Graduate Student Academic Integrity

During the 2024-25 Academic Year, allegations of academic misconduct by PhD and plan I masters students will be addressed under the Graduate Student Academic Misconduct policy.

Allegations of academic misconduct of professional and all other masters students will be adjudicated by the Center for Student Conduct under the Code of Conduct (unless the Academic Unit a student belongs to has locally adopted the Graduate Academic Misconduct Policy (see below). 

**

The Graduate Student Academic Misconduct policy lays out a process for adjudicating suspected cases for academic integrity violations. 

The policy outlines two different phases in the approach to the resolution of suspected graduate academic misconduct – an early resolution phase and a formal phase – where the Graduate Division acts as a consultant throughout the process to ensure equity and due process. 

Graduate level academic misconduct should be taken extremely seriously given that students are expected to have completed their bachelors with an understanding of ethics and integrity that they carry to their graduate level education. Furthermore, alleged academic misconduct cases are often complicated, especially at the graduate level. When an instructor suspects that a graduate student has committed an academic integrity violation, they must first discuss their suspicion with their chair or dean and with the director of Graduate Academic Conduct and Climate before attempting to resolve a suspected academic misconduct case.

Academic units (schools, colleges, departments, or graduate groups) can adopt the policy so that they can engage in the resolution of suspected graduate student academic misconduct cases locally to meet professional and collegial standards. The following academic units have internally adopted the policy to adjudicate suspected graduate student academic integrity violations locally. 

• School of Information
• Haas School of Business
• Graduate School of Journalism
• Vision Science Graduate Group 

For more information on “Local Adjudication” please contact the relevant offices in the academic units listed above.

The early resolution may be documented with an Early Resolution Form (ERF). This form is an agreement between the student, the instructor and the dean or chair. If you are an instructor who wants to document an early resolution, you must reach out to the director of Graduate Academic Conduct and Climate. If a graduate student does not agree with the allegation brought forward by the instructor or does not consent to the sanction(s) proposed by the instructor, a formal hearing process, which takes place as a committee-led investigation, must be initiated if the instructor wants to charge the student. 

During an early resolution process, the Academic Unit may not direct any actions that may affect the student’s academic  status.

Academic sanctions (i.e. class grade reduction or assignment fail) can be imposed on the graduate student only after a student has accepted responsibility for the violation and the academic sanction that is recommended by the instructor.

No further actions are required if a graduate student is found to not have engaged in academic misconduct during the early resolution process.

When an instructor suspects academic misconduct, it is imperative that they move through the resolution process with the presumption that the student is not responsible. During this process, it is crucial to inform the student about their available options. Successful early resolution relies on clear communication channels, allowing the graduate student to provide a thorough response to the suspected academic integrity violation.

If you are faculty, suspecting of graduate student academic misconduct, please note the following:

• Faculty are responsible for notifying their chair/dean and the Graduate Division if they suspect a case of academic misconduct.
• Faculty should always presume that a graduate student is not responsible for an alleged violation unless the student openly admits or is determined to be responsible after a preponderance of evidence.
• Faculty may not take any punitive action against a student upon suspicion of misconduct or during the pending resolution of an allegation./
• If grades need to be submitted, faculty must utilize a temporary notation of “RD” (Review Deferred) on the grade roster during the pending resolution of an allegation.
• Faculty have sixty (60) days to report an incident of suspected academic misconduct.

• If you suspect a case, report it to your chair or dean and the Graduate Division to make sure the student does not have a prior record. This meeting is also intended to assist the Academic Unit in approaching the matter following professional standards.
  
• Presume the student to be not responsible for the misconduct until they admit responsibility and withhold on giving academic sanctions. 
• Notify the student of your suspicion. 
• Make sure the student shares their side of the story. In this notification, refer the student to this website AND provide them copy of the student fact sheet 
• Make sure the student shares their side of the story. 
• Make sure to ask for documentation that clarifies the student’s actions and give them a deadline to submit the documents.
• Refer the student to this website AND provide them with a copy of the student fact sheet. 

