Professors Against Plagiarism. Professors against Fraud

Endless fake IEEE conferences

2011-04-27T02:19:00.000-07:00

An american professor, Prof. Weiyi (Max) Zhang http://www.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu/~wzhang/
reported some IEEE fake conference in March 31, 2011
See
http://fakeconference.blogspot.com/2011/04/american-professor-reported-some-ieee.html

New case of fake SCIgen paper accepted in an IEEE Conference

2011-04-25T12:02:00.001-07:00

New case of fake SCIgen paper accepted in an IEEE Conference
http://crappyconferences.blogspot.com/2011/04/for-those-that-they-do-not-believe-that.html

FAKE CONFERENCES FROM IEEE

2010-08-26T03:33:00.000-07:00

FAKE CONFERENCES FROM IEEE. WE HAVE RECEIVED THIS CALL FOR PAPERS
SEE THIS WEB PAGE
http://www.grs-association.org/icrs2010/

THE CONFERENCE IS AN ABSOLUTELY JUNK CONFERENCE (BOGUS CONFERENCE)

AND WE HAVE 4 METHODS TO PROVE WHY THIS EVENT IS BOGUS

1) THERE IS NOT ANY COMMITEE
2) http://www.grs-association.org IS A ZOMBIE ORGANIZATION (does not exist) AND THE WEB SITE www.grs-association.org IS LOCKED
3) THEY DO NOT HAVE CHAIRMAN, ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL and many other thinks
4) THEY PUBLISH THEIR PAPERS IN IEEEXPLORE THAT HAVE PUBLISHED MANY SCIGEN PAPERS RECENTLY

SEE THE CALL FOR PAPERS AND TELL US IF IT IS BOGUS CONFERENCE OR NOT

ICRS2010 and ICMMA2011 Call for Paper

2010 International Conference on Remote Sensing (ICRS 2010) EI Compendex and ISTP
2010年国际遥感大会（ICRS 2010）EI&ISTP检索Hangzhou, China, October 5-6,2010
中国·杭州，2010年10月5日~6日Website会议网站： http://www.grs-association.org/icrs2010/

The objective of ICRS 2010 is to provide a forum for researchers, educators, engineers, and government officials involved in the general areas of on Remote Sensing .
All Accepted Papers will be published by IEEE , Which will be indexed by EI Compendex and ISTP.
所有被本次会议由IEEE出版，凡被大会录用的文章都将被EI和ISTP收录。
ICRS 2010 has enter IEEE Conference Search：http://www.ieee.org/conferences_events/index.htmlICRS 2010 已进入IEEE会议列表，查询链接：http://www.ieee.org/conferences_events/index.html本会议已进入维普资讯和科学网会议列表：http://expo.cqvip.com/meet_detail.asp?id=143http://meeting.sciencenet.cn/cinfo.aspx?cid=695
TOPICS：Submissions of papers describing original work in, but not limited to, the following topics are enthusiastically encouraged.
• Satellite Remote Sensing System
• Airborne Remote Sensing System
• UAV/UAS Remote Sensing System
• Hyperspectral Sensing
• Microwave Sensors/SAR / InSAR/ D-InSAR
• Laser Sensors/LIDAR
• Digital Camera
• Global Change
• Water Quality & Water Resources
• Agriculture & Soil
• Vegetation & Crops
• Forest Resources
• Ecology, Environment & Carbon Cycle
• Land Use/Land Cover
• Geology / Geography/Geomorphology
• Geo-hazards/Disasters
• Mountain Environment and Mapping
• Coastal Zone Monitoring
• Atmosphere/Oceanography
• Archaeology
• Urban Change/Monitoring
• High Resolution Satellite Mapping
• Algorithm and Modeling
• DEM/3D Generation
• Change Detection
• Feature Extraction
• Automatic /Intelligent Classification
• Hyperspectral/SAR Data Processing
• High Resolution Data Processing
• Data Fusion and Data Minin
• Spatial Database
• GIS Decision Support and Models
• Visualization /VR
• GIS Application in Resource Management
• GPS & Photogrammetry
• Global Satellite Navigational Systems
• GPS Application
• Web GIS / Mobile Mapping
• RS/ GIS/ GPS Integrated and Applications
• Digital Photogrammetry
• Geospatial Technology for Energy, Health, Pollution, etc
• Digital Earth
• Space Environment / Deep Space Exploration
• Education & Training

è 投稿要求：中英文稿件均可，但是中文稿件必须同时有中英文题目、中英文摘要和中英文参考文献。（具体格式模板见附件）Paper Format is in the attachment.

è Submission system is open! http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=icrs2010投稿系统： http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=icrs2010
è Submission Date: September 15, 2010截稿时间： 2010年9月15日
Contact: icrs2010reg@gmail.com Miss Li: (86)18802716682 Miss Jia: (86)18802710080
QQ咨询群：118120329

2011 International Conference on Materials, Mechatronics and Automation (ICMMA 2011) EI Compendex
2011 年材料、机电一体化、自动化国际学术研讨会(EI 检索)
Australia, Melbourne, 15-16 January, 2011
2011年1月15-16日，澳大利亚·墨尔本Website会议网站：http://www.ieee-peits.cn/icmma2011
ICMMA 2011 will be published by Key Engineering Materials Journal, which will be indexed by EI Compendex.
我们将出版400 篇在 Key Engineering Materials 期刊，先投先审先录用原则，录用了400 篇就不再接收论文。
本会议已进入维普资讯、中国知网CNKI及科学网会议列表：http://expo.cqvip.com/meet_detail.asp?id=142
http://icmma2011.conf.cnki.net/WebSite/index.aspx?conferenceID=13af5545-3ed3-4d4b-819f-02c4b6abc3b5http://meeting.sciencenet.cn/cinfo.aspx?cid=651
Key Engineering Materials Indexed by Elsevier: SCOPUS www.scopus.com and Ei Compendex (CPX) www.ei.org/. Cambridge Scientific Abstracts (CSA) www.csa.com, Chemical Abstracts (CA) www.cas.org, Google and Google Scholar google.com, ISI (ISTP, CPCI, Web of Science) www.isinet.com, Institution of Electrical Engineers (IEE) www.iee.org, etc.

ICMMA 2011 invites authors to submit original and unpublished work. Papers should not exceed 6 pages of text using Word Template. All submitted papers (in PDF) should be written in English. Each paper will be reviewed by 2-3 reviewers. Submission implies the willingness of at least one of the authors to register the work.

Topics:
The topics of interest include, but not limited to the following:
l Intelligent mechatronics, robotics, biomimetics, automation, control systems,opto-electronic elements and Materials, laser technology and laser processing
l Elements, structures, mechanisms, and applications of micro and nano systems
l Teleoperation, telerobotics, haptics, and teleoperated semi-autonomous systems
l Sensor design, multi-sensor data fusion algorithms and wireless sensor
l networks
l Biomedical and rehabilitation engineering, prosthetics and artificial organs
l Control system modeling and simulation techniques and methodologies
l AI, intelligent control, neuro-control, fuzzy control and their applications
l Industrial automation, process control, manufacturing process and automation.

è Paper Submission System 投稿系统:
http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=icmma2011Paper Format See 格式模板见: http://www.ieee-peits.cn/icmma2011/

è Important Date: October 1, 2010, Full papers and organized session proposals
截稿时间：2010年10月1日截稿
è Contact: icmma2011@gmail.com Miss Li: (86)18802716682 Miss Jia: (86) 18802710080QQ咨询群：121101079
注意：ICMMA2011仅接收英文投稿

WESSEX INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

2010-08-18T06:49:00.003-07:00

WESSEX INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

New Links

2010-07-19T02:34:00.000-07:00

A new site
http://www.checkforplagiarism.net
against plagiarism
Once can also check this site http://stopfakeconferences.blogspot.com/

To Stop Cheats, Colleges Learn Their Trickery

2010-07-12T11:28:00.001-07:00

ORLANDO, Florida. — The frontier in the battle to defeat student cheating may be here at the testing center of the University of Central Florida.

No gum is allowed during an exam: chewing could disguise a student's speaking into a hands-free cellphone to an accomplice outside.

The 228 computers that students use are recessed into desk tops so that anyone trying to photograph the screen — using, say, a pen with a hidden camera, in order to help a friend who will take the test later — is easy to spot.

Scratch paper is allowed — but it is stamped with the date and must be turned in later.

When a proctor sees something suspicious, he records the student's real-time work at the computer and directs an overhead camera to zoom in, and both sets of images are burned onto a CD for evidence.

Taylor Ellis, the associate dean who runs the testing center within the business school at Central Florida, the nation's third-largest campus by enrollment, said that cheating had dropped significantly, to 14 suspected incidents out of 64,000 exams administered during the spring semester.

"I will never stop it completely, but I'll find out about it," Mr. Ellis said.

As the eternal temptation of students to cheat has gone high-tech — not just on exams, but also by cutting and pasting from the Internet and sharing of homework online like music files — educators have responded with their own efforts to crack down.

This summer, as incoming freshmen fill out forms to select roommates and courses, some colleges — Duke and Bowdoin among them — are also requiring them to complete online tutorials about plagiarism before they can enroll.

Anti-plagiarism services requiring students to submit papers to be vetted for copying is a booming business. Fifty-five percent of colleges and universities now use such a service, according to the Campus Computing Survey.

The best-known service, Turnitin.com, is engaged in an endless cat-and-mouse game with technologically savvy students who try to outsmart it. "The Turnitin algorithms are updated on an on-going basis," the company warned last month in a blog post titled "Can Students 'Trick' Turnitin?"

The extent of student cheating, difficult to measure precisely, appears widespread at colleges. In surveys of 14,000 undergraduates over the last four years, an average of 61 percent admitted to cheating on assignments and exams.

The figure declined somewhat from 65 percent earlier in the decade, but the researcher who conducted the surveys, Donald L. McCabe, a business professor at Rutgers, doubts there is less of it. Instead, he suspects students no longer regard certain acts as cheating at all, for instance, cutting and pasting a few sentences at a time from the Internet.

Andrew Daines, who graduated in May from Cornell, where he served on a board in the College of Arts and Sciences that hears cheating cases, said Internet plagiarism was so common that professors told him they had replaced written assignments with tests and in-class writing.

Mr. Daines, a philosophy major, contributed to pages that Cornell added last month to its student Web site to bring attention to academic integrity. They include a link to a voluntary tutorial on avoiding plagiarism and a strongly worded admonition that "other generations may not have had as many temptations to cheat or plagiarize as yours," and urging students to view this as a character test.

Mr. Daines said he was especially disturbed by an epidemic of students' copying homework. "The term 'collaborative work' has been taken to this unbelievable extreme where it means, because of the ease of e-mailing, one person looking at someone else who's done the assignment," he said.

At M.I.T., David E. Pritchard, a physics professor, was able to accurately measure homework copying with software he had developed for another purpose — to allow students to complete sets of physics problems online. Some answered the questions so fast, "at first I thought we had some geniuses here at M.I.T.," Dr. Pritchard said. Then he realized they were completing problems in less time than it took to read them and were copying the answers — mostly, it turned out, from e-mail from friends who had already done the assignment.

About 20 percent copied one-third or more of their homework, according to a study Dr. Pritchard and colleagues published this year. Students who copy homework find answers at sites like Course Hero, which is a kind of Napster of homework sharing, where students from more than 3,500 institutions upload papers, class notes and past exams.

Another site, Cramster, specializes in solutions to textbook questions in science and engineering. It boasts answers from 77 physics textbooks — but not Dr. Pritchard's popular "Mastering Physics," an online tutorial, because his publisher, Pearson, searches the Web for solutions and requests they be taken down to protect its copyright.

"You can use technology as well for detecting as for committing" cheating, Dr. Pritchard said.

The most popular anti-cheating technology, Turnitin.com, says it is now used by 9,500 high schools and colleges. Students submit written assignments to be compared with billions of archived Web pages and millions of other student papers, before they are sent to instructors. The company says that schools using the service for several years experience a decline in plagiarism.

Cheaters trying to outfox Turnitin have tried many tricks, some described in blogs and videos. One is to replace every "e" in plagiarized text with a foreign letter that looks like it, such as a Cyrillic "e," meant to fool Turnitin's scanners. Another is to use the Macros tool in Microsoft Word to hide copied text. Turnitin says neither scheme works.

Some educators have rejected the service and other anti-cheating technologies on the grounds that they presume students are guilty, undermining the trust that instructors seek with students.

Washington & Lee University, for example, concluded several years ago that Turnitin was inconsistent with the school's honor code, "which starts from a basis of trusting our students," said Dawn Watkins, vice president for student affairs. "Services like Turnitin.com give the implication that we are anticipating our students will cheat."

For similar reasons, some students at the University of Central Florida objected to the business school's testing center with its eye-in-the-sky video in its early days, Dr. Ellis said.

But recently during final exams after a summer semester, almost no students voiced such concerns. Rose Calixte, a senior, was told during an exam to turn her cap backward, a rule meant to prevent students from writing notes under the brim. Ms. Calixte disapproved of the fashion statement but didn't knock the reason: "This is college. There is the possibility for people to cheat."

A first-year M.B.A. student, Ashley Haumann, said that when she was an undergraduate at the University of Florida, "everyone cheated" in her accounting class of 300 by comparing answers during quizzes. She preferred the highly monitored testing center because it "encourages you to be ready for the test because you can't turn and ask, 'What'd you get?' "

For educators uncomfortable in the role of anti-cheating enforcer, an online tutorial in plagiarism may prove an elegantly simple technological fix.

That was the finding of a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Researchin January. Students at an unnamed selective college who completed a Web tutorial were shown to plagiarize two-thirds less than students who did not. (The study also found that plagiarism was concentrated among students with lower SAT scores.)

The tutorial "had an outsize impact," said Thomas S. Dee, a co-author, who is now an economist at the University of Virginia.

"Many instructors don't want to create this kind of adversarial environment with their students where there is a presumption of guilt," Dr. Dee said. "Our results suggest a tutorial worked by educating students rather than by frightening them."

Only a handful of colleges currently require students to complete such a tutorial, which typically illustrates how to cite a source or even someone else's ideas, followed by a quiz.

The tutorial that Bowdoin uses was developed with its neighbor colleges Bates and Colby several years ago. Part of the reason it is required for enrollment, said Suzanne B. Lovett, a Bowdoin psychology professor whose specialty is cognitive development, is that Internet-age students see so many examples of text, music and images copied online without credit that they may not fully understand the idea of plagiarism.

As for Central Florida's testing center, one of its most recent cheating cases had nothing to do with the Internet, cellphones or anything tech. A heavily tattooed student was found with notes written on his arm. He had blended them into his body art.

The text is from NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/education/06cheat.html?_r=1 we read:

Next time that somebody will claim that he has many publications in IEEE,

2010-06-20T02:08:00.000-07:00

Dear Colleagues

Next time that somebody will claim that he has many publications in IEEE,
next time that somebody will send you an advertizement for an IEEE conference or special journal issue,
next time that you will tell you something for IEEE,
REMEMBER these stories:

1) Fake Paper accepted in IEEE/IFIP EUC 2010, Hong Kong, December 11-13, 2010.
Details http://netdriver.blogspot.com/2010/06/who-others-have-accepted-bogus-texts-in.html

2) Fake Paper in IEEE IARIA Conference
http://iaria-highsci.blogspot.com/2008/12/we-have-letter-of-acceptance-fantastic.html

3-4) Two Fake Papers in IEEE EBISS
http://diehimmelistschoen.blogspot.com/

5-6) Two absolutely fake papers in IEEE Computational Complexity
http://iaria-highsci.blogspot.com/2009/05/bogus-papers-in-ieee-computational.html

7-13) Six Papers in
IEEE Conference on Sensors
See
http://evol-eco.blogspot.com/2009/11/beware-of-fake-conference.html

14) Nagib Callaos' conference--- technical co-sponsorship by IEEE

http://iaria-highsci.blogspot.com/2009/05/dear-president-of-ieee.html

15---30) See below

Do you want more links?
Do you want University Web Servers, University URLs?

YES

Many Universities consider that many IEEE Conferences are garbage. Some of them consider that even in the IEEE Journals the review is quite ridiculous and has only to do with your public relations in IEEE and its conferences or if you have put as co-author
some important editor of IEEE

See these link and examine the word: unrefereed

http://www.ece.ncsu.edu/imaging/Publications/unrefereed.html

http://sekmen-cs.tnstate.edu/sekmen/sekmen/ConferencePapersNonRefereed.html

http://www.utdallas.edu/~rmt042000/publications.htm

http://www.math.duke.edu/~das/cv/unrefpub.html

http://web.sfc.keio.ac.jp/~rdv/publications.html

http://www.yawlfoundation.org/arthur/publications/index.php

http://softbase.uwaterloo.ca/~ddbms/projects/multimedia/publications.html

http://npal.ucsd.edu/publications/index.htm

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~awm22/publications/index.html

Are you co-author in this paper?

