Regulations on the Academic Integrity Committee
of the National Aerospace University
“Kharkiv Aviation Institute”
Approved by:
Academic Council
of the National Aerospace University
“Kharkiv Aviation Institute”
Protocol No. 1 dated August 23, 2023
Enforced by: Order No. 187 dated August 24, 2023
СУЯ ХАІ-НМВ-П/008:2019
Date of enforcement: September 1, 2023
Revision No. 2
1. General Provisions
1.1. These Regulations on the Academic Integrity Committee (hereinafter – the Regulations) define the procedure for the formation, powers, and rules of procedure of the Academic Integrity Committee of the National Aerospace University “Kharkiv Aviation Institute” (hereinafter – the Committee).
1.2. The Committee is an independent collegial working body established to ensure compliance by the University’s academic and teaching staff, higher education students, postgraduates, and doctoral students with academic integrity and other ethical requirements as fundamental standards of university life, as well as to perform oversight functions regarding compliance with academic integrity within the University.
1.3. In its work, the Committee is guided by the Constitution of Ukraine, the Laws of Ukraine “On Education,” “On Higher Education,” “On Scientific and Scientific-Technical Activities,” “On Copyright and Related Rights,” “On Publishing,” “On Prevention of Corruption,” the Civil Code of Ukraine, the Procedure for Annulment of a Decision on Awarding a Higher Education Degree and Conferring the Corresponding Qualification, approved by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 897 dated 26.08.2021, the University Charter, the Code of Ethical Conduct, the Academic Integrity Code, the University Academic Integrity Regulations, the guiding principles of IAU-MCO (International Association of Universities and the Magna Charta Observatory) regarding the institutional ethical code in higher education, the European Charter for Researchers, the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in Science and the Humanities, the Bucharest Declaration on Ethical Values and Principles in Higher Education in Europe, and these Regulations.
The Committee also relies on the following authoritative sources in its activities:
- recommendations of the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine, the National Agency for Higher Education Quality Assurance, and other government bodies regarding the prevention of academic plagiarism, detection of plagiarism in scientific works, and development and implementation of a university system for ensuring academic integrity;
- methodological recommendations for higher education institutions to support academic integrity principles, prepared within the framework of the Academic Integrity Promotion Project – SAIUP, and other recommendations of the American Councils for International Education;
- Ethical Code of the Scholar of Ukraine, approved by the Resolution of the General Assembly of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine dated 15.04.2009 No. 2;
- management principles of IAU-MCO (International Association of Universities and the Magna Charta Observatory) regarding the institutional ethical code in higher education;
- Bucharest Declaration on Ethical Values and Principles in Higher Education in Europe;
- judicial practice of Ukrainian, foreign, and international courts.
1.4. The activities of the Committee and its members shall comply with the principles of the rule of law, in particular legality, certainty, and proportionality. When considering applications regarding violations of academic integrity, professional ethics, or other ethical requirements and making decisions, Committee members must act diligently, impartially, and objectively.
1.5. The main tasks of the Committee are:
- organizational and methodological support for the implementation of academic integrity standards adopted by the University;
- performing oversight functions regarding compliance with academic integrity by all participants in the educational process and scientific activities at the University;
- exercising powers to identify, establish, and review instances of academic integrity violations and making decisions on the type of responsibility to be applied to individuals who violate academic integrity standards;
- reviewing complaints on an appeal basis regarding cases of violation of the University’s Academic Integrity Code committed by individuals studying or working at the University, providing proposals for taking appropriate decisions, and imposing corresponding sanctions on such individuals.
1.6. In performing its tasks, the Committee acts in coordination with the University’s Academic Integrity Support Group.
1.7.The Committee, together with other University officials (lecturers, supervisors of qualification (diploma) works, department heads, deans, vice-rectors of the University, heads of specialized academic councils, conference organizing committees, editorial boards of scientific journals) who have been granted separate powers to apply the provisions of the Academic Integrity Code, is the authorized body for holding individuals academically accountable and for reviewing appeals against decisions made by the aforementioned officials.