The Graduate Division and the Center for Student Conduct both oversee allegations of graduate student academic misconduct matters. During the 2024-25 academic year, allegations of academic misconduct by PhD and master students with theses will be adjudicated by the Graduate Division under the Graduate Academic Misconduct Policy. Other alleged cases of academic misconduct by master students and professional students will be adjudicated under the Code by the Center for Student Conduct From the 2025-26 academic year onwards, the Graduate Division will oversee all allegations of academic misconduct by graduate and professional students.

Matters concerning student conduct (i.e., alleged violations of University Policies and/or campus regulations regarding the activity of students) are handled by the Center for Student Conduct at 203 Sproul Hall, (510) 643-9069. Additional questions concerning student conduct can be answered by calling this number.

The Berkeley Campus Code of Student Conduct administered by the Center for Student Conduct is more attuned to adjudicating cases of academic misconduct by undergraduate students. Academic and professional graduate students have different pedagogical norms and expectations, and this policy is intended to provide greater nuance to the investigation and adjudication process.

The policy outlines two different phases in the approach to the resolution of suspected graduate academic misconduct — an early resolution phase and a committee-led investigation phase — where the Graduate Division is a consultant throughout the process. When an instructor suspects that a graduate student has committed academic misconduct, they must first discuss the allegations with their chair or dean and with the Graduate Division to confirm that the student does not have a prior record of academic misconduct. If the student does not have a prior record, then the faculty member may attempt to resolve the suspected academic misconduct by discussing it with the student. This is considered the informal phase. If the student has a prior academic misconduct record, if the student and faculty member do not agree on whether misconduct occurred, or if the student or department chair/dean disagrees with the sanction, then a formal investigation is initiated. During the formal phase, a committee of at least three faculty will conduct a hearing to investigate the allegation (the student may challenge the membership of this committee) and, if the student is determined by a preponderance of evidence to be responsible, decide upon the appropriate sanction(s).

If an Academic Units adopts the Graduate Student Academic Misconduct Policy locally, suspected cases within the Academic Unit will be adjudicated within the Academic Unit. Other suspected cases will be adjudicated by the Graduate Division. If an allegation made under this policy has a connection to federal funding or the alleged misconduct occurs in connection to research intended for publication or dissemination outside the University (e.g. a doctoral dissertation or a journal article) it is considered Research Misconduct and is addressed by the Berkeley Research Misconduct Policies and Procedures.

Anyone may “Report an Incident”. All graduate academic misconduct cases are reported to the Graduate Division.

A student may be notified informally by email or in person by the individual filing a complaint, which would initiate the beginning of an informal resolution process. Cases that need to be resolved through a committee-led investigation are notified to the student with an Alleged Violation Letter (AVL) sent via email to the most recent email address in file with the University.

An AVL will include a statement about when and where the alleged violation occurred and what allegedly happened. It will also include members of the committee responsible for investigating and conducting the hearing, a specific statement of the sanction(s) that may be applied, and a proposed timeline for the completion of the academic misconduct process.

We recommend graduate students contact the Graduate Division via email [email protected] to schedule an appointment if they have questions about the process. Those who receive an AVL will have a date set on the letter to respond to the allegations. Students can schedule a meeting with the Graduate Division prior to responding to the AVL.

Students have a right to be accompanied by an advisor through the adjudication process. They also have a right to ask for the University to provide them an advisor. The advisor may not be involved in the complaint. The advisor may not represent or speak for the graduate student. The graduate student must participate on their own behalf. The advisor may provide assistance to the graduate student in preparing for and participating in meetings.

Students can reach out to the Center for Support and Intervention which provides Respondent Services for students or former students going through a conduct process. Students can additionally seek advice from Student Ombuds Services by calling (510) 642-5754 and/or the ASUC Student Advocate’s Office by calling (510) 642-6912.

Students may use the services of an attorney as an advisor. This means the attorney may not represent or speak for the student during the adjudication process. The attorney may assist the student, like an advisor, in preparing responses to official notifications and/or preparing and participating in meetings.

