An IB academic integrity case requires a prompt, impartial, and documented response. The coordinator's role is not to assume guilt or begin with a penalty. It is to protect the assessment, preserve evidence, hear the student's explanation, and decide whether school procedures apply or the case must be reported to the IB.
Concerns identified before final submission may be resolved under the school's published policy, subject to IB requirements. Concerns involving submitted work, examinations, or possible school maladministration require escalation under current IB procedures.
What counts as an academic integrity concern?
The IB defines student academic misconduct as deliberate or inadvertent behaviour with the potential to give the student or another person an unfair advantage in assessment. Conduct that disadvantages another student or compromises assessment integrity can also qualify.
Possible concerns include:
- Plagiarism or inadequate acknowledgment of sources
- Collusion on work that must be completed independently
- Duplication of work between assessment components
- Fabricated data, evidence, references, or research records
- Unauthorized assistance from tutors, relatives, editors, or online services
- AI-generated material presented as the student's own work
- Unauthorized material or communication during an examination
- Sharing protected examination content
- Helping another student obtain an unfair advantage
A concern is not a proven breach. A similarity report, AI-detection score, change in writing style, or third-party allegation can justify investigation, but none is conclusive alone.
Coordinators must also distinguish student misconduct from school maladministration. Maladministration may involve excessive teacher assistance, insecure examination materials, unauthorized examination arrangements, or authentication of work that the school doubts is the student's own.
The process for handling malpractice concerns
A defensible procedure separates evidence collection from conclusions. This protects the student, reduces confirmation bias, and creates a usable record if the IB reviews the matter.
| Stage | Coordinator action | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Receive the concern | Record who reported it, when, and which assessment is involved | Establish a clear starting point |
| Protect the assessment | Secure work, files, examination materials, and device records | Prevent alteration or evidence loss |
| Classify the case | Identify whether it concerns schoolwork, IB coursework, an examination, or maladministration | Select the correct procedure |
| Gather evidence | Collect drafts, sources, reports, statements, and instructions | Build an objective record |
| Notify the student | Explain the allegation, evidence, process, and possible consequences | Provide procedural fairness |
| Obtain responses | Interview relevant people and request statements | Test competing explanations |
| Decide or report | Apply school policy or submit evidence to the IB | Keep authority at the correct level |
| Record the outcome | Communicate the decision and review or appeal route | Close the case transparently |
Record and preserve the evidence
The initial record should identify the assessment component, relevant dates, suspected conduct, and available evidence. Use neutral language such as suspected unattributed copying, not a statement that the student has plagiarized.
Ask the teacher or invigilator to preserve the original work and produce a contemporaneous account. For an examination incident, record the seating position, timing, materials found, actions taken, and statements made.
Create a restricted case file containing relevant work, instructions, source comparisons, reports, drafts, raw data, feedback, and document history. Preserve original files where possible. Confidentiality limits access to people with a legitimate role, but does not justify withholding the allegation and relevant evidence from the student.
Classify the case by assessment status
Classification determines who has authority and which deadlines apply.
| Situation | Usual route |
|---|---|
| Formative work or an internal school assignment | Apply the school's published academic integrity policy |
| Final IB work questioned before upload and the IB deadline | Resolve under school policy; do not submit work that cannot be authenticated |
| Concern discovered after submission to the IB | Inform the IB as soon as possible and follow its investigation instructions |
| Breach during an IB examination | Secure evidence and report it within the required timeframe; current policy specifies within 24 hours when a student is found in breach of examination regulations |
| Suspected school maladministration | Notify school leadership and the IB as appropriate, following the specific IB process |
The official IB Academic Integrity Policy should be checked for current procedures and statement requirements. Coordinators should also consult documentation for the applicable examination session rather than relying on an old checklist.
Gather evidence that tests different explanations
Useful evidence shows what appears in the final product and how it developed. It may include planning notes, drafts, version history, source logs, raw data, calculations, supervision records, messages, AI prompts, seating plans, and invigilator reports.
Similarity software identifies overlap, not misconduct. A match may be quoted, translated, commonly used, or properly acknowledged. An AI detector should likewise never be the sole basis for a finding because a probability score does not reliably establish authorship.
