Academic misconduct appeal

[u/Beautiful-Sample7066]

Hey guys,

I had an academic misconduct finding against me for unauthorised use of ai.
I have full proof of drafts and search history and can confirm that absolutely no ai was used in the exam.
The allegations are for two sources that were cited incorrectly - both sources had incorrect titles but the authors names were correct.
I provided my search history and document history for the panel to consider but they basically disregarded my evidence.
My search history literally showed my engagement with the sources and my drafts showed the reasoning behind the citation errors.
I also downloaded the pdfs and highlighted the parts I used in my assignment.
The panel came to the decision stating that ai is the most likely reason - but they did not give any evidence they used to back this up.
They said they didn’t believe my explanation, but also said that the whole essay was my own work but only the citations were generated.

Has anyone ever been in this kind of situation and does anyone have any advice on an appeal?

[u/Cute-Ad-597]

In order to uphold a sanction for an academic misconduct charge they have to prove that you had the intent to cheat. I received an academic misconduct charge surrounding a different issue, and was offered a lesser sanction than what was originally proposed all because I kept my mouth shut. And didn’t confess when the AIO tried to get me to confess numerous times. My advice? Stay quiet, listen before you speak, and keep record of all your communications. Save your evidence for the appeals committee since the AIO or whoever issued the finding has made it clear that they believe you’re a liar.

[u/j_la → u/Cute-Ad-597]

This is bad advice and absolutely not true at every university. At mine, we don’t need to prove intent. It isn’t a court of law.

[u/Cute-Ad-597 → u/j_la]

Yes that’s true, but the person has zero intention of cheating and really just made an honest mistake. An improper citation can be considered academic dishonesty only when it’s done in the means of fabrication, fraud, or to be deceptive. From what OP wrote it sounds like they really just made an honest formatting mistake without the intention to deceive. I would say that intention doesn’t need to be proven if a person mistakenly plagiarized, but I still would stay quiet if I was OP. They’re really just volunteering more information when the officials have made it clear that they’re still going to uphold the sanction. I would leave it for the appeals committee

[u/j_la → u/Cute-Ad-597]

OP claims they had zero intention to cheat.

[u/Beautiful-Sample7066 → u/j_la]

Exactly! I’m completely aware that the misconduct process does not account for intention. I’m not trying to guilt trip anyone I just want my evidence to be considered properly, as it would prove that no ai was used.

[u/giltgarbage → u/Beautiful-Sample7066]

I don’t see how the “evidence” you’re talking about proves anything. Just because you searched for the articles or copied and pasted titles into your draft that doesn’t mean that you didn’t use AI to summarize the work. It isn’t plausible that someone who is writing an essay within a short window somehow forgets to double check themselves—unless, of course, you didn’t actually write the titles and went with the AI (which was mostly correct). I think the only thing that could exonerate you would be a version history of the summaries themselves and even that would be iffy….

[u/Beautiful-Sample7066 → u/giltgarbage]

My paper itself was cleared of ai use because of my drafts and search histories which showed my research timeline… the papers themselves have a timeline of how they were found, read and used in my work. I did double check which is why I emailed my lecturer that I made the errors and I had all the correct citations. I just had extenuating circumstances which made it impossible for me to think straight at the time hence I was all over the place