2. Officials with separate powers to detect manifestations of academic dishonesty and hold individuals academically accountable
2.1. Detection of academic integrity violations by higher education students during educational and scientific activities is primarily carried out by lecturers (within the disciplines they teach) and supervisors of qualification (diploma) works. Detection of academic integrity violations by University staff is primarily carried out by University officials, including the management of structural units, specialized academic councils, conference organizing committees, editorial boards of scientific journals, etc.
2.2. Decisions on academic responsibility for violations of academic integrity may be made by the aforementioned officials and/or the Committee.
2.3. A lecturer may impose the following types of academic responsibility on higher education students who violated academic integrity during ongoing and final assessments:
- warning;
- lowering the evaluation results of a test, exam, credit, etc.;
- re-assessment of tests, exams, credits, etc.;
- assignment of additional control measures (additional individual tasks, extra tests, additional control works, etc.).
2.4. The supervisor of a qualification (diploma) work may impose the following types of academic responsibility on higher education students who violated academic integrity:
- warning;
- lowering the evaluation results of the qualification (diploma) work;
- redoing specific section(s) of the qualification (diploma) work.
2.5. The faculty dean, upon submission by the department head, may impose the following types of academic responsibility on higher education students who violated academic integrity:
- retaking the corresponding educational component of the educational program;
- redoing the qualification (diploma) work;
- conducting additional verification of other works authored by the violator.
2.6. The Vice-Rector of the University, upon submission by the department head (with the consent of the faculty dean), or upon submission by the heads of academic or scientific units, specialized academic councils, conference organizing committees, or editorial boards of scientific journals, may impose the following types of academic responsibility on University staff who violated academic integrity:
- conducting additional checks for signs of academic plagiarism in all works authored by the violator;
- withdrawal from review (or publication) of works authored by the violator, if their preparation violated academic integrity.
2.7. The officials specified in clauses 2.3 – 2.6 of these Regulations, in addition to considering cases individually, may, if necessary, establish temporary or ad hoc commissions to exercise their powers, involving program guarantors, other lecturers, representatives of the University’s legal service, officials responsible for plagiarism checks to ensure control over compliance with academic integrity, and technical specialists.
Decisions regarding the establishment of a fact of academic dishonesty and holding the violator academically accountable must be made by the aforementioned officials impartially, objectively, in accordance with the procedures established in these Regulations for the Committee’s work, and with respect for the rights of the individual against whom the case has been initiated. Confidentiality must be maintained, and information must not be disseminated beyond the established procedures until a decision imposing academic responsibility comes into effect.
If a lecturer, supervisor of a qualification work, department head, faculty dean, or University vice-rector is not authorized to make a decision regarding the imposition of certain types of academic responsibility, or if the case involves complex circumstances requiring additional information, they shall submit a request to the Committee for consideration of the violation. The request shall contain substantiated information regarding the nature of the violation and a proposal for the type of academic responsibility to be imposed on the violator.
2.8. The Committee may propose the following types of academic responsibility:
For higher education students:
- exclusion from the ranking for academic scholarships or deduction of points in such rankings; revocation of the academic scholarship.
For University staff:
- deprivation of the right to participate in competitions for research funding, educational projects, scholarships, grants, etc.;
- notification of the funding entity (for education or research), the institution that issued the grant, potential employers, or the student’s parents regarding the committed violation;
- deprivation of the right to participate in competitions for scholarships, grants, etc.;
- limitation of the violator’s participation in research, exclusion from specific scientific projects;
- recommendation to the Rector for the imposition on a student of the following types of academic responsibility:
· withdrawal of University-provided tuition benefits;
· expulsion from the University;
- recommendation to the Rector or the University Academic Council for the imposition on a staff member of the following types of academic responsibility:
· exclusion from the Academic Council, advisory, or working bodies of the University, or restriction of the right to participate in such bodies for a certain period;
· written warning;
· deprivation of honorary titles, awards, scholarships, etc., granted by the University;
· refusal to recommend for the awarding of an academic title or scientific degree;
· dismissal;
- recommendation to the University Academic Council (with a subsequent submission to the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine, the National Agency for Higher Education Quality Assurance, and other national and international authorities) regarding the imposition on staff of the following types of academic responsibility:
· deprivation of the right to participate in legally established bodies or hold positions defined by law;
· refusal to award a scientific degree or academic title;
· revocation of an awarded scientific degree or academic title.
