EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Detecting student plagiarism

This guidance is aimed at all staff involved in marking student work. It describes how to look out for plagiarism or related assessment irregularities, and what to do if you identify something suspicious. The key principle is that staff should not take unilateral action (e.g. marking down) if you encounter or suspect such issues. Rather, you should refer them on for investigation.

Guidance for academic staff CONTENTS

Identifying plagiarism:  Careful scrutiny by markers is the School’s primary method of detecting plagiarism or any other irregularities in assessed student work. Markers are expected to use their own professional expertise and experience to evaluate whether a piece of work appears bona fide or not.  Section 4 of this guidance gives a bullet-point list of items to look out for which may raise suspicion or warrant further investigation.  The School also makes use of the Turnitin plagiarism detection tool. MSc projects and Research Degree upgrading/review documents are all checked in Turnitin as standard. Certain MSc modules are also piloting use of Turnitin for their assessments. However, Turnitin should not be relied on as the only check for plagiarism.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................. 1 1. Scope of this guidance .............................................................................. 2 2. Context – ‘prevention is better than cure’................................................ 2 3. The School’s definition of plagiarism, and related procedures ............ 2 4. Looking out for plagiarism in student work............................................. 3 5. Use of the Turnitin tool .............................................................................. 4 6. Current procedures for different types of work ...................................... 5 6.1 For taught modules (both face-to-face and distance learning) ................... 5 6.2 For MSc projects (both face-to-face and distance learning)....................... 6 6.3 For formal exams (both face-to-face and distance learning) ...................... 6 6.4 For short courses ........................................................................................ 6 6.5 For research degrees ................................................................................. 6 7. Following up suspected plagiarism .......................................................... 7 7.1 Notification of suspicions ............................................................................ 7 7.2 Communication with students ..................................................................... 7 7.3 Formal procedures for face-to-face programmes ....................................... 7 7.4 Formal procedures for distance learning programmes ............................... 7 7.5 Legal implications ....................................................................................... 8 8. Distinguishing plagiarism from poor academic practice ....................... 8 9. Feeding back to students about their work ............................................. 8 10. Further guidance on this topic ................................................................ 9 ANNEX 1: PROCEDURES FOR THE USE OF TURNITIN AT LSHTM .......... 9 ANNEX 2: STANDARD MESSAGE FOR NOTIFYING STUDENTS ABOUT SUSPECTED ASSESSMENT IRREGULARITIES ........................................ 12

Following up suspicions:  Markers should always report any suspicions about student work (e.g. if you suspect plagiarism, collusion, exam misconduct or other assessment irregularities) to the Module Organiser, Course Director or Research Degrees Coordinator with responsibility for the assessment.  It can be helpful to investigate slightly further yourself before reporting a suspicion, e.g. checking suspicious phrases in a search engine or a likely source textbook. However, even if this turns up no further evidence, if your suspicion remains then you should report it.  The relevant Taught Course Director or Research Degrees Director will then investigate whether there is a case to answer. Students will be presumed innocent until such time as proceedings establish otherwise.  You should provisionally grade the work under suspicion, acting on the assumption that it is genuine. However, marks will be withheld from the involved students until investigations have concluded. If you have any queries on any of these matters, then please speak in the first instance to your Taught Course Director or Research Degrees Director.

© London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 2013 Approved by the Associate Dean of Studies – minor revisions made Feb 2013 1 of 12



1. Scope of this guidance This guidance is aimed at all staff involved in reviewing student work, particularly markers, Course Directors, Module Organisers, tutors and supervisors – across both face-to-face and distance learning modes, and all forms of provision (including modules, MScs, Diplomas, short courses and research degrees). It sets out the School’s policy on:  how you are expected to look out for plagiarism (or related assessment irregularities) in student work;  how you should follow up when you suspect plagiarism in a piece of student work;  the more formal first steps to be taken when you believe you have identified plagiarism; and  distinguishing plagiarism from poor academic practice.

At module level, relevant information should be integrated into teaching wherever possible – e.g. when introducing the assessment, to give examples of what is expected or what is not acceptable for the specific task at hand. Such guidance may be given either in writing or through other means. Where specific conventions apply for the particular subject, field or discipline the module is part of, this should be made clear.

(ii) Good assessment design should minimise opportunities for plagiarism, and encourage appropriate use of sources and citations. Any staff who are developing assessments for new modules or overhauling old ones may benefit from investigating the following:  Some excellent ideas and good practice for assessment design are given in Carroll (2002), chapters 2 and 3 (full reference given in Section 10).  A number of useful online resources and academic papers about ‘designing out plagiarism’ and encouraging originality in student work are hosted by the JISC Internet Plagiarism Advisory Service, at: http://archive.plagiarismadvice.org/designing-out-plagiarism (resources/papers) http://archive.plagiarismadvice.org/briefing-papers (good practice guide)

The guidance should apply for all types of work done by students or prospective students and reviewed by staff – particularly assessed work, but potentially anything else, e.g. formative essays that do not count towards a degree, research proposals from Research Degree application forms. While focused on written work, it may be applied for work of all kinds, e.g. multimedia submissions, posters, computer code.

