Amazing Opportunities

for everyone

Apply Now

Academic Integrity Policy

PURPOSE

This policy establishes the framework and legislative requirements for managing staff and student academic integrity at GLI.

 

SCOPE

  • All staff and students

PRINCIPLES

GLI ensures that:

  • this policy is clearly explained during student orientation, staff induction, and professional development activities as preventative action to mitigate foreseeable risks to academic and research integrity;
  • a holistic educative approach is taken for students in their first semester of enrolment and there are penalties for breaches of the policy for students after their first semester of enrolment;
  • students complete the academic integrity quiz and list their results on the title page of every assessment;
  • students sign the Assessment Academic Integrity Declaration that registers their awareness of this policy;
  • this policy is included in content of core introductory units and during at least one tutorial in all units;
  • integrity of student assessment outcomes demands that Unit Coordinators have confidence that what is submitted is a student’s own work (in the case of group assessment items the group’s own work).
  • all assessment items except quizzes and exams are submitted via a Turnitin™ portal on the relevant Moodle™ webpage, unless the Unit Coordinator has approved otherwise;
  • students are required to keep copies of all drafts of their assessment items and produce them if required by the lecturer or Unit Coordinator;
  • the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools must be ethical, transparent, purposeful, and uphold the principles of academic integrity and reference the use accordingly;
  • using AI tools to complete assessment or research that is not the original work is academic misconduct, unless the lecturer or supervisor has permitted this in writing;
  • responses will be prompt, transparent, equitable, and fair;
  • penalties will be appropriate and proportionate, considering intentionality;
  • confidentiality is maintained by all parties within the constraints of allegation, investigation, and appeal processes;
  • procedures are designed to achieve resolution of allegations of misconduct in research.

Academic staff and students must conduct research in accordance with both national frameworks governing ethical research, especially where human subjects are involved. This includes the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research and the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. Primary data gathered during all research should be stored in the GLI secure repository for a minimum of five years.

While this policy outlines penalties for different offences, the list of factors is not all-inclusive; other factors may also be relevant. The Responsible Officer shall exercise their professional judgement regarding whether the suggested penalties fit the particular case. Sometimes a more lenient or more severe penalty may be appropriate, depending on the circumstances.

 

DEFINITIONS

Academic Cheating Service: A service, commercial or otherwise, which assists students or academic staff to form a substantial part of an assessment task or research project that students or researchers are required to personally undertake. Assignment-writing websites are academic cheating services.

Academic Integrity: The honest and respectful engagement with learning, teaching, research, and scholarship. It is an essential moral code to be upheld by the academic community inclusive of staff and students. It ensures that academic work is original and authentic and completed only with the assistance allowed.

Academic Misconduct: Behaviour that conflicts with the principles of academic integrity and leads to an unfair advantage. Types of academic misconduct may include plagiarism, contract cheating, examination cheating, duplicate submission, artificial intelligence, text-spinners, techniques to disguise plagiarised work, fabrication, impersonation, academic fraud, solicitation, and promoting the breach of academic, collusion, and non-compliance with exam or test instructions/requirements.

Cheating: Any dishonest actions to gain advantage, such as:

  • use of unauthorised assistance, materials, or equipment in undertaking an assessment items or research projects, including use of any academic cheating service;
  • being impersonated by another person, or impersonating another student;
  • acquisition and/or distribution of any assessment item or assessment item information, or part thereof, not yet released by the Unit Coordinator;
  • providing or receiving information that is prejudicial to fair and equitable conduct of any test or exam, including providing or receiving information about the content of a test or exam before one or more students have sat the test or exam;
  • tampering, or attempting to tamper with research work, exam papers, unit content, grades, or other student documentation;
  • failing to abide by any reasonable instruction or direction issued by a Unit Coordinator, lecturer, or tutor in relation to any assessment item or any person supervising a test or exam;
  • aiding others in breaching this policy, including but not limited to:

–        allowing one or more other students access to any material to be submitted or that has been submitted by a student in relation to an assessment item;

–        assisting another student in breaching this policy.

Collusion: Collaborating with two or more students, or a student and any other person(s), on individual (not group work) assessment item with intent to cheat, plagiarise, or engage in academic misconduct.

Contract Cheating: Contracting/allowing another person or using AI to complete part or all of an assessment item or research project. Contract cheating includes paid and unpaid arrangements made through a third party. A third party may include a friend, family member, fellow student, staff member; or commercial service, such as a tutoring company, document sharing website, editing service, or an assignment writing service.

Designated Decision-Maker: The person designated to make a decision in relation to the penalty for a breach of this policy. The person is identified by position, not by name.

Misrepresentation: Making false claims in relation to assessment items or research projects such as:

  • submitting an assessment item that was written in whole or in part by another person, although based on the student’s ideas (ghost writing);
  • submitting an assessment item that was wholly or substantially copy edited by another person, paid or unpaid, unless approved by the Unit Coordinator and acknowledged by the student;
  • overuse of direct quotes, even if appropriately cited, to the extent that the assessment item cannot be considered the work of the student;
  • providing references that are not cited in the body of the assessment item and/or that cannot be readily identified with the argument put forward;
  • falsifying quotes, data, or analyses used in an assessment item.

