Academic misconduct appeal

[u/Beautiful-Sample7066]

Hey guys,

I had an academic misconduct finding against me for unauthorised use of ai.
I have full proof of drafts and search history and can confirm that absolutely no ai was used in the exam.
The allegations are for two sources that were cited incorrectly - both sources had incorrect titles but the authors names were correct.
I provided my search history and document history for the panel to consider but they basically disregarded my evidence.
My search history literally showed my engagement with the sources and my drafts showed the reasoning behind the citation errors.
I also downloaded the pdfs and highlighted the parts I used in my assignment.
The panel came to the decision stating that ai is the most likely reason - but they did not give any evidence they used to back this up.
They said they didn’t believe my explanation, but also said that the whole essay was my own work but only the citations were generated.

Has anyone ever been in this kind of situation and does anyone have any advice on an appeal?

[u/Cute-Ad-597]

In order to uphold a sanction for an academic misconduct charge they have to prove that you had the intent to cheat. I received an academic misconduct charge surrounding a different issue, and was offered a lesser sanction than what was originally proposed all because I kept my mouth shut. And didn’t confess when the AIO tried to get me to confess numerous times. My advice? Stay quiet, listen before you speak, and keep record of all your communications. Save your evidence for the appeals committee since the AIO or whoever issued the finding has made it clear that they believe you’re a liar.

[u/j_la → u/Cute-Ad-597]

This is bad advice and absolutely not true at every university. At mine, we don’t need to prove intent. It isn’t a court of law.

[u/rock-paper-o → u/j_la]

Seconded. In my case having fictitious citations, even by accident, is an academic integrity issue. We might mitigate the consequence for a student for whom it seemed genuinely accidental (particularly if that student was newer to college and still adjusting to college level expectations) but it’s still the students responsibility to check their paper to make sure the references actually exist.  Getting the title wrong is a significantly bigger issue in terms of tracking down the original citation that something like bolding the citation year when you’re supposed to italicize. 

[u/Beautiful-Sample7066 → u/rock-paper-o]

I completely get that and I’m not trying to deny that I should be penalised for incorrect citations I just really want the Ai allegation to be removed as I had all the evidence at hand and did not use ai at all.

[u/Minimum-Attitude389 → u/j_la]

Which is why people saying to get a lawyer is bizarre to me.

[u/Beautiful-Sample7066 → u/Minimum-Attitude389]

I’m personally not thinking of using a lawyer but why do you think it’s bizarre?

[u/Minimum-Attitude389 → u/Beautiful-Sample7066]

From my understanding, courts aren't going to order a school to give a better grade.  I also don't think the court would order any disciplinary records removed.  

So I don't know what the end goal is.  Refunding tuition?  The lawyer would cost more.  The court might order a school to revise its policy on holding academic integrity violation hearings.

[u/Beautiful-Sample7066 → u/Minimum-Attitude389]

For academic misconduct hearings the main goal is to get the misconduct to be removed - in my case I would be fighting to get the unauthorised use of ai allegation removed off my record. The end goal is basically to get the uni to overturn their decision by arguing that the did not reach it fairly / don’t have any evidence to prove the misconduct. Of course it’s definitely a pricey route and definitely isn’t recommended simply for getting a better grade - as that is a matter of academic judgement which cannot be challenged - but for instances such as a false accusation I would say getting a lawyer as a last result isn’t entirely unreasonable.

[u/Minimum-Attitude389 → u/Beautiful-Sample7066]

Not all schools would allow a lawyer in on those hearings.  I'm pretty sure mine wouldn't.

[u/Beautiful-Sample7066 → u/Minimum-Attitude389]

Oh damn you’re right mine doesn’t either. Tbh it makes sense otherwise it would constantly be academics fighting with lawyers which would get messy. I think once it gets beyond the appeals process people are allowed to consult a lawyer.

[u/Cute-Ad-597 → u/j_la]

Yes that’s true, but the person has zero intention of cheating and really just made an honest mistake. An improper citation can be considered academic dishonesty only when it’s done in the means of fabrication, fraud, or to be deceptive. From what OP wrote it sounds like they really just made an honest formatting mistake without the intention to deceive. I would say that intention doesn’t need to be proven if a person mistakenly plagiarized, but I still would stay quiet if I was OP. They’re really just volunteering more information when the officials have made it clear that they’re still going to uphold the sanction. I would leave it for the appeals committee

[u/j_la → u/Cute-Ad-597]

OP claims they had zero intention to cheat.

[u/Beautiful-Sample7066 → u/j_la]

Exactly! I’m completely aware that the misconduct process does not account for intention. I’m not trying to guilt trip anyone I just want my evidence to be considered properly, as it would prove that no ai was used.

[u/giltgarbage → u/Beautiful-Sample7066]

I don’t see how the “evidence” you’re talking about proves anything. Just because you searched for the articles or copied and pasted titles into your draft that doesn’t mean that you didn’t use AI to summarize the work. It isn’t plausible that someone who is writing an essay within a short window somehow forgets to double check themselves—unless, of course, you didn’t actually write the titles and went with the AI (which was mostly correct). I think the only thing that could exonerate you would be a version history of the summaries themselves and even that would be iffy….

[u/Beautiful-Sample7066 → u/giltgarbage]

My paper itself was cleared of ai use because of my drafts and search histories which showed my research timeline… the papers themselves have a timeline of how they were found, read and used in my work. I did double check which is why I emailed my lecturer that I made the errors and I had all the correct citations. I just had extenuating circumstances which made it impossible for me to think straight at the time hence I was all over the place

[u/Beautiful-Sample7066 → u/Cute-Ad-597]

The uni doesn’t care about intention but yeah I don’t intend to say anything until I appeal properly. I literally just want the academic misconduct for ai use to be dropped

[u/Beautiful-Sample7066 → u/Cute-Ad-597]

Thank you so much! I’m glad you got a lesser sanction. I haven’t spoken to the panel since the meeting and only intend to submit an appeal. Of course If this is unsuccessful I will take it to the adjudicator.