| Course | NU 617 The Nurse Educator Roles |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Academic integrity case review |
| Length | About 1,050 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | MSN Nurse Educator |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU 617 Unit 2
Two References That Do Not Exist and One Matching Paragraph: An Academic Integrity Case Review From a BSN Evidence-Based Practice Course
Student Name
Department of Nursing, Herzing University
NU 617: The Nurse Educator Roles
Instructor Name
January 29, 2026
Two References That Do Not Exist and One Matching Paragraph: An Academic Integrity Case Review From a BSN Evidence-Based Practice Course
What Was Noticed
Course: a junior-level evidence-based practice course in a composite BSN program. Assignment: a six-page paper appraising evidence on a clinical question of the student's choice, worth 20% of the course grade. While grading, I noticed three things in one student's paper, whom I will call Student A. First, two of the eight references did not appear to exist: the journal names were real, but I could not find the articles by title, authors, or DOI, and one DOI led to an unrelated article. Second, one paragraph of about 120 words closely matched a paragraph in a paper submitted by a different student in the same course the previous year, with a few words changed. Third, the writing style of the rest of the paper differed from Student A's two earlier assignments. I recorded these as observations, not conclusions. Each has more than one possible explanation.
What Was Gathered Before Anyone Was Accused
Before contacting the student, I gathered evidence and tested alternative explanations. I asked the nursing librarian to search for the two references; she confirmed that neither article existed in the named journals or in major databases, and that the DOI assigned to one belonged to a different article. Fabricated references with real journal names and plausible titles are a known feature of text produced by some generative artificial intelligence tools, which have been shown to produce citations that do not exist (Walters & Wilder, 2023), although a student could also have copied references from an unreliable secondary source. I reviewed the similarity report from the course's plagiarism detection software, which identified the matching paragraph and the earlier paper. I confirmed with the program that the earlier paper had been submitted by a student who had since graduated, and that Student A and that student had been in the same clinical group the previous year, which offered one route by which the paper could have been shared. I reviewed Student A's earlier assignments and drafts in the course system; no draft of this paper had been submitted, although drafts were optional.
I did not discuss the case with other students or faculty other than the course coordinator, whom policy required me to inform.
The Policy Relied On
The university's academic integrity policy defines plagiarism as presenting another's words or ideas as one's own without attribution, and fabrication as inventing data, sources, or citations. It requires that the faculty member notify the student in writing, meet with the student to hear their account before making any finding, apply a standard of more likely than not, and report any finding to the academic integrity office, which tracks repeat violations. The nursing program's handbook adds that integrity violations may also be reviewed as professional conduct, since honesty is an expectation of the profession, and the nursing code of ethics treats integrity as a core professional obligation (American Nurses Association [ANA], 2015).
The Meeting With the Student
Student A received written notice describing the three observations, the policy, and the right to bring an advisor, and we met four days later with the course coordinator present. I described what I had found and asked for the student's explanation before offering any interpretation.
Student A said that she had been working night shifts as a nursing assistant, had fallen behind, and had used an artificial intelligence tool to help find sources and draft two sections, then rewritten them. She said she did not know the references were fake. On the matching paragraph, she said that a friend from her clinical group had shared an old paper as an example, and that she had used a paragraph thinking that changing some words made it her own. She was upset and did not dispute the findings.
The Finding and the Sanction
Finding: on the evidence and the student's account, it is more likely than not that the paper contained fabricated references and a plagiarized paragraph. The student's lack of intent to fabricate is relevant to the sanction but not to the finding, since the policy holds students responsible for verifying their sources.
Sanction: under the policy's guidelines for a first violation, the paper received a zero, with the option to submit a new paper on a different question for a maximum grade of 70%, and the student was required to complete the library's module on source verification and responsible use of artificial intelligence. The finding was reported to the integrity office. Because this was a first violation, candid, and not related to patient care, the program did not refer it for professional conduct review. Studies of nursing students have found academic dishonesty to be common and have raised concern that dishonest habits formed in school may carry into practice (McCabe, 2009; Krueger, 2014), which is why the sanction included an educational component rather than only a penalty.
Documentation Kept
The file for this case contains the student's submitted paper; the librarian's written confirmation that the two references could not be found, with the searches she ran; the similarity report; the written notice sent to the student and the date it was received; notes of the meeting, reviewed and signed by the course coordinator; the student's written statement, which she chose to provide after the meeting; the finding letter with the sanction and the student's right to appeal to the academic integrity committee within ten business days; and the report to the integrity office. The file does not contain my first impressions or any comment about the student's character. If the student appeals, a committee member who has never met either of us should be able to read the file and see what was found, what the student said, and why the decision followed.
What I Would Change
Two course design changes would have made this case less likely. The assignment will now require an annotated reference list submitted two weeks before the paper, which makes fabricated sources visible early and gives students a chance to correct them. And the syllabus will state explicitly what use of artificial intelligence tools is permitted, since the student's account suggests she did not know where the line was. Clear expectations do not remove responsibility, but they make fair enforcement possible.
References
American Nurses Association. (2015). Code of ethics for nurses with interpretive statements. American Nurses Association.
Krueger, L. (2014). Academic dishonesty among nursing students. Journal of Nursing Education, 53(2), 77-87. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20140122-06
McCabe, D. L. (2009). Academic dishonesty in nursing schools: An empirical investigation. Journal of Nursing Education, 48(11), 614-623. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20090716-07
Walters, W. H., & Wilder, E. I. (2023). Fabrication and errors in the bibliographic citations generated by ChatGPT. Scientific Reports, 13, Article 14045. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-41032-5
NU 617 Unit 2 instructions, in plain terms
Unit 2 asks you to review an academic integrity case from the faculty perspective. Expect to describe what raised concern, explain how evidence was gathered and alternative explanations tested, identify the policy applied, describe the meeting with the student, state the finding and sanction with reasons, list documentation and reflect on prevention. Many versions ask about due process, text-matching software and artificial intelligence. Check whether your section requires a composite case. A fair process matters as much as the outcome, so show notice, an opportunity to respond and a decision based on evidence. Text-matching reports are evidence to examine, not proof. Connect integrity in school to professional integrity in nursing, using the ANA Code of Ethics.
Inside the NU 617 Unit 2 example
The review opens with what was noticed and in which assignment, stated factually. The evidence section is the most important, showing the instructor checked databases with a librarian before contacting the student. The policy section quotes the definitions that apply. The meeting section describes notice, the student's account and her stated reasons, with no assumption of guilt. The finding explains the standard of proof and how the evidence met it. The sanction is explained in relation to policy and to the student's first offense. The documentation section lists everything kept in the file. The final section looks at course design, describing two changes that would make fabrication harder and learning easier, such as scaffolded reference checks.
Where the points sit in the NU 617 Unit 2 rubric
Herzing's rubric for an integrity case review typically weighs the description of the concern, the evidence gathering, the application of policy, due process, the decision and sanction, documentation, reflection on prevention and writing. Evidence gathering decides much of the grade, because the rubric wants alternative explanations tested before the student hears a word of suspicion. Policy points require the institution's definitions applied accurately, not paraphrased loosely. Due process criteria look for written notice, an opportunity to respond and a stated standard of proof. Decision points go to a reasoned finding and a sanction proportionate to a first offense. Prevention earns credit for course design changes rather than warnings alone. The APA 7 list should carry McCabe's survey of nursing students and the ANA Code of Ethics.
Common NU 617 Unit 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Integrity reviews in Unit 2 commonly lose points by treating a text-matching score as proof of plagiarism, when the report only shows where words overlap. Another frequent problem is contacting the student with an accusation before any evidence is gathered. Students often skip the policy or paraphrase it so loosely that the finding has no anchor. Due process is reduced to a sentence. Sanctions are described without reasons or comparison with policy. Documentation is incomplete, leaving out the librarian's confirmation or the meeting notes. Prevention is limited to warning students about consequences. Finally, protect the student's identity, because integrity cases involve sensitive records, and graders expect a composite or de-identified case with details that cannot point to a real person.
Get a NU 617 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 2 instructions and the rubric from your NU 617 classroom, plus the integrity concern the review covers and any policy language you have been given. We write a custom example with observation separated from finding, evidence dated, notice documented, policy applied by clause and the appeal route stated, returned in 24 to 48 hours. The first custom sample is free.
More NU 617 papers and nurse educator samples
- NU 617 Unit 1: Faculty workload allocation brief
- NU 617 Unit 3: Clinical performance decision record
- NU 617 Unit 4: Learner remediation plan
- NU 617 Unit 5: Advising and referral protocol
- NU 617 Unit 6: Curriculum change proposal
- NU 617 Unit 7: Faculty scholarship plan
- NU 617 Unit 8: Appointment and promotion dossier
- NU 700 Unit 2: Concept analysis paper
- NU 725 Unit 2: Workflow analysis
- NU 726 Unit 2: Discussion post
- NU 730 Unit 2: Care coordination plan
NU 617 Unit 2 questions, answered
Can I write about a real case I was involved in?
Be careful here. A case you handled or witnessed carries details that identify a student, and those records belong to the institution rather than to an assignment. Where your instructions permit a real basis, change every identifying feature and say that you have done so. A constructed case built to raise the same procedural questions is usually the safer choice and loses nothing analytically.
How should the review handle text-matching software results?
As a starting point and never as the finding. A similarity figure counts strings, not intent, and it flags quoted material, reference lists and common clinical phrasing along with genuine copying. The review has to inspect the matched passages, judge whether attribution was attempted, and state that judgment. A percentage reported as though it settled the question is the error most often criticized.
What about work a student produced with an artificial intelligence tool?
Handle it against the policy that actually applies in that course, since institutions differ and some assignments permit assisted work with disclosure. What a review can properly record is what the assignment allowed, what the student was told, what the submitted work shows and what the student said about it. Detection claims deserve caution, because the available tools are not reliable enough to carry a finding alone.
Where can I find a free NU 617 Unit 2 sample paper?
Read the complete NU 617 Unit 2 fabricated references case review here at no charge, from the evidence gathered to the finding and design changes. A custom review can follow a different integrity scenario your section assigns.
How should nursing faculty handle fabricated references in a student paper?
Confirm the references cannot be found, ideally with a librarian, consider innocent explanations, give the student written notice and a meeting, then decide on the evidence. This sample follows each step before applying a proportionate sanction.