Plagiarism & Academic
Dishonesty
Here are the statements from three professional
societies (The American Historical Society, the Modern Language Association,
and the American Psychological Association) see also the Student Code of
Conduct.
THE
AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION
This is from the American Historical Association’s
Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct. It is reprinted courtesy of the
AHA.
Statement on Plagiarism and Related Misuses of the
Work of Other Authors (Adopted May 1986; amended May 1990, May 1993, and May
1995)
1. Identifying Plagiarism and Other Misuses
The word plagiarism derives from Latin roots: plagiarius, an abductor, and plag-zare,
to steal. The expropriation of another author’s text, and the presentation of
it as one’s own, constitutes plagiarism and is a
serious violation of the ethics of scholarship. It undermines the credibility
of historical inquiry.
In addition to the harm that plagiarism does to
the pursuit of truth, it is also an offense against the literary rights of the
original author and the property rights of the copyright owner. Detection can
therefore result not only in academic sanctions (such as dismissal from a
graduate program, termination of a faculty contract, or denial or promotion or
tenure) but also in civil or criminal prosecution. As a practical matter,
plagiarism between scholars rarely goes to court. Publishers are eager to avoid
adverse publicity, and an injured scholar is unlikely to seek material
compensation for misappropriation of what he or she gave gladly to the world.
The real penalty for plagiarism is the abhorrence of the community of scholars.
Plagiarism includes more subtle and perhaps more
pernicious abuses than simply expropriating the exact wording of another author
without attribution. Plagiarism also includes the limited borrowing, without
attribution, of another person’s distinctive and significant research findings,
hypotheses, theories, rhetorical strategies, or interpretations, or an extended
borrowing even with attribution. Of course, historical knowledge is cumulative,
and thus in some contexts--such as textbooks, encyclopedia articles, or broad
syntheses--the form of attribution, and the permissible extent of dependence on
prior scholarship, citation and other forms of attribution will differ from
what is expected in more limited monographs As knowledge is disseminated to a
wide public, it loses some of its personal reference. What belongs to whom becomes less distinct. But even in textbooks a
historian should acknowledge the sources of recent or distinctive findings and
interpretations; those not yet a part of the common understanding of the profession, and should never simply borrow and
rephrase the findings of other scholars.
Plagiarism, then, takes many forms. The clearest
abuse is the use of another’s language without quotation marks and citation.
More subtle abuses include the appropriation of concepts, data, or notes all
disguised in newly crafted sentences, or reference to a borrowed work in an
early note and then extensive further use without attribution All such tactics
reflect an unworthy disregard for the contributions of others.
2. Resisting Plagiarism
All who participate in the community of inquiry,
as amateurs or as professionals, as students or as established historians, have
an obligation to oppose deception. This obligation bears with special weight on
the directors of graduate seminars. They are critical in shaping a young
historian’s perception of the ethics of scholarship. It is therefore incumbent
on graduate teachers to seek opportunities for making the seminar also a
workshop in scholarly integrity. After leaving graduate school, every historian
will have to depend primarily on vigilant self-criticism. Throughout our lives
none of us can cease to question the claims our work makes and the sort of
credit it grants to others.
But just as important as the self-criticism that
guards us from self-deception is the formation of work habits that protect a
scholar from plagiarism. The plagiarist’s standard defense--that he or she was
misled by hastily taken and imperfect notes--is plausible only in the context
of a wider tolerance of shoddy work A basic rule of
good note taking requires every researcher to distinguish scrupulously between
exact quotation and paraphrase. A basic rule of good writing warns us against
following our own paraphrased notes slavishly. When a historian simply links
one paraphrase to the next, even if the sources are cited, a kind of structural
misuse takes place; the writer is implicitly claiming a shaping intelligence
that actually belonged to the sources. Faced with charges of failing to
acknowledge dependence on certain sources, a historian usually pleads that the
lapse was inadvertent This excuse will be easily
disposed of if scholars take seriously the injunction to check their
manuscripts against the underlying texts prior to publication.
The second line of defense against plagiarism is
organized and punitive. Every institution that includes or represents a body of
scholars has an obligation to establish procedures designed to clarify and
uphold their ethical standards. Every institution that employs historians bears
an especially critical responsibility to maintain the integrity and reputation
of its staff. This applies to government agencies, corporations, publishing
firms, and public service organizations such as museums and libraries, as
surely as it does to educational facilities. Usually, it is the employing institution
that is expected to investigate charges of plagiarism promptly and impartially
and to invoke appropriate sanctions when the charges are sustained. Penalties
for scholarly misconduct should vary according to the seriousness of the
offense, and the protections of due process should always apply. A persistent
pattern of deception may justify public disclosure or even termination of an
academic career; some scattered misappropriations may warrant only a formal
reprimand.
All historians share responsibility for
maintenance of the highest standards of intellectual integrity. When appraising
manuscripts for publication, reviewing books, or evaluating peers for
placement, promotion, and tenure, scholars must evaluate the honesty and
reliability with which the historian uses primary and secondary source
materials Scholarship flourishes in an atmosphere of openness and candor, which
should include the scrutiny and discussion of academic deception.
THE MODERN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION
This is from Joseph Gibaldi
and Walter S. Achtert, MLA Hand book for Writers of
Research Papers (3rd ed.
The MLA Handbook defines plagiarism as the use of
another person’s ideas or expressions in your writing without giving proper
credit to the source. The word comes from the Latin word plagiarius
(“kidnapper), and Alexander Lindey defines it as “the
false assumption of authorship~ the wrongful act of taking the product of
another person’s mind, and presenting it as one’s own” (Plagiarism and
Originality [New York: Harper, 1952} 2).
“In short, to plagiarize is to give the impression
that you have written or thought something that you have in fact borrowed from
someone else.” This can include paraphrasing, copying someone else’s writing
word for word, or using ideas that aren’t your own without proper citation.
Plagiarism is often unintentional, and bad research habits can form early in
elementary school. Unfortunately, these bad habits can continue throughout high
school and college and may result in severe consequences, from failure in a
course to expulsion. To avoid these consequences, always cite your sources if
you are unsure if you are plagiarizing (Gibaldi
21-25).
THE AMERICAN
PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
This is from the Manual of the American
Psychological Association (Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
1995), 292-95. It is reprinted courtesy of the American Psychological
Association.
Plagiarism (Principle 6.22)
Quotation marks should be used to indicate the
exact words of another. Summarizing a passage or rearranging the order of a
sentence and changing some of the words is
paraphrasing. Each time a source is paraphrased, a credit for the source needs
to be included in the text.
The key element of this principle is that an author does not present the work
of another as if it were his or her own work. This can extend to ideas as well
as written words. If an author models a study after one done by someone else,
the originating author should be
given credit. If the rationale for a study was suggested in the Discussion
section of someone else’s article, that person should be given credit. Given
the free exchange of ideas, which is very important to the health of
psychology, an author may not know where an idea for a study originated If the author does know, however, the author should
acknowledge the source; this includes personal communications (Publication
Manual 292-95)