How does one check for the plagiarizing of an entire bibliography section?

[Aster]

One of my colleagues recently reported a very unusual situation.

An undergraduate student submitted a project proposal that contained a bibliography section that contained over 20 pages of references. The bibliography does not *visibly* appear to be copy/ pasted (the formatting matches the rest of the proposal).

This report does not require the bibliography references to be directly cited, so none of the references are cited in the rest of the paper. This means that if someone just wanted to copy over someone else's bibliography onto their own paper, they could easily do it. So I'm wondering if this student just plagiarized someone else's references section (or maybe multiple references sections) and then reformatted everything with word processing software.

I was wondering if anyone has ever encountered something like this before. I've never heard of anything like this, not at my work and not on the old CHE forums. It's pretty weird. My own PhD dissertation did not have anywhere near as many references in it than this undergraduate stuffed into his class project proposal.

20+ pages of references... ???

[Parasaurolophus]

It's probably taken from an encyclopedia entry somewhere? Or maybe from a string of Wikipedia entries? One might manage to find it via Google by googling a long conjunction of last names.

I think there's nothing for it but to meet with the student and ask them to say something about their research process and something specific about why they cited some randomly selected entries.

This report does not require the bibliography references to be directly cited, so none of the references are cited in the rest of the paper.

That's the problem right there, isn't it? A good lesson for the future!

I mean, I know this sort of this is relatively common in some fields, but I just don't understand it. If I'm using a source, I use it somewhere in the text. I'm not generating some random-ass compendium to show off my search engine-fu.

[Puget]

My guess would be that they did a search in a database and then exported the results as a bibliography.
I wouldn't see that as plagiarism, though clearly they haven't *read* all those documents.

[mamselle]

Pick three titles at random that sound like they might be able to be discussed together and ask the student to do that.

If they can make a cogent comparison/contrast of those writers' works, they did the work.

If they can't, they probably didn't.

M.

[kaysixteen]

They could have been told by a high school teacher to prepare bibliographies that essentially amount to 'suggestions for further reading' on the topic, and that it is not necessary for them to have read everything on it.   

I see no issues with his choice.  Indeed I often pass out such bibliographies in classes myself.

[jerseyjay]

Twenty pages is way too long (unless the student did something like list every single New York Times article); I am not sure if the bibliography for my doctoral thesis was that long.

I am not sure I would treat this as a plagiarism issue. (Unless the assignment was to actually prepare a bibliography.) My guess is that the student did a database search and listed everything that came up, although it is possible they just copy and pasted the bibliography from a book or something.

For my senior research class, I require that the students CITE every item in the final bibliography. Of course they do not need to read each word in each book/article, but merely have used it in someway (e.g., to get a fact).

Since this is a proposal, not a final project, it is likely that the students listed all these sources as POTENTIAL sources. Whether that is legitimate or not depends what the purpose of the list is. I sometimes require students to give me a list of books that they plan on using, with an eye towards making sure that the student has made sure there are enough sources to actually do a paper. (Sometimes students want to do a topic, which while valid in itself, requires sources in a language that they are not able to read, or books located in a library they cannot access, or something like that. ) If that is the case, I think what the student did is fine.

If the point of the assignment is to require that the student should have already done some research and selected topics that they have looked at, then there should be some added component. For example, I often require the students to do an annotated biography that briefly explains what the source is and summarizes how it will be used in the paper. But this is done after the proposal.

Here is what I require for my senior research class (in history).

First, a proposal laying out the research project, with a list of possible sources. Twenty is more than I usually get, but I do not require the students to have read them.

Then, a refined research statement that includes an annotated bibliography of sources that have been selected. I don't expect students to have read them all, but they should have at least looked at them and identified if and how they would be used. This is dues somewhere in the middle of their research.

Then I require various drafts, each with a bibliography of works CITED. In the final draft, I will mark off for citing material that is not in the bibliography or putting material in the bibliography that is not cited.