Finally, feedback to students about issues like referencing and use of sources in their assessed work can also play an important role in improving their future standard of work. More guidance on this is also given later in this document.

2. Context – ‘prevention is better than cure’

3. The School’s definition of plagiarism, and related procedures

Before getting into the detail of how to spot and follow up on plagiarism in student work, it should be emphasised that the School’s policy is to encourage preventative measures against plagiarism, rather than to take a punitively-focused approach. Two key approaches are encouraged:

All staff involved in assessing student work should be aware of the School’s definitions of plagiarism and assessment irregularities, and the related procedures and documents which apply. On registering, all students must sign a statement to say they will comply with the School’s regulations, including the Assessment Irregularities procedure – available via the School intranet at www.lshtm.ac.uk/edu/taughtcourses/plagiarismdecform.doc (for taught courses including masters’ degrees, diplomas, certificates and short courses and also for research degrees).

(i) Guidance for students should make very clear what is expected of them in their assessed work.  The School provides extensive standard information in documents such as Course Handbooks or the Academic Writing handbook – including descriptions of what plagiarism is, how to avoid it, how to cite and reference correctly, etc.  At course level, this should be supplemented by clear guidance on the conventions that apply for the relevant subject, field or discipline. The key points should be included in Course Handbooks, although more detailed information may be given through other means such as face-to-face sessions.

The School’s definitions of assessment irregularities are given in this procedure. The key ones to be aware of are on plagiarism and cheating, as follow. Related definitions of collusion, personation and fraud are also given.

2 of 12

material they submit for assessment during their LSHTM studies will be their own work, and appropriately acknowledge any use of the work of others. The form should be lodged with either the Teaching Support Office, the DL Office or the relevant Research Degrees Administrator; it is the responsibility of these offices to check that all students have submitted a form.

Plagiarism is the copying or use of the work of others, whether intentionally or unintentionally, as if it were your own. Such work may come from any source whether published or unpublished, in print or online – including words, images, audio recordings, diagrams, formulae, computer code, performances, ideas, judgements, discoveries and results. To avoid plagiarism:  Where any use or mention is made of the work of others, it should be acknowledged.  A recognised citation system should be used.  Quotations must accurately refer to and acknowledge the originator(s) of the work.  Direct quotations, whether extended or short, must always be clearly identified.  Paraphrasing – using other words to express the ideas or judgements of others – must be clearly acknowledged.  Work done in collaboration with others must appropriately refer to their involvement and input.  Use of your own past work should be referenced as clearly as the work of others.

4. Looking out for plagiarism in student work When marking work, you have a responsibility to consider whether it fits the marking criteria you have been given, the assessment guidance the students were given, and the School’s expectations on academic standards. This does not mean you are expected to go through everything with a ‘fine tooth-comb’; but that you should mark as normal while being alert to any discrepancies that suggest an irregularity. If you encounter anything that raises your suspicions, do not hesitate to follow up – either investigating further or referring the issue on, as described later. The School’s position is that to protect academic standards, any suspected plagiarism should be investigated and resolved. The School uses the Turnitin ‘originality checking and plagiarism prevention’ service as one means of checking for and evidencing plagiarism in student work. This is described in more detail later. However, it is important to note that Turnitin should not be the only method of checking for plagiarism – markers are expected to use their own professional expertise and experience to evaluate whether a piece of work appears bona fide or may be suspect.

Cheating is a deliberate attempt to deceive in order to gain advantage in an assessed piece of work, including coursework, in-module assessments and examinations. This covers a range of offences, from significant instances of plagiarism to exam misconduct.

Factors which might typically arouse suspicion or warrant further investigation include:  Any extended pieces of writing which clearly draw on established ideas or literature but do not contain quotations or citations.  Work that closely resembles that submitted by other students.  Sections or passages with a markedly different writing style to the rest of the text – e.g. in an extreme case, introductions and conclusions written in grammatically incorrect English and not addressing the body of the paper that is written in flawless, complex English.  Unusual use of terminology – e.g. highly specific professional jargon from a student just starting out in the discipline.  Work that addresses the topic only obliquely, or addresses just one aspect.

