Self-Plagiarism: Publishing Works Based on a Thesis or Dissertation

A question I am often asked is: Is it considered self-plagiarism to publish an article or some other output from one’s thesis?

I will start with a disclaimer: The contents of this post may not represent the views of my employer, an editor, or a publisher. There is no singular or universally accepted definition of self-plagiarism. This post is based on my expertise as a scholar of plagiarism and academic misconduct. I have written about self-plagiarism in this peer-reviewed article and I dedicate an entire chapter to the topic my book, Plagiarism in Higher Education: Tackling Tough Topics in Academic Integrity.

In this post, I use the word “thesis” to include any kind of student final summative written work including dissertations or other forms of final projects. A thesis can refer to undergraduate (often honours) work or graduate work, which is also called post-graduate work in some countries. In this post, I am talking specifically about student academic work that is supervised by a professor and receives approval and validation through formal evaluation such as a written appraisal of the work, an examination and/or an oral defence.

In this post I am talking more about a thesis with a traditional format (e.g., five or six chapters) than about a manuscript-based thesis (also called “thesis by publication” or “PhD by publication”). The queries I get about self-plagiarism are almost always about theses that follow a historically dominant structure with chapters that remains prevalent in the humanities and social sciences.

With these details covered, let’s get to the good stuff. Firstly, it is both expected and encouraged that students will publish from their thesis. After the oral defence or final thesis evaluation, the student’s work can be further refined and developed in order for it to be ready for publication. In many cases, student work may require substantive revisions (or even a complete overhaul) before it is suitable for publication in a journal or a book. It is foolhardy to assume that just because a student thesis has passed that it is automatically suitable for publication elsewhere. In some cases, there is still a lot of work to be done.

Here are the few things to think about after the thesis has been approved by the university authorities:

Archiving the Thesis in a Digital Repository

Our friendly institutional librarians at the University of Calgary have clarified for me on a previous occasion that theses are considered “unpublished”. Adding a thesis to a digital repository means it is “archived”, but not “published”. Learning that distinction was helpful for me.

Request an embargo on the release of the thesis into the public domain

Students can ask for an embargo on the release of the thesis until the results are published (e.g., journal article, book chapter or any other format). There seems to be a distressing but growing predatory practice around graduate student theses (or the data therein) being misappropriated, repackaged, and published under someone else’s name. I have heard of two such instances recently and, anecdotally, it seems this practice is growing internationally, though I have no data to substantiate this assertion.

This recommendation stems not from protecting oneself from self-plagiarism, but rather from predatory “bad actors” who have the intention of harvesting your work before you yourself have published it.

An embargo on a thesis should be requested for a reasonable and finite period of time, with the goal of making the research publicly accessible at some point within a couple of years of graduation, unless there is a compelling reason to extend the embargo longer than that.

Advice About How to Avoid Allegations of Self-plagiarism 

To avoid questions about academic or research misconduct, and specifically self-plagiarism, that can emerge when a student publish works derived from their thesis, there are two points to consider: communication and transparency. Both points should be taken into consideration.

Communication: Correspond with the Editor Prior to Submission

I recommend that students/graduates correspond with the journal editors prior to, or at the time of manuscript submission, in writing, to ensure full transparency. State clearly that the manuscript is drawn from the thesis and parts of it may be replicated exactly (e.g., methods section). Other parts of the manuscript may be derived (and/or significantly revised) from the thesis and if that is the case, offer some details, but avoid going overboard. Ask directly if such a submission would be considered by the journal / publisher. There is no harm is being clear and transparent with journal editors in this regard.

If the journal editor says no, then consider withdrawing the manuscript and trying a different publication. It is important to recognize that editors have the authority to make such judgements, so don’t be rude or try to convince the editor that their decision is wrong. Maintain a polite and professional tone at all times. Thank them for considering your request and move on.

If the editor says yes, then you are ready to proceed. Ensure you are attending to the matter of transparency during the preparation of your manuscript.

If you communicate with an editor orally (e.g., a face-to-face conversation or a video call), follow up in writing to document the conversation. Ask for confirmation that you have understood the agreement correctly. 

I recommend keeping a record of your written correspondence in case you ever need it again in the future.

