Academic Integrity

Academic Integrity

When to Use

Use this skill when a learner needs to develop the practical writing competencies that underpin academic honesty -- not policy knowledge, but craft knowledge.

Trigger this skill when a learner:

• Asks how to paraphrase a source without copying the author's sentence structure or vocabulary
• Wants to know when to quote directly versus paraphrase versus summarize
• Is unsure whether a specific passage in their draft is "too close" to the original source
• Wants exercises to practice proper attribution before submitting a paper
• Asks how to signal their own analysis versus borrowed ideas within a paragraph
• Is confused about which types of information require a citation and which do not
• Wants a pre-submission self-check routine to catch integrity problems before a grader does
• Has received feedback like "this reads like patchwork paraphrasing" and wants to understand what that means and how to fix it

Do NOT use this skill when:

• The learner wants citation formatting syntax (APA, MLA, Chicago style rules) -- use citation-management instead
• The learner is drafting or revising a paper -- use writing category skills for composition guidance
• The learner is asking about their institution's honor code, consequences, or reporting procedures -- refer them to their institution's academic integrity office; never interpret policy
• An educator wants to build an academic integrity curriculum for a course -- use teaching subcategory skills
• The learner wants research methodology guidance (how to find, evaluate, or manage sources) -- use research skills
• The learner needs help understanding copyright law or intellectual property in a professional context -- this is a legal question, not an academic writing question

Process

1. Diagnose the Learner's Specific Problem

Before producing any materials, identify exactly which competency gap you are addressing. These are distinct skills -- conflating them produces unhelpful output.

• Ask the learner to share a specific passage they are struggling with, or a type of task they repeatedly get wrong (e.g., "I always get marked down for paraphrasing")
• Identify which of the four core competencies is at issue: (a) paraphrasing technique, (b) quoting correctly, (c) attribution judgment (what needs a citation), or (d) integrating sources smoothly into their own argument
• Ask about discipline -- humanities writing has different norms than STEM writing; philosophy papers foreground quotation; social science papers foreground paraphrase; lab reports foreground data citation
• Ask about academic level: first-year undergraduate, upper-division, graduate -- this determines the sophistication of the exercises
• Ask whether this is a prevention session (learning proactively) or a repair session (fixing a draft they already have)

2. Teach the Conceptual Framework Before Exercises

Learners who only practice mechanical exercises without understanding the underlying principle keep making the same mistakes. Establish the framework first.

• Explain that plagiarism is a spectrum with three zones: verbatim copying (always wrong without quotation marks), patchwork paraphrasing (still wrong -- only swapping synonyms and shuffling word order), and genuine paraphrase (reprocessing the idea through your own understanding and sentence architecture)
• Distinguish between patchwork paraphrasing and genuine paraphrase by the "close the book" test: can you reproduce the idea without looking at the source? If you are working sentence-by-sentence with the source open, you are patchworking
• Establish the three-part attribution principle: (a) ideas that originate with another person need attribution even if restated entirely in your words, (b) facts that are not common knowledge need attribution even if they are simply true, (c) frameworks, models, and terminology coined by a specific scholar need attribution even when they have become widely used
• Clarify what does NOT need citation: your own original analysis, synthesis, and argument; common knowledge (dates of historical events, basic scientific definitions from introductory textbooks); and your own previously submitted work (though reusing your own prior work has separate rules -- self-plagiarism -- that the institution defines)
• Introduce the concept of signal phrases as the writer's tool for attribution within prose: "As Khan (2019) demonstrates...", "This contradicts Garcia's (2021) finding that...", "The data suggest -- though not conclusively -- that..." -- these phrases do attribution work beyond the parenthetical citation

3. Demonstrate the Paraphrasing Sequence With a Real Passage

Use a real passage from the learner's discipline or, if none is available, a passage that closely resembles what they work with. Walk through the exact cognitive steps.

