How to Prevent Plagiarism in Student Work

Tomáš Foltýnek et al. How to Prevent Plagiarism in Student Work A Handbook for Academic Staff Tomáš Foltýnek et al. How to Prevent Plagiarism in Student Work A Handbook for Academic Staff Authors: Petr Černikovský, Tomáš Foltýnek, Josef Fontana, Zuzana Gojná, Dita Henek Dlabolová, Tomáš Holeček, Jan Hradecký, Irena Kozmanová, Jan Mach, Ondřej Prusek, Radka Římanová, Klára Tesaříková, František Vorel, Helena Vorlová Translated from the Czech by Adéla Válková Published by Charles University, Karolinum Press Ovocný trh 560/5, 11636 Prague 1 www.karolinum.cz Prague 2020 Cover illustration: Marie König Dudziaková Proofreading: Irene Glendinning, Peter Kirk Jensen Typesetting and graphic design: Pavel Haluza First English edition This handbook was published with the support of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports under the centralised development project MŠMT-12222/2019-3 Strengthening the prevention of plagiarism in student work. © Charles University, 2020 © Tomáš Foltýnek et al., 2020 Cover illustration © Marie König Dudziaková, 2020 Publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. ISBN 978-80-246-4817-0 (pdf) Contents 1 Introduction 5 2 Originality 6 3 Source referencing 8 4 Forms of plagiarism 14 5 Detecting plagiarised work 22 6 Penalising plagiarism 27 7 Final pieces of advice 32 8 References 35 3 1 Introduction Dear colleagues, pedagogical efforts bring both successes and failures, same as most human endeavours. We wish to experience predominantly those moments when our students’ activities bring us joy and incentives for our own development. What we wish to avoid, on the other hand, are situations when we as teachers encounter students’ attempts to cheat. This is a phenomenon which affects perhaps all educational systems and levels. In higher education practice, apart from copying during examinations, we also encounter unethical practices in the area of academic writing, the most noticeable of which is plagiarism. If we as supervisors fail to detect plagiarism and the student obtains an academic award, a large portion of the shame is attributable to ourselves. A later exposure of the plagiarism threatens the good name of the university and the specific department; and, the expertise of the particular supervisor is also questioned. Therefore, we created this handbook, which should provide clear yet sufficiently comprehensive guidelines for situations that may arise in connection with plagiarism in the day-to-day academic routine. The handbook offers the opportunity to consider not only the aspects of originality in student work and how to explain the importance of source referencing to students and forms of plagiarism, but also how to recognise plagiarism and what software tools can be used for this purpose. Further, the handbook describes applying penalties for plagiarism. Finally, we attempt to summarise the fundamental antiplagiarism advice from a teacher’s perspective into several practical pieces of advice. We do not assume that experienced supervisors of final theses are unfamiliar with any of the handbook’s contents. The purpose of this handbook is to provide a compact and concise overview of how to present the issue of plagiarism to students in an easily comprehensible way. The handbook will also help you prepare for their questions concerning the issue of plagiarism and academic writing. A different, abridged, but more accessible version is available for students themselves. We would like to express our thanks to the dozens of our colleagues who read this text and shared their remarks with us. Their feedback led to improved understandability in many parts of the text. Since we want this handbook to be concise, we will not incorporate all the remarks directly, but we will publish additional materials on http://plagiatorstvi.vse.cz/. On this website, it will be possible to continue adding comments and suggestions, which will emerge from applying this handbook in everyday practice. We hope that this handbook will find its place in your library or on your computer, and we wish you as few students as possible who would want to cheat you – and ultimately themselves. Authors 5 2 Originality An academic text always requires the author’s own ideas Each student finds out, usually during their first days at a university, that he or she will be expected to submit various types of written work (reports, seminar and final papers and, as the case may be, also research reports, academic articles or academic texts) and that it is expected that these texts will be original, in other words they will contain the student’s own ideas. But he or she may have doubts: what is an original idea? Different levels of personal contribution are expected in different types of academic work Not every piece of student work must be innovative. However, it must be original. That means that the submitted work was really written by the student and he or she does not claim the work of other authors as his or her own. Even a compilation of work can be original in that the student researched existing ideas, compared them and placed them into context. Different levels of personal contribution are expected in different types of academic work. The supervisor also carries some responsibility for the originality of student work. The topic of the work should also be original, not repeated each year, so thatthe studentisgivenan appropriateopportunityforhis orher owncreative contribution. Original ideas are the result of diverse activities Originality is emphasised in student work, but students should not be worried that all of their papers must lead to ground-breaking results. New findings arise in many differentways; perseverance, thoroughnessandpatience play a more important role than innate genius. In academic texts, original ideas arise, for example, by: • critically comparing two or more existing views on the same issue, • supporting, disproving or modifying an existing hypothesis or theory with new arguments, • empirically verifying an existing hypothesis or theory, • processing or interpreting existing data with an original method, • collecting new data, • formulating and verifying a new hypothesis, • suggesting a new solution to an existing problem, • proposing a new research method. 