CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 212Academic integrity and plagiarismLegal Issues in EducationEthics in Business and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Rebels without a clause: towards an institutional framework for dealing with plagiarism by students

Park, Chris·2004·Journal of Further and Higher Education
DOI 10.1080/0309877042000241760
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper explores why an institutional framework for dealing with plagiarism by students is necessary and it outlines the main ingredients of such a framework that has been developed at Lancaster University. It defines plagiarism as a form of academic malpractice and frames it as a breach of academic integrity. The framework places a strong emphasis on prevention and education, backed up by robust and transparent procedures for detecting and punishing plagiarism. It is informed by a number of core pillars, including transparency, ownership, responsibility, academic integrity, compatibility with the institution's academic culture, focus on prevention and deterrence and support for and development of students' skills. The key criteria in evaluating the usefulness of such an institutional framework are transparency, appropriateness, fairness and consistency.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/0309877042000241760

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 47

  1. 10.1080/87567555.1995.9925531 · DOI
  2. 1999, Nature, 402, p. 222, 10.1038/46125 · DOI
  3. 1999, Education USA, 41, p. 10
  4. 2002, Economist, 362, p. 81
  5. Ardito SC, 2002, Information Today, 19, pp. 16–17
  6. Brandt DS, 2002, Computers in Libraries, 22, pp. 39–42
  7. 10.1023/A:1018720728840 · DOI
  8. Brumfiel G, 2002, Nature, 418, pp. 120–122
  9. 10.1007/BF02496661 · DOI
  10. Burnett S, 2002, Community College Week, 14, pp. 6–8
  11. Carroll J (2002)A Handbook for Deterring Plagiarism in Higher Education(Oxford, Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development)
  12. 10.1108/09513540010310378 · DOI
  13. Cole S, 1996, College Student Affairs Journal, 15, pp. 30–39
  14. Cole S, 1996, New Directions for Student Services, 73, pp. 67–77
  15. Dalton R, 1999, Nature, 402, p. 222, 10.1038/46125 · DOI
  16. 10.1007/BF01730111 · DOI
  17. Fialkoff F, 1993, Library Journal, 118, p. 56
  18. Foster AL, 2002, Chronicle of Higher Education, 48, pp. A37–A39
  19. Holden C, 1999, Science, 283, p. 483
  20. Hollinger RC, 1996, NASPA Journal, 33, pp. 292–306, 10.1080/00220973.1996.11072417 · DOI
  21. Howard RM, 2002, Education Digest, 67, pp. 46–50
  22. Johnston C, 2002, Times Higher Education Supplement, p. 6
  23. Kibler WL, 1993, NASPA Journal, 31, pp. 8–18, 10.1080/00220973.1993.11072332 · DOI
  24. Kibler WL, 1993, NASPA Journal, 30, pp. 252–267, 10.1080/00220973.1993.11072323 · DOI
  25. Kibler WL, 1994, NASPA Journal, 31, pp. 92–101, 10.1080/00220973.1994.11072345 · DOI
  26. 10.1207/S15328023TOP2902_06 · DOI
  27. 10.1080/0309877022000021748 · DOI
  28. 10.1080/08832323.1996.10116827 · DOI
  29. Mangan KS, 1997, Chronicle of Higher Education, 43, p. A11
  30. McCabe DL, 2001, American Educator, 25, pp. 38–43
  31. Mitchell CM, 1995, College Student Affairs Journal, 15, pp. 87–93
  32. Neto RB, 1996, Nature, 380, p. 371, 10.1038/380371b0 · DOI
  33. 10.1080/02602930301677 · DOI
  34. Partello P, 1993, Research Strategies, 11, pp. 174–179
  35. Raffetto WG, 1985, Community and Junior College Journal, 56, pp. 26–27
  36. Reams BD, 1987, Journal of College and University Law, 14, pp. 283–302
  37. Roberts RN, 1986, Journal of Law and Education, 15, pp. 369–384
  38. Roig M, 1997, Psychological Record, 47, pp. 113–123, 10.1007/BF03395215 · DOI
  39. Saunders EJ, 1993, Journal of Social Work Education, 29, pp. 224–230, 10.1080/10437797.1993.10778817 · DOI
  40. Silverman G, 2002, Newsweek, 140, p. 12
  41. Singhal AC, 1983, College Student Journal, 17, pp. 13–19
  42. Stone R, 1992, Science, 258, p. 1075, 10.1126/science.258.5085.1075 · DOI
  43. White EM, 1993, Chronicle of Higher Education, 39, p. A44
  44. Whiteneck P, 2002, Community College Week, 14, pp. 4–7
  45. 10.1080/87567555.1994.9926849 · DOI
  46. Young JR, 2001, Chronicle of Higher Education, 47, pp. A26–A28
  47. Zangrando RL, 1992, Publishing Research Quarterly, 7, pp. 57–64

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 212

Metadata

Authors
Park, C.
Affiliations
Lancaster University (GB)
Corresponding author
Park, Chris
ORCID
Park, Chris
Venue
Journal of Further and Higher Education
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2004-08
Volume
28
Issue
3
Pages
291-306
ISSN
  • 0309-877X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-9486
DOI
10.1080/0309877042000241760
OpenAlex
W2097552696
Cited by
212
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 10
FWCI
22.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Further and Higher Education (publishedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal Issues in Education
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Ethics in Business and Education
Keywords
plagiarism, academic integrity, institutional framework, academic malpractice, student misbehavior, plagiarism avoidance, academic culture, student skills development, Lancaster University

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review