University Policy on Plagiarism

As adopted by Senate on 28 March 2002

COMMON FACULTY POLICY ON PLAGIARISM

Plagiarism by students in the preparation of assignments, practical reports and research projects is a longstanding problem. However, it has recently become aggravated by the fact that students can now easily download extracts or even entire essays from the Internet. In addition, there are significant numbers of students who have come from disadvantaged educational settings where paraphrasing or direct copying of material in the construction of an essay was regarded as acceptable and normal.

At Rhodes, as a university which measures itself against the highest international standards of academic and professional practice, we need a clear statement, regarding what is and is not acceptable, which serves as a common policy across all faculties. At the same time we need to recognize that these standards need to be taught to students and that students from disadvantaged educational backgrounds may take some time to become familiar with them.

Plagiarism is defined as:

Taking and using the ideas, writings, works or inventions of another as if they were one's own.

This definition covers a wide range of practices from minor infractions such as inadequate referencing, through more serious misdemeanours such as copying blocks of text which are unacknowledged, to very serious offences such as stealing an entire essay from another student or from the Internet or infringing copyright. For the purposes of this policy, incomplete or unsatisfactory referencing which is more a matter of negligence than deceit will not be considered an offence. However, when marking assignments in which this occurs, staff retain the right to penalize the student in terms of the mark given, according to the degree of negligence and the academic level at which the student is writing.

The Student Handbook should include general information about the nature of plagiarism and about the University's policy and should indicate that plagiarism is considered a serious offence. However, because the nature of plagiarism may be context specific, individual Departments are responsible for ensuring that students fully understand the nature of legitimate academic practice, and of what constitutes an offence. They are also responsible, in the first instance, for imposing penalties on students found guilty of plagiarism. However, the responses of individual Departments should be in accordance with a common definition of plagiarism and a common penalty system as set out in this document.

The responsibilities of Departments: Educating students about appropriate practice

Departments should acknowledge the importance of their own role in students' acquisition of academic discourse and are responsible for taking active steps to provide students with an explanation as to why, as well as how, sources may be used and cited in building academic knowledge. This should normally be presented as part of the course material at the start of each year in the form of lectures or tutorials, and/or printed handouts (for an example, see appendix). The ADC could advise and assist Departments in this matter. Departments should, therefore:

1. Inform students as to how material from such sources as books, articles, the Internet and the work of other students, may and may not be used in the preparation of assignments.

2. Provide training in the formal procedures to be followed in the acknowledgement and citation of the source of material.

3. Alert students to the nature of plagiarism, inform them that it constitutes a serious offence, and provide information about the disciplinary procedures that are in place for dealing with suspected cases.

4. Require students to include an appropriate declaration in work that they submit indicating that it is their own work.

DEALING WITH SUSPECTED CASES OF PLAGIARISM : DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES

This is the amended proposal from the sub-committee

1.1 Senate has approved various disciplinary procedures applicable to dealing with suspected cases of plagiarism. The first procedure (category A offences) relates to first time, minor infringements, and is handled by the staff member who detects the offence, and requires that records be kept for future reference. The second procedure (category B offences) relates to repeated offences of a minor nature, or to first time, major offences, is handled in the first instance by a Departmental Disciplinary Committee, provided that they deem the offence not to be such that it might suggest a penalty more severe than the loss of a DP, and requires that records be consulted and updated for future reference. The third procedure (category C offences) handles situations relating to major infringements by students which the Departmental Committee deems worthy of prosecution by the Senate Standing Committee on plagiarism.

1.2 A Disciplinary Officer (by default this would be the Head of Department) shall appoint a Disciplinary Committee within each department to which all alleged plagiarism cases shall be referred in the first instance. The Disciplinary Committee shall be empowered to decide into which category the offence falls, shall deal with category A and B offences directly, and shall refer all category C offences to the Chairperson of the Senate Standing Committee on Plagiarism. The Disciplinary Committee shall consist of at least two members (to handle situations in which the staff member who detects a suspected case of plagiarism is also a member of the Committee).

1.3 A Senate Standing Committee on Plagiarism shall be constituted by the Vice Chancellor and shall consist of the Vice Principal, six members of Senate and three students who have completed at least two years of full time attendance at the University, nominated by the SRC and approved by the Vice Chancellor. The Committee shall deal with all category C offences, and shall also deal with all other offences where the student appeals against a penalty imposed by a Departmental Disciplinary Committee.

1.4 The Chairperson of the Senate Standing Committee on Plagiarism shall have the power to set aside any activity/penalty which has been taken/imposed relating to plagiarism that does not conform to these procedures and to order that these procedures shall then be followed.

1.5 The Senate Standing Committee on plagiarism shall monitor the extent of plagiarism at Rhodes and shall periodically review the guidelines governing the implementation of paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3.

Procedure to be followed by Departmental Disciplinary Officers/Committees

2.1 A staff member who is of the opinion that a plagiarism offence has been committed shall refer the matter to the Disciplinary Committee of the Department.

2.2 If it is immediately established that the offence is minor and is a first time offence, then the staff member who detects the offence shall be empowered to impose a penalty appropriate to the offence, up to the limit of 100% loss of marks in the case where the plagiarism is clearly intentional. Guidelines as to the extent of the loss of marks must be published by Departments and be made available to the students.

