ROIG represent actual writing practices, then the issue of how paraphrasing is defined within and across disciplines needs to be seriously considered. Most modern manuals of writing that discuss the parameters of correct para-phrasing (e.g., Aaron, 1998; Hacker, 1994; Nadell et al., 1994; Troyka, 1999) are relatively clear on the extent to which the original material must be modified to be considered properly paraphrased. For example, Troyka stated, "Even though a paraphrase is not a direct quotation, you must use DOCUMENTATION to credit your source. Also, you must reword your source material, not merely change a few words" (p. 498). In another manual, Aaron suggested that when paraphrasing a source, "Restate the source's ideas in your own words and sentence structures" (p. 257). Other writers offer even stricter definitions of paraphrasing. For example, consider Howard's (1993; cited in Howard, 1999) definition of patchwriting, a form of writing that she considers plagiarism: "copying from a source text and then deleting some words, altering grammatical structure, or plugging in one-for-one synonym-substitutes" (p. 89). Accordingly, paraphrases such as those supplied by respondents who appropriated strings of words in Studies 2 and 3 are certainly not within the guidelines of paraphrasing outlined by these manuals and would there-fore constitute possible instances of plagiarism. If indeed college professors paraphrase in a manner similar to that observed in the studies in this article, can we conclude that a small but significant proportion of writing by college professors may be classified as plagiarism? Obviously, such a conclusion would depend on a number of factors. For example, has text appropria-tion occurred systematically across various works cited throughout the paper, or is it confined to one or two instances of, say, a description of a complex methodology section of an experimental research report? In addition, how many strings of con-secutive words have been appropriated and of what length are these strings of text? Clearly, these and other issues need to be taken into account when making a deter-mination of plagiarism. One important factor to be considered when reviewing others' work for potential plagiarism is the discipline of the writer. For example, if the writer is a psychology student or professor, then perhaps those paraphrases might be acceptable within the psychology community. Consider how the psychology profession defines para-phrasing and plagiarism. The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA; APA, 1994), a source used by most psychologists and others in the social sciences (e.g., sociologists, social workers), offers the following guide-lines: "Summarizing a passage or rearranging the order of a sentence and changing some of the words is paraphrasing" (p. 292). A comparison of the Publication Man-ual definition with the definitions of traditional writing manuals outlined earlier in-dicates some obvious differences in the extent to which text should be modified to be considered a proper paraphrase. Unfortunately, the absence of a general operational definition for paraphrasing leaves plenty of room for disagreement as to when a para-phrase might be considered an instance of plagiarism.

DOI link for ROIG represent actual writing practices, then the issue of how paraphrasing is defined within and across disciplines needs to be seriously considered. Most modern manuals of writing that discuss the parameters of correct para-phrasing (e.g., Aaron, 1998; Hacker, 1994; Nadell et al., 1994; Troyka, 1999) are relatively clear on the extent to which the original material must be modified to be considered properly paraphrased. For example, Troyka stated, "Even though a paraphrase is not a direct quotation, you must use DOCUMENTATION to credit your source. Also, you must reword your source material, not merely change a few words" (p. 498). In another manual, Aaron suggested that when paraphrasing a source, "Restate the source's ideas in your own words and sentence structures" (p. 257). Other writers offer even stricter definitions of paraphrasing. For example, consider Howard's (1993; cited in Howard, 1999) definition of patchwriting, a form of writing that she considers plagiarism: "copying from a source text and then deleting some words, altering grammatical structure, or plugging in one-for-one synonym-substitutes" (p. 89). Accordingly, paraphrases such as those supplied by respondents who appropriated strings of words in Studies 2 and 3 are certainly not within the guidelines of paraphrasing outlined by these manuals and would there-fore constitute possible instances of plagiarism. If indeed college professors paraphrase in a manner similar to that observed in the studies in this article, can we conclude that a small but significant proportion of writing by college professors may be classified as plagiarism? Obviously, such a conclusion would depend on a number of factors. For example, has text appropria-tion occurred systematically across various works cited throughout the paper, or is it confined to one or two instances of, say, a description of a complex methodology section of an experimental research report? In addition, how many strings of con-secutive words have been appropriated and of what length are these strings of text? Clearly, these and other issues need to be taken into account when making a deter-mination of plagiarism. One important factor to be considered when reviewing others' work for potential plagiarism is the discipline of the writer. For example, if the writer is a psychology student or professor, then perhaps those paraphrases might be acceptable within the psychology community. Consider how the psychology profession defines para-phrasing and plagiarism. The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA; APA, 1994), a source used by most psychologists and others in the social sciences (e.g., sociologists, social workers), offers the following guide-lines: "Summarizing a passage or rearranging the order of a sentence and changing some of the words is paraphrasing" (p. 292). A comparison of the Publication Man-ual definition with the definitions of traditional writing manuals outlined earlier in-dicates some obvious differences in the extent to which text should be modified to be considered a proper paraphrase. Unfortunately, the absence of a general operational definition for paraphrasing leaves plenty of room for disagreement as to when a para-phrase might be considered an instance of plagiarism.

ROIG represent actual writing practices, then the issue of how paraphrasing is defined within and across disciplines needs to be seriously considered. Most modern manuals of writing that discuss the parameters of correct para-phrasing (e.g., Aaron, 1998; Hacker, 1994; Nadell et al., 1994; Troyka, 1999) are relatively clear on the extent to which the original material must be modified to be considered properly paraphrased. For example, Troyka stated, "Even though a paraphrase is not a direct quotation, you must use DOCUMENTATION to credit your source. Also, you must reword your source material, not merely change a few words" (p. 498). In another manual, Aaron suggested that when paraphrasing a source, "Restate the source's ideas in your own words and sentence structures" (p. 257). Other writers offer even stricter definitions of paraphrasing. For example, consider Howard's (1993; cited in Howard, 1999) definition of patchwriting, a form of writing that she considers plagiarism: "copying from a source text and then deleting some words, altering grammatical structure, or plugging in one-for-one synonym-substitutes" (p. 89). Accordingly, paraphrases such as those supplied by respondents who appropriated strings of words in Studies 2 and 3 are certainly not within the guidelines of paraphrasing outlined by these manuals and would there-fore constitute possible instances of plagiarism. If indeed college professors paraphrase in a manner similar to that observed in the studies in this article, can we conclude that a small but significant proportion of writing by college professors may be classified as plagiarism? Obviously, such a conclusion would depend on a number of factors. For example, has text appropria-tion occurred systematically across various works cited throughout the paper, or is it confined to one or two instances of, say, a description of a complex methodology section of an experimental research report? In addition, how many strings of con-secutive words have been appropriated and of what length are these strings of text? Clearly, these and other issues need to be taken into account when making a deter-mination of plagiarism. One important factor to be considered when reviewing others' work for potential plagiarism is the discipline of the writer. For example, if the writer is a psychology student or professor, then perhaps those paraphrases might be acceptable within the psychology community. Consider how the psychology profession defines para-phrasing and plagiarism. The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA; APA, 1994), a source used by most psychologists and others in the social sciences (e.g., sociologists, social workers), offers the following guide-lines: "Summarizing a passage or rearranging the order of a sentence and changing some of the words is paraphrasing" (p. 292). A comparison of the Publication Man-ual definition with the definitions of traditional writing manuals outlined earlier in-dicates some obvious differences in the extent to which text should be modified to be considered a proper paraphrase. Unfortunately, the absence of a general operational definition for paraphrasing leaves plenty of room for disagreement as to when a para-phrase might be considered an instance of plagiarism.