​Academic Integrity

Policy

Academic Integrity- Policy.pdf

Minnesota State University, Mankato is committed to fostering a learning environment grounded in integrity, responsibility, and trust. Academic integrity is essential to the pursuit of knowledge and to the credibility of our scholarly community. It requires students to produce original academic work that represents their own learning.

When students use ideas, words, and contributions of others in that work, the source of those components must be properly acknowledged. Students must demonstrate integrity in all academic activities and avoid any behavior that misrepresents their competencies or unfairly advantages themselves or others.

The University provides resources to promote academic integrity, including writing centers, research support, workshops, and instruction in ethical use of information and technology. Students are encouraged to seek assistance early to ensure clarity and adherence to the instructor’s expectations.

Student Responsibilities

• Produce original work and properly cite all sources.
• Seek clarification when unsure whether a source, tool, or method is permitted.
• Maintain integrity in all coursework, assessments, and research activities.
• Report observed academic dishonesty as soon as possible.
• Use this policy and procedure appropriately.
• Consider whether the issue should be resolved through a more appropriate policy, such as a grade appeal. (See the University’s Grade Appeal policy for more information.)

Instructor Responsibilities

• Clearly communicate expectations and permissible uses of outside resources, technology, including artificial intelligence, for coursework, assessments of learning, research, and creative activity.
• Provide guidance on citation practices and attribution within the context of the course and discipline.
• Provide guidance on academic integrity and this policy.
• Make determinations about violations of academic integrity based on verifiable and corroborating evidence; AI detection software on its own is insufficient evidence of violations of academic integrity.
• Uphold consistent and fair enforcement of this policy.
• Protect the student’s right to privacy throughout the process in accordance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and state, system, and institutional policies and procedures.

Due Process

Complete, accurate documentation is essential when making decisions about violations of academic integrity. Students must be afforded the following due process considerations:

1. Oral or written notice of the allegations within the timeline in the Academic Integrity procedure of this policy.
2. An explanation of the evidence supporting the allegation of academic dishonesty.
3. An opportunity to present their response to the allegation.
4. A written notice of the decision and any applicable corrective action(s).
5. An opportunity to appeal the decision and corrective action(s).

Departments may establish policies and practices for addressing academic integrity within the unique context of their discipline, but department-level policies must align to University policy and be reviewed by the Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs (or designee).

Application of this policy must not disproportionately impact or single out any student based on linguistic background, disability, nationality, race, or other protected identity. Student concerns about discrimination based on the student’s protected identity must be referred to the Office of Equal Opportunity and Title IX (EOTIX).

Definitions

Academic integrity: The commitment to honesty, transparency, and originality in all academic activities. It involves acknowledging and respecting the contributions of others while producing one's own authentic work.

Plagiarism: Presenting someone else’s words, data, images, code, or other intellectual property as your own without proper acknowledgement. This definition applies to intentional and unintentional failure to credit sources. Plagiarism includes but is not limited to:

• Submitting the work of others as your own, either in its entirety or in part, with or without minor changes.
• Failing to attribute the work of others through accurate footnotes, citations, quotations, and other reference forms.
• Submitting the same original work, with or without minor revisions, in more than one course without the permission of the instructor.
• Using material created with unpermitted tools or technology and submitting it as original work without disclosure or accurate and complete attribution.
• Paraphrasing a source closely without accurate and complete citations.
• Copying code from an online repository without crediting the original author.

Cheating: Attempting to gain an unfair advantage by not meeting the expectations of academic integrity set by the instructor for an assignment, exam, or course or by using unauthorized material or assistance. Cheating includes but is not limited to:

• Using unauthorized materials or devices (test materials, notes, phones, calculators, AI tools) during an exam.
• Having someone else complete all or part of an assignment on your behalf.
• Submitting an AI-generated work when the instructor has prohibited the use of AI.
• Sharing answers of a quiz or test.
• Accessing solution manuals or answer keys when prohibited.

