Academic integrity is the commitment to conducting academic work honestly, responsibly, transparently, and ethically.
It applies to students, researchers, lecturers, authors, institutions, and anyone producing or communicating scholarly work.
Academic integrity is not simply about avoiding plagiarism.
It also involves:
The central principle is straightforward:
Academic work should accurately represent what you know, what you did, what others contributed, and where your information came from.
Academic work depends on trust.
Readers need to be able to trust that:
Without this trust, academic research and education lose much of their value.
Academic integrity therefore protects both individual researchers and the wider academic community.
Plagiarism is one important integrity issue, but it is not the only one.
Academic misconduct can also involve:
Different institutions use different definitions and procedures.
Always consult the applicable academic regulations.
Plagiarism generally involves presenting another person’s work, ideas, words, data, or other intellectual contribution as one’s own without appropriate acknowledgement.
It can involve:
Plagiarism can occur intentionally or unintentionally.
Lack of intent does not necessarily eliminate the underlying academic problem.
Copying material word-for-word from a source normally requires appropriate quotation treatment and attribution.
The exact requirements depend on the relevant citation style.
A quotation should not be presented as though it were independently written by the student or researcher.
When using direct quotations, check:
Changing a few words in a source does not automatically create an original paraphrase.
A responsible paraphrase should:
A source should remain identifiable through the citation even when none of its original wording is copied.
See the Academic Paraphrasing Guide.
A summary condenses the important ideas from a larger source.
Even when the summary is much shorter than the original, the underlying ideas still belong to the source.
Appropriate attribution is therefore important.
A useful question is:
Could a reader reasonably think that this idea came from me rather than from the source?
If the answer is yes, review the attribution.
Not every statement requires a citation.
Widely established information may sometimes be treated as common knowledge.
However, whether something qualifies as common knowledge can depend on:
When uncertain, consult the relevant academic guidance or cite the source.
It is generally safer to provide appropriate attribution for important claims than to assume that a specialised statement is common knowledge.
Citations allow readers to distinguish:
Good citation practice therefore supports transparency.
For detailed citation guidance, see the Citation and Referencing Guide.
Fabrication means creating information that did not actually exist.
Examples may include inventing:
Fabricated information must never be presented as genuine research.
Falsification involves manipulating research materials, procedures, data, or results in a way that misrepresents the research.
Examples may include:
Research data should be handled transparently and according to appropriate procedures.
Not reporting every result is not automatically misconduct.
Researchers may legitimately focus on findings relevant to their research questions.
However, deliberately hiding results because they contradict the preferred conclusion can create a misleading account.
Be transparent about:
A result does not become invalid simply because it fails to support the original expectation.
For example, a hypothesis may not be supported.
That is a legitimate research outcome.
Researchers should report findings according to the research design rather than changing the results to produce a preferred conclusion.
Research data should be handled carefully.
Good practice may include:
The exact requirements depend on the discipline and research context.
Cleaning data is not inherently unethical.
Researchers often need to correct:
The important issue is documentation.
Where appropriate, record:
When research involves human participants, integrity includes responsible treatment of participants.
Depending on the research context, this may involve:
Researchers should follow the ethical requirements applicable to their institution, jurisdiction, and discipline.
Researchers may encounter information that should not be disclosed publicly.
Examples include:
Do not assume that possession of information creates permission to publish it.
Review the applicable consent, confidentiality, contractual, and institutional requirements.
If participant information needs to remain confidential, researchers may use techniques such as:
However, simply removing a name may not always make information anonymous.
A combination of details can sometimes identify a person.
Authorship should reflect genuine intellectual contribution according to the relevant discipline or publication rules.
Potential contributions can include:
Different institutions and journals have different authorship standards.
Do not automatically assume that every person involved in a project should be an author.
Gift authorship occurs when someone is listed as an author despite not making an appropriate contribution.
Examples can include adding:
simply because of status or relationship.
Authorship should be based on contribution rather than prestige or pressure.
Ghost authorship involves significant contributors being omitted from authorship or appropriate acknowledgement.
This can create an inaccurate record of who contributed to the work.
Where publication rules require disclosure of substantial contributions, follow those requirements.
Some contributions may not meet the relevant standard for authorship but may still deserve acknowledgement.
Examples can include:
Follow the relevant institutional or publication requirements.
Collaboration can be valuable in academic work, but not every assignment permits it.