2.9. In cases of independent detection by the Committee of facts of academic integrity violations or upon receipt of a written notice regarding a violation committed by a higher education student or University staff member, if such facts can be considered by the officials specified in clauses 2.3 – 2.6 of these Regulations, and the violator can be held academically accountable by those officials within their powers, the Committee may transfer all available materials to the relevant officials for a substantive decision.
2.10. For each violation of academic integrity, higher education students and University staff may be subject to one or multiple types of academic responsibility depending on the decision of the officials specified above or the Committee.
2.11. The Committee may also consider actions that contain signs of academic integrity violations and provide recommendations regarding imposing other types of responsibility as provided for by the current legislation of Ukraine.
If information regarding a violation of academic integrity indicates signs of corruption by participants in the educational process, such matters shall be resolved in accordance with the legislation of Ukraine on the prevention of corruption, in particular pursuant to the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated June 13, 2000, No. 950 “On Approval of the Procedure for Conducting an Official Investigation Concerning Persons Authorized to Perform State or Local Government Functions, and Persons Equated for the Purposes of the Law of Ukraine ‘On Prevention of Corruption’ to Persons Authorized to Perform State or Local Government Functions.”
2.12. The application of a specific type of academic responsibility for a violation of academic integrity shall take into account:
- the violator’s admission of guilt for the violation and awareness of the inadmissibility of further violations;
- the fact of cooperation with the Committee (or official) or refusal to cooperate during the consideration of the case;
- whether it is a first-time violation or a repeated/systematic violation, and the cumulative nature of violations;
- the degree of impact of the violation on the reputation of the University, faculty, department, scientific school, etc.;
- the degree of impact of the violation on the quality and further results of education (for students) and on the conduct of educational and scientific activities (for teaching, research, and scientific staff);
- other circumstances of the violation.
2.13. The separate structural unit “Kharkiv Professional College of Information Technologies of the National Aerospace University ‘Kharkiv Aviation Institute’” shall, in accordance with its statutory provisions, establish its own Committee on Academic Integrity, which performs functions, organizes work, and exercises powers in accordance with the regulatory framework governing academic integrity at the University, taking into account the rules specified in these Regulations for the Committee, and considering the specific features of the educational process for students of professional pre-higher education. The University Committee serves as the appellate body for complaints regarding decisions of this College Committee.
3. Formation of the Committee and Organization of Its Work
3.1. The Committee shall include members of the University community, namely:
1) Persons who are members of the Committee by virtue of their position:
- Vice-Rector for Research;
- Faculty Deans;
- Head of the University Legal Department;
- Chairs of the University Scientific-Methodological Commissions;
- Chair of the Scientific Society of Students, Postgraduates, Doctoral Students, and Young Scientists of the University;
- Chair of the Student Council of the University;
- Chair of the Primary Trade Union Organization of Employees;
- Chair of the Primary Trade Union Organization of Students.
2) Persons appointed or elected to the Committee:
- four higher education students nominated by the University Student Self-Government Body;
- one representative from the University Research Department by order of the Vice-Rector for Research.
If necessary, representatives of domestic and foreign organizations (higher education institutions, research institutions, enterprises, etc.) may be included in the Committee (with their consent).
The composition of the Committee is approved by the Rector’s order.
The Committee may invite other individuals to its meetings whose competencies relate to matters that need to be considered and discussed according to the agenda.
Attendance of Committee members at its meetings is mandatory. If a member cannot attend for valid reasons, they may submit their opinion to the Committee in writing or participate via videoconference.
3.2. University officials are included in the Committee by virtue of holding the relevant position or performing the corresponding duties in a University working/advisory body on the date of the new Committee’s commencement. Leaders of student self-government bodies, primary trade union organizations of University employees, primary trade union organizations of students, postgraduates, doctoral students, and other bodies are included in the Committee based on their election to a leadership position and holding that position on the date of the new Committee’s commencement.
Student representatives are elected by the nearest general student assembly of the University (before the expiration of the previous Committee’s term) by secret ballot.
