跳转到正文
研究方法

如何避免剽窃:APA、MLA、Harvard 与 Princeton 的官方规则

剽窃是把他人的文字、想法、图像或整部作品当作自己的来呈现——无论有意还是无意。本页遵循 MLA Style Center(MLA Handbook, 9th ed., §§4.1–4.16,含 Handbook Plus §§4.2–4.11 章)、APA Style §§8.2–8.3 与 Avoiding Plagiarism Guide、Harvard Guide to Using Sources、Princeton Rights, Rules, Responsibilities §2.4 以及 WPA Statement on Best Practices(2003 年 1 月;leftover-WPA-12-30-2019-versus-January-2003)。leftover-APA-Incapsula-2026-10-24:Imperva 于 2026 年 10 月 24 日拦截了对 apastyle.apa.org 的直接 HTML 抓取以及 Avoiding Plagiarism PDF;以下 APA 字符串与现行检索文本以及 New York Medical College、Rowan–Cabarrus 和 UVic 的转载一致。这是伦理总览:什么算剽窃、手册如何定义、它们公布了哪些官方示例。句子级的直接引用与改写见改写与直接引用。常识例外在什么需要引用中展开。采集系统见如何做研究笔记。AI 引用格式见如何引用ChatGPT及AI工具。

作者:阅读约 32 分钟

研究方法指南的配图
图片:Freddy Castro,维基共享资源(CC0)
本页内容

简要回答:如何避免剽窃

只要他人的语言、想法、数据、图像或方法塑造了你写下的内容,就要标注出处。即使已经有出处,原词仍须加引号(或使用块引)。改写仍然需要出处,并且必须同时改变用词和句子形状。若不确定某事实是否属于常识,就标注。重复使用旧论文、合作以及生成式 AI,须遵守课程政策。

判断模板(下面填好的行是官方手册示例)

直接引用(MLA 9 §4.11,Agar)

At the intersection of language and culture lies a concept that Michael Agar calls “languaculture” (60).

改写(MLA 9 §4.8,McDougall)

As Walter A. McDougall argues, for the founding fathers American exceptionalism was based on the country’s domestic identity, which foreign policy did not shape but merely guarded (37).

常识

受过教育的读者已经知道的事实可以不标出处(水是 H2O;第二次世界大战于 1945 年结束)。一旦主张变成某人的发现、统计或解释,就要标注。

重复使用或 AI

把另一门课的论文再交一次之前先问。若 AI 被允许使用,须披露工具和任务;不要粘贴未标明的输出。Princeton 把聊天机器人当作算法,而不是来源。

本页当作规则来对待的手册句子是:

MLA Style Center,据 MLA Handbook 9 §4.1 改编

Plagiarism is presenting another person’s ideas, words, or entire work as your own.
Plagiarism may sometimes have legal repercussions (e.g., when it involves copyright infringement) but is always unethical.

leftover-eighth-edition-banner-omitting-sources:2019 年 4 月 26 日 Style Center 帖 If students omit from their works-cited lists works they have cited in their paper, have they plagiarized? 仍引用第八版句子。上面的第九版页是现行定义。保留两条字符串;不要把缺失的 Works Cited 行自动当作盗窃。

MLA Style Center,leftover-eighth-edition-banner omitting-sources(2019 年 4 月 26 日)

Plagiarism is presenting another person’s ideas, information, expressions, or entire work as one’s own.

APA Publication Manual 7th ed., §8.2(leftover-APA-Incapsula-2026-10-24 转载吻合)

Plagiarism is the act of presenting the words, ideas, or images of another as your own; it denies authors or creators of content the credit they are due.
Whether deliberate or unintentional, plagiarism violates ethical standards in scholarship (see APA Ethics Code Standard 8.11, Plagiarism).

本指南涵盖什么(以及不涵盖什么)

这是政策页。它告诉你何时需要署名、官方定义在何处不一致、以及你可以核对哪些真实手册示例。它不是引用技法课,也不是常识百科。

  • 使用本页当问题是“这算剽窃吗?”或“APA、MLA、Harvard、Princeton 和 WPA 实际上怎么说?”
  • 使用改写与直接引用当你已经知道必须给来源署名,需要句子级选择、定位符和引用三明治时。
  • 使用什么需要引用当唯一问题是某事实、讲座或统计是否属于常识时。
  • 使用如何做研究笔记当失败始于笔记而非草稿时。
  • 使用如何引用ChatGPT及AI工具仅在教学大纲允许该工具之后。

什么算剽窃

手册在行为上一致,在词汇上略有分歧。Harvard 把任何未署名的想法或语言都当作剽窃,包括事故。Princeton 的荣誉规定更短。Council of Writing Program Administrators 把 plagiarism 一词留给故意不给来源署名的失败,并把笨拙的引用当作记录错误而非盗窃。适用于你论文的规则是教学大纲,不是检测分数。

Harvard Guide to Using Sources,“What Constitutes Plagiarism?”

