Academic Integrity & Misconduct Policy

Academic integrity is not a feature of ScholarBridge. It is the whole point. The value of research mentorship comes entirely from student-owned thinking: a student who has done the reading, questioning, drafting, and revision can discuss their work with confidence, defend it in an interview, and build on it later. This policy sets out what academic integrity means at ScholarBridge, what counts as academic misconduct, and how we respond, fairly and proportionately, when a concern arises.

1. Purpose and scope

This policy applies to all work produced during, or in connection with, a ScholarBridge programme, and to any work a student intends to submit to a school, examination board, university, competition, publisher, or admissions body (such as the Common Application or UCAS). It sets a standard of honesty that protects the student first of all, and protects the trust that families, schools, and universities place in a student's work.

Our approach reflects the fundamental values of academic integrity recognised internationally by the International Center for Academic Integrity: honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility, and courage. These values apply equally in the United States and the United Kingdom, and to every institution our students work with.

This policy may be applied after a programme has ended if we later become aware that misconduct occurred during it. We consider each concern on its own facts and in proportion to its seriousness.

2. The mentor–student boundary

A ScholarBridge mentor's role is to guide, challenge, question, and teach. The student's role is to think, read, argue, write, and produce. These roles are not interchangeable, and the boundary between them is the practical expression of this policy.

Mentors may: help a student develop their own research question through dialogue; recommend reading and methods; ask probing questions; give feedback on the strength of an argument, the structure of a draft, the clarity of expression, and the use of evidence; and point out where something is unclear, unsupported, or in need of revision by the student.

Mentors may not: choose the research question for the student; write, co-write, or substantially rewrite any part of the work; produce model answers or passages to be reproduced; translate whole sections rather than individual words; revise calculations, formulae, or code; alter data, charts, figures, or references; or make any change that compromises the student's authorship of what is submitted. Late-stage editing of a finished piece a student intends to submit is not a service ScholarBridge provides.

All written and creative work submitted externally must be the student's own. Where a mentor is found to have crossed this boundary, we treat it as staff misconduct under our internal procedures.

3. Responsibilities

Students are responsible for: ensuring all work they submit externally is genuinely their own; expressing work in their own words and incorporating their own ideas and judgements; understanding the academic-integrity and AI rules of any school, examination board, or university they submit to; using the resources and support offered to them; and being honest and open with their mentor about how their work was produced.

Parents and guardians are responsible for: understanding this policy; supporting the student's own effort; and not requesting or encouraging any output that would breach it. Asking a mentor to "just fix it," "write this section," or "get it finished on time" by producing content is not something ScholarBridge does, and pressing for it may itself be treated as an attempt at misconduct.

ScholarBridge and its mentors are responsible for: teaching within the boundary above; making expectations clear at the start of a programme; and handling every integrity concern fairly, consistently, and with support for the student.

4. What counts as academic misconduct

Academic misconduct is any act, or attempted act, that gives a student an unfair advantage or misrepresents the authorship or origin of academic work. The list below is not exhaustive:

• Plagiarism: presenting the words, ideas, data, or work of another person as one's own, without proper acknowledgement.
• Contract cheating and ghostwriting: submitting work produced in whole or in part by another person, whether paid or unpaid, as one's own, including asking a mentor or any third party to write or substantially rewrite it.
• Third-party assistance beyond the permitted boundary: receiving help from any person that goes beyond Section 2 and casts doubt on the student's authorship or understanding.
• Unauthorised or undisclosed use of AI: misrepresenting the content or output of an AI platform as one's own work, or using AI in any way this policy or the receiving institution does not permit. See the Generative AI Policy.
• Collusion: working with others on work required to be independent, in a way that is not permitted.
• Fabrication or falsification: inventing, altering, or misrepresenting data, results, sources, or citations, including AI-generated references that do not exist.
• Misrepresentation of authorship: falsely claiming sole authorship, or overstating one's role in a piece of research or a publication.
• Self-plagiarism: re-submitting one's own previously assessed work as if it were new, where this is not permitted.
• Breach of examination or admissions rules: any conduct that would breach the integrity rules of the institution the work is submitted to.

5. We do not provide or promote cheating services

ScholarBridge does not write work for students and does not offer, arrange, or advertise any service that does. In England, providing or arranging cheating services for financial gain to students, and advertising such services, is a criminal offence under the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022. Any request that a mentor produce submittable work, and any attempt to use ScholarBridge to facilitate cheating, is a material breach of this policy and of our Terms of Service.