Plagiarism:

  • copying word-for-word phrases, sentences or paragraphs without citing the source (verbatim copying);
  • copying word-for-word phrases, sentences or paragraphs, changing a few words without citing the source (sham plagiarising);
  • paraphrasing phrases, sentences or paragraphs without citing the source (dishonest paraphrasing);
  • submitting an item that is the same or substantially the same as that submitted by the student in the same or another unit without permission of the Unit Coordinator and without citing the source (self-plagiarising);
  • submitting an item that is the same or substantially the same as that submitted by another student in the unit either in the same or another offer of that unit (recycling);
  • submitting an item that is wholly or substantially written by another person, paid or unpaid (contract cheating);
  • inadequate, inconsistent, or incorrect citation and/or referencing of sources, close paraphrasing and/or copying where there is no evidence of intent and where the plagiarism is not more than 5% of the text (incidental plagiarism).

Solicitation: when an individual offers, encourages, induces, or advertises for a staff member or student to contract, commission, pay, procure, or complete on their behalf, research or assessment tasks and items that are likely to result in their use for the purpose of cheating, misrepresentation, and/or plagiarism.

Minor Breach: A minor breach does not jeopardise the integrity of assessment. As a guideline, it affects up to approximately 15% of the assessment item in the professional judgment of the Unit Coordinator. A minor breach is considered incidental plagiarism and is likely to reflect poor academic conduct rather than academic misconduct and results from misunderstanding of or limited attention to academic conventions, from carelessness or neglect, rather than intention to deceive. Minor breaches will normally be dealt with in the marking guide or rubric for an assessment item.

Moderate Breach: A moderate breach might jeopardise the integrity of assessment. As a guideline, it affects between approximately 15% to 25% of the assessment item in the professional judgment of the Unit Coordinator OR is a repeated minor breach after a student’s first trimester of enrolment. A moderate breach is academic misconduct.

Major Breach: A major breach jeopardises the integrity of assessment. As a guideline, it affects more than 25% of the assessment item in the professional judgment of the Unit Coordinator OR is a repeated moderate breach. A major breach is academic misconduct.

 

Other Academic Misconduct: This may include but is not limited to:

  • use of recorded lectures (audio and/or visual), Powerpoints, or other class notes in a way that infringes another person’s privacy or intellectual property rights e.g. by publishing or distributing a recording without permission from the lecturer;
  • offering or accepting bribes (money or sexual or other favours) e.g. for admission or for grades or research results;
  • fabrication, falsification, and misrepresentation of information, including research data and source material;
  • not meeting required research standards, including conducting research without ethics approval, or conducting research in an unethical manner.

 

DETECTION

Any person may report a complaint of misconduct by a staff member or student to the lecturer, Unit Coordinator, Program Director, or relevant supervisor. Although moral and legal copyright to student assessment or research materials is vested in that person as the author, the student, by enrolling in an accredited course, provides an implied consent to GLI which authorises:

  • reproduction and storage of electronic material which they may author and submit as part of their course assessment; and
  • scanning this material for purposes of detecting, through software processing or other methods, any plagiarised material used in assignments or research projects.

SEVERITY OF BREACH

GLI considers three levels of severity in the breach of academic integrity:

Minor Breach

Does not jeopardise the integrity of assessment. As a guideline, it affects up to approximately 15% of the assessment item in the professional judgment of the Unit Coordinator. A minor breach is considered incidental plagiarism and is likely to reflect poor academic conduct rather than academic misconduct. It may result from misunderstanding of or limited attention to academic conventions, from carelessness or neglect, rather than intention to deceive.

 

Moderate Breach

This may jeopardise the integrity of assessment and is academic misconduct. As a guideline, it affects between approximately 15% to 25% of the assessment item in the professional judgment of the Unit Coordinator or is a repeated minor breach after a student’s first semester of enrolment.

 

Major Breach

This jeopardises the integrity of assessment or research item and is academic misconduct. As a guideline, it affects more than 25% of the assessment or research item in the professional judgment of the Unit Coordinator or research supervisor is a repeated moderate breach.

 

RELATED DOCUMENTS

National Health and Medical Research Centre (NHMRC):

 

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

  • All staff and students should be familiar with this policy.
  • The Responsible Officer is responsible for ensuring that policy is applied and regularly reviewed.
  • Unit Coordinators have primary responsibility for detecting breaches of student academic integrity.

Scope

All staff and students

Key Stakeholder

All staff and students

Proceedure

Breaches of this policy and actions taken will be recorded in the Student Academic Misconduct Register or Staff Academic Misconduct Register, as relevant.

 

Where plagiarism is incidental, a student may lose marks as indicated in a marking guide or rubric. There should be enough feedback for a student to understand the reasons for the loss of marks. The student might be referred to the Student Support for assistance in understanding what is appropriate citation and referencing.

 

Where a student breaches this policy in their first semester of enrolment, an educative approach will be taken. The student will be required to attend a meeting with the Unit Coordinator or Student Support Officer to refresh their knowledge and understanding of the policy and what constitutes appropriate academic practice. Following the meeting, the student will be offered an opportunity to resubmit the assessment item (or sit a supplementary test or exam), by a date determined by the Unit Coordinator. The maximum mark will be 50% of the marks available for that assessment item. Failure to attend the meeting, resubmit, or resit assessment, without good reason supported by appropriate documentation, will result in a mark of zero for that assessment item. The breach will be noted on the student’s file.

