Plagiarism and scholarly publications: An ethical analysis

Session M1H Plagiarism and Scholarly Publications: An Ethical Analysis Donald Gotterbarn1, Keith Miller2, and John Impagliazzo3 Abstract - All professional organizations that have a publication component should have a strongly articulated position against plagiarism. Such a position has a solid foundation in common understandings of ethical principles including the encouragement of honesty and the discouragement of stealing. Having a strong, ethical position against plagiarism is different from the implementation of a strong, enforceable policy against plagiarism. This paper examines some practical challenges to enforcement policies, including legal liability. These challenges may complicate the development of a broad, enforceable policy against plagiarism that includes sanctions against authors found to be plagiarists. Additionally, such sanctions are needed to deter authors from submitting plagiarized works. One important aspect of discouraging plagiarism is a better use of computer applications that detect copying. Authors can use these applications to avoid unintentional plagiarism; reviewers and publishers can use these applications to keep plagiarized articles from being published. Index Terms – Academic publishing, Codes of ethics, Detection software, Plagiarism INTRODUCTION The theme of FIE 2006 invites us to consider the ramifications of international social, and cultural borders. Both online education and an increasingly global economy have helped to make scholarly publishing an increasingly cross-border activity. There is some concern that differences in how cultures view plagiarism may lead to more frequent and more significant incidents of plagiarism. [1] While it is by no means clear whether this concern is well founded, it seems appropriate to revisit the foundation of the ethical case against plagiarism as we consider scholarly publication in the global, electronic age. Recently, a prominent researcher in cryptology wrote about the plagiarism of one of his research papers in a publication of the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM) called inroads – the SIGCSE Bulletin [2]. Coincidentally, a paper in the Communications of the ACM [3] discussed the problem of “self-plagiarism” around the same time. In both cases, the ensuing discussions about plagiarism (and self-plagiarism) included the broader topic of the position and policies about these problems affecting publications generated by professional organizations. In this paper, we make the case that all professional organizations that have a publication component should have a strongly articulated position against plagiarism. As we shall see, such a position has a solid foundation in common understandings of ethical principles including the encouragement of honesty and the discouragement of stealing. We contend that this position is valid across cultural and social borders. The existence of a strong, ethical position against plagiarism is different from the implementation of a strong, enforceable policy against plagiarism. For example, the American Historical Association (AHA) has a Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct that includes a strong condemnation of plagiarism.[4] Nevertheless, the AHA announced that they “will no longer investigate any acts of possible misconduct by historians due to limited resources and lack of power to impose sanctions.”[5] In the concluding section of this paper, we examine some practical challenges that discourage organizations from aggressively pursuing the detection of plagiarism, including the fear of legal liability. These challenges may complicate the establishment of a broad, enforceable policy against plagiarism by professional organizations, especially a policy that includes sanctions against authors found to be plagiarists. We will discuss the ethical obligations involved in this issue of enforcement and offer suggestions to help guide discussions in the future by such organizations. We contend that teachers should make students of all disciplines acutely aware of the ethical problems of plagiarism. We also think that the need is especially critical for students who take at least some of their class work online. The temptation to “borrow” the work of others with attribution is strong in cyberspace, and there is growing evidence of a casual attitude towards plagiarism among student who use the internet. [5a] However, we do not advocate “preaching” at students about this issue. Instead, we think a more thoughtful, intellectually challenging approach will be more fruitful. In subsequent sections of this paper, we lay out a straightforward, accessible, but reasonably thorough case against plagiarism using ethics codes and two traditional methods of ethical analysis: utilitarianism and deontology. Our focus is on scholarly plagiarism in academic publications. We think this focus is close enough to students’ 1 Donald Gotterbarn, Professor Emeritus, Computer Science, Eastern Tennessee State University Keith Miller, Professor of Computer Science, Univ. of Illinois at Springfield 3 John Impagliazzo, Professor of Computer Science, Hofstra University 2 1-4244-0257-3/06/$20.00 © 2006 IEEE October 28 – 31, 2006, San Diego, CA 36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference M1H-22 Session M1H experience to be illuminating and