An instructor may require an assignment to be completed individually.
Do not assume that receiving substantial assistance is acceptable simply because collaboration is common in other contexts.
Check the assignment instructions.
Sharing previous assignments with another student can create integrity risks.
The recipient may submit the material as their own.
The person who provides the work may also become involved in an academic misconduct investigation.
When helping another student, prefer legitimate support such as:
Do not provide completed assessed work for submission as another person’s work.
Contract cheating involves obtaining work from another person or service and submitting it as one’s own.
Examples may include purchasing:
Submitting externally produced assessed work as one’s own can violate academic integrity requirements.
Professional writing and educational services should therefore distinguish legitimate support from completing assessed work dishonestly.
Academic support can be appropriate when it helps a learner develop their own work.
Examples may include:
The exact boundaries depend on institutional rules.
Always follow the requirements of the relevant educational institution.
Reusing one’s own previous work can still create academic problems.
For example, a student may submit substantially the same assignment for two courses without permission.
A researcher may also reuse previously published text in ways that violate publication requirements.
Always check whether reuse is permitted and disclose it where required.
Researchers should not normally present substantially identical research as multiple independent publications without appropriate disclosure.
Publication practices vary by discipline.
When reusing material, researchers should follow:
Academic integrity requires more than adding a citation.
The cited source should actually support the statement being made.
Avoid:
A citation should provide genuine evidentiary support.
A source should not be presented as supporting a stronger claim than it actually makes.
For example, if a study reports an association, do not automatically rewrite it as proof of causation.
Pay attention to words such as:
These terms can have materially different meanings.
Never invent a reference because a claim appears to need support.
Fabricated references may contain:
Every important reference should be verifiable.
This is particularly important when using AI-assisted research tools.
AI systems can sometimes produce plausible-looking but inaccurate references.
If an AI tool suggests a source:
Never treat an AI-generated citation as automatically reliable.
AI can create new academic integrity questions.
Potential uses include:
Whether a particular use is permitted depends on the institution, course, assessment, publisher, or research context.
Always check the applicable rules.
See the Artificial Intelligence glossary resource for background information about AI.
If an assignment requires independent work, submitting AI-generated content as one’s own may violate the assessment rules.
Potentially relevant issues include:
Do not assume that publicly available AI tools are automatically permitted.
Researchers using AI should consider:
Do not upload confidential research data to an external AI system without determining whether doing so is permitted.
AI-generated material may contain:
Researchers remain responsible for material they submit or publish.
AI assistance does not transfer that responsibility to the software provider.
Translation does not remove the obligation to acknowledge a source.
If an idea comes from another author’s work, translating it into another language does not make it your original idea.
Cite the underlying source according to the applicable requirements.
When quoting translated material, follow the relevant citation and translation conventions.
Academic integrity applies to visual material as well as written text.
Check the requirements for:
Consider:
Do not present another person’s visual work as your own.
Copyright and academic integrity are related but not identical.
A work can be properly cited and still raise copyright questions.
Conversely, copyright permission does not necessarily eliminate the need for academic attribution.
Consider both issues separately.
Group projects require clear responsibility.
Before starting, establish:
Clear processes can prevent misunderstandings.
Maintain appropriate records of research activities.
Depending on the project, records may include:
Good documentation makes the research process more transparent.
Research projects sometimes change after data collection begins.
A change is not automatically a problem.
The important issue is whether the change is documented and appropriately explained.
Record relevant changes to:
Do not quietly alter the methodology section so that it falsely appears that the revised procedure was planned from the beginning.
Researchers and authors may have relationships or financial interests that could influence their work.
Potential conflicts can involve:
Disclosure requirements vary.
When disclosure is required, provide accurate information.
Researchers should recognise that expectations can influence:
Bias cannot always be eliminated.
However, researchers can improve transparency by documenting decisions and acknowledging relevant limitations.
Qualitative researchers should take particular care when:
Do not selectively choose quotations solely because they make a preferred argument appear stronger.
See the Qualitative Research Guide.
Quantitative research requires careful handling of:
Avoid changing analytical decisions solely to obtain a preferred statistical outcome.
See the Quantitative Research Guide.
Do not manipulate statistical reporting to make results appear more impressive.
Potential problems include:
Analysis should reflect the actual research process.
Every research project has limitations.
