- Research Misconduct
- Academic Misconduct
- Reporting Known or Suspected Violations of the Honor Code
- Honor Board Hearings
- Record Retention
Enrollment requires each student to conduct all activities in accordance with the rules and spirit of the school’s Honor Code and Academic Integrity Policy (“Policy”). Students are required to be truthful and exercise integrity and honesty in all of their academic endeavors.
By the act of registering, each student automatically becomes a participant in the honor system. In addition, students accept a statement during registration acknowledging that the student has read and understands the Honor Code obligations. Students are subject to this policy not only when enrolled in the school’s courses, but also when enrolled in courses in other university divisions or schools (interdivisional registration) within Johns Hopkins, in language courses through Georgetown University or when enrolled in exchange programs. Academic misconduct in the context of those “outside” courses will be subject to and resolved under this policy.
Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. For a complete definition, refer to The Johns Hopkins University Research Integrity Policy. This applies to all University faculty, trainees, students, and staff engaged in the proposing, performing, reviewing, or reporting of research, regardless of funding source. Allegations of research misconduct regarding a student should be referred to the Research Integrity Officer for assessment under that Policy, but may also be directed to the department chair or Dean of the responsible unit where the alleged research misconduct occurred.
Academic misconduct is prohibited by this Policy. Academic misconduct is any action or attempted action that may result in creating an unfair academic advantage for oneself or an unfair academic advantage or disadvantage for any other member or members of the academic community. This includes a wide variety of behaviors such as cheating, plagiarism, altering academic documents or transcripts, gaining access to materials before they are meant to be available, and helping another individual to gain an unfair academic advantage. Nonexclusive examples of academic misconduct are listed below.
- Committing fraud, deceit or dishonesty in an academic assignment, text, or examination
- Discussing, without permission, a test or exam during its administration
- Giving or accepting unauthorized assistance from others on assignments or in taking tests or examinations. Unauthorized assistance includes sharing oral and copying written information for assignments or during tests or exams or consulting written or electronic materials not authorized by the faculty member for assignments or during tests or exams.
- Having books, notes, papers or other extraneous matter that are not specifically authorized on the student’s desk during a test or exam
- Taking tests or exams out of the exam room without the faculty member or proctor’s permission, or without prior approval for accommodations for students with disabilities, and taking longer than the allotted time to complete a test or exam
- Using or consulting unauthorized or inappropriate materials (such as notes, books or other materials or sources) for assignments, tests or exams
- Using or consulting unauthorized electronic equipment or software (such as calculators, cellular phones, computers, tablets, etc.) in connection with an assignment, test, exam or in or outside of a testing or exam room unless authorized by the faculty member. If a cell phone, computer or tablet is allowed in the testing or exam room, the device is not allowed to be accessed out of the room during the test or exam.
- Obtaining a copy of a test or an examination or its answers prior to its administration; unless permitted by the faculty member, earlier exam versions may not be circulated or used for preparation purposes.
- Using paper writing services or paper databases
- Collaborating with another individual on assignments, tests or exams without permission
- Submitting an assignment, test or exam for a re-grade after modifying the original content submitted
- Permitting another individual to contribute to or complete an assignment or take a test or exam on the student’s behalf
- Submitting the same or substantially similar work, assignment, test or exam to fulfill the requirements of more than one course or different requirements within the same course without the faculty member’s permission
- Tampering with, disabling or damaging equipment for testing or evaluation
- Receiving unauthorized English language assistance on any exams, including take-home exams. Students may, however, receive assistance with grammar or technical writing through the English Language Studies Program or the Writing Center on assigned papers. Students must notify their faculty members if they received any grammar or technical writing assistance on their papers.
- Presenting someone else’s ideas or words as your own.
- Using material produced by another person without acknowledging its source
- Using another person’s ideas or words without giving appropriate credit or documentation
- Using the results of another individual’s work (such as another individual’s paper, exam, homework, etc.) while representing it as your own
- Failing to document/acknowledge quotations, words, ideas, views, or paraphrased passages taken from published or unpublished sources
- Copying passages from works of others into your homework, essay, term paper, or dissertation without acknowledgement
- Paraphrasing of another person’s characteristic or original phraseology, metaphor, or other literary device without acknowledgement
- Falsifying or fabricating data/information for papers, assignments, tests or exams
- Citing nonexistent sources or creating false information in an assignment
- Attributing ideas or information to a source that are not included in the source
- Forging University or other official documents (such as letters, transcripts, etc.)
- Falsely representing degree completion or academic status
- Impersonating a faculty or staff member
- Requesting special consideration from faculty members or University officials based upon false information or deception
- Fabricating a reason (such as a medical emergency, etc.) for needing an extension or for missing an assignment, test or examination
- Falsely claiming to have completed and/or turned in an assignment, test or exam
- Falsely reporting an academic ethics violation by another student
- Failing to identify oneself honestly in the context of an academic obligation
- Providing false or misleading information to a faculty member or any other University official
Facilitating Academic Dishonesty
- Intentionally or knowingly aiding another student to commit an academic ethics violation
- Allowing another student to copy from one's own assignment, test, or examination
- Making available copies of course materials whose circulation is prohibited (such as old assignments, texts or examinations, etc.)