Individuals who have been held accountable for violating the University’s Academic Integrity Code cannot be members of the Committee. Members of the Committee accused of violating this Code are suspended from Committee activities, and another person is elected in their place.
3.3. Grounds for early termination of powers:
1) For persons who were members of the Committee by position or as representatives of a structural unit, early termination occurs if employment with the University in that position ceases or the corresponding duties in a working/advisory body are terminated, as well as in the case of long-term (more than four months) business trips or unpaid leave.
2) For persons who were Committee members by election as representatives of students, postgraduates, doctoral students, student self-government bodies, primary trade union organizations, or the Scientific Society of Students, Postgraduates, Doctoral Students, and Young Scientists, membership terminates if they cease to study or work in the relevant body.
3) Other grounds for termination of Committee membership include:
- a decision by the body (or official) that elected/appointed the member to replace them;
- submission of a motivated resignation by the Committee member;
- systematic failure by the member to fulfill their duties;
- violation by the member of the requirements of academic integrity, professional ethics, or other ethical standards.
3.4. The term of office of the Committee shall be two years. At its first meeting, the Committee shall, by a simple majority vote of its members, elect a Chair, a Deputy Chair, and a Secretary of the Committee, and approve the Committee’s work plan for the academic year. The Chair of the Committee reports on the implementation of this plan to the University Academic Council at least once per academic year. The Chair conducts meetings, signs protocols and decisions, etc. In the absence of the Chair, their duties are performed by the Deputy Chair. The Secretary is responsible for keeping minutes, preparing materials for consideration at meetings, and other technical tasks.
3.5. A Committee meeting is considered valid if at least two-thirds of its members participate. Decisions of the Committee are deemed adopted if supported by a simple majority of the members present. Depending on the nature of the issue under consideration, the Committee decides on open or secret voting. The person whose case regarding a potential violation of academic integrity is being reviewed, as well as the complainant (initiator of the review or appeal), shall be invited to the meeting.
If a Committee member has a real or potential conflict of interest with the complainant or respondent (including close relatives), they must refrain from participating in the consideration of the matter and from voting.
3.6. Committee meetings shall be held according to the work plan (but at least once per semester) or extraordinary meetings may be convened as necessary. Meetings may be held in open or closed sessions at the Committee’s discretion. If necessary (for security reasons of Academic Council members or other circumstances preventing in-person meetings), meetings may be conducted remotely. The decision to hold a remote meeting is made by the Chair. The procedure for organizing the Committee’s work in a remote format, including secret voting using software ensuring anonymity and verifiability, shall be applied in accordance with the procedures of the University Academic Council.
3.7. The Committee has the right to:
- receive and review complaints and petitions regarding violations of academic integrity, analyze them, prepare conclusions, consider appeals against decisions of the officials listed in points 2.3 – 2.6, and make decisions regarding such matters;
- involve University staff, experts from various fields, and use technical and software tools to reliably establish facts of academic integrity violations based on submitted complaints;
- submit proposals to the Rector and the University Academic Council for taking appropriate decisions and imposing disciplinary measures on individuals who have violated academic integrity norms.
4. Procedure for Considering Cases of Academic Integrity Violations
4.1. The procedure for considering a case of academic integrity violation includes the following stages:
4.1.1. Notification of the person about the complaint.
The person suspected of violating academic integrity (hereinafter – the respondent) must be informed of the allegation against them and the specifics of the procedure for reviewing the case. A student, teaching staff, or research staff member may admit their guilt in the alleged violation. In such a case, the formal review is not conducted, and the admission of guilt is taken into account when determining the type of responsibility.
If the case is considered by the Committee, the respondent has the right to challenge any Committee member if there are substantiated and proven suspicions of bias.
4.1.2. Conducting the investigation.
The procedure for reviewing a case may include:
- interviewing witnesses (any participant in the educational process who is aware of circumstances relevant to the case may be a witness);
- examination of primary sources (respondent’s work/creation, works/creations of other authors, results of plagiarism checks, etc.);
- consultations with experts (an expert may be a person entrusted with examining material objects, phenomena, or processes containing information about the circumstances of the case and providing conclusions on questions arising during the case review that relate to their field of expertise);
- other measures necessary for conducting an objective investigation.