 

Where the maximum penalty for a breach is failure in one or more units, the penalty should be complemented by education as outlined above. In determining the penalty, consideration should be given to ‘cascading’ effects on course progression and completion.

All Other Breaches Prior to Graduation

Where a breach of this policy does not involve incidental plagiarism and where the breach is not in the first semester:

  • An allegation of breach of this policy will be made by the Unit Coordinator initially by phoning the student. The Unit Coordinator should provide enough detail for the student to understand the substance of the alleged breach and should be given an opportunity to respond immediately if they wish to.
  • If the student does not answer or return the call within two working days a written allegation will be provided within five working days of the attempt to phone the student.
  • The student will have 10 working days from receipt of the written allegation in which to respond. The student should provide as much detail as possible in their response, including drafts of the work in question.
  • If the student fails to respond within 10 working days, a penalty as specified in Schedule 1 may be applied. Where the designated decision maker is the Program Director, the Unit Coordinator will prepare a recommendation.
  • If the student acknowledges the alleged breach or if the student’s response fails to satisfy the Unit Coordinator that there has not been a breach of this policy, a penalty may be applied as specified in Schedule 1.
  • If the student wishes to appeal the decision, they have the right to follow the Grievance and Appeals PolicyThe student should provide as much detail as possible in support of their case, including drafts of the work in question.

RESPONSES TO STAFF BREACHES

  • Concerns or complaints about a potential breach of this policy and/or the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research should be reported in writing and in confidence to the Academic Dean or Responsible Officer. A failure to report suspected breaches of the Code is also considered a breach.
  • Complaints made anonymously will be considered, but complainants who wish to remain anonymous will not be provided with details of the process or outcome of any investigation.
  • Staff and students must not victimise or otherwise subject another person to detrimental action because of that person reporting or being the subject of a suspected breach of the Code.

 

Governing Board will ensure that the occurrence and nature of misconduct and breaches of academic or research integrity are monitored, and that action is taken to address underlying causes.

 

Factors taken into consideration may include the extent to which:

  • the researcher departed from accepted practice;
  • research participants, the wider community, animals, or the environment are, or may have been, affected by the breach;
  • there is, or may have been, incorrect information on public record;
  • the breach affects the soundness or reliability of the research;
  • the level of experience of the researcher is a consideration;
  • any institutional failures contributed to the breach;
  • any other mitigating or aggravating circumstances occurred.

 

If academic misconduct by staff is determined by the Responsible Officer, then disciplinary action may follow. If the staff member wishes to appeal the decision, the Staff Grievance Policy should be followed. Penalties for academic misconduct will take account of the fact that academic staff are expected to have learned ethical conduct earlier during their academic journey. Breaches may result in disciplinary action listed in the Code of Conduct Policy.

 

SCHEDULE 1

Maximum Penalties for Breaches of the Student Academic Integrity Policy

Type of Breach Severity of Breach Maximum Penalty Designated Decision-Maker Notes
Incidental plagiarism Minor Nil Unit Coordinator Student may surrender marks where citation and/or referencing is an element in a marking guide or rubric.
Breach by postgraduate student in their first trimester of enrolment Minor, moderate or major Nil Unit Coordinator Educative approach is taken. Student may surrender marks where citation and/or referencing is an element in a marking guide or rubric. Student may have a mark of zero recorded if they do not attend a meeting and/or fail to resubmit by the specified date. A breach will be noted on the student file. There is no penalty, but where the Unit Coordinator is not confident that a submitted assessment item was written by the student concerned, there is no basis for judging whether, or to what degree, a student has met the learning outcomes being assessed.
All other breaches detected prior to graduation Minor Nil Unit Coordinator Educative approach is taken. Student may surrender marks where citation and/or referencing is an element in a marking guide or rubric. Student may have a mark of zero recorded if they do not attend a meeting and/or fail to resubmit by the specified date.4 A breach will be noted on the student file.
All other breaches detected prior to graduation (cont.) Repeated minor, single unit Failure in the assessment item(s) Unit Coordinator A breach will be noted on the student file.
Repeated minor, multiple units Failure in the units Program Director Breaches will be noted on the student file.
Intermediate, single unit Failure in the unit Program Director A breach will be noted on the student file.
Repeated intermediate, multiple units Failure in the units Program Director Breaches will be noted on the student file.
Major, single unit Failure in the unit Program Director A breach will be noted on the student file.
Repeated major, single unit Exclusion for up to one year Registrar Breaches will be noted on the student file.
Repeated major, multiple units Exclusion for up to two years Registrar Breaches will be noted on the student file.
Intermediate or major after a period of exclusion Exclusion for up to three years and/or cancellation of enrolment    
Any breach detected after graduation for which the maximum penalty would be exclusion and/or cancellation of enrolment   Withdrawal of testamur Governing Board, on the recommendation of the Registrar The graduate should be invited to surrender the testamur. If they decline, legal notice of withdrawal of the testamur shall be served at the last-known address of the graduate. Student’s file will be noted.

