Editing Ethics
Academic fraud policies only partly cover the provision of editing services for under- and post-graduates.
St Andrews University’s policy document, for instance, would probably not provide grounds for disciplinary action based on a case in which, for example, a student submitted an essay that he had previously had a professional editor cut down from 3,300 words to 2,000.
This case would not quite be covered by plagiarism (cl. 7), since all the words in the remaining essay would be the student’s own, nor by contract cheating (cl. 13), since the editor had only in a loose sense ‘completed the assignment’ on behalf of the student.
Given that clear guidance is also required to be given to students regarding what is permissable, there is an exploitable loophole here – and especially since language support and proofreading for students working English as a second language is generally considered to be acceptable. A consistent policy might declare this, too, totally inadmissible; UCL, for instance, bans any form of language support. This is admirable clarity, but is arguably unjust to a certain marginal class of non-native English speakers.
Nevertheless, excessive précising by an editor is certainly a form of cheating, particularly where the editor has knowledge of the subject matter.
A request to shorten an essay by more than, say, 10%, should be considered grounds to terminate an editing contract. Universities should also consider adding explicit language regarding précising into their guidelines on academic fraud.
Leave a Reply