Queen Mary University of London Academic Appeal: Procedure, Grounds, Deadlines and Solicitor-Led Support

A Queen Mary University of London academic appeal asks the University to reconsider a confirmed academic result or decision. Students normally have 15 working days from receiving the confirmed result or decision to submit a Formal Appeal.

Every appeal must rely on at least one recognised ground. At Queen Mary, those grounds are a significant procedural error or qualifying extenuating circumstances.

Students cannot appeal simply because they disagree with a mark, degree classification, feedback or another matter involving academic judgement. They must also provide independent evidence that supports the selected ground.

Queen Mary currently asks students to submit academic appeals through AskQM. The student should select “New Enquiry”, followed by “Appeals and Complaints” and “Academic Appeal”.

This guide reflects Queen Mary’s 2025–26 policies available on 20 July 2026. The University reviews its policies regularly. Therefore, students should also check the version that applies to their decision and academic year.

Solicitor-led academic appeals, complaints and misconduct defence

Ginkgo Advisory provides strategic advice, drafting and representation for students at Queen Mary University of London and other UK universities.

Our service is confidential, independent and tailored to the individual case.

Support can begin with an initial assessment and continue through to the final written submission. Where Queen Mary’s procedure permits it, we can also provide representation.

For a Queen Mary University of London academic appeal, our solicitor-led service may include:

• Assessing the grounds, deadline and prospects.
• Reviewing the confirmed result and decision letter.
• Analysing Queen Mary’s regulations and policies.
• Examining medical, academic, digital and procedural evidence.
• Drafting a Formal Appeal for submission through AskQM.
• Preparing a late-appeal explanation or extension request.
• Challenging the handling of extenuating circumstances.
• Drafting a Final Review request.
• Preparing a student for an Appeal Panel.
• Advising postgraduate researchers about progression and examination decisions.
• Drafting student complaints and Complaint Reviews.
• Responding to plagiarism, collusion and contract-cheating allegations.
• Defending allegations involving ChatGPT, machine translation or generative AI.
• Preparing students for Academic Misconduct Panels.
• Advising medical and dental students about fitness-to-practise proceedings.
• Preparing an OIA complaint.
• Providing representation where the relevant procedure allows it.

No adviser can guarantee a particular result. However, early advice can reduce avoidable errors involving grounds, evidence, deadlines and requested remedies.

Queen Mary University of London academic appeal deadlines

Procedure	Normal deadline or timeframe
Formal Academic Appeal	15 working days after the confirmed result or decision
Appeal against a confirmed extenuating circumstances outcome	21 calendar days under the Extenuating Circumstances Policy
Reply to an information request during an appeal	Normally within 5 working days
Formal Appeal outcome	Normally within 30 working days
Final Review request	10 working days after the Formal Appeal outcome
Final Review outcome	Normally within 20 working days
Notice of an Appeal Panel	At least 5 working days
Appeal Panel outcome	Normally within 3 working days after the Panel
Formal student complaint	Normally within 3 months of the incident
Formal complaint outcome	Normally within 42 calendar days
Complaint Review request	14 calendar days after the Formal Complaint outcome
Complaint Review outcome	Normally within one month
Academic misconduct appeal	14 calendar days after the misconduct outcome
Academic misconduct appeal outcome	Normally within 28 calendar days
Student disciplinary appeal	14 days after the formal outcome
Disciplinary appeal outcome	Normally within 15 working days
Fitness-to-practise appeal	14 calendar days after the outcome
Initial fitness-to-practise appeal decision	Normally within 21 calendar days
OIA complaint	Normally within 12 months of the Completion of Procedures Letter

The Academic Appeals Policy sets a general limit of 15 working days. Separately, the Extenuating Circumstances Policy expresses the deadline for appealing a confirmed EC outcome as 21 calendar days. As a practical precaution, students should calculate both dates, work to the earlier one and ask the Appeals, Complaints and Conduct Office to confirm any uncertainty.

What is a Queen Mary University of London academic appeal?

A Queen Mary University of London academic appeal challenges a confirmed academic result or decision.

The Academic Appeals Policy applies to current students and recent graduates who comply with the relevant time limits.

It covers results confirmed by:

• A Subject Examination Board.
• A Degree Examination Board.
• The Research Degree Programmes and Examinations Board.

The same policy can also cover the confirmed outcome of an extenuating circumstances claim.

Depending on the programme and decision-making body, an appeal may concern:

• A confirmed module or assessment result.
• Progression to the next developmental year.
• A reassessment or resit position.
• Academic deregistration.
• A degree classification.
• A final award.
• A research degree progression decision.
• A postgraduate research examination outcome.
• Another decision confirmed by the relevant examination board.

Queen Mary’s research degree regulations give relevant bodies authority over progression, research-student deregistration, examination arrangements and research degree awards.

Can a student appeal a provisional mark?

No. Queen Mary’s formal appeal procedure applies to confirmed results.

A confirmed result has completed the University’s quality and standards process. A Subject Examination Board or Degree Examination Board will normally have ratified it before Queen Mary publishes it formally.

Students should raise questions about provisional marks or feedback directly with their School or Institute.

That approach may identify:

• A missing mark.
• An incorrect mark entry.
• A calculation problem.
• A misunderstanding about feedback.
• An administrative mistake that the School can correct without a formal appeal.

However, informal discussions do not automatically stop the 15-working-day deadline. Students should protect that deadline while seeking clarification.

What cannot be challenged through the academic appeals procedure?

Queen Mary will not normally accept an appeal based on:

• A provisional result.
• An appeal submitted outside the deadline without a good reason.
• Academic judgement.
• A marginal failure to obtain a higher classification.
• Unsupported allegations.
• A matter outside the Academic Appeals Policy.
• A frivolous or vexatious case.

The policy also excludes results arising from the Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy. Students must use the separate academic misconduct appeal route for those cases.

Likewise, non-academic deregistration decisions involving enrolment, fees or accommodation fall under the Administrative Appeals Policy rather than the Academic Appeals Policy.

What is academic judgement?

Academic judgement means a decision that requires the opinion of an academic expert.

Queen Mary’s definition includes judgements about:

• Marks.
• Degree classifications.
• Research methodology.
• Whether feedback is correct or adequate.
• The content or academic outcomes of a course.

Consequently, the following arguments will not normally support an appeal on their own:

• “My work deserved a higher mark.”
• “The marker misunderstood my argument.”
• “The feedback was too critical.”
• “Another student received a better result.”
• “I was close to the next degree classification.”
• “A different marker might have awarded more marks.”
• “My supervisor expected me to receive a higher grade.”

A student may still challenge a procedural failure surrounding the academic decision.

For example, an appeal may have merit if Queen Mary applied the wrong regulation, failed to include a mark or did not implement an approved adjustment. The student must challenge the process rather than the academic expert’s opinion.

What are the Queen Mary academic appeal grounds?

Queen Mary recognises two Formal Appeal grounds:

1. Procedural error.
2. Extenuating circumstances.

The student carries the burden of proof. Therefore, they must provide independent evidence showing why further consideration of at least one ground is justified.

Ground 1: procedural error

A procedural error occurs when Queen Mary does not follow the correct process when reaching the original decision.

The error must also be serious enough to call the reliability of that decision into question. A minor mistake that could not have affected the result will not normally justify a different outcome.

Depending on the facts, possible examples may include:

• The University entered the wrong mark.
• A calculation excluded an assessment component.
• A decision-maker applied the wrong academic regulation.
• The Board received incomplete or inaccurate information.
• Queen Mary failed to implement an approved reasonable adjustment.
• The required marking or moderation process did not take place.
• A Board considered the student under the wrong progression rules.
• An examination or assessment did not follow the published procedure.
• The University failed to consider an accepted extenuating circumstances decision.
• An academic body lacked information that it should have considered.

A strong procedural-error appeal should answer four questions:

1. Which rule or procedure applied?
2. What should Queen Mary have done?
3. What happened instead?
4. How could that failure have affected the decision?

The submission should refer to the relevant regulation, programme handbook, assessment instructions or written communication.

Ground 2: extenuating circumstances

Extenuating circumstances are adverse events outside a student’s control that negatively affect their ability to undertake or complete an assessment.

A student may rely on this ground where:

• Significant circumstances affected their academic work.
• A good reason prevented earlier disclosure.
• The student disclosed the circumstances, but Queen Mary did not consider them appropriately.

Examples may include:

• Serious physical illness.
• Acute mental health difficulties.
• Hospital admission.
• Bereavement.
• A family crisis.
• Trauma.
• A serious and unexpected personal event.
• A sudden deterioration in a disability or long-term condition.
• Another event outside the student’s control.

However, evidence that the circumstances existed is only one part of the case.

The student must also show either why they could not report the circumstances earlier or how Queen Mary failed to consider information that they had already submitted.

What counts as a good reason for late disclosure?

Queen Mary defines a good reason as circumstances outside the student’s control that had enough impact to prevent them from making the information known earlier.

The policy states that the following explanations will not normally amount to a good reason:

• Personal embarrassment.
• Unwillingness to disclose the circumstances.
• Failure to understand or recognise the relevant requirements.

Therefore, a successful retrospective claim usually needs more than a diagnosis or account of personal difficulty.

For example, a medical letter may confirm that a student experienced depression.

However, the letter may not explain why the condition prevented them from contacting Queen Mary, completing a claim form or seeking support.

More useful evidence may address:

• The severity of the symptoms.
• The relevant dates.
• The effect on concentration or decision-making.
• The student’s ability to communicate.
• Any crisis intervention or hospital treatment.
• Whether the student understood that action was required.
• Why the student could not engage with the procedure.

Appealing an extenuating circumstances decision

A student who believes that Queen Mary did not consider their extenuating circumstances properly may use the Academic Appeals Policy.

The Extenuating Circumstances Policy states that the appeal should reach Queen Mary within 21 calendar days of the confirmed EC outcome.

The student should identify a specific problem with the decision.

For example, the appeal may argue that:

• The assessor overlooked relevant evidence.
• The University misunderstood the dates.
• Queen Mary applied the wrong test.
• The decision did not address an important part of the claim.
• An accepted circumstance did not reach the correct academic body.
• The outcome was inconsistent with the applicable policy.

Students should also understand that Queen Mary will not increase marks merely because extenuating circumstances existed. Marks must reflect academic achievement.

Instead, an accepted appeal may lead to reconsideration, another assessment opportunity or another procedurally available remedy.

What evidence should support an academic appeal?

Queen Mary requires independent evidence demonstrating that the appeal ground has been met.

Students should provide all relevant evidence with the initial submission wherever possible. The University does not have responsibility for proving that an error did not occur when the student provides no evidence of one.

Relevant documents may include:

• The confirmed result or decision letter.
• Medical records.
• Hospital or specialist letters.
• Mental health service records.
• Counselling records.
• Emails sent to academic staff.
• AskQM records.
• An extenuating circumstances form and outcome.
• Disability and Dyslexia Service documents.
• A reasonable adjustment plan.
• Assessment submission receipts.
• Mark calculations.
• Examination information.
• Programme and module handbooks.
• Academic regulations.
• Meeting notes.
• Research supervision records.
• Progression reports.
• Document version histories.
• System screenshots.
• Witness statements.
• A dated chronology.

Evidence should cover the relevant period.

A medical letter written months later may still assist. However, it should explain the student’s condition during the assessment period rather than merely confirm a present diagnosis.

How should evidence be organised?

An organised evidence bundle makes the appeal easier to understand.

Students can label documents as follows:

• Exhibit A1: confirmed decision.
• Exhibit A2: medical evidence.
• Exhibit A3: email to the School.
• Exhibit A4: extenuating circumstances claim.
• Exhibit A5: relevant regulation.
• Exhibit A6: reasonable adjustment plan.
• Exhibit A7: chronology.
• Exhibit A8: requested remedy.

The written appeal should refer to each exhibit at the relevant point.

For example:

The medical records confirm that my condition became acute during the assessment period and affected my ability to communicate with the University. Please see Exhibit A2.

A large set of documents without an explanation may weaken the presentation. The decision-maker should not need to guess why each item matters.

How to draft a Queen Mary University of London academic appeal

A persuasive submission needs a clear structure.

1. Identify the confirmed decision

State:

• The programme.
• The module or assessment.
• The result or decision.
• The date Queen Mary confirmed it.
• The decision-making body, where known.

2. Identify the formal ground

Write clearly whether the appeal relies on:

• Procedural error.
• Extenuating circumstances.
• Both grounds.

Avoid vague statements such as “the process was unfair”.

A clearer formulation might be:

This appeal relies on a material procedural error because the Degree Examination Board did not receive the accepted extenuating circumstances decision before determining my progression.

3. Explain the key facts

Present the events in date order.

Short paragraphs and headings will help the reader. A separate chronology may assist where the case covers a long period.

4. Connect the facts to the ground

Do not simply describe a difficult experience.

Explain why the facts meet the wording of the Academic Appeals Policy.

5. Explain the academic impact

Identify the assessment, progression decision or award affected.

The submission should explain how the circumstances or error could have changed the decision.

6. Address late disclosure

An extenuating circumstances appeal should contain a separate section explaining why the student could not report the circumstances earlier.

7. Cite the evidence

Refer to each document by exhibit number.

This method keeps the written argument and evidence connected.

8. Request a realistic remedy

Possible requests may include:

• Reconsideration by the original academic body.
• Correction of an administrative error.
• Consideration of the relevant extenuating circumstances.
• A fresh assessment opportunity.
• Another attempt treated as a first sit.
• Reconsideration of progression.
• Reconsideration of an award or classification under the correct procedure.
• Referral to an Appeal Panel.

A request for Queen Mary simply to add a specific number of marks will normally conflict with the rule against challenging academic judgement.

How does the Queen Mary University of London academic appeal procedure work?

The formal procedure has two main stages:

1. Formal Appeal.
2. Final Review.

A particularly sensitive or complex case may also proceed to an Appeal Panel.

Step 1: seek informal clarification

Queen Mary encourages students to raise questions about marks, feedback and clerical errors with their School or Institute.

Early contact may resolve a missing-mark or data-entry problem without a formal appeal.

Nevertheless, the student should keep the 15-working-day deadline under review. Informal discussion does not create an automatic extension.

Step 2: submit the Formal Appeal through AskQM

Students should log into AskQM and select:

New Enquiry → Appeals and Complaints → Academic Appeal

The submission should normally include:

• The confirmed result or decision.
• The relevant appeal ground.
• A clear factual statement.
• Independent supporting evidence.
• The requested outcome.
• An explanation and evidence for any late submission.

Queen Mary may accept a late appeal only where the student shows a good reason for the delay. A student who cannot submit on time may contact the Appeals, Complaints and Conduct Office to request an extension.

Step 3: eligibility assessment

A member of the Appeals, Complaints and Conduct Office first decides whether the appeal is eligible.

The case must:

• Meet the relevant deadline.
• Fall within the policy.
• Identify at least one valid ground.
• Include evidence that warrants further consideration.

An appeal may fail at this stage where it challenges academic judgement, relies on provisional results or lacks evidence.

Where the Office finds an appeal ineligible, Queen Mary will issue a Completion of Procedures Letter.

The University will not normally provide a detailed answer to the merits of every issue in an ineligible appeal. In addition, the student cannot request a Final Review because that stage is available only after an eligible Formal Appeal has received an outcome.

Step 4: investigation of an eligible appeal

A nominated member of the Appeals, Complaints and Conduct Office considers the eligible case.

The nominee may review:

• The student’s statement.
• The supporting evidence.
• The student record.
• Relevant regulations and policies.
• Information from the School or another University department.

Queen Mary normally investigates and decides appeals in writing.

However, the nominee may meet the student or relevant staff where a meeting is proportionate and necessary.

If substantial new information emerges and the student could not reasonably have known about it, Queen Mary will normally allow the student to comment before making the final decision.

Where the Office asks the student for information, the student should respond within five working days. Otherwise, the decision-maker may continue without the response.

Step 5: Formal Appeal outcome

Queen Mary normally aims to notify the student within 30 working days.

The outcome letter should identify:

• The evidence considered.
• The decision.
• The reasons for the decision.

Where the appeal succeeds, the decision-maker may:

• Take corrective action.
• Refer the matter back to the original decision-making body.
• Refer the case to an Appeal Panel.

Where the appeal does not succeed, the student may request a Final Review if they can meet one of the review grounds.

Step 6: Final Review

A Final Review is not a new appeal or a complete rehearing.

The student must submit the request within 10 working days of the Formal Appeal outcome.

Queen Mary recognises two Final Review grounds:

1. Procedural error: the University did not consider the Formal Appeal in line with the Academic Appeals Policy, and the failure was significant.
2. Reasonableness: no reasonable person could sustain the Formal Appeal outcome in light of the available evidence.

New information will not normally form part of the Final Review unless a good reason prevented the student from providing it earlier.

Students can submit the Final Review through AskQM by selecting:

New Enquiry → Appeals and Complaints → Final Review

A reviewer who had no involvement at the earlier stage will normally consider the existing case file in writing.

Queen Mary aims to issue the Final Review outcome within 20 working days.

Where the Final Review succeeds, the reviewer may:

• Take corrective action.
• Refer the matter to an Appeal Panel.
• Return the case to the original decision-making body.
• Return the case to the Formal Appeal stage.

An unsuccessful Final Review ends Queen Mary’s internal academic appeal process. The University will issue a Completion of Procedures Letter.

What happens at an Appeal Panel?

Queen Mary may convene an Appeal Panel for a particularly sensitive or complex case.

The University normally aims to hold the Panel within one month of the referral decision.

The Panel normally includes:

• A Chair.
• A second academic member.
• A student representative nominated by Queen Mary Students’ Union.

No Panel member should have taken part in an earlier stage of the decision.

Queen Mary should provide the student with at least five working days’ notice.

The student and a University representative may attend and address the Panel. The Panel then deliberates in private.

If the appeal succeeds, the Panel may:

• Take corrective action.
• Refer the case back to the original decision-making body.

Queen Mary normally communicates the outcome within three working days after the Panel.

The published Academic Appeals Policy does not set out a general entitlement to external solicitor advocacy at the Panel. Therefore, a student seeking external attendance should contact the Appeals, Complaints and Conduct Office early and confirm the permitted role.

Solicitor-led drafting, evidence analysis and panel preparation remain available even where external attendance is not permitted.

Does the original decision pause during the appeal?

No automatic suspension applies.

Queen Mary’s policy states that all results remain in force unless and until the University upholds the appeal.

For example, a student deregistered because of academic failure will not automatically regain registration simply because they have submitted an appeal.

Students should not assume that an appeal automatically:

• Restores registration.
• Permits progression.
• Cancels a reassessment.
• Postpones graduation.
• Changes a degree classification.
• Protects Student visa sponsorship.

Anyone facing deregistration, withdrawal or visa consequences should obtain advice promptly and ask Queen Mary what practical arrangements apply while the appeal remains unresolved.

Postgraduate research appeals at Queen Mary

The Academic Appeals Policy applies to postgraduate research students as well as taught students.

It covers eligible decisions confirmed through the Research Degree Programmes and Examinations Board.

Depending on the circumstances, a research appeal may concern:

• Annual progression.
• Referral for further work.
• Deregistration for failure to progress.
• Registration status.
• A thesis examination outcome.
• A research degree award.
• Another confirmed RDPEB decision.

Queen Mary’s Academic Regulations govern research progression, deregistration, examination arrangements and research awards.

The same two appeal grounds apply:

• Procedural error.
• Extenuating circumstances.

A PGR appeal cannot succeed merely because the student disagrees with the examiners’ academic judgement about the thesis, research methodology or academic standard.

Inadequate research supervision

Poor supervision may not, by itself, overturn a thesis or progression decision through an academic appeal.

A postgraduate researcher should normally raise supervision concerns promptly through the Student Complaints Policy.

Queen Mary expects a research student to:

1. Raise the issue with the supervisor.
2. Keep a clear record.
3. Escalate unresolved concerns to the Director of Graduate Studies or equivalent.
4. Submit a Formal Complaint where necessary.

A Complaint Review about supervision will not normally proceed unless the student first raised the issue with the Director of Graduate Studies or equivalent. Queen Mary also warns that concerns raised only after failed progression or non-award become harder to remedy.

In some cases, the same facts may support two different routes:

• A complaint about the quality of supervision.
• An academic appeal about a later formal decision affected by a procedural error.

Students should identify the remedy they seek before choosing the route.

Academic appeal, administrative appeal or student complaint?

Choosing the correct procedure is essential.

Academic appeal

Use an academic appeal to challenge a confirmed academic decision, such as a result, progression decision, classification or award.

Administrative appeal

Use the Administrative Appeals Policy for non-academic decisions involving matters such as:

• Enrolment.
• Fees.
• Accommodation.
• Deregistration for non-payment or failure to complete enrolment.

The normal administrative appeal deadline is also 15 working days. Its grounds are procedural error and unreasonableness.

Student complaint

Use the Student Complaints Policy for concerns about academic or non-academic services, conduct, administration or the broader student experience.

A complaint cannot directly replace an appeal against assessment, progression or an award. Queen Mary’s complaints page directs those matters to the Formal Appeal process.

Queen Mary University of London student complaints procedure

They define a complaint as a specific concern about something affecting the quality of the student’s learning opportunities or wider experience.

The policy covers academic and non-academic services. It applies to current students and normally remains available for three months after registration ends.

The process includes:

1. Informal resolution.
2. Formal Complaint.
3. Complaint Review.
4. OIA review after Queen Mary’s internal process ends.

Complaint deadline

A student should normally raise a complaint within three months of the incident.

Queen Mary will not normally accept a later complaint.

Where the student has left the University, they should complain within three months of their last enrolment date.

Informal resolution

Queen Mary encourages students to resolve concerns informally where possible.

Depending on the issue, the student may contact:

• An Academic Advisor.
• A programme or module lead.
• The School or Institute.
• The relevant professional service.
• A student representative.
• The Student-Staff Liaison Committee.

Mediation may also be suitable in some cases.

Formal Complaint

Where informal resolution fails, or the issue is sufficiently serious, the student may submit a Formal Complaint through AskQM.

The student should select:

New Enquiry → Appeals and Complaints → Formal Complaint

The Head of School, Director of Institute, Head of Service or an appointed investigator will normally investigate the complaint. The investigator may meet the student and contact other relevant people.

A strong complaint should include:

• A concise summary of the concern.
• A chronology.
• Details of informal resolution attempts.
• Relevant evidence.
• The impact on the student.
• A realistic requested outcome.

Queen Mary normally aims to issue the Formal Complaint outcome within 42 calendar days, equivalent to around 30 working days or six weeks.

Complaint Review

A dissatisfied student may request a Complaint Review within 14 calendar days of the Formal Complaint outcome.

The Review asks two main questions:

1. Did Queen Mary consider the complaint in accordance with its policy?
2. Was the final decision reasonable and consistent with the facts?

It does not simply repeat the entire investigation.

A caseworker and a senior Queen Mary Complaints Assessor normally consider the Review.

Queen Mary aims to provide the outcome within one month. The University also aims to complete the overall formal complaints process within 90 calendar days from the original Formal Complaint.

The Complaint Review outcome is a Completion of Procedures Letter and ends the internal complaints process.

Can a solicitor represent a student in a complaint?

Queen Mary’s Student Complaints Policy gives a complainant the right to representation when making a complaint and at a later complaint meeting.

The precise role should still be agreed with the investigator or Appeals, Complaints and Conduct Office.

Solicitor-led assistance may include:

• Drafting the Formal Complaint.
• Organising evidence.
• Attending a complaint meeting where permitted.
• Analysing the outcome.
• Drafting the Complaint Review.
• Preparing the subsequent OIA complaint.

Queen Mary academic misconduct procedure

Academic misconduct cases follow the separate Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy.

Queen Mary defines academic misconduct as conduct or working methods that undermine academic integrity, compromise the purpose of an assessment or provide an undue advantage.

Possible allegations include:

• Plagiarism.
• Self-plagiarism.
• Collusion.
• Falsification or fraudulent reporting.
• Contract cheating.
• Ghost-writing.
• Impersonation.
• Unauthorised third-party assistance.
• Unauthorised generative AI use.
• Improper machine translation.
• Examination misconduct.
• Breaches of research ethics.

Queen Mary may also distinguish academic misconduct from poor academic practice. Poor academic practice involves a genuine attempt to comply where a minor or unintended oversight falls below the expected scholarly standard.

Plagiarism allegations

Queen Mary defines plagiarism as presenting another person’s work as the student’s own, regardless of intention.

It can include:

• Copying words.
• Close paraphrasing.
• Using another student’s work.
• Using another person’s ideas without acknowledgement.
• Reusing previously submitted work without proper acknowledgement.

Because the definition does not depend solely on intention, a response should do more than state that the student did not mean to plagiarise.

The student should examine:

• The disputed passages.
• The original sources.
• Referencing and footnotes.
• Note-taking practices.
• Drafts and version histories.
• Whether the University interpreted the similarity material accurately.
• Whether poor academic practice provides a more proportionate explanation.

Collusion allegations

Queen Mary defines collusion as illegitimate cooperation between students in preparing or producing work for individual assessment.

The definition applies regardless of intention unless the assessment instructions expressly permitted joint work.

A response should address:

• What communication occurred.
• What the assessment allowed.
• Whether students shared drafts or answers.
• Whether they used a common source.
• How the similarities arose.
• Which parts each student produced independently.

Messages, file histories and drafts may become important evidence.

Contract cheating and third-party assistance

Academic misconduct may include using or attempting to use a third party to complete any part of an assessment.

Examples include:

• Ghost-writing.
• Impersonation.
• Essay-writing services.
• Unauthorised private-tutor input.
• Unacknowledged assistance from friends or relatives.
• Another person rewriting substantial parts of the work.

The student should preserve communications, drafts, payment records, source material and file metadata.

AI, ChatGPT and machine-translation allegations

Queen Mary’s policy treats generative AI or machine-translation use as academic misconduct where the resulting submission cannot be considered wholly the student’s own.

However, Queen Mary’s student guidance recognises that AI use may be acceptable in some scenarios.

Students should first check:

• Their School or Institute guidance.
• The module handbook.
• The assessment instructions.
• Whether AI use required disclosure.
• Whether the student needed to cite or acknowledge the tool.
• Whether assistive technology rules applied.

The student guide says that the student’s own analysis, interpretation and evaluation must remain central. It also tells students to acknowledge and reference AI assistance where required.

A defence should address the precise allegation rather than make a general denial.

Relevant evidence may include:

• Early outlines.
• Handwritten notes.
• Word version history.
• Google Docs version history.
• Cloud timestamps.
• Research materials.
• Citation records.
• Prompt and chat records.
• AI-generated output.
• The student’s edits to that output.
• Previous work showing a consistent style.
• The applicable AI instructions.
• An explanation of the research and writing process.

Queen Mary also warns that generative AI can invent facts and produce fake references or citations. Consequently, students should verify every source before submission.

How does Queen Mary investigate academic misconduct?

An investigation will normally conclude within 28 calendar days.

While Queen Mary investigates the case, it will normally withhold confirmation and publication of the relevant module result.

For coursework and other assessments, the Academic Misconduct Officer may gather:

• Turnitin reports.
• Source materials.
• Meeting notes.
• Teaching and supervision information.
• Subject-expert commentary.
• Assessment instructions.
• Document metadata.
• Witness statements.

The Officer may invite the student to a meeting. Queen Mary normally expects a meeting where the concern involves third-party assistance or unauthorised technology.

After gathering the evidence, the Officer may decide:

• There is no cause for concern.
• Poor academic practice occurred.
• Potential academic misconduct should proceed to a formal decision.

More serious cases may go to the Appeals, Complaints and Conduct Office. Referral is more likely where the student has a previous finding, the allegation appears deliberate, the assessment significantly affects progression or award, or the potential penalty exceeds the School’s authority.

Student response and choice of decision-maker

Queen Mary must inform the student of the allegation and provide the relevant evidence.

The student can then submit a response and further evidence.

The student may normally choose whether:

• An Academic Misconduct Officer or Misconduct Chair decides the case on the papers.
• A full Academic Misconduct Panel hears the matter.

If the student does not respond within seven calendar days, Queen Mary may assume that they have no further information and proceed without it.

All decision-makers apply the balance-of-probabilities standard.

Students should consider this choice carefully.

A paper decision may resolve a straightforward case more quickly. By contrast, a Panel may offer a fuller opportunity to answer questions where authorship, AI use or complex factual disputes arise.

Academic Misconduct Panel

A Queen Mary Academic Misconduct Panel normally includes:

• An approved Academic Misconduct Chair.
• Two academic members.
• A student representative nominated by QMSU.

No Panel member should come from the student’s department.

Queen Mary should circulate the case documents and hearing information at least seven calendar days before the hearing.

The student should submit any additional response or documentary evidence at least two working days before the hearing.

The student may bring one representative of their choice.

During the hearing, the student can respond to the allegation and evidence. They may also present mitigating circumstances relevant to the penalty.

Students wishing to bring a solicitor should confirm the attendance arrangements and representative’s role with the Appeals, Complaints and Conduct Office before the hearing.

Queen Mary normally communicates the Panel outcome within three working days.

What penalties can Queen Mary impose?

Possible academic misconduct outcomes include:

• A formal reprimand.
• A required educational activity.
• Resubmission without an additional attempt or mark cap.
• A mark of zero for the assessment.
• No right to resubmit.
• Capping the module at the minimum pass mark.
• Failure of the module.
• No right to resit or retake.
• Capping modules taken during the academic year.
• Other action affecting research data or work.
• Suspension.
• A recommendation for expulsion.

Queen Mary should consider proportionality and give reasons for its chosen outcome.

Where a student studies on a programme regulated by a professional body, Queen Mary will report academic misconduct to the Professional Capability Committee. The matter may also create fitness-to-practise consequences.

How can a student appeal an academic misconduct outcome?

A student may appeal both:

• The misconduct finding.
• The penalty.

The appeal must normally reach Queen Mary within 14 calendar days of the outcome.

Late appeals require a good reason. New evidence will not normally receive consideration unless the student explains why it could not have been provided earlier.

The appeal examines whether:

1. Queen Mary followed the procedure appropriately.
2. The outcome was reasonable on the available evidence.

A successful appeal may lead to:

• Corrective action.
• Reconsideration by the original decision-maker.
• Reconsideration by a Misconduct Chair.
• A new Misconduct Panel.

Queen Mary normally aims to conclude the misconduct appeal within 28 calendar days.

The outcome is a Completion of Procedures Letter and ends the internal academic misconduct process.

Student discipline and fitness to practise

Non-academic misconduct follows the Student Discipline Policy.

A responding student may appeal a disciplinary finding or outcome within 14 days. The grounds are procedural failure and an outcome that was unreasonable on the available evidence.

Queen Mary normally aims to conclude a disciplinary appeal within 15 working days.

A student may bring one representative to a Student Disciplinary Panel. They may also bring a support person who cannot address the Panel.

Medical and dental students may also face the Professional Capability and Fitness to Practise Policy.

A student can appeal a relevant finding, remedial action or sanction within 14 calendar days. The grounds are:

• The procedure was not followed properly.
• The outcome was unreasonable on the available evidence.

Queen Mary normally makes the initial appeal decision within 21 calendar days. A successful appeal may lead to a rehearing by a newly constituted Committee.

What happens after Queen Mary’s internal process ends?

At the end of the available internal procedure, Queen Mary should issue a Completion of Procedures Letter.

An eligible student may then complain to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, commonly known as the OIA.

The OIA must normally receive the complaint within 12 months of the Completion of Procedures Letter.

An OIA complaint may examine whether Queen Mary:

• Followed its published procedure.
• Considered the relevant evidence.
• Gave the student a fair opportunity to respond.
• Reached a reasonable decision.
• Provided adequate reasons.
• Implemented reasonable adjustments.
• Applied a proportionate remedy or penalty.

The OIA does not act as another examination board.

It cannot simply replace Queen Mary’s academic judgement or award a different mark because the student disagrees with the academic result. However, it may recommend a fresh process, reassessment or remarking under the correct procedure where procedural unfairness occurred.

How Ginkgo Advisory can assist

Initial case assessment

We review:

• The confirmed decision.
• The relevant deadline.
• The available appeal ground.
• The evidence.
• The applicable Queen Mary policy.
• The outcome sought.

We then identify whether the matter is more suitable for:

• An academic appeal.
• An extenuating circumstances challenge.
• An administrative appeal.
• A student complaint.
• An academic misconduct response.
• A disciplinary appeal.
• A fitness-to-practise appeal.
• An OIA complaint.

Appeal-ground analysis

We assess whether the evidence supports:

• A significant procedural error.
• Previously undisclosed extenuating circumstances.
• Failure to consider disclosed circumstances.
• A Final Review based on procedural error.
• A Final Review based on unreasonableness.

Weak or irrelevant arguments can then be removed before submission.

Evidence review

We can assess:

• Whether medical evidence covers the correct period.
• Whether the documents explain the academic impact.
• Whether the delay in disclosure has sufficient support.
• Whether the University followed the relevant regulation.
• Whether an adjustment plan was implemented.
• Whether mark calculations appear correct.
• Whether the chronology contains inconsistencies.
• Which documents should enter the evidence bundle.
• Which materials may weaken the case.

Drafting and written advocacy

We can prepare or review:

• AskQM Formal Appeals.
• Late-appeal explanations.
• Extension requests.
• Procedural-error appeals.
• Extenuating circumstances appeals.
• Appeals against EC outcomes.
• Final Review requests.
• Postgraduate research appeals.
• Formal student complaints.
• Complaint Review requests.
• Academic misconduct responses.
• AI and ChatGPT allegation responses.
• Academic misconduct appeals.
• Disciplinary appeals.
• Fitness-to-practise submissions.
• OIA complaints.
• Evidence schedules and chronologies.

Each submission reflects the facts of the individual case.

Meeting and panel preparation

We can prepare students for:

• Appeal Panels.
• Academic misconduct meetings.
• Academic Misconduct Panels.
• Student Disciplinary Panels.
• Professional Capability Committees.
• Fitness to Practise Committees.
• Complaint meetings.
• Research-degree proceedings.

Preparation may include:

• Likely questions.
• Evidence weaknesses.
• Clear oral answers.
• A concise opening statement.
• Procedural objections.
• A realistic remedy.
• Strategies for difficult questions.

Representation where permitted

The relevant Queen Mary policy and decision-maker determine whether an external representative may attend and speak.

Where attendance is not permitted, solicitor-led drafting and hearing preparation can still shape the case.

Common mistakes in Queen Mary academic appeals

Appealing only because the mark seems unfair

Academic judgement is not a Formal Appeal ground.

The student must identify procedural error or qualifying extenuating circumstances.

Missing the 15-working-day deadline

Informal conversations do not automatically stop the deadline.

Students should protect the formal deadline while seeking clarification.

Appealing a provisional result

Queen Mary will not normally accept an appeal until the University confirms and formally publishes the result.

Failing to provide independent evidence

The burden of proof rests on the student.

An unsupported personal statement may not establish the selected ground.

Describing illness without explaining late disclosure

Proof of illness does not automatically prove why the student could not use the EC procedure earlier.

Both issues require attention.

Submitting evidence without explaining its purpose

The written appeal should connect every document to a fact and formal ground.

Asking for marks to increase because of personal circumstances

Queen Mary does not raise marks on the basis of extenuating circumstances.

The student should request a remedy that the procedure can provide.

Requesting Final Review after an ineligible appeal

Final Review is available only where Queen Mary accepted the Formal Appeal as eligible and issued a substantive outcome.

Repeating the Formal Appeal at Final Review

The review has narrower grounds.

Students must challenge the handling or reasonableness of the Formal Appeal outcome.

Using an academic appeal for an academic misconduct result

Academic misconduct has its own 14-calendar-day appeal route.

Using the wrong procedure for non-academic deregistration

Fee, enrolment and accommodation decisions belong under the Administrative Appeals Policy.

Giving an unprepared explanation in an AI case

Early answers may shape the entire investigation.

Students should review the allegation, evidence, assessment instructions and version history first.

Deleting drafts or AI records

Drafts, prompts and document histories may help prove authorship.

Removing them may destroy useful evidence.

Assuming a solicitor can automatically attend every panel

Representation rules differ between academic appeals, complaints, misconduct, discipline and fitness-to-practise procedures.

Students should confirm arrangements early.

Frequently asked questions

What is the Queen Mary University of London academic appeal deadline?

The normal deadline is 15 working days after the confirmed result or decision.

A late appeal requires a good reason and supporting evidence.

How do I submit a Queen Mary academic appeal?

Submit the appeal through AskQM.

Select “New Enquiry”, “Appeals and Complaints” and then “Academic Appeal”.

Can I appeal because I disagree with my mark?

Not on that basis alone.

Queen Mary does not accept appeals against academic judgement.

Can I appeal a provisional mark?

No.

The result must normally have received the relevant examination board’s confirmation and formal publication.

What are the two academic appeal grounds?

The grounds are:

• Procedural error.
• Extenuating circumstances.

What if I did not submit extenuating circumstances earlier?

An appeal may remain possible where circumstances outside your control prevented earlier disclosure.

Personal embarrassment, unwillingness or failure to understand the requirements will not normally count as a good reason.

Can I appeal a rejected extenuating circumstances claim?

Yes.

Queen Mary’s EC Policy states that the appeal should normally be submitted within 21 calendar days of the confirmed EC outcome.

Can extenuating circumstances increase my mark?

No.

Queen Mary states that marks will not be raised because of extenuating circumstances. An accepted case may instead lead to another procedurally available remedy.

How long does a Formal Appeal take?

Queen Mary normally aims to notify the student within 30 working days.

The University should tell the student where it cannot meet that timeframe.

What is the Final Review deadline?

The deadline is normally 10 working days after the Formal Appeal outcome.

Can I request Final Review after Queen Mary finds my appeal ineligible?

No.

Final Review is available only after Queen Mary accepts a Formal Appeal and issues a substantive outcome.

Does the original result pause during the appeal?

No.

The original result or decision remains in force unless Queen Mary upholds the appeal and changes it.

Can a solicitor draft my Queen Mary appeal?

Yes.

A solicitor can assess the grounds, organise the evidence and prepare the written submission.

Can a solicitor attend an Appeal Panel?

The published Academic Appeals Policy does not provide a general automatic entitlement to external solicitor advocacy.

The student should ask the Appeals, Complaints and Conduct Office to confirm attendance arrangements early.

Can a solicitor attend an Academic Misconduct Panel?

Queen Mary’s policy allows the student to bring one representative of their choice.

The student should confirm the proposed representative and their role before the hearing.

What is the academic misconduct appeal deadline?

The normal deadline is 14 calendar days after the outcome.

Can I challenge a ChatGPT or AI allegation?

Yes.

The response should address the assessment instructions, permitted AI use, disclosure requirements, Queen Mary’s evidence and the student’s actual working process.

Can a PhD student appeal a progression or examination decision?

Yes, where the confirmed decision falls within the Academic Appeals Policy and the student can establish procedural error or qualifying extenuating circumstances.

Can I complain about inadequate PhD supervision?

Yes.

Queen Mary expects research students to raise the issue with the supervisor and then the Director of Graduate Studies before seeking a Complaint Review.

What happens after Queen Mary’s final decision?

Queen Mary should issue a Completion of Procedures Letter when no internal route remains.

An eligible student may then complain to the OIA.

What is the OIA deadline?

The OIA must normally receive the complaint within 12 months of the Completion of Procedures Letter.

Request a confidential case assessment

A Queen Mary University of London academic appeal may affect progression, reassessment, graduation, degree classification, professional training, doctoral research and future study.

Early professional advice can help a student identify the correct procedure, protect the deadline and organise the evidence.

Ginkgo Advisory provides solicitor-led academic appeals, student complaints and academic misconduct defence.

Our service is confidential, independent and specific to the case.

Support is available from the initial assessment through to the final written submission. Where Queen Mary’s procedure permits it, we can also provide representation.

Contact Ginkgo Advisory for a confidential assessment of your Queen Mary University of London academic appeal, complaint, plagiarism allegation, AI misconduct case or fitness-to-practise matter.

Independent-service disclaimer

Ginkgo Advisory is independent from Queen Mary University of London, Queen Mary Students’ Union and the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.

This article provides general information only.

It does not guarantee any result and does not replace advice based on the facts of an individual case.

Queen Mary may update its regulations, policies and submission procedures. Students should check the latest official policy, assessment instructions and decision letter before acting.