 

Fact Box

Owner : Academic Dean

Approval Body : Academic Board

Endorsement Body : Academic Board

Close

Associate Professor Jason Hartley

Jason Hartley is lecturer in criminology at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia. He is a former police officer with 23 years of experience, and has trained personnel for deployment in Timor Leste, the Solomon Islands, Iraq and Afghanistan. Jason specializes in, and has published on engagement with Muslim communities, Indigenous Polynesian approaches to rehabilitation and reducing recidivism, and Asian Organised Crime. Jason also completed a community internship in Hebron on the West Bank.

Close

Simone Fulcher

Simone Fulcher is the Campus Manager at Global Leadership Institute responsible for managing the day-to-day operations for the campus. Simone has previously worked in the education sector for over 5 years where she has enjoyed helping young minds realise their potential. Simone also has a history of volunteer work assisting various communities in improving their quality of life in places such as New South Wales, Guam, and Palau. Simone still enjoys volunteering, currently organising events for young adults in Southeast Queensland and helping them form connections their fields of interest.

Close

Professor Grant Pitman

Professor Grant Pitman is the president of the Global Leadership Institute. He has held senior leadership roles in government such as Chief Superintendent of Police and Director of Strategic Planning ICT in the Queensland Police Service;

  • Varied list of contributions to law enforcement, including disaster management, auditing and finance, organizational reform, education and human resources, and policy development
  • National, state, and regional levels of professional service, including the Ipswich Economic Forum, the Brisbane Airport Emergency Planning Committee, the National Emergency Communications Working Group, the National Police Drug and Alcohol Task Force, and the Police Education Advisory Council.

He has a Ph.D. and Master of Administration from Griffith University. He is a well-versed researcher and has published numerous articles and journals.

Close

Professor Kevin Tickle

Professor Kevin Tickle has extensive experience in Executive Management roles in the tertiary education sector, both public and private, over the last two decades and has been a consultant to Higher Education providers in Australia and overseas. His primary areas of interest are Leadership, Management, Information Technology, Mathematics and Statistics with expertise in the areas of probability modelling; decision support, and data analytics. He is currently a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Management, a member of the Institution of Engineers, Australia, the Australian Computer Society and an Emeritus Professor at CQUniversity.

Close

Mr Des Lacy OAM

Des serves as Secretary/Treasurer of the Asia Pacific Chapter of FBI National Academy Associates, after completing 40 years in the Queensland Police Service. During his distinguished career, Des was District Officer (A/Chief Superintendent) in Charge of the Gold Coast Police District, Police Commander for the Gold Coast Indy, Super V8s, Gold Coast Marathon, and Schoolies, as well as National Rugby League and Australian Foot League events in Brisbane and the Gold Coast. Des oversaw development and implementation of the Integrated Justice Information Systems, Integrated Traffic Policing Program, and Integrated Tasking and Analysis System. He served as Director of the Strategic Services Branch and Information and Communications Technology Command, as well as Chair of the District Disaster Management Group and Security Operations Coordinator for the 2018 Commonwealth Games. 

Des has been a member of Rotary International for 30 years, representing Rotary International in the United States and the Middle East. For his work in the Gold Coast Community Des was awarded Citizen of the Year at the 2013 Gold Coast Australia Day celebrations. Des also was one of the founding Directors for the Oxenford and Coomera Community Youth Centre that provides much needed social services to the Northern Gold Coast Community. For the past 15 years, he has also been the Chair of this not-for-profit establishment. It. For his work promoting International Law Enforcement Des was awarded the Order of Australia Medal in 2017.

Qualifications

Graduate Diploma of Management

Graduate Certificate Business Management 

Bachelor of Business

Close

Katherine Weissel

Katherine is a security and risk specialist with 25 years’ experience in an Australian Police Force, leading teams and responding to emergency events, complex investigations, and counterterrorism.  She has led and managed several major crime, counterterrorism and public safety operations and investigations, and coordinated teams within police operations centres and major incident rooms.  She has delivered training across multiple Australian jurisdictions in emergency response, counterterrorism, and investigations; and specialised in cyber operations in the counterterrorism environment for a number of years.  She has also been deployed to international jurisdictions supporting complex war crimes investigations and prosecutions.  Since moving into the private sector, Katherine has provided consulting and training services in the areas of security and risk, organisational governance & investigations, and cybersecurity.  Katherine is a sessional tutor in tertiary education in criminal justice studies specialising in counterterrorism, global law, crime and justice, and cybercrime.  She has presented to state and national security, cybersecurity and governmental conferences on contemporary physical & cyber threats and risk management.  Katherine has also been involved in research teams examining government responses to terrorism and extremism, and cybersecurity policy.

Close

Dr Shantanu Banerjee

Dr Shantanu Banerjee is senior lecturer at Leaders Institute. With extensive experience in management, leadership, and administration across a range of contexts in India and Australia, Dr Banerjee is also currently an Industry Fellow at the University of Queensland Business School. His research focuses on socio-cultural-political contexts, particularly in the field of agribusiness and international business. His research has highlighted variations in the theme of international competitiveness by emphasising non-economic and non-market variables and on how multinational enterprises subsidiaries can pursue legitimacy pursuing non-market strategies. 

