Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Journal of Academic Ethics
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Vol.:(0123456789)
Journal of Academic Ethics
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09564-1
Fabricating Citations: The Policies ofNew Jersey Public
Institutions ofHigher Education
AllisonS.Williams1
Accepted: 23 August 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
Abstract
Higher education academic integrity policies are varied, and similarly, the language regard-
ing the act of fabricating citations can be diverse and subjective. With recent calls to align
academic integrity policies with practice, the aim of this paper is to gain a better under-
standing of how the act of fabricating citations is presented in higher education academic
integrity policies by conducting a two-phase content analysis of the web-based, academic
conduct policies for undergraduate students at public institutions of higher education in the
State of New Jersey. The first phase consisted of a conceptual analysis for language regard-
ing the act of fabricating citations. The second phase consisted of a thematic analysis of the
policies that included language regarding the fabrication of citations. This study finds sev-
eral potential issues. Policies that lack language regarding the fabrication of citations fail to
communicate it as a prohibited act, and some policies that include language regarding the
fabrication of citations use ambiguous terminology that is subjective, exclusive examples
that fail to include all acts of citation fabrication, or phrasing that fails to align with the
following commonly used writing styles: American Psychological Association (APA), Chi-
cago Manual of Style (CMOS), and Modern Language Association (MLA).
Keywords Fabrication· Citations· Academic integrity· Policies
Introduction
Academic integrity is multifaceted since it is defined, developed, and maintained based on
various aspects. Further compounding the complexity is a lack of consensus among stake-
holders in how these aspects come together to create academic integrity (Bretag, 2016).
Like its antithesis, consensus lacks in defining acts of academic dishonesty. Agreement
is difficult due to numerous nuances to consider, like intent to do wrong and extent of the
violation. As a result of their complexity, academic integrity and academic dishonesty
have been the subject of numerous studies, and although the research is plentiful regard-
ing certain acts, such as plagiarism and cheating (Mahmud & Ali, 2023; Maral, 2024),
few studies focus solely on fabrication. Pavela (1978) defined fabrication as “intentional
* Allison S. Williams
williamsal@rowan.edu
1 The Department ofCommunication Studies, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ08028, USA
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
A.S.Williams
or unauthorized falsification or invention of any information or citation in an academic
exercise” (p. 72). Other stakeholders, however, categorize these acts as different types of
academic misconduct, such as plagiarism (Carroll, 2016; Gilmore, 2008). These variations
in categorization, as well as the different acts of academic fabrication, complicate efforts to
glean data specific to certain acts, such as fabricating citations.
As a college public speaking instructor, I have occasionally encountered undergradu-
ate students including sources on works cited or references pages not used as supporting
evidence in their speeches. Evidence is a vital part of speech development, supporting a
speaker’s personal knowledge and claims (Lucas, 2015). A speaker’s ethos is often deter-
mined by the amount and type of evidence used (Ford-Brown, 2014). To ensure students
become proficient in gathering ample and reliable support, I require source minimums
for quantity and quality (e.g. scholarly sources versus popular sources). Encouraging and
instructing students to use ample and quality sources is not always effective, but penalties
for not meeting source standards, in addition to instruction, provide better results (Davis,
2003; Robinson & Schlegl, 2004).
In my experience, source expectations motivate many students to learn how to reinforce
their personal knowledge and support their claims, but some students fail to see the rela-
tionship between the source expectations and speech improvement, leading some students
to focus on meeting the source quotas by any means. Course and institutional policies stat-
ing the expectation to list only sources cited in the work and not to include sources con-
sulted can become peripheral when the goal is to complete the project quickly. In addition,
many fail to see the value in accurate citing, which Davis (2003) describes as follows:
In the world of scholarship, references form a link to original works, give credit to
original ideas, and form a network of connections to related documents. A viable
link—whether in print or electronic form—is absolutely necessary in order to pre-
serve scholarly communication. Without citations that pass the test of time, we have
no way to proceed forward because we can no longer see the past. (p. 50)
In some cases, students neglect to pay attention or fully read assignment instructions.
In other cases, students fail to gauge the more serious consequences of citation fabrica-
tion compared to the penalty for not meeting source expectations. To address the latter, I
sought to gain a better understanding of how the academic integrity policy at the institution
where I am a faculty member and those of other nearby colleges and universities address
the fabrication of citations. In doing so, I uncovered inconsistencies in language regarding
the fabrication of citations when compared to the writing style manuals students are often
required to use to format their research citations. This observation contradicts calls for
policy to align with teaching and assessment practices (Bretag & Mahmud, 2016; Bretag,
etal., 2011a; East, 2009). Therefore, the aim of this paper is to gain a better understanding
of how these policies communicate the act of fabricating citations and how the language
compares to commonly used writing style manuals through a two part-analysis consisting
of a conceptual analysis and thematic analysis.
Shift inPolicy Focus
According to the International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI, 2021), many institu-
tions of higher education would address academic integrity by placing emphasis on pro-
hibited behaviors that countered the fundamentals of integrity. In recent years, however,
there has been a concentrated effort to create cultures of integrity through education and
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Fabricating Citations: The Policies ofNew Jersey Public…
reducing the focus on punitive approaches (Bretag, etal., 2011a; Bretag & Mahmud, 2016,
East, 2009). This shift in focus does not diminish the need for policy to include deter-
rence efforts; both “deterrence and proactive strategies should play an important role in
any academic integrity policy” (McCabe, 2005b, p. 31). However, finding an ideal bal-
ance between proactive, educational measures and methods of deterrence may be chal-
lenging (McCabe, 2005b), and this challenge has spawned new policy assessment that
also addresses calls to align policy with practice (Bretag & Mahmud, 2016; Bretag, etal.,
2011a; East, 2009). As a result, Bretag etal. (2011b) identified five core elements of exem-
plary academic integrity policy, which are access, approach, responsibility, detail, and
support. These five elements have been used as frameworks for contemporary research on
policy assessment (Bretag & Mahmud, 2016; Marais, 2024; Moya & Eaton, 2024; Stoesz
& Eaton, 2022), and the focus of this paper is the core element of detail, particularly the
language used in policies to describe and exemplify citation fabrication by analyzing its
presence, and if applicable, its presentation and alignment with frequent practices used by
students to cite sources. According to Bretag etal. (2011b), the element of detail should
include, in part, “a detailed description of a range of academic integrity breaches” (p 7)
and “an appropriate level of detail in the section on breach identification including defini-
tions with examples” (p. 6).
Fabricating Citations
Carroll (2016) categorizes the following acts as plagiarism: listing sources not read with
the intent to make others believe a more scholarly approach was taken, failing to acknowl-
edge citations obtained from a secondary source, alterations to make the sources appear
current, and the invention of sources. Others, however, define these acts as fabrication.