6 While different methods of creating new findings are usually combined in the works of advanced researchers, students at the beginning of their academic journey normally work on constituent tasks and often manage with a single method. Moreover, it is very common that commentators of other authors’ ideas gradually become creators of their own ideas. Authors should never hide from the reader where they found each part of their materials. Academic texts are parallel to a conversation in which the author’s own ideas create a dialogue with the ideas of other authors – sometimes they agree with them, at other times they compare or develop the ideas, show them from a different perspective, or even rebut them. However, the reader must always be able to distinguish the individual voices in the text. It is assumed that anything that is not referenced is the author’s original text or common knowledge.1 The quality of an academic text is not measured just by its originality Moreover, the student should not just rewrite other authors’ ideas; the vast majority of the writing should be in his or her own words. After all, that is the purpose of an academic text – to create an original work which is based on ideas published earlier. Nevertheless, the fact that the work is original does not necessarily mean that it is good. But that is a different question – one which concerns the academic quality of the work, and which must be assessed by a specialist in the given field. 1Graff, G., Birkenstein, C. They Say/I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing. 4th ed. W.W. Norton&Company, 2018. 7 3 Source referencing It is agreed that by the end of their studies at the latest, students should demonstrate an ability to create an independent academic text, the formal requisites of which ordinarily include referencing any sources used. But where and when should they learn that? This question is often asked by the students whose plagiarism was detected – they argue that they committed the offence precisely because they were never taught how to reference properly. Most Czech universities now dedicate specialised courses to practise this skill, or they incorporate such courses into compulsory university-wide foundation courses. However, in this chapter we assume that one course does not suffice to truly teach this skill, and it is equally illusory to assume that students will be equipped with it from their secondary school studies. On the contrary, it is important that they practise this skill continuously, throughout their entire studies, including in their core courses. This places additional demands on teachers who, apart from their specialist competences, must also have an insight into the logic of student writing and time to reflect upon these ‘formal components’ of student work. What problems does a teacher encounter most frequently in final theses and assignments, and how can these be resolved in the minimum time with the best possible outcomes? Plagiarism does not occur by accident Students are often worried that they will commit plagiarism by accident. They believe that an antiplagiarism check (whether carried out by antiplagiarism software or a teacher) is a random generator of sanctions which may affect anyone – after all, everyone overlooks something every now and then, or does not manage to add a citation while making final edits and feeling stressed. In reality, the chances that a serious form of plagiarism will result accidentally are very small to zero.2The role of the teacher, therefore, is not only to strengthen the fear of students who might consider cheating intentionally, but also to dispel the worries of students who prepare their work honestly. The fear of unintentional plagiarism might be explained by the fact that it often conflates the understanding of the purpose of referencing and the mastering of its technical execution. It is, therefore, key that students not only learn the correct format of referencing (that is, whether to cite in footnotes or in brackets, what styles are available, that it is necessary to cite consistently, and what tools can provide technical assistance), but crucially that they understand the purpose. 2Kozmanová, I. Kam až sahá akademická integrita? Nizozemské přemýšlení o dosahu a dělitelnosti. Dějiny a současnost, 2019, 8, 13–16. 