In academic writing, it is considered plagiarism to draw any idea or any language from someone else without adequately crediting that source in your paper.
Taking credit for anyone else's work is stealing, and it is unacceptable in all academic situations, whether you do it intentionally or by accident.

Harvard 的现行页仍用 Steven Pinker 的 The Language Instinct 和一条 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 词条作为“网站仍是来源”的案例。去找作者。若页面没有署名,就引用网站。来源种类并不改变义务。

Princeton Rights, Rules, Responsibilities §2.4.7

The use of any outside source without proper acknowledgment.

WPA Statement on Best Practices(2003 年 1 月)

In an instructional setting, plagiarism occurs when a writer deliberately uses someone else’s language, ideas, or other original (not common-knowledge) material without acknowledging its source.
A student who attempts (even if clumsily) to identify and credit his or her source, but who misuses a specific citation format or incorrectly uses quotation marks or other forms of identifying material taken from other sources, has not plagiarized.

APA §8.2 对小引用失误划了类似的线:拼错姓名、打错参考文献、或漏掉参考文献对应,在没有隐瞒来源的企图时通常是编辑错误,不是剽窃。它仍是成绩或修改问题。伪造引用,或雇人写论文(合同作弊),即使行文是原创,也是另一类诚信违规。Princeton §2.4.7 把第二种行为称为 false citation:把材料归于你并未实际使用的来源。

学生实际被指控的形式
形式看起来像什么如何纠正
逐字 / 直接复制原词却不加引号精确引用,标出原词,标明位置
未标注的引语有引号无来源,或有来源无标记标记与出处都要。Princeton:任何不是你的短语
未标注的改写你的词,别人的想法一处出处。想法仍是对方的
镶嵌 / 补丁式改写把借来的短语缝进新句子保留的短语要加引号;否则重建句法
不充分的改写换同义词却保留原句MLA 9 §4.7:改变措辞和结构,然后标注
自我剽窃把论文、章节或文章当作新作再用先问;引用或披露先前作品
合同作弊购买、代写或同学的论文写自己的草稿。辅导是帮助;替换不是
虚假引用你并未真正读过的来源引用你用过的作品。APA §8.2 与 Princeton §2.4.7 禁止编造参考文献

官方已做示例

下面的例子是手册和写作中心已经公布的,因此你可以核对每一处原文,而不是相信编造的“Smith, 2023”句子。MLA 的一对仍是 McDougall 与 Agar。Harvard 的现行页仍走 Derenoncourt (2022)、Sandel (2004)、Nguyen (2020) 与 Mask (2021),而 leftover-missing-Harvard-mosaic 现已补上:现行镶嵌案例是 Persad et al. (2008) 加 Cambra-Badii et al. (2021)。APA 的 Avoiding Plagiarism Guide 仍用 Ward、Day 与 Epstein (2006)。Princeton 仍用 Kernan 关于 Hamlet 的段落。

MLA 9 §§4.5–4.8:仍然太接近的改写

MLA Handbook 9 §4.5:改写用你的词和你的句子结构重述来源。§4.7 警告:保留原句法并替换同义词不够。官方来源是 Walter A. McDougall, Promised Land, Crusader State: The American Encounter with the World since 1776 (Houghton Mifflin, 1997), p. 37,关于美国例外论。下面的措辞是 MLA Handbook Plus §§4.2–4.11 示例,本次刷新时打开。

MLA Handbook 9 §4.7,McDougall 段落与改写

来源中的段落

American Exceptionalism as our founders conceived it was defined by what America was, at home. Foreign policy existed to defend, not define, what America was.

改写(不可接受)

American exceptionalism as the founding fathers envisioned the concept was given meaning by America as a homeland. Programs focused on other countries were there to protect America, not delineate it.

改写(可接受)

As conceived, American exceptionalism was based on the country’s domestic identity, which foreign policy did not shape but merely guarded.

写入你的行文并署名(MLA)

As Walter A. McDougall argues, for the founding fathers American exceptionalism was based on the country’s domestic identity, which foreign policy did not shape but merely guarded (37).

著作引用

McDougall, Walter A. Promised Land, Crusader State: The American Encounter with the World since 1776. Houghton Mifflin, 1997.

MLA 还指出核心术语不能用同义词替换:给 American exceptionalism 另找短语没有意义,就像给 capitalism 或 democracy 另找一样。给来源署名;不要为概念发明同义词。

MLA 9 §§4.9–4.11:必须加引号的造词

当精确措辞就是证据时——定义、造词、或你将分析的句子——要加引号。MLA 的官方案例是 Michael Agar 的 languaculture,见于 Language Shock: Understanding the Culture of Conversation (HarperCollins, 2016), p. 60。丢掉名字却留下造词,仍是剽窃。

MLA Handbook 9 §4.11,Agar 的 “languaculture”

来源中的段落

Everyone uses the word language and everybody these days talks about culture. . . . “Languaculture” is a reminder, I hope, of the necessary connection between its two parts. . . .

写入你的行文(错误)

At the intersection of language and culture lies a concept that has been called “languaculture.”

