Detecting and (Not) Dealing with Plagiarism in an Engineering Paper: Beyond CrossCheck—A Case Study

In papers in areas such as engineering and the physical sciences, figures, tables and formulae are the basic elements to communicate the authors’ core ideas, workings and results. As a computational text-matching tool, CrossCheck cannot work on these non-textual elements to detect plagiarism. Consequently, when comparing engineering or physical sciences papers, CrossCheck may return a low similarity index even when plagiarism has in fact taken place. A case of demonstrated plagiarism involving engineering papers with a low similarity index is discussed, and editor’s experiences and suggestions are given on how to tackle this problem. The case shows a lack of understanding of plagiarism by some authors or editors, and illustrates the difficulty of getting some editors and publishers to take appropriate action. Consequently, authors, journal editors, and reviewers, as well as research institutions all are duty-bound not only to recognize the differences between ethical and unethical behavior in order to protect a healthy research environment, and also to maintain consistent ethical publishing standards.     

What do academics know and do about plagiarism? An interview study with Chinese university teachers of English

Previous research on plagiarism has increased awareness and knowledge of the various aspects of this issue, such as contributing factors to plagiarism, students’ and teachers’ perceptions of plagiarism, and institutional policies and regulations on plagiarism. Yet much of this research, especially on the latter two aspects, has been conducted in Anglo-American contexts or English-as-a-second-language (ESL) settings (where English is an official or important language in the larger societal context), while the diversity of English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) contexts (where English as a foreign language is largely used only in the language classroom) remains relatively under-researched. Of those studies that did focus on EFL contexts, the majority were based on survey data that were limited in the depth of information collected. To address this relative lack of in-depth understanding of how plagiarism is understood and acted against in EFL contexts, this paper reports on an interview study with 13 EFL teachers from 12 universities in mainland China. The study focused on the teachers’ knowledge and attitudes concerning plagiarism, plagiarism-related pedagogical practices, as well as perceived stances and expectations of their institutions in plagiarism prevention. Its findings contribute to the current knowledge base of EFL academics’ views and practices regarding plagiarism, add to our understanding of EFL teachers’ experiences concerning plagiarism in specific educational settings, and inform institutions’ efforts to develop and improve strategies and policies for preventing plagiarism.     

Advice for Plagiarism Whistleblowers

Scholarly open-access publishing has made it easier for researchers to discover and report academic misconduct such as plagiarism. However, as the website Retraction Watch shows, plagiarism is by no means limited to open-access journals. Moreover, various web-based services provide plagiarism detection software, facilitating one’s ability to detect pirated content. Upon discovering plagiarism, some are compelled to report it, but being a plagiarism whistleblower is inherently stressful and can leave one vulnerable to criticism and retaliation by colleagues and others (Anderson, 1993; Cabral-Cardoso, 2004). Reporting plagiarism can also draw the threat of legal action. This article draws upon our experiences as plagiarism whistleblowers with several goals in mind: to help would-be whistleblowers be better prepared for making well-founded allegations, to give whistleblowers some idea of what they can expect when reporting plagiarism, and to give suggestions for reducing whistleblowers’ vulnerability to threats and stress.     

Are We on the Same Page? College Students’ and Faculty’s Perception of Student Plagiarism in Taiwan

The rapid development of the Internet has granted college students easy access to vast amount of online resources, and to some degree has increased the chances of plagiarism problems. A number of studies have suggested that both faculty’s and students’ perceptions toward plagiarism are found to be influential on students’ plagiarizing behaviors, and limited research has been done to explore the perceptional differences between these two roles. This study aims to respond to the growing educational concerns about plagiarism by comparing the perceptions held by faculty and college students. A total of 229 faculty and 634 college students in Taiwan completed the Perceptions of Student Plagiarism Questionnaire designed for the study. The results reveal that faculty held stricter standards than those of students. Results also indicate various causes of plagiarism, such as no interest in the learning subjects, lack of citation knowledge, or lack of research ability. Furthermore, significant disciplinary differences were shown to contribute to students’ plagiarism perception; the results reveal that most students with an Arts or Communication major held a relatively adverse thinking toward plagiarism. Last, this study provides research-based strategies for school and faculty to reduce the likelihood of plagiarism.     

