Source text:

It used to be only five to ten percent of people developed allergic reactions to antibiotics, mainly penicillin. Now, as more and more individuals are exposed to antibiotics more and more often, increasing number of people are developing allergic reactions to drugs. (From (McKenna, J. 1998, p.29)

Writer’s text:

In the past, only 5% to 10% of the people are allergic to antibiotics, primarily penicillin. Now, as antibiotics are used more and more often, increasing number of people are developing allergic effects. (McKenna, 1998, p.29)

Writer’s comment:

I did not use quotation marks because it was too long. I changed a few words in there.

Student’s comment:

1. But she didn’t use quotation marks…Seems like that the student has recognized the source text said it best, but for whatever reason didn’t want actually quote the source text…I mean there are ways to quote long passages, and there would also be ways to not say in the exactly the same way. So it’s much better that he did use the source text, but same thing I think should be quoted. (A Master’s student in Library & Information Studies)
2. I would prefer a quotation. I think that quotation chunk dot dot dot continuing quotation would have been a better way of representing this, cause they have it succeeded in rephrasing it enough. So my hunch is that I would have said “just go to the quote on this one”. (A PhD student in Education)

Faculty member’s comment:

1. In this case, it is a bad job of paraphrasing. And it comes to close to a direct quotation. So I failed to understand the writer’s justification of passage being too long. The writer believes it’s a paraphrase, there’s too much material that has been used directly from the source to count as genuine paraphrase. So there’s another thing that looks as if we need to be teaching what counts as paraphrase, how much change does one need to introduce to become a paraphrase. This does not count as a paraphrase. It’s a poor job of quotation. (A professor in Education)