Synopsis
ENAI supports individuals affected by academic misconduct through a dedicated online Portal, where a team of experienced mentors responds to queries and provides individualised guidance and support. This poster highlights a common pattern identified in recent queries submitted to the Portal and raises questions about a “grey zone” between institutional policies and actual practice.
Introduction and objectives
This poster aims to sketch a “grey zone” where institutional policies fail in addressing academic or ethical misconduct and in supporting those affected by such malpractices. It highlights areas that remain beyond the reach of formal policies because they arise from conflicts with power hierarchies seeking to protect their own reputation. This analysis builds on experiences shared through the ENAI Support Portal for Individuals Affected by Academic Misconduct (hereafter referred to as the Portal).
Supporting individuals affected by misconduct and questionable practices in research and education is a key part of ENAI’s work. ENAI operates an online Support Portal for Individuals Affected by Academic Misconduct (www.academicintegrity.eu/victims), where anyone seeking advice on academic misconduct can confidentially submit a query and receive personalised guidance from a team of academic integrity experts – the Portal’s mentors.
Findings
Since the launch of the Portal in 2022, approximately 20 queries have been submitted and addressed by mentors. The main topics included various issues related to plagiarised work (seven cases), an authorship dispute, publishing-related issues (from both the author’s and the reviewer’s perspectives), bossing, whistleblowing, and problems in PhD studies. In addition, several cases can be characterised as situations in which an individual clashes with a power hierarchy that does its utmost to protect itself rather than uphold integrity. In the last two years, six queries have fallen into this category, making it the most prevalent topic during this period.
A recurring pattern can be identified in these queries: the Portal is contacted by a member of academia (an employee or a PhD student) who is facing misconduct. The misconduct ranges from copyright infringement to supervisory abuse. The individual attempts to follow official procedures to protect themselves and their rights, however, no meaningful change occurs, and negative consequences often follow, resembling punishment for raising the issue. Regardless of what is formally stated in institutional policies, those in positions of power frequently prioritise protecting themselves and the institution’s reputation over protecting integrity. Significant efforts are often made to conceal the issue and to intimidate the person who has sought justice.
Although we do not have access to the perspectives of the other parties involved, the striking similarities among the accounts are notable. These cases therefore appear unlikely to represent isolated incidents, rather, they point to a structural problem. While policies formally define procedures and responsibilities, they often fail when misconduct intersects with power asymmetries and institutional self-protection.
The responses provided by mentors do not represent universally applicable solutions. Nevertheless, mentors always show compassion and reassure authors that the situations as described constitute misconduct and are neither normal nor acceptable. Mentors typically focus on context-specific strategies, such as recommendations on how to collect or present evidence, or suggestions of higher or independent authorities to contact. They may also encourage authors to seek out peers with similar experiences.
Based on recurring patterns in these responses, ENAI mentors have developed a list of common questions and answers, which is available among the Portal’s resources (Academic Integrity Support Portal, 2025).
While ENAI does not offer direct solutions to these situations, the Portal provides valuable insight into their occurrence. It enables ENAI to highlight these issues and open discussion on how they can be addressed.
Conclusion
The “grey zone” we outline is not caused by the absence of policies, but by their disregard in practice - individuals may formally possess rights, yet lack effective protection or support. In such situations, external and independent guidance becomes crucial in providing a safe space where individuals can seek advice and speak openly about their experiences. Platforms such as the ENAI Portal may be the only places where individuals are reassured that they are not alone in caring about integrity and ethics. As one person expressed at the end of a consultation through the Portal: “There was so much pressure that they made me question my own truth. Thank you for believing in me.”
Acknowledgement
GenAI was used for grammar and stylistic corrections of the abstract.
Keywords: academic misconduct, whistleblowing, support, academic integrity policies
References
Common academic integrity issues & answers. (2025). Academic Integrity Support Portal. https://academicintegrity.eu/victims/common-issues/