8 Distinguish other people’s ideas from your own Academic texts typically combine ideas originating from other sources with the author’s or authors’ own ideas and conclusions. Drawing from other works or being inspired by another work is, naturally, perfectly in order. Without using what was developed earlier, progress would not be possible. Accordingly, the problem is not using another work, but rather not acknowledging the use. The reader is then justifiably under the impression that he or she is reading original (that is so far unpublished) ideas of the author or authors of the given work. It is always necessary to clearly distinguish the original from the adopted, and correctly refer to the source used. In this case, the term ‘correctly’ means that the source can be unambiguously identified and found based on the stated reference. The formal requirements of correct sourcereferencingaredetermined bythespecificcitation norm (fordetail see chapter 3). With an extremely formalistic interpretation of the definition, we could consider even formal errors in bibliography to be plagiarism. However, if such mistakes do not decrease the possibility of finding the original work, a material fulfilment of the definition of plagiarism is not established. The condition “to benefit in a setting where originality is expected” is also important. In academic texts, originality is almost always expected (see chapter 2) and the resulting benefit is in the form of credits, grades, academic award, financial gain, recognition by the academic community, etc. There are, however, situations, where originality is not expected, or different rules may apply to source referencing. These include the production of notes for personal use or learning through reproduction of other authors’ works, during which we acquire the necessary skills but a creation of an original work is not expected. 4.1 Typical forms of plagiarism Plagiarism typically includes: • the use of someone else’s findings and their presentation as the author’s own findings, • translation or paraphrase of another work and its presentation as an original work, • undeclared use of own, formerly published work (self-plagiarism), • incorrect citations and source referencing, • undeclared contributions to the work presented, • undeclared authorship of another person (contract cheating). 15 Verbatim and mosaic plagiarism Apartfromthe clearscenariowhenthe authorcopiessomeone else’s entire text without stating the source, plagiarism also includes adopting individual components of another work without making a reference to the original source of the idea, or stating it in a manner that makes it impossible to assess the extent of the adopted components. If, for example, a student copies several paragraphs word-for-word without quotation marks and he or she cites the source at the end of the copied passage, the extent of the adopted text is unclear. A similar problem arises if the citation is stated just at the beginning of a chapter although the given chapter draws on this source in several places. A further form of plagiarism is so-called mosaic plagiarism, which consists of the compilation of short text passages adopted from various sources (see image 1). Unless the student includes a citation for each adopted passage, this is plagiarism, even if all used sources are stated in the bibliography.8 Mosaic plagiarism led to the resignation of many politicians. The dissertation thesis of the former German Minister of Defence contained over 80 copied passages in more than one hundred pages. The most serious offence was a two-page-long similarity between the work and two other sources, neither of which was included in a footnote or in the bibliography. The second category of transgression of referencing integrity included text passages adopted verbatim or slightly amended, which were stated in the bibliography, but the source was not cited in the text itself. The last category was formed by passages adopted verbatim, the origin of which was stated within the text in a footnote, but they were not marked as direct quotations. Figure 1: Mosaic plagiarism 8For a more detailed description of individual forms of plagiarism, we recommend this publication: Walker, J. Student Plagiarism in Universities: What are we Doing About it? Higher Education Research & Development, 1998, 17 (1), 89–106. DOI: 10.1080/0729436980170105. 16 In the master’s thesis of a former Czech Minister of Justice, 16 pages (from a total of 48) were adopted from a work defended at the same university 2 years earlier. Entire pages were identical in the theoretical parts of the theses, including grammatical errors, formatting and typos. Paraphrasing or translation without referring to the original source of the idea The requirement to acknowledge the origin of a text remainsif the student changesthepresentationof the ideaadopted, for example by paraphrasing it or translating it into a different language. While the new and the original source do not show any textual similarity (and, as such, the similarity is practically undetectable by the current software tools supporting the detection of plagiarism), that does not change the fact that anidea wasusedfromother work. If the student does not reference this work, he or she commits plagiarism. A common mistake of students is that they translate a text word-for-word, or perhaps replace some words with synonyms, and they consider the result to be a paraphrase. However, only two methods are permissible in academic writing: either we directly use the original text in quotation marks, or we express the adopted idea in our own words. But to take an original text, change some words and remove the quotation marks is certainly not appropriate. Self-plagiarism As we have already stated, students can also commit plagiarism if they reuse their own work without acknowledgement. The definition of plagiarism above covers this by