Code of Practice for Dealing with Plagiarism

Introduction

1. Plagiarism is the act of copying, including or directly quoting from, the work of another without adequate acknowledgement. The submission of plagiarised materials for assessment purposes, plagiarism in publication or in public presentation, is fraudulent and all suspected cases will be investigated and dealt with appropriately by the University following the procedures outlined here and with reference to the Disciplinary Code.
2. All work submitted by students for assessment purposes, for publication or in public presentation, is accepted on the understanding that it is their own work and written in their own words except where explicitly referenced using the accepted norms and formats of the appropriate academic discipline.
3. Whilst some cases of plagiarism can arise through poor academic practice with no deliberate intent to cheat, this still constitutes a breach of acceptable practice and requires to be appropriately investigated and acted upon.
4. Regulations, guidelines and procedures regarding plagiarism should be made widely available and a statement included in course handbooks, websites, departmental noticeboards or appropriate handouts to students. Plagiarism can arise through ignorance and therefore it is important to ensure that students understand what is meant by the term and the seriousness of the offence.
5. Schools are recommended to consider requiring students to sign a short declaration that work submitted by them for assessment purposes, for publication or in public presentation,  is their own and that such a statement may be attached to a submitted piece of coursework, essay or dissertation (or signed at the start of each course/ academic year, acknowledging that the student has read and understood the plagiarism regulations). The purpose of this statement is to reinforce the principle of statement (2) above and to remind students of the requirements for the submission of a formally marked assessment.
6. Cases in which students knowingly permit others to copy their work shall also be subject to the procedures outlined here and considered an offence.

Procedures

7. A small number of staff should be identified in each College who would have responsibility for dealing with suspected and reported cases of plagiarism¹.  These staff are Designated Authorities, as described in the NUI Galway Student Code of Conduct.
8. These staff should be trained on the basic issues, be made aware of current best practice guidelines, techniques for minimising, detecting and responding to plagiarism, and current national and international developments across the HE sector.
9. A member of teaching staff who suspects that a submitted piece of student work may be plagiarised should notify the appropriate plagiarism adviser in their College/cognate area. A short report including a copy of the suspected example and any evidence for plagiarism should be forwarded to the adviser.
10. The plagiarism adviser shall conduct an investigation of the alleged plagiarism, firstly determining whether it represents a “minor” or “major” offence.
11. Minor cases are those in which the suspected plagiarism is a first offence and represents poor academic practice. Such cases include:
    • apparently innocent misuse of materials;
    • inadequate citation such as poor referencing, inappropriate paraphrasing;
    • over-reliance on sources without sufficient of the candidate’s own work;
    • those in which the suspected plagiarism represents only a small proportion of the work and/or an element in a piece of work which makes a small contribution to the mark for the module
12. The adviser will, in such cases, normally interview the candidate to discuss the suspected plagiarism.
13. If the adviser is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence of such an offence, the student will be given a written warning and provided with advice on avoiding plagiarism and the necessity of properly acknowledging and referencing sources.
14. Major cases are those which may include, for example:
    • copying multiple paragraphs in full without acknowledgement of the source;
    • taking essays from the Internet without revealing the source;
    • copying all or much of the work of a fellow student with, or without, his/her knowledge or consent;
    • submitting the same piece of work for assessment under multiple modules;
    • those involving a final year undergraduate or postgraduate student (taught or research);
    • a second offence where the student has been in receipt of an earlier written warning.
15. In consideration of possible major cases, the student will be notified, in writing, of the suspected offence, provided with a copy of the marked-up piece of work and invited to attend an interview with the plagiarism adviser and an additional member of staff².
16. The student will have the right to be accompanied and assisted, at the interview, by a “friend.”³
17. At the interview, the student will be given a clear explanation of what has been alleged, shown a copy of his/her work, given the opportunity to justify the work and be invited to admit or deny responsibility.
18. In such major cases, where the adviser is satisfied that an offence has occurred, the adviser is required to determine between three possible courses of action, depending on the apparent severity of the offence:
    (a) an opportunity to repeat and resubmit the work, but where the maximum mark that can be awarded is the pass mark appropriate to the module;
    (b) the immediate imposition of an academic penalty, which would normally be the award of zero marks to the plagiarised work, with no option to resubmit the work;
    (c) the submission of the case for consideration by the University’s Discipline Committee.
19. In all cases, the student will be notified in writing of the decision of the adviser and any penalty imposed.
20. In keeping with the University’s Code, the student shall be entitled to appeal a decision to the Appeals Board.
21. An appropriate record should be kept⁴ in respect of any upheld allegation, which can be consulted by the plagiarism adviser to determine whether a new case is potentially a second, or subsequent, offence.
22. Basic statistical information covering the number of cases referred to advisers, the number of written warnings and other penalties applied and their distribution across Departments and Faculties, should be collated by the University to inform subsequent modifications to these regulations and ascertain the requirement for wider training and information dissemination on this topic.

1 - This is in keeping with best practice recommendations from the UK’s JISC Plagiarism Advisory Service and also reflects practice in a number of institutions. Whilst it may seem like an additional burden in terms of administration, it offers a number of advantages of either leaving the responsibility to the Lecturer involved or indeed, the Head of Department. In some Universities each Department identifies one such staff member, in others, a single staff member may span a number of subjects within a broad “cognate area.” Further, having a small number of such staff clearly identified, across the University, who can readily be trained in such issues, ensures consistency of practice. It also enables “fast-tracking” of “minor” or admitted offences and responds to the outcome of Flanagan vs University College Dublin (1988, http://www.ucc.ie/law/irlii/cases/159jr-88.htm), as do the remainder of these guidelines.
2 - For example, the Head of Department, a senior staff member in the department, or another plagiarism adviser.
3 - As used in the University’s Code. This may, for example, be a parent or guardian; a fellow student or other friend; a representative from the Students’ Union; or a legal representative, if so desired.
4 - By the appropriate University office.

• Disclaimer
• Privacy
• Copyright
• Enquiries / Contacts
• Accessibility