motivating, but far enough removed from most students so that their first reaction will not be reflexively defensive. TWO ETHICS CODES ON PLAGIARISM We define plagiarism as the inappropriate, unauthorized, unacknowledged use of someone else’s ideas as if they were original or common knowledge. We include in this definition incomplete or vague references that tend to mislead the reader into misidentifying one person’s ideas for another. Most organizations that publish scientific and educational research papers have ethics codes that either implicitly or explicitly prohibit plagiarism. In this section we will look at two codes of ethics, one from the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), and another jointly approved by the ACM and the IEEE Computer Society. The “ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct” [6] has as a fundamental principle the importance of honesty. Section 1.3 of that code begins: 1.3 Be honest and trustworthy. Honesty is an essential component of trust. Without trust an organization cannot function effectively. Two other sections of that code seem particularly relevant: 1.5 Honor property rights including copyrights and patent. Violation of copyrights, patents, trade secrets and the terms of license agreements is prohibited by law in most circumstances. Even when software is not so protected, such violations are contrary to professional behavior. Copies of software should be made only with proper authorization. Unauthorized duplication of materials must not be condoned. 1.6 Give proper credit for intellectual property. Computing professionals are obligated to protect the integrity of intellectual property. Specifically, one must not take credit for other's ideas or work, even in cases where the work has not been explicitly protected by copyright, patent, etc. The ACM also participated with the IEEE Computer Society in the development and approval of the “Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice” [7]. This code also has provisions that we interpret as discouraging plagiarism: 1.06. Be fair and avoid deception in all statements, particularly public ones, concerning software or related documents, methods and tools. 6.03. Extend software engineering knowledge by appropriate participation in professional organizations, meetings and publications. 7.03. Credit fully the work of others and refrain from taking undue credit. organization? We contend that the answer is yes. Clearly, the organization members who edit and review for a publication are bound by the code; furthermore, contributing authors should be bound by those ethical principles as well. (If publication agreements do not spell out this adherence to the ethics code, they should.) In any case, it seems reasonable that publishing policies should be consistent with the ethics code of an organization, no matter who writes for the publication. In the case of the ACM, for example, the organization incorporated the ethical principles for honesty and against plagiarism into its publication policies. As another example, for the case of copyright transfers to ACM, language ascribing to authenticity of material is explicit in the ACM Copyright Policy [8] and in the ACM Copyright Form [9]. Some might find it surprising that neither of the codes described above prohibits plagiarism explicitly. However, ethics codes are often written in broad terms in order to be applicable to a wide range of issues. For example, a survey of 33 codes of ethics from U.S. newspapers [10], only 13 of those codes explicitly prohibits plagiarism. Surely all 33 of the newspapers would condemn plagiarism and broader language about honesty and integrity could be identified in each to support that condemnation. We expect it to be routine that codes of ethics include language that condemns the dishonesty and misrepresentation inherent in plagiarism. But surely there are some questions about plagiarism, its detection, and its consequences that are left open by the language of these codes. For example, what standards should be applied when deciding if an idea is “common knowledge,” traditionally not requiring a citation, or not yet common enough? [11] We will deal with this issue and others in a subsequent section on policy issues. But first, we’ll quickly review the distinct but related issue of “selfplagiarism.” It seems appropriate to examine whether or not the cultural diversity embraced by and facilitated by cyberspace somehow dilutes the ethical strictures against plagiarism laid out in these two codes. Surely, the authors of the code would not think so, since international bodies approve both codes. In addition, some writers such as Frank Furedi [11a] claim that although the Internet may contribute and facilitate plagiarism, the fundamental problem reflected in a perceived increase in plagiarism is not technical, or multicutural. Furedi writes “The real problem is not that students cheat, but that they don't think that there is anything wrong with this behaviour.” If Furedi is correct, that attitude is endemic across borders and cultures. In the discussion so far, we have focused on the plagiarism of someone else’s work. A separate but related issue sometimes called “self-plagiarism” is the inappropriate use of one’s own previously published work in a new work [3]. The moral outrage at theft of intellectual property is not a driving force in the