Compare the evidence with the task requirements and consider whether an innocent or permitted explanation fits. RevisionDojo's guide to plagiarism, collusion, and other forms of IB misconduct can support preventive training, although official IB policy remains controlling.
Give the student a genuine opportunity to respond
Tell the student what conduct is suspected, which evidence will be considered, and which policy applies. Explain that the investigation is a fact-finding process, not a predetermined decision.
Invite the student to provide drafts, notes, sources, prompts, or other development evidence. In an IB-led investigation, the student must have an opportunity to submit a written statement. If the student declines, document that the opportunity was offered.
Useful interview questions include:
- How did you plan and produce this work?
- Which sources, people, and digital tools did you use?
- Can you explain this argument, calculation, or terminology?
- What assistance did you receive?
- How do the drafts relate to the final version?
The RevisionDojo guide for students accused of academic misconduct can help students organize relevant process evidence without constructing a predetermined defence.
Who decides the outcome?
For a school-managed case, the decision-maker should be identified in the school's published policy. Where staffing permits, serious cases should be reviewed by someone other than the original reporter or investigator.
When the IB initiates an investigation, the school supplies evidence and statements, but the IB decides whether its regulations were breached and applies any IB penalty. Outcomes may include a warning, zero marks for a component, or no grade for an affected subject, depending on the circumstances. A school may impose a separate local consequence, but it must distinguish that decision from the IB's decision.
Rules before and after submission
Before submission, a school must not authenticate work it does not believe is the student's own. Correction or resubmission is permitted only when the established school policy allows it and relevant deadlines can still be met. The school must not invent a new procedure retrospectively for one student.
Submitting inauthentic work with a mark of zero is not an acceptable solution. If authentic final work is unavailable, the student may have no submission for the component, potentially preventing a subject grade.
After submission, the coordinator must not quietly replace the work or arrange a local substitute for IB procedures. The IB should be informed as soon as possible. The General Regulations: Diploma Programme provide the overarching regulatory basis.
Handling suspected AI misuse
The central question is not simply whether AI was used. The coordinator must establish whether the assistance was permitted, transparently identified, and consistent with what the assessment was intended to measure.
Referencing an AI contribution does not automatically make extensive generated content acceptable when the task assesses the student's reasoning or writing. Review drafts, version history, prompts, outputs, teacher observations, and the student's explanation.
The IB's guidance on common AI questions and RevisionDojo's ethical AI use guide clarify the distinction between legitimate support and replaced authorship.
Common coordinator mistakes
- Treating detection as proof: Software output requires contextual interpretation.
- Starting with the penalty: Establish facts, rules, and authority first.
- Using inconsistent procedures: Similar cases should follow the same published process.
- Combining every role: Separate reporting, investigation, decision, and review where practical.
- Submitting doubtful work: Authentication is a professional judgment, not an administrative checkbox.
- Confusing school and IB authority: A school cannot decide an IB investigation for the IB.
- Keeping weak records: Undocumented conversations are difficult to rely on during review or appeal.
Building a defensible school procedure
A school policy should define reporting routes, staff roles, evidence requirements, communication arrangements, local consequences, record retention, and review procedures. It should distinguish classroom concerns from cases involving submitted IB work or examinations.
Staged deadlines, supervised planning, source logs, draft conferences, and brief oral checks create an authentic development trail. RevisionDojo's guidance on IA feedback and moderation records and tools for IB teachers and departments can support consistent feedback and record-keeping.
Conclusion
Handling an IB academic integrity case depends on neutrality, reliable evidence, procedural fairness, and timely escalation. Coordinators should preserve original material, classify the case correctly, hear the student's account, distinguish school authority from IB authority, and document each significant step.
Clear policies and visible drafting processes reduce uncertainty before submission. RevisionDojo can support staff training, student guidance, and coursework records, while current official IB documents remain the final authority.
Sources and referenced URLs
- IB Academic Integrity Policy
- General Regulations: Diploma Programme
- IB guidance on artificial intelligence questions and concerns
- RevisionDojo guide to plagiarism, collusion, and academic misconduct
- RevisionDojo guide for students accused of academic misconduct
- RevisionDojo guide to ethical AI use in coursework
- RevisionDojo guidance on IA feedback and moderation
- RevisionDojo for IB teachers and departments