4.1.3. Completion of the investigation.
Based on the results of the review and the clarification of all essential circumstances of the case, a decision on the merits is made regarding the establishment of the fact of violation of academic integrity requirements and the imposition of academic responsibility in the prescribed manner.
If the case was reviewed by the officials specified in clauses 2.3 – 2.6 of this Regulation, and as a result of the review it is necessary to refer the matter to the Commission for a decision within its powers, the petition must reflect all circumstances of the case, including proposals regarding the choice of a specific type(s) of academic responsibility.
If the case was reviewed by the Commission, it prepares a draft decision, which includes the following components:
- Introductory part (date of preparation and duration of the investigation, participants in the procedure for reviewing the violation of academic integrity rules, and the content of the complaint);
- Descriptive part (information on the substance of the issue considered by the Commission);
- Motivational part (circumstances and evidence taken into account by the Commission);
- Resolutive part (official conclusions and recommendations for decision-making).
If any member of the Commission disagrees with the report, they have the right to express a separate opinion, which becomes an integral part of the report. All participants in the process, including the respondent, must be acquainted with the results of the review and, if applicable, may submit written comments or objections to the report.
The Commission prepares reasoned decisions in the form of conclusions regarding the violation or non-violation of academic integrity norms. These conclusions are of a recommendatory nature and are submitted to the Rector (or the Academic Council of the University) for further implementation of appropriate measures.
4.2. Rights of the person suspected of violating academic integrity.
A person suspected of violating academic integrity (hereinafter – the respondent) has the right to:
- be informed of the date, time, and place of the meeting (review of their case) and to be present at it (absence of the respondent does not prevent the review of the case);
- familiarize themselves with all materials regarding the establishment of facts of violation of academic integrity and submit comments;
- provide oral and written explanations personally or through a representative, or refuse to provide any explanations, and participate in the examination of evidence of violations of academic integrity;
- appeal the decision regarding the imposition of responsibility for violation of academic integrity to the body authorized to review appeals or in court.
4.3. Timeframes for reviewing cases (materials) regarding violations of academic integrity.
4.3.1. A lecturer, supervisor of a qualification (diploma) work, faculty dean, or University vice-rector must review the case (materials) regarding a violation of academic integrity within 10 working days from the date of detection of the violation or receipt of the relevant statement, but no later than the end of the academic semester, or the last day provided for the defense of qualification (diploma) works according to the educational process schedule, or by the planned date of submission of the work containing signs of violation of academic integrity for printing.
4.3.2. The Commission must review the case (materials) regarding a violation of academic integrity within 20 working days from the date of detection of the violation or receipt of the relevant statement (petition). In exceptional cases, when obtaining additional information is necessary, the review period and decision-making may be extended up to 40 working days. The Commission informs the applicant about the extension of the timeframe.
4.3.3. In the event of receiving a request at the University from the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine, the National Agency for Higher Education Quality Assurance, or other authorities, including law enforcement agencies, regarding verification of compliance with academic integrity requirements, the Rector may, by instruction, shorten the timeframes for reviewing cases (materials) regarding violations of academic integrity.
4.4. Appeal of Commission decisions.
Decisions of the Commission itself regarding the imposition of academic responsibility may be appealed by the applicant to the Rector within ten days after the announcement of the Commission’s decision. In this case, the appeal is reviewed by an Appeals Committee established by order (instruction) of the Rector. Leading specialists of the University in the relevant field of knowledge, representatives of other higher education institutions, and research institutions may be involved in the Appeals Committee (with their consent). Individuals who participated in the adoption of the Commission’s decision being appealed cannot be included in the Appeals Committee. The Appeals Committee must follow the procedures for reviewing academic integrity violations set out in clauses 4.1.1 – 4.1.3 of this Regulation.
5. Final provisions
5.1. The Regulation on the Commission for Academic Integrity is adopted by the Academic Council of the University and enters into force by order of the Rector of the University.
5.2. Amendments and/or additions to this Regulation are made in the manner established for its adoption.