Dr Banerjee has presented his research work at esteemed international conferences such as ANZIBA and EIA and has published in scholarly journals including International Business Review and Management International Review. He graduated from the Institute of Foreign Trade, New Delhi (India) and the University of Queensland Business School. He has been an academic staff member at the University of Queensland and Queensland University of Technology, lecturing in undergraduate and postgraduate programs. Dr Banerjee has over 15 years of extensive and varied experience as an International Business Manager dealing and negotiating with overseas clients based in the United States of America, China, Japan, Canada, Switzerland, and Germany. He is currently employed with a Federal agency of the Australian Treasury. 

Qualifications

Doctor of Philosophy, University of Queensland, 2012

Master of Research, Queensland University of Technology, 2005

Master of Business, Queensland University of Technology, 2003

Postgraduate Diploma in International Trade, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, 1986

Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering

Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, 1985

 

Communities of Practice

  • Editorial Board, Academy of International Business
  • Editorial Board, European Academy of Management
  • Editorial Board, Leadership & Management Studies in Sub-Sahara Africa Conference
  • Editorial Board, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business
Close

Associate Professor Ben Arachi

BIOGRAPHY

Associate Professor Ben Arachi has four decades (1977-2023) of experience in higher education leadership and teaching. During his 15 years as Unit Coordinator at Central Queensland University, he received two Excellence in Teaching Awards and was nominated for the Vice-Chancellor’s Award for Outstanding Contributions to Learning and Teaching and the Australian Awards for University Teaching. His online learning study was published in Economics for Today (Cengage 2022).

Previously, Associate Professor Arachi  served as Vice Principal, Head of the Department of Extension and Research, and Editor-in-Chief of the academic journal at Arul Anandar College, India (1992-1997). He was then Research Coordinator and Course Coordinator (1999-2008), as well as Chair of the Division of Economics (2000-2005) at HELP University, Malaysia. This included senior involvement in the application to become a University College and then a full University.

Associate Professor Arachi also has over 20 years of experience as a higher degree research supervisor, moderator, and examiner for doctoral degrees. In his five years as a Coordinator of All India Christian Higher Education, he organised numerous state-level seminars and workshops for academics in higher education in India. He has published four monographs, many research papers and articles while editing the Research AAC Journal of Economics. He has reviewed many higher education textbooks.

QUALIFICATIONS

  • Doctor of Philosophy, Madursi Kamaraj University, India, 1989

  • Master of Arts, University of Madras, 1975 (Gold Medalist)

  • Bachelor of Arts, Madursi Kamaraj University, India, 1973 (University Rank and Merit Scholarship)

  • Diploma in Applied Economics, Madursi Kamaraj University, India, 1980

ACADEMIC LEADERSHIP

  • Member, Academic Board, 2023-current

  • Chair, Examiners Committe, 2023-current

  • Member, Course Advisory Committee, 2022-current

AWARDS

  • Central Queensland University Student Voice Commendation. The 2021 program includes unit evaluation data from term 3, 2020 and terms 1 and 2, 2021.

  • Central Queensland University  Student Voice Commendation. The 2020 program includes unit evaluation data from term 3, 2019 and terms 1 and 2, 2020.

  • Central Queensland University Central Queensland University Platinum certificate Top rated Unit in Term 2, 2019

  • Central Queensland University Gold certificate Highly rated Unit in Term 2,2019 (ACCT20070)

  • Gold certificate Highly rated Unit in Term 2,2019 from CQU(ECON11026)

  • Charles Sturt University Excellence in Teaching Award (ECO511)

Close

Dr Bandula Nambukara-Gamage

Dr Bandula Nambukara-Gamage is a Senior Lecturer of Accounting and Finance at James Cook University, Brisbane campus. He currently teaches Bachelor of Commerce, Bachelor of Accounting, Master of Professional Accounting, and Master of Business Administration students based on the Brisbane campus. Dr Nambukara-Gamage has previously lectured at Central Queensland University, Federation University, and Charles Darwin University.

QUALIFICATIONS

Doctor of Philosophy, University of New England, 2013

Master of Commerce

Licentiate Certificate (recognised by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Australia)

Bachelor of Business Administration (Honours)

Close

Professor Rod St Hill

Professor Rodney St Hill is the former President of Leaders Institute (2018-2020) and serves as Senior Pastor (2016-current) at IgniteLife Church Gold Coast, where he heads IgniteLife Business, an outreach to Christians in business. He is a leader in the global Business As Mission movement. He also consults on governance and executive management in higher education and business, with a particular special interest in Christian education institutions and businesses.

Previously, Professor St Hill was a long-term senior leader and Vice President Academic of Christian Heritage College, Brisbane. With the input of his colleagues and many others in his network, he developed business curriculum that embeds the ‘5 P missional business’ model – a model of production, people, planet, and profit. He was also Dean of Students, among other roles, at University of Southern Queensland (1993-2009).

QUALIFICATIONS

Doctor of Philosophy, University of Cantebury, 1989

Bachelor of Commerce (Hons 1), University of Newcastle, 1979

EXTERNAL EXPERT REVIEWER

External Member, various course assessment panels in business, management and leadership at Alphacrucis College, Australian College of Divinity, and Avondale University College, 2014 to 2020

Member: Australian Institute of Company Directors

COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE

Member: Economic Society of Australia

External Expert, Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), 2019-current

Close

Academic Integrity Policy

PURPOSE

This policy establishes the framework and legislative requirements for managing staff and student academic integrity at GLI.