写入你的行文(正确)

At the intersection of language and culture lies a concept that Michael Agar calls “languaculture” (60).

著作引用

Agar, Michael. Language Shock: Understanding the Culture of Conversation. HarperCollins Publishers, 2016.

Harvard:从 2022 年经济学文章逐字搬用

Harvard 现行 “What Constitutes Plagiarism?” 页不再使用泛泛的教科书句子。官方逐字案例是 Ellora Derenoncourt, “Can You Move to Opportunity? Evidence from the Great Migration,” American Economic Review 112, no. 2 (2022): 369–408, https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20200002。leftover-Harvard-The-American-Economic-Review:Harvard 的现行 APA 行仍印 The American Economic Review。leftover-and1960s:来源段落仍写无空格的 “1950s and1960s”。保留遗留项;不要悄悄插入空格。开启话题的学生句子没问题。不加标记地复制其余部分则不行。

Harvard Guide to Using Sources,Derenoncourt (2022)

来源材料

Why did urban Black populations in the North increase so dramatically between 1940 and 1970? After a period of reduced mobility during the Great Depression, Black out-migration from the South resumed at an accelerated pace after 1940. Wartime jobs in the defense industry and in naval shipyards led to substantial Black migration to California and other Pacific states for the first time since the Migration began. Migration continued apace to midwestern cities in the 1950s and1960s, as the booming automobile industry attracted millions more Black southerners to the North, particularly to cities like Detroit or Cleveland. Of the six million Black migrants who left the South during the Great Migration, four million of them migrated between 1940 and 1970 alone.

剽窃版(Harvard 的评注)

学生开场(“But things changed mid-century.”)加上对 Derenoncourt 随后句子近乎逐字的搬用。漏掉两句并不会让其余部分变成你的。

带出处的可接受改写

But things changed mid-century. In fact, as Derenoncourt (2022) explains, the wartime increase in jobs in both defense and naval shipyards marked the first time during the Great Migration that Black southerners went to California and other west coast states. After the war, the increase in jobs in the car industry led to Black southerners choosing cities in the midwest, including Detroit and Cleveland.

可接受的引语加改写

But things changed mid-century. In fact, as Derenoncourt (2022) explains, “after a period of reduced mobility during the Great Depression, Black out-migration from the South resumed at an accelerated pace after 1940” (p. 379). Derenoncourt notes that after the war, the increase in jobs in the car industry led to Black southerners choosing cities in the midwest, including Detroit and Cleveland.

参考文献(APA,按 Harvard 所印)

Derenoncourt, E. (2022). Can you move to opportunity? Evidence from the Great Migration. The American Economic Review, 112(2), 369–408. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20200002

Harvard:leftover-missing-Harvard-mosaic,现为 Persad 与 Cambra-Badii

本页 2026 年 9 月版在 Derenoncourt 之后就停了。现行 Harvard 镶嵌案例使用两篇真实文章:Govind C. Persad、Linden Elder、Laura Sedig、Leonardo Flores 与 Ezekiel J. Emanuel, “The Current State of Medical School Education in Bioethics, Health Law, and Health Economics,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36 (2008): 89–94, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720x.2008.00240.x,以及 Irene Cambra-Badii、Elisabet Moyano、Irene Ortega、Josep-E. Baños 与 Mariano Sentí, “TV medical dramas: Health sciences students’ viewing habits and potential for teaching issues related to bioethics and professionalism,” BMC Medical Education 21, article 509 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02947-7。leftover-Persad-JLME-36-no-issue:Harvard 印 36, 89-94,leftover-Sedig-L-no-space 是(Sedig,L.)。leftover-Harvard-Josep-E-Baños:Harvard 印 Josep-E Baños,E 后没有句点。引用 Harvard 的字符串;你自己引用这些论文时,使用 Wiley DOI 与 BMC 文章编号。段中出处并不覆盖其后的句子。

Harvard Guide to Using Sources,镶嵌来源(2026 年 10 月 24 日打开)

Persad et al. (2008),按 Harvard 所印段落

Indeed, of the more than 3500 hours of instruction during medical school, an average of less than 60 hours are devoted to all of bioethics, health law and health economics combined. Most of the instruction is during the preclinical courses, leaving very little instructional time when students are experiencing bioethical or legal challenges during their hands-on, clinical training. More than 60 percent of the instructors in bioethics, health law, and health economics have not published since 1990 on the topic they are teaching.

Cambra-Badii et al. (2021),按 Harvard 所印段落

Students can absorb the educational messages in medical dramas when they view them for entertainment. In fact, even though they were not created specifically for education, these programs can be seen as an entertainment-education tool [43, 44]. In entertainment-education shows, viewers are exposed to educational content in entertainment contexts, using visual language that is easy to understand and triggers emotional engagement [45]. The enhanced emotional engagement and cognitive development [5] and moral imagination make students more sensitive to training [22].