disapproval of ‘self-plagiarism’. In academe primary concerns with self plagiarism include the misrepresentation of the quantity of one’s intellectual output and the misuse of the scarce resource of page space in professional journals or conference proceedings by publishing Although the word “plagiarism” does not occur explicitly in either of these codes, we contend that these clauses establish a clear position that does not allow plagiarism. The strong emphases on honesty, fair credit for work performed, appropriate participation, and trustworthiness all point to disapproval of plagiarism in all forms: intentional or unintentional, whole pages or a small passage. The ethics codes above are for ACM members, and many of the people who write for ACM publications are not ACM members. Are authors who are not members of a particular organization also bound by the ethics codes of the publishing 1-4244-0257-3/06/$20.00 © 2006 IEEE October 28 – 31, 2006, San Diego, CA 36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference M1H-23 Session M1H similar content in several places The misappropriation of another’s ideas is not part of self-plagiarism. Although some of the same issues of honesty and “credit where credit is due” surface in self-plagiarism, the issues are distinct, and we will discuss plagiarism, not self-plagiarism, in the rest of this paper. Self-plagiarism is not included in the five types of plagiarism identified in the IEEE PSBP Operations Manual. TWO ETHICAL ANALYSES OF SCHOLARLY PLAGIARISM The issue of plagiarism arises in many different contexts. There are copyright violations in commercial intellectual property. Students plagiarize assignments and tests. Politicians claim ideas as their own that were articulated earlier by others. The special issues in all of these different plagiarism domains make it hard to focus on the essence of the problem. To isolate the central issues, we focus on plagiarism in scholarly journals and conferences. Unpaid authors, reviewed by volunteers, edited by scholars, and read by scholars, generally write these publications. We will call this kind of plagiarism “scholarly plagiarism” in this paper. In general, plagiarism can be a legal issue, especially in terms of copyright violations.[12] However, scholarly plagiarism is generally not a legal issue.[13] To our knowledge, no one has gone to jail for scholarly plagiarism, nor has anyone been successfully sued for damages because of scholarly plagiarism. However, this does not suggest that the problem is trivial. It is clearly unacceptable even when not covered by a specific law (see ACM Code 1.5 above) Instead, academics have dealt with this kind of plagiarism largely “inhouse,” based on custom and publishing regulations. There is some public ambivalence about plagiarism, reflected in the following quotes: If you steal from one author, it’s plagiarism; if you steal from many, it’s research. - Wilson Mizner (1876–1933) [14] Imitation is the sincerest flattery. - C. C. Colton (1780–1832) [15] We do not think either of those quotes articulates a legitimate argument for plagiarism, but the ideas behind both these quotes are, in one form or another, commonplace. Hence, it seems prudent to articulate more carefully an ethical analysis of scholarly plagiarism. The first quote uses the word “steal,” and the idea of wrongful taking is at the heart of an ethical analysis of plagiarism. (Indeed, the Latin plagiare, to steal, is the root of the word “plagiarism.”) We emphasize the word “wrongful” because merely taking advantage of previously published ideas and words is not a wrong. Indeed, Newton wrote "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." [16] The distinction between wrongful taking of intellectual property and the legitimate building of ideas in scholarly research is at the heart of this issue. Much of the public ambivalence about plagiarism may be linked to misapprehensions about this distinction. It is decidedly not plagiarism to use a work with an appropriate citation that makes it clear what an author is “reusing” and its source. This is exactly the kind of “standing on the shoulders of giants” endorsed by Newton and all legitimate scholars. However, when the ideas or words are used without citation, or with misleading or incomplete citation, then a wrong has occurred. In this short article, we cannot give details on all the subtleties of when one requires a citation and its proper form. However, we will discuss five kinds of plagiarism, each of which is distinct according to at least some types of ethical analysis. These distinctions are similar to those discussed in [3], which discussed selfplagiarism. (See [11] for a more detailed description and diagram of different ways to plagiarize.) We do not claim that our list of five is exhaustive, but we think it is illustrative. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Intentional, exact copying of someone else’s intellectual property despite knowing that copying is inappropriate. Mistaking someone else’s legitimate intellectual property for common knowledge. Unintentionally forgetting to cite a work. Intentionally citing a work in a way that is misleading. Unintentionally citing a work in a way that is misleading. We will give two different ethical analyses of these five different plagiarisms: a deontological analysis based on duties and a utilitarian analysis based on consequences. There are many other ethical analyses possible, but we’ll focus on these two in this short paper. (For three approaches to plagiarism and authorship that are distinct from ours, see [17], [18], and [19]). In the two analyses that follow, assume that the author of a new scholarly publication (A2, for the second author) has committed one of the five types of plagiarism listed above in a publication we will call P2. We denote P1 as the previously published writing that was plagiarized. Let A1 denote the author of the original publication P1. Both ethical analyses involve the same major stakeholders. A2 is the central actor and a principal stakeholder. A1 is also a principle stakeholder. However, the act of plagiarism also affects the publishers of P1 and P2, the readers of P2, and the scholarly community as a whole. DEONTOLOGICAL ANALYSIS FOCUSED ON DUTIES An ethical analysis that looks at duties between the stakeholders finds that A2 owes a duty of honesty to A1, to both publishers, to P2’s readers, and to the scholarly community. These duties immediately lead to an ethical condemnation of A2’s plagiarism of A1 if it was intentional (items 1, 3, and 4 in our list above). If the plagiarism is unintentional, then the issue is slightly more complex. Plagiarism of the most serious kind is a conscious decision with the intent of deceiving others. However, when there is not a conscious intent to deceive, has a deontological breach of duty occurred? We contend that it may or may not have occurred. If the unintentional plagiarism is minor (for example, the author assumed an item was common knowledge but a majority of reviewers judged it to be marginally worthy 1-4244-0257-3/06/$20.00 © 2006 IEEE October 28 – 31, 2006, San Diego, CA 36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference M1H-24 Session M1H of citation), and the oversight was not due to negligence or a lack of due diligence by A2, then in our opinion if there is deontological blame, it is vanishingly slight. However, if A2 has done a sloppy job of checking sources (more on this issue later), or if A2 is willfully ignorant of important published work in this area (this is one way that A2 could plagiarize A1 without explicit knowledge of P1), then in our opinion, a deontological wrong has been done to A1 by A2. In recent plagiarism charges against historian Stephen Ambrose, his defenders say that his single reference to a source in some ten pages of text which contain materials identical to another work shows that Ambrose is not guilty of plagiarism, while Ambrose’s critics interpret his actions to be an example of plagiarism type 4 or 5. [20] As we will see in the next sub-section, our utilitarian consequentialist analysis makes a significant distinction between detected and undetected plagiarism. Because it does not focus on consequences, our deontological analysis of the plagiarism scenario does not distinguish between undetected and detected plagiarism. Once A2 writes the plagiarized passage, the wrong has occurred. Even if P2 is rejected by the publisher (for reasons that may or may not pertain to the plagiarism), A2 has committed an ethical breach. All of the exculpatory justifications given by an identified plagiarizer are irrelevant to the judgment of blame. The clear standard for rejecting any form of plagiarism imposes on the publisher of P2 a well-defined obligation to detect, deter, and eliminate plagiarism. P2 owes this obligation to its readers, to the scholarly community, and to potentially plagiarized authors (like A1 above) and their publishers. Again, ignorance of A2’s blunder or subterfuge does not excuse the P2 publisher. The publisher of P2 and the reviewers of P2 owe due diligence to uncover and reject as much plagiarism as practical before publishing. It is a professional judgment about the extent to which one should expend time and effort in the search to root out plagiarism; but the duty itself is clear. It is inconsistent with a deontological approach to completely ignore anti-plagiarism efforts because they may be difficult [5]. UTILITARIAN ANALYSIS AND CONSEQUENCES By plagiarizing, A2 may reap the benefits of publishing a scholarly work, in part or in whole, by using someone else’s work without a proper citation. A2 risks censure if this plagiarism is detected, a censure that might include major consequences (for example, a Florida university lost its accreditation because the data it sent to the Southern Association of Colleges was plagiarized from report produced by Alabama A & M [21]) or minor ones (for example, some characterized sanctions against Harvard professors Tribe and Ogletree as a “slap on the wrist.” [22]). Whatever benefits A2 seeks for publishing A1’s work without citation, rightfully belong to A1. If A2 had used A1’s work with proper citation, then A1 would gain those benefits (assuming P2 was published). The effect of publishing P2 without proper citation transfers to A2 benefits that rightfully belong to A1. This is a problem even if it were merely the remote possibility of benefits. If the plagiarism is not detected, A1 will not be aware of this undertaking and will not receive any due benefit or be able to act in a way that could generate any benefit for his or her work. Sometimes an original author A1 does not require recognition when others reuse P1. For example, a teacher might encourage other teachers