Disciplinary Dialogues Research on plagiarism in second language writing: Where to from here? Guangwei Hu * Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Scholarship on plagiarism in second language (L2) writing in the past two decades has greatly expanded our knowledge of the topic. As a result, we now know more about:  The complexity of plagiarism as intertextual practice (e.g., Pecorari & Petric´, 2014);  The prevalence of plagiarism in L2 academic writing (e.g., [6_TD$DIFF]Sutherland-Smith, 2005);  L2 students’ often distinct understandings of what constitutes legitimate and transgressive intertextuality (e.g., Hu & Lei, 2012);  Their culturally and disciplinarily shaped attitudes toward plagiarism (e.g., Flowerdew & Li, 2007; Shi, 2012);  Various intertextual practices that L2 students engage in (e.g., Pecorari, 2008);  Factors contributing to the incidence of plagiarism in L2 writing contexts (e.g., Hu & Lei, 2015);  Faculty’s reaction to and stance on students’ intertextual practices (e.g., Lei & Hu, [7_TD$DIFF]2014, 2015; Pecorari & Shaw, 2012; Shi, 2012); and  Institutional policies on student plagiarism (e.g., Kaktin¸sˇ, [8_TD$DIFF]2014; [6_TD$DIFF]Sutherland-Smith, 2011). A logical question to ask of research on L2 plagiarism at this juncture is: where to from here? Professor Pecorari proposes that it is high time for the L2 writing community to draw on our current knowledge about student plagiarism to ‘‘generate solutions in the many contexts in which plagiarism is a real or perceived problem’’ ([9_TD$DIFF]in this issue[2_TD$DIFF]). I find her proposal a timely call for action, and I also share her conviction that one of the collective strengths of the L2 writing community lies in our being in a privileged position to develop proactive strategies for helping students negotiate acceptable intertextuality. At the same time, I also tend to think that the proverbial ‘‘more research is needed’’ caveat applies here, because much of what we now know about L2 student plagiarism is at an empirical remove from proven pedagogy. To further complicate the situation, solutions recommended in the literature for combating plagiarism are often based on findings from first language studies and may not be directly applicable to L2 writing contexts. Discussions of strategies for preventing plagiarism abound. In general, proposed strategies reflect several underlying approaches and their various permutations. The earliest and most simplistic approach has been informed by a deterrence theory that views detection and retribution as effective means of deterring plagiarism (Gibbs, [10_TD$DIFF]1975; [6_TD$DIFF]Sutherland-Smith, 2011). Grounded in the assumption that severe sanctions outweighing potential benefits of engaging in misconduct have preventive effects, this approach is punitive and addresses plagiarism as a moral crime that must be caught and punished ruthlessly (Kolich, 1983). To implement this approach, various text-matching software has been used to facilitate the detection of plagiarized text. More recently, however, there has been a call for educational institutions ‘‘to move beyond deterrence, detection, and punishment’’ (Bretag, 2013, p. 2) and to take an approach that centers on ethics education to promote a culture of academic integrity (McCabe, 2001). This second approach typically involves the use of honor codes that communicate a strong espousal of academic integrity as a fundamental institutional value and that obligate students to hold themselves responsible for enforcing institutional ethics standards and combating plagiarism (McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield, 2002). Journal of Second Language Writing 30 (2015) 100–102 * Correspondence to: English Language & Literature Academic Group, National Institute of Education, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616, Singapore. E-mail address: guangwei.hu@nie.edu.sg Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Second Language Writing http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.004 1060-3743/ß 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.