Although various actions can constitute the fabrication of citations, researchers tend to
focus on specific terminology when gathering data. In the early 1960s, Bowers’s large-
scale research on college student misconduct was unprecedented (Owunwanne, et al.,
2010). As a result, Bowers’s research, specifically its focus on academic dishonesty, has
been a standard framework for additional study (McCabe et al., 2012). In part, Bowers
(1964) asked students to self-report acts “that might be considered dishonest in the light
of academic standards,” which included “‘padding’ a few items on a bibliography” (pp.
46–47). With the goal of replicating and expanding upon Bowers’s research, McCabe etal.
(2012) utilized Bowers’s phrasing of “‘padding’ a few items on a bibliography,” which in
publication, they clarified as “adding citations not actually used in the paper” (p. 3). In
other studies, McCabe and Treviño (1993, 1997) expressed this act as “fabricating or falsi-
fying a bibliography” (p. 529; p. 386).
With Bowers’s data and their own, McCabe etal. (2012) evaluated collegiate academic
dishonesty over a fifty-year period and found students self-reporting the act of fabricat-
ing parts of a bibliography to range from 9 to 35%. These findings and subsequent studies
indicate this act of academic dishonesty is an ongoing issue in higher education (Brown &
Choong, 2003, 2005; Brown etal., 2018; Rosenzweig etal., 2021; Ryan etal., 2017). With
a partial goal of identifying whether composition students “pad” bibliographies with more
traditional sources such as peer-reviewed articles, Rosenzweig etal. (2021) found no clear
pattern to suggest the motivation for listing sources on bibliographies not cited in the work
was to meet instructors’ expectations of source type.
Like the variations in how fabricating citations is defined, research indicates students’
perceptions regarding the seriousness of fabricating parts of a bibliography are varied as
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
A.S.Williams
well (Baker etal., 2008; Brown & Choong, 2003, 2005; Brown etal., 2018; McCabe etal.,
2012; McCabe, 2005a). McCabe etal.’s (2012) earlier data excluded two-year-college and
first-year students, but allowing for such in later surveys, they were able to compare student
self-reported acts of cheating from two-year colleges and four-year colleges without honor
codes. From 2002 to 2010, their data indicated 13% of students at no-code, four-year col-
leges compared to 9% of students from two-year colleges self-reported ‘padding’ a few
items on a bibliography. McCabe etal. (2012) noted this as a “moderate” difference and
found a “significant” increase in the number of four-year college students reporting a com-
bination of cheating activity (p. 68). McCabe etal. (2012) hypothesized the significance in
difference for the combined cheating activities may be due to some two-year college stu-
dents in vocational programs being less concerned about grades and the academic process.
They cautioned that more research is needed to understand the difference in their findings.
In their analysis of data provided by Donald McCabe from surveys designed in 2003,
Bleeker (2008) found 16% of community college faculty reported observing students
engaging in multiple acts of “fabricating or falsifying a bibliography” compared to 2% of
community college students self-reporting their engagement in the same act on more than
one occasion (p. 85). Although Bleeker (2008) suggests the difference in responses may
indicate misestimation on faculty and student parts, the data show that some two-year col-
lege students repeatedly engage in the fabrication of citations. Even though prior research
found four-year institutions were significantly more likely to address academic integrity
issues compared to two-year institutions (Aaron, 1992, as cited in Bleeker, 2008), there
have been calls for more effective academic integrity initiatives at two-year institutions
(Bealle, 2017; Bleeker, 2008). These initiatives, however, may face obstacles:
Even when academic dishonesty is acknowledged as a priority issue in community
colleges, it may not receive the priority attention it merits. One reason for this is that
community colleges already face a multitude of other challenges. Most face state or
federal funding issues, enrollment crises, impending retirements of seasoned faculty
members and leaders, and challenges to assess institutional effectiveness quantita-
tively and qualitatively. Another reason is that few among the existing staff are avail-
able to take on additional responsibility. (Bleeker, 2008, p. 98)
A concern with existing data regarding academic integrity in higher education is that
many studies utilize student self-reporting surveys as a common research design. This
method can pose issues since the topic is sensitive in nature (McCabe, 2005a), and results
can be influenced by social desirability bias (McCabe etal., 2012). According to Bertram
Gallant (2008), with most of the data coming from student self-reporting methods, the
extent of academic misconduct in higher education may not be as high as some studies
suggest. One concern is how survey participants “interpret the word ‘cheat’ and the images
invoked by what may be a value-laden term” (p. 9). After examining the impact of defin-
ing cheating on student self-reporting such acts, Burrus etal. (2007) concluded that “any
survey of students regarding cheating behavior that does not provide a clear definition of
cheating may still contain an inherent underreporting bias” (p. 14). Therefore, it is possible
terminology such as Bowers’s (1964) “‘padding’ a few items on a bibliography” could have
resulted in various interpretations. Some may have concluded the term “few” to mean the
act of fabricating a single citation should not be reported, and students could have inter-
preted “padding” in different ways, such as listing invented citations, listing authentic cita-
tions not cited in the work, or listing authentic citations not consulted during the project.
Though McCabe etal. (2012) clarified the act in publication as “adding citations not
actually used in the paper,” the terminology on the surveys may have resulted in a different
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Fabricating Citations: The Policies ofNew Jersey Public…
comprehension, and the term “used” could be interpreted differently, as some could believe
it refers to cited works and others could believe it to be works cited and/or consulted. Simi-
larly, the term “bibliography” is also open to subjective interpretation.
What isaBibliography?
When referring to a list of sources accompanying an academic project, Merriam-Webster
(n.d.) defines bibliography as “the works or a list of the works referred to in a text or con-
sulted by the author in its production” (para 1). Dictionary.com (n.d.) defines the term
when used in the same context as “a list of source materials that are used or consulted
in the preparation of a work or that are referred to in the text” (para. 1). Each of these
definitions include the act of consulting a source and the reference/use of a source, but not
all definitions include both. Some definitions generalize the term “use.” The Cambridge
Dictionary defines bibliography as “a list of the booksandarticlesthat have been used
by someone when writing a particular bookor article” (Cambridge University Press, n.d.,
para. 1). The “Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries” website defines the term as follows: “a list of
books or articles about a particular subject or by a particular author; the list of books, etc.
that have been used by somebody writing an article, etc.” (Oxford University Press, n.d.,
para 1). What constitutes “use” in these definitions is ambiguous compared to definitions
that distinguish citing and consulting. In academic writing, style guides are often utilized to
format project writing, and commonly used style guides view the term “bibliography” with
distinct meaning. Three commonly used writing styles in academia include the American
Psychological Association (APA), the Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS), and the Modern
Language Association (MLA).
