ROWAN UNIVERSITY POLICY

Title: Academic Integrity Policy for Graduate Examination, Thesis, & Dissertation Components
Subject: Academic Affairs
Policy No: AA:2026:01
Applies: University-Wide
Issuing Authority: Office of Provost
Responsible Officer: Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
Adopted: 03/03/2026
Last Revision: 03/03/2026
Last Reviewed: 03/03/2026

I. PURPOSE

The purpose of this policy is to provide graduate students, faculty, and staff with guidelines about what behaviors violate academic integrity expectations for graduate examinations, thesis, & dissertation components that are, by their nature, specific to graduate programs, and the process for adjudicating alleged academic integrity violations related to these components. These guidelines pertain specifically to academic misconduct related to doctoral candidacy or qualifier exams, thesis/dissertation proposals, thesis/dissertation documents and benchmark/capstone graduate projects. All other allegations of graduate student dishonesty or misconduct which occur in coursework fall under the university’s standard Academic Integrity Policy including, but not limited to, plagiarism on course papers, cheating on tests and exams, collaborating with other students during individual work, and academic misconduct in other course assignments.

II. ACCOUNTABILITY

Under direction of the Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, all University Deans shall implement this policy and all faculty shall ensure compliance with the policy.

III. APPLICABILITY

This policy applies to all graduate students, staff, and faculty of Rowan University.

IV. DEFINITIONS

1. Academic Integrity: Academic integrity is the commitment to and demonstration of honest and ethical behavior in an academic setting, including but not limited to: not cheating, fabricating results, or plagiarizing; conducting ethical research; respecting others’ writing, ideas, and intellectual property; and complying with copyright laws.
2. Cheating: Cheating is an act of deception by which a person misrepresents his or her mastery of material on a qualifying or candidacy exam.
3. Fabrication: Fabrication refers to the use of invented information or the falsification of research findings.
4. Plagiarism: Plagiarism occurs when a person represents someone else's words, ideas, phrases, sentences, or data as one's own work. When submitting work that includes someone else's words, ideas, syntax, data, computer code, visual images, other non-textual materials, or organizational patterns, the source of that information must be acknowledged through complete, accurate, and specific references. All verbatim statements must be acknowledged through quotation marks and using proper citations. 
5. Self-Plagiarism: Self-plagiarism occurs when an author reuses their own work and passes it off as original or new. Self-plagiarism could occur when a student reuses an assignment they already submitted as part of a course requirement without receiving prior approval from their instructor or uses research findings already published in conference proceedings or a journal. Self-plagiarism can have serious legal consequences if copyright law is violated.
6. Instructor: In this context, instructor refers most commonly to the primary research advisor for the student, but may also include test proctors, graduate teaching fellows, and other such surrogates acting on behalf of an instructor. It is understood that graduate examination components (qualifiers, proposals, theses, and dissertations) may be completed outside of a course context. 

