Exploring Web-Based University Policy Statements on Plagiarism by Research-Intensive Higher Education Institutions

Plagiarism may distress universities in the US, but there is little agreement as to exactly what constitutes plagiarism. While there is ample research on plagiarism, there is scant literature on the content of university policies regarding it. Using a systematic sample, we qualitatively analyzed 20 Carnegie-classified universities that are “Very High in Research.” This included 15 public state universities and five high-profile private universities. We uncovered highly varied and even contradictory policies at these institutions. Notable policy variations existed for verbatim plagiarism, intentional plagiarism and unauthorized student collaboration at the studied institutions. We conclude by advising that the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AACU) and others confer and come to accord on the disposition of these issues

“Should It Be Considered Plagiarism?” Student Perceptions of Complex Citation Issues

Most research on student plagiarism defines the concept very narrowly or with much ambiguity. Many studies focus on plagiarism involving large swaths of text copied and pasted from unattributed sources, a type of plagiarism that the overwhelming majority of students seem to have little trouble identifying. Other studies rely on ambiguous definitions, assuming students understand what the term means and requesting that they self-report how well they understand the concept. This study attempts to avoid these problems by examining student perceptions of more complex citation issues. We presented 240 students with a series of examples, asked them to indicate whether or not each should be considered plagiarism, and followed up with a series of demographic and attitudinal questions. The examples fell within the spectrum of inadequate citation, patchwriting, and the reuse of other people’s ideas. Half were excerpted from publicized cases of academic plagiarism, and half were modified from other sources. Our findings indicated that students shared a very strong agreement that near verbatim copy and paste and patchwriting should be considered plagiarism, but that they were much more conflicted regarding the reuse of ideas. Additionally, this study found significant correlation between self-reported confidence in their understanding and the identification of more complex cases as plagiarism, but this study found little correlation between academic class status or exposure to plagiarism detection software and perceptions of plagiarism. The latter finding goes against a prevailing sentiment in the academic literature that the ability to recognize plagiarism is inherently linked to academic literacy. Overall, our findings indicate that more pedagogical emphasis may need to be placed on complex forms of plagiarism

Cheating in university exams: the relevance of social factors

We implemented an online anonymous survey targeted to current and former students, where the interviewed indicate whether and to what extent they cheated during written university exams. We find that 61% of respondents have cheated once or more. Cheaters are more likely to report that their classmates and friends cheated, and that in general people can be trusted. Two different cheating styles emerge: ‘social cheaters’, who self-report that they have violated the rules interacting with others; ‘individualistic’ cheaters, who self-report that they have used prohibited materials. Only social cheaters exhibit higher levels of trust compared to individualistic cheaters

Correction : A Neuroethics Framework for the Australian Brain Initiative (Neuron (2019) 101(3) (365–369), (S0896627319300054), (10.1016/j.neuron.2019.01.004))

(Neuron 101, 365–369; February 6, 2019) In the original publication of this NeuroView, the member list for the Australian Brain Alliance was omitted. This has now been corrected online. Neuron apologizes for the error

A Neuroethics Framework for the Australian Brain Initiative

© 2019 Elsevier Inc. Neuroethics is central to the Australian Brain Initiative's aim to sustain a thriving and responsible neurotechnology industry. Diverse and inclusive community and stakeholder engagement and a trans-disciplinary approach to neuroethics will be key to the success of the Australian Brain Initiative