The Academic Dishonesty The Significance of Anti

DOI : 10.5958/0975-6922.2016.00002.4

PEARL - A Journal of Library and Information Science Vol. 10, No. 1, January-March 2016: 11-23

Plagiarism: The Academic Dishonesty The Significance of Anti-plagiarism Software (Tools) in Plagiarism Detection V.J. Suseela

Downloaded From IP - 14.139.69.156 on dated 30-Nov-2016

www.IndianJournals.com

Members Copy, Not for Commercial Sale

ABSTRACT Plagiarism is an unethical way of using others’ creative works, words, text, ideas or data in their writings without acknowledging the source or giving credit to the creator of the work. Though this is not a recent phenomenon, it is gaining prominence with the increasing ‘copy and paste’ culture in this electronic and digital era. With the easy availability of scholarly literature online, the plagiarised activities have become the prime concern to all the stakeholders in scholarly communication especially the academic administrators, funding agencies, research organisations and publishers, and thus employing several measures including the application of plagiarism detection tools. The paper describes features of various anti-plagiarism tools – emphasising the plagiarism detection process of popular tools – Turnitin and iThenticate. The use of anti-plagiarism tools among the academic circles is discussed, highlighting their usage in University of Hyderabad in the context of contributing theses to Shodhganga and the plagiarism-free repository of Indian university theses created by the UGC INFLIBNET Centre, Ahmedabad. Keywords: Plagiarism, Anti-plagiarism tools, Turnitin, iThenticate, Plagiarism screening, Plagiarism Screening-University of Hyderabad, Use of anti-plagiarism software

INTRODUCTION Plagiarism is an unethical way of using others creative works, words, text, ideas or data in their writings without acknowledging the source. Obviously, it is dishonesty and the disrespectable attitude of the individual/s towards originality of the creation, thought and content, and also it is a threat to the original identity of the creator of the work, when someone else wilfully copies without giving credit to the original work. It has now become the prime concern of those who insist and spend on the original research findings and their publications, i.e. research supervisors, academic administrators, publishers and the funding agencies. Though the plagiarism reflects the individual/groups of individual’s attitude or state of mind of stealing others’ works or parts of works, whether intentionally or unintentionally, it is coming up in variant forms as the ‘copy+paste’ opportunities that the growing technologies provide to individuals in the modern

era of scholarly communication and information dissemination in electronic/digital formats. The plagiarism is not a recent phenomenon, but the enhanced visibility and accessibility of scholarly literature, research data and findings are tempting the researchers to pursue unethical means of achieving recognition, degrees and distinctions in easy way for various reasons. Whatever be the reason, it is a ‘literary theft’ as described by the OED (Oxford English Dictionary). The Council of Writing Program Administrators, USA (http:// www.wpacouncil.org), defining the plagiarism, stated that ‘in an instructional setting, plagiarism occurs when a writer deliberately uses someone else’s language, ideas, or other original (not common-knowledge) material without acknowledging its source’. Since there is a wide spread of seriousness about the plagiarism instances reported, several measures are being taken all over the world such as framing guidelines, imposing penalties and also

Deputy Librarian, Indira Gandhi Memorial Library, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad 500046, Telengana, India Email id: [email protected]

Indianjournals.com

11

V.J. Suseela

insisting for the detection of plagiarism applying anti-plagiarism software by the stake holders of scholarly communication namely funding organisations, higher educational institutions, research organisations and also publishers. PLAGIARISM DETECTION SOFTWARE (TOOLS)



Crawl online through published literature;



Compare the uploaded manuscript to find similarity, if any, with already published content online namely full text articles, books, documents, abstracts, bibliographic records; and




Due to the technological advancements in information industry, most of the scholarly literature is publishing in electronic form and available through internet. It became also possible for software/information industry to develop the plagiarism detection systems that can



Quantifying the similarity in their reports indicating the percentage as well as source and so on.

