nc state's plagiarism policy
The Department of History website does an excellent job of summing up the consequences of plagiarism at NC State University (http://history.ncsu.edu/pages/plagiarism_consequences#
SANCTIONS%20FOR%20ACADEMIC%20DISHONESTY). The Code of Student Conduct (http://policies.ncsu.edu/policy/pol-11-35-1) defines Plagiarism in Chapter 10 as "10.1 Submitting written materials without proper acknowledgement of the source" and "10.2 Deliberate attribution to, or citation of, a source from which the referenced material was not in fact obtained."
plagiarism quotes
Quotes about plagiarism, frequently couched in humor, admit to the messiness of defining "to copy another's work." Instead, they stress how "plagiarizing" prior work is part of one's natural process of invention. Plagiarism quotes can be found at
- BrainyQuote on plagiarism
- Proverbia.net on plagiarism
- Quotationspage.com on plagiarism
- Quoteland.com on plagiarism
- WorldofQuotes on plagiarism.
examples of plagiarism
Georgetown University's Programs in Gervase (Learning to Lead) provides several examples of plagiarism (http://gervaseprograms.georgetown.edu/honor/system/53501.html).
Ted Frick at Indiana University provides a useful plagiarism lesson (https://www.indiana.edu/~istd/practice.html).
Purdue University's Online Writing Lab (OWL) offers the following guidelines for avoiding plagiiarism (http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/589/01/), for deciding if you have plagiarized (http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/589/2/), and for "Safe Practices" related to writing academic papers (http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/589/3/).
The Writing Program Administrators (2003) defines and suggests how to avoid plagiarism (http://bit.ly/q7iFNj).
Credit: Wesley Bedrosian.
From Bochicchio, K. (2011). Beat the cheat: Teaching students (and parents) it's not OK to copy. edutopia.org. Available online: http://www.edutopia.org/dispatches-beat-the-cheat.
plagiarism articles
√ Boisvert, R. F., & Irwin, M. J. (2006). Plagiarism on the rise. Communications of the ACM, 49 (6), 23-24.
A brief write-up by the Co-Chairs of the Association for Computing Machinery's (ACM) Publications Board on the growing challenges related to plagiarism and the ACM's strategies for addressing them.
√ Bretag, T., & Mahmud, S. (2009). Self-plagiarism or appropriate textual re-use? Journal of Academic Ethics, 7 (3) , 193-205.
Self-plagiarism requires clear definition within an environment that places integrity at the heart of the research enterprise. This paper explores the whole notion of self-plagiarism by academics and distinguishes between appropriate and inappro- priate textual re-use in academic publications, while considering research on other forms of plagiarism such as student plagiarism. Based on the practical experience of the authors in identifying academics’ self-plagiarism using both electronic detection and manual analysis, a simple model is proposed for identifying self-plagiarism by academics (Authors' Abstract].
* √ Hannabuss, S. (2001). Contested texts: Issues of plagiarism. Library Management, 22 (6/7), 331-318.
Popular views of plagiarism are based on the concept of original authorship and the moral and economic implications of it. Plagiarism itself is usually linked with academic misconduct by students and by teachers/ lecturers/writers. Reaction by institutions and professional groups tends to be one of discipline and punishment, at times in law, most often by gatekeeping bodies. The growth of the Internet has made gatekeeping difficult. Academic life tries to balance gatekeeping with facilitation, and this dialectic presents real challenges today, above all where collaborative writing is concerned. Post-modern views of authors and texts add to the complexity. It is suggested that popular views of plagiarism may not be flexible enough [Author's Abstract].
√ Holmberg, M., & McCollough, M. (2006). Plagiarism in science and technology Master's theses: A follow-up study. New Review of Information Networking, 12 (1-2), 41-45.
This study is a follow-up of an earlier exploration of plagiarism in scientific and technological master’s theses. In our previous study (Holmberg and McCullough 2005), we attempted to find potential occurrences of plagiarism (POPs) in 68 randomly selected electronic master’s theses published in 2003. Our approach was fairly straightforward: for a period of 10 minutes, we selected various unreferenced (not in quotations) phrases from all 68 theses and searched for matches in the Google and Scirus search engines. One author searched for matched phrases in Google and the other searched for matched phrases in Scrius, so phrases from each thesis were searched for a maximum total of 20 minutes. One of our goals, in addition to identifying POPs, was to determine which search engine was more effective in terms of identifying POPs-Google or Scirus. Our criteria for determining a POP in this study was seven consecutive words. We found POPs in 46 of the 68 theses [Authors' Abstract].
* √ Howard, R. M. (2007). Understanding "Internet plagiarism." Computers and Composition, 24 (1), 3-15.
