DQ 2 : Imagine the following scenario: You are taking the evidence-based practice course and one of your classmates shares an EBP project draft with you. You notice that some of the research has not been cited c01Tectly or even at all. When you approach your classmate, the response is that no one will notice and it is not a big deal anyway. What are your next steps in speaking with your classmate?
You have already raised it and been brushed off. That is what makes this a question about escalation rather than about whether to say something, and the prompt's last sentence tells you why.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 18, 2026
A classmate, a citation problem, and a refusal to care
Read the scenario carefully: you approached the classmate and the response was that nobody will notice and it is not a big deal. The easy version of this post — that you should speak up — has already happened inside the prompt. So the next steps have to go somewhere, and the first place is a genuine attempt to separate two very different situations. A student who does not know how to cite paraphrased material is common, fixable and not dishonest; a student who knows and has decided it does not matter is a different case. Ask which it is before deciding anything, and offer the concrete help the first case needs — the citation rules for paraphrase, the difference between a citation and a reference, the university's own writing support. That conversation is worth having on its own terms and it is also the step you will be asked about if this goes further.
If the answer is that they know and do not care, the honest next step is escalation, and the prompt's last sentence tells you why: this reflects on the individuals, the University and the profession. Uncited work is plagiarism under every academic integrity policy, and a nursing student is entering a profession where misrepresenting a source is continuous with misrepresenting a chart. Escalation means telling the classmate you will raise it, then raising it with the instructor — not reporting behind their back, and not doing their rewriting for you both. Be honest about the cost, because a post that pretends this is comfortable is not credible: you will damage a relationship in a cohort you have two years left in. Weigh that against what it means to certify, by silence, that a peer entering nursing believes rules apply when someone is watching. That is the judgement the prompt is asking you to make out loud.
Likely learning objectives
- Distinguish a skills gap from a deliberate decision to ignore attribution.
- Identify the concrete help a skills gap requires.
- Justify escalation by reference to institutional and professional standards.
- Acknowledge the personal cost of acting rather than presenting it as easy.
Assignment instructions
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
NURS 513 Topic 6 DQ 2 DQ 2 : Imagine the following scenario: You are taking the evidence-based practice course and one of your classmates shares an EBP project draft with you. You notice that some of the research has not been cited c01Tectly or even at all. When you approach your classmate, the response is that no one will notice and it is not a big deal anyway. What are your next steps in speaking with your classmate? Description: Imagine the following scenario: You are taking the evidence-based practice course and one of your classmates shares an EBP project draft with you. You notice that some of the research has not been cited c01Tectly or even at all. When you approach your classmate, the response is that no one will notice and it is not a big deal anyway. What are your next steps in speaking with your classmate? Consider how this could reflect on the credibility and integrity of the individuals involved, the University, and the profession.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01A next conversation with a stated purpose.
- 02A way to tell a skills gap from a deliberate choice.
- 03Specific help you would offer in the first case.
- 04An escalation path for the second, including telling the classmate first.
- 05A connection to professional standards rather than only academic rules.
The conversation, then the escalation you may owe
What the scenario has already used up
Note that the first approach has happened and was dismissed.
What the assessor is likely looking for
An answer that starts from the dismissal rather than from the discovery.
Not knowing versus not caring
Set out how you would tell the two apart in conversation.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A question that would actually distinguish them.
The help a skills gap needs
Offer concrete resources on paraphrase, citation and reference.
What the assessor is likely looking for
Named resources rather than an offer to help generally.
Escalation, done properly
Describe telling the classmate first, then the instructor.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A sequence that treats the classmate as a person and the rule as binding.
Why this is a professional matter
Connect misattribution to professional honesty in documentation.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A link to nursing practice, not only to university policy.
What the integrity frameworks actually require of you
Recommended databases
- Office of Research Integrity
- Purdue OWL
- PubMed Central
- American Nurses Association
Search sequence
- 1.Read a definition of plagiarism that covers paraphrase without attribution.
- 2.Read the research-misconduct definition to see where the professional line sits.
- 3.Look for nursing writing on academic integrity and professional identity.
- 4.Check your own university's integrity policy for the escalation route it specifies.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Plagiarism Overview - Purdue OWL
Purdue University · 2024
A clear account of what counts as plagiarism, including unattributed paraphrase.
Definition of Research Misconduct
Office of Research Integrity, US Department of Health and Human Services · 2024
The federal definition of research misconduct, which is where the professional stakes begin.
Fostering interprofessional identity formation to support interprofessional collaboration
Advances in Health Sciences Education · 2026
Professional identity formation — useful for the argument that student conduct is professional conduct.
Nursing Professional Development Evidence-Based Practice
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
Evidence-based practice and professional development in nursing, for the attribution norms of the field.
Levels of Evidence — Evidence-Based Practice Research in Nursing
Adelphi University Libraries · 2024
Evidence appraisal in nursing, for why an uncited claim cannot be appraised at all.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Answering that you would speak to them, which the scenario has already happened.
- Offering to fix the citations yourself, which makes you a participant.
- Escalating without telling the classmate, which is avoidable and worse.
- Presenting the decision as costless.
Submission checklist
- Does your answer start after the conversation the scenario already contains?
- Have you distinguished not knowing from not caring?
- Is your escalation path specific about who you would tell and when?
- Have you connected academic integrity to professional practice?
- Have you acknowledged what acting will cost you?
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read Brinevia's academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Maren Caldwell
MSN, RN, CNE
Medical-surgical nursing, pharmacology and NCLEX preparation
Maren is a registered nurse with over 15 years of clinical and educational experience in medical-surgical nursing. She writes on NCLEX preparation, patient care fundamentals, pharmacology and evidence-based practice.
Reviewed by
Dr. Tessa Redmond
DNP, RN, CNE
Evidence-based practice and clinical education
Tessa is a doctorally-prepared nurse educator. She reviews Brinevia content for clinical accuracy and alignment with current evidence-based guidelines.