APA Style
APA Style is commonly used by those in the social and behavioral sciences (Purdue Uni-
versity, 2018). According to the 7th edition of the Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association, the format is widely used:
It is used by millions of people around the word in psychology and also in fields
ranging from nursing to social work, communications to education, business to engi-
neering, and other disciplines for the preparation of manuscripts for publication as
well as for writing student papers, dissertations, and theses. (APA, 2020, p. xvii)
With its use across various disciplines, many higher education students will be exposed
to APA Style. The APA’s manual states the following regarding bibliographies:
APA publications and other publishers and institutions using APA Style generally
require reference lists, not bibliographies. A reference list cites works that specifi-
cally support the ideas, claims, and concepts in a paper; in contrast, a bibliography
cites works for background or further reading and may include descriptive notes
(e.g., an annotated bibliography)” (APA, 2020, p. 281).
APA Style calls for a more exclusive approach to listing sources than methods that use
a bibliography. This exclusivity was expressed in the 6th edition of the Publication Man-
ual of the American Psychological Association (2010), which explicitly states all sources
listed on the reference page should match a citation within the text and vice versa. The
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
A.S.Williams
7th edition of the Manual suggests the following: “Cite only works that you have read and
ideas that you have incorporated into your writing” (APA, 2020, p. 253).
Chicago Manual ofStyle
The Chicago Manual of Style includes two systems for citing: the notes and bibliography
system and the author-date references system. The notes and bibliography system uses end-
notes or footnotes or a combination of both, typically with an accompanying bibliography.
“The notes and bibliography system is preferred by many writers in literature, history, and
the arts” (The University of Chicago, n.d., 14:64: Chicago’s two systems of source citation
section). The Chicago Manual of Style Online, 17th edition, states the following:
If the bibliography includes all works cited in the notes, the notes need not duplicate
the source information in full because readers can consult the bibliography for publi-
cation details and other information. In works with no bibliography or only a selected
list, full details must be given in a note at first mention of any work cited; subsequent
citations need only include a short form. (The University of Chicago, n.d., 14:19:
Notes and bibliography – an overview section)
Since the CMOS’s notes and bibliography system allows for options, it is recommended
that accompanying labels help clarify the writer’s approach to listing sources. Writers can
include a full bibliography, labeled “Bibliography,” to indicate both sources cited and con-
sulted. They may also use the titles “Works Cited” or “Literature Cited” if their source list
is exclusive to only works cited, or if they choose to omit cited sources from their bibliog-
raphy, their list of sources should be indicated as partial with a title such as “Selected Bib-
liography” and an accompanying explanation as to why the full bibliography is not being
utilized (The University of Chicago, n.d., 14:64: Kinds of bibliographies section).
Often utilized by those in the sciences or social sciences, the CMOS’s author-date refer-
ences system uses parenthetical citations and a references list (The University of Chicago,
n.d.). The CMOS offers a clear distinction between a bibliography and a reference list:
“Unlike bibliography entries, each entry in the reference list must correspond to a work
cited in the text” (The University of Chicago, n.d., 15:3: Notes and bibliography entries as
models for author-date references section). Therefore, the CMOS’s author-date references
system is similar to the APA Style’s exclusive approach to listing sources.
MLA Style
MLA Style is commonly used by those in the humanities (Purdue University,2018). Self-
described as a “‘style bible’ for generations of students,” the MLA Handbook, is “designed
in consultation with students, teachers, and researchers” (Modern Language Association
[MLA], 2016, p. vii). Typically, writers utilizing MLA Style list sources referenced in their
writing on a works cited. When expanding the list to include works consulted, the 9th edi-
tion of the MLA Handbook indicates writers should distinguish their source list with a title
such as “Works Cited and Consulted” (MLA, 2021, p. 105). The 7th edition of the MLA
Handbook for Writers of Research Papers suggests writers keep a “working bibliography”
during the research process, and by adding and omitting sources cited, “the working bib-
liography will eventually evolve into the list of works cited that appears at the end of the
research paper” (MLA, 2009,p. 31).
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Fabricating Citations: The Policies ofNew Jersey Public…
With consensus, these style guides view a bibliography differently than a works cited or
references page, yet others consider the terms and concepts synonymous and in some cases,
by using the word bibliography as a generalized or blanket term, contradiction occurs. In
his book Plagiarism: Why it Happens and How to Prevent it, Gilmore (2008) labels the act
of listing sources on a bibliography without including an in-text citation as a form of pla-
giarism. If a person crafting their work believes a bibliography includes both works cited
and works consulted, as the above style guides indicate, listing a source that is consulted
but not cited on a bibliography should not result in academic misconduct.
Methodology
Sample
This study is a content analysis of how public institutions of higher education in the State of New
Jersey represent the act of fabricating citations in web-based, academic conduct policies for under-
graduate students. The sample includes the institutions of higher education where inconsistencies in
language regarding the fabrication of citations were first observed. Since locating up-to-date insti-
tutional, online academic integrity policies can be challenging (Bretag, etal. 2011b), this sample
was specifically chosen because it was used for a prior study on how academic integrity policies of
public institutions of higher education in New Jersey align regarding plagiarism. A search of pub-
lic two-year and four-year institutions using the National Center for Education Statistics’ (NCES)
College Navigator tool (https:// nces. ed. gov/ colle genav igator/) resulted in 32 public institutions
of higher education in New Jersey: 19 two-year institutions and 13 four-year institutions. An ini-
tial search of each institution’s name and the phrase “academic integrity policy” was performed
using a simple Google search. If the initial search did not lead to a clear institution-wide policy
for undergraduates, a simple Google search for the institution’s most recent student handbook was
performed. For each institution, the search ceased once an online policy or student handbook was
located. Additional resources referenced or hyperlinked within the policy, such as library resources,
were not investigated; however, hyperlinks or references indicating additional policy information
(e.g. levels of academic integrity violations), were investigated. In their study on web-based univer-
sity policies on plagiarism, McGrail and McGrail (2015) acknowledge the possibility of “overlook-
ing important pages or parts of webpages” when analyzing web-based policies (p. 175). Although
every effort was made to include the most up-to-date, institutional-wide, web-based policies in this
analysis, a possibility exists that some pertinent information was overlooked.
After an initial review of each institutions’ policies, Rowan College of South Jer-
sey: Cumberland Campus and Rowan College of South Jersey: Gloucester Campus were
found to share administration and institutional policy and were combined as Rowan Col-
lege of South Jersey, reducing the number of two-year colleges in the sample to 18.
Although Rutgers University: Camden, Rutgers University: New Brunswick, and Rut-
gers University: Newark maintain independent websites and procedures for reporting
suspected academic integrity violations, their institutional webpages concerning aca-
demic integrity policies link to a shared university policy (section #10.2.13), and the
language regarding fabricating citations is identical on their independent webpages.
Therefore, the three Rutgers University campuses were combined as Rutgers University,
which reduced the number of four-year institutions in the sample to 11 for a total of 29
public institutions of higher education (see Table1).
