Monash University > Business and Economics > ASG > AGU > Discipline

Cheating Through Intentional Plagiarism

Definitions as set out under University Policy

Plagiarism - “to take and use another person’s ideas and/or manner of expressing them and to pass them off as your own by failing to give appropriate acknowledgment. This includes material from any source, staff, students or the internet – published and unpublished works.”
Collusion - “unauthorised collaboration on assessable work with another person or persons.”
Cheating – “seeking to obtain an unfair advantage in an examination or in other written or practical work required to be submitted or completed for assessment.”
Re-submission of work – work “that has already been assessed in another unit, without disclosing that fact” also constitutes cheating.

1. Identification of collusion

Identification of cases of collusion or submission of work for assessment is prima facie evidence of cheating under Statute 4.1 – Discipline, and is to be reported by the chief examiner, in accordance with the provisions of the Statute under section 8.2.

2. Plagiarism under the Monash Statute?

It is an offence under Statute 4.1 – Discipline to cheat. See Monash University Statute 4.1 - Discipline, Part 3 - Academic Misconduct, sec 8 - Non-examination Cheating.
Plagiarism may amount to an offence but only if it is intentional.
Intentional plagiarism is taking and using another person's ideas or manner of expressing them in such a way as to pass them off as one's own by failing to give appropriate acknowledgment. This includes material from any source, staff, other students or the Internet – published and unpublished works.
Plagiarism without intent to obtain an unfair advantage is not an offence under the Statute.
Intent is proved by showing that the student knew that he/she should have cited the source and deliberately failed to do so. The question is: was the student trying to obtain an unfair advantage?
Poor referencing is not necessarily an offence. A judgment must be made in each case whether poor referencing is cheating (ie plagiarism with the intent to get an unfair advantage) or just unsatisfactory academic work (plagiarism without intent).

Example: Cheating or unsatisfactory academic work?

Where a student cites (without appropriate acknowledgment) from the set text or from notes distributed by the teacher or from overheads, it is more likely that the student is unaware of proper referencing practices than that the student is cheating. In other words, there is probably insufficient evidence of intent to obtain an unfair advantage. The matter should, therefore, be treated in the normal manner - i.e. as a case of poor referencing and poor academic work - and be marked accordingly.

3. Procedure in cases of suspected plagiarism

1. A staff member who suspects plagiarism should report this to the chief examiner for the unit.
2. The chief examiner must decide whether the plagiarism amounts to cheating. In other words, the chief examiner must determine whether it is more likely than not that the plagiarism was done with the intention of gaining an unfair advantage.
See Monash University Plagiarism Procedures, sections 4 and 6 – Findings regarding intent.

Factors to be considered in making judgment

1. Is the student in the first year of the course?

2. Has the student received a prior warning? Note: the faculty keeps a plagiarism register and the chief examiner is entitled to consult this.

3. Is the student from an educational background where different norms apply for the acknowledgment of sources?

4. Is the amount plagiarised substantial or negligible?

5. Has the student made an inadequate attempt at referencing?

6. Were students in the cohort given information on how to acknowledge extracts and quotations?

7. Would such students reasonably have known that use of material without acknowledgment was unacceptable?
Information about plagiarism is made available to students via:

(a) Student Resource Guide;

(b) unit outlines;

(d) discussion in tutorials and lectures;

(e) assignment cover sheet; and

(f) Q Manual.

8. Had the student received a prior warning about plagiarism?

9. Had the student received feedback from lecturers from previous work submitted for assessment?

3 (a) Chief examiner decides there was no cheating

If the chief examiner decides that it is a case of unsatisfactory academic work and not cheating, the chief examiner will then grade the work appropriately.

In some cases the chief examiner may require the student to attend a meeting with the chief examiner to discuss the issue of plagiarism and proper referencing. If this occurs the chief examiner should send a Warning Letter to the student in the appropriate form. A copy of the Warning Letter is to be sent to the faculty.

See Monash University Plagiarism Procedures, sections 8 and 9 – Unintentional Plagiarism.

3 (b) Chief examiner decides there is a possible case of cheating

If the chief examiner reaches the conclusion that there is evidence that the student intended to obtain an unfair advantage, the chief examiner must give the student an opportunity to respond before making a final determination.

In addition to more obvious cases of plagiarism (eg copying large slabs of information from the Internet), this situation would arise where two students, contrary to instructions, submit substantially the same work.

Procedures for giving student opportunity to respond

1. Notify student that he/she must attend a meeting with the chief examiner. Information about the meeting date, time and location must be notified via email to the student;

2. Provide student with the evidence upon which the allegation of plagiarism is made (eg another student’s paper; material from a published work; material published on the Web etc);

3. Conduct interview in the presence of another person who will take notes;

4. If for some reason the student cannot attend the meeting, the student is to be provided with the evidence upon which the allegation of plagiarism is made and given 10 working days in which to respond in writing.

3 (c) Chief examiner decides that cheating has occurred

If after giving the student an opportunity to respond, the chief examiner decides that the student has acted with an intention to obtain an unfair advantage, the chief examiner will either:

(i) disallow the marks for that piece of assessment;

inform the student that the marks have been disallowed and advise the student that he/she has a right to appeal (see disallowance letter ); and
send a copy of the report (the disallowance letter ) to the Associate Dean Teaching and the Academic Governance Unit;

OR

(ii) report the matter to the Faculty Manager who may instate a Faculty Discipline Committee to hear and determine the matter.
Note: Students already listed on the plagairism register will usually be required to attend a discipline hearing.

Where two students, contrary to instructions, have submitted substantially the same work, the chief examiner will need to decide:
(a) Whether one student copied off the other – in this case the student doing the copying has engaged in cheating under the Statute, but the other student has not.
(b) Whether the two students worked together and submitted the same work – in this case they have both cheated (unless, of course, the chief examiner is convinced that their conduct was not deliberately contrary to instructions).

Role of Faculty Academic Governance Unit and Faculty Manager

1. Keep a plagiarism register. This would include details of students who had had work disallowed and details of students who had been warned.

2. Respond to requests by chief examiners about whether a student is on the plagiarism register. This includes checking with any other faculty (in which the student has been or is enrolled) to determine whether the student appears on their plagiarism or cheating register

3. Where a disallowance letter is received from a chief examiner, advise the student of their right to appeal.

4. Where a student already appears on the plagiarism register as having previously had work disallowed, report the matter to the faculty manager, who shall decide whether to convene a discipline committee to hear and determine the matter of suspected academic misconduct. This is in addition to the disallowance of work imposed by the chief examiner.

5. Request the original piece of assessment and any additional evidence from the chief examiner if the student appeals against the disallowance of work.

6. Destroy a student’s record on the plagiarism register once the student is no longer enrolled.

3 (d) Chief examiner decides that cheating has not occurred

If, having heard the student’s explanation, the chief examiner decides that the student’s conduct did not amount to cheating, the chief examiner:
(a) Will treat the case as one of unsatisfactory academic work and mark the paper appropriately (ie for poor referencing); and
(b) May, if it is deemed necessary, advise and counsel the student about the rules relating to plagiarism.
If (b) occurs, the chief examiner should consider whether it is necessary to send a warning letter to the student as provided in 3 (a) above. If a Warning Letter is sent to the student, the chief examiner must send a copy of the letter to the faculty.

Discipline documents