2.3 If it is established that the offence is a repetition of a minor infringement, or if it can be established that the infringement, although major, is not likely to warrant a penalty greater than the loss of a DP, the Disciplinary Committee shall attempt to establish whether the plagiarism is intentional or unintentional and impose an appropriate penalty. In the case where plagiarism is intentional, the normal penalty imposed would be the loss of a DP, but in this and in cases of unintentional plagiarism the Departmental Committee may impose a penalty involving a loss of marks up to a limit of 100% as deemed appropriate. Guidelines as to the extent of the loss of marks must be published by Departments and be made available to the students.

2.4 If it is suspected that the offence falls into category C, the case shall immediately be referred to the Senate Standing Committee.

2.5.1 In all cases falling into categories A and B the alleged offenders have the right to state their case before the Departmental Committee, and shall be provided with written reasons for any sanctions imposed on them.

2.5.2 If after hearing such cases the Committee is satisfied that an offence has in fact not been committed, the Committee shall withdraw the penalty and advise the staff member who laid the charge accordingly.

2.5.3 If the Committee remains satisfied that an offence has been committed, or where the alleged offender requests accordingly, the alleged offender shall be allowed to have the allegation investigated by the Senate Committee as though it had fallen directly into Category C. In this case the student shall be apprised of the very serious penalties that might be imposed by that Committee.

2.5.4 In cases where penalties are not withdrawn as provided in paragraph 2.5.2, a copy of the written reasons referred to in paragraph 2.5.1 shall be forwarded to the Dean of the Faculty in which the student is registered, as well as to the Chairperson of the Senate Standing Committee. Departments and Deans shall keep records of offenders to enable them to identify categories of offender, especially as they relate to offenders in more than one subject or across more than one Faculty.

Procedure to be followed by the Senate Standing Committee on Plagiarism

3.1 The Chairperson of the Senate Standing Committee on plagiarism shall chair hearings of category C offences. In addition he or she shall appoint one Senate Standing Committee member and one student Committee member to hear and determine the outcome of such matters.

3.2 A student charged with a category C offence shall be given full written particulars of the allegation against him or her. The student shall be required to deliver a reply in writing to the Chairperson within five working days of the receipt of the particulars. The reply shall set out the basis of any defence that the student wishes to raise, or any mitigating factors in the event of him/her admitting the allegations.

3.3 The written reply of the student shall be referred to the Department concerned. Should the Department wish to reply to the student's statement it shall do so to the Chairperson, with a copy to the student, within five working days of receipt of the student's reply.

3.4 The hearing shall take place as soon as is reasonably possible after the Department's reply, but not later than seven working days from the date of the Chairperson's receipt thereof.

3.5 The student charged with having committed plagiarism, as well as the Head of Department concerned (or in his/her stead another member of staff of the same Department) shall attend the hearing. The students may be assisted by another student, or by a staff member or by a legal practitioner.

3.6 The Chairperson shall decide whether any dispute of fact apparent from the statements of the student and the Department is material or not. This may be a dispute of fact relevant to the student's guilt or innocence, or to any issue that may have a bearing on determining an appropriate penalty. The improbability or otherwise of the student's reply is irrelevant in making this determination.

3.7 In the event of there being no material dispute of fact, then no oral evidence shall be required at the hearing. The student and the staff member may, however, make oral submissions in amplification of their written statements.

3.8 In the event of there being a material dispute of fact, then oral evidence shall be required to enable the Committee to resolve the dispute. The evidence of any witness of the Department may be challenged by questions from the student or his/her assistant.

3.9 The Committee may recommend that a student found guilty of a Category C offence should be excluded from Rhodes University, either permanently or for a period of time. Alternatively it shall have the power to order that a Duly Performed certificate should be refused, reduce the mark awarded to the work, impose a fine, impose community service, issue a written warning or impose a combination of the above penalties as appropriate. The Committee may suspend any penalty, either wholly or in part, or may recommend such suspension.

3.10 If the Committee finds that the student has committed plagiarism it shall provide the student with written reasons for its decision, both in regard to its finding and in regard to its reasons for the penalty imposed.

3.11 A student shall have the right to appeal to the Vice Chancellor for clemency. Such an appeal shall be made in writing to the Vice Chancellor within three working days of having received the written reasons referred to in paragraph 3.10.

Decision tree

It may help readers of this policy to consider the following decision tree which outlines the procedures

Staff member detects suspected plagiarism
|
Departmental Committee determines extent
and whether offender has previous record
|
.----------------------------------------.
| |
Minor Major
| |
.----------------------. Appropriate Penalty?
| | | |
First Offence Repeat Offence Loss of marks or More severe than
| | Loss of DP Loss of marks or DP
| | | |
Intentional/ Intentional/ | |
Unintentional Unintentional | |
| | | |
.-----------. `--------------------' |
| | | | |
Unintended Intended Unintended Intended Extensive procedure
| | | | requiring Senate
Staff member who detects Committee imposes penalty Committee hearing
offence imposes penalty typically typically
<= 100% of marks <= 100% Loss of DP
| | | |
`----------------------------------------'
|
Student has right of hearing
by Departmental Committee
|
.--------------------.
| |
Appeal upheld Appeal turned down
| |
| |
Penalty withdrawn Student may appeal to Senate Committee

Examples of Plagiarism

The following examples from the website at Princeton University provide a range of plagiarism from verbatim copying to thorough paraphrasing. The examples and comments offer clear guidance about how a source may be used and when a source must be cited.