Upon reflection, there are times I have included long bibliographies of material that I have not read in proposals. One is a course proposal; we are supposed to list resources in the campus library that would be appropriate to the students. Many I have read, some I haven't, but the point is to make sure that there is enough material in the library. The second one is a proposal for a course release to do research. There I list all the various sources I plan on consulting in the semester. I assume the point is to show that I have actually thought about what I am going to do and have a realistic plan.

[Vkw10]

I've encountered extremely long bibliographies when I don't require citations or annotations. I started getting them about the time library databases started including the ability to download references.

My first reaction was to quiz students on why they'd given me long citation lists and try to stop it by requiring them to explain why they did or didn't cite each item in next assignment. That made extra work for me and students, which all of us resented.

After some thought, I realized that many didn't understand that I was teaching them a process and that selecting potential sources is part of the process. Now I outline the process at the beginning, showing them how each assignment contributes. I explicitly point out that the process includes identifying possible sources, reviewing them to select select ones most likely to be useful, and incorporating source material in paper. I point out that the proposal bibliography requires them to identify possible sources and gives them the opportunity to review/select, while the first draft requires selecting/incorporating source material.

I tell them that I don't grade proposal on length of bibliography, so it's their choice whether to do the review/select work early or wait and do it before they write draft. I also tell them that waiting usually means they'll be working very hard just before midterms. It's their choice how to manage their time, when they look at the work due for all their classes now and near midterms.

After I started reviewing the process and pointing out the time management issue, most students gave me reasonable bibliographies with proposal. I still get the occasional excessively long bibliography, but I just comment that they've identified many possibilities so they need to allow time to review and select the best sources before writing their first draft. I also remind them that they can make appointments to see me if they need help. I treat the long bibliography with proposal as a teaching opportunity and an indicator of who needs extra help.

[kaysixteen]

An annotated biblio is different.  If you want this, ask for it and tell students what it is.   My point stands, and it is certainly true that students' giving profs huge biblios is a product of the computer revolution in library and internet reference sources.

[Caracal]

Pick three titles at random that sound like they might be able to be discussed together and ask the student to do that.

If they can make a cogent comparison/contrast of those writers' works, they did the work.

If they can't, they probably didn't.

M.

I don't think that's really fair for a bibliography. All it is supposed to be is a list of works that influenced the author's thinking on the topic in some way. Including something on a bibliography doesn't mean you're certifying something about your knowledge of the work. My dissertation bibliography didn't include anything I literally had never read but it certainly included things that I read the half of four years ago and barely remembered anything about...

If it's a proposal, it also might include things the student intends to read in the course of doing the project. I don't think it would make any sense to consider this plagiarism. Presumably, the point of the bibliography was for the student to identify sources they might use in their writing of the paper. It doesn't seem like they really did this, they just took a bunch of titles related to the topic in some way from somewhere. It would probably make sense to explain that and ask them to do it again.

[Caracal]

Pick three titles at random that sound like they might be able to be discussed together and ask the student to do that.

If they can make a cogent comparison/contrast of those writers' works, they did the work.

If they can't, they probably didn't.

M.

I don't think that's really fair for a bibliography. All it is supposed to be is a list of works that influenced the author's thinking on the topic in some way. Including something on a bibliography doesn't mean you're certifying something about your knowledge of the work. My dissertation bibliography didn't include anything I literally had never touched, but it certainly included things that I read the introduction of four years ago and barely remembered anything about...

If it's a proposal, it also might include things the student intends to read in the course of doing the project. I don't think it would make any sense to consider this plagiarism. Presumably, the point of the bibliography was for the student to identify sources they might use in their writing of the paper. It doesn't seem like they really did this, they just took a bunch of titles related to the topic in some way from somewhere. It would probably make sense to explain that and ask them to do it again.

