Academic Integrity

Policy Statement

Adelphi University maintains a unified policy related to the reporting, investigation, and resolution of academic integrity incidents.

Reason for Policy

The purpose of the policy on Academic Integrity is to clearly identify Adelphi University’s stance and requirements on academic integrity. This policy and related procedures exist to provide all parties with an administrative framework for reporting and resolving academic integrity complaints, in keeping with the collective bargaining rights of faculty and the academic freedoms enjoyed by both Adelphi University students and faculty.

Who is Governed by This Policy?

All students (graduate and undergraduate) and faculty.

Policy

Students are expected to act with integrity in pursuit of their academic endeavors. Violations of the Honor Code and Code of Academic Integrity are prohibited. If there is an alleged violation of academic integrity, all students are entitled to fundamental fairness and the procedures discussed herein.

Honor Code

“The University is an academic community devoted to the pursuit of knowledge. Fundamental to this pursuit is academic integrity. In joining the Adelphi community, I accept the University’s Code of Academic Integrity and pledge to uphold the principles of honesty and civility embodied in it. I will conduct myself in accordance with ideals of truth and honesty.”

Code of Academic Integrity

The Code of Academic Integrity prohibits any behavior that violates the norms of trust, transparency, and originality that underpin academic life. Violations may include behavior that can broadly be described as lying, cheating, or stealing and may also include misrepresenting the sources of information submitted or the way an assignment was created.

Violations of the Code of Academic Integrity are defined as follows:

• Fabricating data or citations: Intentionally fabricating or generating by methods other than those usual in the discipline any form of information or evidence, including citations, text, notes, illustrations, or data.
• Collaborating in areas not approved by the professor: Collaboration between two or more students enrolled in the same section on any assignment—tests, quizzes, forum posts, lab work, projects, presentations, and all others—unless specifically permitted by the instructor.
• Unauthorized multiple submission of one’s own work: Submitting any previously submitted work, in whole or in part, for any class without the permission of the instructor and proper acknowledgement.
• Sabotage of others’ work, including library vandalism or manipulation: Any act that deliberately restricts others’ use of or access to instructional materials, including library resources, lab equipment, computer hardware or software, or materials posted for class use. Deliberately harming another student’s academic progress or standing, including by falsifying or tampering with lab work or experiments, preventing others from completing required assignments, or modifying group work without others’ knowledge in a way that causes deliberate harm.
• Plagiarism: Plagiarism is the submission of any material–text, images, audio, paraphrases, or ideas–that is not the student’s own original work without proper acknowledgment. The presence of any such material in a submission is sufficient to support a charge of plagiarism, which does not require proof of intent or the wholesale copying of another’s work. Materials generated by many AI tools may fall under this heading. Nevertheless, students must remember that as a general rule it is their responsibility to clearly indicate the location and source of material that is not their own original work, whether that material derives from another person, sources found online or elsewhere, or from any technology that generates, paraphrases, or reworks text.
• The facilitation of dishonesty: Deliberately aiding another student in an effort to violate the standards of academic integrity. For example, allowing another student to see one’s exam, lab work, or other assignment for which collaboration is forbidden; completing or substantially revising another student’s assignment; posting course materials; or failing to take reasonable measures to safeguard one’s own work from access by others.
• Tampering with or falsifying records: Falsifying a form or document relating to academic matters, for example: add/drop forms, incomplete contracts, petitions, and any documents relating to attendance, including sign-in sheets, doctor notes, athletic travel requirements, and all others.
• Cheating: Consulting or using any unauthorized form of assistance during an exam, test, quiz, or similar assignment. This includes, but is not limited to, looking at another student’s materials or at a book, electronic device, or notes; receiving assistance by means of audio equipment; or consulting any other materials not permitted by the instructor. Cheating is also understood to include sharing or having advance access to exam material and deliberately violating the time constraints or other requirements of an examination.

Definitions

This policy does not have definitions associated with it at this time. Upon periodic policy review this area will be evaluated to determine if additional information is needed to supplement the policy.

Procedures

The individual or office responsible for investigating and adjudicating academic integrity violations depends upon the severity of the alleged conduct. Typically, an academic integrity violation will be investigated and resolved by the reporting course faculty member. However, academic integrity violations may be referred to Student Conduct and Community Standards (SCCS) for investigation and adjudication when the alleged conduct is severe enough to warrant a potential sanction of university suspension or expulsion were the student to be found “responsible.”

