<\/p>\nWalking into the research phase of an Internal Assessment, Extended Essay or a TOK presentation feels exciting \u2014 and a little nerve-racking. You have ideas, sources, and a supervisor who\u2019s given you helpful nudges. Yet the one thing that turns calm confidence into sudden worry is the question of academic integrity. How do you draw on other people\u2019s work without stepping over the invisible line into plagiarism?<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
This blog isn\u2019t a rules lecture; it\u2019s a practical toolkit. Below I\u2019ll walk you through the seven most common plagiarism mistakes IB students make without realising, show what they look like in the context of IA, EE and TOK, and offer clear, actionable fixes you can use straight away. Along the way you\u2019ll find checklists, quick phrasing templates for acknowledgements, and a compact table that summarizes the risks and remedies.<\/p>\n
Academic honesty is central to the IB because it\u2019s not just about getting a grade \u2014 it\u2019s about demonstrating original thinking, reasoned argument, and the ability to learn from others while making your own voice heard. In IA and EE, assessors want to see how you interrogate sources, design research, and justify conclusions. In TOK, honesty about where your knowledge comes from and how you used it is part of the analysis itself.<\/p>\n
Patchwriting is when you change a few words or the order of a sentence from a source but keep the original structure and phrasing. It often happens when you\u2019re trying to speed-read and then write, or when you believe changing small bits is enough. The result looks like paraphrasing, but it\u2019s too close to the original.<\/p>\n
Why it\u2019s risky: Examiners can recognize writing that mirrors source phrasing; it\u2019s assessed as insufficiently original. In IB terms, that weakens the demonstration of subject understanding or analytical skill.<\/p>\n
Fix it: Read the source, close it, then write the idea in your own words as if explaining to a classmate. After that, compare to the source and add a citation. Use the following small routine:<\/p>\n
Quick example (original idea in plain language): \u201cHeavy metals can harm aquatic life.\u201d A patchwrite would keep the same sentence and swap in synonyms. A good paraphrase rephrases structure, adds synthesis, and cites the source.<\/p>\n
Some students include citations for direct quotes but forget that paraphrased ideas\u2014concepts, frameworks, or distinctive arguments\u2014also need credit. If you rephrase someone\u2019s theory or borrow a line of reasoning without a citation, that\u2019s still plagiarism.<\/p>\n
Why it\u2019s risky: Academic writing values the attribution of ideas, not only words. If an assessor can trace an argument to a published source that you haven\u2019t acknowledged, marks and trust are at stake.<\/p>\n
Fix it: Whenever a claim in your paragraph is not your independent thought, add a citation. A short parenthetical note or an in-text phrase like \u201caccording to\u2026\u201d, followed by proper referencing in your bibliography, is enough for most IB submissions.<\/p>\n
Images, graphs, and data are content too. Students sometimes assume that because they changed a chart\u2019s color or reorganized a table, it becomes their work \u2014 it doesn\u2019t. Figures and datasets taken from elsewhere must be labelled, sourced, and, if necessary, permission obtained.<\/p>\n
Why it\u2019s risky: Visual and data sources are as attributable as text; failure to credit them is treated as incomplete or dishonest scholarship.<\/p>\n
Fix it: For each figure include a caption that names the source and, if you adapted the image or data, use the phrase \u201cadapted from\u2026\u201d or \u201cdata from\u2026\u201d Add the full reference in your bibliography. Keep a simple log of where each figure came from while you research \u2014 a single spreadsheet entry per figure prevents headaches later.<\/p>\n
Collaboration is a gray area. Discussing ideas with classmates is normal, but when identical phrasing, identical structure, or shared drafts appear in separate submissions, that\u2019s collusion. Similarly, receiving excessive help from peers without proper acknowledgement crosses the line.<\/p>\n
Why it\u2019s risky: IB expectations vary by assessment type, but the underlying principle is the same: the final piece must fairly represent your own work. Unclear collaboration undermines that.<\/p>\n
Fix it: Keep a short research journal that records conversations and who contributed what. If a friend read your draft and suggested changes, note it. When collaboration is substantive, explicitly acknowledge it in your candidate\u2019s declaration or supervisor\u2019s statement as advised by your school.<\/p>\n
You might think that work you produced for a previous class belongs to you and can be reused freely. In IB assessments, submitting the same content for a new assessment without disclosure is treated as dishonest because it misrepresents the learning demonstrated in the new task.<\/p>\n
Why it\u2019s risky: Each IA and EE is assessed as original evidence of your learning in that subject and cycle. Reusing previous material creates a false picture of what you achieved in the current assessment.<\/p>\n
Fix it: If you want to build on past work, speak with your supervisor. Where small pieces are relevant, acknowledge them clearly in your methodology or footnote, and explain how the current piece expands on earlier work.<\/p>\n
Getting help is natural \u2014 supervisors advise, tutors explain, and editing tools polish. The risk is when substantial input from a tutor, editing service, or a generative tool changes the content or argument without being acknowledged. The same applies if a service writes or reworks large parts of a draft.<\/p>\n
Why it\u2019s risky: IB asks that the work submitted is the student\u2019s own. Significant outside contributions without acknowledgement may be judged as unauthorised assistance.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n