• Step A -- Comprehend: Read the source passage completely without writing. Identify the core claim, the supporting evidence or mechanism, and any qualifiers. Do not paraphrase what you do not fully understand -- this is where most patchwork originates.
• Step B -- Close: Put the source away. Write what you understood in your own words, aimed at a reader who has not seen the original. If you cannot do this, you do not yet understand the passage -- read it again.
• Step C -- Compare: Open the source and compare your draft to the original. Check for three problems: (1) identical or near-identical phrases of three or more consecutive words, (2) sentence structures that mirror the original even with different vocabulary, and (3) a sequence of ideas in the same order as the original without any integrating logic of your own.
• Step D -- Integrate: Your paraphrase should connect to your argument. Add a signal phrase that explains WHY you are including this idea. A floating paraphrase with no connection to your thesis is a citation problem and a writing problem simultaneously.
• Step E -- Cite: Add the in-text citation. The citation goes with the idea, not at the end of the paragraph -- if multiple sentences use one source, cite at the end of each sentence or after the last sentence of the borrowed idea, and flag the span with an opening signal phrase.

4. Build Targeted Practice Exercises

Tailor exercises to the learner's diagnosed gap. Do not assign generic exercises.

For patchwork paraphrasers: Give them a source passage and three attempts at paraphrasing it (one verbatim, one patchwork, one genuine). Ask them to rank the attempts from least to most acceptable and explain why. Then have them produce their own genuine paraphrase with the source closed.

For attribution-judgment problems: Present 8-10 specific sentence types and ask them to decide: cite, no citation needed, or quote directly. Types should include: a surprising statistic, a well-known historical date, a definition the author coined, a widely accepted scientific principle, a contested claim the author is arguing, a methodological framework named after its creator, and a piece of common knowledge in the discipline.

For quotation mechanics: Give them three long quotations and have them practice (a) block quoting a passage of 40+ words (APA) or 100+ words (MLA) correctly, (b) integrating a short quote into a sentence with a signal phrase, and (c) using ellipsis (...) to shorten a quote without distorting its meaning, and brackets [ ] to adjust grammar without altering meaning.

For source integration: Have them take a paragraph of their own writing and identify every sentence that makes a claim -- then categorize each sentence as "my analysis," "borrowed idea cited," "borrowed idea not yet cited," or "common knowledge." This exercise is particularly effective at revealing attribution gaps in existing work.

5. Apply the Self-Check Protocol to Real Work

The self-check routine should be specific enough to run mechanically on any draft.

• Run a sentence-by-sentence scan of the draft. For every sentence, ask: "Where did this idea come from?" If the answer is "a source I read," is it cited?
• For every cited passage, compare the draft sentence to the original source. Apply the three-problem test from Step C above.
• For every direct quotation, confirm: quotation marks present, citation includes page number or paragraph number, the quote is introduced (not dropped in without a signal phrase), and the quote is followed by the writer's own analysis of what it means.
• Count your signal phrase variety. If every attribution phrase is "(Author, Year)" with no signal phrase, the paper lacks source integration -- it reads as a list of citations rather than an argument that uses evidence.
• Check the bibliography-to-in-text alignment: every source cited in the text should appear in the bibliography, and every entry in the bibliography should appear in the text. Orphaned bibliography entries and undocumented in-text citations are both integrity problems.
• Flag any passage longer than 3 sentences that has no citation. Ask: "Am I presenting multiple borrowing sentences as if they were my own ideas?"

6. Deliver Feedback on Practice Attempts

When the learner submits a practice attempt or a real passage for review, provide structured, specific feedback rather than a verdict.

• Identify the exact location of the problem: "Sentence 2 uses the phrase 'cognitive load reduction' -- this is a technical term coined by Sweller (1988) and requires attribution even in paraphrase."
• Classify the problem type: verbatim copying, patchwork paraphrase, missing citation, incorrectly formatted quotation, floating quote, self-attribution error (taking credit for a borrowed idea in the introduction or conclusion without citation).
• Suggest a specific fix: not "rewrite this," but "close the source, write what Sweller's theory says in one sentence aimed at explaining it to a classmate who has not read it, then cite."
• Affirm what is working. Learners who are flagged for integrity issues are often demoralized. Identify specific techniques they are using correctly to reinforce accurate mental models.

7. Build Long-Term Habits and Connect to Broader Goals

Academic integrity is not a one-time lesson -- it is a writing habit that requires repeated reinforcement.

• Recommend that the learner add a "source annotation" step to their research workflow: before writing, write a 1-2 sentence summary of each source in their own words without looking at the source. These annotations become the raw material for paraphrase and dramatically reduce patchworking.
• Advise that they use writing-in-phases: research phase (reading and annotating), synthesis phase (writing without sources open, using only their own annotations), drafting phase (consulting sources only to verify accuracy and add quotations deliberately), and checking phase (running the self-check protocol).
• Connect to the citation-management skill for learning to maintain a working bibliography throughout the research process -- catching attribution gaps is far easier when the bibliography is built as you write rather than reconstructed afterward.

Output Format

Produce output in the following structure. Use the user's specific content throughout -- never leave generic placeholders.

## Academic Integrity Session: [Competency Focus]

**Discipline:** [e.g., sociology, mechanical engineering, history]
**Academic Level:** [e.g., second-year undergraduate, graduate]
**Session Type:** [Prevention (learning proactively) | Repair (fixing existing work)]
**Core Gap Identified:** [e.g., patchwork paraphrasing, attribution judgment, quotation mechanics]

---

### Conceptual Foundation

[2-4 sentences establishing the specific principle the learner needs to understand before
practicing. Tailored to their discipline and level.]

---

### Demonstration: Paraphrasing a Passage From Your Field

**Original source passage:**
> [Actual passage from learner's material, or discipline-appropriate example]

**Verbatim / patchwork version (what NOT to do):**
[Example with annotation explaining exactly why it is inadequate]

**Genuine paraphrase (correct):**
[Example with annotation explaining what makes it acceptable]

**Signal phrase + citation integration:**
[Example showing the paraphrase embedded in a paragraph with a signal phrase and in-text citation]

---

### Practice Exercises

#### Exercise 1: Paraphrase This Passage
[Source passage tailored to discipline]

**Instructions:** Close this window or cover the passage. Write your understanding of it in
2-3 sentences without looking at the original. Then return and compare using the three-problem
test: identical phrases of 3+ words, mirrored sentence structure, same sequence of ideas
without integrating logic.

#### Exercise 2: Citation Judgment
For each sentence below, decide: (A) Cite it, (B) No citation needed, or (C) Quote directly.

| # | Sentence | Your Decision | Reasoning |
|---|----------|--------------|-----------|
| 1 | [Discipline-specific example] | | |
| 2 | [Discipline-specific example] | | |
| 3 | [Discipline-specific example] | | |
| 4 | [Discipline-specific example] | | |
| 5 | [Discipline-specific example] | | |

**Answer key with explanations:**
[Full explanation for each item]

#### Exercise 3: Spot the Problem
[Three draft sentences, each with a different integrity issue]

For each sentence, identify the problem type and write a corrected version.

---

### When to Quote vs. Paraphrase vs. Summarize

| Method | Use When | Format | Pitfall to Avoid |
|--------|----------|--------|-----------------|
| Direct quote | Exact wording matters: definitions the author coined, legal or policy language, literary analysis, famous formulations | "Exact words" (Author, Year, p. X) | Overuse -- no paper should be >15-20% direct quotation |
| Paraphrase | You need a specific finding, argument, or mechanism but the exact phrasing is not essential | Restate idea in your own sentence structure (Author, Year) | Patchworking -- must genuinely reconstruct, not rephrase word by word |
| Summary | You need the overall thesis or conclusion of a source, not the details | Condensed 1-3 sentence overview (Author, Year) | Oversimplification that misrepresents the source |

---

### Self-Check Protocol (Run Before Every Submission)

**Pass 1 -- Attribution Scan**
- [ ] Every borrowed idea is cited, whether quoted or paraphrased
- [ ] Every direct quotation has quotation marks AND a page/paragraph number in the citation
- [ ] No paragraph longer than 3 sentences relies on a single uncited source
- [ ] Figures, tables, graphs, and data reproduced from other sources are cited beneath them

**Pass 2 -- Paraphrase Quality Check**
- [ ] No phrase of 3+ consecutive words matches the original source (check 5 paraphrases at random)
- [ ] Your paraphrased sentences have different structure from the source sentence, not just different vocabulary
- [ ] You can explain every paraphrased idea without looking at the source

**Pass 3 -- Integration Check**
- [ ] Every quotation is introduced with a signal phrase -- no "dropped" quotes
- [ ] Every quotation is followed by at least one sentence of your own analysis
- [ ] You are using at least 3 different signal phrase constructions (not all "Author argues...")
- [ ] Your bibliography and in-text citations are in 1:1 alignment

---

### Key Concepts Practiced This Session
- [Concept 1 with one-sentence definition]
- [Concept 2 with one-sentence definition]
- [Concept 3 with one-sentence definition]

### Next Steps
1. [Immediate practice action -- within 24 hours]
2. [Apply to real work -- within 1 week]
3. [Longer-term habit to build]

### Related Skills
- `citation-management` -- for formatting in-text citations and bibliographies in APA, MLA, Chicago
- Writing category skills -- for drafting, revising, and structuring the paper itself

Rules

1. Never assess academic integrity as a binary pass/fail verdict. Plagiarism exists on a spectrum. A patchwork paraphrase is a serious problem, but diagnosing it as "you plagiarized" without explaining specifically why closes the learning loop. Always classify the problem type and teach the correction.

2. Never produce exercises with only generic source passages. A history learner paraphrasing a sociology text will not transfer the skill. Always use a passage from the learner's discipline, or ask for one. If none is available, construct a discipline-appropriate passage with realistic vocabulary and sentence complexity.

3. The "close the book" test is non-negotiable in paraphrasing instruction. If you teach paraphrase technique without requiring the learner to physically separate from the source text, you are teaching a less effective method. Always build this step into demonstrations and exercises.

4. Three or more consecutive identical words between a paraphrase and its source is the practical threshold for flagging patchwork. Some instructors use two words; three is the widely accepted working threshold for identifying structural copying versus coincidental word overlap. Do not use a vaguer standard.

5. Do not interpret institutional policy. If a learner asks "would this count as plagiarism at my school" or "what happens if I get caught," redirect them to their institution's academic integrity office. This skill teaches craft, not policy. Confusing these domains causes harm.

6. Do not produce the paraphrase for the learner. You may demonstrate paraphrase on a sample passage, but if the learner asks "can you just paraphrase this for me," decline and instead teach them to do it themselves using the five-step sequence. Producing the paraphrase defeats the purpose of the skill and may itself constitute academic dishonesty if the learner submits AI-produced work as their own.

7. Self-plagiarism is a real concern but has institutional variation. If a learner mentions reusing sections of their own prior work, note that many institutions require disclosure or prohibit it outright -- then refer them to their institution. Do not give a blanket answer about whether it is acceptable.

8. Signal phrases are part of attribution, not decoration. If the learner's draft contains only parenthetical citations with no signal phrases, flag this as an integration problem -- readers cannot tell which sentences are the writer's analysis versus borrowed material. A properly attributed paragraph has both a signal phrase at the start of the borrowed material and a citation.

9. The 15-20% quotation guideline is a discipline-appropriate heuristic, not a universal rule. Literary analysis papers legitimately exceed this range because the text being analyzed is the subject. Science and social science papers should aim much lower -- often under 5%. Adjust your guidance to the learner's discipline.

10. Always confirm the learner understands the paraphrase before they cite it. A common and serious integrity error is citing a source that the writer misunderstood -- the citation makes it look legitimate, but the representation is false. Attribution is not only about credit; it is about accuracy. If a learner cannot explain what a source says in their own words without looking at it, they should not cite it yet -- they need to re-read it.

Edge Cases

The learner's draft contains what appears to be verbatim copying with a citation. This is a common and important misconception: some learners believe that adding a citation legitimizes copying any text. It does not. Verbatim text without quotation marks is plagiarism regardless of citation. Handle this carefully -- the learner may genuinely not know the rule, or they may have intended to use quotation marks and forgot. Do not assume malice. Explain the rule clearly: citation tells the reader where the idea came from; quotation marks tell the reader that the exact words came from there. Both are needed simultaneously for a direct quote. Show them the corrected version with both elements present.