2010-06-20T01:37:00.001-07:00

A 10-pages paper with 3469 Co-Authors.

Though this is not a Spam, we would like to report you a paper of 10 pages
with 3469 Authors.

The paper is published in
Physics Letters B
Volume 688, Issue 1, 26 April 2010, Pages 21-42

This paper is available here
http://acapam.blogspot.com/2010/06/10-pages-paper-with-3469-co-authors.html

Who are the main authors in this paper?

One can comment that 1 author correspondes to 0,0028 pages!

Amazing. Isn't it?

Are you co-author in this paper?

http://acapam.blogspot.com/2010/06/10-pages-paper-with-3469-co-authors.html

http://acapam.blogspot.com

We say "No" to pseudo IEEE fake Conferences in pseudo-State of fake North Cyprus

2010-06-18T00:10:00.001-07:00

We say "No" to pseudo IEEE fake Conferences in pseudo-State of fake North Cyprus

Please, publish our letter in your estimated blog:

http://iaria-highsci.blogspot.com

We are also sending it to many people by email

We say "No" to IEEE Conferences in North Cyprus

EuMA WITHDRAWS! IEEE MUST WITHDRAW NOW FROM THE FAKE IEEE CONFERENCE IN THIS FAKE STATE

For Immediate Release: June 17, 2010

Contact: Nikolaos Taneris, New York, Tel. (917) 699-9935

NEW YORK—The Cyprus Action Network of America (CANA) is urging all activists to continue to write to the IEEE to urge cancellation of the
Turkish Microwaves event in the pseudo-university in Turkish-occupied Cyprus. In a message today from the President of the European Microwave Association (EuMA) Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Heinrich we were made aware that the organizers misinformed the EuMA into cosponsoring the Turkish Microwave event and did not explain to them that it was to take place in the illegal and unrecognized Turkish-military-occupation regime.

We want to take time to thank all of our supporters who wrote in protest letters and informed us of the replies to the IEEE and EuMA. We are happy to report that EuMA has cancelled and withdrawn its cooperation with the pseduo-university for the Turkish microwaves event.

We urge all patriots to continue to write to IEEE officials, and empasize that EuMA , has withdrawn from cosponsorship , and that the organizers misinformed EuMA by not explaining to them the event was to take place in Turkish-occupied Cyprus, an unrecognised bandit pseudo-state.
Please consult the following links for contact info to IEEE and more background to this letter writing protest:

KEEP THE PRESSURE ON IEEE! STOP COOPERATION WITH TURKISH ILLEGAL OCCUPIERS (Posted June 15, 2010)

URGENT! Protest the Turkish Microwave Event in Illegal so-called “Eastern Mediterranean University” (Posted June 09, 2010)

The letter from President of the European Microwave Association (EuMA) Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Heinrich is available in this link , along with the CANA thank you letter to EuMA for withdrawing from the conference:

--------------------------------------------------------------
####
========================
Cyprus Action Network of America (CANA)
2578 Broadway #132
New York, NY 10025
New York: Tel. 917-699-9935
========================
The Cyprus Action Network of America (CANA) is a grass-roots, not-for-profit movement created to support genuine self-determination and human rights for the people of Cyprus.

You are encouraged to forward this action alert to five or more individuals who may have an interest in our e-distributions or in CANA’s mission.

You may post any CANA article, press release or action alert on the internet as long as you credit CANA and the author(s).

http://acapam.blogspot.com/

http://fromwillis.blogspot.com/

Re: Professors Against Plagiarism: PROFESSOR ALAN DERSHOWITZ

2010-03-03T04:17:00.000-08:00

See this link

The IEEE Publications really suffers from Plagiarism

http://www.theinstitute.ieee.org/portal/site/tionline/menuitem.130a3558587d56e8fb2275875bac26c8/index.jsp?&pName=institute_level1_article&TheCat=1010&article=tionline/legacy/inst2010/feb10/prodservtool.xml&

and what about all these fake papers in several sponsored IEEE conferences?

Avoid any relation with this FRAUD!

2010-02-03T01:11:00.001-08:00

Avoid any relation with this FRAUD!

----- Original Message -----
From: "EU Company Registration" <donotreply@eucompanydirectoryonline.com>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 5:07 AM
Subject: Registration of EU Companies 2010/2011

EU Company Registration

EU Company Registration
Dear Madam/Sir,

In order to have your company inserted into the registry of EU
companies for 2010/2011, please print, complete and return the enclosed
form (PDF
file) to the following address:

EU Company Directory
P.O. Box 2021
3500 GA UTRECHT
The Netherlands
Fax number: + 31 205248107
Email: mail@eucdnow.com
Updating is free of charge!

To unsubscribe, please send an email to unsubscribe@
eu-businessservices.com

Plagiarism in IRAN

2010-01-28T01:31:00.001-08:00

Senior officials in the Iranian government are suspected of plagiarizing
published scientific content for political gain.
Nature, the international weekly journal of science, reported last week that
its research unearthed even more plagiarism allegations against prominent
figures in Iran. The first person to be implicated more than a year ago was
Masumeh Ebtekar, the head of the Environmental Protection Organization under
President Khatami.
A few months ago, Nature tabbed Transport Minister Hamid Behbahani, who
supervised President Ahmadi-nejad's doctoral thesis, for plagiarism in a
paper he co-authored. Nature says the paper appeared based on three earlier
articles by three different authors. The journal Transport retracted the
paper in October, but the Iranian government has not investigated the
allegations.
Behbahani told the public he did not plagiarize and that only parts of the
article were identical to earlier work. He called the plagiarism allegations
a "media attack, far from fairness and integrity" and "an illegitimate
accusation."
The Majlis did, however, informally investigate Science Minister Kamran
Daneshjou and the four papers he co-authored. Daneshjou oversaw this year's
elections in his previous post of deputy interior minister. The Majlis
Science and Education Committee held an informal inquiry into the case and
dismissed it after Daneshjou's colleague and co-author, Majid Shahravi, took
responsibility for the content in the papers. Three of the four papers have
been retracted from publications. The fourth paper was published in an
Iranian journal.
Nature speculates that the frequent cases of plagiarism in Iran are partly
the result of poor fluency in English. Nature said the culture in Iran and
some other developing countries expects officials to have strong academic
credentials. That encourages resort to plagiarism to uphold this cultural
expectation and gain promotions.
Nature notes many of Iran's best scientists left Iran after the 1979 Islamic
revolution because universities were asked to eliminate Western influences
and staff. Iranian research improved and became more credible in the late
1990s with the help of President Mohammad Khatami who made academic
appointments based on merit, Nature said. It said research in Iran has gone
downhill since Ahmadi-nejad took power in 2005 because political influence
directed promotions within universities.

We have found also this information: http://fakeconference.blogspot.com/

Investigate Iran plagiarism allegations: In December 9, the www.scidev.net. published fresh cases of apparent plagiarism in papers co-authored by Iranian government ministers and senior officials.

2010-01-28T01:30:00.001-08:00

Investigate Iran plagiarism allegations

Politicians have gained influence on university promotions since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took power in 2005

Allegations of scientific plagiarism in Iran must be investigated with support from the global academic community, urges a Nature editorial.

In December 9, the www.scidev.net. published fresh cases of apparent plagiarism in papers co-authored by Iranian government ministers and senior officials.

Previous allegations were widely reported by Iran's mainstream media, which deserve credit for exposing the story despite the present regime's record of intimidating free speech, says the editorial.

But the regime's research institutions have done little to investigate the allegations, it adds.

It calls for an official inquiry to clarify the circumstances surrounding questionable papers co-authored by transport minister Hamid Behbahani and science minister Kamran Daneshjou.

Plagiarism in Iran could arise from difficulties with English or from pressure to publish as a condition for promotion, says the editorial. But it might also be caused by politicians' increasing influence on university promotions that began when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took power in 2005.

Many Iranian researchers are calling for an investigation into the allegations and should be applauded for their attempts to maintain scientific standards in difficult political conditions, says the editorial.

They are widely supported by their overseas colleagues — Iranian professors across the globe signed a petition earlier this year (October) against plagiarism in the country

But the international scientific community must do more to support Iranian researchers against plagiarism, says the editorial — "the actions of a few must not be allowed to soil the reputation of the majority of Iran's scientists".

Iran has executed two men arrested during the period of widespread unrest that erupted after June's disputed presidential election, reports say.

2010-01-28T01:21:00.001-08:00

IRAN executed 2 men:

They had been convicted of being "enemies of God", members of armed groups
and trying to topple the Islamic establishment, Isna news agency said. The
executions are believed to be the first related to last year's protests.

Millions demanded a re-run of June's poll at the largest demonstrations in
Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Opposition groups said it had been rigged to ensure the re-election of
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a charge the government denied.

At least 30 protesters have been killed in clashes since the elections,
although the opposition says more than 70 have died. Thousands have been
detained and some 200 activists remain behind bars.

Last month, eight people were killed in clashes at demonstrations on Ashura,
one of the holiest days in the Shia Muslim calendar.

"Following the riots and anti-revolutionary measures in recent months,
particularly on the day of Ashura, a Tehran Islamic Revolutionary Court
branch considered the cases of a number of accused and handed down death
sentences against 11 of those," Isna said, quoting a statement from the
Tehran prosecutor's office.

Plagiarism and the Web Revolution

2010-01-25T05:36:00.001-08:00

Professors Against Plagiarism:

Plagiarism and the Web Revolution

Web Plagiarism has become an epidemic in academia largely as a result of the high precision and recall of the Google search engine and the huge volumes of intellectual property on the web.

According to the Northern Kentucky University (library.nku.edu) many students think that it is acceptable to “paraphrase” the works of others and they have one of the best definitions that I have seen:

Students anxious about committing plagiarism often ask:

"How much do I have to change a sentence to be sure I'm not plagiarizing?" A simple answer to this is: If you have to ask, you're probably plagiarizing. This is important.

Avoiding plagiarism is not an exercise in inventive paraphrasing. There is no magic number of words that you can add or change to make a passage your own.

Original work demands original thought and organization of thoughts.

As a retired Adjunct Professor Emeritus who makes my living selling my words I find plagiarism especially offensive. Plagiarism, by its very definition cannot be an accident, and it is an intentional act of theft. No amount of excuses or pleas of ignorance can exonerate a plagiarist from their fundamental dishonesty.

The Semantics of Plagiarism

As we have noted, the detection of plagiarism involves the stealing of “original work and thought”. Plagiarism can be subtle, and many students believe that they can change one or two words in a sentence and avoid detection. So, how do we detect the work of the sly plagiarist who replaces words with synonyms and alters the sentence structure?

· Synonyms – A reference to “House” could be changed to dwelling, abode, apartment, etc.

· Word Stems – A reference to “house” could be changed to housing, home, etc.

· Semantic Structure – Adverbs and adjectives can be replaced and altered to conceal the crime.

Fortunately, despite these attempts to hide their wrongdoing, the plagiarist is still detected thanks to sophisticated web tools and the world of applied Artificial Intelligence. Sophisticated software such as those found at Turnitin.com employ pattern matching algorithms that glean the “meaning of each phrase” and compare it to existing works on the Internet.

Let’s take a closer look at how this works. Software such as the Princeton Wordnet provides hierarchies of synonyms that can replicate the plagiarist’s attempts to conceal their theft. This author worked extensive with semantic networks and they can often lead to surprising results. Once, I entered a semantic search against a major legal database to see of any published court ruling had ever used the profane “F” word.

I ran the search using full synonym expansion and was surprised to find dozens of results, each with the highlighted word “Congress”. Confused, I consulted the semantic network and discovered that a “Congress” like the “F” word, is a union of two bodies!

Other web search engine companies are developing search tools that have the surprising side-effect of being able to detect plagiarism. Their goal is to allow web users to highlight a paragraph of text and press a button called “Show me more like this”.

Internally, these tools analyze the paragraph, apply structure, word stem and synonym rules, and scour the web for a suitable match.

The epidemic of web content Theft

According to a televised investigation report on the hit TV show Primetime Thursday, they found a growing problem of cheating and plagiarism, facilitated by the massive volumes of content on the web. From junior high schools to the Ivy League, Primetime found that students find the temptation to cit-and-paste from the web an irresistible temptation. According to the Primetime Thursday report, many students believe that “everyone” plagiarizes, and they use this as an excuse for their theft:

"It's unfair on your part, if you're studying, you know, so many hours for an exam and everybody else in the class gets an 'A' cheating," says Sharon, a college student.

"So you want to get in the game and cheat, too."

The web is a double-edged sword. Just as it has facilitated the theft of content, it has also enabled tools for publishers and professors to quickly detect stolen content. Let’s take a closer look.

Detecting Plagiarism

Fortunately, it’s just as easy for someone to detect plagiarism as it is for the scumbags to copy it off of other people’s web pages. There are several web sites that aid in detecting plagiarism.

· Amazon – The Amazon “search inside the book” feature has resulted in dozens of lawsuits for plagiarism as unscrupulous authors were caught within days of the introduction of the feature.

· Google – The Google search engine is used by almost all College professors today and the new Google Print facility is now indexing thousands of books into the Google engine.

· Turnitin.com – This wonderful web site is available to academics everywhere and provides instant web content matching for papers and College essays. (www.turnitin.com)

Now that the web has given us tools to detect the plagiarist, the threat of getting caught has acted as a deterrent. However, the punishments for the plagiarist can run the gamut from a slap-on-the hand to loss of

Professors Against Plagiarism:

A Question of Honor

Since I make my living selling my work, I have an intense hatred for those who steal the work of others. When I was a professor at a major state university I would always make sure that all of my students understood the difference between “fair use”, author attribution, and the seriousness of stealing the works of others and calling them your own.

The punishments for plagiarists are the most severe at schools that employ and enforce an honor code such as the U.S. military academies.

“We will not Lie, Cheat, Steal, nor Tolerate Among us those Who Do”

Please note that the honor code requires any student to turn-in any other student who they suspect of lying, cheating or stealing. This created a self-policing system to ensure personal honor and integrity.

John Garmany, a noted author with Rampant TechPress and a Graduate of West Point notes that the honor code made plagiarism virtually non-existent:

“We were well versed in plagiarism and we would never think of using someone else’s work without giving them credit.
An honor code violation meant dishonor and dismissal from West Point and we took it very seriously.
For example, we were allowed to ask another cadet for help, but we were required to mention the helper by name, even if we did not use any of their ideas directly”

Sadly, enforcement of web content theft is sporadic at best, even among the top schools.

Punishment for Plagiarists

In my experience as an Adjunct professor, plagiarism is largely tolerated at major U.S. colleges and universities, and I found it to be extremely frustrating.

I remember one case where a U.S. Military officer submitted a computer program that matched the work of another, line for line. Upon investigation I discovered that he had lifted someone else’s work from a trash bin and copied it, adding only his name, as the author.

I was especially offended because this officer was a graduate of a U.S. Military academy, and was completely familiar with the honor code and the ethics of an officer and a gentleman. Upon confrontation, he was completely unremorseful and gave the lame excuse “everyone does it”.

In this case I wanted to show no mercy, and I attempted to flunk the student and file a complaint against him with the university. I was fully aware that the Armed Forces would not be favorable to him, that he would loose his security clearance and could be summarily dismissed from the armed forces, perhaps loosing his retirement and most of all, his personal honor.

Unfortunately, the Dean of my College was far more tolerant than I was, and refused to allow me to pursue my complaint. To me, it seems that no threat of consequences enables the web thief.

Plagiarism, intentional or not, is considered stealing and can expose you to serious liability. In 2004 I was reviewing a job interview book and discovered an entire page that I had written which had been stolen and published by one of the world’s largest publishers. Fortunately for the publisher, I was also one of their authors, and I was familiar with their contract that holds the author solely responsible for ensuring that their content is their own work.

Those who are victims of plagiarism are entitled to the following remedies:

· To have the offending book recalled from distribution – This can cost the publisher over $100k, and the author was required to pay for it.

· To an official published apology – The plagiarist must publicly admit their theft and acknowledge the rightful creator of the material.

· Civil damages – In one case, the victim sued the author and received over a quarter of a million dollars. The author lost his house, savings and was ruined by their act.

Laws against Plagiarism

According to the United State Constitution, “The Congress shall have power to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries”. The U.S. Supreme court has also addressed the plagiarism issue, and also uses the “Latham Act” to justify punitive damages for plagiarism.

In 1948, Doubleday copyrighted and published General Dwight D. Eisenhower’s book, Crusade in Europe, which was about the D-Day invasion and Fox later created a TV series from it.