accentuating gaining a benefit. So, if someone reuses his or her own work, does not refer to it correctly and gains a benefit by it, that constitutes (self-) plagiarism. In terms of student work, that means, for example, that if a student wrote a seminar paper, submitted it for a certain course and received a grade for it, he or she cannot submit the same paper (or a part of it) as new in a different course and expect to receive another grade. The student would be assessed twice for the same paper, which is unfair. But what if the student really needs to use his or her work twice? This might happen in a situation where the student published the principal part of his or her thesis as an academic article prior to submitting the thesis. This is, of course, more than desirable. The published part cannot be omitted from the thesis, and at the same time the student wishes to reuse the text. How to avoid committing plagiarism in this case? The student may use the article in the thesis, but he or she must state that the given text has already been published, and refer to the article correctly. You as the supervisor should be able to advise students how to proceed in specific cases, and clarify how they can avoid potential problems with the publisher’s copyright. 17 A similar situation occurs when a student writing a master’s thesis follows on from his or her bachelor’s thesis. This is, naturally, allowed and often desirable, but two conditions must be fulfilled: First, it must be clear when readingthe master’s thesis what hasbeen adopted fromthe bachelor’s thesis andwhat isnew. And second, the student’s contribution to the master’s thesis must be significant enough to render the paper defensible. Incorrect source referencing Students may commit some forms of plagiarism unintentionally. Omitting a citation or another mistake might cause the reader to be unable to distinguish between ideas that havebeen adoptedandthe author’s original ideas, thusmeeting the definition of plagiarism. When deciding on penalties for plagiarism, the extent of the transgression as well as intention are considered. Unintentional omission will likely carry less serious consequences than intentionally misleading the reader by citing sources that do not contain the given idea, or which do not exist at all. Undeclared co-authorship Problems may arise when several people are involved in producing a work. Other people’s contributions to content creation is generally not a problem, but they must always be declared. By content creation, we do not mean copyediting which does not change the ideas of the work, text formatting, typographical, language or stylistic adjustment and similar. An acknowledgement to the supervisor tells us that the supervisor guided the student methodically, but he or she was not involved in producing the text. If an individual piece of work is an output from a team project, again it is necessary to distinguish which parts are the result of teamwork and which parts can be attributed to the author. Sometimes, it is impossible to avoid copying even several pages of text, for example from a common article. Typically, when a student performs measurements in a laboratory according to a previously published methodology created within a team, it is not wrong for them to copy that methodology or part of it into his or her own work. If they do not do that, the work might not make sense. If the student tried to rewrite the methodology in his or her own words mistakes and inaccuracies may be introduced. In any case, it is necessary to clearly state which parts of the text have been copied, and provide the source. Adopting work that is publicly available or that we have consent to use (e.g., under a Creative Commons licence, which grants a universal right to use the work) does not affect the fulfilment of the definition of plagiarism. It is a common error to think that referencing Wikipedia is not required since its content is publicly owned. This fact plays no role when it comes to the definition of plagiarism. It is someone else’s work, and if a student uses it, he or she must provide an appropriate 18 reference to it. Moreover, it is necessary to warn students, especially in the early phases of their studies, that Wikipedia is useful for an initial familiarisation with the issue and for finding academic articles, but it is rarely a suitable source for citing. In general, it is recommended that group projects are dealt with according to the practice common in many journals. In the case of a co-authored work, it is clearly stated who contributed and in what ways, that is who brought the main idea, who conducted the literature review, who processed data, who wrote up the body of the article, etc. In this way, the reader can have a clear idea about the contribution of each individual author. Commissioned papers It is, naturally, an exclusive right of the original author to grant consent for the use of his or her work without the obligation that he or she be stated as the author. That, however, does not change the fact that if we present such work as our own, we commit plagiarism. An example is socalled contract cheating (or academic ghostwriting), where a student commissions a work to be written by someone else, typically for remuneration, and the original author consents that his or her name will not be stated in the work. The student who puts his or her name to that work commits plagiarism. As such, contract cheating is a form of plagiarism which does not breach the Copyright Act, nevertheless it breaches good morals and academic integrity, and, according to the Higher Education Act, this conduct constitutes a potential reason for expulsion from the study programme or removal of an existing academic award. A great risk associated with contract cheating is also the fact that the plagiarist can easily be subsequently blackmailed by the actual author of the text, the intermediary company or a different entity familiar with the fraud. 