{ "dataset": "rubric", "licence": "CC-BY-4.0", "methodology_version": "0.1.1", "generated_at": "2026-10-15", "note": "NR, ? and 0 are distinct values. Findings with verification \"needs_review\" are provisional.", "verification_summary": { "verified": 0, "needs_review": 24, "disputed": 0 }, "caveats": [ "All findings with verification 'needs_review' are provisional and have not been verified by a human reviewer.", "Findings may have been prepared with AI assistance; see each record's research_method.", "0 means no qualifying provision was identified in the sources reviewed; it is not proof that no safeguard exists.", "Do not aggregate results into overall scores or rankings.", "StudentSafe Europe evaluates published rules, not individuals or implementation." ], "docs": { "methodology": "https://github.com/josiptomaskovic1-ai/Academic-Safeguard-Europe/blob/main/methodology/methodology-v0.1.md", "data_model": "https://github.com/josiptomaskovic1-ai/Academic-Safeguard-Europe/blob/main/docs/data-model.md" }, "data": { "methodology_version": "0.1.1", "published": "2026-09-13", "status": "draft-for-consultation", "result_values": [ { "value": "NR", "label": "Not researched", "meaning": "No research has been carried out for this safeguard in this jurisdiction or institution. Says nothing about whether a safeguard exists." }, { "value": "?", "label": "Unable to assess", "meaning": "Research was carried out, but the available sources were insufficient, inaccessible, contradictory or ambiguous, so no score can responsibly be assigned." }, { "value": "0", "label": "Not identified", "meaning": "Research was carried out against the listed sources and no qualifying provision was identified. This is not proof that no safeguard exists. A 0 is never final until a second reviewer has verified it. Until then it is published only as provisional, carries the complete list of sources reviewed, and must not be presented as a finding that the safeguard is absent." }, { "value": "1", "label": "Limited", "meaning": "A relevant provision exists, but it is general, partial, discretionary, or lacks the operational elements needed to make it usable." }, { "value": "2", "label": "Substantial", "meaning": "An explicit, operational provision exists and covers the core of the safeguard, but one or more elements required for \"Strong\" are missing." }, { "value": "3", "label": "Strong", "meaning": "An explicit, operational, binding provision exists that meets every element listed for \"Strong\" for this safeguard." } ], "confidence_levels": [ { "value": "high", "meaning": "Primary, current, official source; provision directly on point; interpretation straightforward." }, { "value": "medium", "meaning": "Primary source, but interpretation requires some inference, or currency of the document is not confirmed." }, { "value": "low", "meaning": "Relies on secondary sources, translations of uncertain quality, or significant interpretive judgement." } ], "verification_statuses": [ { "value": "verified", "meaning": "A second reviewer independently checked the source, locator, interpretation and score against this rubric." }, { "value": "needs_review", "meaning": "Proposed by a researcher; not yet independently verified. Shown publicly only as provisional." }, { "value": "disputed", "meaning": "A correction request or reviewer objection is open. The finding and the dispute are both shown." } ], "general_rules": [ "Score only what is documented in published sources. Formal policy is not evidence of implementation.", "At national level, score what the national framework itself provides or requires of institutions. At institution level, score what the institution's own published rules provide, including national rules the institution's rules expressly apply.", "A provision counts only if it applies to students (or doctoral candidates) as potential complainants. Staff-only procedures are recorded in notes but do not raise the score.", "Where elements are split across several documents, they may be combined if each document is cited.", "Where two levels are plausible, assign the lower level and explain the uncertainty in the rationale.", "Every score other than NR must cite at least one source ID and a locator (article, section or page).", "A 0 must list every source reviewed. It stays provisional until a second reviewer has verified it, and until then must be shown with a provisional notice and never stated as a finding that the safeguard is absent." ], "safeguards": [ { "id": "S01", "slug": "authority-abuse-definition", "name": "Definition of abuse of academic authority", "question": "Do the rules define misuse of academic authority (assessment, supervision, admission, progression, references, research credit) as a form of misconduct?", "levels": { "0": "No