Students are given guidance on all these topics as part of course handbooks – with slightly different tailored guidance being given in face-to-face MSc handbooks, Distance Learning course handbooks, and the research degrees handbook. The most comprehensive guidance, including how to avoid committing an offence, is drawn together in a generic Academic Writing handbook which serves as a resource for all students – including those on individual modules or short courses who may not otherwise be given detailed guidance. Note that students are also required to submit a ‘plagiarism declaration form’ prior to submitting their first piece of assessed work (the form only needs to be filled in once). Students must declare on this form that they have read and understood the School’s definitions of plagiarism and cheating, and that all 3 of 12



5. Use of the Turnitin tool

Discrepancies in the flow of argument, or between standard of language and the meaning conveyed – e.g. a complex sentence that is well-written in itself, but does not fit with the sentences around it.  Strange or abrupt changes in grammar – e.g. tense, use of active/passive, use of first/third person.  Strange or abrupt changes in font and/or layout.  Variant use of sentence structure – e.g. if sentences are unusually long; or if most sections of a paper have short (average 15 word) sentences, but some have much longer (average 30+ word) sentences.  Signs of datedness – e.g. lack of recent or topical references, use of very old or out-of-date papers/sources where more recent material is easily available, bibliographies where all sources are several years old.  Use of a mixture of referencing styles, both in the paper itself or in the bibliography.  Bibliographies that do not reflect the topic of the assignment, or only cite material not available locally.  URLs or other identifications of external sources left in headers or footers.  Inconsistent use of American versus British spelling.  Work that is out of character for this particular student, especially if it exceeds their previously observed level of performance or language. [The above list has been drawn from, and for some points quotes verbatim, Carroll (2002:63-64) – full reference given in Section 10]

Background: LSHTM subscribes to the Turnitin UK online plagiarism detection service, recommended by HEFCE and JISC. The software is provided by a US company, iParadigms, but delivered online via the Turnitin UK website (www.submit.ac.uk) run by the Northumbria Learning group, an offshoot of Northumbria University, who also run the JISC Plagiarism Advisory Service. It has been used successfully at LSHTM since 2004-05. How it works: Turnitin compares students' work against a very extensive pool of journals, periodicals, books, databases, current and archived internet pages, and other published or grey literature, as well as previously submitted student work from subscribing institutions around the world (including from current and past LSHTM students). It then generates an “originality report” highlighting text from the submitted work which has been found at other sources. This includes a facility for instant side-by-side comparisons between submitted work and any individual sources. Turnitin screenshot: comparison against an individual text source

Of course, none of these are definitive signs of plagiarism, and it is important not to jump to conclusions. Students whose first language is not English may be capable of producing work that is original and of a good intellectual standard, despite making some of the kind of errors of presentation described above. Things like sentence length and complexity can vary in many people’s writing; and inconsistencies of style may be relatively commonplace. However, these kind of points are generally good indicators that the work should be investigated further. Once suspicion has been raised, it is usually relatively easy to determine whether or not plagiarism has taken place.

4 of 12

Coverage: At the last count, in 2012, Turnitin covered 20+ billion pages of web content, 110,000+ professional, academic and commercial journals and publications, 220 million student papers, and was continuing to add content at a rate of 150,000 papers per day. However, please also remember that the comparison database is finite, and can never guarantee to be a 100% comprehensive resource of published literature/text – particularly in more specialised fields. Just because something is not picked up by Turnitin as matching to another source does not mean it is original work.

Access: Staff in the Teaching Support Office and Distance Learning Office, as well as Research Degrees Administrators, have standard access to Turnitin and will normally be expected to upload any work for scrutiny. Additional logins may be requested via the Teaching Support Office. Note that Turnitin is designed as an interactive online system, and although Originality Reports can be printed out this does not provide the same ease of use for looking through and evaluating matches. More detailed procedures for the use of Turnitin are given at Annex 1.

Copyright and Data Protection: There should be no copyright, data protection or confidentiality implications from use of the Turnitin service – it is simply a tool to make plagiarism procedures easier to implement, and is consistent with the School’s Assessment Irregularity procedures. Moreover, all students are required to sign a declaration when registering for their course, to state:

Informing decisions: It is vital to note that Turnitin does not make decisions about a piece of work or its author. Rather, it provides information from which members of staff can make a judgement about whether any copied text is an accurate and legitimate citation/quote/reference, or has been plagiarised. It is anticipated that Turnitin may be used at two distinct stages within the process of investigating potential plagiarism –  First, to inform an initial investigation (by Taught Course Director or Research Degrees Director) of whether there is a case to answer.  Second, to provide more formal evidence for a Panel or Committee looking to make decisions about a case.

“I understand that when submitting work to the School for assessment it may be necessary for the School to make copies, or authorise third parties to make copies, for purposes of identifying and preventing plagiarism. I consent to the transfer of my assignments and any other submitted material, plus any necessary personal data, to accomplish this. I understand that the School uses the TurnitinUK service, and that TurnitinUK and its parent or associated companies will at all times abide by the applicable EU rules regarding the use and protection of my personal data.”

6. Current procedures for different types of work The following notes describe current standard practice and expectations about how different types of assessment should be checked for plagiarism.

Purpose: Turnitin should have two main benefits for markers at LSHTM. First, it will identify where there is a large proportion of copied text, legitimate or otherwise. Second, it pulls together and presents all source texts which it identifies as relating to the document under scrutiny, so as to allow easier comparison. This should be a more comprehensive approach to checking quotes, citations or potential plagiarism than hit-and-miss use of internet search engines or similar.