 

SCOPE

  • All staff and students

PRINCIPLES

GLI ensures that:

  • this policy is clearly explained during student orientation, staff induction, and professional development activities as preventative action to mitigate foreseeable risks to academic and research integrity;
  • a holistic educative approach is taken for students in their first semester of enrolment and there are penalties for breaches of the policy for students after their first semester of enrolment;
  • students complete the academic integrity quiz and list their results on the title page of every assessment;
  • students sign the Assessment Academic Integrity Declaration that registers their awareness of this policy;
  • this policy is included in content of core introductory units and during at least one tutorial in all units;
  • integrity of student assessment outcomes demands that Unit Coordinators have confidence that what is submitted is a student’s own work (in the case of group assessment items the group’s own work).
  • all assessment items except quizzes and exams are submitted via a Turnitin™ portal on the relevant Moodle™ webpage, unless the Unit Coordinator has approved otherwise;
  • students are required to keep copies of all drafts of their assessment items and produce them if required by the lecturer or Unit Coordinator;
  • the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools must be ethical, transparent, purposeful, and uphold the principles of academic integrity and reference the use accordingly;
  • using AI tools to complete assessment or research that is not the original work is academic misconduct, unless the lecturer or supervisor has permitted this in writing;
  • responses will be prompt, transparent, equitable, and fair;
  • penalties will be appropriate and proportionate, considering intentionality;
  • confidentiality is maintained by all parties within the constraints of allegation, investigation, and appeal processes;
  • procedures are designed to achieve resolution of allegations of misconduct in research.

Academic staff and students must conduct research in accordance with both national frameworks governing ethical research, especially where human subjects are involved. This includes the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research and the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. Primary data gathered during all research should be stored in the GLI secure repository for a minimum of five years.

While this policy outlines penalties for different offences, the list of factors is not all-inclusive; other factors may also be relevant. The Responsible Officer shall exercise their professional judgement regarding whether the suggested penalties fit the particular case. Sometimes a more lenient or more severe penalty may be appropriate, depending on the circumstances.

 

DEFINITIONS

Academic Cheating Service: A service, commercial or otherwise, which assists students or academic staff to form a substantial part of an assessment task or research project that students or researchers are required to personally undertake. Assignment-writing websites are academic cheating services.

Academic Integrity: The honest and respectful engagement with learning, teaching, research, and scholarship. It is an essential moral code to be upheld by the academic community inclusive of staff and students. It ensures that academic work is original and authentic and completed only with the assistance allowed.

Academic Misconduct: Behaviour that conflicts with the principles of academic integrity and leads to an unfair advantage. Types of academic misconduct may include plagiarism, contract cheating, examination cheating, duplicate submission, artificial intelligence, text-spinners, techniques to disguise plagiarised work, fabrication, impersonation, academic fraud, solicitation, and promoting the breach of academic, collusion, and non-compliance with exam or test instructions/requirements.

Cheating: Any dishonest actions to gain advantage, such as:

  • use of unauthorised assistance, materials, or equipment in undertaking an assessment items or research projects, including use of any academic cheating service;
  • being impersonated by another person, or impersonating another student;
  • acquisition and/or distribution of any assessment item or assessment item information, or part thereof, not yet released by the Unit Coordinator;
  • providing or receiving information that is prejudicial to fair and equitable conduct of any test or exam, including providing or receiving information about the content of a test or exam before one or more students have sat the test or exam;
  • tampering, or attempting to tamper with research work, exam papers, unit content, grades, or other student documentation;
  • failing to abide by any reasonable instruction or direction issued by a Unit Coordinator, lecturer, or tutor in relation to any assessment item or any person supervising a test or exam;
  • aiding others in breaching this policy, including but not limited to:

–        allowing one or more other students access to any material to be submitted or that has been submitted by a student in relation to an assessment item;

–        assisting another student in breaching this policy.

Collusion: Collaborating with two or more students, or a student and any other person(s), on individual (not group work) assessment item with intent to cheat, plagiarise, or engage in academic misconduct.

Contract Cheating: Contracting/allowing another person or using AI to complete part or all of an assessment item or research project. Contract cheating includes paid and unpaid arrangements made through a third party. A third party may include a friend, family member, fellow student, staff member; or commercial service, such as a tutoring company, document sharing website, editing service, or an assignment writing service.

Designated Decision-Maker: The person designated to make a decision in relation to the penalty for a breach of this policy. The person is identified by position, not by name.

Misrepresentation: Making false claims in relation to assessment items or research projects such as:

  • submitting an assessment item that was written in whole or in part by another person, although based on the student’s ideas (ghost writing);
  • submitting an assessment item that was wholly or substantially copy edited by another person, paid or unpaid, unless approved by the Unit Coordinator and acknowledged by the student;
  • overuse of direct quotes, even if appropriately cited, to the extent that the assessment item cannot be considered the work of the student;
  • providing references that are not cited in the body of the assessment item and/or that cannot be readily identified with the argument put forward;
  • falsifying quotes, data, or analyses used in an assessment item.