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
A.S.Williams
Table 1 New Jersey Public Institutions of Higher Education
a Rowan College of South Jersey Cumberland and Gloucester Campuses are combined as one institution. b
Rutgers University Camden, New Brunswick, and Newark Campuses maintain independent websites and
institutional procedures; however, their academic integrity policies link to a single university policy, and
therefore, they are combined as one study participant
Name Website Type
Atlantic Cape Community College www. atlan tic. edu/ 2-year
Bergen Community College https:// www. bergen. edu/ 2-year
Brookdale Community College https:// www. brook dalecc. edu/ 2-year
Camden County College https:// www. camde ncc. edu/ 2-year
County College of Morris www. ccm. edu/ 2-year
Essex County College www. essex. edu/ 2-year
Hudson County Community College www. hccc. edu/ 2-year
Kean University https:// www. kean. edu/ 4-year
Mercer County Community College www. mccc. edu/ 2-year
Middlesex College www. middl esexc ollege. edu/ 2-year
Montclair State University www. montc lair. edu/ 4-year
New Jersey City University www. njcu. edu/ 4-year
New Jersey Institute of Technology https:// www. njit. edu/ 4-year
Ocean County College www. ocean. edu/ 2-year
Passaic County Community College https:// web. pccc. edu/ 2-year
Ramapo College of New Jersey www. ramapo. edu/ 4-year
Raritan Valley Community College https:// www. rarit anval. edu/ 2-year
Rowan College at Burlington County www. rcbc. edu/ 2-year
Rowan College of South Jersey ahttps:// rcsj. edu/ 2-year
Cumberland
Gloucester
Rowan University https:// www. rowan. edu/ 4-year
Rutgers University b
Camden https:// camden. rutge rs. edu/ 4-year
New Brunswick https:// newbr unswi ck. rutge rs. edu/ 4-year
Newark https:// www. newark. rutge rs. edu/ 4-year
Salem Community College www. salem cc. edu/ 2-year
Stockton University https:// www. stock ton. edu/ 4-year
Sussex County Community College www. sussex. edu/ 2-year
The College of New Jersey https:// www. tcnj. edu/ 4-year
Thomas Edison State University www. tesu. edu/ 4-year
Union County College https:// www. ucc. edu/ 2-year
Warren County Community College www. warren. edu/ 2-year
William Paterson University of New Jersey www. wpunj. edu/ 4-year
Data Analysis
The analysis consisted of two phases: a conceptual analysis and a thematic analysis. Accord-
ing to Christie (2007), the content analysis “is a research tool used to determine the pres-
ence of certain words or concepts within a set of text” (p. 176). Therefore, the policies were
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Fabricating Citations: The Policies ofNew Jersey Public…
coded for the existence of language specifying the fabrication of citations. Policies including
“fabrication,” “falsifying information,” or similar terminology not specific to citations were
coded as not including the specified language. The policies were independently coded by the
researcher and a trained volunteer, a dean at a two-year institution of higher education in the
United States. For the conceptual content analysis, inter-rater agreement produced a kappa
value of 0.925, which indicates near perfect agreement (McHugh, 2012).
For the second phase, a thematic analysis was performed for the policies independently
deemed to contain language specifically referring to the fabrication of citations. “Thematic
analyses move beyond counting explicit words or phrases and focus on identifying and
describing both implicit and explicit ideas within the data, that is, themes” (Guest etal.,
2012, Thematic analysis section). The coders used a hybrid coding scheme consisting of a
priori codes developed from the literature and prior knowledge and emergent codes uncov-
ered in the coding process, and themes were developed from observing shared concepts
within the coded data and with the research aim in mind (see Table2). Policies identified
as containing language specifying the fabrication of citations were assigned one or more
codes. Since the conceptual analysis resulted in minor disagreement, interrater reliability
for the thematic analysis was based on the higher of two values (N = 19) with the absence
of coding for the first phase discrepancy considered disagreement for the second phase.
With ten coding variables, a possible 190 codes existed, resulting in an inter-rater agree-
ment of 91.05% (173/190) for the second phase of coding. Together, the two coders ana-
lyzed and resolved the discrepancies from both phases.
Findings
Absence ofLanguage
Watzlawick et al. (1967) formulated the axiom “One cannot not communicate,” meaning the
absence of communication communicates something. For the institutions with policies that do not
include language regarding the fabricating of citations, the absence unequivocally communicates
that these institutions’ policies do not specify the fabrication of citations as a prohibited behavior,
but in many cases, academic integrity policies include language to indicate the types of viola-
tions listed are not exhaustive. The “why” as to the absence of language prohibiting the fabrication
of citations is speculative. Hypotheses developed from the literature may include that two-year
college students fabricate citations less than their four-year student counterparts (McCabe et al.,
2012), and therefore, some two-year institutions may feel the issue does not warrant inclusion in
their policies. As Bleeker (2008) suggests, some two-year institutions may not have the resources
to develop a comprehensive academic integrity policy. McCabe etal (2012) found students from
schools without honor codes self-reported acts of fabricating citations less after the turn of the
century (2002–2010 dataset) compared to earlier datasets, which could indicate the issue does
not present itself enough to compel policymakers to include it. What motivates policymakers to
include or exclude language regarding the fabrication of citations requires further study.
Fabricating, Falsifying, andInventing
Common terminology utilized by the policies referencing the fabrication of citations
include fabricating, falsifying, inventing, or comparable phrasing. Although these terms
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
A.S.Williams
Table 2 Thematic Analysis Coding Scheme
Note. Policies containing unequivocal synonymic language were coded within one of the ten codes
a Although Camden County College’s policy failed to include the phrase “not used” after “listing sources on a works cited or references list,” both coders coded it as if the
policy intended to communicate “not used.”
Code category Code type Code origin Theme
‘Padding’ a few items on a bibliography a priori Bowers (1964); McCabe etal. (2012) Listing sources on a bibliography not used
Listing sources on a bibliography not used a priori McCabe etal. (2012); Researcher’s prior knowledge Listing sources on a bibliography not used
Citing sources not used a priori Researcher’s prior knowledge Listing sources not used
Listing sources on a works cited or references page not used aa priori Researcher’s prior knowledge Listing sources on a works cited or refer-
ences page not used
Fabricating or falsifying a bibliography or sources a priori McCabe and Treviño (1993, 1997); Researcher’s
prior knowledge
fabricating, falsifying, or inventing
Inventing sources/citations a priori Researcher’s prior knowledge fabricating, falsifying, or inventing
Citing information from the source not indicated a priori Researcher’s prior knowledge fabricating, falsifying, or inventing
Citing irrelevant works emergent New Jersey Institution of Technology (n.d.) fabricating, falsifying, or inventing
Listing sources in a bibliography that are not reflected in in-text
citation
emergent Ocean County College (2020) Listing sources on a bibliography not used
Submitting deliberately misleading attributions or acknowledg-
ments
emergent Union County College (n.d.) fabricating, falsifying, or inventing
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Fabricating Citations: The Policies ofNew Jersey Public…
and concepts have various degrees of synonymous overlap, slight nuances in meaning and
contextual usage can impact interpretation. Syntactic choices are key in differentiating the
fabrication, falsification, or invention of the materials or the fabrication, falsification, or
invention of how the materials were utilized. This distinction is critical because fabrica-
tion entails both the creation of non-existent source material (Siaputra & Santosa, 2024)
and the deceiving of others into believing legitimate resources were cited or consulted
when they were not (McCabe etal., 2012). The policy for Rowan College of South Jersey
(2021) defines fabrication “as the invention and proffering of information as true and reli-
able with or without false attribution” and lists as the sole example regarding the fabrica-
tion of citations: “citing a source that does not exist” (p. 2). This definition and example
focus on invented material and the phrase “with or without false attribution” modifies the
invented material. Therefore, this policy does not clearly address the act of citing or listing
legitimate sources not cited or consulted in the student’s project as fabrication. Among the
policies analyzed, a few utilize the terms “falsify” and “invent” cooperatively to create a
broader understanding of fabrication, such as the following: “Falsifying or inventing any
information, data or citation” (Montclair State University, 2023).