Transparency: Declare the re-use of previous content in the manuscript itself

As you prepare your manuscript for submission, ensure you are being transparent about the re-use of content derived from your thesis. This can be done in a couple of ways:

Explicit transparency statement: Add a declaration to the article/chapter/knowledge output stating that it is derived from your thesis. This way, you are declaring there may be some duplication helps to mitigate concerns about self-plagiarizing. You do not need be excessive with your statement. You can keep it short and simple. Here is some sample text that you are welcome to use, re-use, or adapt (as in, I am openly giving anyone permission to use or adapt this statement):

“This work is derived from my doctoral dissertation. Portions of the text resemble or may replicate the original text from my unpublished PhD thesis and have been reproduced as such with the permission of the editors”.

Note that if you use this statement verbatim, it may (ironically) be picked up by text-matching software used by publishers (i.e., flagged for possible plagiarism). I won’t take responsibility for that, so use some judgement in how you prepare your transparency statement.

Attribution: Self-citation is a contested issue in academic publication and it is prudent to avoid over-citing oneself. There are some circumstances in which self-citation is appropriate and this is one of them. When you are deriving work from your thesis, it is appropriate to cite your thesis in the list of references of your publication.

Be careful and attentive when it comes to attribution in publications derived from your thesis. You still need to cite any original works that your thesis drew from. I once saw a manuscript derived from a student thesis and the only work listed in the references was the student thesis! This is disrespectful to the authors of any original works the student thesis was drawn from, so be sure to give credit where it is due. Ensure you give attribution to the authors whose work informed your thesis and any subsequent publications.

This does not mean that you need to replicate the entire bibliography from your thesis in subsequent publications, unless, of course, you are specifically citing every single source in the publication. Instead, be meticulous and mindful to ensure that the specific sources that inform subsequent publications are cited appropriately. Details matter, and if you are going to publish from your thesis, it is worth it to focus on producing the highest quality publication possible.

Finally, assuming that you have a good relationship with your supervisor, I recommend that you keep them informed. In some cases, co-publication with the supervisor may be appropriate, but not in all cases. Co-publishing with one’s supervisor is a topic for another blog post, so I won’t delve deep into those complexities here. Suffice to say that staying in touch with your supervisor about the publication of your work may be beneficial to you, depending on the circumstances.

The bottom line is that concerns about self-plagiarism might be solved with open communication and transparency.

Further reading

I have learned a lot about self-plagiarism from Miguel Roig and if you are interested in the topic, I recommend reading his work. Here are some suggestions:

• Roig, M. (2005). Re-using text from one’s own previously published papers: An exploratory study of potential self-plagiarism. Psychological Reports, 2005(97), 43-49. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.97.1.43-49
• Roig, M. (2008). The debate on self-plagiarism: Inquisitional science or high standards of scholarship? Journal of Cognitive & Behavioral Psychotherapies, 8(2), 245-258.
• Roig, M. (2010). Plagiarism and self-plagiarism: What every author should know. Biochemia Medica, 20(3), 295-300. https://www.biochemia-medica.com/en/journal/20/3/10.11613/BM.2010.037
• Roig, M. (2023). On recycling our own work in the digital age. In S. E. Eaton (Ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity (2nd ed., pp. 1-20). Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_15-2

Related posts

How to Get Your Academic Article Published in a High Quality Journal  https://drsaraheaton.wordpress.com/2024/01/02/how-to-get-your-academic-article-published-in-a-high-quality-journal/

What is the difference between a thesis, a dissertation and a capstone project? https://drsaraheaton.wordpress.com/2018/02/06/what-is-the-difference-between-a-dissertation-a-thesis-and-a-capstone-project/

What’s the difference between a citation and a reference?  https://drsaraheaton.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/whats-the-difference-between-a-citation-and-a-reference/ 

What’s the difference between a manuscript and an article?

What’s the difference between a manuscript and an article?

____________________________

Share this post: Self-Plagiarism: Publishing Works Based on a Thesis or Dissertation – https://drsaraheaton.wordpress.com/2024/01/28/self-plagiarism-publishing-works-based-on-a-thesis-or-dissertation/

This blog has had over 3.6 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks!

Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a faculty member in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.

Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, Editor-in-Chief, International Journal for Educational Integrity

Plagiarism Witch Hunts Cause Harm

We are at the end of the first week of January 2024 and so far, the media (at least in North America) has made plagiarism a topic of the year. Claudine Gay, the (now former) President of Harvard University resigned on January 2. Her case has been written about extensively in the news and I won’t repeat all the details here. I will highlight one point that is relevant for this post. Writing for the New Yorker, Emma Green highlights that “what ultimately brought Gay down wasn’t the furor over her testimony. It was accusations of plagiarism in her scholarly work, which has focused in part on Black political participation.” I’ve given media commentary on this case here and here.

One of the people who campaigned against Gay on social media was William Ackman, a billionaire hedge fund manager. Next thing we hear in the media is that Ackman’s wife, Neri Oxman, a former M.I.T. professor, has been accused of plagiarism. Ackman counters by saying that he will ensure that all professors at M.I.T., including its president, will have all their work reviewed for plagiarism and he will fund the efforts to do so.

What is Plagiarism?

Before I go any further, let’s back for a moment and talk about what plagiarism actually is. In my book, Plagiarism in Higher Education: Tackling Tough Topic in Higher Education, I explore the historical and contemporary understandings of plagiarism. I’ve also researched academic misconduct and integrity policies. In one study, I conducted an in-depth comparative analysis of the definitions of plagiarism at twenty (20) different universities. From my research, I can say with certainty that there is no singular or universally accepted definition of plagiarism. Some universities say plagiarism is only about copying text without attribution, whereas others might go further including the plagiarism of ideas, computer code, or musical composition.

We all think we are talking about the same thing when we say the word, “plagiarism”, but that isn’t necessarily the case. What most people can agree on is that copy-and-paste without attribution is generally viewed as being unacceptable, regardless if it is intentional or just sloppy scholarship. What we do about plagiarism when we find it is another matter about which there is no consensus.

The Weaponization of Plagiarism

Jonathan Bailey hit the nail on the head earlier this week when he said that plagiarism has been weaponized. Plagiarism investigations post-graduation are less about student success than they are about discrediting and causing harm to the person being investigated. I have yet to see a plagiarism investigation conducted after someone has graduated that is not a search-and-destroy mission. Side note: Phill Dawson has a great chapter on surveillance and the weaponization of academic integrity in his book, Defending Assessment Security in a Digital World. If you haven’t already read Phill’s book, I highly recommend it.

Plagiarism allegations can be shrouded in moral righteousness, but as Ackerman has recently shown, someone with enough resources and motivation can take plagiarism investigations to a whole new level. Scrutinizing the work of the professoriate at scale for plagiarism would be unprecedented. If Ackerman follows through, it could mean that every university president and professor in the United States and beyond could have their academic work from their student days scrutinized like never before.

What’s the Difference Between Student Plagiarism and Professional Plagiarism?

This could no doubt be a topic of great debate, but for me, the answer is pretty straightforward. Students are still learning. It is our job as educators to ensure students have every opportunity to learn. There’s oodles of research to show that first-year university students are more likely to cheat and commit plagiarism than senior students. First-year students need more support to learn writing, citing, and referencing skills to help them be successful as they move through their post-secondary programs.

As students advance through their academic programs we expect them to build their knowledge, skills, and competencies. By the time someone graduates, we, as an academic community and a society, expect that they have the skills and knowledge they need to be able to engage in professional work. That’s the basic idea behind graduation: you have successfully completed your academic program and you are now qualified to work in your chosen field.

As a result, we hold professors and administrators to higher academic and professional standards than students. Presumably, professors have already learned the foundations of their field of study, as well as basic understandings of academic and research integrity. In other words, by the time someone is a professor, they should know better.

Post-Facto Plagiarism Allegations and Investigations 

A retroactive investigation into a person’s academic work while they were a student is often an exercise in discrediting someone in their current professional role. Pointing fingers after the fact is rarely helpful. Addressing allegations of student academic misconduct is the responsibility of the educational institution. Failing to do so reflects poorly on the institution, as much as on the student (or alum) who allegedly engaged in misconduct. There have been cases in which universities have rescinded degrees after graduation upon a finding of academic misconduct proven long after convocation. I recall one such case from my own university some years ago. In other words, there is a lot at stake.

