Committee on Intellectual Integrity
Minutes of February 20, 2008

Present: Bozak, Clendinning, Fiorini, Jalife, Murphy, Nichols, Pretzat, Shaffer

Guests: Decker, Ketcham, Moreau

Joe Moreau, Nicole Decker and Greg Ketcham were present to talk about the technology side of implementing any decision to acquire a plagiarism detection service (,, etc.).

* CTS/SLN/etc. would have to be responsible for reviewing possible technology solutions while CII would be in the position to be recommend policy for its use to APC.

* Policy issues: undergraduate v. graduate students; faculty and student training issues; use of tool as "fishing expedition" (all papers processed) v. suspicious papers only submitted to service; inclusion in syllabus; opt out option for students (based on particular technology solution chosen, if appropriate).

* suite includes additional tools that can be integrated with Angel. Two tools of particular interest are the peer review tool and the grademark tool (similar to but simpler to use than tracking in Word).

* (or other tool) v. Google? Likely similar hit rates in terms of finding copying but since use different sources will have different results for any given paper. In either event, no copying found doesn't mean no plagiarism, just not found within database. Otherwise, advantage to tool is ease of use for faculty member.

* Even integrated within Angel,'s plagiarism tool can be used as standalone.

* Costs aren't clear.'s pricing from a year ago would range upwards of $14,000 for the suite and Angel integration. quotes $2880 for 7200 FTE. While is unlimited use, has levels of use up to unlimited, so cost will vary with choice of coverage. We could start simple and ramp up use as needed. We have offer for use of for this semester. appears to offer a 150 day free evaluation period.

* Joe et. al. will evaluate these products (and others, especially as identified in a recent EDUCAUSE paper) for the technology, costs, features, etc. Joe will also ask his former school to pass along materials they've used (policies, training material, etc.) for our consideration. CII will consider policy issues. We will meet again on

APRIL 16, 2008 at 9am in 711 Culkin

to share information and then, if appropriate, make a formal recommendation on these tools/policies.

* It is possible that in the meantime we can identify who is using either of these products on campus so as to include them in the evaluation process, and perhaps involve others in its evaluation.

Respectfully submitted,

-David Bozak

 Last Updated: 2/20/08