessment of submissions is to understand your level of knowledge. This cannot be shown by submitting a piece of AI generated work. (JCQ, 2023)

3.0 Definitions and Examples

This policy provides definitions and examples of possible academic irregularities which may occur in connection with our registered assessment locations, working practices and/or our participants. The process for preventing, investigating and dealing with these academic irregularities is also described later in this policy. Any major suspected or alleged instances of academic irregularities must be reported to the Education Manager.

Detailed below are recognised definitions of a number of academic irregularities:

Plagiarism is a specific form of cheating which applies to submissions
completed by participants independently. It is the substantial, unacknowledged incorporation into a participant’s work
of materials derived from published or unpublished work by another person.

Published work includes books, articles and materials found on the internet while examples of unpublished work could be a piece of work previously submitted by another participant, or work about to be submitted by another participant.

Examples of plagiarism include:
Extracts from another person’s work without using quotation marks and/or an acknowledgement of the source.

Summarising the work of another or using their ideas without an acknowledgement of the source.
Copying or using the work of another participant (past or present) with or without that person’s knowledge or agreement.
Purchasing essays or downloading them from the internet to submit them as the participant’s own work.
The inclusion in a participant’s work of more than a single phrase from another person’s work without the use of quotation marks and acknowledgement of the sources.
The summarising of another person’s
work by simply changing a few words or
altering the order of presentation, without
acknowledgement.
The substantial and unauthorised use of the ideas of another person without acknowledgement of the source.

Guide for participants:

It must be explained to our participants during the ‘Sign Up/Induction’ process what plagiarism is, how iungo Solutions deals with it and how the participant should acknowledge someone else’s work. Plagiarism can result in a participant being withdrawn from a qualification. The act of submitting any piece of work for assessment, either on-line or paper based, will act as that participant’s confirmation of the authenticity of his/her work.

The following guidelines will be helpful for our participants:

If they use someone else’s exact words in your work, they must be in quotation marks. Use quotations sparingly and only when they feel the author has expressed something so well and so concisely that the words cannot be improved.
When they have used a quote, they must provide the name of the author, the date of their work that they have referred to and the page number where they obtained the quotation from immediately after the quotation (eg Hill, 2004, p. 42) and also provide full details of the reference in a bibliography.
They must provide a bibliography; a list of books, articles and any other sources that they have quoted at the end of their assessments or as part of their submission.
The Harvard system for referencing sources is well-established and our participants will be able to find guidance on how to use it on the internet, other systems are permitted.

When making a reference to a book the
Harvard format is:

Hill, P. (2004) Concepts of coaching: a guide for managers. ILM, London.

For a reference to an article the Harvard format is:

Grant, A.M. (2010) It takes time: a ‘stages of change’ perspective on the adoption of workplace coaching skills. Journal of Change Management, 10(1), pp. 61-77.

4.0 Cheating

Cheating is an attempt to deceive iungo Solutions
assessors and includes:

using books, notes, instruments, computer files or other materials or aids that are not permitted.assistance or the communication of information by one participant to another in an assessment where this is not permitted.
copying or reading from the work of another participant or from another participant’s books, notes, computer files or other materials or aids, unless expressly permitted.
offering a bribe of any kind to an invigilator or another person connected with an assessment.
providing or receiving information about the content of an assessment before it takes place, except when allowed by the Awarding Organisation (e.g. case study materials issued before an examination).
impersonating or trying to impersonate a participant, or attempting to procure a third party to impersonate oneself.
any attempt to tamper with an assignment or examination scripts after they have been submitted by participants.
fabricating or falsifying data or results by individual participants or groups of participants.

Because of the nature of cheating, this
mainly applies to assessments and online tests.
iungo Solutions should bear in mind that cheating may
involve a representative (e.g. tampering with assessment scripts or
results after participants have submitted them).

5.0 Collusion

Collusion exists where a participant:

Submits as entirely his/her own, with intention to gain unfair advantage, work done in collaboration with another person.
Collaborates with another participant in the completion of work which is intended to be submitted as that other participant’s own unaided work.
Knowingly permits another participant to
copy all or part of his/her own work and to
submit it as that participant’s own unaided work.

6.0 Personation

“Personation” is the legal term of what is usually referred to by the lay person as “impersonation”. Personation is therefore the assumption by one person of the identity of another person with intent to deceive or to gain unfair advantage. It may exist where:

One person assumes the identity of a participant, with the intention of gaining unfair advantage for that candidate.
The candidate is knowingly and willingly impersonated by another with the intention of gaining unfair advantage for himself/herself.

7.0 Ghosting

Ghosting exists where:

A participant submits as their own, work which has been produced in whole or part by another person on their behalf e.g. the use of a ghost writing service.
A participant seeks to make financial
gain or other material gain by using work,
which they have written or produced, available to
another participant.

8.0 Dishonest Practice

The use of any other form of dishonest practice not identified by the above definitions.