I am not suggesting that post-graduation cases of plagiarism or other forms of academic misconduct should be ignored or swept under the rug. I am saying that if an allegation of misconduct is not brought forward or investigated until after graduation, the opportunity for student learning has been lost, and the consequences can be devastating for the individual whose work comes under scrutiny. 

Where Are all the Graduate Supervisors?

In the cases of Claudine Gay and Neri Oxman, the allegations of plagiarism focused, at least in part, on their graduate theses. As a plagiarism scholar who is also a professor and a graduate supervisor, I cannot help but ask myself: What about the academic advisors who supervised these dissertations? Why is no one talking to them?

PhD dissertations do not just get posted in an online public archive without scrutiny. There are multiple levels of reviews and revisions, as well as a rigorous examination at the end. At any respectable university, the thesis is examined, in writing, by oral defence, or both, by academics who have expertise related to the thesis. The graduate supervisor, and often others, sign off on the work. Sometimes, there is a signature page that becomes part of the front matter of a thesis before it is archived in the public record. The signatures from supervisors and examiners serve as a public attestation of quality of the approved thesis.

If you ask me, every person who signs off on a graduate student thesis bears some responsibility for its quality. This is not to say that we should absolve students of their responsibility to act with integrity, but I am saying that student plagiarism is as much a collective responsibility of the academic community as it is an individual one. Why are journalists not asking the graduate supervisors or professors for commentary about their former students? Surely, any graduate supervisor who believes in their former student’s work and its worth would be willing to stand up and defend not only the student, but their own competence as PhD supervisors — especially after they have supported the doctoral studies and signed off on the work?

Human Rights, Anyone?

In North America we have been obsessed with witch hunts for centuries. So far, 2024 is shaping up to be the year when plagiarism becomes the weapon of the right/righteous to prosecute and punish. The accused are publicly shamed and humiliated as investigations become the latest scandal for the media to cover.

In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations states that even in criminal matters, “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.” (See Article 10). Yet, when it comes to public intellectuals and high-profile academics, members of the public and media act as judge and jury, and the right to a fair and impartial investigation gets thrown out the window in favour of a witch hunt.

Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, goes on to say, “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.” Somehow, public allegations of academic misconduct rarely allow for the presumption of innocence. Individuals who are publicly accused of plagiarism are presumed to be guilty and are forced to prove their own innocence. (Also sounds a bit like a witch hunt, right?) In other words, intellectuals subjected to public allegations of plagiarism are sometimes treated worse than common criminals.

And let’s not forget the first and most important part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” (Article 1). 

Those of us who regularly serve on academic and research misconduct panels know that following due process is an essential aspect of the work. Even when there are findings of misconduct and individuals are held responsible, we focus on the behaviour and not the person. Academic and research misconduct investigations and hearings, when done ethically, are often complex and difficult undertakings. Misconduct hearing members have a responsibility to proceed with care and caution, weighing multiple and sometimes conflicting details. We distinguish between a person’s actions and their value as a human being. Even when there is a finding of misconduct, we do not judge a person as being good or evil; we do our best to uphold human rights, which includes the right to dignity.

In public scandals about academic misconduct and plagiarism, individuals under scrutiny can be quickly stripped of their dignity, their reputation, and their livelihood. I am not suggesting that misconduct should not be investigated and addressed, but I am suggesting that when we, as a society, fail to uphold basic human rights when investigating plagiarism and other forms of academic misconduct, we have lost our humanity. Upholding human rights should be a fundamental aspect of all misconduct investigations.

References

CBC News. (2018, September 19). Alberta judge upholds university’s right to rescind master’s degree over plagiarism. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-judge-university-plagiarism-masters-degree-1.4830594

Bill Ackman to check all MIT faculty members for plagiarism after wife Neri Oxman accused of copying parts of thesis. (2024, January 6). South China Morning Post. https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/3247498/bill-ackman-check-all-mit-faculty-members-plagiarism-after-wife-neri-oxman-accused-copying-parts

Dawson, P. (2021). Defending assessment security in a digital world: Preventing e-cheating and supporting academic integrity in higher education. Routledge. 