provision identified that treats misuse of academic authority as misconduct.", "1": "Only general conduct or ethics duties (e.g. \"act with integrity\", \"respect students\") without identifying misuse of authority over students.", "2": "Misuse of authority over students is expressly named as misconduct, or specific abuses (e.g. discriminatory assessment, harassment by teachers) are prohibited, but without a definition covering assessment, supervision and progression decisions together.", "3": "An explicit definition or enumerated list covering misuse of assessment, supervisory and progression powers, in a binding instrument that links breaches to a disciplinary procedure." } }, { "id": "S02", "slug": "anti-retaliation", "name": "Explicit anti-retaliation protection", "question": "Are students who report concerns, complain or act as witnesses expressly protected against retaliation, including academic retaliation?", "levels": { "0": "No anti-retaliation provision applicable to student complainants identified.", "1": "General whistleblower or anti-victimisation protection exists, but its application to students raising concerns about academic staff is unclear or indirect.", "2": "Retaliation against student complainants or witnesses is expressly prohibited, but academic forms of retaliation (grades, supervision, references) are not addressed, or no mechanism for reporting retaliation is specified.", "3": "Express prohibition covering student complainants and witnesses, expressly including academic retaliation, with retaliation itself treated as a disciplinary offence and a route to report it." } }, { "id": "S03", "slug": "independent-complaint-mechanism", "name": "Independent complaint mechanism", "question": "Can a student complain to a body that is independent of the academic unit and of the person complained about?", "levels": { "0": "No complaint mechanism for students about staff conduct identified.", "1": "A complaint route exists, but it runs through the line management of the person complained about (e.g. head of department) with no independent alternative.", "2": "A complaint body or officer outside the academic unit exists (e.g. university-level ethics committee, student ombudsperson), but its independence, powers or scope are not fully set out.", "3": "A body or officer with documented independence (appointment and reporting rules), a defined mandate over staff–student conduct complaints, and access for students without prior approval from the unit concerned." } }, { "id": "S04", "slug": "conflict-of-interest-recusal", "name": "Conflict-of-interest and recusal rules", "question": "Must people who decide on complaints, assessments or appeals step aside where they have a conflict of interest, including where they are the subject of the complaint?", "levels": { "0": "No conflict-of-interest or recusal rule for relevant decisions identified.", "1": "General conflict-of-interest duty without application to complaint, assessment or appeal decisions.", "2": "Recusal is required for complaint or appeal decisions, or for assessment, but not for both, or there is no procedure for a party to request recusal.", "3": "Recusal required for complaint, appeal and assessment decisions involving a conflict, with a procedure for a student to request recusal and a rule on who decides the request." } }, { "id": "S05", "slug": "interim-protective-measures", "name": "Interim protective measures", "question": "While a complaint is being handled, can measures be taken to protect the student's education (e.g. change of examiner, supervisor, group)?", "levels": { "0": "No interim measures provision identified.", "1": "Interim measures are mentioned in general terms or at the discretion of management with no criteria.", "2": "Specific interim measures are available (e.g. alternative examiner or supervisor), but without criteria, a request route for the student, or a timeframe.", "3": "Specific academic interim measures, a route for the student to request them, criteria for granting them, and an explicit statement that they do not presume guilt or disadvantage the student." } }, { "id": "S06", "slug": "procedural-deadlines", "name": "Procedural deadlines", "question": "Are there binding deadlines for acknowledging, investigating and deciding complaints?", "levels": { "0": "No deadlines identified.", "1": "Only a general duty to act \"without delay\" or \"promptly\".", "2": "A binding deadline exists for at least one stage (e.g. decision), but not for the whole procedure.", "3": "Binding deadlines for acknowledgement or opening, and for decision, with a consequence or escalation route if they are missed." } }, { "id": "S07", "slug": "written-reasoned-decisions", "name": "Written, reasoned decisions", "question": "Does