6. Poor academic practice is not misconduct

We recognise that students are learning, and that mistakes are part of that. Poor academic practice, such as sources acknowledged only partially, citation that is inadequate or incomplete, or a genuine misunderstanding of scholarly convention, is not academic misconduct where it is unintentional and not the result of a blatant lack of effort. In these cases the student is given feedback and signposted to support, not a sanction. This distinction matters, and we apply it before treating any concern as misconduct.

7. How concerns are identified and raised

An integrity concern may be raised by a mentor, a member of ScholarBridge staff, a parent or guardian, or a third party. Mentors are required to report a suspected concern to ScholarBridge rather than resolving it privately. We do not act as an examinations authority for any school or university; where work has already been submitted externally, that institution's own procedures apply, and nothing in this policy limits them.

8. How we investigate

Every concern is handled on the following principles:

• Presumption of innocence: no finding is made until the concern has been fairly considered.
• Balance of probabilities: a concern is upheld only if, on the evidence, it is more likely than not that misconduct occurred.
• Intent is not required: it is not necessary to prove that a student intended to cheat. Proven intent is treated as an aggravating factor.
• Right to respond: the student is told what the concern is and given a fair opportunity to give their account before any decision is made.
• Right to be accompanied: a student may be supported by a parent or guardian throughout. For students under 18, a parent or guardian is informed and involved.
• Fair process in absence: if a student is given proper notice and chooses not to take part, a decision may still be reached on the information available, and the student may provide a written response instead.

Where authorship is in doubt, it is fair to ask a student to explain their answers, ideas, sources, or methods. A student who has genuinely done the work can do this; an inability to do so may support a finding of misconduct.

9. Stages of the procedure

Stage 1: Academic Integrity Conversation. Most first concerns begin here. This is a supportive, exploratory discussion, not a hearing, between the student and a member of ScholarBridge staff (with a parent or guardian for under-18s). It covers how the work was produced, the specific concern, and any circumstances the student wishes to raise. The outcome may be: no concern (work stands); poor academic practice (feedback and support, no sanction, see Section 6); or misconduct found, with an outcome applied from Section 11.

Stage 2: Formal Review. A concern is escalated to a formal review by a senior member of ScholarBridge staff where it is serious, where the student contests a Stage 1 finding, or where it is a second instance (see below). The student receives the evidence in advance, may respond in writing and in person, and receives a reasoned decision in writing.

Second instances. A second upheld concern is normally dealt with at Stage 2, and is treated as more serious. A second instance need not be the same type of misconduct as the first: for example, a first case of plagiarism followed by a case of undisclosed AI use counts as a second instance.

10. Aggravating and mitigating factors

In deciding an outcome we weigh the circumstances, including: whether the student has been honest and shown genuine reflection or contrition; the seriousness and extent of the misconduct; whether it was intended; whether it is a repeat; and any personal, compassionate, or mitigating circumstances present at the time. Honesty and contrition count in a student's favour.

11. Outcomes and sanctions

Outcomes are proportionate to the seriousness of the breach, and one or more may apply:

• Educative: a discussion of expectations; a required piece of learning on integrity or referencing; a requirement to redo affected work under closer guidance.
• Restorative: a formal written warning; conditions for continuing on the programme; withdrawal of ScholarBridge feedback, endorsement, or any reference in relation to affected work.
• Termination: suspension or termination of the programme without refund, in line with the Terms of Service, and declining to work with the student or family in future.

Serious or repeated misconduct, including any attempt to procure ghostwriting or to submit fabricated work externally, will normally result in immediate termination without refund. ScholarBridge will not knowingly endorse, reference, or lend its name to work that has been produced in breach of this policy.

12. Appeals

A student, or their parent or guardian, may appeal a Stage 2 outcome. The grounds, timescales, and process are set out in our Complaints & Appeals Procedure. In summary, an appeal must be made in writing within 10 working days of the decision, on the grounds of new evidence that could not reasonably have been provided earlier, or a procedural error that affected the outcome. An appeal is reviewed by a senior member of staff not involved in the original decision, whose decision is final.

13. Wellbeing, disability, and coercion

Where a student indicates that the behaviour behind a concern relates to a health condition, disability, or difficult personal circumstances, we consider whether to pause the procedure and offer support rather than proceed straight to a sanction. If a student is pressured or coerced by a third party into academic dishonesty, they should tell us; we will treat them as needing support, not punishment, and act on the coercion.

14. Data protection

Information gathered under this policy is handled in line with our Privacy Policy. Information about a person's health or wellbeing is treated as sensitive personal data and shared only where necessary and lawful.

15. Review

This policy is reviewed at least annually, and sooner where practice, technology, or the requirements of schools, examination boards, and universities change materially.

Contact

For questions about this policy, contact us at [email protected].