- Completing an assignment or taking a test or examination for another student
- Sharing paper mill/answer bank websites or information with other students
- Intentionally damaging the academic efforts of another student
- Stealing another student's academic materials (such as books, notes, assignments, etc.)
- Denying another student needed University resources (such as hiding library materials, stealing lab equipment, etc.)
Failing to Report Alleged Violation
- Failing to report any known or suspected violation of the Policy
Failing to Follow Applicable Policies, Procedures, Rules
- Failing to follow applicable JHU, divisional/school, program, course, and/or faculty policies, procedures, or rules regarding academic ethics.
Reporting Known or Suspected Violations of the Honor Code
Students, faculty, and staff are required to promptly report known or suspected violations of the Policy.
Known or suspected violations of the Policy must be reported to the Assistant Deans for Student or Academic Affairs or the Director of Student Life or Faculty Liaison at SAIS Europe. Any reported violations will be addressed in accordance with the procedures below.
Procedures for First-Time Offenses
- If a faculty member suspects a student of a violation or receives a report of a known or suspected violation, the faculty member responsible for the course in which the misconduct allegedly occurred must first promptly review with the student the facts of the case. If the faculty member believes that misconduct has occurred, the faculty member must consult with the Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs, who also acts as the Chief Integrity Officer [CIO]. The CIO determines whether the offense is a first offense for that student.
- If a first offense, the faculty member may resolve the case directly with the student, including reaching an agreement with the student on an appropriate resolution (such as a rewrite of the paper or a reduction of the overall grade of the paper, assignment, or exam). If such an agreement is reached, the faculty member must promptly provide the student with a letter or email outlining the resolution with the charges, summary of the evidence, the findings, and the sanctions and simultaneously send a copy of the letter or email to the CIO.
- The case will proceed to the Honor Board Hearing for any of the following reasons:
- it is the student’s first offense, but the faculty member supports a sanction greater than failure in the course
- the faculty member is unable to reach a resolution with the student
- the faculty member believes the nature of the violation necessitates a Hearing
- it is the student’s second or subsequent offense
The faculty member must promptly notify the CIO in writing of the alleged violations, evidence, including potential witnesses, and other pertinent details about the case.
Honor Board Hearings
- An Honor Board Hearing will be convened in a timely manner by the Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs at the Washington, DC campus or the Director of Student Life or Faculty Liaison at SAIS Europe, who will appoint faculty and staff to sit on the board. The Honor Board will normally include an academic dean or their designee at the Washington, DC Campus or the Director or their designee at SAIS Europe. The Honor Board Hearing will generally consist of four to six faculty or staff members.
- The Assistant Dean for Student or Academic Affairs at the Washington, DC campus or the Director of Student Life at SAIS Europe will contact the student in writing prior to the hearing, detail the charges and evidence, meet with the student before the Honor Board Hearing, chair the Honor Board Hearing, and present the outcome to both the student and the Dean.
- The student has the right to hear all evidence against them and to present evidence in their defense. Students are not permitted to bring an advocate or supporter to the hearing.
- The Honor Board determines, based on the preponderance of evidence, whether the student’s actions constitute a violation of this Policy. A “preponderance of evidence” standard is an evidentiary standard that means “more likely than not.” This standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true.
- If the Honor Board determines that the student’s actions constitute a violation of the Policy, the Honor Board determines the sanctions. The Honor Board may consult with the faculty member. The Dean is notified of the sanctions and all other relevant information about the case and the hearing.
- The Honor Board shall make its determination of responsibility and recommended sanctions based on majority agreement.
Possible sanctions against students include without limitation a formal warning, reduction of or failing grade, probation, suspension, or expulsion. The school reserves the right, in its discretion, to impose more stringent or different sanctions depending on the facts and circumstances of a particular case.
Regardless of the judgment, an Honor Board is empowered to advise the faculty member associated with the case that an exam or assignment may have been compromised. The Honor Board may advise the faculty member that some remedial action, such as downgrading the importance of the exam or assignment, may be appropriate.
Except in the case of a resolution for first time offenses with a faculty member, the student may appeal an Honor Board’s outcome to the Dean. The student must file a written appeal within five (5) days of the date of the notice of outcome strictly based on one or more of the following grounds:
- There was a procedural error that could have materially affected the determination of responsibility or sanction(s)
- New information is provided that was not available at the time of the hearing that could reasonably have affected the determination of the outcome
- In cases of expulsion, reviews whether the sanction is excessive
The Dean will review the appeal, consult with the chair of the Honor Board and make a final decision. There is no additional appeal allowed after this process.
All case files concerning a student will be retained for seven (7) years from the date that the student graduates or otherwise leaves the university.