For the fiftieth anniversary of World War II, a third party company named Dastar edited the Crusade in Europe television series, added some new material, and released a video set called World War II Campaign in Europe without attribution to Fox.

In the famous Dastar vs. Twentieth Century Fox case (539 US 23), the court found Dastar guilty of plagiarism for copying Twentieth Century Fox material without giving them proper credit:

their complaint […] claims that  Dastar's sale of Campaigns “without proper credit” to the Crusade television  series constitutes “reverse passing off” in violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham  Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)

In this case we see that the U.S. Supreme court doubled the amount of the damages. When plagiarism is intentional and with malice, courts are allowed to impose “punitive” damages, doubling and even tripling the amount of the actual damage to punish the plagiarist:

Professors Against Plagiarism:

SOURCE: http://professorsagainstplagiarism.blogspot.com/

Bogus Conferences

Looking over the Internet we discovered this story:

http://diehimmelistschoen.blogspot.com

Really very interesting

Also, we found via Wikipedia this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCIgen
which is a collection for many bogus conferences (outside the WSEAS).

In 2008 and 2009, several computer generated (gibberish) conference articles, with fictitious authors, appeared in IEEE Xplore Data Base coming from many IEEE Sponsored events. Other poor quality conference articles have also, occasionally, appeared in IEEE Confererences and consequently in IEEE Xplore. The IEEE itself accepted (see http://www.ieee.org/web/aboutus/corporate/board/ad_hoc_committees/qualityofconferencepapers.html )that such articles hurt the reputation of IEEE and destroyed confidence in the quality of IEEE publications. IEEE tried to find solutions against this vulnerability but in vain, because many more bogus papers appeared in the next months (see http://iaria-highsci.blogspot.com and http://blog.marcelotoledo.org/2008/12/26/how-can-someone-trust-ieee )

List of works with noticeable acceptance

Rob Thomas: Rooter: A Methodology for the Typical Unification of Access Points and Redundancy, 2005 for WMSCI (see above)
Mathias Uslar's paper was accepted to the IPSI-BG conference^[4].
Professor Genco Gülan published a paper in the 3rd International Symposium of Interactive Media Design^[5].
Students at Iran's Sharif University of Technology published a paper in the Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computation (which is published by Elsevier)^[6]. The students wrote under the false, non-Persian surname, MosallahNejad, which translates literally as: "from an Armed Breed". The paper was subsequently removed when the publishers were informed that it was a joke paper^[7].
Conferences of Wessex Institute of Technology ^[8].
It seems also that the IEEE IARIA Conference accepted another bogus paper: http://iaria-highsci.blogspot.com/2008/12/we-have-letter-of-acceptance-fantastic.html
A paper titled "Towards the Simulation of E-Commerce" by Herbert Schlangemann got accepted as a reviewed paper at the "International Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering" (CSSE) and was briefly in the IEEE Xplore Database ^[9]. The author is named after the Swedish short film Der Schlangemann. Furthermore the author was invited to be a session chair during the conference^[10].Read the official Herbert Schlangemann Blog for details^[11]. The official review comment: "This paper presents cooperative technology and classical Communication. In conclusion, the result shows that though the much-touted amphibious algorithm for the refinement of randomized algorithms is impossible, the well-known client-server algorithm for the analysis of voice-over- IP by Kumar and Raman runs in _(n) time. The authors can clearly identify important features of visualization of DHTs and analyze them insightfully. It is recommended that the authors should develop ideas more cogently, organizes them more logically, and connects them with clear transitions"
In 2009, the same incident happened and Herbert Schlangemann's latest fake paper "PlusPug: A Methodology for the Improvement of Local-Area Networks" has been accepted for oral presentation at another international computer science conference ^[12]. Recently, Denis Baggi, Chairman, IEEE CS confessed, according to a comment on the Schlangemann Blog, that "Selection criteria such a refereeing etc. are meaningless", probably means that IEEE has accepted the unreliability and bogosity of its conferences. Denis Baggi also adds: "Articles should be written only if someone has something to tell others, in which case the validity of the paper is obvious",

A letter from Evan M. Butterfield (IEEE)

A letter from Evan M. Butterfield (Director of Products & Services, IEEE Computer Society10662 Los Vaqueros Circle, Los Alamitos, CA 90720714.816.2165) informed in Jan 17, 2009 the following:
The IEEE Computer Society (CS) has evidence that multiple (IEEE) conferences are receiving machine-generated papers. In two cases, conferences have actually accepted an obviously fraudulent submission. This is a serious issue that threatens the credibility of your conference, the quality of the digital library, and the reputation of both the IEEE and CS. It requires your immediate attention. Please take this opportunity to ensure that your peer review processes are being followed, and adapt to any new requirements that may be communicated by the IEEE or the Computer Society. No conference published by CPS should rely on an abstract review. It is very important that you review carefully the full text of all papers submitted to your conference. If you have already accepted papers, your program committee should review the full text again. While CPS staff will be conducting random spot-checks of conference papers in the publishing queue, we are relying on you to authenticate the content of your proceedings. Any papers that were not actually presented at your conference need to be brought to our attention, and should receive close review. In known cases, the machine-generated origin is obvious from a reading of the first few paragraphs of the paper; the abstracts are human-generated and do not indicate the quality of the paper itself. In the past, papers have been submitted by “Herbert Schlangemann,” but be mindful that the perpetrator of this fraud will change the approach over time. In the event you discover any evidence of questionable content or behavior, please communicate that to us immediately along with an action plan for addressing the problem. Thank you for your help in maintaining the quality of our products. See: http://bogusconferences.blogspot.com/2009/05/bogus-conferences-ieee-confess.html

Criticism concerning publishers

Recently, many fake papers appeared in several IEEE conferences, because the IEEE grants its name and its logo to many local organizers who supposedly do not conduct a thorough review process. It is being argued that such conferences only exist to make money out of researchers that are looking for a simple way to publish their work, in particular publishers like IARIA, http://www.iaria.org, HIGHSCI http://www.highsci.org and SRP http://www.scirp.org appear questionable. As seen from their web sites, IARIA, HIGHSCI and SRP use the name of IEEE and the IEEE publishing services, thus attracting numerous papers. Some people to test some conference go further and sent the paper "A Statistical Method For Women That Can Help Our Sexual Education" in the IEEE Conference organized by IARIA. This paper received automatic acceptance within a few hours with simultaneous "command" of direct payment. Unfortunately this paper was not published because the authors did not pay the registration fee. However the letter of acceptance is published on the web and anybody can check it: http://iaria-highsci.blogspot.com/, http://scamieee.blogspot.com/
Other protest blogs are:

Official Protests^[13].
Bogus Conferences ^[14].

"Netdriver"^[15].
"Another Letter of acceptance in an IEEE Conference"^[16].
Anti-Plagiarism Web Log^[17].
"How can someone trust IEEE?"^[18].
"Open Letter"^[19].
"A letter from Evan M. Butterfield (IEEE) "^[20].

Notes

Professors Against Plagiarism: PROFESSOR ALAN DERSHOWITZ

2010-01-21T07:57:00.001-08:00

PROFESSOR ALAN DERSHOWITZ

(This is the summary of the Dershowitz plagiarism story contained in our e-mail of September 16, 2004, slightly edited in response to helpful suggestions from a professor who commented on the e-mail.)

The second Harvard plagiarism story was broken in September 2003 and involves Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz. It concerns his 2003 book, "A Case For Israel" in which, according to one reviewer, Professor Dershowitz engages in an "orgy of plagiarism," committing "wholesale, unacknowledged looting" of research from an earlier book addressing the same subject. (http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn09262003.html)

Specifically, it has been reported that 22 of the 52 endnotes to the first two chapters of Professor Dershowitz’s book were lifted straight from a 1984 book by Joan Peters, "From Time Immemorial," without attribution. These 22 endnotes contain not just the citations from Peters’ footnotes, but also extensive quotations from the cited sources set forth in Peters’ footnotes.

Professor Dershowitz’s response to these reports was, at least initially, to say he had done nothing even remotely questionable. Among other things, he represented that while writing the book he had independent knowledge of the underlying sources based on his earlier research, and he stated it was hardly surprising he and Peters would cite some commonly consulted sources. In the radio interview in which he first confronted the charges, Professor Dershowitz stated that while he of course had read Peters’ book, which "anybody writing a book on the Middle East would" do, he had also read "independently probably 30 or 40 other books which use the same quotes, they’re very extensively used . . . ." http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4825.htm. Professor Dershowitz also accused his critics of being ideologically opposed to him and made various ad hominem attacks on them.

These ad hominem attacks apparently backfired, energizing Professor Dershowitz’s critics and leading them to investigate further. Ultimately Professor Dershowitz’s claim that he’d done nothing wrong, but had merely cited some commonly consulted sources which he’d found in 30 or 40 other books, sources which Peters had happened also to cite, was challenged with what his critics characterized as "smoking gun" evidence obtained from a reviewer of Professor Dershowitz’s book. This reviewer had kept the advance uncorrected proofs he’d been sent by the publisher, and the reviewer forwarded them to the scholar who had first noticed Professor Dershowitz’s plagiarism, Norman Finkelstein.

These advance uncorrected proofs contained Professor Dershowitz’s own handwritten note to a research assistant directing her to copy Peters’ footnotes into the manuscript of his own book. The note read: "Holly Beth: cite sources of pp. 160, 485, 486 [of Peters’ book], fns 141-45." Only after these advance uncorrected proofs were discovered to be in the hands of his critics did Professor Dershowitz then assert that the advance uncorrected proofs actually supported his claim of innocence, which raises the question why he did not produce them earlier. (See http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=5 (Dershowitz letter and Cockburn reply)) It would seem plausible to assume Professor Dershowitz would not have initially denied lifting Peters’ footnotes, and would not have stated he just happened to find the same commonly cited sources in 30 or 40 other books he’d read, if he had realized his publisher had sent to book reviewers advance uncorrected proofs containing what his critics characterize as "smoking gun" evidence in his own handwriting proving Dershowitz's initial statements false.

Further evidence that Professor Dershowitz lied in an effort to cover up his plagiarism, his critics argue, can be found in the fact that the footnotes in Peters’ book contain some mistakes in the quotations and citations, and use ellipses in the quotations, and the very same mistakes and ellipses appear in the endnotes of Professor Dershowitz’s book – proving, his critics argue, that they were simply copied verbatim from Peters’ book, and Professor Dershowitz didn’t even check the original sources to see whether the quotations and citations to them in Peters’ book were accurate. (See http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article349123.html)

For background concerning the Dershowitz plagiarism story, see:

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=1

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=4&ar=1

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=4

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=5

http://hnn.us/articles/1735.html

http://www.democracynow.org/static/dershowitzFin.shtml

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn09262003.html

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Finkelstein/HarvardCrimson_0.html

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=349044

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=349031

http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article349123.html

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=349122

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/1162

http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/spinoza10022003

http://buffaloreport.com/articles/031012cockburn.dershowitz.html

http://hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=20220

http://www.hlrecord.org/news/2003/10/16/Opinion/Letters.To.The.Editor-530895.shtml

Madonna G. Constantine

2010-01-16T00:54:00.001-08:00

A professor at Columbia University’s Teachers College who was propelled into the national spotlight when a noose was found on her office door last fall has been found to have plagiarized the work of a former colleague and two former students, the college has announced.

Madonna G. Constantine

The college, in statements to the faculty and the news media, said an 18-month investigation into charges against the professor, Madonna G. Constantine, had determined there were “numerous instances in which she used others’ work without attribution in papers she published in academic journals over the past five years.”

Susan H. Fuhrman, the college’s president, and Thomas James, the provost, informed the faculty of the case, and said that Dr. Constantine had the right to appeal.

The college said Dr. Constantine was being penalized, but did not say what the penalty was. A spokeswoman for the college, Marcia Horowitz, said Teachers College did not have set rules governing plagiarism or how it should be punished.

Dr. Constantine, in an e-mail message to faculty and students on Wednesday, called the investigation “biased and flawed,” and said it was part of a “conspiracy and witch hunt by certain current and former members of the Teachers College community.”

“I am left to wonder whether a white faculty member would have been treated in such a publicly disrespectful and disparaging manner,” she wrote.

She added, “I believe that nothing that has happened to me this year is coincidental, particularly when I reflect upon the hate crime I experienced last semester involving a noose on my office door. As one of only two tenured black women full professors at Teachers College, it pains me to conclude that I have been specifically and systematically targeted.”

Dr. Constantine’s lawyer, Paul J. Giacomo Jr., who made Dr. Constantine’s e-mail message available, said in an interview that his client was the one whose work had been plagiarized, and that she would appeal to the college’s faculty advisory committee.

Paul J. Browne, the Police Department’s chief spokesman, said the newly imposed sanctions on the professor would have little or no influence on what he called “an ongoing investigation” into the hanging of the noose which had been referred last fall to the hates crime unit.

Ms. Horowitz said the college initiated the investigation more than a year before the noose incident. “It had no bearing on the way the investigation was conducted, its findings or the sanctions imposed,” she said. The sanctions were first reported by The Columbia Spectator, the student newspaper.

Dr. Constantine, a professor of psychology and education who specializes in the study of how race and racial prejudice can affect clinical and educational dynamics, came to Teachers College in 1998 as an associate professor and earned tenure in 2001.

In 2006, the chairman of Dr. Constantine’s department, Suniya S. Luthar, passed along to administrators complaints that Dr. Constantine had unfairly used portions of writings by a junior colleague, Christine Yeh, as well as a number of students, Dr. Luthar said in an interview. Teachers College eventually asked Hughes Hubbard & Reed, a law firm, to investigate.

Dr. Yeh, who is now at the University of San Francisco, said in an interview Wednesday that she had left Teachers College in part because of her differences with Dr. Constantine. She called the college’s determination that there had been plagiarism “an important first step.”

“I’m really hopeful other people will come forward now,” she said. “When the initial charges were made, there were many students involved who didn’t feel they could follow up. They were too scared, and they were afraid of retribution.”

Dr. Yeh said that some of her work that had been copied concerned “indigenous healing,” or alternative methods, like acupuncture and Santeria, of dealing with medical and spiritual ailments. She said she has specialized in that subject for years.

http://www.ldu.leeds.ac.uk/plagiarism/

2010-01-15T00:57:00.001-08:00

FROM
http://www.ldu.leeds.ac.uk/plagiarism/

Welcome to the home page of the University of Leeds Plagiarism Awareness web site. On this site we have brought together a range of resources for both staff and students, to raise awareness of ways to reduce plagiarism and improve academic integrity.

Topics covered include:

student information iconFor students:

* The university’s definition of plagiarism.

What is it? Why is it important?

* Penalties and procedures – what to expect

if your tutor thinks you have plagiarised

* Examples of good and bad practice

* How to avoid plagiarism – tutorials on steps

you can take to ensure your work is plagiarism free

* Test your knowledge - quiz

staff information iconFor staff

* Definitions, penalties and procedures

* Examples of good and bad practice

* Tools to support detection

* Designing assessments that avoid opportunities for plagiarism

* Teaching resources to help you teach students about plagiarism

To explore these resources use the navigation links on the left hand side of the page.

If there is anything that you feel should be included within these pages please contact the web team for this site so that we can continue to provide an accurate and up to date service for the University community.

VISIT
http://www.ldu.leeds.ac.uk/plagiarism/

Internet plagiarism among college students

2010-01-14T02:38:00.001-08:00

Six hundred ninety-eight undergraduates (85.9% between the ages of 17 and 23; 87.5% in the first through fourth year) from nine colleges and universities completed a survey on Internet plagiarism. A substantial minority of students reported they use the Internet to copy and paste text into their papers without citation.