4.2 What is not considered to be plagiarism Using common knowledge The definition of plagiarism refers to ideas adopted from another work. For many ideas, however, it is not possible to identify what work they come from. This concerns so-called common knowledge. Facts that are universally known may be stated without a source reference. Nevertheless, it should be recommended to students to use common knowledge sparingly. That is because it does not increase the information value of the work. Its use is reasonable in the introduction, discussion or conclusion sections of the work as a prelude to other (own or adopted) ideas. The definition of common knowledge 19 may change according to the field and the reader’s expected familiarity with the topic. Accordingly, that which is known by the vast majority of the presumed readers can be considered to be common knowledge. If a student is uncertain as to whether a given information is common knowledge or not, and he or she does not have the chance to consult the specific instance with a teacher, he or she should include a reference. It is also necessary to be prepared for the situation where a student who committed plagiarism defends himself or herself by arguing that the copied information is common knowledge. Proofreading, copyediting, translation If the external contribution to the work does not affect its ideas, we do not consider it to be plagiarism. This includes, for example, as already mentioned, copyediting or typographical adjustments. In the case of translations, the author of the work remains the same. It is appropriate to acknowledge the contribution of the translator, but in no case may the translator be stated as the author of the text. Summary Plagiarism may appear in many forms and arise in many ways. The common sign of plagiarism is always the adoption of someone else’s work or part of it, and not declaring the original source (whether the text or the idea is adopted verbatim, paraphrased or translated from a text in a foreign language). Students should not be afraid to use sources in their texts; on the contrary, their use is desirable. However, students must be guided to always clearly mark any adopted passages and their source so that the reader can distinguish between their own contribution and the contribution of work by different authors. 20 5 Detecting plagiarised work The role of the academic who will thoroughly read the work is key The work of an academic entails not only research and teaching, but also the prevention and detection of unethical conduct, including plagiarism. This is certainly not an easy task. Without doubt, no academic takes pleasure in discovering such practices by his or her colleagues or students. Research shows that teachers and students often disagree as to the interpretation of the motivation for cheating. This can then affect our practical handling of plagiarism.9 In an age of widely available information sources, a fundamental problem arises: how to effectively and correctly detect plagiarised work, and how to subsequently respond. This gave rise to a range of software tools aimed at aiding the detection of plagiarism. Universities also adopt various preventative measures. No measures can function, however, without a sufficient erudition of academics, who must understand the issue of plagiarism and its forms, and who should be thoroughly trained in the methods of detection and subsequent resolution of dishonest practices. The expert opinion of the supervisor and opponent (or opponents) is key. A part of the evaluation is not only the technical aspect of the work, but also the ethical aspect. The complexity of evaluating the originality of work results from the fact that the sources used in final thesis have varying levels of validity and availability. It is, therefore, important that the evaluator is an expert in the field. Both the supervisor and opponent must verify that all sources can be traced back, and in their review, they must certify that all rules of integrity in academic writing have been complied with. Plagiarism can be easily avoided if students regularly consult and present their text to their supervisors. If the supervisors do their jobs well, they draw their students’attention to anypotential shortcomingsin the text and helptheirstudents to correct them. Final theses are, nevertheless, created by students, and students are responsible not only for the technical quality but also for ethical aspects. It is clear that not all students accept their supervisors’ recommendations, or they do not implement them with sufficient care. Despite the efforts of the supervisors, the thesis still can contain defects which are impossible to resolve. 9Foltýnek, T. Vědecký smrtelný hřích. Plagiátorství: příčiny, důsledky, prevence. Dějiny a současnost, 2019, 8, 10–12. 