V. POLICY

1. The integrity of education is imperative to Rowan University's mission. Violations of academic integrity reflect negatively on the academic program, the School of Graduate Studies, the University, the student, and the greater academic community.
2. While acknowledging the social and collaborative nature of research and disseminating findings through publications or conferences, the University expects that research/scholarly outputs will reflect individual understanding and efforts.
3. All members of the Rowan community are responsible for: understanding what constitutes academic misconduct; upholding academic integrity standards and encouraging others to do likewise; and knowing the procedures, rights, and obligations involved. Academic misconduct in any form will not be tolerated. Students who commit an act of academic misconduct are subject to disciplinary sanctions. 
4. Rowan University recognizes that students have educational experiences prior to and during their time at Rowan that result in varying levels of knowledge and skills related to academic integrity and acknowledges that students may need additional support to ensure sufficient preparation. At the same time, at the level of candidacy or qualifier exams and thesis/dissertation submission, students are responsible for understanding and practicing ethical research conduct, respect for intellectual property, and compliance with copyright laws. Therefore, expectations and standards are higher at this level.
5. Violations of academic integrity on graduate examination, thesis, & dissertation components are classified into two levels based on intent, seriousness of the behavior(s), and possible sanctions imposed:
   1. A lower-level violation may occur because of carelessness or ignorance of the student. Examples include but are not limited to: Improper footnoting, improperly paraphrasing or improper use/citation of quoted material, or self-plagiarism of one’s previous academic assignments or previously published work where no prior approval had been given. 
   2. An upper-level violation is more serious in nature and involves intent, dishonesty, or negligence. Examples include but are not limited to: failing to acknowledge all sources of information and contributors, unauthorized assistance with academic work or scholarship, copying from or giving assistance to others on comprehensive or qualifying exams, using forbidden material or electronic devices on a comprehensive or qualifying exam, continuing to write after a timed exam has ended, presenting the work of another as one’s own, purchasing a paper or portion of a paper, falsifying or fabricating data, changing answers after an exam has been returned, or sabotaging another’s work. Uploading exams answers to a website may be an academic integrity violation; students should consult with their professor before posting material online.
6. Reporting Of Graduate-Level Academic Integrity Violations
   1. A student or University employee (including candidacy and exam proctors, graduate teaching fellows, and other such surrogates) who has witnessed an apparent act of academic misconduct or has information that reasonably leads to the conclusion that such an act has or will occur must inform the instructor or the Office of the Provost (in cases where the alleged violation occurs outside of a course context).  An instructor who believes that a student has attempted or committed an apparent act of academic misconduct must investigate the matter. Instructors are encouraged to consult with staff in the Office of the Provost via academicintegrity@rowan.edu.
   2. The instructor must make reasonable attempts to meet with the student in question as soon as possible. When necessary, such meetings may be conducted by telephone, video conferencing, or electronic mail rather than in-person. In this meeting every effort must be made to preserve the basic teacher/student relationship.
   3. Instructors are encouraged to consult with the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies or Office of the Provost if they believe that a lower-level violation could be remediated without a hearing (such as having the student re-submit the document in instances where revisions are a normal part of instructor/student engagement).
   4. The instructor must then submit the Maxient electronic Report of an Academic Integrity Violation (RAIV)including all supplemental documentation. A student may not withdraw from a course in which they have committed or have been accused of committing an academic integrity violation, including courses related to the completion of a qualifier/candidacy exam or thesis/dissertation document. Upon receipt of a RAIV, a student found to have withdrawn from a course in which an academic integrity violation is alleged or determined will be re-enrolled in the course by the Office of the Provost. In addition, a student found responsible for an academic integrity violation in a course in which the student has participated but has not enrolled will be retroactively enrolled and assigned an appropriate sanction.
   5. Students should note that in some cases, investigations into allegations of academic misconduct or resulting sanctions may impact the student’s thesis/dissertation timeline or graduation.
7. Adjudication Of Academic Integrity Violations
   1. The Office of the Provost receives all RAIV case files and conducts an examination into whether the student has had previous graduate-level academic integrity violations, including violations covered by the university’s standard Academic Integrity Policy. If a student has had a previous graduate-level academic integrity violation of any nature, their case will automatically be elevated to an upper-level violation.
   2. For lower-level violations, a hearing may be waived if both instructor and student agree to waive the hearing and this is documented in writing (which could be an email exchange). Hearings for upper-level violations cannot be waived. For upper-level violations and lower-level violations in which hearings are not waived, an Academic Integrity Violation Review Board is convened by the Office of the Provost. In the case that that student does not respond to the hearing scheduler within five (5) business days of initial outreach, a hearing will be scheduled and proceeded with in-absentia.
   3. The Review Board hearing is convened by a representative from the Office of the Provost. The convener will be a nonvoting member of the Board.