Student cheating has garnered much public attention recently. A perception reflected in media accounts is that acts of academic dishonesty among students in college as well as high school have increased sharply. The cover of the November 22, 1999 issue of U.S. News & World Report, for example, announced that "a new epidemic of fraud is sweeping through our schools" ("Cheating, writing, and arithmetic," 1999). Nearly universal access to the Internet has been cited as a reason for this perceived decline in academic integrity, in particular regarding plagiarism. A July 6, 2001 article in the Chronicle ofHigher Education reported that "several indicators point to widespread plagiarism on campus," and that "officials at some colleges say that in recent years they have seen a sharp increase in students cutting and pasting material into papers from Web sites without attribution, or purchasing term papers from online term-paper mills" (Young, 2001, A26). Four years ago a count of term paper mills on the Web-including A-Plus Termpapers, Paperz.com, School Sucks, and Research Assistance by Collegiate Care-set

Plagiarism Resources (PROFESSORS AGAINST PLAGIARISM)

2010-01-14T02:37:00.001-08:00

Definition and Types of Plagiarism:

Plagiarism is a form of cheating or fraud; it occurs when a student misrepresents the work of another as his or her own. Plagiarism may consist of using the ideas, sentences, paragraphs, or the whole text of another without appropriate acknowledgment, but it also includes employing or allowing another person to write or substantially alter work that a student then submits as his or her own.
Heywood Ehrlich of Rutgers University defines the following types of plagiarism:

Fraud: outright purchase or copying of an entire paper, perhaps with a new introduction or conclusion added. In some cases, such copying may entail copyright infringement.
Substantial plagiarism: widespread or considerable borrowing of material, passing off borrowed passages as original, failure to indicate quoted evidence or give bibliographical sources or other appropriate credit.
Incidental plagiarism: small-scale borrowing, copying, downloading, or insertion without appropriate quotation, credit, or acknowledgment.
[http://www.andromeda.rutgers.edu/~ehrlich/plagiarism598.html]
To this, we would add:
Too much help: misusing the assistance of a tutor or other more skilled reader. Employing or allowing someone else to alter substantially or write an assignment.
Inadvertent plagiarism: plagiarizing out of ignorance. The student may not realize what he or she is doing is wrong, or may not know how to cite sources correctly.

[top]

Why do students plagiarize?

Because they have not learned the appropriate ways to cite sources, particularly Internet sources (see "How to prevent plagiarism before it occurs," below).
Because they have recently come from a culture that has different views on plagiarism.
(For discussion of this issue, on which there is conflicting evidence, see Buranen, Lise, "But I Wasn't Cheating: Plagiarism and Cross-Cultural Mythology," Myers, and Dryden, L.M., "A Distant Mirror or Through the Looking Glass? Plagiarism and Intellectual Property in Japanese Education," in Lise Buranen and Alice M. Roy [ed.] , Perspectives on Plagiarism. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999, also Myers, Sharon, "Questioning author(ity): ESL/EFL, science, and teaching about plagiarism," http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej10/a2.html."
Because the Internet has made plagiarism both tempting and easy, through either the cut-and-paste function or term paper mills where essays on any topic can be quickly bought and downloaded. (To explore what's available online, visit a site such as http://www.schoolsucks.com or http://www.a1-termpaper.com/.)
Because as faculty, we have not designed assignments that make plagiarism difficult (see "How to prevent plagiarism before it occurs," below).
Because we live in a culture that sees cheating and plagiarism as a minor offense, as evidenced by the following statistics (from the Plagiarism.org website):
Almost 80% of college students admit to cheating at least once-- The Center for Academic Integrity studies. 36% of undergraduates have admitted to plagiarizing written material-- Psychological Record survey.
90% of students believe that cheaters are either never caught or have never been appropriately disciplined-- US News and World Report poll.
Because some students, overwhelmed with the pressures of home, work, and family, take the easy route out of desperation.

[top]

How to prevent plagiarism before it occurs:

By including appropriate wording in your syllabus. The College of Humanities suggests the following:
- Plagiarism is a form of cheating or fraud; it occurs when a student misrepresents the work of another as his or her own. Plagiarism may consist of using the ideas, sentences, paragraphs, or the whole text of another without appropriate acknowledgment, but it also includes employing or allowing another person to write or substantially alter work that a student then submits as his or her own. Any assignment found to be plagiarized will be given an "F" grade. All instances of plagiarism in the College of Humanities will be reported to the Dean of the College, and may be reported to the University Judicial Affairs Officer for further action.
By calling attention to the seriousness of plagiarism as an offense, from the first day of class on. You might point out that SFSU has a Student Code of Conduct, available on p. 704 of the 2001-02 Bulletin, or online at http://www.sfsu.edu/~helpdesk/docs/rules/conduct.html
By teaching students how to quote and to cite sources properly. You may find some of the sites below useful:
- The Duke
  University Library offers information on citations of all types.
- The Columbia
  Guide to Online Style suggests both humanities and scientific styles
  of online citation.
- Melvin E. Page offers A
  Brief Citation Guide for Internet Sources in History and the Humanities
  (Version 2.1)
- Linda Ellis in Museum Studies has successfully used these two sites:
  http://www.hamilton.edu/academics/resource/wc/AvoidingPlagiarism.html
  http://www.bcm.tmc.edu/immuno/citewell/plagint.html

By constructing assignments so that plagiarism is not an easy option

Limit students' choices for essay topics, and change those topics from semester to semester so that papers aren't passed from student to student.
Create topics that require actual thinking on students' part, such as comparing two poems, two philosophers' ideas, and so on. Students are not likely to find pre-fab essays on topics that grow out of class interaction.
Avoid topics for which the student is likely to find a source on the Internet: film/music/restaurant reviews, standard papers on "Poe's Preoccupation with Dying and Death," "Socrates' Defense of Philosophy," or "Asian Women and the U.S. Media," all of which are readily available for downloading.
Robert Harris offers many "Strategies of Prevention" at http://www.virtualsalt.com/antiplag.html, among them
- - require specific components in the paper
- - require process steps to be turned in
- - require an annotated bibliography
- - ask students to write a meta-comment on the day the essay is due, in
  which they write about their process, problems encountered and so on.

Require students to turn in a printed copy of any page from which they are quoting, whether book, journal, or website. You won't need to look at them unless your suspicions are otherwise aroused.

[top]

What to do if you believe an assignment is plagiarized:

Caveat: To us as faculty, plagiarism is a serious breach of academic honor, one that, when we discover it, may leave us feeling anything from disappointment and dismay to outright anger at the student’s attempt to deceive us. But many students plagiarize out of desperation, misunderstanding, and downright ignorance, and when we confront them, we should proceed with caution and be open to listening to their response.
One good practice that will help identify plagiarism: Early in the semester, collect some writing students have done in class and hold onto it for comparison purposes, if necessary, later. However, don't assume that, because a student's in-class writing is poor and his out-of-class writing shows marked improvement, the student has plagiarized; many students have learned to follow the steps of the writing process out of class to produce significantly better written, better proofread papers.
Also, if you assign multiple out-of-class papers during the semester, keep a simple record of the types of errors each student typically makes, so that you can note a sudden leap in ability.
Although most faculty have a fairly sensitive radar for the plagiarized essay, at times you may feel a generalized suspicion but not be able to put your finger on what's not right. Here are some things you might consider:

A paper that's off-topic for the assignment.
Abrupt shifts in style, tone, vocabulary.
Citations with mixed styles or no citations at all.
Very old references; nothing current
Mistakes in formatting
Things that make you want to say, "How dumb do you think I am?" (a web address left on the page, someone else's name covered with Wite-Out, someone else's name not covered with Wite-Out).

Despite the "bad news" that the Internet has increased the number of plagiarized papers we see, there is still "good news" as well: As easy as it is for students to find and copy information from the Internet, it is just as easy for us as faculty to find the source from which they've copied. Here is how you do it:

Go to a search engine, such as Google (www.google.com) (other search engines will work similarly).
In the search box, type in a string of what is likely to be unique language from the plagiarized paper, and put it in quotes -- it doesn't even have to be a complete sentence, just a string of words that are probably the kind of thing that set your little warning bell off in the first place.
Then hit "Search" and Google will give you a list of every page on the web where that string of words appears (which is why you want to find something that's likely to be unique). Don't put in a whole passage, because the student may have altered it somewhat, and the engine's searching for exactly what you've put into quotes.
You may have to try a couple of different bits of text before you hit the one that will cause the source to pop up.

If nothing turns up through a search engine, you might look further on relevant newspaper or magazine sites, or on a database such as Lexis/Nexis, available through our library.
A number of online plagiarism detection services have sprung up in recent years, the most familiar being Plagiarism.org/Turnitin.com. Visit their site at http://www.turnitin.com to see what they offer. The gist of it is this: you have students submit their papers electronically to you; then you submit them to a site such as turnitin.com. They run the papers through their sophisticated search process (which includes databases of papers that you would have had to pay to look at) and send you a report identifying online sources for the paper, if any.

[top]

Working with students suspected of plagiarism:

Proceed with care. Just as plagiarism is a serious offense, accusing someone of plagiarizing is making a serious charge.
Ask for help, if you're not sure of how to proceed. Talk the situation over with a trusted colleague or department chair, or call Elise Wormuth in the College office at 8-7440 for advice.
If you have evidence of the source, present your findings in a straightforward manner and see how the student responds.
If you do not have the source but are convinced nevertheless that the paper is plagiarized, try the following:
- Write nothing but "please see me" on the paper.
- Take the student through the paper, asking him or her to explain the ideas in more depth to you. Ask the student to define words that you feel are not likely in his or her vocabulary.
- Express puzzlement at the fact that the paper 1) doesn't sound like the student, or 2) represents a sudden leap in writing ability, given what you have in your records.
- Ask whether the student might not have received a little more help than is appropriate on this particular essay, or might have used sources without citing correctly.
- If the student admits the plagiarism or inappropriate help, please follow the procedures below for reporting to the College office.
If you do not have the evidence and the student will not admit to the plagiarism, you have reached a stalemate. The best we can do in such a situation is express concern to the student and hope he or she will learn from the experience.

[top]

College of Humanities Procedures for Resolving Cases of Plagiarism

If you believe a student has submitted a plagiarized assignment, the following guidelines should be followed:
1) Meet with the student. If you have the source from which the assignment was plagiarized, confront the student and talk about the circumstances that led to the plagiarism (see "Why Students Plagiarize," for information). If you do not have the evidence but still are convinced the student plagiarized, follow the suggestions above for handling the situation. If the student admits to plagiarism or if you feel you have strong enough evidence to merit a report, the next step is to set the penalty. (Note: This step is very important. Even if the plagiarism occurred on the final essay and the semester has ended, the student should hear from the teacher about what he or she has uncovered in the student's work.)
2) Grading. You have the option of giving a grade of "0" or "F" for the assignment in question; you may not, according to Academic Senate policy, ask the student to withdraw or give the student an "F" for the course as a consequence of the plagiarism. You may also, especially if your discussion leads you to feel the plagiarism was inadvertent, assign a lesser penalty and/or allow the student to redo the assignment.
3) Report to the Department Chair or Program Director, or his/her designee, by filling out a copy of the College of Humanities Plagiarism Report [download PDF or Word Doc] and giving it to the Department Chair or Program Director/Coordinator with supporting materials, if appropriate. The Department Chair or Program Director/Coordinator should forward a copy of the report, without the supporting materials, to the Associate Dean of the College of Humanities, who will keep a record of the incident and forward a copy to the University Coordinator of Student Judicial Affairs. These reports will allow us to track repeat offenders and to get a sense of the magnitude of the problem. Student will be sent a letter from the College office informing them that the College received the report and forwarded it to Student Judicial Affairs.
4) Action by the Department Chair or Program Director, or his/her designee. At his or her discretion, the Department Chair or Program Director may require the student to meet with him or her and may request, after their own meeting with the student, that the student also meet with the Associate Dean of the College of Humanities. A report of what happened in the meeting with the Department Chair or Program Director should accompany requests for the Associate Dean to meet with the student.
University Policies Related to Plagiarism
The Student Code of Conduct: http://www.sfsu.edu/~vpsa/judicial/titlev.html
Faculty Manual: http://www.sfsu.edu/~acaffrs/faculty_manual/welcome.htm

[top]

Additional Resources in Print or Online

The following books may be of interest:

Perspectives on Plagiarism and Intellectual Property in a Postmodern World. Lise Buranen and Alice M. Roy, ed. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999.
Student Cheating and Plagiarism in the Internet Era: A Wake-Up Call. Ann Lathrop and Kathleen Foss. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc., 2000.
Stolen Words: Forays into the Origins and Ravages of Plagiarism. Thomas Mallon. New York: Ticknor & Fields, 1989.

And the following websites:

"Plagiarism and Anti-Plagiarism"
http://www.andromeda.rutgers.edu/~ehrlich/plagiarism598.html
"The New Plagiarism: Seven Antidotes to Prevent Highway Robbery in an Electronic Age"
http://www.fno.org/may98/cov98may.html
Robert Harris, "Anti-Plagiarism Strategies for Research Papers"
http://www.virtualsalt.com/antiplag.html
Ronald B. Standler, "Plagiarism in Colleges in USA"
http://www.rbs2.com/plag.html
Margaret Fain and Peggy Bates, "Cheating 101: Paper Mills and You"
http://www.coastal.edu/library/papermil.html and "Cheating 101: Easy Steps to Combating Plagiarism" http://www.coastal.edu/library/easystep.html
Lisa Hinchcliffe, "Cut-and-Paste Plagiarism: Preventing, Detecting and Tracking Online Plagiarism" http://alexia.lis.uiuc.edu/~janicke/plagiary.html
"Dr. Gwen's Research Paper Information Page"
http://astro.fccj.cc.fl.us/LearningResources/DrGwen/research.html
Cheryl Ruggiero, "Plagiarism and Honor" (a module for students)
http://www.english.vt.edu/~IDLE/plagiarism/plagiarism1.html
Judy Hunter, "Exercise on Citation and Paraphrase"
http://www.grinnell.edu/writinglab/CitationGuides/Indivex.html
John Rogers, "How to Cite Skillfully and Avoid Plagiarizing"
http://www.bcm.tmc.edu/immuno/plagcite.html
"Plagiarism: What It Is and How to Avoid It"
http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/wts/plagiarism.html
"Avoiding Plagiarism" http://sja.ucdavis.edu/avoid.html
Students who have complaints and/or concerns may find information at the following website helpful:
http://www.sfsu.edu/~vpsa/complaints/index.html

This is the VOA Special English EDUCATION REPORT.

2010-01-14T02:36:00.001-08:00

Plagiarism is the act of representing another person's words or ideas as your own. The offense may be as small as a sentence copied from a book. Or it may be as extensive as a whole paper copied -- or bought -- from somebody else.
Intellectual dishonesty is nothing new. The only difference now is that the Internet has made it much simpler to steal other people's work. Yet the same technology that makes it easy to find information to copy also makes it easier to identify plagiarism.
Teachers can use online services that compare papers to thousands of others to search for copied work. The teacher gets a report on any passages that are similar enough to suspect plagiarism. These services are widely used. Turnitin.com, for example, says it is used in more than one hundred countries and examines more than one hundred thirty thousand papers a day.
Professional writers who plagiarize can be taken to civil court and ordered to pay damages. In schools, the punishment for cheating could be a failing grade on the paper or in the course. Some schools expel plagiarists for a term; others, for a full academic year. Some degrees have even been withdrawn after a school later found that a student had plagiarized.
Accidental plagiarism can sometimes result from cultural differences.
At Indiana University in Bloomington, sixty percent of students who use the Office of Writing Tutorial Services are non-native English speakers. The director, Joanne Vogt, says some have no idea that copying from published works is considered wrong. She says students from China, for example, may think they are insulting readers if they credit other sources. They believe that educated readers should already know where the information came from.
The more you give credit, the less you risk accusations of plagiarism. Any sentences taken directly from a source should appear inside quotation marks. And even if you put those sentences into your own words, you should still give credit to where you got the information.
And that's the VOA Special English EDUCATION REPORT, written by Nancy Steinbach. More about plagiarism next week. We will also discuss other rules for academic writing in the United States. Earlier reports in our Foreign Student Series are at voaspecialenglish.com -- along with links to some writing resources at American universities. I'm Steve Ember.

PROFESSORS AGAINST PLAGIARISM II

2010-01-14T02:32:00.001-08:00

From:

http://netdriver.blogspot.com

http://anti-plagiarism-org.blogspot.com/

I think that the http://anti-plagiarism.org has created this very nice blog, but

we believe that the main material of www.anti-plagiarism.org must be uploaded again on the web and the owners must ignore the IEEE treats!

Also, we have seen the site: http://wessex-institute.blogspot.com/

but the guys that maintain this site post announcements and after some days remove them. So, the site: http://wessex-institute.blogspot.com closes and opens from time to time.

PROFESSORS AGAINST PLAGIARISM

2010-01-14T02:05:00.001-08:00

Plagiarism in Colleges in USA

Copyright 2000 by Ronald B. Standler

Introduction 1. Plagiarism 2. Sources of Plagiarized Works 3. Law of Plagiarism copyright law trademark law fraud statutes about sale of term papers 4. Cases in the USA involving plagiarism in colleges 5. Cases against commercial sources 6. My Suggestions for Policy 7. Colleges have the right to rescind degrees No Plagiarism for Ideas Self-plagiarism Threat of Litigation Against Reporters of Plagiarism Links to other Webpages Conclusion

Introduction

Plagiarism by students is a serious problem in colleges in the USA. This essay discusses plagiarism from a legal perspective. For other perspectives on the problem of plagiarism, see the links section below.

The subject of plagiarism in colleges is rarely discussed in legal journals and law textbooks. For example, the excellent book by William A Kaplin and Barbara Lee, The Law of Higher Education, third edition (1995), despite its length of 976 pages, mentions plagiarism in neither the index nor table of contents. A few colleges in the USA have posted a webpage about plagiarism, and I mention a few of these webpages later later in this essay.

Note that the definitions of plagiarism, and particularly the exclusion of facts and ideas from plagiarism, in this essay are my personal views of what the rules should be. The rules that apply to a student are given in the regulations of the student's college, or in instructions from the student's professor.

Before beginning this detailed discussion of the legal aspects of plagiarism, it is worthwhile to take a moment to reflect on why plagiarism is wrong.

Reputations in academia are made on the basis of creating new knowledge: discoveries of new facts, new ways of looking at previously known facts, original analysis of old ideas, .... A plagiarist receives credit for expression or analysis that was improperly taken from someone else. In this view, the plagiarist commits fraud, by claiming the work of other people as the plagiarist's own work.

Respect for these academic values is also reflected in licensing for professions (particularly law and medicine), employment on the basis of academic credentials, and esteem from one's colleagues.
Laws in civilized societies regard expression as property of its author. This is not only the law of the USA, but also the law of more than 130 different nations that have ratified the 1886 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Plagiarism – either by verbatim copying or paraphrasing – is infringement of a copyright, a kind of tort.
A fundamental goal of education is to produce students who can evaluate ideas – both analysis and synthesis – and who can produce significant original thoughts. Plagiarism is simply repeating words or thoughts of other people, without adding anything new. Therefore, submitting a plagiarized paper – in addition to the wrongful conduct – does not demonstrate the level of understanding and skill that an educated person is reasonably expected to have.

1. Plagiarism

What is plagiarism? In minor cases, it can be the quotation of a sentence or two, without quotation marks and without a citation (e.g., footnote) to the true author. In the most serious cases, a significant fraction of the entire work was written by someone else: the plagiarist removed the true author(s) names(s) and substituted the plagiarist's name, perhaps did some re-formatting of the text, then submitted the work for credit in a class (e.g., term paper or essay) or as part of the requirements for a degree (e.g., thesis or dissertation).

indicia of a quotation

When using another person's words, to avoid plagiarism one must always do both of the following:

provide a citation, either in the text or in a footnote, and
either enclose their words inside quotation marks or put their words in a block of indented, single-spaced text.

I define these two things as indicia of a quotation, for ease of reference in this essay. Plagiarism is the act of quoting material without including the indicia of a quotation.

Note that the intent of a plagiarist is irrelevant. The act of quoting material without including the indicia of a quotation is sufficient to convict someone of plagiarism. It is no defense for the plagiarist to say "I forgot." or "It is only a rough draft." or "I did not know it was plagiarism."

ideas too?

Some colleges have expanded the definition of plagiarism to include copying ideas without providing a citation to the original source. I argue below that such deliberate copying is misconduct that should be treated separately from plagiarism.

Perhaps the authorities that include ideas in their definition of plagiarism really intended to say that a close paraphrase of another author's work is plagiarism.

paraphrasing without a citation is plagiarism

Suppose one reads a book by Smith and encounters the short sentence:: If the solution turns pink, it is worthless, and should be discarded.
I believe it is plagiarism to paraphrase this sentence as:: When the liquid becomes light red, it is spoiled, and should be poured down the sink.
Note that most of the words have been changed, yet the sentence – in a very real way – has been copied. As will be noted later in this essay, copying, even with "original" alterations, can be copyright infringement. That is why I believe that such copying is also plagiarism. However, to prove this kind of plagiarism, one needs to prove that the alleged plagiarist had the work in mind – if not actually next to the computer or typewriter keyboard – when he/she paraphrased it.
The proper way to avoid such plagiarism is to cite the source in the text, or in a footnote, as in:: Smith [citation/footnote number] has reported that when the liquid becomes light red, it is spoiled, and should be poured down the sink.
No quotation marks are needed, because these are not Smith's exact words, but only a paraphrase. But a citation to Smith is still required.
Note that the short sentence by Smith is just a terse, contrived example for this essay, not an actual instance from plagiarized text. In most cases of this type of plagiarism, many sentences – probably whole paragraphs – will have been paraphrased.

fine points of paraphrasing

One might wish to concisely summarize a long passage – a direct quotation would be too long. Hence, one paraphrases the original author.

In my view, one can properly write one paragraph that summarizes a book, published paper, opinion of a court, etc. using a paraphrase of the publication, with just one citation to that source at either the beginning or end of one's paragraph. The context makes it clear to the reader that one is describing someone else's publication. One should be careful not to include one's original thought(s) in a paragraph that is summarizing another person's thoughts, as such mixing could mislead the reader about the scope of one's work.

Note that the amount of citations is a matter of style. Some scholarly journals, particularly law reviews, sometimes have a footnote for each consecutive sentence, maybe even two footnotes attached at different places in one sentence. In such writing, a printed page can easily contain more space devoted to fine-print footnotes than to text. If most of these footnotes are Id., the footnotes seem excessive to me. If these copious footnotes are to different sources, the page can be difficult to read, as full understanding may require the reader to consider all of the citations. Such copious footnotes are sometimes seen as scholarship run amok. I emphasize that the appropriate style varies among different intellectual disciplines: professors of law tend to use more footnotes than either physicists or electrical engineers.

In my view, a proper paraphrase can even use a few isolated words from the original source without including quotation marks. When concisely summarizing a long passage, one also wants to summarize accurately, so using the identical – but isolated – words may be appropriate. In the above example, one might use Smith's word "pink" without quotation marks in the paraphrase. However, it is always essential to both (1) write text that makes clear that one is summarizing another's work and (2) cite the original source somewhere within the paragraph.

On the other hand, a string of several consecutive words copied verbatim from a source generally requires quotation marks. In making such judgments, one might consider the originality of the words. A common phrase (e.g., "obtained a writ of habeas corpus" in law, or "three degrees of freedom" in physics) is less deserving of quotation marks than genuinely original expression, since there may be few conventional alternatives for accurately expressing the same idea or fact.

These fine points may be dangerous for students, who would be well advised to use too many direct quotations, rather than paraphrasing. Again, I say that the actual rules that apply to a student are given in the regulations of the student's college, or in instructions from the student's professor, but not my personal opinions in this essay.

2. Sources for plagiarized text

Traditionally, a student simply

copied paragraphs from various scholarly journals or books in the library, or
removed an old term paper from the files in his fraternity and copied some, or all, of it.

In the late 1960s, commercial services began to sell term papers to students, sometimes under the euphemistic name of "academic research services". These services are particularly repugnant, as these businessmen are making a profit from the fraudulent acts of students, as well as damaging the integrity of grades and degrees from schools and colleges.

And, since the mid-1990s, students can simply download material from the Internet, without the bother of retyping the text. While the Internet is a great resource for plagiarists, it can also be a great resource for professors who are suspicious and want to take a few minutes with search engines, in an attempt to find the true source. Further, some commercial anti-plagiarism services have begun to prepare databases of essays, term papers, etc. for comparison with a student's work submitted in a class, in a large-scale attempt to find plagiarism by students. Furthermore, the existence of free material on the Internet is likely to diminish, if not kill, the business of selling term papers from stock. Unfortunately, there may continue to be a business for custom-prepared papers.

How common is plagiarization by students? No one really knows, because most plagiarization is either undetected or unreported. Julie Ryan, an instructor at George Washington University, found that "7 of 42 students plagiarized most or all of their papers" in a class during the Fall 1997 semester. She says that, in the Spring 1998 semester, again 17 % of the students "plagiarized their entire papers." But wait! That 17 % only represents the plagiarists that she caught by using the AltaVista search engine on the Internet, a method that will not find students who plagiarized from books, scholarly journals, old term papers by other students, material sold by term paper mills, .... So the true incidence of plagiarism among students is higher than one in six. Still, one in six is unacceptably high and represents a serious erosion of quality and integrity in colleges in the USA. I urge that faculty make an effort to detect and to punish plagiarists, instead of trying to precisely determine the frequency of plagiarism.

3. The Law of Plagiarism

College rules for student conduct sometimes say that plagiarism is an academic offense, not a legal offense. That statement is not completely correct. Colleges certainly have the authority to punish plagiarists in various ways, including expulsion from the college or revoking a degree earned in part by plagiarism. But plagiarism is also a legal issue.

copyright law

The owner of the copyright (i.e., in most cases, the true author) could sue the plagiarist in federal court for violation of the copyright.

Any work created in the USA after 1 Mar 1989 is automatically protected by copyright, even if there is no copyright notice attached to the work. 17 USC §§ 102, 401, and 405.

See my separate essay on copyright law.

It is important to note that the addition of original material by the plagiarist in no way excuses the act of plagiarism. The focus is on what the plagiarist did wrong, not what the plagiarist did right.

Trivial changes in copied text, in an attempt to avoid copyright infringement, are specifically prohibited by law in the USA:

Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119, 121 (2d Cir. 1930) ("It is of course essential to any protection of literary property ... that the right cannot be limited literally to the text, else a plagiarist would escape by immaterial variations.").
Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 81 F.2d 49, 56 (2d Cir. 1936) ("... no plagiarist can excuse the wrong by showing how much of his work he did not pirate.").
A Columbia Pictures' promotional poster for a movie infringed the copyright of an illustration on the cover of a New Yorker magazine, although the details in the movie poster had been changed from the magazine cover (only the words "Hudson River" were the same in both items). The judge ruled that the movie poster was "substantially similar" to the magazine cover. Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures, 663 F.Supp. 706 (1987).

trademark and unfair competition law

Professors and research scientists are often hired, promoted, receive tenure, and are awarded salary increases on the basis of their scholarly publications. To measure the significance of scholarly publications, many administrators in colleges look at Science Citation Index to see how often a professor's work has been cited by others. Therefore, if D plagiarizes V's work – instead of D citing V's work – then V is potentially harmed by having fewer citations to V's work. On the other hand, D is unjustly enriched by receiving credit for a publication that was plagiarized, so D builds D's reputation with V's work.

Recognizing this harm, the true author could sue the plagiarist in federal court for "false designation of origin", 15 USC § 1125, since the plagiarist was misrepresenting someone else's work as his own. Similarly, there are also possible remedies under state unfair competition law. Restatement of the Law (Third) Unfair Competition §§ 2, 3(b), 5 (1995).

Note that application of trademark and unfair competition law requires that the "false designation of origin" be "in commerce". Therefore, trademark and unfair competition law affects plagiarists who write books or articles in archival journals – but probably not students who plagiarize a term paper for a class.

The application of trademark and unfair competition law to punishing plagiarists is a new development in law, with few reported cases in the USA at this time.

fraud

Beyond intellectual property issues (e.g., copyright and trademark), the plagiarist committed fraud. The plagiarist knows that he is not the true author of the work, yet the plagiarist willfully and deliberately puts his name on the work (thereby concealing the true author's name), then the plagiarist submits the work as an inducement to some kind of reward (e.g., good grade on a term paper, awarding a graduate degree for a thesis or dissertation, obtaining a scholarship, winning a prize in a science fair, ...).

Using phrases like "academic misconduct" to describe plagiarism is too sterile, too kind.
Plagiarism is fraud.

statutes about sale of term papers, etc.

The following states have enacted statutes to make unlawful sales of a term paper, essay, report, thesis, or dissertation to students. I did a quick search of statutes in the WESTLAW database on 22 Jan 1999 – I make no representation that this list is either complete or current.

California Education Code §§ 66400 – 66405
Colorado § 23-4-101 – 106
Connecticut § 53-392a – e
Florida § 877.17
Illinois ch. 110, § 5/0.01 – 5/1
Maine 17-A § 705
Massachusetts ch. 271, § 50
Nevada 207.320
New Jersey 18A:2-3
New York Education Law § 213-b
North Carolina § 14-118.2
Pennsylvania title 18, § 7324
Virginia § 18.2-505
Washington 28B.10.580 – 584

Note that sales of term papers can be unlawful in states that have no specific statute on this subject. For example, the commercial enterprise might be charged with aiding and abetting fraud in obtaining a college degree, as in the Saksniit case that is discussed below.

The statutes in California, Illinois, and New York were first enacted in 1972, other states enacted laws afterwards. The offense is a misdemeanor, with a typical maximum punishment between two and six months in jail or a fine not to exceed US$ 1000. In theory, each act of selling a term paper is a separate offense, so a businessman who sells 1200 term papers could receive consecutive sentences to run for 200 years, at 2 months for each sale. In practice, the punishment is likely to be not burdensome, as white-collar criminals in the USA generally receive light punishments compared to the harm that they do, a point that I also make in my essay on computer crime.

The statutes in a few states (e.g., Colorado, New Jersey, Virginia) explicitly give a college or university the right to request a court enjoin a business from selling term papers, etc. to its students. In some other states, only the Attorney General can apply for the injunction under the statute. Since the Attorney General is likely to be busy prosecuting "serious crimes" (e.g., homicide, rape, larceny, etc.), a statute that permits colleges or universities to apply for an injunction is a useful feature in the fight against sales of term papers. In states without a statute against sales of term papers, a college can apply for an injunction on the usual grounds of both:

"irreparable future injury"
"no adequate remedy at law" (i.e., award of money would be inadequate or difficult to calculate).

Even in states with a criminal statute on this subject, the common law of torts, as well as various other statutes, could still be invoked by a college who wishes to sue a business that sells term papers to its students. The statute making sale of term papers a misdemeanor may be useful in a tort case to demonstrate a duty. Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 286 (1965). However, a judge will need little persuasion before the judge finds plagiarism to be socially undesirable and harmful to both the university and its students. For more information on the option of suing businesses in tort, a college should consult an attorney who is licensed to practice in their state.

4. Cases Against Plagiarists in Colleges

As long as term papers, theses, and dissertations are required of students – and as long as professionals submit articles to publishers – there has been, and will continue to be, isolated incidents of plagiarism. However, beginning in the mid-1980s, there has been a significant increase in the amount of litigation in courts in the USA concerning punishments imposed by colleges and licensing boards. Here is a quick review of the major cases, in chronological order:

student-plagiarists

Napolitano
In January 1982, Gabrielle Napolitano, then in her senior year at Princeton University, plagiarized the majority of her 12-page term paper in a Spanish class from a book in the library. While she did cite the book in five footnotes, she did not include citations in the text for some paraphrased material and she did not include the indicia of quotations for "numerous" verbatim quotations. The professor was familiar with the book and immediately recognized the plagiarism. The Princeton University Committee on Discipline in February 1982 unanimously found Napolitano had plagiarized and recommended punishment of delaying her bachelor's degree for one year. Napolitano sued and the judge recommended that Princeton give her a rehearing. The Committee on Discipline gave her a rehearing in May 1982 and again unanimously found her guilty of plagiarism and – with one abstention among the eight votes – again recommended that her degree be withheld for one year. The trial court held that the evidence supported Princeton's finding that Napolitano had plagiarized, and the appellate court affirmed. Napolitano v. Princeton Univ., 453 A.2d 279 (N.J.Super.Ch.Div. 1982), aff'd 453 A.2d 263 (N.J.Super. 1982).

The judge in the trial court felt that Princeton's punishment was too severe and he remarked:

As this court has noted in prior hearings and conferences, Princeton might have viewed the matter of the penalty with a greater measure of humanity and magnanimity, with a greater recognition of the human frailities [sic] of students under stress, as the university apparently has done in many cases in the past. This court cannot mandate compassion, however, and will not, nor should not, engraft its own views on Princeton's disciplinary processes, so long as the standard of good faith and fair dealing has been met and the contract between the student and the university has not otherwise been breached.
Napolitano v. Princeton Univ., 453 A.2d 279, 283 (N.J.Super.Ch.Div. 1982).

The trial judge does not specifically say why he felt that Princeton's punishment was too severe, except for his cryptic remark about "human frailties of students under stress", alleged nonuniformity in penalties at Princeton for different plagiarists, and some irrelevant remarks about Napolitano's "previously spotless record", her cumulative grade point average of 3.7 out of 4.0, and her service to Princeton's athletic department after a knee injury in her first week of her first year prevented her from playing on the University's basketball team.

As for the trial judge's allegations of stress, the appellate court noted that:

[Napolitano] did not meet with Professor Molloy to seek approval of her topic until December 16, 1981, the last day of classes before Christmas recess. She was one of the last, if not the last, to seek such approval from Professor Molloy.
Napolitano v. Princeton Univ., 453 A.2d 263, 267 (N.J.Super. 1982).
The term paper was due not later than 13 Jan 1982. In other words, any stress from waiting until the end of the semester to begin the term paper was solely Napolitano's decision, for which she should bear full responsibility.
The appellate court also noted that: ... everyone involved in this action regarded plaintiff as a somewhat gifted[,] if not unusual student[,] of high achievement. ... Under those circumstances[,] should not the community of Princeton University have been entitled to expect more of plaintiff?
Id. at 278. The appellate court did not answer its rhetorical question, which may have been intended as a gentle rebuke of the judge of the trial court, who felt Princeton was too severe.

The appellate court quoted extensively from the 1980 edition of the Rights, Rules, Responsibilities of Princeton University, in the section titled General Requirements for the Acknowledgment of Sources in Academic Work:

The academic departments of the University have varying requirements for the acknowledgment of sources, but certain fundamental principles apply to all levels of work. In order to prevent any misunderstanding, students are expected to study and comply with the following basic requirements.; Quotations. Any quotations, however small, must be placed in quotation marks or clearly indented beyond the regular margin. Any quotation must be accompanied (either within the text or in a footnote) by a precise indication of the source—identifying the author, title, place and date of publication (where relevant), and page numbers. Any sentence or phrase which is not the original work of the student must be acknowledged.; Paraphrasing. Any material which is paraphrased or summarized must also be specifically acknowledged in a footnote or in the text. A thorough rewording or rearrangement of an author's text does not relieve one of this responsibility. Occasionally, students maintain that they have read a source long before they wrote their papers and have unwittingly duplicated some of its phrases or ideas. This is not a valid excuse. The student is responsible for taking adequate notes so that debts of phrasing may be acknowledged where they are due.; Ideas and Facts. Any ideas or facts which are borrowed should be specifically acknowledged in a footnote or in the text, even if the idea or fact has been further elaborated by the student. Some ideas, facts, formulae, and other kinds of information which are widely known and considered to be in the "public domain" of common knowledge do not always require citation. The criteria for common knowledge vary among disciplines; students in doubt should consult a member of the faculty.; Occasionally, a student in preparing an essay has consulted an essay or body of notes on a similar subject by another student. If the student has done so, he or she must state the fact and indicate clearly the nature and extent of his or her obligation. The name and class of the author of an essay or notes which are consulted should be given, and the student should be prepared to show the work consulted to the instructor, if requested to do so.; Footnotes and Bibliography. All the sources which have been consulted in the preparation of an essay or report should be listed in a bibliography, unless specific guidelines (from the academic department or instructor) request that only works cited be so included. However, the mere listing of a source in a bibliography shall not be considered a "proper acknowledgment" for specific use of that source within the essay or report.; ....; With regard to essays, laboratory reports, or any other written work submitted to fulfill an official academic requirement, the following are considered academic fraud:; Plagiarism. The deliberate use of any outside source without proper acknowledgment. "Outside source" means any work, published or unpublished, by any person other than the student.; ....; Please note that, while not all academic infractions involve fraud, all are violations of the University's standards and will normally result in disciplinary penalties.; Because of the importance of original work in the Princeton academic community, each student is required to attest to the originality of the submitted work and its compliance with University regulations: Student Acknowledgment of Original Work; At the end of an essay, laboratory report, or any other requirement, the student is to write the following sentence and sign his or her name: "This paper represents my own work in accordance with University regulations." [Emphasis in original]
Napolitano v. Princeton Univ., 453 A.2d 263, 265-266 (N.J.Super. 1982).

Therefore, Napolitano not only plagiarized, but also submitted a false statement claiming as her own work quotations from the book without the indicia of quotations.

Note that Princeton's definition of plagiarism does not require an intent to deceive the reader. Napolitano v. Princeton Univ., 453 A.2d 279, 281 (N.J.Super.Ch.Div. 1982).

Lamberis
Anthony Lamberis, an attorney in Illinois, was enrolled in classes in an LL.M. program in Law at Northwestern University during 1970-71. In 1977, he submitted a thesis that was rejected as unsatisfactory. In 1978, he submitted a 93-page thesis, of which 47 pages were "substantially verbatim" from two sources that Lamberis did not cite. His professors detected the plagiarism in June 1979. Lamberis attempted to resign from the law school, but Northwestern University expelled him, then reported him to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.

In an attorney disciplinary proceeding based on this conduct the Hearing Board found that the respondent had "knowingly plagiarized" the two published works and that this plagiarism constituted "conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation" violating the Illinois Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102(A)(4) (Illinois State Bar Association 1977). The Hearing Board recommended that the respondent be censured. The Review Board adopted the Hearing Board's findings of fact, but recommended in a closely divided vote that the respondent receive a suspension of six months.

In re Lamberis, 443 N.E.2d 549, 550 (Ill. 1982).

The only factual finding that the respondent disputes is the Hearing Board's conclusion that he "knowingly plagiarized" the two published works. In reaching this finding the Board regarded as unworthy of belief respondent's explanation that his plagiarism was the result of academic laziness and did not reflect an intentional effort to deceive his thesis examiners. The Hearing Board found:

"Respondent engaged in conduct which clearly constituted plagiarism. Objectively considered, the facts demonstrate nothing else. Subjectively, it is inconceivable to us that a person who has completed undergraduate school and law school would not know that representing extensively copied material as one's own work constitutes plagiarism. Respondent's deception is compounded by his lack of candor in claiming that his efforts were not an intentional effort to deceive. We cannot accept an assertion that would require that we find such a naivete or a lack of intelligence on his part."

We agree with the Board's conclusions; given respondent's extensive academic background and the extent of the verbatim copying, any other finding would be untenable.

Id. at 550-551.

The Illinois Supreme Court spoke about the necessity of punishing plagiarists.

In cases of this type, fairness and justice require that discipline be imposed only "to protect members of the public, to maintain the integrity of the legal profession and to safeguard the administration of justice from reproach." (In re Nowak (1976), 62 Ill.2d 279, 283, 342 N.E.2d 25.) In this case, sanctions are appropriate and required because both the extent of the appropriated material and the purpose for which it was used evidence the respondent's complete disregard for values that are most fundamental in the legal profession.

The extent of the respondent's plagiarism displays an extreme cynicism towards the property rights of others. He incorporated verbatim the work of other authors as a substantial portion of his thesis and obtained no permission for this use. Moreover, this conduct amounted to at least a technical infringement of the publishers' federally protected copyrights. This fraudulent conversion of other people's property is similar to conduct that Illinois and other States have held warrants discipline.

Id. at 551-552.

The court held that Lamberis violated a provision in the Code of Professional Responsibility for attorneys. The court continued:

The respondent violated this provision when he plagiarized the two sources. The essence of plagiarism is deceit. In this case, the deceit is aggravated by the level on which it occurred. Academic forums have a long and well-known tradition of evaluating each individual on his own performance. The respondent attempted to exploit this tradition to his own benefit; the purpose of his deceitful conduct was to obtain a valuable consideration, an advanced law degree, that would have undoubtedly improved his prospects for employment, reputation and advancement in the legal profession.

Id. at 552.

The Illinois Supreme Court censured Lamberis. Note that Lamberis could have received a more substantial penalty: Two dissenting justices believed a suspension for three months was appropriate. The Disciplinary Review Board recommended a suspension from the practice of law for six months. The Administrator of the Disciplinary Program recommended disbarment of Lamberis.

Alsabti
The license of a physician to practice medicine in Massachusetts was revoked, because – as a student in 1978, two years prior to earning his M.D. degree – he submitted four plagiarized articles for publication. The Board of Registration in Medicine found in 1988 that this plagiarism demonstrated a "lack of good moral character which is required to practice medicine." The Supreme Court of Massachusetts affirmed this revocation.
Alsabti v. Board of Registration in Medicine, 536 N.E.2d 357 (Mass. 1989).
The actual situation is much worse than what the reported court opinion indicates. Alsabti is reported to have plagiarized as many as sixty articles and he claimed both a medical degree and a Ph.D., neither of which he had earned.
William J. Broad, Would-Be Academician Pirates Papers, 208 Science 1438 (27 June 1980); William Broad and Nicholas Wade, Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science, at pages 38-52 (1982).

Paul Haugh
Paul Haugh was suspended from a private high school for plagiarism. The high school notified colleges that had accepted Haugh of the plagiarism. Haugh then sued in federal district court alleging breach of contract and libel. Haugh "failed to offer any evidence whatsoever to refute the charge of plagiarism. Furthermore, they did not, either in their pleadings or in their proof, ever assert that the charges of plagiarism or of lying were untrue." Haugh v. Bullis School, 1990 WL 33945 at *1 (4thCir. 1990). The district court granted the school's motion for summary judgment. Haugh then filed an appeal in the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court, found the appeal to be both meritless and frivolous, and ordered Haugh to pay US$ 7136 in attorney's fees for the appeal to the school. Id. *1-*2.

Hand
Michael Hand "earned" a Ph.D. in counseling psychology at New Mexico State University in 1982. In the Fall of 1987 an anonymous tipster sent to the University a copy two scholarly sources that Hand had plagiarized in his dissertation. In April 1988, the University rescinded the Ph.D. it had awarded to Hand. Hand v. Matchett, 957 F.2d 791 (10thCir. 1992).

Dennis Allen Faulkner
Faulkner was a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. His faculty advisor, Frost, apparently told Faulkner to copy significant amounts of material from research reports written by Frost into Faulkner's dissertation. It is noteworthy that Faulkner had not participated in the research described in Frost's reports that were copied into Faulkner's dissertation. Faulkner was awarded the Ph.D. degree in May 1990. Approximately one year later, the faculty voted 5 to 2 to begin procedures to revoke Faulkner's doctoral degree, because of Faulkner's plagiarism. Faulkner then argued that the University was estopped from rescinding his degree, because Frost – acting as an agent of the University – had told him to do the copying. Faulkner v. Univ. of Tennessee, 1994 WL 642765 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1994)

The court considered

... whether or not the University can be estopped in this case by the conduct of Dr. Frost. The conduct of Dr. Frost in this matter is, to say the least, unusual and to say the most, astonishing. He, in fact, told the Appellant to do exactly what the Appellant did and present the result as a doctoral dissertation. He sought other employment following the allegations in this case. In view of the unmistakable dictates of the "Guide to the Preparation of Theses and Dissertations", it would be ludicrous to argue that Dr. Frost as agent of the University of Tennessee possessed the express authority to authorize Mr. Faulkner to plagiarize in his dissertation. Appellant must rely, as in fact he does, upon "apparent authority" and "agency by estoppel". [citation omitted]
Id. at *4.
The court reviewed the facts and the law, then concluded:: The record in this case discloses no act of the University of Tennessee that could possibly be construed as providing authority for Dr. Frost to waive the prohibition against plagiarism, and clearly, Mr. Faulkner either knew or certainly should have known that Dr. Frost possessed no such authority.
Id. at *5.
The court concluded that the University "is not estopped to rescind the doctoral degree of Mr. Faulkner." Finally, in summing up the whole case, the court remarked:: Appellant appears before the bar of this Court pro se. If, in fact, his work since the Administrative Law hearing is pro se, Appellant is a person of remarkable intellect and ability. He does not appear to grasp the self-evident fact that he has not earned his doctorate. He continues to seek shelter under the shield of a professor who is more culpable in this case than is the Appellant. His confidence is ill-placed, and the regrettable failures of both Dr. Frost and the Appellant have borne bitter fruit.
Id. at *6.

The U.S. Government brought mail fraud and other criminal charges against Dr. Frost, Mr. Faulkner, and three others. The Government proved that Frost operated a scheme to take tuition money paid by government for education of government's employees, where the employees submitted dissertations consisting of plagiarized material. U.S. v. Frost, 125 F.3d 346 (6thCir. 1997), cert. denied,119 S.Ct. 40-41 (1998). The Court of Appeals noted that

Awarding degrees to inept students, or to students who have not earned them, will decrease the value of degrees in general. More specifically, it will hurt the reputation of the school and thereby impair its ability to attract other students willing to pay tuition, as well as its ability to raise money.
125 F.3d 346, 367.

Sanderson
Sanderson was an undergraduate student in his final year at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville who plagiarized a paper that he submitted both for the requirements of a class and a research paper contest. "[M]uch of the first half of Sanderson's paper had come from" a textbook used in Sanderson's previous class. Further, Sanderson "used an unpublished master's thesis as a source[,] but that he failed to cite that source anywhere in the paper." The professor gave Sanderson a failing grade in the class and notified University authorities. An administrative law judge (ALJ) held a hearing. The ALJ could not find a definition of plagiarism in the University's rules, so the ALJ used the definition in Black's Law Dictionary. The ALJ concluded that Black's required intent to pass off someone else's words or ideas as one's own, and the ALJ found that Sanderson had no such intent, hence the ALJ found no plagiarism. The Chancellor of the University reviewed the record and reversed the decision of the ALJ, affirmed the failing grade, and suspended Sanderson for one year. Sanderson then sued in court. Both the chancery court and an appellate court affirmed the Chancellor's decision. The Chancellor and the two courts agreed that the appropriate definition of plagiarism was the one issued by Sanderson's professor at the beginning of the semester, not the definition in Black's. The professor's definition was simply "using an author's words or ideas without giving credit", so intent of the plagiarist was properly not an issue.
Sanderson v. Univ. of Tennessee, 1997 WL 718427 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1997).

professors who plagiarized

By including the following cases in this essay, I do not wish to cast aspersions on university faculty. However, it is an acknowledged fact that a very few isolated professors have engaged in plagiarization. The typical punishment is termination of their faculty appointment. The following cases are noteworthy for remarks made about the seriousness of plagiarization.

Jason Yu
Dr. Yu was a tenured professor of civil engineering at the University of Utah. The Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee at that University concluded that Yu had failed to give credit to a co-author, which was one instance of plagiarism. They also concluded that Yu had failed to give authorship credit to two former students at Virginia Polytechnic University, Yu's previous employer, for two publications that "were 90% prepared" by the students, which were two other instances of plagiarism. The University of Utah Committee recommended that Yu be suspended for one year without pay. The president of the University accepted this recommendation, but Yu appealed to the internal grievance committee. The grievance committee remanded to the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee, which on its second hearing recommended that Yu be permanently dismissed from the University, and the president accepted that recommendation. Yu then filed suit in federal district court, which found that "there was ample evidence to support the charges of plagiarism and that termination was permissible under the university's regulations. The court dismissed the action sua sponte." Yu v. Peterson, 13 F.3d 1413, 1415 (10thCir. 1993). Yu appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court.

Hanifi
M. Jamil Hanifi plagiarized material from a book and an essay in his doctoral dissertation at Southern Illinois University in 1969. Hanifi later published "his" dissertation in a book, of which "three of the nine substantive chapters ... were plagiarized." The author of the essay discovered the plagiarism in 1976, the author of the book discovered the plagiarism in 1977. Southern Illinois University learned of the plagiarism in 1981. At that time, Hanifi was a professor of anthropology at Northern Illinois University, who was being considered as a new chairman of the department. Tersely summarizing a long recital in the court's opinion, Hanifi was given the choice of resigning or being fired, Hanifi chose to resign. Hanifi then filed litigation that alleged that his resignation had been coerced. Hanifi v. Board of Regents, 1994 WL 871887 (Ill.Ct.Cl. 1994).

The court said the following regarding plagiarism:

John LaTourette, the current president of Northern Illinois University, who was the vice-president and provost of that university in 1981, acknowledged that plagiarism is "probably the most serious charge against a faculty member that one could imagine." The president of the university in 1981, William Monat, similarly acknowledged that plagiarism is "probably one of the greatest offenses that can occur in the academic community." Mr. Hanifi, himself, has written to others and admitted during his testimony that plagiarism involves "a complete lapse in professional judgment, moral sense and respect for academic ethics," "a most serious violation with dishonor, shame and guilt," "unethical conduct," "dishonorable and unprofessional conduct," and "dishonorable act and reprehensible and condemnable," "a violation of basic scholarly activity and serious misconduct," "a despicable act and a serious mistake." Mr. Hanifi acknowledged that the plagiarism is not erasable.
Id. at *2.
The court concluded that Hanifi had failed to prove that his resignation had been coerced. Note the court's final sentence about the bad character of a plagiarist:: From a thorough review of the evidence in this case, we find that the Claimant has failed to prove that his resignation was involuntary, coerced or the product of duress. The testimony of Claimant and Respondent's witnesses is at loggerheads. To believe Claimant's testimony as to coercion, duress and involuntariness, we would have to disbelieve numerous other witnesses and find some grand conspiracy among the top officials at Northern Illinois University to injure Claimant, which would include mass perjury. Claimant has presented no compelling evidence to corroborate his testimony and therefore in light of the credible testimony disputing his claim, we find his testimony incredible. Frankly, we do not believe this admitted plagiarizer when he claims his will was overcome and he did not know what he was doing.
Id. at *6.

summary

In every plagiarism case that I have found involving a student or professor, the court upheld the punishment imposed by the college. Further, the court often make gratuitous, pejorative comments about the bad character of the plagiarist, which show that it is unwise for a plagiarist to complain about how he/she was treated.

A judge in a federal court, noted that one attorney had plagiarized the Brief of the opposing attorney, then commented that opposing counsel had:

failed to call this major breach of professional conduct to the Court's attention. The Court, however, cannot let it pass without condemnation. Plagiarism is unacceptable in any grammar school, college, or law school, and even in politics. It is wholly intolerable in the practice of law.
DeWilde v. Gannett Publishing, 797 F.Supp. 55, 56 (D.Maine 1992).

The Alsabti case, discussed above, shows how plagiarism can haunt a person's reputation, even ten years later.

In summary, a plagiarist should accept their punishment and humiliation for their reprehensible act, without also being permanently enshrined in a reported court opinion. In the Napolitano case that was discussed above, the trial court remarked:

Plaintiff had sought as additional relief an injunction against Princeton's giving notice of its plagiarism adjudication to any law school to which plaintiff had applied. The notoriety deriving from this case, however, marks plaintiff's record more permanently than anything that defendant might place upon her transcript. Therefore, her argument that there should be no such notification or notation is moot at this point.
Napolitano v. Princeton Univ., 453 A.2d 279, 284, n.5 (N.J.Super.Ch.Div. 1982).

5. Cases Against Commercial Sources

There are only a few reported cases against businesses that sell term papers to students.

Saksniit
The first is State v. Saksniit, 332 N.Y.S.2d 343 (1972), in which the New York State Attorney General filed litigation to dissolve a corporation whose only business was selling term papers to students.

The defendant's advertisement states:

Do you have a term paper assignment that's a little too much work? Are you cramped for time with a nightmarish deadline closing in? Let us help you. We have a team of professional writers who can handle any subject. Our papers are custom made, and professionally typed. We offer the most economical work anywhere, at no sacrifice in quality or service to you. This material is intended to be used for research and reference purposes only.
State v. Saksniit, 332 N.Y.S.2d 343, 345 (1972).

In 1972, defendants were charging US$ 1.90 per page for a term paper from their stock, or $ 3.85/page for a custom-written paper. The court noted that there were three signs in the corporate office:

We don't guarantee grades
We don't condone plagiarism
No refunds

Id. at 345.
The court noted that:

The termpapers are produced for defendants by free-lance writers who are college graduates with some expertise in the subject involved in the particular paper. The writers have signed a contract with defendants, promising 'to submit research and writing that is commencerate [sic] in quality with Work sufficient to be accepted in a Graduate Program at an accredited University.' Additionally–and ironically–each writer promises 'that all work he produces and submits will be original and the products of his own research and writing, and the final product will not be work prepared for him by others.'
Id. at 345-346.

The basis of the prosecution was a New York State statute that says, in part:

"No person shall ... attempt to obtain by fraudulent means any diploma, certificate or other instrument purporting to confer any literary, scientific, professional or other degree ...."

N.Y. Education Law, §224(2).

A violation of the section is a misdemeanor and "any person who aids or abets another * * * to violate the provisions of this section" is "liable to the same penalties".

N.Y. Education Law, §224(3).

The court then declared:

Any student who submits a 'ghost-written' termpaper as his own, cheats. There is, conceptually, little difference between the 'ghost-written' termpaper and the copied examination paper or the hiring of another to take an examination in place of a student. Any student, therefore, who submits as his own work a termpaper bought from defendants, gets credit for a course through fraud, and thereby attempts to obtain his diploma or degree by 'fraudulent means'.

State v. Saksniit, 332 N.Y.S.2d 343, 346 (1972).

Defendants protest they did not know they were encouraging fraud. They point to their various disclaimers—'This material is intended to be used for research and reference purposes only;' 'We don't condone plagiarism.' Yet in the very same breath they boast of the grades their former termpapers have received. Their warning, 'We don't guarantee grades,' only accentuates their awareness that some students could be relying on defendants' termpapers for their grades.

Id. at 348.

After evaluating this defense, the judge stated:

... the court is convinced that defendants are engaged in the business of selling termpapers to students, thereby knowingly aiding and abetting them to attempt to obtain by fraudulent means a diploma, degree or certificate, in violation of Education Law, § 224 ....

The complaint seeks a dissolution of the corporate defendant on the ground that the 'business activities of defendants,' have the 'direct capacity and tendency of subverting the process of learning and encouraging intellectual dishonesty and cheating,' and are therefore contrary to the 'public policy of this State in maintaining and preserving the integrity of the educational process.'

'Education,' wrote James Madison, 'is the true foundation of civil liberty.' Assisting and promoting plagiarism—the most serious academic offense—strikes at the core of the educational process, and thus at the very heart of a free society. Doing a student's work for him not only deprives him of the valuable disciplines of the learning process, but tends to destroy his moral fibre by lending credence to the all too prevalent notion that anything, including a college degree, can be bought for a price.

Id. at 349.

Then the court makes an observation that is not necessary to its opinion, but shows the selling term papers is a particularly reprehensible activity.

The damage which defendants' business does to the fabric of the scholastic community is dramatically made clear in a plea from a young college student who writes to the Attorney General urging action:

I am in competition with many students for entrance into a medical school. Spaces are few and the many students make the competition fierce. Only one student will occupy a seat desired by many, and he will be the student with the best grades.

The situation is tight enough as is, but what chance do I stand if my independent work (term papers) must compete not with those of my peers but with those of professionals—people with Masters and even Doctorates in the areas in which they write? I am subtly being blackmailed into using their immoral services.

An ironic development is the distrust my instructors have developed toward and above-average term paper I submit.

Sir—can your office do anything to relieve this injustice? I do not believe I am exaggerating if I claim that my future And my integrity are at stake.

Id. at 349-350.

The court continued:

The legislature of our state has enacted laws to prevent fraud in obtaining degrees or diplomas (Educ.Law, §224), and to guard the sanctity of the scholastic examinations (id., §225). It has thus declared it to be the public policy of this state that the integrity of the educational process should be protected and preserved. Whenever 'our courts are called upon to scrutinize a (business) * * * which is clearly repugnant to sound morality and civic honesty, they need not look for a well fitting definition of public policy ....' [citation omitted]

The business defendants are conducting is morally wrong. It subverts the learning process and encourages intellectual dishonesty and cheating. It is directly opposed to the declared public policy of our State. It exceeds the purposes for which the corporate defendant was formed as set forth in its certificates of incorporation and is ultra vires. [citation omitted]

Id. at 350.

"Ultra vires" is an act by a corporation that exceeds its authority under the articles of incorporation filed with the state.

The court granted a preliminary injunction that prohibited the defendants from continuing to engage in their fraudulent acts of selling term papers and appointed a receiver to preserve the corporate assets, so any creditors could be paid. The final disposition of this case is not reported.

International Term Paper
The U.S. Government applied to court for an order permitting interception of all mail to four companies that sold term papers to students. The Court of Appeals held that the mail fraud statute applied to this situation, even though the fraudulent act was by the buyer (i.e., a student who submitted the purchased term paper to a college as the student's own work), because the seller contemplated a "scheme which involves misrepresentation based on the materials which he sends." U.S. v. International Term Papers, Inc., 477 F.2d 1277, 1280 (1stCir. 1973). The final disposition of this case is not reported.

Magee
The following case is an action by the Attorney General of New York State to "shut down" a corporation that sold term papers to students. This is an entirely separate case from Saksniit, which was previously quoted and summarized, except that the defendants in Saksniit employed John Magee as their "administrative assistant". 332 N.Y.S.2d at 347. In the following case, Magee is the defendant.

A preliminary injunction issued on 3 Aug 1979, ordering Magee to stop selling papers to students. Magee "grossly flouted" the order and, on 12 Dec 1979, the judge fined Magee US$ 1000.
People v. Magee, 423 N.Y.S.2d 417, 419-421 (1979).

The issue of whether or not to shut down Magee's business permanently was only slightly more difficult. There were no contested facts, so the judge ruled on summary judgment. The judge characterized the Defendant's position:

His basic defense is that the Education Law prohibits the rendering of Assistance for hire, and his products were not "assistance" but rather publications entitled to First Amendment protection. He argues that his papers bear the same status as an encyclopedia article or bibliography, and that the warning on his catalogue of approximately 5000 subjects for sale¹ and the "conditions of sale"² signed by the purchasing student, are sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to his good faith.

¹ Our Company operates as a publisher and distributor of educational source material. It is not, and never has been, a writer of term papers or other academic work. The material we provide is intended to provide the reader with background and source material on a given topic, and not as a substitute for the reader's own original research and writing. We do not support or condone plagiarism or academic fraud of any nature.

² I further agree and warrant that I shall not plagiarize of submit all, or any part of said material as my own in fulfillment of the requirements for a degree, diploma, certificate, courses of study, nor permit any other person or persons to do so.

Id. at 419.

The court continues:

These arguments are plainly specious. The papers purchased by the Attorney General's agents and annexed to the motion are plainly designed to deceive and would have no other utility in the world of scholarship. Carefully tailored for submission as undergraduate work and keyed to the assignments in specific undergraduate and graduate courses, they were sold for that express purpose by defendant and his agents. These materials do not fall within the exception to the Education Law ( Sec. 213-b, subd. 4) provided for copyrighted materials.

The fact that the papers sold by defendant (at $3.50 per page) could conceivably be put to a lawful use by a student of Aristotle or Shakespeare does not make the statute interdicting them unconstitutional. A gaming device which Could be played for sheer entertainment may be outlawed if the purpose to which it is put is gambling [citations deleted] These typewritten papers, in a format designed for direct submission, and taken together with defendant's seductive sales literature [footnote deleted], are full proof of unlawful intended use.

Nor is defendant saved by the pious disavowals of plagiaristic intent which the paper buyer ritualistically signs. This procedure is patently tongue-in-cheek, and executed with an obvious wink. Precisely the same subterfuge was easily brushed aside by the court in State of New York v. Saksniit, 69 Misc.2d 554, 332 N.Y.S.2d 343, a similar cheating mill case in which this very defendant is a named subordinate offender. Such a sanctimonious charade stands on the same footing as the closing paragraphs in Fanny Hill .... Undeniably Cleland's heroine, after dozens of erotic bordello adventures, purports in the final paragraphs of her narrative to discover the true value of domestic tranquility. That belated appreciation did not serve to convert this work into a moral tract, nor render is suitable for 18th Century Anglican curates in their parish rounds.

There is no genuine issue of fact. The People are now entitled to a permanent injunction.

Id. 419-420.

A1 Termpaper, et al.
In 1998, Boston University (BU) sued five separate defendants who were engaged in the sale of term papers. BU alleged that defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 USC § 1962, which was sufficient to give a federal court jurisdiction over the matter. Unfortunately, technical deficiencies in BU's pleadings caused the RICO complaint to be dismissed. Boston Univ. v. ASM Communications, 33 F.Supp.2d 66, 72-74 (D.Mass. 1998). The federal court then dismissed all of BU's claims under state law. In passing, the federal court noted that:

The Massachusetts criminal statute, ch. 271 §50 that makes the sale of term papers a misdemeanor gave no private right of action to BU. Id. at 74-76.
BU was not engaged in "trade or commerce" when its agents purchased term papers from defendants in a sting operation, thus BU could not bring a claim under Massachusetts statute ch. 93A §11 that prohibits unfair or deceptive business practices. Id. at 76-77.
BU was not likely to meet the US$ 75,000 per defendant threshold for suing in federal court on various other claims under state law (e.g., tortious interference with university-student relationships, fraud, aiding and abetting fraud). Id. at 77.

The fact that Boston University lost this case in federal court does not mean that its legal theories were invalid, but only that the RICO claim must be pleaded more carefully. The various tort claims may be viable in a Massachusetts state court.

The federal court noted in passing that, in 1981, BU had obtained injunctions in state court prohibiting at least one of the present defendants from selling term papers to BU students. 33 F.Supp.2d at 71. This observation shows the remarkable persistence of businessmen who sell term papers to students, since the businesses were still selling term papers 17 years later.

6. My Suggestions for Policy

It is time that colleges took an active stand against plagiarism. Professors should actively check for plagiarism. When possible plagiarism is detected, professors should report the case to the appropriate authorities on campus for investigation, hearing, and resolution.

Every college administration should:

inform every student during a required orientation lecture, and also in the college handbook, of the definition of plagiarism and the range of punishments.
make available to every professor tools for detecting plagiarism (e.g., one or more commercial services in the links section below).
periodically remind every professor of his/her duty to report suspected plagiarism or other misconduct by students. (Some specific suggestions for how to detect plagiarism are given later in this essay.)
use new topics for term papers or projects every semester. This requires more creativity by professors, but it defeats the utility of files in local fraternities for plagiarists or passing materials between successive years of students.
specially counsel foreign nationals that – regardless of the customs and practices in their native country – the college will strictly hold them to the American standard that plagiarism is forbidden. (My experience both in reading reported court cases in the USA, as well as in my ten years as a professor in the USA, is that immigrants or foreign nationals – both students and faculty – are involved in a disproportionately large number of cases of plagiarism in the USA. I do not want to say anything offensive to honest people in other cultures or other countries, but the pattern is apparent and we need to defeat the defense that "Plagiarism is accepted in my home country.")
design procedures for investigation and hearings to be minimally burdensome for professors, so that reporting misconduct does not mean that the professor is volunteering for significant extra work. Instead, the burden of extra work should fall mainly on administrators and staff, or – alternatively – on consultants hired by the college.

This last point is important: if the college makes the misconduct investigations and hearings too cumbersome, professors will simply avoid reporting suspicions of misconduct to the appropriate authorities on campus. A professor might then simply give a suspected plagiarist a lower grade than they would have earned if they were honest (or simply giving the suspect a private reprimand in the professor's office), a "punishment" that the plagiarist might welcome, in contrast to having sanctions marked on their transcript, or even possible expulsion from college. This raises the possibility that a student could meander through college, plagiarizing here and there, without anyone being aware of the consistent pattern of misconduct that marks this student as unworthy of a college degree. While I have not seen this concern mentioned in any of the court opinions that have addressed the issue of proper procedure, it worries me.

How to detect plagiarism

Whenever a professor sees a paper written with an unconventional style, or with word choice that reflects more advanced knowledge of the field than a typical student would have, the professor should suspect plagiarism. The professor can easily ask the suspected plagiarist to explain a particularly obscure point. A student who struggled honestly to understand the material will give a convincing explanation, while a plagiarist will be dumbfounded or mutter platitudes.

Professors should also be alert for styles that shift within the paper, as the student switches roles from plagiarist to author.

The following techniques for detecting plagiarism are from a list of 15 suggestions by Margaret Fain and Peggy Bates at Coastal Carolina University in their document titled Detecting Plagiarization.

"Writing style, language, vocabulary, tone, grammar, etc." is different from "what the student usually produces. It doesn't sound like the student."
"Essays are printed out from the student's web browser."
"Web addresses left at the top or bottom of the page. Many free essays have a tag line at the end of the essay that students often miss."
"References to graphs, charts, or accompanying material that isn't there."
"References to professors, classes or class numbers that are not taught at" the college.
"Citations are to materials not owned by" local libraries to which students have access.
Dead links, or inactive URLs, in student's page. This is a symptom that the page was prepared many months ago and is now stale.
"All citations are to materials that are older than five years."
Historical events are referred to in present tense.
"Students can not identify citations or provide copies of the cited material."

Once plagiarism is suspected, a professor can type a distinctive phrase from a student's paper into a good search engine, and see what material can be found. With some luck, a professor may be able to find the source of the student's paper. In this type of search, one does not use typical key words that would retrieve information on the student's topic. Instead, one uses a distinctive phrase that one hopes is unique, with the intent of retrieving one source for the plagiarized paper. I have listed my favorite search engines in a document at my personal website.

7. Colleges may rescind degrees

What happens if plagiarism, or other academic misconduct, is discovered after a degree has been awarded? The answer is simple: the college has the legal authority to revoke or rescind an academic degree.

There are only a few reported cases in the USA concerning the ability of a college to rescind an academic degree:

Waliga v. Board of Trustees, 488 N.E.2d 850 (Ohio 1986)(Kent State University decided to rescind Waliga's B.A. degree, 17 years after it was awarded, because of 28 discrepancies in the grades on the official transcript and the handwritten reports submitted by the instructors in Waliga's classes.)
There is not the slightest hint in the opinions available on WestLaw for how these discrepancies arose. The most comprehensive discussion is in an unpublished opinion: 1984 WL 6436, *1 (Ohio.App. 1984).
Crook v. Baker, 813 F.2d 88 (6thCir. 1987)(University of Michigan rescinded a M.Sc. degree in geology, because of fraud in that thesis.)
Hand v. Matchett, 957 F.2d 791 (10thCir. 1992)(New Mexico State University, by the Dean of the Graduate School, attempted to rescind a Ph.D. in counseling psychology that had been awarded to Hand for his dissertation that contained plagiarized material.)
Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals held that, under New Mexico state statutes, only the Regents could award or rescind a degree, so the revocation was unlawful. The Court of Appeals cited Waliga and Crook and concluded, at 795, "The ability to revoke degrees obtained through fraudulent means is a necessary corollary to the Regent's power to confer those degrees." The Court of Appeals, at 795, stated that the University could withdraw Hand's Ph.D. degree, but the Regents must do the withdrawing.
Faulkner v. Univ. of Tennessee, 1994 WL 642765 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1994)("The University of Tennessee is not estopped to rescind the doctoral degree of Mr. Faulkner." Mr. Faulkner "does not appear to grasp the self-evident fact that he has not earned his doctorate.")

A paragraph of the Ohio Supreme Court's opinion in Waliga is worth quoting here:

We consider it self-evident that a college or university acting through its board of trustees does have the inherent authority to revoke an improperly awarded degree where (1) good cause such as fraud, deceit, or error is shown, and (2) the degree-holder is afforded a fair hearing at which he can present evidence and protect his interest. Academic degrees are a university's certification to the world at large of the recipient's educational achievement and fulfillment of the institution's standards. To hold that a university may never withdraw a degree, effectively requires the university to continue making a false certification to the public at large of the accomplishment of persons who in fact lack the very qualifications that are certified. Such a holding would undermine public confidence in the integrity of degrees, call academic standards into question, and harm those who rely on the certification which the degree represents.
Waliga v. Board of Trustees, 488 N.E.2d 850, 852 (Ohio 1986). Quoted with approval in: Hand v. Matchett, 957 F.2d 791, 794 (10thCir. 1992); Crook v. Baker, 813 F.2d 88, 93 (6thCir. 1987); Faulkner v. Univ. of Tennessee, 1994 WL 642765 at *6 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1994).

These cases all involved state universities. This is significant, because the ex-student often alleged that the degree was rescinded without "due process of law", a legal right that only applies to people in their relations with government. Simply put, a private college can legally rescind a degree without bothering about "due process". There may be other legal rights that a grieved ex-student could bring against a private college, but this is not the place to speculate on what those rights might be.

double jeopardy ?

Someone who knows a little about constitutional law might ask if the prohibition against double jeopardy (Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution) acts to prevent punishment by both a college and a court. The answer is clearly no. Any punishment by a college is completely separate and independent of a punishment by a court. It is legally permissible for a plagiarist to be:

expelled by a college – or have their degree rescinded by a college –
sued in civil court by the owner of the copyright (e.g., the true author or his/her assignee) for copyright infringement,
tried in criminal court on charges of fraud, and
have a licensing board revoke or suspend their license to practice law, medicine, or some other profession.

This result is clearly just, because each punishment protects a different group of people from a different harm:

the college protects its good reputation and the integrity of its degrees,
copyright law protects the owner of the copyright,
criminal law expresses the outrage of civilized society at evil acts,
the licensing board protects an innocent public who reasonably trusts professionals to be honest, ethical, and competent.

The Fifth Amendment only prohibits multiple criminal trials by the same government. For more about double jeopardy, see my essay on the differences between civil and criminal law.

A 1997 case in Oklahoma state court concerned a University of Oklahoma student who "falsely reported a car-jacking" to the University's police department. "The University placed him on disciplinary probation for one year and ordered him to complete 100 hours of community service" at the University. The State of Oklahoma charged the student with a misdemeanor and the student's attorney moved to dismiss the charge, arguing double jeopardy. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma ruled that the criminal charge was not barred by double jeopardy. The opinion of the Oklahoma court cites a number of federal and state cases.
State v. Kauble, 948 P.2d 321 (Okla.Crim.App. 1997).

No plagiarism for ideas ?

Some colleges have expanded the definition of plagiarism to include copying ideas without providing a citation to the original source. I agree that one should provide a citation for all substantial information that is taken from another source:

to give credit to the person who supplied the information or who first made the discovery,
to relieve the writer from the responsibility for the accuracy or truth of the information,
to lead the reader to a source of more detailed or complete information, or
to give the reader a sense of the historical evolution of ideas in the field.

However, an author properly does not provide a citation to facts or ideas that are part of the general knowledge in the subject area of the paper (e.g., Newton's Laws of Motion, a mathematical theorem, etc.), unless the author is discussing the history of the subject. The key issue is whether the reader might mistakenly believe that the fact or idea was original with the author of the paper. When in doubt, provide a citation to the source.

Personally, I prefer to consider failure to cite sources of facts or ideas as something other than plagiarism. Such a failure to cite sources of facts or ideas might be:

sloppy scholarship, making unsupported assertions

negligent misrepresentation about the scope of the author's work,

if the author had intent to deceive the reader: fraudulent misrepresentation about the scope of the author's work,

in some cases: a matter of academic style that is a judgment call for an author, supervisor, reviewer, or editor.

In theses or dissertations, problems of whether to cite to a source of facts or ideas should be resolved when the student submits a draft to his/her faculty advisor. If a citation is desirable, the advisor simply scrawls "cite a source" or "cite your sources" in red ink on the draft.

Whether to cite facts can depend on the forum or audience. For example, a textbook, or a general essay to inform the reader, summarizes accepted knowledge without citations to primary sources. The same text published as a review article in a scholarly journal, or a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of a doctoral degree, definitely needs citations to primary sources.

One of my reasons for considering a narrow definition of plagiarism is that I prefer that to have the academic offense of plagiarism and the legal wrong of copyright infringement overlap. By definition, copyright protects only expression, not ideas, not facts. 17 USC §102(b).

It is interesting – but ultimately not enlightening – to consider the position of patent law on use of facts. Patent law, like copyright law, does not recognize ownership of facts. Patent protection is restricted by statute to only a "new and useful process, machine, manufacturer, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101. It is well-established law that one can not patent any of the following: law of nature
natural phenomenon
abstract idea
purely mental process
algorithm
mathematical formula
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185, 191-193 (1981);
Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972);
Funk Bros. v. Kalo Inoculant, 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948);
O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 116 (1853);
LeRoy v. Tatham, 55 U.S. 156, 175 (1852);
Prater, 417 F.2d 1393, 1402 (1969)(purely mental steps).
However, the relevance of patent law to plagiarism is questionable. The sole purpose of a patent is to exclude others from making, using, or selling a commercially useful invention. 35 U.S.C. §271. In contrast to commerce, scholars welcome the use of their ideas by others, provided that the scholar receives credit for his/her idea in a citation.

Another of my reasons for considering a narrow definition of plagiarism is the difficulty of proof that an author copied an idea. Any intelligent, creative person routinely has "original" thoughts. A careful search of books and scholarly journals in a library will likely reveal that the same thought had been previously expressed by someone else. Even if an author spends days searching books and journals, diligently trying to find a previous expression of an idea, it is possible to overlook a relevant previous expression, particularly in older literature that is not indexed in online search engines (e.g., Physics Abstracts, Chemical Abstracts, MEDLINE, WESTLAW, etc.). It is inappropriate to impose disciplinary sanctions on an author for an innocent mistake, such as overlooking some earlier source, because an evil intent (i.e., mens rea) is generally an essential part of misconduct. Said in another way, without an evil intent, there is no misconduct.

In contrast to the sometimes discretionary nature of citations for facts or ideas, or the possibility of innocently overlooking an earlier expression of an idea, using someone else's words without the indicia of a quotation is always wrong. Further, there is a negligible probability that an author could independently create expression that consists of hundreds of – or even several dozen – identical words in the same sequence as an earlier author. And, as mentioned above, copying another's words, then making a few "original" changes, does not defeat a charge of copyright infringement.

Self-Plagiarization

There are two forms of self-plagiarization:

for students self-plagiarization is taking a term paper or essay that was written for one class and submitting substantial parts of that work for credit in a second class, without informing the instructor.
for professionals self-plagiarization is using part of one publication in a subsequent publication, without the indicia of a quotation or citation to a paraphrase of an earlier publication.

Self-plagiarization is wrong for students, because each class is supposed to represent acquisition of additional knowledge. Recycling an old term paper frustrates that goal.

Self-plagiarization in publication is wrong for several different reasons:

The number of scholarly publications is an important credential for authors in academia. Repeating the same publication inflates the number of publications, giving the plagiarist an undeserved good reputation.
Most scholarly journals only accept new material for publication. Repeating previously published text is a fraudulent misrepresentation by the author to the editor of the journal.
Publication of the same material more than once wastes space on library shelves, and wastes money in library budgets.
Moreover, someone doing a diligent search of the literature could order copies of two or three "different" scholarly papers, which, when read carefully, contain essentially the same information, thus wasting photocopy expense, interlibrary loan expense, etc.

Threat of Litigation Against
Reporters of Plagiarism

Sometimes, when a professor suspects plagiarism or other fraud by a student, the student threatens to sue the professor if the misconduct is reported. The fear of litigation may coerce the professor into silence. Such silence not only allows the plagiarist to escape the consequences of his/her actions, but also allows the plagiarist to continue his/her misconduct in other classes and, after graduation, in other institutions.
(This coerced silence reminds me of stories of New York City residents who sit in their office or apartment and watch someone being mugged on the street, but who do not call the police, because "they don't want to get involved".)

While I suppose it is possible that a plagiarist could sue for damage to his reputation, the plagiarist would likely lose a summary judgment motion by the defendant. As a practical matter, the plagiarist is unlikely to sue, because:

the publicity of the litigation would harm the plagiarist's reputation more than any allegations that prompted the litigation,
an ethical attorney would not file a groundless law suit on behalf of the plagiarist,
the plagiarist probably is unable to afford the cost of litigation, while the university is likely to pay an attorney to defend a professor for any action arising from the professor's official duties.

So the threat of litigation by a plagiarist is likely just an empty threat, made in an emotional moment when the plagiarist is scared of being punished.

I don't recommend being confrontational, but one could reply to threats of litigation with:

It is never defamation to make a true statement, even if the statement damages the plagiarist's reputation.
There is a privilege for good-faith reports of misconduct to the proper authorities. Even if the authorities eventually conclude that there was neither plagiarism nor misconduct, good-faith reporting is not defamatory.
As mentioned above, judges have a low regard for plagiarists. A plagiarist has already damaged his/her own reputation by the act of plagiarization.
Plagiarists are tortfeasors, not victims. The real victims are (a) the true author whose work was plagiarized, and (b) the professor who [almost] gave credit to the plagiarist for someone else's work.
One could threaten to counter-sue for malicious prosecution, including the value of one's time to respond to groundless accusations and reimbursement of attorney's fees.

Moreover, the college's policy manual may impose a duty on every professor to report plagiarism or other misconduct. With such a duty, the professor could get in more trouble for not reporting plagiarism than for reporting plagiarism.

Links to Other Webpages

To make it easier to update this essay, and also to update future Adobe PDF versions of this essay, I have put my links in a separate HTML document. These links are not a bibliography for this essay, but are provided as either alternative views or resources for teaching students to avoid plagiarism.

Conclusion

Academic degrees represent a college's public certification that a former student possesses at least some minimum amount of knowledge and intellectual skill. Such degrees are commonly used a minimum credential for being hired to fill a professional position, not only physicians, attorneys, engineers, scientists, teachers, but also managers. If academic degrees are to have any meaningful significance, then they must not be awarded to students who plagiarize material, cheat on examinations, commit fraud in reporting research results, and other kinds of serious misconduct. Plagiarizing, cheating, or fraud must not be an alternate route to a diploma. When a diligent student who writes an original paper gets a lower grade than a plagiarist, the instructor effectively punishes the honest student and rewards the wrongdoer.

It is time that colleges took an active stand against plagiarism. Professors should actively check for plagiarism. When possible plagiarism is detected, professors should report the case to the appropriate authorities on campus for investigation, hearing, and resolution.

this document is at http://www.rbs2.com/plag.htm
My most recent search for court cases on plagiarism was in Dec 1999.
version 14 April 2001, links updated 3 Feb 2007

--------------------------------------

October Astrophysics Conference in Maryland

The October Astrophysics Conference in Maryland is a series of topical conferences that are arranged each autumn by scientists at the Goddard Space Flight Center and the University of Maryland. Each of the conferences is devoted to a single topic in astrophysics research, and is organized to elicit the free discussion of ideas.

The Conference is held at the University Conference Center at the University of Maryland, College Park, MD.

To subscribe to the electronic mailing list, send email to majordomo@atheena.gsfc.nasa.gov with the message subscribe maryland (your name).

2006: Radiation Backgrounds from the First Stars, Galaxies and Black Holes (October 9 - 11, 2006)
2005: Gamma-Ray Bursts in the Swift Era (November 29 - December 2, 2005)
2004: New Windows on Star Formation in the Cosmos (October 11-13, 2004)
2003: The Search for Other Worlds (October 13-14, 2003)
2002: The Emergence of Cosmic Structure (October 7-9)
2001: Two Years of Science With Chandra (September 5-7)
2000: Young Supernova Remnants (October 16-18)
1999: Cosmic Explosions (October 11-13)
1998: After the Dark Ages: When Galaxies Were Young (October 12-14)
1997: Accretion Processes in Astrophysical Systems: Some Like It Hot (October 13-15)
1996: Star Formations, Near and Far (October 14-16)
1995: Cosmic Abundances (October 9-11)
1994: Dark Matter (October 10-12)
1993: The Evolution of X-Ray Binaries.
1992: Back to the Galaxy.
1991: Testing the AGN Paradigm.
1990: After the First Three Minutes.

PROFESSORS AGAINST PLAGIARISM

Professors Against Plagiarism. Professors against Fraud

Endless fake IEEE conferences

New case of fake SCIgen paper accepted in an IEEE Conference

FAKE CONFERENCES FROM IEEE

WESSEX INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

New Links

To Stop Cheats, Colleges Learn Their Trickery

Next time that somebody will claim that he has many publications in IEEE,

Are you co-author in this paper?

A 10-pages paper with 3469 Co-Authors.

We say "No" to pseudo IEEE fake Conferences in pseudo-State of fake North Cyprus

Re: Professors Against Plagiarism: PROFESSOR ALAN DERSHOWITZ

Avoid any relation with this FRAUD!

Plagiarism in IRAN

Investigate Iran plagiarism allegations: In December 9, the www.scidev.net. published fresh cases of apparent plagiarism in papers co-authored by Iranian government ministers and senior officials.

Investigate Iran plagiarism allegations

Iran has executed two men arrested during the period of widespread unrest that erupted after June's disputed presidential election, reports say.

Plagiarism and the Web Revolution

Bogus Conferences

List of works with noticeable acceptance

A letter from Evan M. Butterfield (IEEE)

Criticism concerning publishers

See also

Notes

Professors Against Plagiarism: PROFESSOR ALAN DERSHOWITZ

PROFESSOR ALAN DERSHOWITZ

Madonna G. Constantine

http://www.ldu.leeds.ac.uk/plagiarism/

Internet plagiarism among college students

Plagiarism Resources (PROFESSORS AGAINST PLAGIARISM)

Definition and Types of Plagiarism:

Why do students plagiarize?

How to prevent plagiarism before it occurs:

What to do if you believe an assignment is plagiarized:

Working with students suspected of plagiarism:

College of Humanities Procedures for Resolving Cases of Plagiarism

Additional Resources in Print or Online

This is the VOA Special English EDUCATION REPORT.

PROFESSORS AGAINST PLAGIARISM II

PROFESSORS AGAINST PLAGIARISM

Plagiarism in Colleges in USA

Copyright 2000 by Ronald B. Standler

Table of Contents

Introduction

1. Plagiarism

indicia of a quotation

ideas too?

paraphrasing without a citation is plagiarism

fine points of paraphrasing

2. Sources for plagiarized text

3. The Law of Plagiarism

copyright law

trademark and unfair competition law

fraud

statutes about sale of term papers, etc.

4. Cases Against Plagiarists in Colleges

student-plagiarists

professors who plagiarized

summary

5. Cases Against Commercial Sources

6. My Suggestions for Policy

How to detect plagiarism

7. Colleges may rescind degrees

double jeopardy ?

No plagiarism for ideas ?

Self-Plagiarization

Threat of Litigation AgainstReporters of Plagiarism

Links to Other Webpages

Conclusion

Threat of Litigation Against
Reporters of Plagiarism