Collusion: Unauthorized assistance or collaboration with another person (or entity, including AI) to produce work that is meant to be completed individually. Collusion includes, but is not limited to:

• Two students jointly writing an essay that is supposed to be completed individually.
• Receiving significant edits, rewrites, or content contributions from others beyond permitted support.
• Using an AI system to generate outlines, arguments, or sections of a paper when independent work is required.
• Sharing completed lab reports with other students so they can base their work on yours.
• Sharing instructional materials (e.g., slides, lecture notes, assignments, tests or quizzes) with others, including uploading to third-party websites, without the instructor’s permission. (Note: This kind of activity may also constitute a violation of the instructor’s intellectual property rights.)

Falsification: Compromising the integrity of scholarly work by inventing, altering, or misrepresenting information, data, sources, or academic records to present false or misleading information as true. Examples of falsification include, but are not limited to:

• Fabricating data for a research project instead of conducting actual experiments or surveys.
• Misrepresenting research findings.
• Fabricating citations or sources that do not exist, either on your own or using AI.
• Altering lab results to produce an expected outcome.
• Misquoting or deliberately manipulating source material to support an argument.
• Providing false documentation for an extension or accommodation request.
• Using content that is not supported by the accompanying citation.

---

Policy Rationale

For an academic community to teach and support appropriate educational values, an environment of trust, cooperation, and personal responsibility must be maintained. Adherence to principles and practices of academic integrity is a key requirement for any student at Minnesota State University, Mankato. The Academic Integrity policy and procedure provide guidance for addressing concerns of possible violations of academic integrity to ensure a consistent and equitable/fair process.

---

History of Revisions

• Effective Date of Last Review: August 1, 2026
• Date of Last Review: September 2025
• Revisions Made:
  
  • 2025: Added statements of student and instructor responsibilities, due process, and definition of falsification. Addressed use of artificial intelligence. Added examples of each definition.

---

Procedure

Academic Integrity- Procedure.pdf

The Academic Honesty procedure will be managed in the academic department(s), college(s) and the Office of Academic Affairs. All efforts should be made to resolve the allegations at the lowest level possible. Students found to have repeated violations of the Academic Honesty policy may be subject to increased levels of corrective action.

At each step in this procedure, the student and employee each have 5 business days to respond unless extenuating circumstances warrant a reasonable extension.

• Should the student fail to respond within the 5-day timeframe, the decision at that step is final.
• If the student responds via email but chooses not to meet, the appeal will continue based on the remaining information available to the reviewer.
• Should a university employee fail to respond, the student may escalate the appeal to the next step on the 6th business day.

The student may appeal a decision in this process based on the following circumstances:

1. Procedural errors. The instructor or university did not follow published policies or procedures, and the error is likely to have affected the outcome. The procedure used to make the decision did not follow the student’s right to a fair process.
2. Insufficient evidence. The finding was not supported by sufficient, reliable, or credible evidence.
3. New evidence. New, substantive evidence becomes available that was not reasonably available at the time of the decision.
4. Disproportionate or inappropriate corrective action. The corrective action is excessively severe or inconsistent with university policy or comparable cases.
5. Evidence of bias, prejudice, or conflict of interest. The student believes the instructor (or department chair or dean, as appropriate) acted with bias or had a conflict of interest that affected the decision. Student concerns about discrimination based on the student’s protected identity must be referred to the Office of Equal Opportunity and Title IX (EOTIX).

Step 1: Informal Resolution with the Instructor

When an instructor suspects that a violation of academic integrity has taken place, the instructor shall:

• Alert the student via MavMail to the alleged incident and include evidence to support the allegation within 5 business days of discovering the violation.
• Request to meet with the student to discuss the alleged violation.
  • Present the evidence in support of the allegation to the student.
  • As much as possible, the instructor should enter the meeting seeking to understand what happened from the student’s perspective and use this conversation as a teaching moment.
• Maintain copies of all the evidence and a record of the meeting with the student.

Step 1 Timeline

1. Instructor alerts student to alleged incident within 5 business days of discovery and requests to meet with the student.
2. The student responds to the instructor’s email within 5 business days. A shorter response time may be requested when extenuating circumstances require expediency, but reasonable extensions will be granted for good cause.
3. The instructor and student meet within 5 days of the student’s response. The student has the right to bring an advisor to the meeting as a source of support or advice, but the advisor may not ask or answer questions on the student’s behalf. The student may also bring corroborating evidence.
4. Based on the evidence and the meeting with the student (if they chose to meet), the instructor will determine the action needed.
   1. No violation occurred.
   2. Violation occurred, but no corrective action is needed.
   3. Violation occurred and corrective action is needed
      1. Additional education about academic integrity.
      2. Corrective action is needed: Required revision the assignment or exam.
      3. Assign reduced or failing grade on the assignment or exam.
      4. Assign a failing grade for the course.
      5. Refer to department faculty to consider dismissal from the academic program following the department’s established criteria and procedures.
5. The decision of the instructor will be sent to the student within 5 days of the final meeting.