Upon submission, SCCS, in consultation with the Academic Integrity Officer (IO), will review all integrity reports to determine if the matter should be referred to SCCS for investigation and adjudication. If so, SCCS will conduct the investigation and reach a resolution of the case. In cases referred to SCCS, the procedures and rights outlined in the Code of Conduct will apply.

For all other matters, responsibility for the investigation and resolution rests with the reporting faculty member, and the procedures and rights outlined in this Policy will apply.

When a matter involves potential violations of both the Academic Integrity Policy and the Code of Conduct, SCCS may invoke the student conduct process against any student (graduate or undergraduate) for any potential Code of Conduct violations other than academic integrity.

Incident reporting and initial assessment

An academic integrity advocate is available to the student throughout the academic integrity process (investigation, resolution, and appeal).

Part One: Submission and review of report

A faculty member or campus administrator administering educational content on behalf of a faculty member who suspects a student of committing an academic integrity violation shall submit a report via the Maxient Case Manager system as soon as possible, preferably within two (2) business days of the possible violation being discovered by the faculty member.

• The submitted incident report shall be routed to the university’s Academic Integrity Officer (IO), with a copy provided to the Student Conduct and Community Standards office.
• In the event the incident report is filed by the Integrity Officer (in his or her faculty role) the Integrity Officer will be considered a reporting faculty member and the Student Conduct officer will carry out the responsibilities of the Integrity Officer for that report. Upon receipt of a submitted incident report, a two-step (2-step) review of the report will be conducted. The review of the submitted incident report will be completed within five (5) business days of the report receipt.
  • The IO shall review the received report to determine whether the report follows the procedures and guidelines published on the Committee for Academic Integrity website.
    • If the submitted report meets the guidelines and criteria published on the Committee for Academic Integrity’s website, the IO shall move the report forward as described in Part Two of this policy.
    • If the submitted report does not meet the guidelines and criteria published on the Committee for Academic Integrity’s website, the IO shall notify the reporting faculty member of the concerns in the report.
      • The reporting faculty member shall have the option to remedy concerns and resubmit the report. The reporting faculty member shall have five (5) business days to rectify the report and resubmit it to the IO, via the online reporting system. The submitted report will not be moved to Part Two of the review process until the concerns are addressed.
      • If the reporting faculty member chooses not to address the concerns in the report, the IO shall discard the original report, with a note indicating that the faculty did not provide a report that satisfies the criteria outlined by the Committee on Academic Integrity.
      • The faculty member shall not post any grade, regarding the assignment or the final course grade, for the student until the incident is resolved, including any appeal.
      • In addition, the reporting faculty member shall ensure his or her availability throughout this process, which can take up to 15 days from the completion of Part II of this process or even longer, depending on the outcome of the appeal process.

Part Two: Determination of applicable policy

Once the IO determines that the submitted incident report is ready for further processing, the IO shall consult with the Director of Student Conduct and Community Standards to determine if the allegations are severe enough to warrant a potential sanction(s) of university suspension or university expulsion if the student were to be found “responsible.” This determination will be made within two business days of receiving a report.

• If the allegations are not severe enough to warrant a potential sanction(s) of university suspension or expulsion, the IO shall process the report consistent with the steps outlined below under Part Three.
• If allegations are severe enough to warrant a potential sanction(s) of university suspension or expulsion, the IO shall release the incident report to the Student Conduct and Community Standards office for processing of the report through the process outlined in the Code of Conduct.

Faculty Directed Resolution Procedures

Part Three: Student response

The IO shall notify the accused student of the allegation. The notification shall include the following information:

• The name of the reporting faculty member;
• The course in which the suspected violation occurred;
• The date on which the suspected violation occurred;
• The type of violation suspected;
• A copy of the narrative section of the submitted incident report;
• Any supporting information provided by the reporting faculty member about the possible violation;
• Information about the role and use of an academic integrity advocate in the academic integrity process;
• An expectation that the student and the reporting faculty member meet to further discuss and attempt resolution of the incident. The onus is on the reporting faculty member to attempt to schedule a meeting with the student.
• A link to the academic integrity response form
• The reporting faculty member shall attempt to schedule a meeting with the student to discuss the allegation and the student’s response.
  • The student may request a continuance of the meeting, due to extenuating circumstances. Such a request must be made within the original response deadline.
  • It is advised that the faculty member retain copies of correspondence sent to the student.
• The student shall have five (5) business days to respond to the report in writing, if desired.
  • Any written response to the possible violation shall utilize the integrity response form.
  • The student shall have the following options to choose from when responding in writing:
    1. I ADMIT the behavior described in the report and accept responsibility for violating the code of academic integrity.
    2. I ADMIT the behavior, but DO NOT feel that it constitutes a violation.
    3. I DO NOT admit that I did the things described in the report.