6.1 For taught modules (both face-to-face and distance learning) Scrutiny by markers is the main method for detecting plagiarism in module assignments, as these are not run through Turnitin as standard. If a marker becomes suspicious when reading a particular piece of work, they should immediately contact the Module Organiser, who will refer this on to the Taught Course Director for investigation. At the discretion of the Module Organiser and Taught Course Director, it may be decided that all student work for a particular module or module task should be run through Turnitin as standard. If so, then for reasons of consistency and fairness, all submitted work should be uploaded and checked, rather than just uploading a random sample for spot-checking.

Usage: Turnitin will be used in all cases where suspicions have been raised about a piece of work and are being formally followed up. This should be prompted by the responsible Taught Course Director or Research Degrees Director at the ‘initial investigation’ stage. Additionally, MSc projects and Research Degree upgrading/review documents are checked in Turnitin as standard, and certain MSc modules are piloting use of Turnitin for checking assessments.

Note that Turnitin scrutiny requires an electronic version of material, so will be more difficult for modules which require submissions in hardcopy only. If Turnitin is to be used as standard for a module, the assessment criteria 5 of 12

6.4 For short courses Short course assessments should normally follow the procedures outlined above for module assignments or exams, as appropriate and at the discretion of involved staff.

should require work to be submitted electronically. Otherwise, since most hardcopy student work is likely to have been done on a computer and printed off, it will generally be possible to scan it in and submit the scanned file to Turnitin. Most modern scanners will have a character-recognition mode which picks up the actual text rather than scanning the full page as a picture, and will then be capable of saving this as a PDF file suitable for Turnitin. As a worst-case scenario, even if a student has submitted a handwritten assignment, key paragraphs for scrutiny may be electronically transcribed – although the TSO or DL Office will not necessarily have the resources to do this for a large amount of work.

6.5 For research degrees Research degree students are expected to display the highest standards of academic good practice in all work related to their degree. Supervisors should ensure they are confident that from an early stage of study, their students understand how to cite and reference correctly and avoid any risks of plagiarism or other irregularities. For the main elements of student work:  Upgrading reports or DrPH review reports should be run through Turnitin by the Faculty Research Degrees Administrator prior to the meeting. The version submitted may be a penultimate draft, and does not have to be the final document. In addition to top-level scrutiny by the RDA, the Chair of the relevant Panel should also review the Originality Report.  As good practice, penultimate versions of research degree theses should be run through Turnitin prior to formal submission. Scrutiny of the Originality Report may be undertaken by the supervisor or another appropriate Faculty nominee. While it is hoped that any instances of plagiarism at this stage would be very rare, such a review is likely to be useful in checking the quality of citations and references and prompting any last corrections or improvements.  DrPH Organisational & Policy Analysis reports should also be run through Turnitin as standard, by Research Degrees Administrators, and scrutinised by the DrPH Course Director or their nominee.  DrPH module assignments may be scrutinised in line with the procedures outlined above for other taught modules.  Research degree poster presentations, or any other work done during the course of a degree, may be referred for further scrutiny at the instigation of any concerned member of staff.

6.2 For MSc projects (both face-to-face and distance learning) Projects are significant extended pieces of academic writing which, where taken, form a major component of an MSc degree at the School. Project markers are therefore expected to be particularly alert for plagiarism. All projects are also run through Turnitin on a standard basis (students are required to submit their reports in both hardcopy and electronic format, the latter being used); with the full set of projects for a course or even an entire Faculty being scrutinised by a designated ‘project moderator’ – normally the Taught Course Director. Such horizontal scrutiny provides a consistent means of detecting substantially plagiarised work. However, it should be noted that this is necessarily top-level; ‘project moderators’ will focus on projects which show larger proportional matches to other sources. 6.3 For formal exams (both face-to-face and distance learning) Rigorous exam hall procedures are the School’s main approach to preventing irregularities in examinations. When reading through scripts, the main thing markers may wish to look out for is evidence of collusion (such as very similar answers from different students) or even cheating (such as correct answers without any evidence of workings or calculations). Plagiarism is not normally an issue for exams, and students are not generally expected to provide references or citations in work under exam conditions to the same standard as work done in private study time. However, one other thing to look out for is rote learning, where a student memorises someone else’s text and regurgitates it without attribution – this may be classed as either plagiarism or poor academic practice, subject to judgement on the case in question.

Staff should also note that prospective research degree applicants are required to confirm on their application form "I declare that this application is my own work, and that any elements which make use of the work of others have been clearly indicated through a citation or acknowledgement. I consent to information from this application being transferred to the plagiarism detection service TurnitinUK to check originality.”