The instructor will send their decision to the student via MavMail. If the instructor determines a violation of academic integrity has occurred, they will send a copy of the decision notification to the Office of Student Conduct (StudentConduct@mnsu.edu).

If the corrective action includes changing a student’s grade (e.g., the student withdrew from the course before the academic integrity procedure could begin),

• The instructor will send a copy of the decision letter to the dean of the academic college and the Director of Registration and Academic Records.
• Registration and Academic Records will process the grade change and communicate any resulting changes—including updates to the Last Date of Attendance—to the Office of Financial Aid and/or Student Financial Services.

Step 2: Formal Appeal to the Department Chairperson

Within 5 business days of the instructor’s written notice of the decision, the student may file a formal appeal to the chair of the department that offers the course. The appeal must contain the following materials:

• The decision notification from the instructor.
• An explanation for the reason for the appeal.
• Any supporting evidence that may be available to the student, including the course syllabus, program handbook, assignment specifications, and correspondence between the student and the instructor about the alleged academic integrity violation.
• The alternate resolution requested by the student.

Step 2 Timeline

1. Student submits the appeals documentation to the department chair within 5 business days of the instructor’s decision.
2. The department chair reviews the appeal documents; they may request additional information as needed.
3. Within 5 days of receiving the student’s appeal, the department chair will request meetings with the student and instructor separately to review the allegation, evidence, and corrective action.
4. The student and instructor will have 5 days to respond to the chair’s request to meet.
5. The meetings will be scheduled within 5 days of the response from the student and instructors. Both parties have the right to have an advisor present at the meetings.
6. Within 5 days of the final meeting, the department chair will determine whether an academic integrity violation occurred. If they agree a violation occurred, the department chair may:
   1. Support the instructor’s corrective action or
   2. Determine an alternative corrective action.
7. The decision of the department chair will be sent to the student, instructor, and Office of Student Conduct via MavMail within 5 days of the final meeting.

Step 3: Formal Appeal to the Dean of the College (or designee)

Within 5 days of the decision by the department chair, the student may file a formal appeal to the academic dean of the college that offers the course. The appeal must contain the following materials:

• The decision notification from the instructor.
• The decision notification from the department chair.
• An explanation for the reason for the appeal.
• Any new evidence that may not have been available at the time of the Step 2 appeal
• The alternate resolution requested by the student.

Step 3 Timeline

1. Student submits the appeals documentation to the dean within 5 business days of the department chair’s decision.
2. The dean/designee reviews the appeal documents; they may request additional information as needed.
3. Within 5 days of receiving the student’s appeal, the dean/designee will request meetings with the student, instructor, and department chair to review the allegation, evidence, and corrective action. At their discretion, the dean may convene a joint meeting of the three parties.
4. The student, instructor, and department chair will have 5 days to respond to the dean/designee’s request to meet.
5. The meetings will be scheduled within 5 days of the responses from the student, instructor, and department chair. Each party has the right to have an advisor present at the meetings for support.
6. Within 5 days of the final meeting, the dean/designee will determine whether an academic integrity violation occurred. If they agree a violation occurred, the dean/designee may:
   1. Support the corrective action or
   2. Determine an alternative corrective action.
7. The decision of the dean/designee will be sent to the student, instructor, department chair, and Office of Student Conduct via MavMail within 5 days of the final meeting.

Step 4: Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs (or designee)

Within 5 days of the decision by the academic dean/designee about the allegation of academic dishonesty, the student may file a formal appeal to the Provost. The Step 4 Academic Integrity Appeal must be sent to provost@mnsu.edu.