Green, E. (2024, January 5). Why some academics are reluctant to call Claudine Gay a plagiairst. New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-some-academics-are-reluctant-to-call-claudine-gay-a-plagiarist

Haidar, E. H., & Kettles, C. E. (2024, January 3). Harvard President Claudine Gay Resigns, Shortest Tenure in University History. Harvard Crimson. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/1/3/claudine-gay-resign-harvard/

Hartocollis, A., & Betts, A. (2024, January 5). Wife of Investor Who Pushed for Harvard President’s Exit Is Accused of Plagiarism. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/05/us/plagiarism-bill-ackman-neri-oxman-claudine-gay-harvard.html

Mazer, J. P., & Hunt, S. K. (2012). Tracking plagiarism electronically: First-year students’ perceptions of academic dishonesty and reports of cheating behaviour in the basic communication course. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 8(2), 57-68. https://ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/IJEI/article/view/810/ 

McMutrie, B. (2024, January 4). A Brief Guide to How Colleges Adjudicate Plagiarism Cases. Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/a-brief-guide-to-how-colleges-adjudicate-plagiarism-cases

Romo, V. (2024, January 3). Claudine Gay’s resignation highlights the trouble with regulating academic writing. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2024/01/03/1222588885/harvard-president-claudine-gay-resigns-plagiarism

United Nations. (n.d.). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights 

____________________________

Share this post: Plagiarism Witch Hunts Cause Harm https://drsaraheaton.wordpress.com/2024/01/07/plagiarism-witch-hunts-cause-harm/

This blog has had over 3 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks!

Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a faculty member in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.

Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, Editor-in-Chief, International Journal for Educational Integrity

Unveiling the Handbook of Academic Integrity (2nd ed.) in Dubai

The 1st Asia -Middle East – Africa Conference on Academic and Research Integrity (ACARI) 2023, 17-19 December at Middlesex University Dubai. It was against this backdrop that the highly anticipated Handbook of Academic Integrity (2nd ed.), published by Springer, was unveiled at a dazzling soft launch, marking a milestone in the book’s journey and the evolution of academic integrity knowledge-sharing and community-building.

The handbook is now in its final stages of production, and the standalone second edition will be released in hard copy in January, 2024. To celebrate, Dr. Zeenath Reza Khan, who serves as one of the handbook’s section editors and contributors, and was a co-chair of the 1st Asia -Middle East – Africa Conference on Academic and Research Integrity (ACARI) 2023, 17-19 December led the organization of the soft launch for the handbook during the conference.

The launch was held during the closing ceremony of the conference on the final day in an auditorium at the prestigious Middlesex University Dubai, was both festive and scholarly, as it brought together educators, researchers, and advocates for academic integrity. In addition to conference delegates, a number of esteemed dignitaries attended including, His Excellency, Jamal Hossain, Consul General of Bangladesh to UAE; Dr. Mohammad Ali Reza Khan, Award-winning Expert Wildlife Specialist, Dubai Municipality, along with Professor Cedwyn Fernandes, Pro Vice Chancellor of Middlesex University and Director of Middlesex University Dubai. Special thanks to Ms. Rania Sheir, Senior Specialist, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Ministry of Education, UAE, who not only attended the launch, but also posted about it on LinkedIn.

The Handbook, meticulously curated by leading experts in the field, is a compendium of insights, strategies, and best practices aimed at upholding the ethical practices in academia and research. It covers a diverse range of topics, from plagiarism to artificial intelligence, to the promotion of ethical behaviour in academic research, and much more. The multidimensional approach of the Handbook of Academic Integrity  ensures that it caters to the needs of educators, administrators, and students alike.