In addition to verb choice, noun selection can provide a broader understanding of mean-
ing. Policies for Mercer County Community College (n.d.) and Passaic County Community
College (n.d.) list “falsifying bibliographic entries” as the sole example representing the
act of fabricating citations (Violations section; Plagiarism section). Several policies such as
those from Bergen Community College (2016), Essex County College (n.d.), The College
of New Jersey (n.d.), and Rutgers University (2020) pair one or more of the above verbs
with nouns with broader meaning such as sources, source information, citations, or refer-
ences. These broader phrasings ensure the fabrication of in-text citations and oral citations
are prohibited in addition to source page entries. Scenarios like the following hypothetical
example would be clearly prohibited: a student creates a source page entry and in-text cita-
tion for a legitimate source cited in their work, but when the student cannot find a source
to support a claim made later in their project, they falsely incorporate an in-text citation for
the source legitimately cited earlier in the project. Although broader language ensures any
act of fabricating citations or other forms of inventing content can be covered under institu-
tional policies, the absence of a detailed description would fail to meet one of the five core
elements Bretag etal. (2011b) identified as vital to an exemplary academic integrity policy.
Listing Sources inaBibliography Not Used
McCabe et al. (2012) clarified the act of “‘padding’ a few items on a bibliography” as
“adding citations not actually used in the paper” (p. 3), and variations of this exemplifi-
cation were found among the policies analyzed. One version listed as prohibited action
in multiple policies is “listing sources in a bibliography or other report not used” (Kean
University 2012; New Jersey City University, 2004; Ocean County College, 2020). As the
literature indicates, interpretation is critical for survey question effectiveness, and the same
reasoning can be applied to policy language. The terms “bibliography” and “used” pose the
potential for differing interpretations.
In higher education, general education coursework typically requires students to take
20 to 60 credit hours of various courses within “the arts and humanities, social sciences,
natural sciences, quantitative reasoning, and sometimes foreign language” (Vander Schee,
2011, p. 382). Although there are additional writing styles utilized in higher education,
the APA, CMOS, and MLA styles are commonplace in the courses that comprise required
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
A.S.Williams
general education coursework. With consensus, these organizations define bibliography as
a list that contains both works referenced in a project and works consulted but not cited.
A bibliography viewed as a list of both works referenced and consulted proves difficult to
determine if sources listed and not cited were consulted or not. Furthermore, the ambigu-
ity on whether the term “used” means only sources cited or sources cited and consulted
impacts how students and other stakeholders approach citing. Without distinction, a faculty
member viewing the term “bibliography” as a blanket term equal to what others distinc-
tively refer to as references or works cited could consider a student who lists both works
cited and consulted on a bibliography as listing sources not used and thus committing an
act of academic misconduct.
When defining fabrication, Ocean County College’s (2020) policy provides the example
of listing sources in a bibliography when not used in the project, but when exemplifying
violation levels, their policy includes the following: “Also, listing sources in a bibliography
that are not reflected in in-text citation is considered a fabrication of information” (Lev-
els of academic integrity violations section). As discussed in the review of literature, this
example contradicts the definition of a bibliography as defined by the APA, CMOS, and
MLA style guides, which permit consulted works to be listed in a bibliography and not
reflected in the work with an in-text citation.
Another potential issue is loopholes in academic integrity policies can unintentionally
provide students clemency (Bleeker, 2008). If faculty expect students to list sources cited in
their work on a bibliography and fail to explain the expectation that a bibliography exclu-
sively lists work cited, savvy students could pad bibliographies with works they claim were
consulted and not cited. Students faced with repercussions could challenge the ambiguous
use of the word bibliography, and their arguments would be stronger if they were asked
to craft their work using one of the aforementioned style guides. Since many institutions
oblige students and faculty to familiarize themselves with institutional policy, an academic
integrity policy with a detailed description of fabrication and distinct meaning for the term
“bibliography” can help ensure faculty utilize specific language when explaining expecta-
tions, and students cannot benefit from loopholes.
Works Cited orReferences Page
The term “bibliography” poses issues because of the inconsistencies in its definitions, but
source pages referred to as works cited or references clearly indicate that only sources cited
or referenced in the work should be listed. Therefore, if the act of listing sources not cited
in the work is a prohibited action, the definition is clearer when the type of source page
can only be interpreted as containing cited or referenced works. Rowan University’s (2022)
policy includes the following examples of fabrication:
• Citation of information not taken from the source indicated.
• Listing of sources in a works cited or reference page or other report not used in that
project.
• Including a non-existent source in a bibliography or works cited
• Fabricating data or source information in experiments, research project [sic] or other
academic exercises. (Definition examples section)
Rowan University’s policy provides multiple detailed examples, as recommended by
Bretag etal. (2011b). The policy uses terminology that aligns with the APA, CMOS, and
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Fabricating Citations: The Policies ofNew Jersey Public…
MLA style guides when referencing source pages that should exclusively list sources cited
or referenced, and the use of the term “bibliography” in this context is not contingent on
interpreting the term as exclusively listing works cited or listing both works cited and con-
sulted. Additionally, the ambiguity associated with the term “used” when paired with the
term “bibliography” is no longer an issue when utilized in conjunction with “works cited”
or “references” since one can deduce “used” means cited or referenced because of the lists’
inherent exclusivity.
Like Rowan University, Camden County College’s (2023)policy exemplifies fabrica-
tion with detailed examples; however, a missing phrase severely alters the meaning of one
specific example, as indicated in the following excerpt taken from the institution’s 2023
Student Handbook:
Fabrication: This is the intentional use of invented information or the falsification of
research or other findings with the intent to deceive.
Examples; [sic]
A. Citation of information not taken from the source indicated.
B. Invented data or source information for research or other academic exercise.
C. Misrepresentation, falsifying, altering, or misstating the contents of documents or other
materials related to academic matters, including schedules, prerequisites and transcripts.