Examples may include:
Acknowledging limitations does not necessarily weaken a study.
It demonstrates awareness of what the evidence can and cannot establish.
A conclusion should not claim more than the research supports.
Avoid moving from:
The study found an association.
to:
The study proved that one factor causes the other.
unless the research design genuinely supports a causal conclusion.
Strong academic writing is not the same as making the strongest possible claim.
It is making the strongest claim that the evidence justifies.
A research question should reflect the actual investigation.
Do not present a question as though it were investigated if the research did not actually address it.
Similarly, do not manipulate the research question after seeing the results in a way that misrepresents the original purpose of the study.
Changes can be legitimate, but they should be documented where appropriate.
Research objectives should correspond to the work actually undertaken.
If an objective is included in a proposal but cannot be completed, explain the situation appropriately rather than inventing evidence to satisfy it.
Research reporting should reflect what was actually done.
When using an existing dataset, identify:
Do not imply that you personally collected data when you used an existing dataset.
Online information should not automatically be treated as reliable evidence.
Check:
Do not cite an online claim simply because it appears prominently in search results.
Keep a source record while researching.
Useful fields may include:
| Field | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Author | Identifies the creator |
| Year | Records publication date |
| Title | Identifies the source |
| Publication | Records where it appeared |
| URL or DOI | Supports retrieval |
| Key claim | Records why it matters |
| Page | Locates specific evidence |
| Notes | Records interpretation |
| Citation status | Shows whether it has been used |
This reduces the risk of losing source information during writing.
During research, notes from multiple sources can become mixed together.
To reduce this risk:
Good note-taking is an important part of academic integrity.
Research writing combines existing scholarship with your own reasoning.
During drafting, distinguish:
This makes it easier to determine where citations are required.
Before submitting written work, ask:
Before finalising a research project, check:
Discovering an error does not necessarily mean the entire academic project is invalid.
The appropriate response depends on:
For a draft, correct the error.
For submitted or published work, follow the applicable reporting and correction procedures.
Do not hide a material error simply because it is embarrassing.
When academic rules are unclear:
Do not rely solely on what another student says is permitted.
Rules can differ substantially between institutions and assignments.
A responsible workflow can look like this:
Determine what collaboration, technology, sources, and assistance are permitted.
Define the research or assignment requirements.
Track where information comes from.
Document relevant methods, data, and decisions.
Develop your own analysis and reasoning where required.
Cite borrowed ideas, evidence, quotations, and other relevant material.
Confirm that important sources actually support the claims.
Check for plagiarism, unsupported claims, fabricated references, and other problems.
Confirm that AI and other tools were used according to applicable rules.
Improve the final document without misrepresenting the underlying work.
Ensure the final submission accurately represents the work and assistance involved.
Professional academic support should help learners and researchers develop their own capabilities and produce work responsibly.
Appropriate support may include:
Services should not encourage users to misrepresent someone else’s work as their own.
For educational support, always consider the rules of the institution and assessment involved.
No. Plagiarism can result from deliberate copying or poor source management. However, the consequences of plagiarism may still apply even when the mistake was accidental.
It can be. Changing the wording does not change ownership of the underlying idea.
Not necessarily. Reusing substantial previous work may violate course or institutional requirements. Ask whether reuse is permitted.
Possibly, depending on the applicable rules. Even when permitted, review the output and remain responsible for the final work.
No. AI-generated references should be independently verified before use.
Not necessarily. Legitimate data cleaning is part of many research projects. The important issue is whether changes are justified, documented, and reported appropriately.
No. A finding that does not support the original expectation can be a legitimate research result.
No. Citation requirements depend on the nature of the information. The objective is appropriate attribution, not unnecessary citation of every common statement.
That depends on the assignment rules. Collaboration that is permitted in one course may be prohibited in another.
Follow the relevant institutional or publication procedures. Do not conceal a material error simply to avoid embarrassment.
Continue exploring:
Explore:
Explore:
Academic integrity is the foundation of trustworthy academic work.
It requires more than avoiding copied text. It involves honest representation of sources, research methods, data, findings, contributions, technology use, and academic assistance.
A responsible researcher or student should be able to explain:
When in doubt, check the requirements of the relevant institution, course, supervisor, journal, or research body before proceeding.
Integrity is not merely a final checklist. It should guide the entire academic process from planning and research through writing, analysis, editing, and submission.