Part Four: Faculty determination

Before reaching a determination, the faculty member must consider the student’s response and any evidence presented, whether during the meeting, provided in writing, or both. The determination of responsibility shall be made using the preponderance standard, meaning whether it is more likely than not that a policy violation occurred.

• The reporting faculty member shall complete the academic decision form as soon as possible, but no later than five business days from receipt of the student’s response. Reports pending determination for more than five business days after the student’s response may be discarded by the IO.
• The reporting faculty member shall identify any assignment and grade penalties proposed.
• In all cases adjudicated by the faculty member, the IO may impose educational sanctions relevant to the specific incident.

The decision shall be sent by the IO on behalf of the reporting faculty to the student in writing.

Following the expiration of the deadline for appeal submission, the faculty member may impose the academic penalty described in the report, and the matter concludes.

Appeals

• A student may submit a request for appeal of the reporting faculty member’s decision and/or sanction(s) using the online appeal submission form.
  • An appeal must be based on one (1) or more of the following grounds:
    • There was a substantive procedural error that occurred which materially affected the outcome (minor deviations of procedure that do not materially affect the outcome are ineligible for appeal). The referenced procedures are those posted on the website of the Committee for Academic Integrity and in this policy.
    • There is evidence of bias against the student by the reporting faculty member;
    • The imposed academic penalty is inconsistent with the violation, regardless of the finding;
    • There is new information, not available at the time of resolution, that would materially alter the decision (information available during the investigation and resolution process that was not presented is not considered new evidence at the time of appeal).
  • A request for appeal must be submitted within five (5) business days of the decision letter being issued to the student.
• The IO shall consider all requests to appeal. In the case that the IO is the reporting faculty member, the Provost shall make the determination about whether or not the appeal shall qualify to be forwarded. To be forwarded to an appeal panel for consideration on the merits, the request must contain the following items:
  • A specified ground or grounds for appeal;
  • Supporting information regarding the ground(s) for appeal;
  • Submission of the appeal request form within the timeframe allotted by this policy.
    • If the request to appeal does not meet the above criteria, the IO shall have the authority to reject the appeal request. The IO will have the authority to determine if a procedural error is “substantive” or a “minor deviation” as described above but will make no other qualitative evaluation of the grounds for appeal.
    • If the appeal request meets the above criteria, the IO shall schedule an academic integrity appeal panel and place the appeal request before the panel.

Academic Integrity Appeal Panels

Creation of the pool

• The pool of appeal panel members shall consist of three groups:
  • The academic integrity advocates (appointed by the Provost to the Committee on Academic Integrity),
  • The remaining faculty members of the Committee on Academic Integrity (with the exception of the Integrity Officer and the professional staff of the student conduct office),
  • The student members of the Undergraduate Honor Council.
  • The term of appointment for each panel member shall be two (2) years for academic integrity advocates and other members of the CAI and a maximum of two years for student members.
• All appeal panel pool members must complete the Student Conduct and Community Standards University Hearing Board training modules, annually.
  • No appeal panel member may serve for any incident in which they were either the reporting faculty member, served as an advocate, or were substantively involved in the investigation or resolution of the incident.
  • The IO shall have the final authority to determine whether a particular appeal panel member is conflicted out of serving on a particular appeal panel.
• When a request to appeal is granted, the IO shall empanel an academic integrity appeal panel within five (5) business days of granting the request to appeal.
• All academic integrity appeal panels shall be comprised of three (3) panel members, one academic integrity advocate, one eligible member of the CAI, and one student.
• A majority vote shall be required for any decision rendered.
• The academic integrity appeals panel shall initially conduct a document review of all submitted case file information.
  • The academic integrity appeal panel may also, at their discretion, and acting collectively, speak with the reporting faculty member, the accused student, and/or any witnesses identified, to receive clarifying information about the incident or submitted information.
• The academic integrity appeal panel shall conclude their deliberation and issue a decision as soon as practicable, preferably within five business days of the report’s referral.
  • The academic integrity appeal panel shall use the Academic Integrity Appeal Panel Decision Form to relay their decision to the IO.
  • The appeal decision, which will be conveyed to the student and the reporting faculty member, must include the following information:
    • Decision of the faculty appeal panel;
    • Rationale for the decision
  • The decision of the academic integrity appeal panel is restricted to the following outcomes:
    • Affirmed-in favor of the student, identification of a procedural deficiency that materially affected the outcome;
    • Denied-in favor of the reporting faculty, no identification of a procedural deficiency that materially affected the outcome;
    • Affirmed-in favor of the student, identification of bias against the student that materially affected the outcome;
    • Denied-in favor of the reporting faculty, no identification of bias against the student that materially affected the outcome;
    • Affirmed-in favor of the student, affirmation that the proposed academic penalty is inconsistent with the violation;
    • Denied-in favor of the reporting faculty, refutation that the proposed academic penalty is inconsistent with the violation;
    • Affirmed-in favor of the student, affirmation that new information was sufficient to alter the outcome;
    • Denied-in favor of the reporting faculty, refutation that new information was sufficient to alter the outcome
  • If the academic integrity appeal panel returns a decision of i, v, or vii, the academic integrity appeal panel shall remand the case back to the reporting faculty member with instructions to remediate the process. Once reheard, the decision is subject to another round of appeal, as outlined in this procedure.
    • If the original report cannot be remediated in a timely manner and if the student’s circumstances require it (for example to determine academic standing, eligibility for financial aid, continued participation in athletics, graduation status, or similar circumstances), the Provost will record a final course grade based on the reporting faculty’s submission in Part One.
  • If the academic integrity appeal panel returns a decision of ii, iv, vi, or viii, the decision of the reporting faculty member shall be upheld and the grade penalty imposed forthwith.
  • If the academic integrity appeal panel returns a decision of iii, the IO will refer the case to the Provost for remediation in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Decisions of the academic integrity appeal panel are final.