D. Listing sources on a works cited page or in a reference list. (Violations of academic
honesty section)
The last example (D) should include a phrase indicating that sources not used should
not be included on a works cited or references list. By fixing this issue, the examples of
fabrication in Camden County College’s policy would be accurate and detailed, as recom-
mended by Bretag etal. (2011b).
Discussion
Implications
Institutions of higher education that fail to include language prohibiting the fabrication of
citations in their web-based policies for undergraduate students fail to provide stakeholders
with a clear message that such activity is considered a breach of academic integrity. A key
element to exemplary academic integrity policies identified by Bretag etal. (2011b) are
those which are detailed with a range of potential violations included. The literature indi-
cates that some higher education students admit to fabricating citations in their coursework,
and this issue has been ongoing for decades (Bleeker, 2008; Bowers, 1964; Brown etal.,
2018; McCabe etal., 2012; McCabe and Treviño, 1993, 1997; Rosenzweig etal., 2021;
Ryan etal., 2017). Although this research may motivate some policymakers to address
the fabrication of citations in their institutions’ policies, others may be less compelled, or
as Bleeker (2008) suggested, lack the resources needed to create effective policy. In these
instances, the International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI) can provide valuable
assistance (Bleeker, 2008; McCabe & Pavela, 2000). According to ICAI’s website (https://
acade micin tegri ty. org), its Assessment Guide, which was under revision at the time of this
study, can help institutions assess their current academic climate and evaluate their existing
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
A.S.Williams
policies. Additionally, the Assessment Guide can prepare institutions to participate in the
more comprehensive McCabe-ICAI Institutional Survey. In 2010, Texas Tech University
(2010) students and faculty participated in a version of this survey, and among the results,
the institution learned the percentages of Texas Tech students self-reporting and faculty
witnessing the act of “fabricating or falsifying a bibliography” in the previous 12-month
period. With institutional specific data, colleges and universities can better assess if their
students are regularly engaging in the act of fabricating citations and if their institutional
policy should address the issue.
When Bretag etal. (2011b) identified their five core elements of exemplary academic
integrity policy, they compared their findings to the recommendations of the United King-
dom’s Higher Education Academy (HEA, 2011), which, in part, includes the following:
“In developing a policy, carefully consider terminology, definitions and associated exam-
ples” (p. 17). For policies that include language regarding the act of fabricating citations,
this study found a variety of definitions and examples, but in some cases the language was
ambiguous in meaning, too exclusive, or contradictory to style guides often used in higher
education. With this variation, special care should be taken by policymakers to ensure
explicitness. Broad language can support detection and sanctioning efforts by providing
more avenues, but clear and concise information better facilitates a culture of academic
integrity where stakeholders are not left to interpret ambiguous meanings. Although some
terminology may seem synonymous, slight nuances or varied interpretations can render
the information less effective, especially when definitions and examples are used exclu-
sively. Implementing broad yet unequivocal terminology along with a few concurrent yet
succinct examples can create the effective policy recommended by leading researchers and
organizations.
For their part, educators should not only communicate and uphold their expectations,
which should be built around institutional policy (ICIA, 2021), but as this study indicates,
they should also make sure their expectations and institutional policy align with writing
style guides their students are required to use. If there is a lack of alignment, educators
need to address this. Faculty cannot assume students will be able to differentiate when ter-
minology is generalized versus distinctive or when definitions and examples are cursory
versus exhaustive. The results of this study indicate the term “bibliography” is often gen-
eralized in institutional policies yet distinctive in writing style guides; therefore, educators
need to explain the differences between source pages that include both works cited and
consulted and those that should only include works cited.
Limitations
This study uncovers potential issues with the lack of language regarding the fabrication of
citations or the use of ambiguous or contradictory terminology, but additional research is
needed to understand the impact of these findings on students and other stakeholders. Fur-
thermore, at the time of this study, emerging research regarding the impact of newly acces-
sible artificial intelligence (AI) on higher education academic integrity indicates AI chat-
bots can generate non-existing or inaccurate citations when prompted to create academic
writing (Alkaissi & McFarlane, 2023; Bhattacharyya, et al., 2023; Day, 2023; Sanchez-
Ramos, etal., 2023; Walters & Wilder, 2023). The use of AI to fabricate academic writ-
ing or citations was not examined in this study. However, the push for colleges and uni-
versities to revise their academic integrity policies to address students’ use of AI in their
coursework provides an opportunity for institutions to evaluate the effectiveness of their
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Fabricating Citations: The Policies ofNew Jersey Public…
policies’ language or lack thereof regarding all acts of citation fabrication and how policy
language aligns with practice. Historically, institutions of higher education have adapted
their academic integrity policies around current contextual needs (Bertram Gallant, 2008),
but immediate concerns should not diminish opportunities to improve long-standing lan-
guage that may not be effective or align with student practice. Academic integrity policies
should be regularly assessed and revised (Bretag & Mahmud, 2016; ICIA, 2021; McCabe,
2005b); therefore, regardless of what immediate concerns loom, it is also time to aim for
policy language that is most apposite concerning an issue that has been self-reported by
higher education students for decades but has been continuously overshadowed by other
forms of academic dishonesty.
Conclusion
Higher education online academic integrity policies vary in how they address the act of
fabricating citations. Some policies exclude listing the act as a prohibited behavior. Other
policies include ambiguous language that may not provide a clear understanding of what
constitutes the fabrication of citations, and in some policies, language does not align with
commonly used writing style guides. As institutions continue to assess and update their
academic integrity policies, how they align with student practices needs to be considered.
For their part, educators should adopt a triangular approach to addressing citation fabrica-
tion, which aligns course expectations, institutional policy, and writing style guides.
Funding Open access funding provided by Rowan University. No funding was received to assist with the
preparation of this manuscript.
The author has no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Data Availability The data used in this study are available to the public through the New Jersey institutions
of higher educations’ websites.
Declarations
Conflicts of Interest There are no conflicts of interest to report.
Human and Animal Rights The research did not involve human participants or animals.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Alkaissi, H., & McFarlane, S. I. (2023). Artificial hallucinations in ChatGPT: Implications in scientific writ-
ing. Cureus, 15(2), e35179. https:// doi. org/ 10. 7759/ cureus. 35179
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Associa-
tion (6th ed.). American Psychological Association.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
A.S.Williams
American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Associa-
tion: the official guide to APA style (7th ed.). American Psychological Association.