If a student admits to violating University policies and/or campus regulations, or is determined to be responsible after a committee-led investigation, they should expect to be sanctioned. Sanctions range from a warning to dismissal from the University. The Graduate Division strives to ensure that imposed sanctions are appropriate to the violation.

If a student is able to provide a plausible explanation for the circumstances that led to the allegation and if there is evidence to support that claim, the matter will likely be dropped. However, if the student denies the allegation, and in the judgment in their case, there is evidence indicating that the student is responsible, their case will be investigated by a hearing committee (the Committee).

The Committee consists of an odd number of faculty members (min. 3, one external to the department/unit if the Committee is appointed by the chair/dean) who is responsible for the investigation and hearing. The hearing process is generally conducted in the form of an investigation. The Committee is responsible for collecting testimony, documents and other information regarding the alleged academic misconduct. The Committee is not required to conduct the hearing at a specific time (except when the resolution of the allegations depends upon the credibility of a witness or witnesses, and the appropriate sanction for the academic misconduct could include suspension or dismissal); in fact, the hearing will generally take place as a series of interviews and the collection of relevant documents.

The Graduate Academic Misconduct policy stipulates that a graduate student alleged to have engaged in academic misconduct is not responsible for such violations unless the student admits responsibility or it is determined through the process and procedures set forth by the policy by a preponderance of evidence to have engaged in academic misconduct. 

The standard of proof for all hearings is a preponderance of evidence. A preponderance of evidence is defined as “more likely to be true than not.”

The process will continue with or without the student’s involvement and a decision will be reached based on the information that is provided to the hearing committee. The student may not use a refusal to participate as a later ground for appealing a decision.

Records are confidential and are typically kept for five (5) years from the completion of the incident. At the end of the five years or after a student has graduated, records concerning most cases are destroyed. Cases that resulted in an outcome of dismissal are kept indefinitely.

In compliance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), all conduct records are considered confidential records, with exceptions noted in FERPA. Only those persons authorized by the student or by the Graduate Division may have access to these records.

UC Berkeley utilizes the services of a third-party company, ​​Turnitin, for plagiarism detection in student coursework. Turnitin is currently utilized as an opt-in tool enabled through bCourses. The way the service is set up allows students to self-assess their work. Submitted assignments can also be checked by course instructors and TAs for originality. Learn how to enable Turnitin detection through BCourses.

If you are a graduate student and would like to assess drafts of research papers and/or theses, you must work with your faculty advisor to create a BCourses Project site as recommended by the Center For Teaching and Learning.

If you are a faculty member who advises a graduate student and would like to assess drafts of your student’s work, please create a BCourses Project Site for your student’s submissions as recommended by the Center For Teaching and Learning.

It is important to underline that the utilization of different GenAI detection tools are problematic due to student privacy concerns. Therefore it is recommended that instructors do not upload student materials to third parties who do not have a MOU with the university. At this time, UC Berkeley does not have an agreement with any third party AI detection tools.

False detection is when a GenAI detection tool incorrectly assesses a student’s original work to completely or partially derive from a LLM. LLM output can often sound like student output, and vice versa. A study that assessed  AI detection on TOEFL essays saw false detection on over half of the submitted essays. There have been numerous accusations made to students nation-wide that have concluded as false detection cases, albeit causing undue stress and even harm on students. If you suspect the use of AI in submitted student work, please contact the Director of Graduate Academic Conduct and Climate.

UC Berkeley, like most of our UC peers, has not enabled Turnitin’s AI writing and paraphrasing detection feature in bCourses for general use. An ongoing pilot study started in Fall 2023 by RTL highlights the challenge that, unlike its traditional plagiarism detection functionality, Turnitin’s algorithm-based AI writing detection feature does not necessarily provide the same conclusive evidence for the use of GenAI in student submitted coursework. Without careful understanding and intentional application, often requiring modifications of assessments and pedagogical approaches, the use of this feature in its current form bears the risk of introducing new issues. RTL and other stakeholders are currently reviewing pilot results to determine next steps in how to address these fundamental issues before deciding whether to proceed with a broader rollout. For reference here are UC Berkeley’s Turnitin policies  and vendor information on Turnitin’s AI writing and paraphrasing detection feature. Contact [email protected] if you have questions regarding Turnitin.