   4. The Board is composed of a pool of members:
      1. Two graduate student members.
      2. Two full-time faculty members who teach in graduate programs. 
      3. Two members of the administration.
   5. When convening the Board for adjudication of an allegation of academic dishonesty, a quorum of four Board members consisting of at least one student, one faculty member, and one administrator must be present.
      Following the hearing, the Office of the Provost provides the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies with the case file, recording of the hearing, and confidential Board letter. The Dean of the School of Graduate Studies completes an independent review of the case while keeping in mind the recommendation provided by the Board.
   6. Both the Review Board and the Dean of the Graduate School make a written recommendation to the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs based on a preponderance of the evidence, as the burden of proof is on the complainant. The Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs then prepares a final determination letter including any recommended sanctions that is disseminated to all key parties (complainant, student, graduate advisor, and the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies, and the Dean of the College/School in which the student’s graduate program is housed).
8. Rights in Hearings
   1. The University disciplinary system is not a criminal or civil law process and the legal procedures applicable in criminal and civil cases will not apply. This process is not intended to supersede any existing law or regulation.
   2. The burden of proof rests upon the complainant, who must establish, on the basis of the standard of a "preponderance of evidence," that it was "more likely than not" that the accused student is responsible for the violation based on the weight of the credible information presented.
   3. University disciplinary hearings will accord the following specific rights to all students:
      1. To receive written notice of the alleged violation.
      2. To contribute to and have reasonable access to the case materials prior to and during any hearing.
      3. To have access to advice by an individual of his or her choosing, including an attorney. However, the advisor may not participate in the hearing. The student must sign a FERPA waiver indicating they have consented to have the individual present.
      4. To participate in the hearing, present information on their own behalf, call witnesses, and question information provided at their hearing. This does not include the right to directly question witnesses.
      5. To receive written notification of the decision reached and a list of any sanctions imposed.
9. Possible Sanctions
   1. Cases of academic dishonesty in which the burden of proof was met will be penalized as appropriate under the circumstances. A student may receive a single or multiple sanctions for violations. Factors to be considered in deciding sanctions can include the student’s past academic integrity violation(s) in their graduate program and the nature and severity of the violation under consideration.
   2. Lower-level violation sanctions may include but are not limited to: 
      1. Letter of reprimand and warning.
      2. Requirement to rectify work where evidence of academic dishonesty was found.
      3. Meeting with the Writing Center to discuss plagiarism and/or self-plagiarism and strategies to avoid these academic integrity violations.
      4. Requirement to participate in an educational program designed to lower the likelihood of occurrence of any further violations.
      5. Plagiarism readings to help assist the student in better understanding plagiarism at the graduate level and strategies for avoiding these academic integrity violations.
      6. Failure of assignment (in cases related to a graduate student candidacy/qualifier exam and/or proposal).
      7. Notation of academic integrity violation on transcript. The notation can be removed from the transcript at the student's request provided the student has had no further academic integrity violations for one calendar year (365) days. The student can have a maximum of one such notation removed in his/her career as a Rowan student.
   3. Upper-level violation sanctions may include but are not limited to:
      1. Any lower-level sanction.
      2. Academic integrity probation. Academic integrity probation indicates that a student is no longer in good standing with the university vis-à-vis academic integrity (this status is distinct from academic probation, which concerns academic performance). Any subsequent academic integrity violation while in this status will likely result in suspension or expulsion from the university.
      3. Forfeiture of awards, funding, tuition waivers, or university employment positions held by the student such as assistantships or fellowships.
      4. Ineligibility for certain awards, funding, honors, and special programs.
      5. Defined period of suspension for up to one year. Beginning on the date the suspension takes effect, the student is no longer a registered student and may not: attend classes, take candidacy or qualifying exams, receive thesis/dissertation guidance, receive grades for the period of the suspension. In addition, while in this status, the student is not permitted to be present on the campus or at a University-sponsored event for any reason. The suspension will be noted on the student's academic transcript as disciplinary suspension. The notation will remain on the student’s transcript permanently. The student is not entitled to any refund of any fees after published refund dates.
      6. Expulsion. Beginning on the date the expulsion takes effect, the student may never again be a registered student, may never attend classes, nor receive grades. In addition, the student may never be present on the campus nor at a University-sponsored event for any reason. The expulsion will be noted on the student's academic transcript as Academic Integrity Expulsion. The student is not entitled to any refund of any fees after published refund dates.
      7. Revocation of an awarded degree.
      8. Additional sanctions may be considered by the Office of the Provost when requested by the Review Board, the instructor, the academic unit in which the violation occurred, or the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies.