Clemson University.
- Detection status
- Turnitin AI-generated content detection in Canvas assignments and Respondus Monitor AI-powered checking, both documented by Clemson Online; iThenticate similarity review of every graduate thesis and dissertation manuscript; Undergraduate Learning's October 2025 guidance states that AI detector results alone are not sufficient to support an academic integrity charge
- Office in these sources
- Division of Undergraduate Learning — undergraduate academic integrity charges · student meetings held in 106 Vickery Hall, Clemson, SC · UGSintegrity@clemson.edu · no central academic-integrity phone number is published in these sources; the division's Academic Integrity page routes questions about a charge to Associate Dean Brian Dominy, dominy@clemson.edu, whom its Meet the Team page lists at 864-656-3835 · clemson.edu/undergraduate-learning — Academic Integrity
- Ombuds or advocacy office
- Clemson University Ombuds Office — its own About page states the office is Neutral (“We do not take sides in any situation, and we remain unaligned and impartial within the University”), Informal (“does not participate in any formal University proceeding or investigation”), Independent (“We function outside the normal chain of command”) and Confidential. Scope, stated because it is the trap on this row elsewhere: Clemson's Contact page names two University Ombuds and says of both that they serve “undergraduate students, graduate students” as well as faculty, so this page's reader is inside the population served. 135 Old Greenville Hwy, Suite 203, Clemson, SC 29631 · Gordon Halfacre 864-656-4353, rhlfcr@clemson.edu · Tessa Byer 864-656-5353, tbyer@clemson.edu · clemson.edu/administration/ombuds — About
- Sources last checked
- Aug 28, 2026
Reproduced from the institution's own pages quoted below — potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case.
Clemson's published sources on AI detection and academic integrity, quoted and linked below. The policy hierarchy at Clemson has a particular shape worth knowing before reading anything else: the binding document is the Academic Integrity Policy in the Academic Regulations section of the Undergraduate Catalog, and every operational page Clemson publishes on the subject — the division's procedure page, the student and faculty cheat sheets — carries its own disclaimer that it is not the official policy. The catalog itself could not be captured as text in this review and is therefore linked but not quoted here. Clemson's own guidance also states that generative AI is treated as a form of plagiarism unless an instructor's syllabus determines otherwise, and that a course AI policy is a required component of every syllabus, so a syllabus is among the relevant documents for any particular course. These are potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case; confirm applicability with the institution. Any dates are quoted from the sources, not a deadline calculation performed for you.
Three pipelines, and a published limit on what the AI score can carry
Clemson runs more than one tool, and they are scoped differently. Two are documented by Clemson Online — the unit now titled the Office of Digital Learning and Technology — for coursework in Canvas. A third runs only on graduate thesis and dissertation manuscripts. Each is treated separately below.
Turnitin, including an AI-generated Score — Canvas assignments
Clemson Online's Academic Integrity Tools page states (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 26, 2026):
The same page's feature table lists an “AI-generated Score” beside the “Originality Score,” for both synchronous and asynchronous course activities. Source: Academic Integrity Tools — Clemson Online. Scope note, because the page's location invites an assumption it does not support: this is a Clemson Online page describing a Canvas add-on and the modalities it suits, and it says instructors at Clemson use the tool. It does not state that AI detection is switched on by default, campus-wide, or for every assignment; the choice to enable Turnitin on a given Canvas assignment sits with the instructor as the page describes it. Turnitin is also one of the tool categories carried in CCIT's own Teaching & Learning knowledgebase, alongside Respondus.
Clemson Online's blog described the AI detector when it arrived (post dated April 17, 2023; retrieved Aug 26, 2026):
Source: Turnitin with AI Detection — Office of Digital Learning and Technology. Provenance note: the confidence and false-positive figures on that post are attributed by Clemson to Turnitin's own data and tests rather than stated as Clemson findings, and are not reproduced here for that reason. The post is three years old as of this retrieval and is recorded with its own date rather than treated as current guidance.
Respondus Monitor — proctored Canvas quizzes and exams
The same Clemson Online page documents a second tool whose flagging is also automated (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 26, 2026):
Its feature table lists “AI-powered Checking” for “Exam and quiz attempts where potential academic integrity violating behaviors are flagged for instructor review,” and recording “for instructor-only review.” Source: Academic Integrity Tools — Clemson Online. Scope: this is behaviour flagging during a proctored exam, not detection of AI-generated writing — a different question from the Turnitin score above, and it is named here because a reader whose case came out of a proctored exam will not find it under “AI detection” anywhere else on Clemson's pages. Respondus LockDown Browser is documented on the same page and does no flagging of its own.
iThenticate — graduate thesis and dissertation manuscripts only
The Graduate School states (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 26, 2026):
Source: Plagiarism — Clemson Graduate School. Scope: this is a similarity check, not an AI-writing detector, and it runs on every electronic thesis or dissertation rather than on coursework. It is inventoried here because it is a separate pipeline with a separate reviewer, a separate contact (manuscriptreview-l@clemson.edu), and an escalation path that runs to the student's adviser rather than to the undergraduate integrity process described in section 02.
What Clemson says the detector output can and cannot carry
The Undergraduate Academic Processes team's guidance document, dated October 2025 on its face and linked from the division's Academic Integrity page, states (retrieved Aug 26, 2026):
The same document lists what other evidence of unauthorized AI use might include: “Clear hallucinations in the assignment, such as references that do not exist,” material “far too advanced or too esoteric/obscure,” “distinct ‘voices’ in a single assignment,” and “Sentences or paragraphs that are abruptly terminated or oddly formatted.” Source: Guidance: Addressing Artificial Intelligence and Academic Integrity (PDF, October 2025). This is guidance published by the office that administers undergraduate charges, addressed to instructors; it is quoted because it describes the evidentiary weight a student's case will meet. It is not a statement that detection has been turned off — Turnitin's AI-generated content detection remains documented as available in Canvas on the Clemson Online page above, and the faculty cheat sheet from the same office says “If you use Turnitin or AI-dection software, create a report and provide it to us” (typographical error in the original).
Clemson's own student-facing sheet states the rule that sits underneath all of this: “Generative AI is treated as a form of plagiarism, unless otherwise determined by your instructor in their syllabus,” and “Instructors may use software to detect AI-generated content in student submissions.” Source: Student Cheat Sheet on Academic Integrity (PDF), which carries its own line: “This is not the official policy. For the official policy consult the Undergraduate Catalog.”
Detection sweep, recorded so a later reader can tell a thorough negative from an unasked question. Searched on clemson.edu and its subdomains: Turnitin, including its SimCheck, Originality and Clarity product names; Copyleaks; iThenticate; GPTZero; Originality.ai; Winston AI; Crossplag; ZeroGPT; Packback; Grammarly Authorship; Honorlock; Proctorio; Respondus; and Examity. Categories searched: Clemson Online's Learning Tools catalogue and its Academic Integrity Tools page; the Office of Digital Learning and Technology blog; the CCIT knowledgebase Teaching & Learning categories; CCIT's generative-AI guidelines and the university's AI tools pages; the Graduate School's thesis and dissertation pipeline; the Libraries' Artificial Intelligence in the Classroom guide; and the Division of Undergraduate Learning's academic-integrity pages and PDFs. Documented in institutional use: Turnitin with AI-generated content detection in Canvas assignments, Respondus LockDown Browser and Respondus Monitor with AI-powered checking, and iThenticate on graduate ETD manuscripts. Came back empty in this review: Copyleaks, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock and Examity — no clemson.edu page documenting institutional deployment of any of them was located. Proctorio is a partial result rather than a clean negative and is recorded as such: it surfaces only in a CCIT support article about installing its Chrome extension, and no Clemson page stating that Clemson deploys or licenses Proctorio was located; on the evidence found it is not established as a Clemson deployment. The Libraries' AI guide discusses AI and academic integrity and offers sample syllabus statements; it names no detector Clemson runs, and nothing on this page rests on it.
What Clemson's own pages say about how undergraduate cases proceed
- Who may be present
- “At any time, the student may have an advisor of their choosing (parent, friend, lawyer, etc.)” — Division of Undergraduate Learning, Academic Integrity, “How to Submit a General Undergraduate Academic Integrity Charge,” step 2 (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 26, 2026). The office's own student sheet repeats it for the hearing itself: “Bring an advisor with you to help remind you of your points during the hearing.” On recording: not stated in the sources reviewed. Searched the division's Academic Integrity page, its student and faculty cheat sheets, its plagiarism page and the October 2025 AI guidance; none of them addresses recording a meeting or a hearing, and the Academic Regulations section of the Undergraduate Catalog, which those pages name as the official policy, could not be captured as text in this review. · clemson.edu/undergraduate-learning — Academic Integrity · Student Cheat Sheet (PDF)
- What follows on the record
- “Your transcript will not indicate that your suspension was for cheating.” The same sheet states what is retained instead: charges are recorded by the office — “For students who waive a hearing, the Director checks academic integrity status of charged student” — and where an instructor resolves a plagiarism matter on the form, the faculty sheet states “we will create a record of the offense. You and the student receive a copy.” No retention period, and no provision on disclosure to graduate programs, employers or licensing boards, was located in the sources reviewed; the office's pages describe an internal record and a transcript that does not name the reason. Both sheets carry the line “This is not the official policy. For the official policy consult the Undergraduate Catalog,” and the catalog could not be captured as text in this review. — Student Cheat Sheet on Academic Integrity and Faculty Cheat Sheet on Academic Integrity, Division of Undergraduate Learning (no on-page dates displayed; retrieved Aug 26, 2026) · Student Cheat Sheet (PDF) · Faculty Cheat Sheet (PDF)
The two questions an adviser raises first, answered from this institution's own published documents — or recorded as not stated in them.
The division sets out the charge sequence on its own page (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 26, 2026). Two features distinguish it from most procedures quoted on this site: the instructor is directed away from contacting the student, and the office contacts the student instead.
Source: Academic Integrity — Division of Undergraduate Learning. The same page describes what follows each branch:
Source: Academic Integrity — Division of Undergraduate Learning. The page adds a line addressed to instructors that describes the same process from the other side: “Faculty members dealing with academic dishonesty who fail to follow procedures outlined in the Undergraduate Catalog and below may be subject to student grievances.”
Two of the office's own documents describe the informal route that often precedes any of this. The faculty sheet states that where an instructor wants to resolve a plagiarism matter directly, “you can use the Plagiarism Resolution Form to agree with the student on a penalty,” and that “About 10% have hearings.” The student sheet describes the same form from the student's side and states the office's contact address in that context: “If you can definitely show that you wrote all your own work, don't sign the form and contact our office at UGSintegrity@clemson.edu.” Penalty ranges appear in both: “The maximum for a first offense is failure of the course, but the most common penalty is a zero on the assignment,” and “The minimum penalty for a second offense is failure of the course and a semester suspension.” Sources: Faculty Cheat Sheet (PDF) and Student Cheat Sheet (PDF), both retrieved Aug 26, 2026, both carrying their own disclaimer that they are not the official policy.
Located but not captured, and stated rather than glossed: the Academic Regulations section of the Undergraduate Catalog is the document every page above names as the official policy, and it is where an appeal path, an evidentiary standard, the composition and procedures of the Academic Integrity Committee, and any transcript provision would be found. The catalog host returns an empty body to plain fetches from this run environment, so nothing on this page is quoted from it and no provision is attributed to it. It is linked in the source map, and re-reading it in a browser is the first item for the next review of this page. What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.
Where the documents live
| Document | Location |
|---|---|
| Academic Integrity — Division of Undergraduate Learning: the charge sequence, the advisor-of-your-choosing rule, the hearing branch | clemson.edu/undergraduate-learning — Academic Integrity (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 26, 2026) |
| Academic Regulations, Undergraduate Catalog 2026–2027 — named by every page above as the official Academic Integrity Policy; not captured in this review | catalog.clemson.edu — Academic Regulations (host returns an empty body to plain fetches; not quoted here; retrieved Aug 26, 2026) |
| Student Cheat Sheet on Academic Integrity — advisor at the hearing, transcript statement, penalty ranges, office email | media.clemson.edu — Student Cheat Sheet (PDF) (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 26, 2026) |
| Faculty Cheat Sheet on Academic Integrity — Plagiarism Resolution Form, record of the offense, hearing rate | media.clemson.edu — Faculty Cheat Sheet (PDF) (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 26, 2026) |
| Guidance: Addressing Artificial Intelligence and Academic Integrity — the statement that AI detector results alone are not sufficient | media.clemson.edu — AI guidance (PDF) (document dated October 2025; retrieved Aug 26, 2026) |
| Turnitin with AI-generated content detection, and Respondus Monitor AI-powered checking (Clemson Online Learning Tools) | clemson.edu/online — Academic Integrity Tools (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 26, 2026) |
| Turnitin AI detection, as first described by Clemson Online | blogs.clemson.edu/online — Turnitin with AI Detection (post dated April 17, 2023; retrieved Aug 26, 2026) |
| iThenticate review of graduate thesis and dissertation manuscripts | clemson.edu/graduate — Plagiarism · manuscript review desk: manuscriptreview-l@clemson.edu (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 26, 2026) |
| Plagiarism resources (undergraduate) | clemson.edu/undergraduate-learning — Plagiarism (retrieved Aug 26, 2026) |
| Artificial Intelligence in the Classroom — Libraries guide (sample syllabus statements; names no detector Clemson runs) | clemson.libguides.com/ai — AI & Academic Integrity (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 26, 2026) |
| Ombuds Office — Neutrality, Informality, Independence, Confidentiality as the office states them | clemson.edu/administration/ombuds — About (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 26, 2026) |
| Ombuds Office — contact, and the populations each ombuds serves | clemson.edu/administration/ombuds — Contact · 135 Old Greenville Hwy, Suite 203, Clemson, SC 29631 · 864-656-4353 · rhlfcr@clemson.edu · 864-656-5353 · tbyer@clemson.edu (from the office's pages, retrieved Aug 26, 2026) |
| Record of an offence and transcript treatment — as described by the office's own sheets; no catalog provision captured | media.clemson.edu — Student Cheat Sheet (PDF) (retrieved Aug 26, 2026) |
| Division of Undergraduate Learning — office contact | 106 Vickery Hall · UGSintegrity@clemson.edu · no central academic-integrity phone published; Associate Dean Brian Dominy, dominy@clemson.edu, 864-656-3835, per Meet the Team (from the office's pages, retrieved Aug 26, 2026) |
Organizing your own drafts and records to bring to any of this: the records checklist. Capturing the pages above as they read today, and keeping your own dated record beside them: what to do with these sources.
Revision history of this page
2026-08-26 — Page created. Every quotation on this page was captured first-party this date from the clemson.edu, blogs.clemson.edu and media.clemson.edu addresses linked beside it; the three PDFs were downloaded and read as text. Source dates as displayed: the AI guidance PDF is dated October 2025 on its face; the Clemson Online blog post is dated April 17, 2023; the Clemson Online Academic Integrity Tools page, the Division of Undergraduate Learning's Academic Integrity page, both cheat-sheet PDFs, the Graduate School plagiarism page and both Ombuds pages display no date of their own, which is stated beside each rather than glossed.
2026-08-26 — Detection sweep recorded. Named-vendor sweep on clemson.edu and subdomains: Turnitin including its SimCheck, Originality and Clarity product names, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus and Examity. Category sweep: Clemson Online's Learning Tools catalogue and Academic Integrity Tools page; the Office of Digital Learning and Technology blog; the CCIT knowledgebase Teaching & Learning categories; CCIT's generative-AI guidelines and the university AI tools pages; the Graduate School thesis and dissertation pipeline; the Libraries' Artificial Intelligence in the Classroom guide; and the Division of Undergraduate Learning's academic-integrity pages and PDFs. FOUND, documented in institutional use: Turnitin with AI-generated content detection on Canvas assignments; Respondus LockDown Browser; Respondus Monitor with AI-powered checking; iThenticate on all graduate ETD manuscripts. EMPTY in this review: Copyleaks, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Examity, and Turnitin's SimCheck, Originality and Clarity product names. PARTIAL, recorded rather than rounded either way: Proctorio appears in a CCIT support article about installing its Chrome extension and nowhere else located; no Clemson page stating a Proctorio deployment was found, and the page does not claim one. The queue tipoff that prompted this build — a Clemson Online page documenting Turnitin AI detection and an “AI-generated Score” in its feature table — was confirmed first-party and is quoted in section 01, with the scope question answered on the page rather than left open: the page is a Clemson Online learning-tools page describing an instructor-enabled Canvas add-on, and it does not assert campus-wide or default deployment.
