{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012987012987012988, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.121495327102804, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
SHOULD THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO NOTIFIES THE HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION REGARDING THE COMMISSION OF AN ACT THAT MAY CONSTITUTE A DISCIPLINARY MISCONDUCT BE REVEALED?

From the perspective of guaranteeing the right to defence to the person in question, we believe that the higher education institution, through the persons involved in the disciplinary activity and those who have access to the resulting documents has no obligation to keep confidential the identity of the sender of the complaint to the one indicated in the complaint (as being the one who would have committed an act that could constitute a disciplinary misconduct). Thus, de lege ferenda, we propose that the complaint in its entirety be communicated to the person in question and the identity of the person who notifies the higher education institution regarding the commission of an act that may constitute a disciplinary misconduct be recorded in the final report of the Review Commission to be attached, as appropriate, to the sanctioning decision. The arguments that support the above are detailed in this material, using as well already regulated best practice models. Thus, we believe that it will prove useful in the academic environment and will discourage those under the protection of "anonymity" to act even in bad faith.