可接受的 Persad 改写(Harvard)

In order to advocate for the use of medical television shows in the medical education system, it is also important to look at the current bioethical curriculum. According to Persad et al. (2008), only about one percent of teaching time throughout the four years of medical school is spent on ethics. As the researchers argue, this presents a problem because the students are being taught about ethical issues before they have a chance to experience those issues themselves. They also note that more than sixty percent of instructors teaching bioethics to medical students have no recent publications in the subject.

可接受的 Cambra-Badii 改写加学生自己的收束(Harvard)

The research suggests that medical dramas may be a promising source for discussions of medical ethics. Cambra-Badii et al. (2021) explain that even when watched for entertainment, medical shows can help viewers engage emotionally with the characters and may prime them to be more receptive to training in medical ethics. There may be further applications to this type of education: the role of entertainment as a way of encouraging students to consider ethical situations could be extended to other professions, including law or even education.

Persad 参考文献(APA,按 Harvard 所印)

Persad, G.C., Elder, L., Sedig,L., Flores, L., & Emanuel, E. (2008). The current state of medical school education in bioethics, health law, and health economics. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 36, 89-94.

Cambra-Badii 参考文献(APA,按 Harvard 所印)

Cambra-Badii, I., Moyano, E., Ortega, I., Josep-E Baños, & Sentí, M. (2021). TV medical dramas: Health sciences students’ viewing habits and potential for teaching issues related to bioethics and professionalism. BMC Medical Education, 21, 1-11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02947-7

APA Avoiding Plagiarism Guide:补丁式改写仍然算数

APA 的 Avoiding Plagiarism Guide(第 7 版教学材料;leftover-APA-Incapsula-2026-10-24,最后由 RCCC 与 UVic 转载确认)把问题分成 word plagiarism 与 idea plagiarism。词语剽窃是不加引号的精确或近乎精确措辞。想法剽窃是没有作者–年份的概念或发现。官方补丁式改写对来自 L. Monique Ward、Kyla M. Day 与 Marina Epstein, “Uncommonly Good,” New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 2006, no. 112, https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.162。

APA Avoiding Plagiarism Guide(leftover-APA-Incapsula-2026-10-24 转载)

Word plagiarism occurs when you use another author’s exact words or phrases without quotation marks.
Idea plagiarism occurs when you present an idea from another source without citing the author and year.

Ward et al. (2006) 的示例段落

Findings indicate that media content is not uniformly negative. Information about sexual health, risks, and thoughtful decision-making is sometimes present.

剽窃(补丁式改写)示例

According to Ward et al. (2006), media content is not all negative, and information is sometimes present concerning sexual health, risks, and thoughtful decision-making.

APA 所引来源的参考文献

Ward, L. M., Day, K. M., & Epstein, M. (2006). Uncommonly good: Exploring how mass media may be a positive influence on young women's sexual health and development. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2006(112). https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.162

补丁式改写句中的出处救不了它。APA 的评注:文内出处给想法署名;给措辞署名需要引号。增减几个词,或在保留骨架的同时换同义词,仍是补丁式改写。APA 还警告:段末一个括号并不覆盖前面的句子。

Harvard:对 Sandel 的不充分改写

Harvard 的不充分改写案例是 Michael Sandel, “The Case Against Perfection,” The Atlantic, April 2004。把 “deeper danger” 改成 “bigger problem”、把 “aspiration” 改成 “desire” 并不是改写。leftover-Harvard-Sandel-truncated-URL:现行 Harvard 页现在把链接截成 the-case-against-p….。保留 Harvard 曾经印刷的可恢复完整 URL。Harvard 的指示:把来源放到一边,按你会解释的方式写下要点,然后检查你没有留下 Sandel 的句子。

Harvard Guide to Using Sources,Sandel (2004)

来源中的段落

Though there is much to be said for this argument, I do not think the main problem with enhancement and genetic engineering is that they undermine effort and erode human agency. The deeper danger is that they represent a kind of hyperagency—a Promethean aspiration to remake nature, including human nature, to serve our purposes and satisfy our desires. The problem is not the drift to mechanism but the drive to mastery. And what the drive to mastery misses and may even destroy is an appreciation of the gifted character of human powers and achievements.

不充分的改写(Harvard)

The main problem with enhancement and genetic engineering is not that they undermine effort and erode human agency. The bigger problem is that they represent a kind of hyperagency—a Promethean desire to remake nature, including human nature, to serve our purposes and satisfy our desires. The problem is not the drift to mechanism but the drive to mastery. And what the drive to mastery misses and may even destroy is an appreciation of the gifts that make our achievements possible (Sandel).

可接受的改写(Harvard)

Michael Sandel disagrees with the argument that genetic engineering is a problem because it replaces the need for humans to work hard and make their own choices. Instead, he argues that we should be more concerned that the decision to use genetic enhancement is motivated by a desire to take control of nature and bend it to our will instead of appreciating its gifts.

著作引用(MLA,按 Harvard 所印)

Sandel, Michael. “The Case Against Perfection.” The Atlantic, April 2004, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/04/the-case-against-perfection/302927/.