We acknowledge that GenAI is an exciting new frontier in learning and the production of knowledge across the board. Students may find these tools to be helpful as they incorporate them into their research and studying habits. 

Students should be aware that UC Berkeley has set these general standards surrounding the use of GenAI, which clearly state to not “risk any personal or proprietary information” during their use. Students should also be aware that different schools and colleges may have differing guidelines in the use of GenAI in coursework.  

When it comes to coursework, students should abide by the limits, if any, set by the instructor as to how GenAI may be used in the context of submitted student work. It is recommended that students consult their syllabi and directly ask their instructional staff if they are uncertain on whether the use of the GenAI tools would be consistent with course expectations.  

For example, some instructors may encourage you to use GenAI and ask you to also submit your chat logs to support your submission. 

Some instructors may not yet have clear guidelines in their course syllabi on the matter. Students should feel empowered to ask their instructors on their guidelines should this be the case in a class that they are taking.

When in doubt, students may also consider the following:Is the work you are submitting, generated by AI, and submitted as if it is your own work? If yes, you are engaging in academic misconduct.  The definition of cheating includes “fraud, deceit or dishonesty in an academic assignment”. Utilizing GenAI outputs as one’s own work can be considered an act of deceit, which is categorized as cheating under the Graduate Academic Misconduct Policy or the Code for Student Conduct. 

If you still have questions, please contact your instructor. 

The Graduate Writing Center provides writing workshops and bootcamps and other resources such as “quick guides” for UC Berkeley’s graduate and professional students.

Research exists within a social network where it informs all aspects of our society today. While validity and originality are important tenets of research, research is an iterative process that builds upon existing knowledge. Graduate education is foundational for reaching the expertise required to produce significant results within a given field. Researchers are expected to cite sources to show their readers that they’ve conducted sufficient reviews on relevant topics and to acknowledge other scholars who have inspired their research and have given them ideas. As such, the rigor and care shown in the presentation of research and a specific argument give credibility to the researcher. 

The acceptable uses of GenAI differs across different subject matters. The  European Network for Academic Integrity (ENAI) recommends the following when it comes to the use of AI: 

“All persons, sources, and tools that influence the ideas or generate the content should be properly acknowledged. Consequently, when an AI tool is used, it should be acknowledged. The acknowledgement may be done in different ways, according to the context, the institutional policies or other requirements. When possible, the input given to the AI tool should be specified.”

Transparency and open communication are essential when graduate students employ generative AI tools. Users should engage in discussions about their use of GenAI with mentors and collaborators. Moreover, if content generated by GenAI is shared or published, it’s imperative to explicitly acknowledge that it was produced by a generative AI. This acknowledgment should include not only the name and version of the tool but also the specific prompt that was used to generate the content. An evaluation of the content’s limitations should accompany this disclosure, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the context and reliability of the AI-generated material.

Below are some resources that go over how to cite GenAI:

How to cite ChatGPT (APA Style)

How do I cite generative AI in MLA style

UC Berkeley’s Office of Ethics give’s specific guidelines on allowable and prohibited use of GenAI, highlighting that “no personal, confidential, proprietary, or otherwise sensitive information may” should be shared with platforms that promote GenAI tools. These standards also take into consideration FERPA which is a federal legislation which protects the information of students. 

The Academic Senate’s Committee on Teaching (COT), in collaboration with the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) provides further guidance in the use of GenAI in teaching. Here it is also noted that instructors should not require students to get an account with a third-party that requires them to give their information or a payment for the service. 

Beyond the above general standards, parameters surrounding the use of GenAI are determined by the program and/or the instructors of each course and may vary to meet the pedagogical needs of the course or specific assignments.  

It is recommended for instructors to clearly state within their course policies and assignment guidelines the standards they expect from students in the use of GenAI tools. These guidelines can be incorporated into course policies on academic integrity. CTL  provides language on how to frame academic integrity and other matters such as accommodations into course syllabi.