21 Antiplagiarism systems The antiplagiarism system itself cannot make this decision – identifying a correct citation, random similarities due to common phrases or a correct use of the author’s own text always depends on the judgement of an academic. There is a wide variety of antiplagiarism systems available on the market – ranging from robust tools developed by commercial companies or universities, to freely available software which, however, may be of questionable quality. Some systems also provide tools for further communication between a teacher and a student for the purposes of teaching academic writing. Most of these systems currently work with text and focus on finding text similarities. This type of plagiarism is also the most relevant for this handbook, and for that reason we will now focus only on systems for detecting text similarities. The antiplagiarism system first transforms the uploaded document into plain text, from which it deletes any function words (e.g., prepositions and conjunctions), sometimes even numbers. Some systems can also deal with text uploaded in the form of an image due to optical character recognition. This is followed by a socalled lemmatisation phase, during which words are transformed into their basic form – as a result, the system can detect similarity between differently declined nouns or conjugated verbs. The system then compares the text in this form with a database. The extent of the database and the range of available sources have a significant influence on the successful detection of similarities. Some systems search not only through their own database of uploaded documents, but also through sources available on the internet andnegotiatedclosed sources(e.g., publishers’databases). However, there may be considerable differences even between systems that work online – they may not search through all available websites, but only through their indexed sources. This phase is time-consuming and computationally demanding, which is why it takes a relatively long time – it may take hours or even days. Similarity report After thecomparison ofdocuments isconcluded, the system highlights anydetectedsimilarities in a report – usually in a PDF format. A number of systems offer clear interactive reports in their online interfaces. By highlighting any similarities and referring to documents with which the given passages correspond, the system accomplished its job and any further decisions are up to the evaluator. 22 When working with a similarity report, it is good to realise that the system is not intelligent – it carries out a computationally demanding task, but the intellectual decision as to whether the detected similarity constitutes plagiarism must be made by a human. No system is currently able to determine if the discovered text is cited properly, or if the author correctly referenced the right source. Systems often detect random similarities in commonly used phrases, in long titles, and also in tables or in attachments which are bound to various rules or legislation. A certain rate of overlap is normal, and it is logical that the system will always detect a small percentage of similarity. The more advanced systems can also recognise similarity in cases where the text is not copied verbatim – most of them can deal with different forms of words (as a result of the lemmatisation, mentioned earlier) and different structures of sentences. Usually, they are not deceived by a couple of changed or added words. Currently, the majority of systems are not able to recognise a text changed by paraphrasing or translated into a different language.10 However, developers of the advanced systems are concentrating precisely on these functionalities, which means that we might get to see them soon. Use your own head, not just the system When evaluating student work, it is important to use one’s own know-how and not just rely on the results of softwareanalyses. The first indicationmight be an insufficient link between the stated information and original sources. This might result from careless use of sources, or from an evident concealment of primary sources. In that case, it is necessary to thoroughly compare the extent of similarities with the primary source. If the source is not referenced and a lack of originality of the text is suspected, it is then necessary to find the original source, for example by using an internet search tool. Putting several random sentences into a search tool should be part of a marker’s standard procedure, regardless of the output of the antiplagiarism system. If we have the original source and the likely plagiarised work at our disposal, we can identify further clues that could prove that the text is copied. The probability of creating two identical texts that include the same grammatical errors and typos is virtually zero. 10Foltýnek, T., Dlabolová, D., Anohina-Naumeca, A., Razi, S., Kravjar, J., Kamzola, L., Guerrero-Dib, J., Çelik, Ö., Weber-Wulff, D. Testing of Support Tools for Plagiarism Detection. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 2020, 17:46. DOI: 10.1186/s41239-020-00192-4. 