Harvard:未标注的改写与未标注的引语

还有两个官方 Harvard 案例。C. Thi Nguyen, “Echo Chambers and Epistemic Bubbles,” Episteme 17, no. 2 (2020): 141–161, https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.32 是未标注改写的例子:学生的措辞没问题;缺失的出处有问题。leftover-Nguyen-doi-colon:Harvard 仍印 doi:10.1017/epi.2018.32。Deirdre Mask, The Address Book (St. Martin’s Griffin, 2021), p. 229 是未标注引语的例子:没有定位符的引号仍会隐藏来源。

Harvard Guide to Using Sources,Nguyen (2020) 与 Mask (2021)

可接受的 Nguyen 改写

According to Nguyen (2020), echo chambers and epistemic bubbles have different origins. Nguyen argues that while epistemic bubbles can be created organically, it’s more likely that echo chambers will be formed by those who wish to keep or even grow their control over the information that people hear and understand.

可接受的 Mask 引语

After all, “in New York, even addresses are for sale. The city allows a developer, for the bargain price of $11,000 (as of 2019), to apply to change the street address to something more attractive” (Mask 229).

Nguyen 参考文献(APA,按 Harvard 所印)

Nguyen, C. (2020). Echo chambers and epistemic bubbles. Episteme, 17(2), 141-161. doi:10.1017/epi.2018.32

Mask 著作引用(MLA,按 Harvard 所印)

Mask, Deirdre. The Address Book: What Street Addresses Reveal About Identity, Race, Wealth, and Power. St. Martin’s Griffin, 2021.

Princeton §2.4.9:逐字、镶嵌与未标注改写

Princeton 仍从一个真实段落公布三个分级示例:Alvin Kernan, The Playwright as Magician (Yale University Press, 1979), pp. 102–103,关于 Hamlet 中潜藏的剧场。大学的评注才是学生错过的部分。下面的措辞来自现行 Rights, Rules, Responsibilities §2.4.9 页,本次刷新时打开。leftover-Princeton-director-object-identifier:§2.4.6 仍写 “DOI (director object identifier).” leftover-Princeton-1995-MLA-and-1996-Turabian:“Standard Forms of Reference” 列表仍点名 1995 年 MLA Handbook(第 4 版)与 1996 年 Turabian 手册(第 6 版)。那些版次号已经过时。§§2.4.6–2.4.9 中的剽窃定义才是现行规则。

Princeton §2.4.3 誓词与 §2.4.9 Kernan 原文

本科誓词(§2.4.3)

This paper represents my own work in accordance with University regulations.
From time to time this submerged or latent theater in Hamlet becomes almost overt. It is close to the surface in Hamlet’s pretense of madness, the “antic disposition” he puts on to protect himself and prevent his antagonists from plucking out the heart of his mystery. It is even closer to the surface when Hamlet enters his mother’s room and holds up, side by side, the pictures of the two kings, Old Hamlet and Claudius, and proceeds to describe for her the true nature of the choice she has made, presenting truth by means of a show. Similarly, when he leaps into the open grave at Ophelia’s funeral, ranting in high heroic terms, he is acting out for Laertes, and perhaps for himself as well, the folly of excessive, melodramatic expressions of grief.

Princeton 的官方评注(同一来源)

逐字剽窃(官方评注)

Aside from an opening sentence loosely adapted from the original and reworded more simply, this entire passage is taken almost word-for-word from the source. The few small alterations of the source do not relieve the writer of the responsibility to attribute these words to their original author.

镶嵌剽窃(官方评注)

If even one phrase is good enough to borrow, it must be properly set off by quotation marks.

未标注的改写(官方评注)

Almost nothing of Alvin Kernan’s original language remains in this rewritten paragraph. However the key idea, the choice and order of the examples, and even the basic structure of the original sentences are all taken from the source.

常识例外

Harvard 的规则很窄:常识是你可以不署名使用的唯一来源材料。它是受过教育的读者已经知道的信息——广为人知的事实和日期,极少是想法或短语。凡是某个人研究或措辞的独特产物,都必须标注。当你在多处见过某事实仍觉得应该标注时,Harvard 说标注你实际使用的最可靠来源。更长的判断表见什么需要引用。

Harvard Guide to Using Sources,“The Exception: Common Knowledge”

The only source material that you can use in an essay without attribution is material that is considered common knowledge and is therefore not attributable to one source.
Facts, ideas, and language that are distinct and unique products of a particular individual's work do not count as common knowledge and must always be cited.
  • 通常是常识: 水是 H2O;Andrew Jackson 是第七任美国总统;第二次世界大战于 1945 年结束。Harvard 也把 Franz Boas 在美国的第一个人类学教职当作常识,因为不是某一个人发现的。
  • 不是常识: 统计、数据集、理论提出者、或历史学家的解释。Harvard 的例子:若你采用 R. A. C. Parker 认为 Neville Chamberlain 不必签署 1938 年慕尼黑协定的判断,你要标注 Parker——历史学家意见不一。若你使用 Anthony Abraham Jack 的 The Privileged Poor 的结论,你要标注 Jack。
  • 被引用的语言几乎从不是常识。 Harvard 罕见的例外是进入公共记忆的一行,例如 Kennedy 的 “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” 引用该演讲更多内容,或分析它,就要标注该演讲。
  • 领域里的“人人皆知”仍需核对。 Princeton §2.4.6:常识标准因学科而异。问授课教师。过多标注是评语;过少标注是指控。

