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 stakeholders 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 regarding certain acts, such as plagiarism and cheating (Mahmud & Ali, 2023; Maral, 2024), few studies focus solely on fabrication. Pavela (1978) defined fabrication as “intentional 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 undergraduate 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 determined 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 relationship between the source expectations and speech improvement, leading some students to focus on meeting the source quotas by any means. Course and institutional policies stating the expectation to list only sources cited in the work and not to include sources consulted 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 preserve 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 fabrication 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, et al., 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 in Policy Focus

According to the International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI, 2021), many institutions of higher education would address academic integrity by placing emphasis on prohibited 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 reducing the focus on punitive approaches (Bretag, et al., 2011a; Bretag & Mahmud, 2016, East, 2009). This shift in focus does not diminish the need for policy to include deterrence efforts; both “deterrence and proactive strategies should play an important role in any academic integrity policy” (McCabe, 2005b, p. 31). However, finding an ideal balance between proactive, educational measures and methods of deterrence may be challenging (McCabe, 2005b), and this challenge has spawned new policy assessment that also addresses calls to align policy with practice (Bretag & Mahmud, 2016; Bretag, et al., 2011a; East, 2009). As a result, Bretag et al. (2011b) identified five core elements of exemplary 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 et al. (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 definitions 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 acknowledge 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 et al. (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 falsifying a bibliography” (p. 529; p. 386).

With Bowers’s data and their own, McCabe et al. (2012) evaluated collegiate academic dishonesty over a fifty-year period and found students self-reporting the act of fabricating 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 et al., 2018; Rosenzweig et al., 2021; Ryan et al., 2017). With a partial goal of identifying whether composition students “pad” bibliographies with more traditional sources such as peer-reviewed articles, Rosenzweig et al. (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 well (Baker et al., 2008; Brown & Choong, 2003, 2005; Brown et al., 2018; McCabe et al., 2012; McCabe, 2005a). McCabe et al.’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 colleges compared to 9% of students from two-year colleges self-reported ‘padding’ a few items on a bibliography. McCabe et al. (2012) noted this as a “moderate” difference and found a “significant” increase in the number of four-year college students reporting a combination of cheating activity (p. 68). McCabe et al. (2012) hypothesized the significance in difference for the combined cheating activities may be due to some two-year college students 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 college 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 quantitatively and qualitatively. Another reason is that few among the existing staff are available 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 et al., 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 defining cheating on student self-reporting such acts, Burrus et al. (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 interpreted “padding” in different ways, such as listing invented citations, listing authentic citations not cited in the work, or listing authentic citations not consulted during the project.

Though McCabe et al. (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 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. Similarly, the term “bibliography” is also open to subjective interpretation.

What is a Bibliography?

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 consulted 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 books and articles that have been used by someone when writing a particular book or 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 University, 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 engineering, 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 specifically 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 Manual 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 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 of Style

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 endnotes 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 publication 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 consulted. 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 bibliography, their list of sources should be indicated as partial with a title such as “Selected Bibliography” 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 references 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 edition 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 bibliography will eventually evolve into the list of works cited that appears at the end of the research paper” (MLA, 2009, p. 31).

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 plagiarism. 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 undergraduate 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 institutional, online academic integrity policies can be challenging (Bretag, et al. 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 public two-year and four-year institutions using the National Center for Education Statistics’ (NCES) College Navigator tool (https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/) resulted in 32 public institutions of higher education in New Jersey: 19 two-year institutions and 13 four-year institutions. An initial 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 university policies on plagiarism, McGrail and McGrail (2015) acknowledge the possibility of “overlooking 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 Jersey: Cumberland Campus and Rowan College of South Jersey: Gloucester Campus were found to share administration and institutional policy and were combined as Rowan College of South Jersey, reducing the number of two-year colleges in the sample to 18. Although Rutgers University: Camden, Rutgers University: New Brunswick, and Rutgers University: Newark maintain independent websites and procedures for reporting suspected academic integrity violations, their institutional webpages concerning academic 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 Table 1).

Table 1 New Jersey Public Institutions of Higher Education
Full size table

Data Analysis

The analysis consisted of two phases: a conceptual analysis and a thematic analysis. According to Christie (2007), the content analysis “is a research tool used to determine the presence of certain words or concepts within a set of text” (p. 176). Therefore, the policies were 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 et al., 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 uncovered in the coding process, and themes were developed from observing shared concepts within the coded data and with the research aim in mind (see Table 2). 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 agreement of 91.05% (173/190) for the second phase of coding. Together, the two coders analyzed and resolved the discrepancies from both phases.

Table 2 Thematic Analysis Coding Scheme
Full size table

Findings

Absence of Language

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 violations 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 et al (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, and Inventing

Common terminology utilized by the policies referencing the fabrication of citations include fabricating, falsifying, inventing, or comparable phrasing. Although these terms 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 fabrication 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 et al., 2012). The policy for Rowan College of South Jersey (2021) defines fabrication “as the invention and proffering of information as true and reliable with or without false attribution” and lists as the sole example regarding the fabrication 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 meaning. 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 references. 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 citation 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 institutional policies, the absence of a detailed description would fail to meet one of the five core elements Bretag et al. (2011b) identified as vital to an exemplary academic integrity policy.

Listing Sources in a Bibliography 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 exemplification 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 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 ambiguity 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 distinctively 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” (Levels 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 exclusively 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 expectations, and students cannot benefit from loopholes.

Works Cited or References 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 et al. (2011b). The policy uses terminology that aligns with the APA, CMOS, and 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 consulted. 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 fabrication 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]

  1. A.

    Citation of information not taken from the source indicated.

  2. B.

    Invented data or source information for research or other academic exercise.

  3. C.

    Misrepresentation, falsifying, altering, or misstating the contents of documents or other materials related to academic matters, including schedules, prerequisites and transcripts.

  4. 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 recommended by Bretag et al. (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 et al. (2011b) are those which are detailed with a range of potential violations included. The literature indicates 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 et al., 2018; McCabe et al., 2012; McCabe and Treviño, 1993, 1997; Rosenzweig et al., 2021; Ryan et al., 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://academicintegrity.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 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 et al. (2011b) identified their five core elements of exemplary academic integrity policy, they compared their findings to the recommendations of the United Kingdom’s Higher Education Academy (HEA, 2011), which, in part, includes the following: “In developing a policy, carefully consider terminology, definitions and associated examples” (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 exclusively. 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 terminology is generalized versus distinctive or when definitions and examples are cursory versus exhaustive. The results of this study indicate the term “bibliography” is often generalized 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. Furthermore, at the time of this study, emerging research regarding the impact of newly accessible artificial intelligence (AI) on higher education academic integrity indicates AI chatbots can generate non-existing or inaccurate citations when prompted to create academic writing (Alkaissi & McFarlane, 2023; Bhattacharyya, et al., 2023; Day, 2023; Sanchez-Ramos, et al., 2023; Walters & Wilder, 2023). The use of AI to fabricate academic writing or citations was not examined in this study. However, the push for colleges and universities 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 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 language 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 fabrication, which aligns course expectations, institutional policy, and writing style guides.