A number of contributing authors were in attendance, including:

• Zeenath Reza Khan, Prakash Vel, Evira Asylguzhina and Veena Mulani – “Understanding Contract Cheating and Essay Mills Through a Social Lens in the Era of Web 3.0”
• Salim Razı – “Streamlined Collaboration to Face Academic Integrity Threats”
• Shiva Sivasubramaniam – “Academic Integrity in South Asia: Focus on India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka” 
• Yvonne Kavanagh – “Enhancing Cultures of Academic Integrity in Irish Higher Education” (co-authored with Sue Hackett, William Kelly, and Iain MacLaren)
• Anna Abalkina – “Quality and Policies for Academic Integrity: Challenges Faced by Russian Universities” 
• Sonja Bjelobaba – “Building a Multinational Transdisciplinary Integrity Project: Insights From the BRIDGE Project”
• Thomas Lancaster – “Contract Cheating: Practical Considerations”
• Ann Rogerson – “Student Peer-to-Peer File Sharing as an Academic Integrity Issue”

Dr. Zeenath generously gifted two colleagues and me with authentic saris that we wore during the closing ceremony and the launch. As you can see from the photo below, I was given one in dark green and I just love it! I had an opportunity to say a few words about the book and its importance in the field, and to thank the organizers and authors. Each contributor was gifted a symbolic souvenir cut-out of the front cover of the handbook and following the formalities, we signed the back of one another’s covers.

The book launch culminated in a celebratory atmosphere, with attendees leaving inspired. The Handbook of Academic Integrity (2nd ed.), now poised to be a cornerstone in the field, builds on the first edition and stands as a testament to the collective commitment to nurturing a culture of integrity throughout every level of education and research.

Photo gallery:

____________________________

Share this post: Unveiling the Handbook of Academic Integrity (2nd ed.) in Dubai – https://drsaraheaton.wordpress.com/2023/12/28/unveiling-the-handbook-of-academic-integrity-2nd-ed-in-dubai/

This blog has had over 3 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks!

Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a faculty member in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.

The Use of AI-Detection Tools in the Assessment of Student Work

People have been asking if they should be using detection tools to identify text written by ChatGPT or other artificial intelligence writing apps. Just this week I was a panelist in a session on “AI and You: Ethics, Equity, and Accessibility”, part of ETMOOC 2.0. Alec Couros asked what I was seeing across Canada in terms of universities using artificial intelligence detection in misconduct cases.

The first thing I shared was the University of British Columbia web page stating that the university was not enabling Turnitin’s AI-detection feature. UBC is one of the few universities in Canada that subscribes to Turnitin.

The Univeristy of British Columbia declares the university is not enabling Turnitin’s AI-detection feature.

Turnitin’s rollout of AI detection earlier this year was widely contested and I won’t go into that here. What I will say is that whether AI detection is a new feature embedded into existing product lines or a standalone product, there is little actual scientific evidence to show that AI-generated text can be effectively detected (see Sadasivan et al., 2023). In a TechCrunch article, Open AI, the company that developed ChatGPT, talked about its own detection tool, noting that its success rate was around 26%. 

Key message: Tools to detect text written by artificial intelligence aren’t really reliable or effective. It would be wise to be skeptical of any marketing claims to the contrary.

There are news reports about students being falsely accused of misconduct when the results of AI writing detection tools were used as evidence. See news stories here and here, for example. 

There have been few studies done on the impact of a false accusation of student academic misconduct, but if we turn to the literature on false accusations in criminal offences, there is evidence showing that false accusations can result in reputation damage, self-stigma, depression, anxiety, PTSD, sleep problems, social isolation, and strained relationships, among other outcomes. Falsely accusing students of academic misconduct can be devastating, including dying by suicide as a result. You can read some stories about students dying by suicide after false allegations of academic cheating in the United States and in India. Of course, stories about student suicide are rarely discussed in the media, for a variety of reasons. The point here is that false accusations of students for academic cheating can have a negative impact on their mental and physical health.

Key message: False accusations of academic misconduct can be devastating for students.

Although reporting allegations of misconduct remains a responsibility of educators, having fully developed (and mandatory) case management and investigation systems is imperative. Decisions about whether misconduct has occurred should be made carefully and thoughtfully, using due process that follows established policies.

It is worth noting that AI-generated text can be revised and edited such that the end product is neither fully written by AI, nor fully written by a human. At our university, the use of technology to detect possible misconduct may not be used deceptively or covertly. For example, we do not have an institutional license to any text-matching software. Individual professors can get a subscription if they wish, but the use of detection tools should be declared in the course syllabus. If detection tools are used post facto, it can be considered a deception on the part of the professor because the students were not made aware of the technology prior to handing in their assessment. 

Key message: Students can appeal any misconduct case brought forward with the use of deceptive or undisclosed assessment tools or technology (and quite frankly, they would probably win the appeal).

If we expect students to be transparent about their use of tools, then it is up to educators and administrators also to be transparent about their use of technology prior to assessment and not afterwards. A technology arms race in the name of integrity is antithetical to teaching and learning ethically and can perpetuate antagonistic and adversarial relationships between educators and students.

Ethical Principles for Detecting AI-Generated Text in Student Work

Let me be perfectly clear: I am not at all a fan of using detection tools to identify possible cases of academic misconduct. But, if you insist on using detection tools, for heaven’s sake, be transparent and open about your use of them.

Here is an infographic you are welcome to use and share: Infographic: “Ethical Principles for Detecting AI-Generated Text in Student Work” (Creative Commons License: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International). The text inside the infographic is written out in full with some additional details below.

Here is some basic guidance:

Check your Institutional Policies First

Before you use any detection tools on student work, ensure that the use of such tools is permitted according to your school’s academic integrity policy. If your school does not have such a policy or if the use of detection tools is not mentioned in the policy, that does not automatically mean that you have the right to use such tools covertly. Checking the institutional policies and regulations is a first step, but it is not the only step in applying the use of technology ethically in assessment of student work.

Check with Your Department Head

Whether the person’s title is department head, chair, headmaster/headmistress, principal, or something else, there is likely someone in your department, faculty or school whose job it is to oversee the curriculum and/or matters relating to student conduct. Before you go rogue using detection tools to catch students cheating, ask the person to whom you report if they object to the use of such tools. If they object, then do not go behind their back and use detection tools anyway. Even if they agree, then it is still important to use such tools in a transparent and open way, as outlined in the next two recommendations.

Include a Statement about the Use of Detection Tools in Your Course Syllabus

Include a clear written statement in your course syllabus that outlines in plain language exactly which tools will be used in the assessment of student work. A failure to inform students in writing about the use of detection tools before they are used could constitute unethical assessment or even entrapment. Detection tools should not be used covertly. Their use should be openly and transparently declared to students in writing before any assessment or grading begins.

Of course, having a written statement in a course syllabus does not absolve educators of their responsibility to have open and honest conversations with students, which is why the next point is included.

Talk to Students about Your Use of Tools or Apps You will Use as Part of Your Assessment 

Have open and honest conversations with students about how you plan to use detection tools. Point out that there is a written statement in the course outline and that you have the support of your department head and the institution to use these tools. Be upfront and clear with students.

It is also important to engage students in evidence-based conversations about the limitations tools to detect artificial intelligence writing, including the current lack of empirical evidence about how well they work.

Conclusion

Again, I emphasize that I am not at all promoting the use of any AI detection technology whatsoever. In fact, I am opposed to the use of surveillance and detection technology that is used punitively against students, especially when it is done in the name of teaching and learning. However, if you are going to insist on using technology to detect possible breaches of academic integrity, then at least do so in an open and transparent way — and acknowledge that the tools themselves are imperfect.

Key message: Under no circumstances should the results from an AI-writing detection tool be used as the only evidence in a student academic misconduct allegation.

I am fully anticipating some backlash to this post. There will be some of you who will object to the use detection tools on principle and counter that any blog post talking about how they can be used is in itself unethical. You might be right, but the reality remains that thousands of educators are currently using detection tools for the sole purpose of catching cheating students. As much as I rally against a “search and destroy” approach, there will be some people who insist on taking this position. This blog post is to offer some guidelines to avoid deceptive assessment and covert use of technology in student assessment.

Key message: Deceptive assessment is a breach of academic integrity on the part of the educator. If we want students to act with integrity, then it is up to educators to model ethical behaviour themselves.

References

Sadasivan, V. S., Kumar, A., Balasubramanian, S., Wang, W., & Feizi, S. (2023). Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected? ArXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.11156

Fowler, G. A. (2023, April 3). We tested a new ChatGPT-detector for teachers. It flagged an innocent student. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/04/01/chatgpt-cheating-detection-turnitin/

Jimenez, K. (2023, April 13). Professors are using ChatGPT detector tools to accuse students of cheating. But what if the software is wrong? USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2023/04/12/how-ai-detection-tool-spawned-false-cheating-case-uc-davis/11600777002/

_________________________________

Share this post: The Use of AI-Detection Tools in the Assessment of Student Work – https://drsaraheaton.wordpress.com/2023/05/06/the-use-of-ai-detection-tools-in-the-assessment-of-student-work/

This blog has had over 3 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks! Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a faculty member in the Werklund School of Education, and the Educational Leader in Residence, Academic Integrity, University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of the University of Calgary.

