Academic Integrity Policy

1. Preamble

Royal Military College Saint-Jean (RMC Saint-Jean) fully supports the principles of intellectual integrity. As members of RMC Saint-Jean and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), students commit to demonstrate rigorous honesty by adhering to the principles and spirit of academic integrity. Academic integrity is a commitment to respect, whatever the circumstances, the four core values of honesty, justice, respect, and responsibility. The College motto, ‘Truth, Duty, Valour’, defends these values. Any academic integrity violation, regardless of apparent severity, opposes these values and, therefore, will be considered an attack on the overall quality of the academic work and will incur sanctions for the student who commits such an offence.

2. General Definition

There are three categories of violations of academic integrity in studies:

  • Plagiarism: Plagiarism consists of using or reproducing, intentionally or unintentionally, words, ideas, images, or any other work without properly acknowledging the source. It also includes presenting as one’s own work content generated, in whole or in part by an artificial intelligence system when such use is not authorized or is not disclosed in accordance with applicable rules, instructions, and guidelines provided to students.
  • Cheating: Cheating is an act intended to gain, or that could result in gaining, an unfair advantage over others by obtaining answers or data without respecting established rulesFootnote 1.
  • Fraud: Fraud is an act intended to deliberately deceive or to violate a ruleFootnote 1.

Examples of breaches of academic integrity in studies

The following statements represent a non-exhaustive list of examples of plagiarism, cheating, and fraud:

  1. Submitting as one’s own work an assignment containing excerpts or ideas from another person without acknowledging the source.
  2. Submitting as one’s own work an assignment or part of an assignment generated by artificial intelligence without the required authorization or disclosure.
  3. Uploading educational materials in any form, or an original work, into an artificial intelligence system without the author’s permission.
  4. Paraphrasing, that is, expressing an author's original ideas in one’s own words without citing the source.
  5. Paraphrasing content generated by artificial intelligence and expressing it in one’s own words without the required authorization or disclosure.
  6. Reproducing visual materials (presentations, photographs, videos, etc.) or data without identifying their source and without obtaining permission for reproduction when required.
  7. Translating all or part of a text from one language into another without identifying the source.
  8. Copying from another person during an assessment, whether formative or summative.
  9. Submitting, without authorization, the same work or part of the same work in another course, or in the same course when it is retaken at a later date.
  10. Providing or receiving unauthorized assistance, whether individual or collective, for any assessment, formative or summative.
  11. Distributing, in whole or in part, the content of an assessment, whether formative or summative.
  12. Making an individual or team assignment available to one or more students.
  13. Possessing unauthorized materials during an assessed activity, regardless of format or source, including but not limited to documents, devices, equipment, technological tools, or digital resources.
  14. Using any source of information not authorized by the instructor, including artificial intelligence.
  15. Falsifying, fabricating, or concealing laboratory results or data.
  16. Falsifying or fabricating information or references.
  17. Falsifying or fabricating exchanges, communications, or communication records (emails, artificial intelligence consultations, logs, etc.).
  18. Buying or selling academic work.
  19. Other

3. Preponderance of evidence

The Executive Council and the Appeals Committee apply the principle of the preponderance of evidence in handling cases of suspected academic misconduct. This principle requires that the evidence presented be more convincing and compelling than that of the opposing party. Unlike the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard, the preponderance of evidence does not require absolute certainty. Rather, it involves assessing the likelihood that the facts presented are true, convincingly demonstrating that a violation has occurred.

4. Sanctions

When a violation is confirmed, the following sanctions are applied:

  1. A note on file;
  2. Loss of privilege to write the supplemental evaluation for the course in question.

Additionally, depending on the nature and severity of the violation, one or more of the following sanctions will be applied:

  1. Reduction of marks, down to zero, for the work;
  2. Reduction of marks, down to zero, for the course;
  3. Assignment of supplemental work;
  4. Suspension;
  5. Expulsion.

When a case involves multiple violations, the minimum sanctions applied will be those associated with the most severe violation.

Repeat violations may be subject to course failure, suspension, or expulsion. However, in no case is any violation exempt from the maximum sanctions allowed, including expulsion, depending on the severity of the violation.

5. The student may also be referred to methodological support for corrective purposes.

6. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances may be taken into account in determining sanctions. However, beyond a certain threshold of seriousness, a minimum sanction is no longer possible.

7. If the case being assessed is weighted between 0 and 10%, the student concerned has three working days after receiving the decision to register a written protest (by e-mail) with the executive assistant to the Secretary General. The case is automatically submitted to the Academic Integrity executive council.

8. If the case being assessed is weighted greater than 10%, the student concerned has ten working days to register a written appeal (by e-mail) to the executive assistant to the Secretary General. The Appeal Committee will study this appeal and will formulate within five working days a decision that is final and unappealable.

 
 
Date modified: