When students submit written assignments for assessment, they are generally trusted to have completed these honestly, and to have benefitted from the opportunity to learn. Academic integrity breaches are sometimes detected during the assessment process. Some common examples of integrity breaches during students’ academic writing include contract cheating, the unauthorised use of GenAI technology for completing assignments, and using AI tools to disguise existing work so that it appears to be original. None of these are new phenomena. Processes and procedures should be in place for managing suspected academic misconduct cases detected during the assessment process. But what happens when academic misconduct is detected retrospectively, sometimes after a student has moved degree programmes or graduated? This position paper sets out the case for universities and other academic institutions having procedures in place to deal with historic academic misconduct. It provides examples of how institutions can become aware of misconduct, including through whistleblowing and through development of more effective detection software. The authors bring together legal and educational expertise to suggest considerations that individual institutions should make towards future policy development. The discussion considers that students must be supported and prepared for success, but that institutions cannot ignore the reputational risks associated with cases of historic misconduct.

Peer review is crucial for academic research, when checking manuscripts for publishing, considering proposals for research funding, and deciding which submitted contributions to include in conference programmes. Peer reviewers are tasked with assessing readability, scientific merit, accuracy, reliability, novelty, relevance, completeness and focus. Conscientious, experienced peer reviewers add considerable value to scientific manuscripts by working with authors, especially Early Career Researchers (ECRs), to help them achieve the required standards set by editors and publishers. Given the centrality of peer review to academia, it is easy to forget that peer review is often voluntary and unpaid, requiring considerable time and resources. Without peer reviewers, editors and publishers, and conference organisers, many of whom are also voluntary and unpaid, would be tasked with reviewing submissions. This would require considerable time and diverse knowledge and skills, even when the scope of topics for submissions is narrow. The recent substantial rise in the number of journal article retractions, affecting both large and small publishers, raises questions about why the traditional checks and balances put in place by the publishers, especially peer review, do not uncover the problems. This paper will explore both the merits of effective peer review and root causes of problems currently being experienced, with consideration of how peer review could be improved to serve future requirements.