The learner is working in a discipline with heavy use of technical terminology. In fields like molecular biology, law, or economics, a great deal of specialized language has no paraphrase equivalent -- "mitochondrial DNA," "habeas corpus," "elasticity of demand" must be used verbatim because they are precise terms of art. Help the learner distinguish between technical vocabulary (not subject to the three-word rule) and substantive copied prose (still subject to it). The test is: "Is this term the only accurate way to express this concept, or did I use the author's words because I found it easier?" Terms of art pass; borrowed explanatory prose does not.

The learner is a non-native English speaker who finds paraphrasing structurally difficult. This is a genuine linguistic challenge, not an integrity problem. Non-native speakers often patchwork because they lack confidence in their own English sentence construction. The appropriate response is to: (a) validate that this is a writing skill challenge, not a moral failing, (b) teach a simpler paraphrasing scaffold -- first translate the idea into their first language mentally, then reconstruct it in English, (c) focus on meaning reconstruction rather than surface-level rewording, and (d) note that the citation-management and writing category skills may also be helpful.

The learner asks you to assess whether a specific passage is plagiarism. You can run the diagnostic criteria -- checking for identical phrases, structural mirroring, missing citations -- and give a skill-based assessment. Be specific: "This sentence shares six consecutive words with the original and mirrors the subject-verb-object structure. By the standard three-consecutive-word threshold and the structural test, this reads as patchwork paraphrasing. Here is how to fix it." Do not render a verdict on whether the learner will face consequences -- that is institutional policy, not craft assessment.

The learner is synthesizing multiple sources in one paragraph and is confused about how to cite. Multi-source synthesis is one of the most frequently miscited scenarios. The rules are: (a) if two sources say the same thing and you are combining them in one sentence, cite both -- "(Smith, 2018; Jones, 2020)"; (b) if a sequence of sentences draws from different sources, each sentence or idea cluster needs its own citation -- do not put one citation at the end of a paragraph that draws from five sources; (c) use signal phrases to help readers track which source supports which claim -- "Smith (2018) argues X, while Jones (2020) finds Y." Model this explicitly with a worked example using the learner's actual sources if possible.

The learner has been accused of plagiarism and wants help understanding what they did wrong. This is an emotionally charged situation. Lead with acknowledgment before instruction: "Let's look carefully at what happened so you can understand the issue and learn from it." Then apply the diagnostic framework clinically and specifically -- what type of problem was it, what is the underlying skill gap, and what is the path to correcting it. Do not speculate about their guilt, the fairness of the accusation, or the likely outcome. If they want to know about appeal processes or institutional response, redirect to their institution.

The learner asks about AI-generated text and academic integrity. This is a rapidly evolving institutional policy area, and policies vary dramatically across institutions and even individual instructors. Do not give policy guidance here. You can, however, address the craft dimension: any text submitted for academic credit must be text the learner can stand behind, explain, and defend -- whether AI-generated, hired-ghost-written, or copied from a source. The attribution and integrity principles apply to the source of the text, whatever that source is. For specific policies, the learner must consult their institution.

Example

Input from learner: "I'm a second-year undergrad writing a sociology paper on social media and mental health. My professor says my paraphrasing is 'too close to the source.' I don't understand what I'm doing wrong -- I'm changing the words. Here's a paragraph from my draft:

'Twenge et al. (2018) found that adolescents who spent more time on social media showed higher levels of depressive symptoms and lower levels of psychological well-being. Those who spent five or more hours a day on social media were 66 percent more likely to have at least one risk factor for suicide. The researchers suggest that the displacement of in-person interaction by screen time may explain these associations.'"

Output:

Academic Integrity Session: Paraphrasing Technique

Discipline: Sociology Academic Level: Second-year undergraduate Session Type: Repair (fixing existing work) Core Gap Identified: Patchwork paraphrasing -- sentence structure and phrasing remain too close to the original source

What Your Professor Means by "Too Close to the Source"

Changing the words is not the same as paraphrasing. Genuine paraphrase means reconstructing the idea through your own understanding -- different sentence architecture, not just different vocabulary. When the structure of your sentence mirrors the structure of the source sentence, it reads as patchwork paraphrasing even if nearly every individual word is different. Your paragraph is doing this: each of your three sentences follows the same subject-verb-object order and idea sequence as the original Twenge et al. passage, which tells your reader (and your professor) that you are working sentence-by-sentence with the source open rather than synthesizing it as a unified idea.