Forms

• Academic Integrity Incident Report Form
• Academic Integrity Student Response Form
• Academic Integrity Decision Submission Form
• Appeal Submission Form
• Faculty Appeal Panel Decision Form

Related Information

• Faculty are encouraged to view the information on the Committee on Academic Integrity website
• Code of Conduct

Responsibilities of the University Academic Integrity Officer

Position Summary

The role of the Integrity Officer (IO) is to oversee the integrity violation reporting process, to chair the Provost’s Committee on Academic Integrity (CAI), and to serve as the primary contact for Adelphi students and faculty with questions about academic integrity in general and Adelphi’s policy and procedures in particular.

Integrity Violation Reports

During the violation reporting process, the IO will provide students and faculty with accurate and timely information and ensure that this Policy, the procedures approved by the CAI to implement it, and the guidelines approved by the CAI and posted to its website are followed during the reporting process.

The IO will not serve as an advocate for either party, nor will the IO offer an opinion about the merits of a report, possible report, or appeal, whether to students or faculty. The IO will convene and facilitate the work of appeals panels but will not have a vote on the panel. Although notifications and other forms of communication during the reporting process may be sent by the Integrity Officer, the IO plays no role whatsoever in deciding responsibility for violations, assigning assignment or course grade penalties, or recommending any university sanctions beyond those purely educational in nature.

To carry out this role, the IO will have the authority to delay transmission of a pending report that does not comply with this Policy or follow the procedures and guidelines approved by the CAI. Reporting faculty will be notified of the specific portions of the report that are not in compliance and, if they are not remedied within the timeframe specified in this policy, the IO will discard the report.

Provost’s Committee on Academic Integrity (CAI)

The IO will serve as the co-chair ex officio of the Provost’s Committee on Academic Integrity, alongside a faculty co-chair when one is chosen by the CAI, and as a full voting member of the CAI. The CAI’s role is to instill and develop a culture of academic integrity on campus, to conduct outreach to students and faculty, to propose revisions to the academic integrity reporting policies and procedures, and to develop and revise guidelines for students and faculty to follow in course syllabi, assignments, and other course materials as those materials concern academic integrity.

To provide the campus with accurate and timely information about the broader subject of academic integrity, the IO will collect campus reporting data, stay up to date on relevant issues (including but not limited to GenAI technology), attend regional and national meetings and training as appropriate, and make this information available to the campus community.

Appointment

The Integrity Officer is appointed by and reports to the Provost. The Integrity Officer will be chosen by the Provost from among the full-time faculty in consultation with the CAI. In the event that a full-time faculty member willing to serve in the role cannot be found, the Integrity Officer will be appointed by the Provost from among the staff of the Student Conduct Office.

Document History

• Last Reviewed Date: March 1, 2026
• Last Revised Date: March 1, 2026
• Policy Origination Date: January 1, 2001

Who Approved This Policy?

• Approved by the Faculty Senate on May 4, 2026
• Approved by the Provost’s Academic Integrity Committee May 1, 2026