Almost all the software operates on this functionality insisting for registration of the individual researchers who intend for originality check and report generation. These online tools are offered to the institutions for annual subscription or as per document, while many others are also available open source. Some examples (Pappas,http://elearningindustry.com/ top-10-free-plagiarism-detection-tools-forteachers) of free software are Anti-Plagiarism, Dupli Checker, Paper Rater, Plagiarisma.net, Plagiarism Checker, Plagium Plagium, Plag Tracker, Viper, See Sources and Plagiarism Detector and so on Turnitin, My Drop Box, eTBLAST, iThenticate, Grammarly@edu and Urkund and others are the popular plagiarism detection systems among the commercially developed and reaching the institutions and publishers. eTBLAST is developed by the researchers at University of Texas South Western Medical Centre, which can check only the abstracts in the publicly available MEDLINE 12

database. The ‘Write Check’ is another comprehensive tool developed to improve writing for students functioning as Plagiarism Checker, Grammar Checker and spelling with tutoring facilities and generate reports and so on; similarly, the Grammarly@edu is commercial tool that checks and corrects the spelling and grammar and also detects plagiarism. ‘Tin eye’ is the image search programme for visual material, photos and architectural designs. The iParadigms is today’s popular provider of plagiarism detection systems, namely Turnitin is designed for the academic needs of instructors as well as admissions professionals; iThenticate for research professionals whereas the Write Check for students. It was found by graduate student researchers at UC Berkeley to create software to monitor the recycling of papers in their large undergraduate classes. The features and functionalities of each software vary with regard to originality check, especially with the number and size of the databases that are connected. The open source tools screen the uploaded document with free content available online, that is websites, blogs, networks, open access journals, free books, while the commercial software licenses to match the submitted content with scholarly copyright protected/peer-reviewed articles and also the database and so on. The paper intends to outline the features, functionalities and the similarity detection process of two online plagiarism detection tools (software) ‘Turnitin’ and ‘iThenticate’ and their usage in University of Hyderabad Campus. The required information was collected from the websites of respective anti-plagiarism tools and administrative usage statistics. TURNITIN & ITHENTICATE (http://www. iparadigms.com) Turnitin is featured as a system for improving student’s learning and continuous evaluation. This cloud-based service is designed for originality checking and also integrating with other leaning management functions of campuses of educational institutions (LMS –learning Vol. 10, No. 1, January - March 2016

Plagiarism: The Academic Dishonesty The Significance of Anti-plagiarism Software (Tools) in Plagiarism Detection

Turnitin processes about 3,00,000 papers are submitted per day and 6,00,000 papers on peak days and reached 100 million submissions. Turnitin supports 19 languages: English, Arabic, Chinese (Traditional and Simplified), Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Spanish, Swedish, Turkish and Vietnamese. The iThenticate interface currently supports the languages: English, Korean, and Japanese, but it searches for content matches in the following 30 languages (if, within same language): Chinese (simplified and traditional), Japanese, Thai, Korean, Catalan, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Norwegian (Bokmal, Nynorsk), Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Serbian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish, Swedish, Arabic, Greek, Hebrew, Farsi, Russian and Turkish. Turnitin can be integrates with more than 50 course management systems (CMS), such as Blackboard, Moodle, Instructure Canvas,




management systems), such as peer review and online grading. The integrated service not only saves instructors time, but also reduces the delay in process providing rich feedback to students. Turnitin is used by more than 15,000 institutions in 140 countries to manage online the assignments submissions, tracking the students’ progress and evaluation of student papers and so on. Iparadigms that offer Turnitin also offers iThenticate, a plagiarism detection service for commercial markets, research professionals.

Desire2Learn, Pearson Learning Studio, Sakai and so on. PLAGIARISM SCREENING FEATURES The most important feature of this software is their ability to carry out originality check with a broad base of highly authenticated published scholarly content, generating report matching with the source, indicating the source and quantifying the similarity while reflecting in percentages as illustrated vide Screenshots 1 and 2. The score reflects the quantum of similarity with already published research as well providing the instant knowledge about duplication of work. 