Plagiarism:

  • copying word-for-word phrases, sentences or paragraphs without citing the source (verbatim copying);
  • copying word-for-word phrases, sentences or paragraphs, changing a few words without citing the source (sham plagiarising);
  • paraphrasing phrases, sentences or paragraphs without citing the source (dishonest paraphrasing);
  • submitting an item that is the same or substantially the same as that submitted by the student in the same or another unit without permission of the Unit Coordinator and without citing the source (self-plagiarising);
  • submitting an item that is the same or substantially the same as that submitted by another student in the unit either in the same or another offer of that unit (recycling);
  • submitting an item that is wholly or substantially written by another person, paid or unpaid (contract cheating);
  • inadequate, inconsistent, or incorrect citation and/or referencing of sources, close paraphrasing and/or copying where there is no evidence of intent and where the plagiarism is not more than 5% of the text (incidental plagiarism).

Solicitation: when an individual offers, encourages, induces, or advertises for a staff member or student to contract, commission, pay, procure, or complete on their behalf, research or assessment tasks and items that are likely to result in their use for the purpose of cheating, misrepresentation, and/or plagiarism.

Minor Breach: A minor breach does not jeopardise the integrity of assessment. As a guideline, it affects up to approximately 15% of the assessment item in the professional judgment of the Unit Coordinator. A minor breach is considered incidental plagiarism and is likely to reflect poor academic conduct rather than academic misconduct and results from misunderstanding of or limited attention to academic conventions, from carelessness or neglect, rather than intention to deceive. Minor breaches will normally be dealt with in the marking guide or rubric for an assessment item.

Moderate Breach: A moderate breach might jeopardise the integrity of assessment. As a guideline, it affects between approximately 15% to 25% of the assessment item in the professional judgment of the Unit Coordinator OR is a repeated minor breach after a student’s first trimester of enrolment. A moderate breach is academic misconduct.

Major Breach: A major breach jeopardises the integrity of assessment. As a guideline, it affects more than 25% of the assessment item in the professional judgment of the Unit Coordinator OR is a repeated moderate breach. A major breach is academic misconduct.

 

Other Academic Misconduct: This may include but is not limited to:

  • use of recorded lectures (audio and/or visual), Powerpoints, or other class notes in a way that infringes another person’s privacy or intellectual property rights e.g. by publishing or distributing a recording without permission from the lecturer;
  • offering or accepting bribes (money or sexual or other favours) e.g. for admission or for grades or research results;
  • fabrication, falsification, and misrepresentation of information, including research data and source material;
  • not meeting required research standards, including conducting research without ethics approval, or conducting research in an unethical manner.

 

DETECTION

Any person may report a complaint of misconduct by a staff member or student to the lecturer, Unit Coordinator, Program Director, or relevant supervisor. Although moral and legal copyright to student assessment or research materials is vested in that person as the author, the student, by enrolling in an accredited course, provides an implied consent to GLI which authorises:

  • reproduction and storage of electronic material which they may author and submit as part of their course assessment; and
  • scanning this material for purposes of detecting, through software processing or other methods, any plagiarised material used in assignments or research projects.

SEVERITY OF BREACH

GLI considers three levels of severity in the breach of academic integrity:

Minor Breach

Does not jeopardise the integrity of assessment. As a guideline, it affects up to approximately 15% of the assessment item in the professional judgment of the Unit Coordinator. A minor breach is considered incidental plagiarism and is likely to reflect poor academic conduct rather than academic misconduct. It may result from misunderstanding of or limited attention to academic conventions, from carelessness or neglect, rather than intention to deceive.

 

Moderate Breach

This may jeopardise the integrity of assessment and is academic misconduct. As a guideline, it affects between approximately 15% to 25% of the assessment item in the professional judgment of the Unit Coordinator or is a repeated minor breach after a student’s first semester of enrolment.

 

Major Breach

This jeopardises the integrity of assessment or research item and is academic misconduct. As a guideline, it affects more than 25% of the assessment or research item in the professional judgment of the Unit Coordinator or research supervisor is a repeated moderate breach.

 

RELATED DOCUMENTS

National Health and Medical Research Centre (NHMRC):

 

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

  • All staff and students should be familiar with this policy.
  • The Responsible Officer is responsible for ensuring that policy is applied and regularly reviewed.
  • Unit Coordinators have primary responsibility for detecting breaches of student academic integrity.

Scope

All staff and students

Key Stakeholder

All staff and students

Proceedure

Breaches of this policy and actions taken will be recorded in the Student Academic Misconduct Register or Staff Academic Misconduct Register, as relevant.

 

Where plagiarism is incidental, a student may lose marks as indicated in a marking guide or rubric. There should be enough feedback for a student to understand the reasons for the loss of marks. The student might be referred to the Student Support for assistance in understanding what is appropriate citation and referencing.

 

Where a student breaches this policy in their first semester of enrolment, an educative approach will be taken. The student will be required to attend a meeting with the Unit Coordinator or Student Support Officer to refresh their knowledge and understanding of the policy and what constitutes appropriate academic practice. Following the meeting, the student will be offered an opportunity to resubmit the assessment item (or sit a supplementary test or exam), by a date determined by the Unit Coordinator. The maximum mark will be 50% of the marks available for that assessment item. Failure to attend the meeting, resubmit, or resit assessment, without good reason supported by appropriate documentation, will result in a mark of zero for that assessment item. The breach will be noted on the student’s file.

