<\/p>\nIf you\u2019re working on an Internal Assessment (IA), an Extended Essay (EE) or a Theory of Knowledge (TOK) presentation, you already know the stakes: clear thinking, careful research and an authentic voice. But academic integrity in the IB Diploma Programme is about more than avoiding a copied paragraph. It\u2019s about building intellectual honesty as a habit \u2014 the kind that helps you think more clearly, argue more persuasively and sleep better the night before a submission.<\/p>\n
This article walks you through what plagiarism actually looks like in everyday DP work, why small slips matter, and practical routines you can use so your work is unmistakably yours. Along the way you\u2019ll find concrete examples tailored to IA, EE and TOK, a clear table of common breaches with how to fix them, and a simple checklist to run through before you hand anything in.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
When most people first hear the word plagiarism they picture whole pages lifted from a website. That is certainly one form, but the IB (and good academic practice in general) treats a range of behaviours as breaches of integrity because they all hide the true origin of ideas or work. Think of academic integrity as a spectrum that runs from honest citation to outright fabrication; the things in the middle are often the trickiest because they can happen without bad intent.<\/p>\n
Common forms you\u2019ll encounter in DP work include:<\/p>\n
A sentence patched from a source can look innocent, but it signals a breakdown in the research-to-writing process. When you patchwrite, you aren\u2019t practicing the crucial step of converting what you\u2019ve read into your own analytical voice. In an IA or EE \u2014 where examiners assess not only factual accuracy but your thinking and method \u2014 that lost practice translates directly into weaker marks. In TOK, where the clarity of your argument and the originality of your perspective are central, unattributed borrowing undermines the very point of the exercise.<\/p>\n
Each DP component has different rhythms and expectations, so the same behaviour can look different across tasks. Below are realistic scenarios and quick practical fixes.<\/p>\n
Situation: You follow a lab procedure from a paper and copy parts of its methods and discussion into your IA without quotation or citation. You also use a classmate\u2019s data table to fill gaps in your results.<\/p>\n
Why it\u2019s a problem: Methods and descriptions that are not your phrasing should be attributed. Using someone else\u2019s data without clear acknowledgement is collusion and may be treated as fabrication if the provenance is unclear.<\/p>\n
Fix: Keep a research log with timestamps. When you use a published method, paraphrase it in your own words and cite the source. If you borrow or compare data, add a clear note explaining the origin and why that approach was taken. If you adapted a method, say so and explain the adaptation.<\/p>\n
Situation: You read several scholarly sources and, in trying to explain them, you end up producing paragraphs that echo the source structure and vocabulary. You include a few references at the end but not for every rewritten idea.<\/p>\n
Why it\u2019s a problem: An EE is meant to showcase your capacity for independent research and analysis. Patchwriting suggests a reliance on source language rather than your synthesis and argument.<\/p>\n
Fix: After reading, close the source and write notes in your own words. Use summary and synthesis (compare two sources, explain a tension) rather than reconstructing a single author\u2019s flow. When you use a unique phrase or a claim that relies on a source\u2019s interpretation, cite it directly.<\/p>\n
Situation: In a TOK essay or presentation you borrow an idea from a book and present it as if it was your own reflection. Because TOK prizes personal engagement, you feel the impulse to blur the line between your thinking and what you\u2019ve read.<\/p>\n
Why it\u2019s a problem: TOK values intellectual honesty \u2014 your reflections must be built on properly acknowledged building blocks. Presenting an author\u2019s claim as purely yours misrepresents the intellectual process and weakens the assessment of your critical thinking.<\/p>\n
Fix: Attribute ideas as you introduce them. A short preface such as \u201cDrawing on X\u2019s concept that\u2026\u201d signals that you\u2019re using a source as a springboard for your own analysis, which is exactly the kind of reflective work TOK rewards.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
| Breach type<\/th>\n | How it commonly appears<\/th>\n | Practical fix<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n |
|---|---|---|
| Direct copying<\/td>\n | Copy-paste from websites or papers without quotes or references<\/td>\n | Use quotation marks for short extracts, cite the source, and rely on your own summary for most writing<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