Perceptions of and Attitudes toward Plagiarism and Factors Contributing to Plagiarism: a Review of Studies

The abundance of information technology and electronic resources for academic materials has contributed to the attention given to research on plagiarism from various perspectives. Among the issues that have attracted researchers’ attention are perceptions of plagiarism and attitudes toward plagiarism. This article presents a critical review of studies that have been conducted to examine staff’s and students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward plagiarism. It also presents a review of studies that have focused on factors contributing to plagiarism. Our review of studies reveals that most of the studies on perceptions of plagiarism and attitudes toward plagiarism lack an in-depth analysis of the relationship between the perceptions of plagiarism and other contextual, sociocultural and institutional variables, or the relationship between attitudes toward plagiarism and students’ perceptions of various forms of plagiarism. Although our review shows that various factors can contribute to plagiarism, there is no taxonomy that can account for all these factors. Some suggestions for future research are provided in this review article.     

Stealing or Sharing? Cross‐Cultural Issues of Plagiarism in an Open‐Source Era

More professors and institutions want to move from a detect‐and‐punish to an educate‐and‐prevent model for dealing with plagiarism. Understanding the causes of plagiarism, especially among international students, can aid in efforts to educate students and prevent plagiarism. Research points to a confluence of causal factors, such as time pressure, language differences, and unclear rules. Though not the primary factor, ethical differences between cultures are also germane. Overall, the plight of international students summons institutions to examine their ethical norms of attribution. Plagiarism has a cultural history tied to concepts of individual creativity, but its future may look quite different in an era with increased communal sharing of ideas and images.     

No Harm,Still Foul: Concerns About Reputation Drive Dislike of Harmless Plagiarizers

Across a variety of situations, people strongly condemn plagiarizers who steal credit for ideas, even when the theft in question does not appear to harm anyone. Why would people react negatively to relatively harmless acts of plagiarism? In six experiments, we predict and find that these negative reactions are driven by people's aversion toward agents who attempt to falsely improve their reputations. In Studies 1–3, participants condemn plagiarism cases that they agree are harmless (i.e., stealing credit from an anonymous source). This effect is mediated by the extent to which participants perceive the plagiarizer to have falsely benefitted from plagiarizing. In Studies 4–5, we demonstrate that this effect is not explained solely by participants’ negative response to lies or violations of permission. In Study 6, participants condemn a plagiarism case in which the idea's original author actually benefits, providing the strongest evidence that people condemn plagiarism for reasons beyond perceived harm. We discuss how this work connects to broader questions of intellectual property and impression management.     

Self-Plagiarism or Appropriate Textual Re-use?

Self-plagiarism requires clear definition within an environment that places integrity at the heart of the research enterprise. This paper explores the whole notion of self-plagiarism by academics and distinguishes between appropriate and inappropriate textual re-use in academic publications, while considering research on other forms of plagiarism such as student plagiarism. Based on the practical experience of the authors in identifying academics’ self-plagiarism using both electronic detection and manual analysis, a simple model is proposed for identifying self-plagiarism by academics.     

Inadvertent plagiarism in everyday life

Inadvertent plagiarism is a source monitoring error described in laboratory studies. In the present study, the existence of this phenomenon in everyday life and the impact of a variable considered in laboratory (i.e. source similarity) were investigated. Two hundred and two participants were asked to remember an episode involving inadvertent plagiarism in the past, and to describe it. Results showed that inadvertent plagiarism occurs in real life conditions with respect to various types of activities. Moreover, source similarity had an impact on inadvertent plagiarism. In particular, same‐sex plagiarism occurred more often than opposite‐sex plagiarism. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Why do I always have the best ideas? The role of idea quality in unconscious plagiarism

Groups of individuals often work together to generate solutions to a problem. Subsequently, one member of the group can plagiarise another either by recalling that person's idea as their own (recall-own plagiarism), or by generating a novel solution that duplicates a previous idea (generate-new plagiarism). The current study examines the extent to which these forms of plagiarism are influenced by the quality of the ideas. Groups of participants initially generated ideas, prior to an elaboration phase in which idea quality was manipulated in two ways: participants received feedback on the quality of the ideas as rated by independent judges, and they generated improvements to a subset of the ideas. Unconscious plagiarism was measured in recall-own and generate-new tasks. For recall, idea improvement led to increased plagiarism, while for the generate-new task, the independent ratings influenced plagiarism. These data indicate that different source-judgement processes underlie the two forms of plagiarism, neither of which can be reduced simply to memory strength.     