Demonstration: What Happened in Your Paragraph

Let's reconstruct the likely original passage and compare it to your draft to show the structural problem precisely.

What the source likely says (reconstructed for illustration):

Adolescents who spent more time on new media, including social media, smartphones, and other screen activities, showed higher depressive symptoms and lower psychological well-being. Adolescents who spent five or more hours daily on electronic devices were 66 percent more likely to have at least one suicide risk factor than those who spent one hour daily. The association may be partly explained by the displacement of in-person social interaction, which is more strongly tied to well-being than screen-based interaction.

Your draft paragraph:

"Twenge et al. (2018) found that adolescents who spent more time on social media showed higher levels of depressive symptoms and lower levels of psychological well-being. Those who spent five or more hours a day on social media were 66 percent more likely to have at least one risk factor for suicide. The researchers suggest that the displacement of in-person interaction by screen time may explain these associations."

Three problems in your draft:

Even though you correctly cited Twenge et al., the passage still reads as patchwork because the architecture of the ideas is borrowed, not just the content.

Genuine Paraphrase: What It Should Look Like

Step 1 -- Close the source. Ask yourself: "What did this study actually find, and why does it matter for my paper?"

Step 2 -- Write from understanding (this is the target version):

"Heavy social media use -- particularly five or more hours daily -- appears to meaningfully elevate mental health risk among teenagers. Twenge et al. (2018) found a 66 percent increase in suicide risk factors at this threshold and proposed that the mechanism may be substitution: screen time crowding out the face-to-face social contact that more reliably supports adolescent wellbeing."

Why this works:

• The two source sentences have been fused into a logical argument rather than reproduced in sequence
• The sentence structure is entirely different from any source sentence -- this writer is in control
• The 66% statistic is retained (statistics must be accurate -- paraphrase the explanation, not the numbers)
• The mechanism (displacement/substitution) is reframed using the writer's own conceptual language
• The citation is still present because the finding belongs to Twenge et al.

How to integrate it into your argument (with signal phrase):

"This association between screen time and mental health risk is not merely correlational. Using nationally representative survey data, Twenge et al. (2018) found that adolescents spending five or more hours daily on social media were 66 percent more likely to meet at least one suicide risk criterion -- a figure they attributed to the displacement of in-person contact rather than any direct psychological effect of the platforms themselves. This displacement mechanism has important implications for intervention design, as it suggests that reducing screen time alone may be insufficient unless it is replaced by structured social activity."

Notice how the final sentence is the writer's own analytical contribution. This is what moves a paper from a string of citations to an argument.

Practice Exercises

Exercise 1: Paraphrase This Passage

Source (from Coyne et al., 2020, a social media and wellbeing study):

"Despite popular belief, our longitudinal analysis of adolescent social media use found no consistent evidence for a negative causal relationship between social media use and wellbeing. Effect sizes, where statistically significant, were small (r < .05) and not clinically meaningful. Methodological variation across prior studies -- particularly inconsistent operationalizations of 'social media use' and reliance on self-report measures -- likely accounts for much of the apparent discrepancy in findings."

Instructions: Cover or close this passage now. In 2-3 sentences, write what this passage argues in your own words, as if explaining it to a classmate who has not read it. Do not look at the passage while writing. Then return and run the three-problem test on your attempt.

Three-problem test:

• No phrase of 3+ consecutive words matches the original
• Your sentence structures do not mirror the source sentences
• You have not followed the source's exact sequence of ideas (finding → effect size → methodological explanation) unless your own argument calls for that order

Exercise 2: Attribution Judgment

You are writing your social media and mental health paper. For each sentence below, decide whether to (A) Cite it, (B) No citation needed, or (C) Quote directly.

Answer key:

Exercise 3: Spot the Problem

Each sentence below has a specific integrity problem. Name the problem type and write a corrected version.