6 of 12

Project proposals or other information from application forms will be run through Turnitin on a standard basis by either Research Degrees Administrators or the Registry. Where an issue is identified, it should be referred to the relevant Research Degrees Director to follow up and take action as appropriate.

the subsequent assessment should be deferred until a verdict has been reached. 7.3 Formal procedures for face-to-face programmes For students registered on face-to-face LSHTM courses, any allegations should be followed up under the Assessment Irregularities procedure (see links given earlier in this document). This has two main ‘levels’ after an initial investigation by the Taught Course Director or Research Degrees Director has determined that there is a case to answer.  In general, most cases will be dealt with by a less formal Irregularity Investigation Panel (IIP) consisting of the Taught Course Director plus the relevant Course Director or Module Organiser, or Research Degrees Director plus the relevant Research Degrees Coordinator. If the Panel decides that an irregularity has occurred, the student will be given the opportunity to accept a decision and penalty set by the IIP.  In certain cases, a more formal Assessment Irregularities Committee (AIC) may be required. Cases should proceed directly to an AIC if warranted by severity of the allegation, if the allegation would constitute a repeat offence, or if specifically requested by student. Otherwise, an AIC will be required if the IIP believe that the case warrants more severe penalties, or if the student is unwilling to accept the decision or penalty of the IIP.

7. Following up suspected plagiarism 7.1 Notification of suspicions Where a marker or another member of staff suspects plagiarism (or any other forms of assessment irregularity, like collusion or exam misconduct), they should normally investigate slightly further themselves – e.g. by checking suspicious phrases in an internet search engine, a likely source textbook, other scripts seen, etc. However, even if this turns up no further evidence, if suspicions remain then the matter should be reported. In the first instance, such suspicions or allegations should be notified – without undue delay – to the member of staff with management responsibility for the relevant assessment, e.g. the Module Organiser (for a module assignment), Course Director (for an MSc project), or Research Degrees Coordinator (for research degree work). This member of staff should then inform the relevant Taught Course Director or Research Degrees Director, who will carry out an initial investigation to establish whether there is a case to answer.

This process will apply for all LSHTM-registered students, whether on awardbearing courses or individual modules. The procedures also make reference to what to do for cases where students are registered for a primary award with other institutions (e.g. intercollegiate students), or for cases involving LSHTM students taking modules at other institutions

7.2 Communication with students Staff who have reported suspected plagiarism are not necessarily expected to be identified as part of formal proceedings. All subsequent follow-up with the student should be handled via the Taught Course Director or Research Degrees Director and other staff with management responsibility for the assessment, i.e. Module Organiser or Course Director. Where the initial investigation suggests there is a case to answer, the Taught Course Director or Research Degrees Director will notify students. A template for doing so is provided at Annex 2.

7.4 Formal procedures for distance learning programmes Students on the School’s distance learning courses are registered with the University of London External System, whose Regulation 1 Annex 6 ‘Procedures for the Consideration of Allegations of Examination Offence’ apply. This defines plagiarism in almost identically the same way as the School’s internal procedure, and staff should not need to treat distance learning work in any way ‘differently’ when marking. Any suspicions or allegations should be identified as described above, and notified to the relevant member of staff (normally the Course Director or Module Organiser) to take forward with the Taught Course Director.

Note that where an irregularity is alleged, results should not be confirmed for the assessment in question until a verdict is reached. Where this involves work which is expected to form the basis for a separate subsequent assessment (e.g. a module assignment which will be further developed in a later advanced module), then initiation or submission/examination/marking of

As per LSHTM procedures, Taught Course Directors should then conduct an initial investigation, and may convene an Irregularities Investigation Panel to help clarify matters further. Where there appears to be a substantive case to 7 of 12

inappropriate work that potentially meets the School’s definition of plagiarism should be referred for investigation under the Assessment Irregularities procedure.

answer, the matter will need to be referred to the External System to take forward under their procedures. However, cases of poor academic practice or poor scholarship should not be referred; and IIPs (or Taught Course Directors liaising direct with markers) may make recommendations as appropriate where matters are not being referred on to the External System.

Formal investigations may end up concluding that something was poor academic practice rather than plagiarism; but if in any doubt, the decision should be made in a formal way rather than based on markers’ individual judgements.

7.5 Legal implications Staff who become involved in a case of (potential) student plagiarism or other irregularities may sometimes worry about the possibility of legal implications. Please be reassured that this remains rare and unlikely, and were it to arise then any action would be expected to be against the School rather than individual staff. However, to remain fully protected staff should ensure that they follow the School’s procedures rigorously from the moment any potential case is identified. Please also remember that under the Data Protection Act, students are entitled to see any records held about them; so use appropriately cautious language in any emails about particular cases, or any documents placed on file.

However, markers are expected to use their own expertise to make judgements about cases of poor academic practice which do not represent potential plagiarism, and may choose to award marks that are lower than they might otherwise have been. Examples of poor academic practice can include:  where work has been attributed, but not using a recognised citation style;  inconsistent use of different referencing styles in the main text or the bibliography;  poor quality of referencing;  overuse of potentially low-quality sources such as wiki-based internet sites;  excessive use of referencing; etc.

The main areas in which an institution might be legally challenged are over procedures (as per the Human Rights Act these must be clear and transparent and provide rights of appeal etc.) or bias (failing to treat everyone equally and in accordance with the procedures). Otherwise, the School’s policy makes clear that irregularities should be dealt with as an academic judgement only; such matters are not reviewable by the courts – although note that they would be reviewable if treated as disciplinary matters, and students have the right to legal representation if a judgement will affect their career.

Academic judgements about the quality of work should take note of poor academic practice, i.e. this can quite appropriately affect marking. For example, a piece of work consisting almost entirely of referenced quotations may be liable to fail if it demonstrates a lack of original argument or analysis, or understanding and engagement with the topic.

Plagiarism cases may also sometimes throw up the possibility of copyright infringement (possibly even infringement of staff members’ copyrights); but this should be dealt with as a separate matter.

9. Feeding back to students about their work If a piece of work has been referred for investigation under the Assessment Irregularities procedure, the student should not be given feedback until a verdict has been reached. However, as with any other piece of work, the student will be entitled to feedback. Markers will be expected to write the feedback, but the Taught Course Director (or Research Degrees Director) must be given the opportunity to review it and may choose to edit or add to it before it is sent to the student.

Some further information on this topic is available at http://archive.plagiarismadvice.org/resources/legal-issues

8. Distinguishing plagiarism from poor academic practice Suspicious or inappropriate-seeming elements of work may potentially constitute ‘poor academic practice’ (defined further below), rather than ‘plagiarism’ as defined by the School. Markers are not expected to have to make judgements to distinguish between the two – rather, any suspicious or

Whatever the verdict, where a piece of work has been referred on for investigation, it will usually be appropriate to give the student some specific feedback on academic writing issues – e.g. noting alternative approaches that might have been taken, indicating good or bad referencing practice, or 8 of 12

suggesting how the student might improve their next submission. Investigations may recommend that the student be asked to improve their understanding of School guidance in specific areas. Where a marker has identified elements of poor academic practice that do not constitute plagiarism and have not been referred on, these should likewise be mentioned in feedback and the student encouraged to improve.

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURES FOR THE USE OF TURNITIN AT LSHTM

Please be aware that markers must not make decisions about plagiarism – e.g. awarding a lower mark, while mentioning errors and areas to improve as part of the feedback to the student. Such issues should always be referred on and decisions made about the issue. This helps ensure that consistent standards and penalties are applied across the School, in a way that is equitable for all students.

For individual courses, project work should normally be uploaded to a course login account (corresponding to the course email address). It is the responsibility of the relevant administrative staff to ensure that course accounts are administered correctly.

Staff access to Turnitin Turnitin access should be managed via the Teaching Support Office, Distance Learning Office or Research Degrees Administrators, who can supply login details or set staff up with a personal login.

Student access to Turnitin Turnitin access details for any accounts holding student work should not be given to students – not least as this would give access to view other students’ work.

10. Further guidance on this topic Two of the most well-recognised standard texts on plagiarism prevention and detection for UK higher education are: Carroll, J. (2002), A handbook for deterring plagiarism in higher education (Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development) Carroll, J. and Appleton, J. (2001), ‘Plagiarism: a good practice guide’ (JISC and Oxford Brookes University, http://plagiarismadvice.org/images/plagad/resources/institutional_appr oaches/Carroll_goodpractice.pdf)

It is not current School policy for students to be given their own access to Turnitin. However, in the unlikely event of students requesting visibility of the report on their work produced by Turnitin, the relevant administrator could download a copy of the Originality Report for them. Getting started A selection of useful training materials is available on the Turnitin UK website at www.submit.ac.uk/en_gb/support-services

Both of these are highly commended for all staff interested in developing an understanding of plagiarism-related issues.

These include a ‘quickstart’ guide, narrated videos and an instructor’s manual which provides step-by-step guides to uploading and viewing material (their term ‘instructor’ will apply to both LSHTM administrators uploading material and LSHTM academics checking Originality Reports).

The other major support resource for staff in UK higher education institutions interested in best practice to address plagiarism and ensure the authenticity of student work is the JISC-established Plagiarism Advisory Service based at Northumbria University, www.plagiarismadvice.org

The system is ultimately fairly simple, although tends to use its own terminology (e.g. ‘classes’, ‘assignments’, ‘Originality Reports’) and does not always make it immediately obvious where to click for a particular function. It also offers a wide range of additional functions that are not currently in use at LSHTM (e.g. for having students check their own work, or using Turnitin as platform for grading work) which may safely be ignored.

The ‘resources’ section of the site provides a wealth of useful information, of which the ‘good practice guide’ mentioned above is just one.

Good practice for uploading student work to Turnitin Work should normally be uploaded to Turnitin by staff in the TSO or DL Office.

9 of 12

In all cases, it is important that work be uploaded in a clear and consistent way – to make individual pieces of work easy to find, and minimise issues such as identifiability. School policy is that all student work uploaded to Turnitin should be anonymised by candidate number – the only identifying information should be course, year and candidate number.