Systems for the Production of Plagiarists? The Implications Arising from the Use of Plagiarism Detection Systems in UK Universities for Asian Learners

This paper argues that the inappropriate framing and implementation of plagiarism detection systems in UK universities can unwittingly construct international students as ‘plagiarists’. It argues that these systems are often implemented with inappropriate assumptions about plagiarism and the way in which new members of a community of practice develop the skills to become full members of that community. Drawing on the literature and some primary data it shows how expectations, norms and practices become translated and negotiated in such a way that legitimate attempts to conform with the expectations of the community of practice often become identified as plagiarism and illegitimate attempts at cheating often become obscured from view. It argues that this inappropriate framing and implementation of plagiarism detection systems may make academic integrity more illusive rather than less. It argues that in its current framing – as systems for ‘detection and discipline’ – plagiarism detection systems may become a new micro-politics of power with devastating consequences for those excluded.     

Examining variation in working memory capacity and retrieval in cued recall

Groups of individuals often work together to generate solutions to a problem. Subsequently, one member of the group can plagiarise another either by recalling that person's idea as their own (recall-own plagiarism), or by generating a novel solution that duplicates a previous idea (generate-new plagiarism). The current study examines the extent to which these forms of plagiarism are influenced by the quality of the ideas. Groups of participants initially generated ideas, prior to an elaboration phase in which idea quality was manipulated in two ways: participants received feedback on the quality of the ideas as rated by independent judges, and they generated improvements to a subset of the ideas. Unconscious plagiarism was measured in recall-own and generate-new tasks. For recall, idea improvement led to increased plagiarism, while for the generate-new task, the independent ratings influenced plagiarism. These data indicate that different source-judgement processes underlie the two forms of plagiarism, neither of which can be reduced simply to memory strength.     

An Analysis of Student Privacy Rights in the Use of Plagiarism Detection Systems

Plagiarism detection services are a powerful tool to help encourage academic integrity. Adoption of these services has proven to be controversial due to ethical concerns about students’ rights. Central to these concerns is the fact that most such systems make permanent archives of student work to be re-used in plagiarism detection. This computerization and automation of plagiarism detection is changing the relationships of trust and responsibility between students, educators, educational institutions, and private corporations. Educators must respect student privacy rights when implementing such systems. Student work is personal information, not the property of the educator or institution. The student has the right to be fully informed about how plagiarism detection works, and the fact that their work will be permanently archived as a result. Furthermore, plagiarism detection should not be used if the permanent archiving of a student’s work may expose him or her to future harm.     

Scientists Admitting to Plagiarism: A Meta-analysis of Surveys

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of anonymous surveys asking scientists whether they ever committed various forms of plagiarism. From May to December 2011 we searched 35 bibliographic databases, five grey literature databases and hand searched nine journals for potentially relevant studies. We included surveys that asked scientists if, in a given recall period, they had committed or knew of a colleague who committed plagiarism, and from each survey extracted the proportion of those who reported at least one case. Studies that focused on academic (i.e. student) plagiarism were excluded. Literature searches returned 12,460 titles from which 17 relevant survey studies were identified. Meta-analysis of studies reporting committed (N = 7) and witnessed (N = 11) plagiarism yielded a pooled estimate of, respectively, 1.7 % (95 % CI 1.2–2.4) and 30 % (95 % CI 17–46). Basic methodological factors, including sample size, year of survey, delivery method and whether survey questions were explicit rather than indirect made a significant difference on survey results. Even after controlling for these methodological factors, between-study differences in admission rates were significantly above those expected by sampling error alone and remained largely unexplained. Despite several limitations of the data and of this meta-analysis, we draw three robust conclusions: (1) The rate at which scientists report knowing a colleague who committed plagiarism is higher than for data fabrication and falsification; (2) The rate at which scientists report knowing a colleague who committed plagiarism is correlated to that of fabrication and falsification; (3) The rate at which scientists admit having committed either form of misconduct (i.e. fabrication, falsification and plagiarism) in surveys has declined over time.     