Current concerns about plagiarism participate in a culture-wide anxiety that mirrors the cultural climate in previous textual revolutions. In today’s revolution, the Internet is described as the cause of a perceived increase in plagiarism, and plagiarism-detecting services (PDSs) are described as the best solution. The role of the Internet should be understood, however, not just in terms of access to text but also in terms of textual relationships. Synthesizing representations of iText with literary theories of intertextuality suggests that all writers work intertextually, all readers interpret texts intertextually, and new media not only increase the number of texts through which both writers and readers work but also offer interactive information technologies in which unacknowledged appropriation from sources does not necessarily invalidate the text. Plagiarism-detecting services, in contrast, describe textual appropriation solely in terms of individual ethics. The best response to concerns about plagiarism is revised institutional plagiarism policies combined with authentic pedagogy that derives from an understanding of IText, intertextuality, and new media [Author's Abstract].
** √ Johnson-Eilola, J., & Selber, S. A. (2007). Plagiarism, originality, assemblage. Computers and Composition, 24 (4), 375-403.
Although students work and live in a remix culture, composition pedagogy does not always value the discursive practices of that culture, especially when it comes to producing written work for academic contexts. The reasons for these views are historically determined and tied, at least in part, to relatively traditional notions of authorship and creativity. But “writers” in other contexts, both disciplinary and popular, have developed interesting and useful remix approaches that can aid invention, leverage intellectual and physical resources, and dramatize the social dimensions of composing in this day and age. These approaches, however, ask teachers to reconsider taken-for-granted assumptions about plagiarism and originality [Authors' Abstract].
√ Martin, D. (2005). Plagiarism and technology: A tool for coping with plagiarism. Journal of Education for Business, 80 (3), 149-152.
In this study, the author evaluated an online plagiarism detec- tion system to determine whether (a) it would be practical to use in an acade- mic setting and (b) it would have an effect on student plagiarism. The author analyzed graduate student papers for plagiarism over the course of 5 semesters. Students in the last 3 semesters plagiarized significantly less than did students in the 1st semes- ter, suggesting that students’ aware- ness of the system and its use by the instructor may have acted as a deter- rent to plagiarism. Results showed that the system was a viable means to detect and discourage plagiarism in an academic environment. The author provides conclusions, limitations, and recommendations for faculty use of a plagiarism detection system [Author's Abstract].
√ Mozgovoy, M., Kakkonen, T., & Cosma, G. (2010). Automatic student plagiarism detection: Future perspectives. Journal of Education Computing Research, 43 (4), 511-531.
The availability and use of computers in teaching has seen an increase in the rate of plagiarism among students because of the wide availability of electronic texts online. While computer tools that have appeared in recent years are capable of detecting simple forms of plagiarism, such as copy-paste, a number of recent research studies devoted to evaluation and comparison of plagiarism detection tools revealed that these contain limitations in detecting complex forms of plagiarism such as extensive paraphrasing and use of technical tricks, such as replacing original characters with similar-looking characters from foreign alphabets. This article investigates limitations in automatic detection of student plagiarism and proposes ways on how these issues could be tackled in future systems by applying various natural language processing and information retrieval technologies. A classification of types of plagiarism is presented, and an analysis is provided of the most promising technologies that have the potential of dealing with the limitations of current state-of-the-art systems. Furthermore, the article concludes with a discussion on legal and ethical issues related to the use of plagiarism detection software. The article, hence, provides a “roadmap” for developing the next generation of plagiarism detection systems [Authors' Abstract].
√ Probett, C. (2011). Plagiarism prevention. Business Communication Quarterly, 74 (2), 170-172.
Prescriptive article recommending several strategies for minimizing student plagiarism, including changing assignments regularly, creating unique assignments for each course, using technology, and exhibiting model behavior.
** √ Reyman, J. (2007). Rethinking plagiarism for technical communication, Technical Communication, 55 (1), 61-67.
- Proposes that technical and professional communication instructors reconsider their treatment of plagiarism.
- Examines approaches to teaching about plagiarism and the need for rethinking plagiarism in light of contempoary workplace practice [Author's Summary].
* √ Townley, C., & Parsell, M. (2004). Technology and academic virtue: Student plagiarism through the looking glass. Ethics and Information Technology, 6 (4), 271-277.
Plagiarism is the misuse of and failure to acknowledge source materials. This paper questions common responses to the apparent increase in plagiarism by students. Internet plagiarism occurs in a context – using the Internet as an information tool – where the relevant norms are far from obvious and models of virtue are difficult to identify and perhaps impossible to find. Ethical responses to the pervasiveness of Internet- enhanced plagiarism require a reorientation of perspective on both plagiarism and the Internet as a knowledge tool. Technological strategies to ‘‘catch the cheats’’ send a ‘‘don’t get caught’’ message to students and direct the limited resources of academic institutions to a battle that cannot be won. More importantly, it is not the right battleground. Rather than characterising Internet-enabled plagiarism as a problem generated and solvable by emerging technologies, we argue that there is a more urgent need to build the background conditions that enable and sustain ethical relationships and academic virtues: to nurture an intellectual community [Authors' Abstract].
plagiarism issues
Collaboration, ghostwriting, honorary authorship situations, repurposing designs and existing texts (boilerplating), remixing, mashing, re-assembling. These writing situations (writing to solve complex problems in the world) evoke not just legal issues but also ethical, creative, and pedagogical challenges (Johnson-Eilola & Selber, 2007; Reyman, 2007).