(ii) Uploading – the system is quite straightforward and easy to use.  Go to the Turnitin UK site at www.submit.ac.uk, click User Login and enter login details (email address and password – the password is casesensitive) for the course / area the work falls under.  Navigate through the list of classes and assignments, e.g. clicking class “Student Work 2010-11” so you then see assignment "MSc Projects 2010-11", or similar. As per the notes above on administering accounts, you may need to create a new ‘class’ or ‘assignment’ in which to put the work you are about to upload.  Click the Submit icon next to the assignment name, which brings up a submission screen. The method should be set to ‘file upload’, although you may find it slightly easier to switch to ‘bulk upload’ when about to deal with a whole batch of work from different students. In either case, the information you need to give is first name (state course/module/area – may wish to put an abbreviation, e.g. MSc PH); last name (put the candidate no.), and submission title (put the candidate no. again, then add their assignment or project title after this if you so wish).  Click ‘Browse’ to select the appropriate file you have saved on your drive – this is where it can be very helpful to have put the candidate number in the filename – then attach and submit.  The system can let you view the text of the project before you confirm upload. This can be helpful to make sure you’ve put the right file against the right candidate number, and that Turnitin has picked it all up appropriately if the student has used any unusual formats.  Once submitted, you then have options to either make another submission, or return to the inbox which shows all submitted work for that assignment.  Note that after submission, reports may typically take about 20 minutes to process on the system before you can view them. After uploading a large batch, it may take longer before they are all ready to view.

Turnitin uses a structure of nested ‘classes’ and ‘assignments’ to organise work; their training materials include a short step-by-step video on setting these up. It is suggested that ‘classes’ should normally be set up for each different academic year, and the different ‘assignments’ set up within these – e.g. with separate assignment folders for things like individual submissions and groupwork submissions, and perhaps a “test” assignment for one-off or ad-hoc items. Note that when prompted to set a ‘class enrolment’ password after creating a new class, this is not relevant (we are not asking LSHTM students to use the system directly) so just set it to anything. Instructions on uploading student work to Turnitin Administrators should upload work to Turnitin as follows: (i) Preparation – collate work from each student into a single file and anonymise it.  It is recommended that you copy all student work received electronically (e.g. via email or on a CD-ROM) over to a restricted-access folder on the shared office drive. Take whatever filename the students have given, and ‘save as’ with their candidate number at the start of the filename. This should make it easier for you to later check off what you have uploaded.  Turnitin currently accepts Word, Text, Postscript, PDF, HTML, and RTF file types. If a student has submitted work in any other format (notably Excel), they should be asked to re-submit in an appropriate format – usually, by creating a PDF.  Where a student has supplied multiple files, you should aim to collate these and save into a single electronic file which can be uploaded to the system. If this is particularly difficult, then it is possible to upload multiple files to Turnitin – although that is not recommended, and files would need to be clearly distinguished, e.g. ‘Candidate X part 1 of 4’.  Please ensure the file is anonymised to Candidate number only (removing student name or other personally identifiable information which is not relevant to the project itself). You should also remove any metadata – e.g. for Microsoft Word files, clicking on ‘File’, ‘Properties’, then removing any personal information in the tab for ‘Author’.

Instructions for academic staff checking student work on Turnitin Once uploaded, academic staff can view Originality Reports online as follows:  Go to the Turnitin UK site at www.submit.ac.uk, click User Login and enter login details (email address and password – the password is casesensitive) for the account to which work has been uploaded.  This will show a list of "classes"; click the relevant one e.g. “Student Work 2011-12”. 10 of 12













constitute plagiarism or inappropriate citation. This scrutiny should normally be conducted either by Taught Course Directors or Research Degrees Directors conducting an initial investigation of an alleged case, or by another designated member of staff who has been asked to check or moderate a batch of work (e.g. a set of MSc projects or work for a specific module).

This will then brings up a list of "assignments"; click the View icon next to the relevant one (e.g. "MSc Projects 2011-12", or similar) to bring up the relevant work. Work should have been uploaded by candidate number. Click on any of the Report icons next to a candidate number / assignment title to see the relevant ‘Originality Report’ for that candidate. This highlights all text sourced from other documents, with facility to click through to review any of the source texts. Each report has an “overall similarity index” showing the percentage of text which matches to sources in the Turnitin database. A source numbering system is used to show which parts of the text correspond to which source, and what percentage that represents overall. Clicking on a particular phrase will bring up a "side by side" report comparing student text against the specific source, in two parallel panes. It is possible to exclude any of the indicated sources from the report, which then recalculates the overall similarity percentages. Simply click the relevant “x” icon to the right of the source details displayed in the righthand pane; it removes that source from the cumulative view, to show any smaller matches which may be hidden underneath. This function is useful, for instance, where a student submits a revised version of a piece of work; initially the originality report would show a very substantial match to the previous version, but to make appropriate external comparisons the previous version should be excluded. Excluded sources can still be viewed and restored using the ‘single source mode’ of the report. Various other functions are also available in the software, e.g. to see the original (fully-formatted) version of the file uploaded for that student then click on their name / candidate number in the main Assignment screen. When suspected plagiarism is identified, the Originality Report and source files highlighted by Turnitin can easily be viewed/saved/printed for use as supporting evidence in a case.