23 A master’s thesis by a former Czech Minister of Justice showed a significant similarity to another master’s thesis. The author copied substantial passages of text, sometimes paraphrasing them slightly. Plagiarism was proved, due among other reasons, to identical sentences that included the same typos. In her second master’s thesis, plagiarism was proved through identical source referencing and copying a table, which contained incorrect data as a result of a change to the order of rows. When considering plagiarism, it is necessary to conduct a complex evaluation of the text. It is definitely not possible to work just with similarity percentages and conclude that a certain work is plagiarised on the basis of one number. Especially when it comes to final theses, it may happen that several students are working on the same or similar topics (e.g., they are analysing the same problem in a laboratory using identical methods, but applying different formulae; they are mapping different territories using identical methods; they are using the same software which describes and shows the chosen methodology, but for different tasks). It is evident that in such theses, a higher rate of similarity will be detected in the methodology sections. Students will write the text using their own words, but they cannot avoid using identical technical terminology. The teacher must examine this and comment on the similarity in his or her reviews. Procedure when plagiarism is detected In the case where a high rate of similarity with the original source is detected, and the source is not cited correctly (thus meeting the definition of plagiarism), it is necessary to thoroughly substantiate this fact in the review. The teacher and subsequently the defence committee must express their opinion during the defence as to whether or not the case is one of apparent intentional disregard for rules of integrity. A teacher evaluating a seminar paper must take into account the fact that by writing texts, a student is learning not only about the topic, but also the skill of academic writing. When assessing a transgression, the marker will consider an unintentional omission in a seminar paper differently than the same mistake in a master’s thesis. In the case of a systematic breach of rules for working with sources, and of a student’s apparent intention to present someone else’s ideas as his or her own, it is not possible to be lenient. The procedure for detected plagiarism is discussed in detail in chapter 6. 24 7 Final pieces of advice The previous chapters dealt with a number of important topics, whether theoretical (referencing rules, text originality) or more practical (detecting and penalising plagiarism). We would like to approach the final chapter from a purely practical perspective and summarise the topic in the form of advice, which should help to reduce the incidence of plagiarism in student work. We will begin with a simple motto: “Prevention is better than restrictions and sanctions.” 1. Make it clear to students from the beginning that any form of plagiarism is not permitted The academic environment is, in and of itself, quite a complicated place with a number ofinternal customs, relationships and operational rules. It might not be easyfor students toknow theirwayaround this environment perfectly from the beginning, and, at the same time, to understand that, in some areas, the boundaries are clearly fixed and no discussion is allowed. Across the academic community, plagiarism is generally regarded as a serious transgression. For that reason, a strict ban on plagiarism is an integral part of ethical codes, and sometimes it is even dealt with by special regulations or guidance on procedures. An unambiguous explanation is very much desirable as it prevents any potential doubts. On their own, however, the formal rules and expectations that the academic community should abide by are not enough. It is also necessary to ensure that individual members of the academic community are aware of them and understand them. Therefore, it is essential to keep explaining to students, at the beginning and during their studies, what plagiarism is, what different forms it can take, and that it is completely forbidden. Students then will not be able to plead ignorance as their excuse, and any case of plagiarism will be an intentional act. 2. Do not assume that students enter university with a (perfect) skill of academic writing Similarly, the following advice is aimed at the requirement for good awareness and education of students. Everyday practice clearly showsthat theknowledge, skills and attitudes of students who enter university studies vary significantly. The skill of academic writing is not tested as part of the admission process in many study programmes, and it is, therefore, unsurprising that many candidates begin their studies without this skill. For this reason, it is necessary to include the teaching of academic writing in all study programmes – not as an accessory subject, but as an integral part. Students should have the opportunity (or rather obligation) to complete at least a basic course on this issue, within which all the necessary requirements for fulfilling their study obligations 31 are comprehensibly explained to them. For some study programmes, basic knowledge and skill in this area will not be sufficient, and in those programmes, students should have the opportunity to complete different variations of the relevant courses or a different way of demonstrating the essential competences. Students must not encounter the teaching of academic writing for the first time while writing their final theses. 3. If you expect original work, prepare an original assignment Thethirdpiece ofadviceisvery simpleand following it requiresneither a lot of time nor resources. If we require original work from students, we should dedicate some time to designing an original assignment. Recycling topics for assignments (of any level) by itself invites plagiarism. How can we demand that students put effort into writing their work if teachers do not put effort into preparing an original topic? Why should I write a paper on a topic that has already been covered by ten other students? These and similar questions rightly come into students’ minds. Original work deserves an original assignment. 