to reuse a model lesson plan, even without attribution. Especially when A1 is the copyright holder of P1, and when A1 makes this permission explicit, then A2’s reuse is, in our opinion, no longer appropriately termed plagiarism. The publishers of P1 and P2 both have a stake in an act of plagiarism because both value the status of their publications. The publisher of P1 expects that authors would properly cite P1 when they use ideas from P1 in subsequent publications. The publisher of P1 gains status by such citations, but loses this gained status when someone plagiarizes P1 instead of properly citing A1’s work. Publishers require that authors include proper citations. If someone discovers that A2 included plagiarized material in P2, the publisher of P2 loses status and may have to use resources to acknowledge the plagiarism. The publisher of the plagiarized work P2 loses some of the trust of its readers if the plagiarism is discovered and publicized. This loss of trust is critical to the utility of journals. The negative effects could include the loss or reduction of subscribers, financial support, and advertisers. There are also negative effects to the primary mission of P2. The readers of P2 want more and better information about the topics discussed in P2. By plagiarizing, A2 has hidden important information about P1 from the readers of P2. (For example, they will not have the opportunity to seek out other articles by A1 if they find the plagiarized material particularly intriguing.) Some of the data my have been corrupted in an effort to conceal the plagiarism. If the plagiarism is revealed to the readers of P2, they may feel discomfort at being fooled and the discovery may call into question the integrity of all the information they gained by reading P2. The integrity of published materials is a public good for a scholarly community. Plagiarism reduces the efficiency of knowledge dissemination, diminishes the trust in the community, and (when discovered) requires corrective action. An interesting aspect to this analysis is the significant difference between the consequences of undetected plagiarism on the one hand and detected plagiarism on the other hand. Undetected plagiarism harms A1, the readers of P2, the publisher of P1 and the scholarly community; however, in many cases none of these stakeholders knows about that harm until the plagiarism is exposed. But if the plagiarism is exposed, then A2, the readers of P2, the publisher of P2, and the scholarly community all have negative consequences and all the stakeholders know about all those harms, both those before and after the detection. A1 and the publisher of P1 do get (delayed) credit for the importance of P1 when the plagiarism is revealed. 1-4244-0257-3/06/$20.00 © 2006 IEEE October 28 – 31, 2006, San Diego, CA 36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference M1H-25 Session M1H A1 and the publisher of P1 gain by the disclosure of the plagiarism within P2. A2 always has a stake in keeping the plagiarism undetected, but once a publisher publishes P2, it also stands to lose if the plagiarism is detected. Here, in the utilitarian analysis, as in the deontological analysis it is in the best interests of P2 to work to prevent publishing a plagiarized work. When a plagiarism is detected and publicized, a conscious unhappiness about the plagiarism affects A1 and P1’s publisher, and the scholarly community. The harms to A1, P1’s publisher, and the academic community are all real before the detection, but no one can recognize them besides A2 until the plagiarism is detected and publicized. Our consequential, utilitarian analysis has yielded different results in the case of undetected and detected plagiarism. Undetected plagiarism has good effects on A2 and the publisher of P2. Undetected plagiarism has bad effects on A1, the publisher of P1, and the scholarly community; but none of them recognized those bad effects until the plagiarism is detected. Detected plagiarism has the worst effects for A2 and the publisher of P2. There are also some bad effects on the readers of P2 and the scholarly community. However, after detection A1 or the publisher of P1can take some corrective action to mitigate the bad effects of the plagiarism on the readers of P2 and the scholarly community. A1 and the publisher of P1 benefit from the discovery of the plagiarism. Our utilitarian analysis suggests (unsurprisingly) that plagiarism is, on balance, ethically wrong because of the losses to A1, the publisher of P1, and the academic community. These are loses that are not offset by gains (if the plagiarism goes undetected) to A2 and the publisher of P2. Our analysis also indicates (perhaps surprisingly) that A1 and the publisher of P1 are the stakeholders likely to gain happiness when they discover the plagiarism, at least at first. All other stakeholders will be conscious of loss – loss of prestige, loss of trust, and lost resources setting things right. This potential sense of loss may explain why plagiarism often goes undetected for quite some time; many people are hurt when we discover plagiarism. This analysis suggests that it may be more practical to urge publishers to do a better job detecting plagiarism before publication than it is to urge publishers to disclose plagiarism that has already been published. The payoffs for publishers are far better for prevention than for