 

Where the maximum penalty for a breach is failure in one or more units, the penalty should be complemented by education as outlined above. In determining the penalty, consideration should be given to ‘cascading’ effects on course progression and completion.

All Other Breaches Prior to Graduation

Where a breach of this policy does not involve incidental plagiarism and where the breach is not in the first semester:

  • An allegation of breach of this policy will be made by the Unit Coordinator initially by phoning the student. The Unit Coordinator should provide enough detail for the student to understand the substance of the alleged breach and should be given an opportunity to respond immediately if they wish to.
  • If the student does not answer or return the call within two working days a written allegation will be provided within five working days of the attempt to phone the student.
  • The student will have 10 working days from receipt of the written allegation in which to respond. The student should provide as much detail as possible in their response, including drafts of the work in question.
  • If the student fails to respond within 10 working days, a penalty as specified in Schedule 1 may be applied. Where the designated decision maker is the Program Director, the Unit Coordinator will prepare a recommendation.
  • If the student acknowledges the alleged breach or if the student’s response fails to satisfy the Unit Coordinator that there has not been a breach of this policy, a penalty may be applied as specified in Schedule 1.
  • If the student wishes to appeal the decision, they have the right to follow the Grievance and Appeals PolicyThe student should provide as much detail as possible in support of their case, including drafts of the work in question.

RESPONSES TO STAFF BREACHES

  • Concerns or complaints about a potential breach of this policy and/or the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research should be reported in writing and in confidence to the Academic Dean or Responsible Officer. A failure to report suspected breaches of the Code is also considered a breach.
  • Complaints made anonymously will be considered, but complainants who wish to remain anonymous will not be provided with details of the process or outcome of any investigation.
  • Staff and students must not victimise or otherwise subject another person to detrimental action because of that person reporting or being the subject of a suspected breach of the Code.

 

Governing Board will ensure that the occurrence and nature of misconduct and breaches of academic or research integrity are monitored, and that action is taken to address underlying causes.

 

Factors taken into consideration may include the extent to which:

  • the researcher departed from accepted practice;
  • research participants, the wider community, animals, or the environment are, or may have been, affected by the breach;
  • there is, or may have been, incorrect information on public record;
  • the breach affects the soundness or reliability of the research;
  • the level of experience of the researcher is a consideration;
  • any institutional failures contributed to the breach;
  • any other mitigating or aggravating circumstances occurred.

 

If academic misconduct by staff is determined by the Responsible Officer, then disciplinary action may follow. If the staff member wishes to appeal the decision, the Staff Grievance Policy should be followed. Penalties for academic misconduct will take account of the fact that academic staff are expected to have learned ethical conduct earlier during their academic journey. Breaches may result in disciplinary action listed in the Code of Conduct Policy.

 

SCHEDULE 1

Maximum Penalties for Breaches of the Student Academic Integrity Policy

Type of Breach Severity of Breach Maximum Penalty Designated Decision-Maker Notes
Incidental plagiarism Minor Nil Unit Coordinator Student may surrender marks where citation and/or referencing is an element in a marking guide or rubric.
Breach by postgraduate student in their first trimester of enrolment Minor, moderate or major Nil Unit Coordinator Educative approach is taken. Student may surrender marks where citation and/or referencing is an element in a marking guide or rubric. Student may have a mark of zero recorded if they do not attend a meeting and/or fail to resubmit by the specified date. A breach will be noted on the student file. There is no penalty, but where the Unit Coordinator is not confident that a submitted assessment item was written by the student concerned, there is no basis for judging whether, or to what degree, a student has met the learning outcomes being assessed.
All other breaches detected prior to graduation Minor Nil Unit Coordinator Educative approach is taken. Student may surrender marks where citation and/or referencing is an element in a marking guide or rubric. Student may have a mark of zero recorded if they do not attend a meeting and/or fail to resubmit by the specified date.4 A breach will be noted on the student file.
All other breaches detected prior to graduation (cont.) Repeated minor, single unit Failure in the assessment item(s) Unit Coordinator A breach will be noted on the student file.
Repeated minor, multiple units Failure in the units Program Director Breaches will be noted on the student file.
Intermediate, single unit Failure in the unit Program Director A breach will be noted on the student file.
Repeated intermediate, multiple units Failure in the units Program Director Breaches will be noted on the student file.
Major, single unit Failure in the unit Program Director A breach will be noted on the student file.
Repeated major, single unit Exclusion for up to one year Registrar Breaches will be noted on the student file.
Repeated major, multiple units Exclusion for up to two years Registrar Breaches will be noted on the student file.
Intermediate or major after a period of exclusion Exclusion for up to three years and/or cancellation of enrolment    
Any breach detected after graduation for which the maximum penalty would be exclusion and/or cancellation of enrolment   Withdrawal of testamur Governing Board, on the recommendation of the Registrar The graduate should be invited to surrender the testamur. If they decline, legal notice of withdrawal of the testamur shall be served at the last-known address of the graduate. Student’s file will be noted.

 

Close

Amazing Opportunities

for everyone

Apply Now