Prepared by Prof. Avi Chomsky, History Department, Salem State College
Plagiarism
Salem State College Academic Integrity Regulations (1998-2000 Catalogue p. 266)
Salem State College assumes that all students come to the college with serious educational intent and expects them to be mature, responsible individuals who will exhibit high standards of honesty and personal conduct in their academic life. All forms of academic dishonesty are considered to be serious offenses against the College community....
Definition of Academic Dishonesty. Performing, aiding or inciding any of the actions listed below, in courses or other situations involving academic credit, constitutes an offense subject to disciplinary action.
2. Submitting another person’s work as one’s own. This includes, for example, copying another’s work during examinations, purchasing term papers, copying papers, reports, copying laboratory or computer restults, and presenting material from another course without acknowledgement.
The American Historical Association also takes a strong stand on plagiarism. According to the AHA:
“The word plagiarism derives from Latin roots: plagiarius, an abductor, and plagiare, to steal. The expropriation of another author's text, and the presentation of it as one's own, constitutes plagiarism and is a serious violation of the ethics of scholarship. It undermines the credibility of historical inquiry.
“In addition to the harm that plagiarism does to the pursuit of truth, it is also an offense against the literary rights of the original author and the property rights of the copyright owner. Detection can therefore result not only in academic sanctions (such as dismissal from a graduate program, termination of a faculty contract, or denial of promotion or tenure) but also in civil or criminal prosecution. As a practical matter, plagiarism between scholars rarely goes to court. Publishers are eager to avoid adverse publicity, and an injured scholar is unlikely to seek material compensation for misappropriation of what he or she gave gladly to the world. The real penalty for plagiarism is the abhorrence of the community of scholars.
The misuse of the writings of another author, even when one does not borrow the exact wording, can be as unfair, as unethical, and as unprofessional as plagiarism. Such misuse includes the limited borrowing, without attribution, of another historian's distinctive and significant research findings, hypotheses, theories, rhetorical strategies, or interpretations, or an extended borrowing even with attribution...
“Both plagiarism and the misuse of the findings and interpretations of other scholars take many forms. The clearest abuse is the use of another's language without quotation marks and citation. More subtle abuses include the appropriation of concepts, data, or notes all disguised in newly crafted sentences, or reference to a borrowed work in an early note and then extensive further use without attribution. All such tactics reflect an unworthy disregard for the contributions of others.”
What Reilly says (pp. 12-13)
“It is a common practice among hunting-gathering societies to assign different tasks to men and women... While small bands of men followed the larger wild animals, women gathered grains, seeds, nuts, fruits, roots, eggs, grubs, small animals and insects. Women’s work was steady and regular. Men’s work was more spectacular, but less reliable.”
Acceptable paraphrase:
“Reilly argues that in most hunting-gathering societies work was divided by gender: men tended to hunt and women to gather. He characterizes the difference between the two types of labor by noting that “women’s work was steady and regular” while “men’s work was more spectacular, but less reliable” (p. 12-13).
[Argument attributed to author. Quotation marks used where words are taken directly from the original.]
Plagiarism:
Reilly says that it is a common practice among hunting-gathering societies to assign different tasks to men and women, and that women’s work is usually steady and regular while men’s work is more spectacular, but less reliable (p. 12-13).
[Argument attributed to author, but words are taken directly from the text without using quotation marks.]
Plagiarism:
In most hunting and gathering societies different tasks were assigned to men and women: small bands of men hunted wild animals while women gathered grains and other foods. Men’s work was more spectacular than women’s, but women’s was more steady and regular.
[Argument not attributed to author. Words taken directly from the text without using quotation marks.]
American Historical Association
Statement on Plagiarism and Related Misuses of the Work of Other Authors
(Adopted May 1986; amended May 1990, May 1993, and May 1995*)
1. Identifying Plagiarism and Other Misuses
The word plagiarism derives from Latin roots: plagiarius, an abductor, and plagiare, to steal. The expropriation of another author's text, and the presentation of it as one's own, constitutes plagiarism and is a serious violation of the ethics of scholarship. It undermines the credibility of historical inquiry.
In addition to the harm that plagiarism does to the pursuit of truth, it is also an offense against the literary rights of the original author and the property rights of the copyright owner. Detection can therefore result not only in academic sanctions (such as dismissal from a graduate program, termination of a faculty contract, or denial of promotion or tenure) but also in civil or criminal prosecution. As a practical matter, plagiarism between scholars rarely goes to court. Publishers are eager to avoid adverse publicity, and an injured scholar is unlikely to seek material compensation for misappropriation of what he or she gave gladly to the world. The real penalty for plagiarism is the abhorrence of the community of scholars.
The misuse of the writings of another author, even when one does not borrow the exact wording, can be as unfair, as unethical, and as unprofessional as plagiarism. Such misuse includes the limited borrowing, without attribution, of another historian's distinctive and significant research findings, hypotheses, theories, rhetorical strategies, or interpretations, or an extended borrowing even with attribution. Of course, historical knowledge is cumulative, and thus in some contexts--such as textbooks, encyclopedia articles, or broad syntheses, the form of attribution, and the permissible extent of dependence on prior scholarship--will be different than in more limited monographs. As knowledge is disseminated to a wide public, it loses some of its personal reference. What belongs to whom becomes less distinct. But even in textbooks a historian should acknowledge the sources of recent or distinctive findings and interpretations, those not yet a part of the common understanding of the profession, and should never simply borrow and rephrase the findings of other scholars.
Both plagiarism and the misuse of the findings and interpretations of other scholars take many forms. The clearest abuse is the use of another's language without quotation marks and citation. More subtle abuses include the appropriation of concepts, data, or notes all disguised in newly crafted sentences, or reference to a borrowed work in an early note and then extensive further use without attribution. All such tactics reflect an unworthy disregard for the contributions of others.