Unintentional plagiarism

[honestmistake]

Thanks for the responses

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DokterMom]

Ouch.

Your mission will need to be to get your explanation read. You've explained yourself well here, and I would be inclined to 'grant a second chance' in your specific case, assuming there is nothing in the university's account of the incident that contradicts what you've written here.

That is, of course, assuming I got past the 'academic dishonesty' flag far enough to actually read your explanation and if the rest of your application is top-notch.

 

[palatopharyngeus]

just curious, how would schools even know? does amcas specifically ask?

 

[efle]

Doesn't sound unintentional, sounds like you knowingly copied someone else's gathering and organizing of evidence/sources without citing them. You probably need to explain away a legitimate big red academic dishonesty flag now to stand a chance.

 

[NickNaylor]

Ouch.

Your mission will need to be to get your explanation read. You've explained yourself well here, and I would be inclined to 'grant a second chance' in your specific case, assuming there is nothing in the university's account of the incident that contradicts what you've written here.

That is, of course, assuming I got past the 'academic dishonesty' flag far enough to actually read your explanation and if the rest of your application is top-notch.

This really will be the problem. As laid out here your mistake is completely understandable and, for me at least, forgivable. You didn't do anything intentionally malignant, and I agree that it's reasonable to think that you can use a review article as a source for finding primary research articles. However, you will have an institutional action marked on your app, and that may be a bit of a deal-breaker. If you an adcom gets to the point of actually reading your explanation, I think you'll be fine. Unfortunately, I don't think many will get to that point unless your app is otherwise quite strong.

 

[senzen]

Correct me if I'm wrong but you only need to report conduct violations that result in a probation, suspension or expulsion. Did you receive any sort of Institutional Action?

 

[NickNaylor]

Correct me if I'm wrong but you only need to report conduct violations that result in a probation, suspension or expulsion. Did you receive any sort of Institutional Action?

https://services.aamc.org/AMCAS2_2009/WebApp/Help/WebHelp/Institutional_Action.htm

The OP should follow-up with the school, but I would be surprised if this doesn't have to be disclosed.

 

[efle]

@NickNaylor it sounds like he got in trouble for copying the reviews organization/flow of ideas not for just using the same sources. Nobody sane would think the latter is IA worthy imo

 

[NickNaylor]

@NickNaylor it sounds like he got in trouble for copying the reviews organization/flow of ideas not for just using the same sources. Nobody sane would think the latter is IA worthy imo

Perhaps, I don't know. If that's the case it's a bit more egregious but still, I would say, forgivable.

 

[Goro]

Everything depends upon what the UG school does to OP. If no IA, then there's no problem. However, a big fat F in the middle of a sea of good grades will immediately draw attention from an interviewer.

 

[lifetothefullest]

I did not copy paste any portion of the review article nor did I paraphrase any part of it. I was found guilty of academic dishonesty for using the review articles "general flow of ideas". My grade was lowered in that class and if I received another incident of plagiarism, I would be expelled. I did not appeal the decision.

It might be difficult explaining it but how would anybody know that you were taking the sources from a review instead of finding them yourself? If the sources for all of your paper were taken from the review, then that might be the problem. Or if you organized your paper in the same way as the review and essentially just paraphrased it, as sounds like the case from the citation for academic dishonesty. Otherwise, I don't see how you could have the same general flow of ideas without paraphrasing/organizing the paper in the same fashion. Especially since there wouldn't be a way to prove that you didn't actually find the sources yourself.

 

[referee3]

Can't believe you got in trouble for this. It really doesn't seem like you did anything seriously wrong at all. I know it's in the past, but you should have appealed the decision. Check with your school to see if you really do have an IA. And if you do see if your school lets you expunge it from your record so you do not have to disclose on amcas.

 

[efle]

I was found guilty of academic dishonesty for using the review articles "general flow of ideas".

Come on people! He isn't in trouble for using a review to find sources - more like his paper resembled the review itself way too much to be called original work.

 

[bear2roo]

"General flow of ideas" sounds so vague. I don't know waht was originally posted, was this a lab report, thesis, or what?

 

[sliceofbread136]

Come on people! He isn't in trouble for using a review to find sources - more like his paper resembled the review itself way too much to be called original work.

I feel like I'd have to compare the actual papers to draw any conclusions.

 

[lifetothefullest]

I feel like I'd have to compare the actual papers to draw any conclusions.

I think the "general flow of ideas" is telling in the absence additional input from the OP. Without paraphrasing or appropriating the structure of the review, it'd be really hard for anybody to tell the difference between getting your sources from a review or getting them from a Google search.