PROMOTION OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY AND PREVENTION OF PLAGIARISM | eSupport for Research |Dr. Akash Bhoi

A 2018 UGC framework lays out how Indian higher education institutions should promote academic integrity and systematically prevent plagiarism—using defined similarity thresholds, mandatory checks before submission, and escalating penalties when misconduct is confirmed. The core idea is straightforward: institutions should not rely on punishment alone. They should build an integrity mechanism that checks drafts and theses early, educates researchers and students, and then applies proportionate consequences based on how much text or ideas overlap.

At the center of the system are two layers of review. Each department forms a Departmental Academic Integrity Panel (DAIP) to investigate allegations or complaints of plagiarism involving faculty or students. If a case is discussed at the departmental level, it can be escalated to an Institutional Academic Integrity Panel (IAIP), which decides on penalties after reviewing the matter. The framework applies to “HEI” (higher educational institution), meaning universities recognized under Section 2(f) of the UGC Act, 1956, along with their affiliated colleges.

Plagiarism is defined as taking someone else’s work or ideas and presenting them as one’s own without giving proper credit to the original author. The notification’s objectives focus on awareness and prevention: researchers, including PhD scholars, should understand what counts as plagiarism and how similarity is measured before submitting proposals, final reports, theses, or dissertations. Institutions are expected to establish mechanisms—typically through plagiarism-checking tools—so submissions are screened prior to evaluation. The framework also emphasizes that misconduct can surface later even after publication, since readers or journals may detect duplication or redundancy years afterward.

A key operational element is the similarity index. The transcript notes that certain materials can be excluded from similarity checks before running a report through software: quoted work with necessary permission and attribution, references/bibliographic sections, tables of content, face pages, acknowledgements, generic terms, standard symbols, and standard equations. After screening, the framework treats similarity bands as risk levels that trigger different outcomes.

For thesis or dissertation writing, the penalties escalate with similarity. When similarity is at or below 10 percent (described as Level 0/Level 1 range), no penalty is applied. If similarity rises into Level 1 (roughly above 10 to 14), the student may be required to submit a revised script within a stipulated time (up to six months). Level 2 (about 40 to 60) can require a revised submission for up to one year. Level 3 (above 60) can lead to cancellation of registration.

The consequences become more severe if plagiarism is found after credit has already been obtained (such as a degree or certificate). In those cases, the IAIP can recommend suspension, subject to approval by the head of the institution. A separate set of rules applies to plagiarism in academic and research publication: Level 1 may involve withdrawing the manuscript, Level 2 can include withdrawal plus restrictions such as denial of increments and limits on supervising new students, and Level 3 can include longer supervision bans and potential service-level outcomes if misconduct repeats.

Overall, the framework ties integrity to governance: it requires education modules in curricula, early similarity screening before submission, and committee-based, level-based penalties that can affect students, faculty supervisors, and even institutional membership in integrity panels during investigations.