An IB academic integrity case requires a documented and impartial process. The DP coordinator should secure evidence, identify the applicable rules, notify the correct people, provide a fair opportunity to respond, and report the concern to the IB when required. The coordinator manages the process rather than beginning with a presumption of guilt.
The correct route depends on whether the concern involves classwork, final work awaiting submission, work already submitted to the IB, an examination, or possible school maladministration. Coordinators should consult the current Academic integrity policy, session-specific DP Assessment procedures, relevant subject guide, and their school's published policy.
What counts as an IB academic integrity concern?
The IB defines student academic misconduct as deliberate or inadvertent behaviour that has the potential to give the student, or another person, an unfair advantage in one or more assessment components. Conduct that disadvantages another student, threatens assessment integrity, or involves failing to report observed misconduct may also fall within this definition.
Examples include:
- plagiarism or inadequate acknowledgment of words, ideas, images, data, code, or translated material
- collusion on work that must be completed independently
- duplication of work across assessment components
- fabrication or falsification of data, references, evidence, or research
- unauthorized assistance from another person, service, or artificial intelligence tool
- possession of prohibited material or unauthorized communication during an examination
- sharing or attempting to obtain protected examination content
The IB distinguishes misconduct from school maladministration, meaning conduct by a school or associated person that infringes IB rules and potentially threatens assessment integrity. Excessive teacher editing, improper authentication, insecure examination materials, inadequate invigilation, or failure to report an incident may constitute maladministration.
This distinction matters. A student investigation must not conceal a possible staff or systems failure. If a teacher, coordinator, or senior leader may be implicated, the head of school should arrange an appropriately independent investigation and follow IB instructions.
The IB academic integrity case process
| Stage | Coordinator's responsibility |
|---|---|
| Receive the concern | Record the allegation without presenting it as proven |
| Classify the case | Identify the assessment stage and possible maladministration |
| Preserve evidence | Secure original files, reports, logs, and statements |
| Notify appropriately | Inform school leadership and the IB when required |
| Investigate fairly | Gather evidence supporting and refuting the allegation |
| Obtain responses | Give affected individuals a meaningful opportunity to explain |
| Decide or submit | Apply school policy or submit the case to the IB |
| Communicate and record | Explain the outcome, review route, and follow-up actions |
1. Record and classify the concern
Ask the reporting person to identify the assessment, disputed material, relevant date, source of concern, and rule that may have been breached. Record observations neutrally. For example, write, “Paragraphs 4-6 closely match the attached source,” rather than, “The student deliberately plagiarized.”
Create a confidential case file and record who accesses it. Then establish the assessment stage:
- Classwork or an early draft: normally follow the school's policy and use the incident educationally where appropriate.
- Final work not yet submitted: do not authenticate or submit work if the school cannot establish that it is authentic. Check whether correction or replacement is permitted.
- Work already submitted: inform the IB promptly and follow its instructions.
- Examination incident: preserve the evidence and report according to current procedures. The IB policy specifies contact within 24 hours of the examination when a breach is identified.
- Possible maladministration or security breach: notify the head of school and the IB as appropriate without compromising evidence through an informal inquiry.
A school disciplinary decision does not replace an IB assessment decision. Where the IB has jurisdiction, the school cannot negotiate or alter the IB's outcome.
2. Preserve and examine the evidence
Collect original evidence before interviewing people or asking anyone to edit a file. Relevant records may include the submitted work, source material, drafts, version history, planning documents, raw data, teacher feedback, supervision records, correspondence, seating plans, invigilator notes, and lawfully obtained platform logs.
A similarity percentage is not proof of plagiarism. Investigators must inspect the matched passages and consider quotations, references, templates, technical language, and the relationship between the student's work and the possible source.
AI detector results should receive the same caution. They are not conclusive evidence of authorship. Drafts, version history, source use, oral explanation, disclosed prompts, and the student's documented production process usually provide more meaningful evidence.
3. Notify people and obtain a response
Follow school policy when notifying the head of school, relevant teacher, student, and parent or legal guardian. Share information only with people who need it for the investigation, decision, reporting requirement, or student support.