The similarity matches can be viewed side by side referring to the article or web page in its original location in right-hand window as illustrated in Screenshot 3. The referred article or full text source can also be accessed just by clicking on the hyperlinks.



Usually the software indicate green up to 24% score; yellow to brown for 25–74% and red for 75–100% score which amounts to critical situation of the manuscript.



The software’s potential characteristic of detecting similarity (if any) in students’ submissions is obviously due to its extensive connectivity to the world’s largest academic database. It primarily connects to three types of primary sources or databases, namely the licensed full text content of leading publishers,

Screenshot 1: Turnitin – originality report

PEARL - A Journal of Library and Information Science

13




V.J. Suseela

Screenshot 2: iThenticate – originality report

Screenshot 3: Turnitin – document viewer with 2 sides windows

14

Vol. 10, No. 1, January - March 2016


databases, text-books, digital collections, subscription-based publications, free content contributed over 130 million articles from Sage, Emerald, EBSCOHost, Crossreference.org and Gale CENGAGE Learning and so on. Further, it checks with beyond 45 billion web pages of current &archived-free content available in web. Moreover, the component of student’s papers is considered as the prime source of plagiarism i.e. 50%, as the student papers submitted have crossed 337 million in the Turnitin database and still growing by 190,000 papers per day.






Ithenticate checks approximately 40+ million documents for duplication and attribution

through the Crosscheck service. Moreover, the software comparison more than one million abstracts and citations from PubMed, and more than 20,000 research titles from EBSCOhost and the Gale InfoTrac OneFile and also 300,000 theses and dissertations from ProQuest. Its database containing billions of papers that editors from 530+ publishers screen to handle plagiarism and attribution issues and be able to search through 100,000+ publications that have archived 40+ million scholarly articles, books and conference proceedings. 

Currently the size of the file than can be submitted through Turnitin is up to (less than)

Content Partnerships Leading publishers, library databases, text-book, digital collections, subscription-based publications and free content contributed over 130 million articles. For example, Sage, Emerald, EBSCOHOST, crossreference.org, Gale CENGAGE Learning, The Student Room Group

Student Papers Over 50% of plagiarism comes from other student’s papers submitted over 337 million in the Turnitin database grows by 190,000 papers per day

The Current & Archived Web Web crawler crawls the Internet and indexes content over 45 billion web pages from the current web as well as archived web pages.

Figure 1: Turnitin software connectivity to the world of scholarly documents


15

V.J. Suseela

400 pages and 20 MB. However, the file must contain a minimum of 20+ words of text. iThenticate accepts files lesser than 40MB but not exceeding 2MB of raw text. The length of text can be ranging between 20 words and a maximum of 400 pages. Zip files may contain up to 200MB or 1,000 files.








Turnitin supports variety of textual documents – Microsoft Word, PowerPoint, Excel, WordPerfect, PostScript, Portable Document Format (PDF), Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), Rich Text Format (RTF), OpenOffice (ODT-Open Document Format), Hangul Word Processor (HWP), Google Docs (submitted via the ‘Google Drive submission’ option), plain text files, whereas iThenticate checks the documents in Word, Text, PostScript, PDF, HTML, RTF, Word Perfect WPD, Open Office ODT, Hangul HWP formats. Additionally, Turnitin performs the integrated operations with LMS or CMS such as online grading and peer review and facility to provide feedback to improve students’ learning. With this wide range of operations that the instructors can correlate the originality results with grading marks and peer review, facilitating comments and so on they will have a complete view of the student’s work. o

QuickMark® Sets – To provide feedback by dragging standard or custom marks and comments directly on the student’s work (Screenshot 4).

Screenshot 5

o

Grade with Rubrics* (*Rubrics – class or category assigned for a standard performance) – to facilitate speedy grading with preloaded rubrics or can be created/added.

o

Feedback with General Comments –To write a broader, in-depth comment in text to give students an overall feedback about their work (Screenshot 6).

Screenshot 6

o

Peer Review Process – Facilitates peer review so that students can evaluate each other’s work and learn from their classmates, by easy distribution of work online allowing peers to review each other’s work anytime through anonymous reviews and customising the peer review process to fit the classroom workflow.

Ithenticate software, however, is a simple application useful for direct originality screening of submitted documents. Screenshot 4

o

16

Voice Comments – To guide students with personalised audio feedback that conveys and clarifies Quick Mark comments (Screenshot 5).

ADMINISTRATIVE FEATURES Plagiarism detection process in Turnitin and iThenticate are almost similar, usually follows the registration of administrators, instructors/users, students and so on. Vol. 10, No. 1, January - March 2016

Plagiarism: The Academic Dishonesty The Significance of Anti-plagiarism Software (Tools) in Plagiarism Detection 

Regarding administration or maintenance of software, Turnitin primarily allows one administrator and co-administrators with limited functionalities. The administrator of Turnitin can create instructors, who in turn can create classes and students under the class. The instructor can directly add students’ assignments under the class or monitor student’s submissions. Both instructors and students can submit the assignments, but administrator cannot either submit the manuscripts or delete the submissions made by the instructors/students. iThenticate can have multiple administrators, who can create users and also can upload and delete the manuscripts from their self-account.




The process of registration until uploading the manuscript and saving report is detailed in the following table. 

Instructors (users for iThenticate) can choose their class (folder) settings, upload the manuscripts as well as revised manuscripts and also delete them from their account, after attaining the satisfactory score. Such deleted submissions will be added to the repository (even the ‘no repository’ option is exercised).

PLAGIARISM DETECTION PROCESS – SIGNIFICANCE OF SETTINGS Originality reports vary in accordance to the

similarity existing in the uploaded content with already published content, but also depends on the class/folder/document options or settings before making submission to the software. The choices as shown in Screenshots 7–9 of Turnitin are meant 

to select or exclude bibliographic materials, quoted materials, configuring the small matches from similarity index;



to select whether to submit the papers in plagiarism detecting system repository or not;



to select/deselect the options – student paper repository; current and archived internet content; periodicals, journals, publications and bibliographic as well as full text databases;



to allow the file types with 2 options – ‘allow only file types that can check for originality’ or ‘allow any file type’ (if the option is selected originality report will not be created for files that are not meeting the criteria).

However, the Turnitin while generating reports, facilitates filters to exclude matched source/s with manuscript when any situation warrants. Additionally, the iThenticate facilitates more excluding options for small sources, abstracts, methods & materials, reports (report filters – to manage the list of URLs that are to be filtered out

Turnitin (http://turnitin.com/)

iThenticate (http://www.ithenticate.com/)

1

Registration of administrators by provider  Register administrators  Registration of instructors

Registration of administrators  Administrators  Administrators and users

2

Instructors  Creation of classes  Configuring class settings  Adding assignments  Submitting manuscripts  Save digital receipt and report  Enrolling students

Administrators and users  Creation of folders  Configuring folder settings  Submitting manuscripts

3

Enrolling students in class (with class ID and enrolment password)  Submitting manuscripts  Save digital receipt and report

-

4

Submitting revised document in case of errors

Submitting revised document in case of errors

5

Viewing and saving digital receipt and report  Sharing the report (optional to the user)

Viewing and saving report

6

Peer review processGrading, peer review &integration

Sharing the report (optional to the user)

S.No.


17

V.J. Suseela

of the matching content) and phrases (phrase filters – to manage a list of phrases to be filtered out of the matching content) when a similarity report is being generated. The user can limit the iThenticate software from searching the specific repository or select to search in all the repositories – CrossCheck, Internet and Publications as illustrated in Screenshot 9.

The use of software for originality screening with already published content has been in practise in developed countries since long time. It is understood from the Turnitin’s integrated features of originality screening that how the academic and research institutions in developed countries give value to the originality in writing or creation or creator from the level of class assignments to the publication of research findings namely theses, research project reports and dissertations.