The appeal must contain the following materials:

• The decision notification from the instructor.
• The decision notification from the department chair.
• The decision notification from the dean/designee of the academic college.
• An explanation for the reason for the appeal.
• Any new evidence that may not have been available at the time of the Step 3 appeal.
• The alternate resolution requested by the student.

Step 4 Timeline

1. Student submits the appeals documentation to the provost within 5 business days of the dean/designee’s decision.
2. The provost/designee reviews the appeal documents; they may request additional information as needed.
3. Within 5 days of receiving the student’s appeal, the provost/designee will request meetings with the student, instructor, department chair, and dean/designee to review the allegation, evidence, and corrective action. At their discretion, the provost/designee may convene a joint meeting of the three parties.
4. The student, instructor, department chair, and dean/designee will have 5 days to respond to the provost/designee’s request to meet.
5. The meetings will be scheduled within 5 days of the responses from the student, instructor, department chair, and dean/designee. Each party has the right to have an advisor present at the meetings for support.
6. Within 5 days of the final meeting, the provost/designee will determine whether an academic integrity violation occurred. If they agree a violation occurred, the dean/designee may:
   1. Support the corrective action or
   2. Determine an alternative corrective action.
7. The decision of the provost/designee will be sent to the student, instructor, department chair, dean/designee, and Office of Student Conduct via MavMail within 5 days of the final meeting.

The decision of the Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs/designee will be final.

Faculty Appeal Process

The instructor also has the right to appeal the decision of the chair based on the following circumstances:

1. Procedural errors. The department chair did not follow published policies or procedures, and the error is likely to have affected the outcome. The procedure used to make the decision did not follow the instructor’s right to a fair process.
2. Insufficient evidence. The finding was not supported by sufficient, reliable, or credible evidence.
3. New evidence. New, substantive evidence becomes available that was not reasonably available at the time of the decision.
4. Disproportionate or inappropriate corrective action. The corrective action is excessively severe or inconsistent with university policy or comparable cases.
5. Evidence of bias, prejudice, or conflict of interest. The instructor believes the department chair acted with bias or had a conflict of interest that affected the decision.

Should the instructor wish to appeal the decision of the chair, they may request a meeting with the dean of the academic college.

In this appeal, the dean/designee will meet with the instructor and department chair to review the allegation and evidence. At their discretion, this may be a joint meeting of both parties. The instructor and department chair have the right to have an advisor present at the meeting. The advisor may only respond to direct questions from the dean/designee.

Following this meeting, the dean/designee will:

• Support the department chair’s decision
• Suggest an alternative resolution

This meeting must take place within 5 days of the department chair’s decision. In instances where the 5-day limit would fall outside of duty days for faculty, the time limit will be expanded (for example, over the winter break or over summer).

Step 2: Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs (or designee)

Within 5 days of the decision by the academic dean/designee about the allegation of academic dishonesty, the instructor may file a formal appeal to the Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs. The faculty appeal must be sent to provost@mnsu.edu. It must include the following information:

• The decision of the department chair
• The rationale for the appeal
• A request for an alternate solution

In this appeal, the provost/designee will meet with the instructor, department chair, and dean/designee to review the allegation and evidence. At their discretion, this may be a joint meeting. The instructor and department chair have the right to have an advisor present at the meeting. The advisor may only respond to direct questions from the provost/designee.

Following this meeting, the provost/designee will:

• Support the dean/designee’s decision
• Suggest an alternative resolution

This meeting must take place within 5 days of the provost/designee’s decision. In instances where the 5- day limit would fall outside of duty days for faculty, the time limit will be expanded (for example, over the winter break or over summer)

The decision of the provost/designee will be final.

---

History of Revisions

• Effective Date of Last Review: August 1, 2026 Date of Last Review: September 2025
• Revisions Made:
  
  • 2025: Changed name to from Academic Honesty to Academic Integrity. Emphasize the educational focus of the conversation with the student. Modified the corrective actions as an increasing scale. Defined circumstances that warrant an appeal. Added a right for student or faculty to bring a representative to meetings. Aligned the faculty appeal procedure with the student. Defined a 5-day response time for each party’s action in the procedure.
• References:
  • OpenAI. (2025, December 1). Consultation with ChatGPT regarding academic honesty definitions and policy development for a public comprehensive university. Internal policy development reference.

Rationale