disclosure. Note that we are not claiming that the publisher of P2 is justified by a utilitarian analysis in covering up a plagiarism. In the end, the upholding of scholarly integrity is a major benefit to the scholarly community, and that benefit is worth the cost of uncovering the plagiarism in P2. Thus the publisher of P2 has the obligation to uncover that plagiarism, even though that detection, when made public, can harm the publisher. However, the utilitarian analysis does highlight that this overall, long-range benefit to the scholarly community may not be as motivating as shorter range, direct benefits to stakeholders. This possibility makes practical, enforceable policies all the more important. IMPLEMENTING A PRACTICAL POLICY AGAINST SCHOLARLY PLAGIARISM To summarize the previous analyses, both the deontological and the utilitarian arguments have condemned A2’s plagiarism as an ethical wrong. The deontological analysis emphasized the differences between intentional and unintentional plagiarism while the utilitarian analysis emphasized the differences between detected and undetected plagiarism. We now provide some suggestions for organizations (like publishers) when they develop and implement policies to deal with plagiarism. If a professional organization has a position against plagiarism and if that publishing organization has an obligation (as we have argued above) to detect, deter, and discourage plagiarism, then it follows that the organization should have a well-defined policy against plagiarism. The kind of policy we envision includes practical distinctions between the most onerous wrongs (e.g., intentional, whole cloth copying without any citation) and the regrettable but understandable mistakes (e.g., unintentional missed citation because of a close judgment call on “common knowledge”). Additionally, the policy should deal with authors differently based on the type of wrong incurred (e.g., public censure of the author in the first case and private counseling in the second case). We also expect a wise policy will include strong encouragement for editors and reviewers to use proactively automated tools (now widespread in academia) to detect plagiarism. Likewise, authors should be counseled against both intentional and unintentional plagiarism (including selfplagiarism), and authors should be instructed to use the automated anti-plagiarism tools to avoid unintentional plagiarisms. Indeed, a professional organization could make it a point to make open source anti-plagiarisms instruments available to all authors via web links in all its calls for papers. For the most serious cases of plagiarism, censures of some kind seem appropriate. Without such censures, the cost/benefit calculation of an author (like A2 above) may seem too tempting for many ambitious authors unless there is a significant cost by being caught for plagiarizing intentionally. However, censure may raise the specter of legal liability for the publishing organization. Therefore, any policy including public censure (which might have serious consequences in the case of, for example, a junior faculty member), the policy should have a proper appeals process; such a process will protect both authors accused of plagiarism and the organization involved. ACM has recently instituted a rather strict policy on plagiarism called the “ACM Policy and Procedures on Plagiarism”. [23] It delineates definitions of plagiarism and self-plagiarism, suggests acts that violate the policy, and poses consequences resulting from plagiarized material. Some of these consequences, particularly those that violate federal and international copyright laws, include legal action, public humiliation of plagiarists, and fines up to $150,000. The expectation is that authors will be affirming this policy every 1-4244-0257-3/06/$20.00 © 2006 IEEE October 28 – 31, 2006, San Diego, CA 36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference M1H-26 Session M1H time they sign a copyright transfer on published material. IEEE had instituted a similar policy two years earlier. [24] CONCLUSIONS In the two codes of ethics described above, we discern a clear and strongly inferred position in opposition to plagiarism. The ethical analyses above demonstrate the importance of this issue to several different stakeholders, and both of our analyses reinforce the message we saw in the ethics codes: plagiarism is wrong, and should be discouraged. We do not see any ambiguities introduced by cultural differences across borders. Codes represent an ethics represent a consensus on standards of behavior and values within a profession. Members of different cultures adopt the standards of the profession. The approaches to plagiarism outlined above can also be a model for students who aspire to be members of the profession. Any practical policy about plagiarism will have to deal effectively with the problem of costs and benefits for the stakeholders in both detected and undetected plagiarism; the consequences of detected plagiarism must be designed to deter potential plagiarists. All authors should be educated to avoid unintentional plagiarism. Furthermore, authors, editors, and reviewers should use automated tools to avoid plagiarism during writing and to detect plagiarism when it occurs. Authors of plagiarized materials, publishers, readers, and the scholarly community all lose when plagiarism occurs. In