The Harvard Chan School is committed to cultivating and maintaining a learning environment marked by high academic standards and integrity. Harvard Chan students are expected to conduct themselves in keeping with those values.
To report a violation, please submit a Code of Conduct form.
Admissions Application Policy
Occasionally, candidates for admission will make inaccurate or incomplete statements or submit false material in connection with their application. In most cases, these misrepresentations or omissions are discovered during the admission process and the application is rejected. If a misrepresentation or omission is discovered after a student is admitted, the offer of admission ordinarily will be withdrawn. If a misrepresentation or omission is discovered after a student has registered, or registered and completed courses, the offer of admission ordinarily will be rescinded, the course credit and grades will be revoked, and the student will be required to leave the School. If the discovery occurs after a degree has been awarded, the offer of admission ordinarily will be rescinded, and the course credit, grades, and degree will be revoked.
The determination that an application is inaccurate, incomplete, or contains misrepresentations or omissions rests with the Office of Admissions, which has the authority to resolve the matter outside the student disciplinary process. The Office of Admissions also may rescind an offer of admission in other circumstances, including without limitation if: there is a discrepancy between the transcripts originally provided as part of the application and the official versions (or translations) submitted after acceptance; the admitted candidate did not satisfactorily complete any courses and degree programs in progress at the time of application; or the admitted candidate has engaged in academic or personal conduct that calls into question their honesty, maturity or moral character or is otherwise inconsistent with the School’s expectations for conduct.
Academic Misconduct
Academic misconduct is antithetical to the core values of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
Students who engage in academic misconduct (including, for example, plagiarizing, cheating, or falsifying data) are misrepresenting their level of mastery and skill.
Please see below for specific policies on plagiarism, self-plagiarism, unapproved collaboration, fabrication and falsification, cheating or colluding to cheat on exams, and use of artificial intelligence tools.
All students are responsible for understanding the expectations and requirements of their academic work and knowing whether collaborative work is permitted for each of their courses and with respect to each assignment. While instructors and teaching fellows should make every effort to outline expectations clearly, the onus for seeking clarification is on the student.
The School’s code of conduct also applies to general behavior, outside of the classroom context.
For example, violations of our standards could include falsifying one’s identity for academic and professional purposes, unauthorized use of accounts, unauthorized sharing or selling of proprietary academic content, or research-related misconduct.
Research misconduct by students ordinarily will be reviewed by the Office of Regulatory Affairs and Research Compliance, as detailed in the Research Misconduct Policy. The Office of Regulatory Affairs and Research Compliance then will coordinate with the Office for Student Services, which may impose sanctions pursuant to this Code of Conduct policy, depending upon the circumstances.
The School reserves the right to determine, in a given instance, what action constitutes an infringement of honesty and integrity. Sanctions will be aligned with the seriousness of the violation and will apply to all students at Harvard Chan School, including PhD students officially enrolled in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (GSAS), though GSAS may be consulted if an incident involves a PhD student. Similarly, for students who are cross-registered into a Harvard Chan class from another Harvard School, Harvard Chan School will coordinate with the student’s home school on review processes and any recommended sanctions.
Academic Integrity Reporting Procedures
All members of the Harvard Chan community are responsible for upholding the School’s values and standards. There are also context-specific elements to every potential violation of standards. In recognition that contexts and situations vary, the governance of these standards includes flexibility and multiple paths toward addressing perceived student academic integrity violations that include:
Consultation is a path for asking questions and obtaining confidential guidance prior to the formal reporting of an incident or at any time during the review of evidence about an incident. It might, for example, be useful to talk with the Associate Dean for Student Services if it is unclear whether an incident rises to the level of needing to be reported. Another example might include getting guidance about how best to talk with students about perceived or potential violations. A third example is to determine the path forward if a student is involved in a research misconduct incident, which will require coordination with the Office of Regulatory Affairs and Research Compliance. Consultation is available both for someone who believes they have observed an incident of misconduct and for those who have been accused of misconduct, or both. Consultation is provided by the Associate Dean for Student Services. The Associate Dean may refer individuals to the Office for Student Affairs, or other support services at the School or University, suggest that there be further consultations between the involved parties (e.g., instructors, TFs, students, research staff, other staff members), provide advice about how to complete a form to register a violation, or any number of other actions designed to facilitate learning and adherence to our values and standards.
Internal review (usually within-course review) is a path for an incident to be documented but handled within the context of the perceived violation, without need for a hearing by the Student Code of Conduct Council. This most commonly occurs for incidents of academic misconduct, within the context of a course. Instructional staff who perceive academic misconduct would, in this context, determine whether there was a violation, complete a misconduct form, and determine the appropriate sanction and communicate it to the student without a hearing. Instructors are encouraged to contact the Associate Dean for Student Services to discuss options.