9.0 Actions to Implement and Develop this Policy

An allegation of any form of academic irregularity is not the same as
proof of the incident. The determination of whether any form of academic irregularity has occurred should be resolved by the iungo Solutions’ Quality Team and reported at the earliest opportunity via the Internal Quality Assurers (IQAs).

It is for the Quality Team to judge the seriousness of the case and to exercise discretion accordingly, having regard to any iungo Solutions precedents, where appropriate.

9.1 Procedures used to deal with the above

Where an allegation has been made of an actual act of any of the above academic irregularities, then the following procedures are to be followed:

9.1.1 Initial Procedure for On Programme Assessments

When an academic irregularity is suspected, the member(s) of iungo Solutions Assessor representative concerned should first discuss the matter informally with the participant(s) concerned and the IQA and give the participant the opportunity to present his/her case.

If the participant(s) concerned admits to the academic irregularity, then the member(s) of iungo Solutions team concerned shall report the matter and the outcome to the Quality Team within two working days, to determine the action to

be taken, in accordance with the procedure detailed below.

In cases where the participant admits misconduct the participant should be required to sign a letter to that effect. The participant should also be given the opportunity to declare academic misconduct in any other work that they have previously submitted for assessment.

If this informal meeting does not resolve the matter the iungo Solutions team member(s) concerned should then, within three days or as soon as reasonably practicable following the discovery or allegation, report the matter in writing to the Quality Team. The report should contain full details about the circumstances surrounding the alleged irregularity including, if appropriate, photocopies of the participant’s work.

An allegation may be made after the work has been marked and returned to the participant.

9.1.2 Initial Procedure for On Line and/or Paper Based Assessments

Where an academic irregularity is suspected during an assessment, the Invigilator concerned will inform the Quality Team, and will inform the participant of his/her suspicions and clearly annotate the participant’s piece of work. The participant will also be advised by the Assessors that a full report will be submitted following the assessment.

The Invigilators will seek to confiscate any relevant evidence (for example, any unauthorised material) and allow the participant to continue with the assessment.

Immediately following the assessment, the Assessor will submit an annotated copy of the participant’s work. The Quality Team to determine the action to be taken in accordance with the paragraphs below. The Assessor’s submission should be accompanied by any relevant evidence.

9.1.3 Action by the Quality Team

Where an allegation of an academic irregularity has been made in accordance with the paragraphs detailed above and not resolved, the matter will be investigated as soon as reasonably practicable following the discovery or allegation of the irregularity by the Quality Team.

The Assessor should notify the members of the Quality Team and the participant(s) concerned, within three working days* of the receipt of the report, of the date, time and place of the meeting of the Panel.

The participant(s) should be provided, by the Quality Team, with full details of the alleged irregularity and informed of his/her right to appear before the Quality Team, accompanied by a friend or representative of his/her choice and to submit a written statement of mitigation concerning the alleged irregularity. Failure by the participant(s) to appear before the Quality Team or to submit a statement will not prevent the investigation proceeding.

The Quality Team may call witnesses, as appropriate i.e. the Assessor, to substantiate the allegations, and will not unreasonably refuse permission for the representative or participant(s) concerned to call such witnesses as they deem appropriate.

The Quality Team will interview the participant(s), iungo Solutions representative and witnesses as appropriate to consider the participant’s written statement and come to a decision on the basis of the participant’s statement and the supporting evidence. The participant will wait outside the room while the Quality Team deliberates.

The order of proceedings will be as follows:

Consider the statement of the case against the participant(s) and production of evidence in support of it.
Consider the statement of the case for the participant(s) and production of evidence in support of it.

Evidence may be received by the Quality Team by oral statement and/or by a written and signed statement.

Each member of the Quality Team has equal status except that, in the event of a disagreement about the decision, the decision shall be made by a majority of those present.

If the participant(s) has attended, he/she will be informed of the Quality Team decision at the conclusion of the meeting. The Quality Team will report the outcome in writing to the participant within two working days of the Quality Team decision. The participant(s) has no right of appeal at this stage.

All records of academic irregularity must be recorded in the minutes of the Quality Team meeting.

9.1.4 All Submissions – Statement of Confirmation of Authenticity

By the act of making a submission of any piece of work for assessment, whether it be paper based or through the e-portfolio software, the participant will be certifying, as a result of its submission that it is the work of that participant. The work has not, in whole or in part, been knowingly presented elsewhere for assessment, or where assessment has been built on a previous assessment, this has been identified. Where materials have been used from other sources it has been properly acknowledged. If this statement is untrue, the participant acknowledges that an assessment offence has been committed.

The participant’s attention is to be drawn to the plagiarism and cheating policies of both iungo Solutions and of the Awarding Organisations and made aware that, potentially, plagiarism may result in a participant being withdrawn from a qualification.

Review and Sign-off

This Policy is subject to 12-month review. The next
review is due on 01 November 2024.

Name:	Jessica Leigh Jones
Position:	Chief Executive Officer
Signature:	J. L. Jones
Date:	01 November 2023