particular, plagiarizing authors lose when someone discovers their ethical breach. Professional organizations that publish must devise ethically sensitive, appropriately harsh, and practical policies to educate authors, to discourage plagiarism before it is attempted, and to discover it before publication. Educators trying to prepare students for a cyberspace world need to present the issue in a way that is clear, motivating, and compelling. The internet surely spans boundaries and cultures, but in doing so we do not think it should weaken the ethical and professional constraints against plagiarism. Perhaps, with a concerted effort of educators, the Internet will help to increase the respect for the proper citation of others’ work. We hope this article proves to be a positive step in helping that effort. REFERENCES [1] Austin Community College – Library Services, “Faculty Guide to Plagiarism, http://library.austincc.edu/geninfo/facplagiarism.htm#cultural (Nov. 21, 2005), accessed March 8, 2005. [2] Schneier, B., “Schneier on security: Plagiarism and academia: Personal Experience, ” http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/08/plagiarism_and.html, (August 1, 2005), accessed September 6, 2005. [3] Collberg. C. and S. Kobourov, “Self-Plagiarism in Computer Science,” Communications of the ACM, April 2005 Vol 48, no 4, pp 88-94. [4] American Historical Association. “Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct “(January 6, 2005), http://www.historians.org/pubs/Free/ProfessionalStandards.cfm#Plagiari sm, accessed September 5, 2005. [5] American Historical Association. “AHA announces changes in efforts relating to professional misconduct.” Press release (May 5, 2003), http://www.historians.org/press/PR_Adjudication.htm, accessed September 5, 2005. [5a] Keever, J. “When words aren't yours: plagiarism goes beyond issue of academic honesty.” Houston Chronicle (May 5, 2006), http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/life/3841782.html, accessed May 8, 2006. [6] ACM. “Code of Ethics” (October 16, 1992). http://www.acm.org/constitution/code.html, accessed September 5, 2005. [7] ACM. “Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice” (1999), http://www.acm.org/serving/se/code.htm, accessed September 5, 2005. [8] ACM. “Copyright Policy” (November 1, 2002), http://www.acm.org/pubs/copyright_policy/, accessed September 5, 2005. [9] ACM. “Copyright Form” (June 29, 2005), http://www.acm.org/pubs/copyright_form.html, accessed September 5, 2005. [10] Steele, B. and J. Black. (October 25, 2000 ), “Can you improve your code of ethics?” American Society of Newspaper Editors. http://www.asne.org/kiosk/editor/99.feb/steele1.htm, accessed September 5, 2005. [11] Purdue Online Writing Lab. “Plagiarism” (2004) http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/research/r_plagiar.html, accessed September 6, 2005. [11a] Furedi, Frank. “Plagiarism stems from a loss of scholarly ideals.” Times Higher Education Supplement (August 6, 2004), http://www.frankfuredi.com/articles/plagiarism-20040806.shtml, accessed May 8, 2006. [12] Standler, R., “Plagiarism in colleges in U.S.” (March 27, 2003), http://www.rbs2.com/plag.htm, accessed September 6, 2005. [13] Green, S., “Plagiarism, Norms, and the Limits of Theft Law: Some Observations on the Use of Criminal Sanctions in Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights.” (December 18, 2002), Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 54, No. 1, 167-242. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=315562, accessed September 6, 2005. [14] Andrews, R. et al., editors. The Columbia Book of Quotations (1996), http://209.10.134.179/66/65/40065.html, accessed September 6, 2005. [15] Newton, I. in J. Bartlett, Familiar Quotations 10th Ed. (1919), http://bartelby.org/100/690.57.html, accessed September 6, 2005. [16] The Quotations Page. Quotation #862 from Michael Moncur's (Cynical) Quotations: Newton. (2004) http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/862.html, accessed September 6, 2005. [17] Riegle, R., “The death and rebirth of plagiarism.” http://www.coe.ilstu.edu/rpriegle/wwwdocs/plagiari.htm, accessed September 6, 2005. [18] Martin, B. “Plagiarism: a misplaced emphasis.” Journal of Information Ethics 3 (Fall 1994): 36-47. [19] International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). “Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: Writing and editing for biomedical publication” (October, 2004), http://www.icmje.org/#author, accessed September 6, 2005. [20] Barnes, F. “Stephen Ambrose, copycat.” (Jan. 4, 2002), The Daily Standard, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/000/7 38lfddv.asp?pg=1, accessed September 6, 2005. [21] Bollag, B. “Edward Waters College loses accreditation following plagiarism scandal” (December 9, 2004), The Chronicles of Higher Education: Today’s News http://chronicle.com/prm/daily/2004/12/2004120904n.htm, accessed September 6, 2005. [22] Velvel, L. “There is no room for morality at Harvard” (Dec. 14, 2004), http://velvelonnationalaffairs.blogspot.com/2004/12/there-is-no-roomfor-morality-at.html, accessed September 5, 2005. [23] http://www.acm.org/pubs/plagiarism%20policy.html [24] http://ieee.org/web/publications/rights/index.html 1-4244-0257-3/06/$20.00 © 2006 IEEE October 28 – 31, 2006, San Diego, CA 36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference M1H-27