| Patchwriting<\/td>\n | Replacing words with synonyms but keeping structure and ideas<\/td>\n | Close the source and write from memory; then check accuracy and cite<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
| Collusion<\/td>\n | Sharing drafts that are then submitted as individual work<\/td>\n | Agree roles clearly, document who did what, and acknowledge contributions<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
| Data fabrication<\/td>\n | Inventing or altering results to fit a hypothesis<\/td>\n | Keep raw data files, timestamped notes, and be honest about anomalies<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
| Self-plagiarism<\/td>\n | Reusing a previous assignment or IB work without declaration<\/td>\n | Check rules with your supervisor; if using earlier work, declare and explain how it\u2019s different<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table><\/div>\nParaphrasing, summarizing and when to quote<\/h2>\nKnowing the difference between paraphrase and patchwriting is a skill you can practice. Paraphrasing means you\u2019ve read something, digested it, and expressed the core idea in a new sentence structure and your own words. Patchwriting is when you tinker with the original wording but keep the original sentence order or phrasing \u2014 it reads like a near-translation of someone else\u2019s paragraph. A quick mental test: if your version still reads like the original author, it probably needs stronger rephrasing and a citation.<\/p>\n When should you use direct quotes? Use them sparingly: reserve quotation marks for short, striking phrases that are difficult to rephrase without losing nuance (a definition, a key term coinage, or a particularly memorable sentence). Most of the time you should paraphrase and cite \u2014 that demonstrates understanding. For TOK and the EE, linking a quoted idea to your own analysis is critical: don\u2019t insert a quote and move on; say why it matters to your argument.<\/p>\n A simple paraphrasing technique<\/h3>\nNote-taking, version control and research hygiene<\/h2>\nGood habits reduce accidents. Keep a master document or research notebook where every source is logged with full bibliographic details, the page or paragraph numbers you used, and a short note about how you intend to use the idea. Save drafts with clear version names (Draft_v1, Draft_v2) and date-stamp them. If you ever need to explain how a piece of work developed, these simple records are gold.<\/p>\n Reference managers and simple citation tables in your notes are lifesavers when you\u2019re preparing final references. If you work collaboratively, keep a shared log that records who contributed which piece of work and why. That kind of transparency turns potential collusion into proper collaboration.<\/p>\n Supervisor interactions: what help looks like<\/h3>\nYour supervisor\u2019s role is to guide \u2014 to help shape research questions, suggest resources, point out methodological problems, and help with draft structure. They should not write sections of your work, fabricate data for you, or provide polished text that you present as your own. Keep meeting notes (brief bullet points are fine) that capture the advice you received and the changes you made. In many IB assessments, a documented supervisory dialogue is considered evidence of authentic authorship.<\/p>\n Using support services ethically \u2014 where tailored help fits in<\/h2>\nSupport services can be powerful: a tutor who helps you plan your research, a librarian who teaches advanced search techniques, or a feedback session that points out structural weaknesses. The ethical line is clear: assistance should develop your skills and understanding, not replace your input.<\/p>\n For example, targeted 1-on-1 guidance that focuses on study strategies, organization, and improving argument structure lets you grow as a writer while keeping ownership of the final product. Some services also offer tailored study plans and AI-driven insights that highlight patterns in your drafts; when used to illuminate rather than produce content, these tools can strengthen your process. If you choose to work with a paid tutor or platform, make sure any edits are suggestions you can explain, and keep records of what was discussed so your final submission reflects your own reasoning and voice. Many students combine school feedback with extra tutoring to develop stronger drafts and learn better research habits \u2014 and that combination is perfectly legitimate when the student remains the author.<\/p>\n Occasionally, students look for tools that will rewrite text automatically. Beware: handing in extensively machine-rewritten text as your own risks the same authenticity problem as ghostwriting. Use automated tools for idea generation, reference checking, or formatting help, then do the intellectual work of turning those outputs into your argument.<\/p>\n |