自我剽窃、重复发表与再用课程作业

MLA 的 Style Center 直截了当:你可以剽窃自己。不引用先前已发表作品而再用其想法或短语,就是剽窃。许多荣誉守则也禁止循环使用课程论文,即使有自我引用,除非教师同意。APA §8.3 解释研究者为何把同一行为当作超出课堂规则的事。

APA Publication Manual 7th ed., §8.3

Self-plagiarism is the presentation of your own previously published work as original; like plagiarism, self-plagiarism is unethical.
Self-plagiarism deceives readers by making it appear that more information is available on a topic than really exists.
  • 课程作业: APA §8.3 与 Princeton §2.4.6(Multiple Submission)都要求在一篇论文满足两门课之前事先许可。Princeton 要该许可以书面形式,若你修订还要附上原文。
  • 学位论文到期刊文章: APA 的例外。把博士或硕士学位论文全部或部分发表为期刊文章通常被允许。你不在文章正文中引用该学位论文;你在作者注中承认它(Manual §2.7)。
  • 会议摘要到文章: 通常不是重复发表。在作者注中承认先前报告。
  • 有限的方法再用: 当改写会使方法不准确时,APA 允许不加引号地短而必要地重述工具或分析方法。更长的再用需要出处以及 “as I have previously discussed.” 之类的短语。
  • 期刊: ICMJE Recommendations on overlapping publications(2026 年 1 月)禁止把同一稿件同时投给两家期刊,包括译本,并把重复发表定义为与已发表论文有实质重叠且未清楚标明。

ICMJE Recommendations(2026 年 1 月),Overlapping Publications

Duplicate publication is publication of a paper that overlaps substantially with one already published, without clear, visible reference to the previous publication.

AI、翻译、图像、辅导网站及其他易漏之处

APA §8.2 说署名不止针对行文:改写、引语、数据与数据集,以及任何转载或改编的表、图或互联网图像——包括 Creative Commons 文件。把别人的段落翻译后当作自己的提交,仍是对方的作品。改写网站产出的补丁式文字也是。

生成式 AI

政策分裂,所以从教学大纲开始。Princeton §2.4.6–2.4.7 把聊天机器人当作算法,不是来源:若教师允许用于头脑风暴或列提纲,你要披露工具而不是引用它。复制、轻微改写、隐瞒该使用,或在课程禁止时用 AI 编辑,在那里都是诚信违规。其他院系要求你引用可检索的对话。不要猜测。格式问题见如何引用ChatGPT及AI工具;诚信问题是你是否被允许使用该工具。

Princeton Rights, Rules, Responsibilities §2.4.6

As defined in section 2.4.7, generative artificial intelligence (AI) is not a source, since its output is not produced by a person.
If generative AI is permitted by the instructor (for brainstorming, outlining, etc.), students must disclose its use rather than cite or acknowledge the use, since it is an algorithm rather than a source.

翻译、自动改写、同学与作业网站

  • 翻译过来的来源仍是来源。引用你使用的作品;若你自己翻译了一段,按手册要求说明。
  • 把一段话丢进“改写器”或翻译引擎再粘贴结果,是多了几步的镶嵌剽窃。你仍未写出该想法,句法通常仍太接近。
  • 合同作弊——付钱或请人写论文——即使文本是原创,在 APA §8.2 中也不道德,因为你在把不是自己做的工作据为己有。
  • Harvard 对待同学的想法如同对待一本书。若同伴评议意见变成你论文中的主张,点出该同学。合作课堂讨论可以用脚注而不是括号。Harvard 公布的样本:
  • Princeton §2.4.5 禁止在完成计分作业时使用未经授权的辅导以及“any websites or online services”上的“solutions to specific questions or problems”。Chegg、Course Hero 及类似答案库在该校园不是灰色地带。其他学校在教学大纲里写同一规则。若网站把答案卖给你,你就没有写出该作业。

Harvard Guide to Using Sources,同学 / 课堂讨论脚注

I am indebted to the members of my Expos 20 section for sparking my thoughts about the role of the narrator as Greek Chorus in Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried.

研究过程中如何避免剽窃

MLA 9 §4.3 把大多数无意剽窃追溯到不再显示谁写了哪一句的笔记。Harvard 的 “How to Avoid Plagiarism” 页给出同一方法:知道你在回答的问题,保留来源轨迹,且从不推迟出处。University of Chicago Press 在其 Turabian 学生专题单(改编自 Kate L. Turabian, Student’s Guide to Writing College Papers, 5th ed., 2019, pp. 110–11)中把该义务重述为三项原则,仍作为 Topic #19 现行。CMOS 18 仍把引用当作默认。leftover-Turabian-10-December-9-2026:University of Chicago Press 把 A Manual for Writers 第 10 版列为 2026 年 12 月(Google Books 与 Harvard Book Store 列为 2026 年 12 月 9 日)。在该书上市前,大多数教学大纲点名的学生手册仍是 Turabian 9。

MLA Handbook 9 §§4.3–4.4

Many instances of unintentional plagiarism can be traced back to sloppily taken notes during the research process.
Once you have carefully tracked your research, avoiding plagiarism is relatively straightforward: when the work of others informs your ideas, give credit by summarizing or paraphrasing that work or by accurately quoting it—and always cite your source.