2026-08-26 — Step-2 disqualification check: PASS, and the reasoning is recorded because the case is a near-miss on its face. Clemson's Division of Undergraduate Learning publishes, in October 2025 guidance addressed to instructors, that “AI detector results alone are not sufficient to support an academic integrity charge” and that “universities are establishing guidelines that discourage such use of AI detectors,” citing among its footnotes Vanderbilt's generative-AI page and MIT Sloan's “AI detectors don't work.” That is a limit on evidentiary weight, not a disabling: Turnitin's AI-generated content detection is still documented as available on Canvas assignments by Clemson Online, the same office's faculty sheet instructs faculty who use Turnitin or AI-detection software to create a report and provide it to the office, and the student sheet tells students that instructors may use software to detect AI-generated content. No first-party statement disabling AI detection across Clemson, or recommending against it across the board, was located. Recorded as a divergence reproduced rather than resolved: the Clemson Online page and the Undergraduate Learning guidance sit in different registers about the same tool, one describing its availability and one restricting what its output can carry, and this page presents both with their sources rather than reconciling them.
2026-08-26 — Paraphrase-pending and uncaptured. The Academic Regulations section of the Undergraduate Catalog is named by every operational page as the official Academic Integrity Policy, and its host returns an empty body to plain fetches from this run environment; it is linked in the source map, nothing is quoted from it, and no provision is attributed to it. This is the largest gap on this page: the appeal path, the evidentiary standard, the Academic Integrity Committee's composition and procedures, and any catalog-level transcript provision are all unstated here for that reason, and a browser read of the catalog is the first item for the next review. Related consequence recorded honestly: the three most quotable operational documents on this page each carry their own line stating that they are not the official policy, so the procedure quoted in section 02 is the office's published description of its own process rather than the governing text. Recording is not addressed in any source located, and the “Who may be present” row says so at the scope searched.
2026-08-26 — Deliberate omissions. The Turnitin confidence and false-positive figures on the 2023 Clemson Online blog post are Clemson reporting the vendor's own data and tests; they are not reproduced. Turnitin's, Respondus's and iThenticate's own vendor guides, linked throughout the Clemson Online page, are third-party and are not quoted. The Libraries' AI guide offers sample syllabus statements generated with ChatGPT and names no detector Clemson runs; nothing on this page rests on it, the same provenance line drawn on the unt and ttu pages. The Maxient-hosted Plagiarism Resolution Form and General Academic Integrity Form are transactional portals and were not opened. Clemson's Office of Advocacy and Success was located in the ombuds search and is not listed in the ombuds row: the Ombuds Office is the office Clemson itself describes as independent, confidential and outside the chain of command, and it states that it serves undergraduate and graduate students, so it is the row's answer. News-office articles about the Ombuds Office were read for orientation and are not cited; only the office's own pages are. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-08-26). Internet Archive captures: to be added.
2026-08-28 — Sources re-fetched and compared this date; every quotation intact. All linked clemson.edu, blogs.clemson.edu and media.clemson.edu sources were retrieved and checked: the Clemson Online Academic Integrity Tools page (the Turnitin, AI-generated content, Respondus Monitor and “AI-powered Checking” quotations and the “AI-generated Score” feature-table entry all verbatim), the 2023 Clemson Online blog post (April 17, 2023; the three quoted passages intact), the Graduate School plagiarism page (the iThenticate ETD quotations intact, manuscriptreview-l@clemson.edu unchanged), the October 2025 AI guidance PDF (the detector-not-sufficient-alone statement and the evidence list verbatim, authored by the Undergraduate Academic Processes Team of Brian N. Dominy, Megan Frewaldt and Lisa Traynham), the student and faculty cheat-sheet PDFs (transcript statement, penalty ranges, advisor line, “About 10% have hearings,” the “AI-dection” typo and both not-official-policy disclaimers intact), the Division of Undergraduate Learning Academic Integrity page (the full charge sequence and hearing-branch quotations verbatim), and both Office of the Ombuds pages (the Neutrality, Informality, Independence and Confidentiality statements verbatim; Halfacre and Byer both serving undergraduate and graduate students; 135 Old Greenville Hwy Suite 203; contacts unchanged). Office contact re-confirmed — Division of Undergraduate Learning, 106 Vickery Hall, UGSintegrity@clemson.edu, Associate Dean Brian Dominy, dominy@clemson.edu.
