Skip to main content

Academic Integrity Reports and Statistics

The following webpage contains important reports and statistics prepared by the AIO. The content is broken down into four sections: Reports of Academic Integrity Violations over Time; Academic Integrity Training; Preventative Education; and Archived Reports. To view information for each section, please click on the plus sign (+) located on the specific section. If you have questions or concerns related to any of the information contained within, please email

Reports of Academic Integrity Violations over Time

Overall Reports

Over the past five academic years, the Academic Integrity Office (AIO) has received approximately 7,200 reports of alleged academic integrity violations involving 6,366 unique students. The reports were submitted by an estimated 830 unique instructors in 738 unique classes. The total reports received increased by up to 81% during the pandemic and have since stabilized back to pre-pandemic norms. The images below show the total reports received from academic year (AY) 2018-2019 through 2022-2023 as well as the percentage +/- reported when compared to the previous academic year.

Bar graph comparing the total academic integrity reports submitted since academic year 2018-2019 Bar graph showing the percentage of reports received as compared to the previous academic years since academic year 2018-2019

Reports by Quarter

Since AY11-12, the winter term has produced the highest percentage of reports per academic year. Below, is a graph demonstrating the breakdown of reports by academic quarter. Please note, reports received during Summer Session I, Summer Session II, or Special Summer Session are combined into a general “Summer” quarter. In addition, cases listed as “Other” are reports received during the listed academic year that originate form courses in a previous academic year. See more definitions in Glossary. 

Pie graph demonstrating the percentage of reports received by quarter since academic year 2018-2019

Reports by Sanctioning Guideline Characteristics

The demographics of individual cases are used prevalently when a Resolution Appropriate Administrative Authority (AAA) determines the appropriate disciplinary action to assign. Specifically, the individuals and report characteristics are used to formulate the students Sanction Guidelines score.

Image showing the percentage of reports received by academic level since academic year 2018-2019 Bar graph comparing the violation history by academic year since academic year 2018-2019

The specific characteristics of violations reported to the AIO is broken down into violation types (minor, moderate, serious, and egregious) with specific violation characteristics listed under each violation type. The below section provides graphs of the violation types received by academic year.

Bar graph comparing the violation type by academic year since academic year 2018-2019

Image showing the percentage of most prominent violation characteristics since academic year 2018-2019

Reports by Outcomes

In the Academic Integrity process, cases are resolved in one of two ways: informally or formally. The majority of cases are resolved informally during resolution meetings between the student and the Resolution AAA. The outcomes during the informal process either a student accepting responsibility, or the allegation being withdrawn. If a student contests the allegation and the instructor saw no valid reason to withdraw the allegation, the case is resolved formally through the Academic Integrity Review Board (AIRB) process.

The graphs below summarize how cases have been resolved since AY18-19 and the average number of business days it takes to resolve a case either formally or informally.

Graphs showing how cases have been resolved since academic year 2018-2019

Bar graph comparing the average number of business days to resolve a case by resolution type (since academic year 2018-2019)

*Please note: Not all AY22-23 cases have been resolved.

Academic Integrity Training

The AIO offers six (6) workshops/seminar programs designed to encourage students to reflect on their academic integrity experiences. Since AY19-20, more than 5,000 students have been assigned to complete one or more AI training programs.

A graph showing the total number of students assigned AI Training by academic year. In AY19-20 and AY21-22, approximately 1250 students were assigned AI Trainings. For AY20-21 and AY 22-23, the total number of assigned students is closer to 1500.

During the resolution process, the Resolution AAA assigns students the training(s) they deem are most appropriate and beneficial based on the allegation and their professional judgment. Virtually all students (99%) are assigned to complete Universal Pre-Requisites, as well as at least one training program.

A pie chart showing the proportion of different AI Trainings assigned. From most assigned to least assigned are the following: AI Seminar, IMP, Collaboration workshop, Paper, Plagiarism workshop, and Paraphrasing workshop.

1:1 Meetings

Regardless of the type of AI training assigned to an individual student, they will be expected to engage in at least one 1:1 meeting with a student peer educator/mentor to discuss their training. Between AY19-20 and AY22-23, AIO student staff completed over 10,000 1:1 meetings.

A graph showing the number of 1:1 meetings taken per academic year, including Universal Pre-Requisite Meetings, Mentor Meetings, and Paper Debrief meetings.

AI Seminar

Since AY17-18, 90% of students reported for an academic integrity violation once. Of those, the vast majority are assigned to complete AI Seminar. AI Seminar is the part of the AIO’s core curriculum, and consists of four facilitated sessions reviewing the fundamentals of individual values, ethical decision-making strategies, and justifications. Following training, students complete an evaluation to provide feedback regarding their experience.

Charts showing that a majority of students who submitted a AI Seminar evaluation form reported "Strongly Agree" or "Agree" for positive aspects of the seminar.

Archive Reporting

Additional Statistics

UC San Diego faculty and staff with an educational need for additional statistics may fill out this AI Statistics Request form. If you have any questions, please contact AI Office Director Dr. Tricia Bertram Gallant at


While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of this data, it is important to note that there may be some errors or inconsistencies. These could arise from various factors such as data entry errors, reporting discrepancies, or updates to case statuses after the data was compiled. We recommend interpreting the findings with these potential limitations in mind. We are continually working to improve our data collection and reporting processes to provide the most accurate and up-to-date information possible.