This page helps Australian National University students orient themselves after an academic integrity concern, review notice, inquiry notice, poor academic practice finding, or academic misconduct decision.
ANU's public learner guidance and policy procedure describe a staged process: a concern may be handled as a review or referred as potential academic misconduct for inquiry. A stronger response usually identifies the exact conduct alleged, checks whether the matter is review or inquiry stage, answers the evidence provided, and explains authorship, intent, collaboration, source use and mitigating context without overstating what the records prove.
ANU's learner guidance distinguishes a review, usually handled by a course convener for less serious or potentially excusable coursework issues, from an inquiry where potential academic misconduct is considered by an inquiry officer or panel.
List the conduct alleged, the assessment or thesis affected, the materials ANU says will be considered, the meeting details, support-person information, and whether written material can be provided instead of or alongside attendance.
Use drafts, document metadata, source notes, lab books, reference records, collaboration messages, permitted-assistance instructions, AI-use declarations and LMS history to explain what happened. Avoid a general denial that never engages with the documents.
Keep the notice, disclosed materials, outcome reasons, dates, support requests and any missing evidence. ANU's learner guidance says appeal information is provided in the outcome letter, so use the actual letter to identify the current appeal route and timeframe.
ANU's learner guidance describes poor academic practice as a breach that may be unintended, careless, inadvertent, uninformed or excusable in a less serious context. If that is the real issue, the response should explain learning context and evidence carefully.
The guidance says serious potential breaches may be referred to Student Conduct and Appeals as potential academic misconduct. Treat the stage of the matter as important because the decision-maker and possible actions may differ.
The public guidance refers to support through ANUSA or the Dean of Students and says students may attend, bring a support person, and provide written statements in review or inquiry processes. Check the current notice before relying on any option.
Responses often become weaker when they ignore the exact policy allegation, provide only emotional context, omit draft evidence, fail to separate authorised collaboration from collusion, or apologise in wording that unintentionally admits dishonest intent.
Collect the assessment instructions, originality declaration, reference list, notes, drafts, file history and any previous submission records. Explain the work process and any mistake in a way that matches the documentary record.
Preserve prompts or tool logs if available, tutoring communications, group-work instructions, message records, file access history and drafts. The response should distinguish legitimate help from conduct the ANU rule may treat as a breach.
If the notice is clear but your documents are scattered, start with the Academic Appeal Evidence Checklist and the Academic Appeal Timeline Guide.
For broader drafting guidance, read Academic Misconduct Defence and How to craft a response to deny allegations of academic misconduct.
If you need private help reviewing the notice, evidence and response structure, use the student contact form or the main contact page.
This public guide is general information for students preparing documents. It is not legal advice, does not replace ANU's official notice, rule, policy or procedure, and does not guarantee any academic, disciplinary, enrolment, professional registration or migration outcome.