2026-08-28 — Detection sweep re-run; no change. Turnitin with AI-generated content detection on Canvas assignments, Respondus LockDown Browser and Monitor with AI-powered checking, and iThenticate on graduate ETD manuscripts remain the documented deployments; Copyleaks, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock and Examity again came back empty, and Proctorio again surfaced only in a CCIT extension-install article, not as a documented Clemson deployment. Step-2 disqualification check: PASS, unchanged — the October 2025 guidance limits the evidentiary weight of a detector score while Turnitin's AI detection remains documented as available, and both registers are still reproduced side by side rather than reconciled.
2026-08-28 — Pending item carried forward. The Academic Regulations section of the Undergraduate Catalog (catalog.clemson.edu), named by every operational page as the official Academic Integrity Policy, again returned an empty body to a plain fetch from this run environment; nothing is quoted from it, and a browser read remains the first item for the next review. Internet Archive captures still pending: Save Page Now was blocked from this run environment this date.
2026-09-01 — Internet Archive captures requested this date by an automated capture pass; no human review is claimed for this entry. No quotation, date, finding or link above was changed by it. This is the first capture pass to reach this page. Captures added: AI Guidance for Faculty (PDF) → https://web.archive.org/web/20260901083234/https://media.clemson.edu/undergraduate-learning/academics/integrity/ai-guidance.pdf; Faculty Sheet — Academic Integrity (PDF) → https://web.archive.org/web/20260901083259/https://media.clemson.edu/undergraduate-learning/academics/integrity/faculty-sheet-academic-integrity.pdf; Student Sheet — Academic Integrity (PDF) → https://web.archive.org/web/20260901083325/https://media.clemson.edu/undergraduate-learning/academics/integrity/student-sheet-academic-integrity.pdf; Office of the Ombuds — About → https://web.archive.org/web/20260901083401/https://www.clemson.edu/administration/ombuds/about/index.html; Office of the Ombuds — Contact → https://web.archive.org/web/20260901083437/https://www.clemson.edu/administration/ombuds/contact-ombuds.html; Clemson Online — Academic Integrity Tools → https://web.archive.org/web/20260901083604/https://www.clemson.edu/online/tools/academic-integrity.html; Division of Undergraduate Learning — Meet the Team → https://web.archive.org/web/20260901083644/https://www.clemson.edu/undergraduate-learning/about-us/meet-the-team.html; Division of Undergraduate Learning — Academic Integrity → https://web.archive.org/web/20260901083724/https://www.clemson.edu/undergraduate-learning/resources/academic-integrity/. Five sources failed capture, all on their first attempt, each now resting seven days before it is eligible again: Turnitin with AI Detection (blogs.clemson.edu), where the host gave the archiver no request to work with; the Academic Regulations section of the Undergraduate Catalog (catalog.clemson.edu/content.php?catoid=49&navoid=1982), where the archiver's submission came back as a bare HTTP 202 rather than a completed capture — the same page this log's 2026-08-26 and 2026-08-28 entries record as unreachable by plain fetch, so it remains uncaptured by either method; the Libraries' AI & Academic Integrity guide (clemson.libguides.com), the Graduate School plagiarism page, and the Division of Undergraduate Learning's plagiarism subpage, all three returning error:no-captures. With this pass, every source this page links has now been attempted at least once.
Spot an error or an outdated quotation? hello@gatheredwork.com — corrections are made on the record, in this log.