[apl68]

I've encountered extremely long bibliographies when I don't require citations or annotations. I started getting them about the time library databases started including the ability to download references.

My first reaction was to quiz students on why they'd given me long citation lists and try to stop it by requiring them to explain why they did or didn't cite each item in next assignment. That made extra work for me and students, which all of us resented.

After some thought, I realized that many didn't understand that I was teaching them a process and that selecting potential sources is part of the process. Now I outline the process at the beginning, showing them how each assignment contributes. I explicitly point out that the process includes identifying possible sources, reviewing them to select select ones most likely to be useful, and incorporating source material in paper. I point out that the proposal bibliography requires them to identify possible sources and gives them the opportunity to review/select, while the first draft requires selecting/incorporating source material.

It's very good that you're doing that.  Not only is it possible for a student to download a long citation list from a database search, and not have any idea how to boil it down usefully, it's also possible for them to swamp the ILL office by trying to order EVERYTHING on that citation list.  I saw it happen when I worked in ILL.  Mind-boggling piles of requests.  The most extreme example ran into the hundreds of article requests--by an undergrad student doing an undergrad paper.  I still wonder what the poor student did when faced with such a huge pile of articles to sift through, with presumably little idea how best to do that. 

You're saving your students (and others) a lot of trouble by addressing the issue early on.

[mamselle]

Pick three titles at random that sound like they might be able to be discussed together and ask the student to do that.

If they can make a cogent comparison/contrast of those writers' works, they did the work.

If they can't, they probably didn't.

M.

I don't think that's really fair for a bibliography. All it is supposed to be is a list of works that influenced the author's thinking on the topic in some way. Including something on a bibliography doesn't mean you're certifying something about your knowledge of the work. My dissertation bibliography didn't include anything I literally had never read but it certainly included things that I read the half of four years ago and barely remembered anything about...

If it's a proposal, it also might include things the student intends to read in the course of doing the project. I don't think it would make any sense to consider this plagiarism. Presumably, the point of the bibliography was for the student to identify sources they might use in their writing of the paper. It doesn't seem like they really did this, they just took a bunch of titles related to the topic in some way from somewhere. It would probably make sense to explain that and ask them to do it again.

But if the bibliography doesn't support the paper/student doesn't have insight into the titles they've listed and their purpose, then it's padding and should be graded accordingly.

A bibliography should be the muscular expression of the armature of the piece, not a pile of accreted flab attached as an afterthought.

M.

[jerseyjay]

I think that your colleague should clarify--first for him/herself and then for the students--what the point of this bibliography exercise is.

Is it to show what research the student has done? What research the student plans on doing? What research the student could do?

Is it a list of sources that the student consulted in writing the proposal?

Is it a list of sources that the  student plans on using for the project?

Is it a list of sources that the student thinks are possible sources for the project?

Is it supposed to showcase the student's ability to find material related to the topic? To show that that the student can select which sources are most relevant and appropriate? To show what research the student has actually done?

If the point is to prove that a research project on topic X is workable, then a long list of sources might be appropriate.

If it is a list of sources that the student plans on using over the semester, then some refinement is necessary.

If it is to show what the student has done, then it should be shorter still.

But I still think that, unless this is a class on compiling bibliographies (a useful skill), then this is not really plagiarism but rather not understanding what the point of the exercise is. Which might point to the need for clearer instructions.

[marshwiggle]

But I still think that, unless this is a class on compiling bibliographies (a useful skill), then this is not really plagiarism but rather not understanding what the point of the exercise is. Which might point to the need for clearer instructions.

Given earlier discussions where people used the term "self-plagiarism" for students submitting some work that they had done themselves for one course to satisfy requirements of another course,  I think many faculty use the term "plagiarism" to signify any time a student might seem to have put in less than the expected amount of work for some course requirement.

[kaysixteen]

Anyone really think a bibliography can be plagiarized?  Who thinks one needs to cite the source of a source entry in a bibliography?