State the allegation in neutral and specific terms. Give the student or staff member access to the substance of the concern and a genuine opportunity to respond. Useful questions include:
- How was the work planned and produced?
- Which sources, people, and digital tools contributed?
- Can the student explain the disputed passage, method, or dataset?
- What drafts or process records exist?
- How can the identified similarities or inconsistencies be explained?
For an IB investigation, a student suspected of misconduct must be invited to provide a written statement. If the student declines, document that the opportunity was offered. The investigation may then continue using the available evidence.
4. Evaluate the case and use the correct decision route
Construct a chronology and separate established facts, disputed claims, and reasonable inferences. Investigators should actively collect material that could refute the allegation, not merely evidence supporting it.
Inadvertence does not automatically remove a case from consideration because the IB definition covers deliberate and inadvertent behaviour capable of creating an unfair advantage. However, intent, extent, context, prior instruction, and the nature of any assistance may remain relevant when understanding the incident and applying school procedures.
For a school-level pre-submission matter, the authorized decision-maker should apply the published policy consistently. The written outcome should identify the finding, evidence, applicable rule, consequence, and internal review process.
In an IB investigation, the coordinator submits accurate evidence and statements but does not determine the IB outcome. Depending on the evidence and current penalty matrices, consequences may range from a warning or zero marks for a component to no grade in the affected subject. Coordinators should never predict a penalty from a similarity percentage or word count alone.
Under the current DP general regulations, an assessment appeal may address how an academic misconduct decision was made. It is not a request for an exception to published rules. The head of school or DP coordinator raises the appeal through the official process, including when a student or legal guardian requests an appeal the school does not support.
Handling AI-related concerns
The IB does not impose a general ban on artificial intelligence tools. However, AI-generated material is not automatically the student's own work. Generated text, images, graphs, or other material incorporated into assessed work must be transparently identified and appropriately referenced according to IB and school expectations.
Coordinators should ask two separate questions:
- Was this type of assistance permitted for the task?
- Was the contribution represented and acknowledged accurately?
Citing a tool does not make prohibited assistance acceptable, while unusual writing alone does not establish AI use. Consult the official IB guidance on AI in learning, teaching, and assessment and assess the complete production record. RevisionDojo's guide to ethical AI use in IB coursework can support staff and student discussions.
Common coordinator mistakes
Avoid these procedural errors:
- treating an allegation as a verdict in initial correspondence
- allowing final work to be rewritten before checking assessment rules
- relying exclusively on a similarity score or AI detector
- conducting undocumented conversations instead of preserving statements
- overlooking possible staff misconduct or assessment-system failures
- promising families a particular IB penalty
- circulating confidential information more widely than necessary
RevisionDojo's explanations of plagiarism and collusion, what happens after an accusation, and IB academic misconduct penalties can help students and families understand the general framework. Current IB documentation remains authoritative for individual cases.
Building a defensible school procedure
A strong school policy should define misconduct and maladministration, assign investigator and decision-maker roles, establish reporting routes, protect confidentiality, and explain internal review procedures. It should distinguish between drafts, final school assessments, submitted IB work, and examinations.
Staff need training on preserving evidence and reporting concerns rather than privately negotiating solutions. Students should receive explicit guidance on collaboration, citations, editing, tutors, exemplars, file sharing, and AI use. RevisionDojo's guide to building a culture of academic honesty offers additional teaching strategies.
Conclusion
A defensible IB academic integrity process is prompt, evidence-led, confidential, and fair. Coordinators must establish the assessment stage, preserve original evidence, distinguish student misconduct from maladministration, provide an opportunity to respond, and involve the IB whenever current rules require it.
RevisionDojo resources can reinforce ethical study practices. Jojo AI, the Questionbank, Study Notes, and Coursework Review should support learning and feedback, never replace student authorship.
Sources and referenced URLs
- IB Academic integrity policy
- IB General regulations: Diploma Programme, 2026
- IB academic integrity concerns reporting page
- IB guidance on artificial intelligence
- RevisionDojo guide to ethical AI use
- RevisionDojo guide to academic honesty culture
- RevisionDojo guide to plagiarism and collusion
- RevisionDojo guide for accused students
- RevisionDojo overview of misconduct penalties