Article Review and Analysis Part 1


ArticleReview and Analysis Part 1

Bruce,P. J., &amp Mallin, S. (2013). Plagiarism and its treatment inhigher education. Journalof Further and Higher Education,26(4),239-319.


Thearticle is about the prevalence of plagiarism in American highereducation. The discussion focuses on different adjudicationprocedures that institutions in the United States use to ensure thatstudents present original ideas in their academic assignments. Thereare different model of adjudicating academic honesty. They vary withthe uniqueness and academic goals of each institution (Bruce &ampMallin, 2013). The models reflect different administrativeapproaches in institutions and the incentive structures that bothstudents and the faculties use to discourage any case of academicdishonesty (p.239). According to these findings, many institutionshave an anti-plagiarism policy, which is student-centered. The policyor model gives students an opportunity to make decisions about theoriginality of their ideas in essays, research papers, dissertations,and many other assignments they submit to lecturers or professors.Other institutions, according to the article, use models that are‘litigation-averse’. Litigation-averse policies classifydifferent acts of plagiarism based on possible punishments asprescribed by the institution’s policy. The author classifies themfrom extreme fraud to unintentional failure of the student toacknowledge the work of another person (p.241). Fraud may lead to thedisqualification of the student or even expulsion in some cases.Unintentional failure to cite the work of other writers attractslenient punishment such as scoring a zero.The latter model ispopular in universities because it is independent from the professor.There are other models where the professor has the discretion todetermine a plagiarism policy within their department. All facultymembers from the specific department, therefore, inform theirstudents to adhere to the plagiarism policy. This model is usuallyoutside the scope of other departments in the institution. Thus, theinstitution depends on the commitment of the professor to reportoffenders so that the entire university policy is enforced (p.295).Every institution has a different academic culture that reflects thetype of plagiarism policy it adopts. In the event that there is acase of academic dishonesty from any student, students from differentinstitutions are likely to face different consequences even in thesame circumstances.

Reactionto the Article

The article reminds the reader about the typical college life wherethe student has to work on different essays. Time is always ofessence because lateness attracts penalties from professors. In theirbid to meet deadliness, students end up rushing to complete theirassignments without producing original ideas. One way of ensuringthat, they complete assignment in good time, the reproduce ideas frombooks, journals, newspaper articles, other students’ pastassignments from the same topic, and many other sources that could berelevant to the topics. When lecturers read these assignments, theydiscover that the great ideas presented by students are not original.Some courses have very a low student enrolment, hence, the professorknows each student by mane and historical performances. Therefore,the professor can tell if a student’s thoughts and ideas areoriginal or a manipulation of another person’s ideas without citingthem.

Thearticle is very educative in regards to the varying policies thatinstitutions of higher learning in the United States on academicdishonesty. Although, it is quite satisfactory that at least thehigher education sector in the country is committed to ensuring thatstudents are original in their academic submissions, the varying arethought-provoking. Considering that students face the same job marketafter pursuing their degrees and diplomas, it would be fair if theyare subjected to he same policy. It is agreeable, in this context,that some institutions are more strict in dealing with academicdishonest than others.

Thereis a lot to learn from this article especially about the contemporaryissues that cause an increase in the level of academic dishonesty.The rise in the use of the internet is partly responsible for theincrease in plagiarism. This does not imply that plagiarism did nothappen before the internet. In fact, the author confirms that therewere so many stores had many recycled research papers, usually of lowquality (Eret &amp Gokmenoglu, 2010). They were mostly aroundcolleges and universities in the 1970s (p.317). The differencebetween then and today is the internet. It has made plagiarism quiteeasy and also coercive in many ways because there are many internetcites that encourage students to obtain materials online then be ablemanipulate them to fit the demands of the professor. On the hand, thesame internet has also enabled faculties to detect any cases of workcopied and pasted directly from the internet. Institutions havedifferent websites that check the originality of ideas in papers. Thetechnology compels students to acknowledge the authors of differentwork notwithstanding the fact they obtained them from internetsources. Furthermore, it is also possible to cite the any digitalsources that a student or a member of the faculty used in their work.It is encouraging that institutions make efforts to limit cases ofacademic dishonesty. Original ideas provoke innovation whilerecycling the ideas of others only leads to societal stagnation


Eret,E., &amp Gokmenoglu, T. (2010). Plagiarism in higher education: acase study with prospective academicians. Procedia-Socialand Behavioral Sciences,2(2),3303-3307.

Bruce,P. J., &amp Mallin, S. (2013). Plagiarism and its treatment inhigher education. Journalof Further and Higher Education,26(4),239-319.