Malpractice and Academic Integrity in Examinations
Chapter Forty-Seven
Syllabus topic 3, "Examination reforms"
Pages 168 to 170 of 543
In one line
Examination malpractice is not only a disciplinary problem: it is a signal about the assessment, because the easier an instrument is to cheat at, the more it is telling you that it was measuring the wrong thing.
In the wording a student can write in an exam: malpractice in examinations includes copying from materials or another candidate, impersonation, unauthorised communication, obtaining question papers in advance, tampering with scripts and influencing evaluation; it is met by prevention through invigilation and paper security, by detection, and by penalties under the University's ordinances; and a system that relies wholly on prevention treats the symptom, since an assessment which can be passed by reproducing remembered material is the assessment most worth cheating at.
The forms
Copying in the hall, from concealed materials, from a device or from a neighbour.
Impersonation, where another person sits the paper.
Unauthorised communication, including a device carried in.
Advance access to the question paper, which is the gravest form because it affects the whole cohort and not one candidate.
Tampering after the event, with the script, the marks or the record.
And influence on evaluation, which is the form internal assessment is most exposed to, as chapter 360 records.
The three responses
Prevention. Invigilation, seating, identity checks, secure printing and transport of papers, bar on devices, and multiple sets of a paper.
Detection. Comparison of neighbouring scripts, handwriting checks against the enrolment record, statistical scrutiny of improbable results, and similarity checking for written work.
Penalty. University ordinances provide for cancellation of the paper, cancellation of the whole examination, debarment for a period, and in serious cases criminal proceedings, since impersonation and forgery are offences quite apart from any academic rule.
And a fourth response, which is the subject of this chapter. Change the instrument so that the cheating has less value.
Why the assessment is part of the problem
Ask what is worth cheating at. A closed book examination that asks a candidate to reproduce a body of remembered material is worth cheating at, because the material can be carried into the room on a piece of paper and the mark is the same either way.
Now ask the same question of a problem paper. A concealed summary of the law of frustration does not answer a problem about a printing business, because the work is the application, and a candidate who has not practised it cannot do it with the summary in front of them.
And of an open book paper. There is nothing to conceal, because everything is permitted. Chapter 370 notes that open book examinations are harder, not easier, and this is one reason.
And of a viva. A memorised answer collapses on the second question, so preparation by memorisation is not a strategy.
Malpractice and Academic Integrity in Examinations
So the ranking is clear. The instruments most vulnerable to malpractice are the ones that reward reproduction, and the instruments least vulnerable are the ones that require production. That is not an argument for abolishing invigilation; it is an argument that assessment design is part of integrity policy.
The internal component and the new problems
Internal assessment shifts the risk rather than removing it. A take-home assignment cannot be invigilated at all, and authorship is unverifiable.
Which is why the machinery moved. For written work the response is similarity checking, and the standard a student must know is MU's own: the LL.M. dissertation and interdisciplinary project must be below ten per cent similarity, checked on Turnitin, with the report enclosed in an appendix.
And the UGC has legislated on it. The University Grants Commission (Promotion of Academic Integrity and Prevention of Plagiarism in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations 2018, notified in the Gazette on 31 July 2018, prescribe levels of plagiarism and penalties and require institutional panels. Chapter 1380 teaches them in full.
A new form has also arrived. MU's Department of Law notice of 1 July 2026 prohibits the use of artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT for the dissertation and the project by name. Chapter 1390 takes that up, including the honest difficulty that use is far harder to prove than copying.
What a fair system looks like
Notice before the event. Students should be told what is prohibited, in writing, before the assessment and not after it.
Proportionality. Carrying a chit and organising a paper leak are not the same offence and should not carry the same penalty.
A hearing. The UGC's own regulations require that penalties be imposed only after academic misconduct has been established, when appeals have been exhausted, and after the individual has had a fair opportunity to defend themselves. That principle governs examination malpractice too.
And a distinction that saves innocent students. A similarity report measures overlap with sources; it does not measure dishonesty. A student who quotes properly and cites fully can show high similarity while doing nothing wrong. Chapter 1380 makes this point at length because it is the commonest injustice in the area.
A worked example
Two candidates in the same hall.
One conceals a printed summary of four topics. In a paper asking the candidate to discuss those topics, the summary is worth a great deal, and the only thing standing between them and full marks is an invigilator.
The other conceals the same summary in a paper of problem questions. The facts are new, the summary states rules and not applications, and the candidate who has never practised applying them gains almost nothing.
Malpractice and Academic Integrity in Examinations
Both cheated. Only one profited, and the difference is the design of the paper.
Now move both to a viva. Neither strategy exists at all, because the examiner asks a follow-up question.
That comparison is the answer to any question that asks how examination malpractice can be controlled, and it is worth more than a list of invigilation measures, which every candidate will write.
Quick revision
Forms: copying, impersonation, unauthorised communication and devices, advance access to the paper, tampering after the event, and influence on evaluation.
Three conventional responses: prevention by invigilation and paper security; detection by comparison, handwriting and statistical scrutiny; and penalty under the University's ordinances, with criminal liability for impersonation and forgery.
The fourth response: change the instrument. The assessments most worth cheating at are the ones that reward reproduction; problem papers, open book papers and vivas reward production and are far less vulnerable.
Internal assessment shifts the risk, so written work is met by similarity checking. MU requires below ten per cent on Turnitin with the report appended, and the UGC Regulations 2018, gazetted 31 July 2018, prescribe levels and penalties.
Fairness: notice in advance, proportionality, a hearing before penalty, and the distinction between similarity and dishonesty.
Test yourself
1. Give the four responses to examination malpractice. Prevention through invigilation, identity checks and paper security; detection through comparison of scripts, handwriting checks and statistical scrutiny; penalty under the University's ordinances, with criminal liability for impersonation and forgery; and redesign of the assessment so that cheating has less value.
2. Explain why the design of the paper is part of integrity policy. Because an assessment that rewards reproduction of remembered material can be defeated by concealed notes, while a problem paper, an open book paper or a viva requires production or application that concealed material does not supply. The instruments most vulnerable are precisely the ones measuring the least useful thing.
3. What standard does MU apply to the LL.M. dissertation, and what regulations sit behind it? Similarity below ten per cent, checked on Turnitin, with the report enclosed as an appendix. Behind it are the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Academic Integrity and Prevention of Plagiarism in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations 2018, notified in the Gazette on 31 July 2018.
4. Why is a high similarity score not the same as dishonesty? Because a similarity report measures overlap with sources and nothing else. A student who quotes properly, attributes fully and cites correctly can show substantial overlap while having done nothing wrong, which is why a penalty must follow a finding of misconduct after a hearing and not a number.
The rest of this subject
These notes are cut from the University's printed syllabus. Open the syllabus itself, or the past papers, for the same subject.