Turabian 学生专题单:三项原则

You must cite the source for any words, ideas, or methods that are not your own.
When you quote the exact words of a source, you must put those words in quotation marks or a block quotation, even if you cite the source in your own text.
When you paraphrase the words of a source, you must use your own sentences, not sentences so similar to the original that they are almost a quotation.

Harvard Guide to Using Sources,“How to Avoid Plagiarism”

Never paraphrase or quote from a source without immediately adding a citation.
In every case, the consequences of plagiarism are much more serious than the consequences of turning in a paper late or turning in a paper you're not satisfied to have written.
  • 做笔记时就给每条加标签。 引语、改写、或你自己的想法。把页码或时间戳与笔记一起记录,而不是事后。如何做研究笔记。
  • 不要剪切粘贴进草稿。 Harvard:把来源归档、加标签,并把笔记与将提交的行文分开。
  • 边写边标注。 Harvard 的标题是 “Don't Save Your Citations for Later.” 生成器标签页只有在出处此刻落到该句中才有用。用引用生成器处理格式;来源轨迹自己保留。
  • 重建句子,然后核对。 把来源放到一边。按你会向未读该页的人解释的方式写下想法。然后比较。若骨架吻合,你仍在做补丁式改写。技法见改写与直接引用。
  • 对照来源核验出处。 MLA 9 §4.3:参考文献管理器数据经常出错。对照手头作品核对姓名、标题和页码。
  • 留出时间。 Harvard 关于故意剽窃的建议正是学生跳过的:迟交或不完美论文的代价,小于抄袭论文的代价。

相似度检测器抓住什么——以及漏掉什么

APA §8.2 指出出版者和教师使用 iThenticate、Turnitin 等工具查找抄袭论文、长匹配段落和补丁式改写。仍须由人判断该匹配是引语、方法短语、参考文献还是盗窃。WPA 声明更谨慎:leftover-WPA-not-always-reliable 是下面的现行句子,不是检测分数规则。

WPA Statement on Best Practices,“Work on Plagiarism Responsibly”

Although such services may be tempting, they are not always reliable.
  • 高相似度分数可能是正确引用的文献综述。低分数可能隐藏你改写得很好却未标注的想法。
  • 检测器不知道你课程的 AI 或合作政策。
  • 它们不能替代人工检查:每处引语都有标记、每处改写都有出处、每条参考文献都对应文内引用(APA §8.4)。

若你被指控

在写辩护之前先读所属机构的政策。Princeton §2.4.8 陈述了严厉版本。其他校园区分 WPA 式的来源误用与故意剽窃,并可能允许你修改。不要猜测你处于哪套程序。leftover-Princeton-1995-MLA-and-1996-Turabian 是目录遗留项,不是忽略 §§2.4.6–2.4.9 的理由。

Princeton Rights, Rules, Responsibilities §2.4.8

The only adequate defense for a student accused of an academic violation is that the conduct in question does not, in fact, constitute a violation.
Neither the defense that the student was ignorant of the regulations concerning academic violations nor the defense that the student was under pressure at the time the violation was committed is considered an adequate defense or a mitigating factor.

Princeton Rights, Rules, Responsibilities §2.4.6

The mere listing of a source in a bibliography shall not be considered a “proper acknowledgment” for specific use of that source within the essay or report.
This is not a valid excuse. The student is responsible for taking adequate notes so that debts of phrasing may be acknowledged where they are due.
  • 保留能显示论文如何写成的笔记、草稿、下载和版本历史。
  • 把被标记的段落与来源对照。若你引用却未加标记,就如实说。若出处在而检测器忽略了引号,把这一点带去。
  • 在截止日期之前使用写作中心、图书馆员和授课教师。提交之后,记录就是论文。