How to Talk to Your Students about ChatGPT: A Lesson Plan for High School and College Students

Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels.com

This article by Ben Edwards in ArtsTechnica (April 6, 2023) is worth a read, “Why ChatGPT and Bing Chat are so good at making things up”.

Edwards explains in clear language, with lots of details and examples, how and why large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT make up content. As I read this article, it occurred to me that it could serve as a really great way to have pro-active and generative conversations with students about the impact of artificial intelligence for teaching, learning, assessment, and academic integrity. So, here is a quick lesson plan about how to use this article in class:

Education level

Secondary school and post-secondary (e.g., community college, polytechnic, undergraduate or graduate university courses)

Lesson Plan Title: Understanding ChatGPT: Benefits and Limitations

Learning Objectives

By the end of this lesson students will be able to:

• Understand how and why AI-writing apps make up content.
• Explain the term “confabulation”.
• Discuss the implications of fabricated content on academic integrity
• Generate ideas about how to fact-check AI-generated content to ensure its accuracy

Lesson Preparation

Prior to the class, students should read this article: “Why ChatGPT and Bing Chat are so good at making things up by Ben Edwards, published in ArtsTechnica (April 6, 2023)

Come to class prepared to discuss the article.

Learning Activity

Class discussion (large group format if the class is small or small group format with a large group debrief at the end):

Possible guiding questions:

• What is your experience with ChatGPT and other AI writing apps?
• What were the main points in this article? (Alternate phrasing: What were your key takeaways from this article?)
• What are some of the risks when AI apps engage in confabulation (i.e., fabrication)?
• Discuss this quotation from the article, “ChatGPT as it is currently designed, is not a reliable source of factual information and cannot be trusted as such.”
• Fabrication and falsification are commonly included in academic misconduct policies. What do you think the implications are for students and researchers when they write with AI apps?
• What are some strategies or tips we can use to fact-check text generated by AI apps?
• What is the importance of prompt-writing when working with AI writing apps?

Duration

The time commitment for the pre-reading will vary from one student to the next. The duration of the learning activity can be adjusted to suit the needs of your class.

• Students’ pre-reading of the article: 60-minutes or less
• Learning activity: 45-60 minutes

Lesson closure

Thank students for engaging actively in the discussion and sharing their ideas.

Possible Follow-up Activities

• Tips for fact-checking. Have students in the class generate their own list of tips to fact-check AI-generated content (e.g., in a shared Google doc or by sharing ideas orally in class that one person inputs into a document on behalf of the class.)
• Prompt-writing activity. Have students use different prompts to generate content from AI writing apps. Ask them to document each prompt and write down their observations about what worked and what didn’t. Discuss the results as a class.
• Academic Integrity Policy Treasure Hunt and Discussion. Have students locate the school’s academic misconduct / academic integrity policy. Compare the definitions and categories for academic misconduct in the school’s policies with concepts presented in this article such as confabulation. Have students generate their own ideas about how to uphold the school’s academic integrity policies when using AI apps.

Creative Commons License

This lesson plan is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). This license applies only to the lesson plan, not to the original article by Ben Edwards.

Additional Notes

This is a generic (and imperfect) lesson plan. It can (and probably should) be adapted or personalized depending on the needs of the learners.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Dr. Rahul Kumar, Brock University for providing an open peer review of this lesson plan.

 _________________________________

Share or Tweet this: How to Talk to Your Students about ChatGPT: A Lesson Plan for High School and College Students – https://drsaraheaton.wordpress.com/2023/04/07/how-to-talk-to-your-students-about-chatgpt-a-lesson-plan-for-high-school-and-college-students This blog has had over 3 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks! Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a faculty member in the Werklund School of Education, and the Educational Leader in Residence, Academic Integrity, University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of the University of Calgary.