When reviewing a batch of student work, individual elements may be scrutinised to a greater or lesser level of detail as appropriate to the work in question. At minimum, it is suggested that Originality Reports be scrutinised in detail for all work which shows an overall ‘similarity index’ (text matching to external sources) of greater than 30%. Preferably, each Originality Report should be opened up individually, and if a similarity index of greater than 510% is shown against any single source then it should be looked at in closer detail. Messages from other institutions Turnitin users at LSHTM will always be using a login account associated with a particular email address. For MSc work, this will normally be the generic MSc email address also used for prospective student enquiries etc.; but for other types of work e.g. modules or research degrees, accounts may be set up for individuals. Note that occasionally, the email address associated with an account may received automated messages from Turnitin on behalf of staff at other institutions. This may happen and should be acted on as follows.

Guidance and expectations for using Turnitin to identify plagiarism It is important to note that the Turnitin software does not “identify” plagiarism per se; it simply provides an Originality Report highlighting text within the assignment that has been found at another source. A level of matching will always be expected, as citations, references etc. will all be picked up; e.g. 15% would be normal for many types of project, and for some types (such as literature reviews) a higher proportion of matches would be expected. Thus, in using Turnitin it will always be necessary for a relevant member of academic staff to review the Originality Report and decide on what may 11 of 12



If someone at another institution runs a report through Turnitin that matches in part to a report previously uploaded at LSHTM, then they will see that the report at their institution has an x% match to this report at LSHTM. They will not have direct visibility of the original report text; rather, Turnitin will offer them the opportunity to click a button to send an automated email requesting visibility. This will go to the LSHTM email account under which the report was originally uploaded – staff at other institutions are not given direct LSHTM contact details.



Whoever receives this request at LSHTM should then decide whether to allow or deny visibility. The declaration which all students sign on registration includes a clause granting blanket permission for the School to share their work with others where appropriate to aid the prevention or detection of plagiarism; so it is not necessary to ask permission from the student involved. Staff should normally grant visibility on requests for any % match above 5%, but may use their discretion to deny visibility for

Panel will consist of [Course Director or Module Organiser – name and title] and myself.

any % matches below that level without needing to double-check the work involved. 

It is possible that more than one ‘instructors’ may be associated with the login account under which a piece of work was uploaded, and that these may all receive the same automated request for visibility. In the event that duplicate requests are received, they should be dealt with by the Course, Module or Research Degrees administrator for the LSHTM area concerned.

[for London-based students only]: You are invited to attend this Panel meeting to explain or discuss this matter and provide any further relevant evidence. A friend or representative may accompany you. If you are unable to attend in person, your explanation and evidence may be given in writing; or directly via phone, video link or similar. If the date and time are not convenient then I will be willing to reschedule, though not so as to delay the process unduly (I would like the Panel to meet within the next two weeks).

ANNEX 2: STANDARD MESSAGE FOR NOTIFYING STUDENTS ABOUT SUSPECTED ASSESSMENT IRREGULARITIES

[for Distance Learning students only]: You are invited to explain or discuss this matter and provide any further relevant evidence to the Panel. As a distance-based student, you are not required to attend in person but instead may give your explanation and evidence either in writing or directly via phone, video link or similar. If the date and time are not convenient then I will be willing to reschedule, though not so as to delay the process unduly (I would like the Panel to meet within the next two weeks). You would also be welcome to attend the Panel meeting in person, and if so a friend or representative may accompany you.

The following standard template should be used to notify individual students regarding allegations of an assessment irregularity – to let them know where allegations are being investigated, and invite them to attend an Irregularity Investigation Panel. Taught Course Directors may freely amend this text as appropriate for individual cases. Research Degrees Directors should likewise amend this text to be relevant for any research degrees cases.

By return of email, please can you: * Confirm whether you will attend the Panel meeting, or would like to participate remotely via another method, or will provide input in writing ahead of the meeting. * If you wish to attend or participate but the date or time is not convenient, let me know that this is the case and suggest alternative dates.

Subject: Assessment Irregularities – [Module name(s) OR Project Report OR Exam/Paper/Date OR other assessment task]. Dear [student first name], In my role as Taught Course Director for the Faculty it is my responsibility to investigate assessment irregularities. Your assessed work for [Module name(s) OR Project Report OR Exam/Paper/Date OR other assessment task] has been brought to my attention in this regard. Attached is an Assessment Irregularity Record Form detailing the alleged irregularity and my initial investigation; plus a copy of the School’s Assessment Irregularities procedures, which include relevant definitions and details of how these matters will be followed up. An Irregularity Investigation Panel will be meeting to discuss this on [date] at [time] in [location – inc. room number, building name and full address]. The 12 of 12

Yours sincerely, [Name, title and correspondence details of Taught Course Director]