Original source:

From: Alvin Kernan, The Playwright as Magician. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979, pp.102-103.

From time to time this submerged or latent theater in Hamlet becomes almost overt. It is close to the surface in Hamlet's pretense of madness, the "antic disposition" he puts on to protect himself and prevent his antagonists from plucking out the heart of his mystery. It is even closer to the surface when Hamlet enters his mother's room and holds up, side by side, the pictures of the two kings, Old Hamlet and Claudius, and proceeds to describe for her the true nature of the choice she has made, presenting truth by means of a show. Similarly, when he leaps into the open grave at Ophelia's funeral, ranting in high heroic terms, he is acting out for Laertes, and perhaps for himself as well, the folly of excessive, melodramatic expressions of grief.

1. Example of verbatim plagiarism, or unacknowledged direct quotation (lifted passages are underlined):

Almost all of Shakespeare's Hamlet can be understood as a play about acting and the theatre. For example, there is Hamlet's pretense of madness, the "antic disposition" that he puts on to protect himself and prevent his antagonists from plucking out the heart of his mystery. When Hamlet enters his mother's room, he holds up, side by side, the pictures of the two kings, Old Hamlet and Claudius, and proceeds to describe for her the true nature of the choice she has made, presenting truth by means of a show. Similarly, when he leaps into the open grave at Ophelia's funeral, ranting in high heroic terms, he is acting out for Laertes, and perhaps for himself as well, the folly of excessive, melodramatic expressions of grief.

Comment: Aside from an opening sentence loosely adapted from the original and reworded more simply, this entire passage is taken almost word-for-word from the source. The few small alterations of the source do not relieve the writer of the responsibility to attribute these words to their original author. A passage from a source may be worth quoting at length if it makes a point precisely or elegantly. In such cases, copy the passage exactly, place it in quotation marks, and cite the author.

2. Example of lifting selected passages and phrases without proper acknowledgement (lifted passages are underlined):

Almost all of Shakespeare's Hamlet can be understood as a play about acting and the theatre. For example, in Act 1, Hamlet adopts a pretense of madness that he uses to protect himself and prevent his antagonists from discovering his mission to revenge his father's murder. He also presents truth by means of a show when he compares the portraits of Gertrude's two husbands in order to describe for her the true nature of the choice she has made. And when he leaps in Ophelia's open grave ranting in high heroic terms, Hamlet is acting out the folly of excessive, melodramatic expressions of grief.

Comment: This passage, in content and structure, is taken wholesale from the source. Although the writer has rewritten much of the paragraph, and fewer phrases are lifted verbatim from the source, this is a clear example of plagiarism. Inserting even short phrases from the source into a new sentence still requires placing quotations around the borrowed words and citing the author. If even one phrase is good enough to borrow, it must be properly set off by quotation marks. In the case above, if the writer had rewritten the entire paragraph and only used Alvin Kernan's phrase "high heroic terms" without properly quoting and acknowledging its source, the writer would have plagiarized.

3. Example of paraphrasing the text while maintaining the basic paragraph and sentence structure:

Almost all of Shakespeare's Hamlet can be understood as a play about acting and the theatre. For example, in Act 1, Hamlet pretends to be insane in order to make sure his enemies do not discover his mission to revenge his father's murder. The theme is even more obvious when Hamlet compares the pictures of his mother's two husbands to show her what a bad choice she has made, using their images to reveal the truth. Also, when he jumps into Ophelia's grave, hurling his challenge to Laertes, Hamlet demonstrates the foolishness of exaggerated expressions of emotion.

Comment: Almost nothing of Alvin Kernan's original language remains in this rewritten paragraph. However the key idea, the choice and order of the examples, and even the basic structure of the original sentences are all taken from the source. Although it would no longer be necessary to use quotation marks, it would absolutely be necessary to place a citation at the end of this paragraph to acknowledge that the content is not original. Better still would be to acknowledge the author in the text by adding a second sentence such as"Alvin Kernan provides several examples from the play where these themes become more obvious"and then citing the source at the end of the paragraph. In the case where the writer did not try to paraphrase the source's sentences quite so closely, but borrowed the main idea and examples from Kernan's book, an acknowledgment would still be necessary.

Further readings on Plagiarism can be found at the following websites

* Princeton University: http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pub/rrr/00/htm/41.htm
* For those with the time and interest, the UK's Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education has just published two articles on plagiarism on its website. Go to http://www.ilt.ac.uk and click on *Plagiarism: how to prevent and detect it.*
* Plagiarism, Prevention, Deterrence & Detection by Fintan Culwin and Thomas Lancaster
* What kinds of solutions can we find for plagiarism? by Jude Carroll