The Use of Anti-Plagiarism Software

Screenshot 7: Turnitin – class settings

Screenshot 8: Turnitin – class settings

18

Despite the perceivable advantages, the use of software for plagiarism detection was also prone to debate among peers and other academic circles. Earlier studies criticised the policing activity of teachers and stated that being academically honest should not refer any fear of caught in plagiarism detection. Ledwith and Risquez (2008) discussed that these anti-plagiarism services facilitate the similarity score matching a student’s work with already published documents, flagging the exact similar text hyperlinking with original source online. The evaluation will ultimately be lying with teacher or research director, in spite of using the software. This requirement is more visible in case of similarities found with authors published papers. Turnitin is able to ignore quoted text and bibliographical references from the student’s work while generating report. Lindsey (2003) explained that when plagiarism is understood in broader context as an appropriation of ideas and not simply the verbatim use of another’s text without acknowledgement, the software primarily addressing the issues arise from the copy and paste culture appearing in students, and also misrepresenting the students and teachers attitudes towards the academic honesty. Carbone

Vol. 10, No. 1, January - March 2016





Screenshot 9: iThenticate – folder settings


19

V.J. Suseela

Regardless of the criticism, the detection of plagiarism has been spreading all over the world including India as the software indicates the extent of similarity with the content from already published articles, and also it is possible to identify, prevent or control unethical practices whether they are occurring intentionally or unintentionally. It is also facilitating scope for making necessary revisions to enhance the quality of work.




(2001) also commented the system as ‘pedagogic placebo’ because it assumes that ‘students have no honour and need to be watched and that teachers are too busy or incompetent to teach students how to write responsibly’. Further, several scholars raised objections for the software company maintaining student papers repository as soon as the soft copy of manuscript is submitted by students for plagiarism screening. Jenson and De Castell (2004) in this context debated that the ‘purchase of technologically enabled plagiarism defection services by higher education system is largely driven by self interested individualism and private accumulation of knowledge capital’.

In India, the UGC/INFLIBNET centre has created Shodhganga repository to enable the worldwide researchers the free access to the original (research content) theses of Indian universities. In a view to elevate the research standards in Indian universities, the centre has facilitated access to two online anti-plagiarism tools (software) namely Ithenticate and Turnitin for one-year on trial basis to all those universities who have signed up MOU under Shodhganga Project to arrest the unethical practices if any prevailing in research. University of Hyderabad is one among 100 universities that the INFLIBNET centre has provided trial access to these anti-plagiarism tools for a year. As per the statistics of INFLIBNET Centre provided for the year, around 980 instructors and 400 students have registered from all the universities and about 12,000 submissions took place for plagiarism screening, of which 3,300 submissions were within the green limit, that is 0% to 25%. The Case of University of Hyderabad The Library was authorised to operate and 20

monitor the software, providing registrations to university faculty as instructors, facilitating users’ training and observing the usage and so on. Through this software Ph.D. theses; M.Phil. dissertations; MCA/M.Tech. project reports and technical papers are screened. Though the university was initially provided with a limit of 250 submissions for each software, the quantum was increased twice for Turnitin to be able to upload manuscripts up to 1,000. 

As a policy, library provides Turnitin Registrations to only to university faculty as ‘Instructor’ requesting them to create class(s) and also enrol students under the respective classes. Faculty members were provided with Turnitin registrations as ‘instructors’ and necessary guidelines and links against their email request.



Library retained iThenticate software to screen the Ph.D., M.Phil. submission cases for research scholars at the written request of respective research supervisor/head/dean in prescribed format. Research scholars were asked to send their documents to library through email and the originality reports were sent to them in return. Library has completely utilised (250) the submission limit of iThenticate given the INFLIBNET Centre.



From iThenticate screening of manuscripts, 51% of documents are within 0–25% of similarity score, 31% within 50% score, 12% of the documents within the range of 51–75%, whereas 6% are showing beyond 75% similarity as illustrated in Chart 1. Researchers were further suggested to revise their manuscripts and resubmit if their similarity score was beyond 25%.