Baker, R. K., Berry, P., & Thornton, B. (2008). Student attitudes on academic integrity violations.Journal
of College Teaching and Learning,5(1). https:// doi. org/ 10. 19030/ tlc. v5i1. 1316
Bealle, P. (2017). Community college academic integrity lessons that put research into practice. Theory into
Practice, 56(2), 144–155. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00405 841. 2017. 12835 73
Bergen Community College. (2016). Student code of conduct. Retrieved July 27, 2023, from https:// bergen.
edu/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ Stude ntCod eofCo nduct 2016_ EngVe r1206 2016. pdf
Bertram Gallant, T. (2008). Academic Integrity in the Twenty-First Century: A Teaching and Learn-
ing Imperative. ASHE Higher Education Report, Volume 33, Number 5. ASHE Higher Education
Report,33(5). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ aehe. 3305
Bhattacharyya, M., Miller, V. M., Bhattacharyya, D., & Miller, L. E. (2023). High rates of fabricated and
inaccurate references in ChatGPT-generated medical content. Curēus, 15(5), e39238–e39238. https://
doi. org/ 10. 7759/ cureus. 39238
Bleeker, K. C. (2008). To be honest: Championing academic integrity in community colleges. Community
College Press.
Bowers, W. J. (1964). Student dishonesty and it’s control in college. Columbia University Press.
Bretag, T., Mahmud, S., East, J., Green, M., James, C., McGowan, U., Partridge, L., Wallace, M., & Walker,
R. (2011a). Academic integrity standards: A preliminary analysis of the academic integrity policies
at Australian universities. Refereed paper accepted at the Australian Quality Forum, 29 June-1 July,
Melbourne, Australia.
Bretag, T., Mahmud, S., Wallace, M., Walker, R., James, C., Green, M., East, J., McGowan, U., & Partridge,
L. (2011b). Core elements of exemplary academic integrity policy in Australian higher education.
International Journal for Educational Integrity, 7(2), 3–12. https:// doi. org/ 10. 21913/ IJEI. v7i2. 759
Bretag, T., & Mahmud, S. (2016). A conceptual framework for implementing exemplary academic integrity
policy in Australian higher education. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity(1st ed., pp.
463–480). Springer.
Bretag, T. (2016).Defining academic integrity: International perspectives – Introduction. In T. Bretag (Ed.),
Handbook of academic integrity(1st ed., pp 3-5). Springer.
Brown, B. S., & Choong, P. (2003). A comparison of academic dishonesty among business students in a
public and private catholic university. Journal of Research on Christian Education, 12(1), 27–48.
Brown, B. S., & Choong, P. (2005). A investigation of academic dishonesty among business students at pub-
lic and private United States universities. International Journal of Management, 22(2), 201.
Brown, T., Isbel, S., Bourke-Taylor, H., Gustafsson, L., McKinstry, C., & Logan, A. (2018). Descriptive
profile of the academic integrity of Australian occupational therapy students. Australian Occupational
Therapy Journal, 65(4), 285–294. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 1440- 1630. 12472
Burrus, R. T., McGoldrick, K., & Schuhmann, P. W. (2007). Self-reports of student cheating: Does a defini-
tion of cheating matter? Journal of Economic Education, 38(1), 3–16. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3200/ JECE.
38.1. 3- 17
Cambridge University Press. (n.d.). Bibliography. Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved July 14, 2023, from
https:// dicti onary. cambr idge. org/ us/ dicti onary/ engli sh/ bibli ograp hy
Camden County College. (2023). Student handbook 2023. Retrieved July 27, 2023, from https:// www. camde
ncc. edu/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ CCC_ Handb ook_ 2023-6- 12- 23. pdf
Carroll, J. (2016).Making decisions on management of plagiarism cases where there is a deliberate attempt
to cheat. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity(1st ed., pp 3–5). Springer.
Christie, C. (2007). Content analysis. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Encyclopedia of social psy-
chology (p. 176). Sage Publications, Incorporated.
Davis, P. M. (2003). Effect of the web on undergraduate citation behavior: Guiding student scholarship in a
networked age. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 3(1), 41–51. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1353/ pla. 2003. 0005
Day, T. (2023). A preliminary investigation of fake peer-reviewed citations and references generated by
ChatGPT. The Professional Geographer, 75(6), 1024–1027. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00330 124. 2023.
21903 73
Dictionary.com. (n.d.). Bibliography. Retrieved July 14, 2023, from https:// www. dicti onary. com/ browse/
bibli ograp hy
East, J. (2009). Aligning policy and practice: An approach to integrating academic integrity.Journal of Aca-
demic Language and Learning, 3(1), A38-A51. Retrieved from https:// journ al. aall. org. au/ index. php/
jall/ artic le/ view/ 66
Essex Community College. (n.d.). Academic policies. Retrieved July, 27, 2023, from https:// www. essex. edu/
acade mic- polic ies/#: ~: text= Acade mic% 20Int egrit y& text= The% 20Col lege’s% 20adm inist ration% 20rec
ogniz es% 20the ,when% 20leg itima te% 20int ellec tual% 20diff eren ces% 20exi st
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Fabricating Citations: The Policies ofNew Jersey Public…
Ford-Brown, L. A. (2014). DK guide to public speaking (2nd ed.). Pearson.
Gilmore, B. (2008). Plagiarism: Why it happens-how to prevent it. Heinemann.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. Sage Publications, Inc.
Higher Education Academy JISC Academic Integrity Service (2011). Policy works: Recommendations
for reviewing policy to manage unacceptable academic practice in higher education. https:// s3.
eu- west-2. amazo naws. com/ assets. creode. advan cehe- docum ent- manag er/ docum ents/ hea/ priva te/
policy_ works_0_ 15680 37043. pdf
International Center for Academic Integrity. (2021). The fundamental values of academic integrity. (3rd
ed.). https:// acade micin tegri ty. org/ images/ pdfs/ 20019_ ICAI- Funda mental- Values_ R12. pdf
Kean University. (2012). Academic integrity policy. Retrieved July 27, 2023, from https:// www. kean.
edu/ media/ acade mic- integ rity- policy
Lucas, S. E. (2015). The art of public speaking (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Mahmud, S., & Ali, I. (2023). Evolution of research on honesty and dishonesty in academic work: A bib-
liometric analysis of two decades. Ethics & Behavior, 33(1), 55–69. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10508
422. 2021. 20155 98
Marais, I. (2024). Student disciplinary policies at a distance and online university in South Africa. SOTL
in the South, 8(1), 144–161. https:// doi. org/ 10. 36615/ sotls. v8i1. 399
Maral, M. (2024). A Bibliometric Analysis on Academic Integrity. Journal of Academic Ethics. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10805- 024- 09519-6
McCabe, D., & Pavela, G. (2000). Some Good News About Academic Integrity. In Change (New
Rochelle, N.Y.) (Vol. 32, Issue 5, pp. 32–38). Taylor & Francis Group. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/
00091 38000 96057 38
McCabe, D. L. (2005a). Cheating among college and university students: a North American perspective.
International Journal for Educational Integrity, 1(1). https:// doi. org/ 10. 21913/ IJEI. v1i1. 14
McCabe, D. L. (2005b). It takes a village: Academic dishonesty & educational opportunity. Liberal Edu-
cation, 91(3), 26–31.
McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Treviño, L. K. (2012). Cheating in college: Why students do it and
what educators can do about it. Johns Hopkins University Press.
McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influ-
ences. The Journal of Higher Education, 64(5), 522–538. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 29599 91
McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1997). Individual and contextual influences on academic dishonesty:
A multicampus investigation. Research in Higher Education, 38(3), 379–396. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1023/A: 10249 54224 675
McGrail, E., & McGrail, J. P. (2015). Exploring web-based university policy statements on plagiarism
by research-intensive higher education institutions. Journal of Academic Ethics, 13(2), 167–196.
McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22, 276–282.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 11613/ BM. 2012. 031
Mercer County Community College. (n.d.). Academic policies: Academic integrity. Retrieved July 27,
2023, from https:// www. mccc. edu/ acade mic_ polic ies_ integ rity
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Bibliography. Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved July 14, 2023, from https://
www. merri am- webst er. com/ dicti onary/ bibli ograp hy
Modern Language Association. (2009). MLA handbook for writers of research papers (7th ed.). Modern
Language Association.
Modern Language Association. (2016). MLA handbook (8th ed.). Modern Language Association.
Modern Language Association. (2021). MLA handbook (9th ed.). Modern Language Association.
Montclair State University. (2023, May 15). Academic dishonesty. Retrieved July 27, 2023, from https://
www. montc lair. edu/ polic ies/ all- polic ies/ acade mic- disho nesty/
Moya, B. A., & Eaton, S. E. (2024). Academic Integrity Policy Analysis of Chilean Universities. Jour-
nal of Academic Ethics. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10805- 024- 09515-w
New Jersey City University. (2004). New Jersey City University: Academic integrity policy. Retrieved
July 27, 2023, from https:// www. njcu. edu/ sites/ defau lt/ files/ acade mic_ integ rity_ policy_ final_2- 04.
pdf
New Jersey Institute of Technology. (n.d.). University policy on academic integrity. Retrieved July 27,
2023, from https:// www. njit. edu/ dos/ sites/ njit. edu. dos/ files/ NJIT% 20Uni versi ty% 20Pol icy% 20on%
20Aca demic% 20Int egrity_ 0. pdf
Ocean County College. (2020). Academic integrity #5180. Retrieved July 27, 2023, from https:// www.
ocean. edu/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2021/ 08/ 5180- Proce dure-7. 22. 21. pdf
Owunwanne, D., Rustagi, N., & Dada, R. (2010). Students’ perceptions of cheating and plagiarism
in higher institutions. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 7(11), 59–. https:// doi. org/ 10.
19030/ tlc. v7i11. 253
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
A.S.Williams
Oxford University Press. (n.d.). Bibliography: Oxford advanced American dictionary. Oxford learner’s dic-
tionary. american_english/. Retrieved July 14, 2023, from https:// www. oxfor dlear nersd ictio naries. com/
defin ition/ bibli ograp hy?q= bibli ograp hy
Passaic County Community College. (n.d.). Academic regulations: Academic integrity policy. Retrieved
July 27, 2023, from https:// catal og. pccc. edu/ policy/ secti on/ 431/
Pavela, G. (1978). Judicial review of academic decision- making after Horowitz. NOLPE School Law Jour-
nal, 55(8), 55–75.
Purdue University. (2018). The Purdue OWL: Citation chart. Purdue Online Writing Lab: College of Liberal
Arts. https:// owl. purdue. edu/ owl/ resea rch_ and_ citat ion/ using_ resea rch/ docum ents/ 20191 212Ci tatio
nChart. pdf
Robinson, A. M., & Schlegl, K. (2004). Student bibliographies improve when professors provide enforcea-
ble guidelines for citations. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 4(2), 275–290. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1353/
pla. 2004. 0035
Rosenzweig, J. W., Lambert, F., & Thill, M. C. (2021). It’s What’s on the Inside That Counts: Analyzing
Student Use of Sources in Composition Research Papers. Evidence Based Library and Information
Practice, 16(4), 63–83. https:// doi. org/ 10. 18438/ eblip 30026
Rowan College of South Jersey. (2021, May 5). Academic integrity. Retrieved July 27, 2023, from https://
www. rcsj. edu/ Colle gePol icies- site/ Docum ents/ AP_ 8001% 20_ Acade mic_ Integ rity% 202021% 2005%
2005% 20FIN AL. pdf
Rowan University. (2022). Academic integrity policy. Retrieved July 27, 2023, from https:// confl uence.
rowan. edu/ displ ay/ POLICY/ Acade mic+ Integ rity+ Policy
Rutgers University (2020). University policy: Academic integrity policy. Retrieved July 27, 2023, from
http:// nbaca demic integ rity. rutge rs. edu/ home/ acade mic- integ rity- policy/
Ryan, T., Janeiro, C., Howard, W. E., & O’Malley, P. F. (2017). A longitudinal study of the perception of
academic integrity among students and faculty.Association for Engineering Education - Engineering
Library Division Papers.
Sanchez-Ramos, L., Lin, L., & Romero, R. (2023). Beware of references when using ChatGPT as a source
of information to write scientific articles. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 229(3),
356–357. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ajog. 2023. 04. 004
Siaputra, I. B., & Santosa, D. A. (2024). Improving academic integrity in Indonesia: Proposed recommenda-
tions for managing alleged misconducts. In S. E. Eaton (Ed.), Second Handbook of Academic Integrity
(pp. 41–60). Springer Nature Switzerland. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3- 031- 54144-5_4
Stoesz, B. M., & Eaton, S. E. (2022). Academic Integrity Policies of Publicly Funded Universities in West-
ern Canada. Educational Policy, 36(6), 1529–1548. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 08959 04820 983032
Texas Tech University. (2010, June). McCabe academic integrity survey report. Retrieved August 17, 2023,
from https:// images. templ ate. net/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2016/ 08/ 02045 316/ Acade mic- Survey- Report-
Templ ate. pdf
The College of New Jersey. (n.d.). Academic integrity: Academic affairs. Retrieved July 27, 2023,
fromhttps:// acade micin tegri ty. tcnj. edu/ viola tions/
The University of Chicago. (n.d.). The Chicago manual of style online (17th ed.). The University of Chicago
Press.https://www-chicagomanualofstyle-org
Union County College. (n.d.). Academic policies. Retrieved July 27, 2023, from http:// onlin ecata log. ucc.
edu/ conte nt. php? catoid= 9& navoid= 2335# cheat ing- plagi arism
Vander Schee, B. A. (2011). Changing general education perceptions through “perspectives” and the inter-
disciplinary first-year seminar. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,
23(3), 382–387.
Walters, W. H., & Wilder, E. I. (2023). Fabrication and errors in the bibliographic citations generated by
ChatGPT. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 14045–14045. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s41598- 023- 41032-5
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of
interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. W.W. Norton & Company.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