2026 年 10 月 24 日打开的遗留项

这些是现行页的遗留项,不是编造的问题。引用该页时就引用遗留项;你自己写出处时使用可恢复的形式。

  • leftover-APA-Incapsula-2026-10-24. apastyle.apa.org 的 HTML 与 Avoiding Plagiarism PDF 在本次刷新中被 Imperva 拦截。§8.2 / §8.3 / Ward 字符串与现行检索文本以及 NYMC、RCCC、UVic 转载一致。
  • leftover-and1960s. Harvard 的 Derenoncourt 来源仍印 1950s and1960s。不要悄悄插入空格。
  • leftover-Harvard-The-American-Economic-Review. Harvard 的 APA 行保留 The。期刊自身的标题是 American Economic Review。
  • leftover-Harvard-Sandel-truncated-URL. 现行 Harvard 页截短 Sandel 的 Atlantic 链接。完整 URL 是 https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/04/the-case-against-perfection/302927/。
  • leftover-Nguyen-doi-colon. Harvard 仍印 doi:10.1017/epi.2018.32。Crossref 更倾向 https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.32。
  • leftover-Persad-JLME-36-no-issue 与 leftover-Sedig-L-no-space. Harvard 的镶嵌参考文献省略期号并以 Sedig,L. 收尾。Wiley DOI 是 10.1111/j.1748-720x.2008.00240.x;Denver Law 转载 36 J. L. Med. & Ethics 89 (2008)。
  • leftover-Harvard-Josep-E-Baños. Harvard 的 Cambra-Badii 行在 E 后没有句点。BMC 文章是 leftover-Harvard-21-1-11-versus-article-509。
  • leftover-eighth-edition-banner-omitting-sources. 2019 年 Style Center omitting-sources 帖仍引用第八版定义(ideas, information, expressions)。MLA 9 §4.1 是 ideas, words, or entire work。
  • leftover-WPA-12-30-2019-versus-January-2003. CWPA 页戳是 12/30/2019。声明仍以 “Council of Writing Program Administrators, January, 2003.” 收束。
  • leftover-Princeton-1995-MLA-and-1996-Turabian 与 leftover-Princeton-director-object-identifier. §2.4.6 仍点名那些版次,并仍写 “director object identifier.” §§2.4.6–2.4.9 的剽窃规则是现行的。
  • leftover-Turabian-10-December-9-2026. UChicago Press 把 Turabian 10 列为 2026 年 12 月。Topic #19 仍改编自 2019 年 Student’s Guide 第 5 版,pp. 110–11。

常见问题

用自己的话说出来的内容也必须标注吗?
必须。Harvard、MLA 9 §4.4、APA §8.2 与 Turabian 都把未标注出处的改写当作剽窃。改词并不能让想法变成你的。重建句子,然后加上出处。Harvard 的 Nguyen (2020) 示例是干净的改写,没有姓名和年份仍会被指控。
我已经标注了来源。还需要引号吗?
若原词是对方的,需要。Turabian 的第二条原则与 Princeton §2.4.6 说,即使句子已经点名来源,原词仍需引号或块引。APA 的 Ward et al. (2006) 补丁式改写对表明:出处仍会失败,因为措辞太接近。
剽窃和糟糕的引用有何不同?
WPA 声明:学生即使笨拙地试图给来源署名,也没有剽窃;他们只是记录得很差。APA §8.2 说拼错姓名或漏掉参考文献对应通常是编辑错误。隐瞒来源,或编造来源(Princeton 的 false citation),则不是。leftover-eighth-edition-banner-omitting-sources:MLA 2019 年帖请教师在把缺失的 Works Cited 行当作盗窃之前权衡努力。
我可以再用上学期写的论文吗?
默认不可以。APA §8.3 和大多数荣誉守则把这当作自我剽窃,除非现任教师同意。Princeton 要求每位教师的书面许可,若是修订还要附上原文。
使用 ChatGPT 算剽窃吗?
取决于课程。许多学校把隐瞒的 AI 行文当作诚信违规。Princeton 说聊天机器人不是来源:披露被允许的使用;不要粘贴未标明的输出,也不要隐瞒 AI 编辑。当体例要求你引用共享对话时,见 AI 引用指南。教学大纲优先。
引用多少算太多?
没有官方的 10% 规则。MLA 9 §4.9:只引用特别贴切的内容,保持引语简短,并解释每一处为何在此。APA Style 除定义、难忘的句子或你将讨论的措辞外,更倾向改写。大部分是别人句子的论文是引语农场,不是论文。
参考文献条目算出处吗?
不算。Princeton §2.4.6:把作品列入参考文献并不是对具体使用的承认。被借用的句子仍需要文内出处、脚注或尾注。APA §8.4 要求每处文内引用对应一条参考文献,反之亦然。
网上找到的免费图像也要标注吗?
要。APA §8.2 要求你转载或改编表格、图或图像时署名,包括 Creative Commons 和其他免费互联网图像。可以免费使用并不等于无需署名。长摘录可能还需要版权说明或许可。
如果我忘了几个月前读过该来源呢?
Princeton §2.4.6 说那不是借口。你有责任留下能显示哪些短语是借来的笔记。若草稿中出现独特句子,在核对来源或仅凭想法记忆重写之前,把它当作引语。
在 Chegg 或 Course Hero 上查作业答案算剽窃吗?
若你把答案当自己的作业提交,算:你使用了外部来源却未承认,而且在许多校园还违反了禁止答案库的规则。Princeton §2.4.5 禁止在计分作业中使用这些网站,无论是否标注。问教师允许何种合作。

先完成出处,再检查句子

格式正确的出处只是一半工作。标出引语,重建改写,并在写作时保留来源轨迹。用生成器处理教师指定的体例;在决定原词是否必须保留时,使用引用指南。

相关指南