The effects of repeated idea elaboration on unconscious plagiarism

Unconscious plagiarism occurs in a recall task when someone presents someone else’s idea as his or her own. Recent research has shown that the likelihood of such an error is inflated if the idea is improved during the retention interval, but not if it is imagined. Here, we explore the effects of repeating the elaboration phase during the retention interval. Participants in a group first generated alternate uses to common objects before elaborating the ideas either by imagining them or by improving them. This elaboration phase occurred once, twice, or not at all. Later, they attempted to recall their original ideas and generate new ideas. Repeated imagery did not inflate unconscious plagiarism on either task. In contrast, repeating the improvement phase increased plagiarism to dramatically high levels in the recall task. The latter effect might be particularly pertinent to real-world cases of plagiarism in which the ideas under dispute have been the subject of creative development over many occasions.     

Gender differences and the awareness of plagiarism in higher education

Plagiarism is increasingly prevalent in the educational and research culture in higher education. Students are more and more looking for quick solutions when writing research papers and theses. In this paper, students’ awareness of plagiarism and possible gender differences in this awareness are presented. Gender differences in plagiarism awareness were analysed both generally and within several socio-economic contexts (e.g. social life, living with parents/grandparents, living in a student hall of residence, motivation for study and working during studies). Our study was conducted at the University of Maribor in Slovenia. The findings have revealed statistically significant gender differences in students’ plagiarism awareness; specifically, women have a much more negative attitude towards plagiarism than men. Regarding awareness, students could be divided into three groups: (1) students who are aware of plagiarism but do not consider it wrong or unethical, (2) students who are unaware of plagiarism, and (3) students who are aware of plagiarism but continue to plagiarise despite knowing it to be wrong. A very busy social life, strong motivation for study and working during studies also strongly affect plagiarism and reveal gender differences. Based on the findings of the study, this paper puts forward recommendations for plagiarism prevention. Our recommendations encompass the implementation of a plagiarism policy within academic institutions, strict sanctions on plagiarism, teaching students how to avoid plagiarism and, finally, a national programme for the promotion of academic integrity.     

Correcting the Scholarly Record in the Aftermath of Plagiarism: A Snapshot of Current‐Day Publishing Practices in Philosophy

Individuals discovered to have engaged in serial plagiarism in philosophy are few, but the academic publishers falling victim to them are many. Some of the most respected publishing houses in philosophy have recently dealt with the problem of having published plagiarized material. The various responses by these publishers to an instance of serial plagiarism, one that involves forty‐three articles and book chapters, provides a real‐time snapshot of the practices for correcting the scholarly record. The analysis offered in this article yields a twofold conclusion: first, there is relatively little uniformity among publishers in philosophy for responding to plagiarism; and second, in comparison with the natural sciences the discipline of philosophy often falls short of the accepted practices for correcting the scholarly record. The article considers only public, documented cases of academic plagiarism in philosophy and makes no new allegations of plagiarism.     

On Iranian EFL Undergraduate Students’ Perceptions of Plagiarism

The fast growing rates of plagiarism among students in higher education has become a serious concern for academics around the world. Collecting data through semi-structured interview, this qualitative study is an attempt to investigate a group of EFL undergraduate students’ viewpoints on plagiarism, the extent to which they are informed about it and the reasons triggering them to plagiarize. Responses revealed shallow understanding of plagiarism in its various forms. The findings indicated a range of contributing factors including: instructors’ ignorance towards plagiarism, limited writing and research skills, peer pressure, pressure to submit high-quality assignments and ease of plagiarizing. The results highlighted the need for practical policies and cohesive framework to raise students’ awareness at initial stages in order to minimize the prevalence of plagiarism at later points. Developing rich writing and referencing skills should be considered seriously by course instructors and the common leniency towards undergraduate students’ instances of plagiarism must be replaced by more serious attitude that encourages innovative and genuine research practice. The implications of findings can help academics to take the required steps in decreasing cases of plagiarism among students.