the complainant receive a written decision stating the reasons?", "levels": { "0": "No provision on the form of decisions identified.", "1": "A decision is communicated, but there is no requirement that it be written or reasoned.", "2": "Written decisions are required, but reasons are not required, or the complainant is not entitled to receive them.", "3": "Written, reasoned decision delivered to the complainant, including the available review or appeal route." } }, { "id": "S08", "slug": "appeal-independent-review", "name": "Appeal or independent review", "question": "Can the complainant challenge the outcome before a different body?", "levels": { "0": "No appeal or review route identified.", "1": "Review only by the same body that decided, or only general external remedies (e.g. courts) with no internal route.", "2": "Appeal to a different internal body, or to a specialised external body (e.g. national ombudsperson), but not both, or with restricted grounds.", "3": "Appeal to a different internal body and an accessible external route (ombudsperson, regulator or court), with grounds and deadlines set out." } }, { "id": "S09", "slug": "proportionate-consequences", "name": "Proportionate consequences for misconduct", "question": "Are there graduated, defined consequences for staff found to have misused academic authority?", "levels": { "0": "No consequences for staff misconduct towards students identified.", "1": "Consequences exist only through general employment law, with no link to misconduct towards students.", "2": "A disciplinary scale exists and applies to misconduct towards students, but without criteria for proportionality.", "3": "A graduated scale of consequences, criteria for proportionality, and power to restrict the staff member's authority over the affected students." } }, { "id": "S10", "slug": "remediation-academic-harm", "name": "Remediation of academic harm", "question": "Where misconduct affected a student's academic record, can the harm be repaired (e.g. re-assessment, annulment of a tainted grade, extension, new supervisor)?", "levels": { "0": "No remediation provision identified.", "1": "General right to request re-examination or grade review, not linked to misconduct findings.", "2": "Specific remedies available after a misconduct finding, but at discretion and without listed options.", "3": "Listed remedies (re-assessment by a different examiner, annulment, extension, change of supervisor) that must be considered after a finding, with the student able to request them." } }, { "id": "S11", "slug": "boundaries-training", "name": "Professional-boundary and safeguarding training", "question": "Are staff with authority over students required to receive training on professional boundaries, harassment and fair use of authority?", "levels": { "0": "No training provision identified.", "1": "Training is recommended or offered, but not required.", "2": "Training is required for some roles (e.g. doctoral supervisors), or required but without content or frequency specified.", "3": "Training required for all staff exercising assessment or supervisory authority, with defined content covering boundaries and anti-retaliation, and a frequency." } }, { "id": "S12", "slug": "authority-safeguarding-review", "name": "Academic Authority Safeguarding Review", "question": "Before or while holding roles with substantial authority over students (e.g. doctoral supervisor, programme head), is professional conduct relevant to that authority reviewed?", "notes": "This concerns professional conduct relevant to positions of authority: supervisory boundaries, conflict management, assessment responsibilities, anti-retaliation obligations. It is not a psychiatric or medical evaluation and never concerns health, political views, protected beliefs or private traits unrelated to professional duties.", "levels": { "0": "No review provision identified.", "1": "Appointment criteria for authority roles refer only to academic or research qualifications.", "2": "Appointment or reappointment to authority roles considers professional conduct (e.g. prior upheld complaints, ethical record), but without a defined procedure.", "3": "A defined procedure that reviews professional conduct relevant to supervision and assessment on appointment and periodically, with the ability to limit authority where conduct concerns are upheld." } } ], "research_statuses": [ { "value": "not_researched", "label": "Not researched" }, { "value": "research_underway", "label": "Research underway" }, { "value": "partially_researched", "label": "Partially researched" }, { "value": "national_framework_reviewed", "label": "National framework reviewed" }, { "value": "institution_research_available", "label": "Institution-level research available" } ] } }