4. Do not supervise too many theses simultaneously This piece of advice is also very simple. Adhering to it, however, may prove more complicated and it depends on a number of factors within individual departments, study programmes and you yourself. Management of universities, guarantors or study programmes, department heads and individual academics should all make a common effort to ensure that supervisors have enough time and space for fulfilling their role and working with students. A merely formal supervision with no actual involvement and contribution is not the best arrangement. 5. If the work is extensive, check the student’s progress regularly Manystudentsstruggle whenwritingtheir final thesis. That might be due to content (development of the topic), wrong pace of work (time pressure), lack of skills or external factors. Some students contact their supervisors and ask for advice or help, others, unfortunately, keep silent and let the problem reach a stage that is hard to resolve. Plagiarism is one of the outcomes. One of the effective preventative measures, therefore, is regular communication with the student (see point 4) and checking the progress of his or her work. That does not mean that the checks should be overly frequent and merely formal. The goal is to have an overview of how the student is progressing, provide relevant feedback and offer help if the situation requires it. 32 6. Do not rely just on antiplagiarism systems; the opinion of an expert knowledgeable in the given issue (that is you!) is key Antiplagiarism systems are covered in detail in chapter 5. Here, we only want to highlight that such tools can never replace the work of a specialist who is knowledgeableabout thegiven issue. Theyaremerely toolsserving for amoreorless perfectcomparisonof the uploadedtext witha database of earlier published text sources. In this regard, the systems have a much better ability than humans to detect whether a student has copied a larger or smaller passage of a specific document into the text of his or her own work. However, only an expert knowledgeable in the given field can subsequently evaluate whether the detected similarity actually constitutes plagiarism (the source is not declared), whether the similarity is insignificant (stating common knowledge, false similarity), or whether the similarity is in fact desirable (correct citation, for example of a relevant article). Currently, systems are unable to make such a judgement and cannot understand the meaning of the text. It is also true, however, that without them we would be wholly oblivious in many situations as nobody can have a complete awareness of all work ever written. Therefore, do not be afraid to use them (more often rather than less), but always with common sense and a professional evaluation of their findings. Finally, we wish you to encounter plagiarism as little as possible, and to be able to dedicate your efforts to the professional development of your students instead of dealing with ethical transgressions. 33 8 References Celbová, I. Plagiát [heslo]. In: KTD: Česká terminologická databáze knihovnictví a informační vědy (TDKIV) [online]. Praha: Národní knihovna ČR, 2003– [cit.2020-10-29]. Dostupné z: https://aleph.nkp.cz/F/ ?func=direct&doc_number=000002675&local_base=KTD. ČSN ISO 5127 (010162) Informace a dokumentace – Slovník. Praha: Český normalizační institut, 2003. Česká technická norma. Fishman, T. ‘We Know It When We See It’ Is Not Good Enough: Toward a Standard Definition of Plagiarism That Transcends Theft, Fraud, and Copyright. In Proceedings of the 4th Asia Pacific Conference on Educational Integrity (4APCEI), 2009. Foltýnek, T. Vědecký smrtelný hřích. Plagiátorství: příčiny, důsledky, prevence. Dějiny a současnost, 2019, 8, 10–12. Foltýnek, T., Meuschke, N., Gipp, B. 2019. Academic Plagiarism Detection: A Systematic Literature Review. ACM Comput. Surv., 52 (6), 112:1–112:42. DOI: 10.1145/3345317. Foltýnek, T., Dlabolová, D., Anohina-Naumeca, A., Razi, S., Kravjar, J., Kamzola, L., Guerrero-Dib, J., Çelik, Ö., Weber-Wulff, D. Testing of Support Tools for Plagiarism Detection. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 2020, 17:46. DOI: 10.1186/s41239-020-00192-4. Graff, G., Birkenstein, C. They Say/I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing. 4th ed. W. W.Norton& Company, 2018. Kozmanová, I. Kam až sahá akademická integrita? Nizozemské přemýšlení o dosahu a dělitelnosti. Dějiny a současnost, 2019, 8, 13–16. Meuschke, N., Gipp, B. State of the Art in Detecting Academic Plagiarism. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 2013, 9 (1), 50–57. Sotolá, A. Porušení autorského práva, práv souvisejících s právem autorským a práv k databázi (Komentář). [on-line]. 2020 [cit. 4.4.2020]. Dostupné z: http://www.noveaspi.cz/products/lawText/13/6500/1/2?#pa_270. Walker, J. Student Plagiarism in Universities: What are we Doing About it? Higher Education Research & Development, 1998, 17 (1), 89–106. DOI: 10.1080/0729436980170105. Zákon č.111/1998 Sb., o vysokých školách a o změně a doplnění dalších zákonů (zákon o vysokých školách), ve znění pozdějších předpisů. Zákon č.121/2000 Sb., o právu autorském, o právech souvisejícím s právem autorským a o změně některých zákonů (autorský zákon), ve znění pozdějších předpisů. Zákon č.40/2009 Sb., trestní zákoník, ve znění pozdějších předpisů. 34