Internal review is optional for both instructors and students. If either instructor or student (or both) prefer a Student Code of Conduct Council hearing, that is an option for a perceived incident of misconduct.
Student Code of Conduct Council hearing involves an incident that is reviewed by the council (a) either when one or both parties prefer a hearing to an internal review or (b) when the incident is serious enough to require a hearing.
The School’s code of conduct also applies to general behavior, outside of the classroom context. For example, violations of our standards could include falsifying one’s identity for academic and professional purposes, unauthorized use of accounts, unauthorized sharing or selling proprietary academic content, or research-related misconduct. Research misconduct by students ordinarily will be reviewed by the Office of Regulatory Affairs and Research Compliance, as detailed in the Research Misconduct Policy. The Office of Regulatory Affairs and Research Compliance then will coordinate with the Office for Student Services, which may impose sanctions pursuant to this Code of Conduct policy, depending upon the circumstances.
The examples below, while not intended to be exhaustive, are meant to establish a standard set of definitions of academic misconduct. The School reserves the right to determine, in a given instance, what action constitutes an infringement of honesty and integrity. Sanctions will be aligned with the seriousness of the violation and will apply to all students at Harvard Chan, including PhD students officially enrolled in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (GSAS), though GSAS may be consulted if an incident involves a PhD student. Similarly, for students who are cross-registered into a Harvard Chan class from another Harvard School, Harvard Chan will coordinate with the student’s home school on review processes and any recommended sanctions.
Plagiarism
Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit. All work submitted to meet course requirements is expected to be a student’s own work. Students should always take great care to distinguish their own ideas and knowledge from information derived from sources. Whenever ideas or facts are derived from a student’s reading and research, the sources must be indicated. The term “sources” includes not only published primary and secondary material but also information and opinions gained directly from other people (e.g., lecture, video, past presentations from students previously in the course, etc.). The responsibility for using proper forms of citation lies with the individual student. Direct quotes from other sources must be placed within quotation marks, and the original source must be clearly credited. All paraphrased material also must be acknowledged. If a student is unsure about the proper way to attribute credit for ideas other than their own, they should seek guidance from instructional staff and/or from Student Support Services. Allegations of plagiarism by a student with respect to research activities ordinarily will be reviewed by the Office of Regulatory Affairs and Research Compliance, in coordination with the Office of Student Services, as set forth above.
Self-Plagiarism/Reusing Previous Work
Self-plagiarism is trying to submit work previously completed in one context as original in a new context. A paper or other work normally may be submitted only in one course. Students must obtain prior written permission of the current instructor in order to submit the same or substantially the same work in any other course. A student who submits the same or substantially the same work for more than one course without such prior permission is subject to sanctions.
Unapproved Collaboration
The default assumption is that students must produce their own work. Unapproved collaboration – that is, working with others outside the specified, assigned collaborative activities of a course – is prohibited. The amount of permitted collaboration in the completion of assignments depends on the policy set by the course instructor. Instructors are responsible for clearly stating collaboration policies in their course syllabi. Students are in turn responsible for understanding the appropriate degree of collaboration permitted by the instructional team, including clarifying any uncertainties with their instructors, and appropriately acknowledging collaboration in submitted work. This requirement applies to collaboration on editing as well as on substance.
A note on computer programs: Like other written material, code written to satisfy a course requirement is expected to be the original work of the student submitting it. Copying a program from another student or from any other source without appropriate attribution is a form of academic dishonesty, as is deriving a program substantially from the work of others without proper citation or permission of the instructor.
Fabrication and Falsification
Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them. Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record. Original research is an integral part of both academic training and the dissemination of general knowledge. While it comes in many forms, all research is held to rigorous standards both within the school in which it is conducted and beyond. As such, the fabrication or falsification of data, including but not limited to falsification of experimental results or surveys that are part of a student’s academic training, will not be tolerated in any form. Allegations of fabrication or falsification of data by a student with respect to research activities ordinarily will be reviewed by the Office of Regulatory Affairs and Research Compliance, in coordination with the Office for Student Services, as set forth above.
Cheating or Colluding to Cheat on Examinations
Cheating on exams, whether take-home or in-class, involves either submitting test answers that are not one’s own or providing test answers to others that they submit as if their own. Unless otherwise specified, take-home exams are given with the understanding that students may consult their class notes and other approved references but may not consult other students or other external sources. Students who submit work that is either not their own or lacks clear attribution of sources will be subject to sanctions. Students also should be aware that the school has common procedures for the administration of in-class examinations. Depending on the size of the class, proctors may be used to monitor examinations, and students may be asked to follow a certain seating arrangement. Before the examination, the instructor or proctor will explain any procedures to be followed.