To facilitate wider range of searching and screening of uploaded documents, the instructors/students are asked to select student’s repository; current and archive web content; and also the journals, periodicals and books and so on.



Since the software was new to academic fraternity, required guidelines, class (folder) Vol. 10, No. 1, January - March 2016

Plagiarism: The Academic Dishonesty The Significance of Anti-plagiarism Software (Tools) in Plagiarism Detection 

12%

6%

51% 31%

below 25

The submissions reporting beyond 25% similarity score were suggested to revise their manuscript and resubmit.

26 - 50 %

51 to 75%

76 to 100%

settings and contacts were documented in selfhelp mode and posted on university library website apart from training scholars in person as well as over phone. The news items and messages were circulated to all academic community through group mails and also through specific mails as required.




Chart 1: iThenticate – % of documents and the similarity score





Around 80 faculty and 160 students have registered for Turnitin software in addition to iThenticate. About 770 manuscripts were submitted for plagiarism check for the year and 291 (39%) manuscripts were within the limit of 0–25% as shown vide Chart 2.

Regarding the folder or documents settings, it was suggested to set for excluding bibliographies, quoted text and small matches (five words count) and not to submit in student repository to be able to resubmit revised documents when necessary. Since the trial access is providing facility to upload limited number of documents for screening and also owing to the software limitations regarding the size of the documents, scholars were requested to prepare their manuscript o

Combining all chapters together as single document as far as possible within the permissible size of the document.

o

Removing preliminary pages namely certificate, declaration, table of contents, list of tables, illustrations and so on and even bibliography to be able to reduce the size of document and also to avoid unnecessary score of similarity in reports.


Though, plagiarism is much beyond in scope than just comparing student’s uploaded text with already published and accessible documents by way of some technologically designed tool/ software, it is generally assumed that the increasing copy and paste activity from electronic documents can be curtailed successfully. These tools were proved advantageous in extracting and showing the similarities with the already published content. However, the plagiarism screening tools have certain limitations, especially with the scholars own papers, oral presentations, unpublished speeches, papers published in conference/seminar proceedings, scholarly peerreviewed journals as a part of doctoral programme. LIMITATIONS 

The matter that was published only in print format cannot be verified through online plagiarism detection systems.



Ideas elicited, content discussed/presented in talks, conferences, seminars or workshops or symposia cannot be detected though they were plagiarised.



Papers sent for publication, or in editorial process cannot be matched in originality check, since these software checks the already published content.



Already published papers cannot be reviewed now through these plagiarism detection systems in the context of latest requirements, because there is every chance of showing similarity with previously published content.

21

V.J. Suseela

% OF DOCUMENTS SCREENED

39%

29%

39%

13%

50-74%

75-100%




6%

< 20 words

0-24%

25-49% SIMILARITY SCORE

Chart 2: Turnitin – % of documents and the similarity score 

Literature published in regional languages cannot be checked, because this supports only English and few other international languages.



Though the most important material is scanned and made available online, the submitted text cannot compare the content in such image formats.

CONCLUSION Since complaints lead to the punishment and devaluation of work once detected as plagiarised, the process can be initiated by conducting awareness/orientation programmes or presenting tutorials to educate students, researchers regarding the ethical practices in writing, studying, using the published material and giving due credit to original writer as well as writings, apart from self-declaration by the researchers and certification by the research supervisor. The above trial of one-year period for University of Hyderabad reveal that around 20% of the 22

faculty only could register for Turnitin, of which again 6–7% have not operated the tool for plagiarism screening. In view of the indifference, unawareness and resistance found among most of the instructors in self-operating the tool indicate the significant involvement of the library in this activity and growing concerns around academic circles for similarity check through plagiarism detection services. Further, it is required to handle the process smoothly as suggested by Ledwith and Risquez (2008), it is required to notify students regarding the significance of software, necessity of incorporating the information in curriculum and also verbally in instruction. Students can even be trained to handle the software to independently check their papers to be able to locate the similarity, if any, well before the final submission. This process facilitates the revision of their work and resubmit, especially when high percentage of similarity is indicated by the software. It is essential to frame an academic integrity policy and ensure that the Vol. 10, No. 1, January - March 2016