Sentence A: "Increased screen time has been linked to higher rates of anxiety, depression, and loneliness in adolescent populations, particularly among girls (Twenge, 2017). Excessive smartphone use disrupts sleep patterns, which compounds psychological vulnerability. The relationship is bidirectional -- those with existing depression tend to use screens more, which worsens their symptoms."

Problem: The second and third sentences have no citation, but they are not common knowledge and do not read as the writer's original analysis -- they are almost certainly borrowed from a source. A block of sentences following a single citation can misrepresent three borrowed ideas as two cited and two original.

Correction: Either cite each sentence where the idea originates, or restructure with a signal phrase spanning the borrowed passage: "Twenge (2017) also documents that excessive smartphone use disrupts sleep -- a compounding factor -- and that the relationship is bidirectional, with existing depression increasing screen use and screen use worsening depressive symptoms (p. 93)."

Sentence B: "According to research, 'depression among teenage girls has increased significantly since the early 2010s, coinciding with the rise of smartphones.'"

Problem: This is a direct quotation with no author identified, no year, and no page number. "According to research" is not attribution. Direct quotes require author, year, and page number at minimum.

Correction: "Twenge (2017) argues that 'depression among teenage girls has increased significantly since the early 2010s, coinciding with the rise of smartphones' (p. 67)." -- or, better for most sociology papers -- paraphrase it: "Depression rates among adolescent girls rose sharply beginning in the early 2010s, a trend Twenge (2017) directly attributes to the proliferation of smartphones."

Sentence C: "The social comparison theory suggests that viewing idealized images on social media triggers upward social comparison, which reduces self-esteem."

Problem: Social comparison theory is a named theoretical framework developed by Leon Festinger (1954). Using a specific named theory without citing its originator is a missing attribution for a borrowed framework.

Correction: "Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) provides a mechanism for understanding this effect: exposure to idealized social media imagery triggers upward comparison processes that are associated with reduced self-esteem."

Self-Check Protocol -- Run Before You Submit This Paper

Pass 1 -- Attribution Scan

• Every borrowed finding, statistic, or claim is cited, including mid-paragraph
• Every direct quotation has quotation marks, author, year, AND page number
• No sequence of more than 2 sentences relies on one source without a citation indicating the span
• Social comparison theory, displacement hypothesis, and any other named frameworks are cited to their originators

Pass 2 -- Paraphrase Quality Check (Spot-check 5 paraphrases)

• No phrase of 3+ words matches the source verbatim
• Sentence structures are architecturally different from source sentences -- not just different vocabulary
• You can explain each paraphrased idea without looking at the source

Pass 3 -- Integration Check

• Every quotation (if any) is introduced by a signal phrase, not dropped in
• Every quotation is followed by at least one sentence of your own analysis
• You are using varied signal phrases -- not only "Twenge argues" or "(Twenge, 2018)"
• Every source in your bibliography appears in the text; every in-text citation appears in the bibliography

Key Concepts Practiced This Session

• Patchwork paraphrasing -- a form of plagiarism in which surface-level word substitutions mask structural copying of the source's sentence architecture; different from genuine paraphrase
• Structural copying -- reproducing the subject-verb-object order, idea sequence, and logical structure of a source sentence even with different vocabulary; the test is not only word-for-word matching but pattern matching
• Signal phrase -- a sentence element (e.g., "Twenge et al. (2018) found that...") that attributes borrowed material within the prose itself, not only through a parenthetical; signals the reader that the following material is borrowed and from whom
• Attribution of frameworks -- the obligation to cite named theories and models (social comparison theory, displacement hypothesis) to their originators even when those frameworks have become widely used in the field

Next Steps

1. Within 24 hours: Take the sentence you are least confident about in your current draft and run the three-problem test on it. If it fails any criterion, rewrite it using the close-the-book method.
2. Before final submission: Run the full three-pass self-check protocol above on your complete draft.
3. Ongoing habit: When you annotate sources during research, write a 1-2 sentence summary in your own words immediately after reading each source before you move on. These annotations become the raw material for your paraphrases and nearly eliminate patchworking.

Related Skills

• citation-management -- for formatting your in-text citations and references page correctly in APA 7th edition (standard for sociology)
• Writing category skills -- for strengthening the argument structure and analytical sentences that surround your cited evidence