students are very clear about its details. It is also essential that to promote the use of anti-plagiarism software as a learning tool that detects the duplication of research content and research effort than a policing or controlling devise. Further, the software should be projected as an aid to a coherent and positive educational approach to academic honesty rather than as quick shortcut to stop plagiarism or cheating or intentional or unintentional copying. For all of these reasons it’s important to look at the reports analytically rather than relying on only mechanically screened and generated the similarity score alone. For implementing the kind of new programmes like plagiarism detection with software tools, the role of library and librarians as facilitators, monitors of usage, educators and counsellors is immense as they are already experienced and successful in handling the electronic resources on campuses. REFERENCES Carbone N, 2001. Turnitin.com, a pedagogic placebo for plagiarism. Bedford/St. Martin’s Tech Notes: Technology and Teaching. [http://www.edouglass.org/plag/ plagiarism%20%20articles/turnitinanti.pdf] (Accessed April 14, 2015).


Council of Writing Program Administrators. Defining and avoiding plagiarism: The WPA statement on best practices. [http://www.wpacouncil.org]. Iparidigms – [www.iparadigms.com]. iThenticate – [http://www.ithenticate.com/]. Jenson J and De Castell S, 2004. ‘Turn it in’: Technological challenges to academic ethics. Education, Communication and Information, Vol. 4, Nos. 2–3, 311–330. Ledwith A and Risquez A, 2008. Using anti-plagiarism software to promote academic honesty in the context of peer reviewed assignments. Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 371–384. doi: 10.1080/ 03075070802211562. [www.informworld.com]. Lindsay R, 2003. Review of crisis on campus: Confronting academic misconduct, by W. Decoo. Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 110–112. Oxford English Dictionary. [http://www.oed.com/]. Pappas, Christopher. Top 10 FREE Plagiarism Detection Tools for Teachers – eLearning Industry. [http://elearning industry.com/top-10-free-plagiarism-detection-toolsfor-teachers] (Accessed December 8, 2004). Plagiarism: a scourge afflicting the Indian science Satyanarayana K, 2010. Plagiarism: A scourge afflicting the Indian science. Indian Journal of Medical Research, Vol. 131, March 2010, pp. 373–376. Turnitin – [http://turnitin.com/].

23

The Academic Dishonesty The Significance of Anti

The Academic Dishonesty The Significance of Anti

Suggest Documents

Perceptions Regarding the Seriousness of Academic Dishonesty ...

Academic Dishonesty at Universities: The Case of

academic dishonesty and workplace dishonesty. an overview

addressing academic dishonesty: the implications for ...

academic dishonesty among undergraduates in the ...

Academic Dishonesty: Prevalence, Determinants ...

Controlling Academic Dishonesty - Clute Institute

The Influence of Academic Dishonesty on Ethical Decision-Making in ...

The Prevalence of Academic Dishonesty in Texas Dental ... - CiteSeerX

Academic Dishonesty at Universities: The Case of ... - Semantic Scholar

Academic Dishonesty and demographic factors - The Journal of ...

Understanding the Impact of Academic Dishonesty on ... - Clute Institute

Academic Dishonesty at Universities: The Case of Plagiarism Among ...

Clinical significance of anti-Ro/SSA-52 kDa ... - Oxford Academic

Disciplinary action for academic dishonesty: does the student's gender ...

The cost of dishonesty - NCBI

Academic dishonesty among Nigeria pharmacy students: A ...

Academic Dishonesty: Why Business Students ... - Science Direct

The relationship between academic dishonesty and ... - Deep Blue

Academic Dishonesty in Egypt - The German University in Cairo

Academic dishonesty among Nigeria pharmacy students - CiteSeerX

Academic Dishonesty in Graduate Business Programs - CiteSeerX

Academic Dishonesty and unprofessional behavior

academic dishonesty among accounting students - Jurnal Akuntansi ...