ArticlePDF Available


The characteristics of the Internet and the methodology of assessment followed in the vast majority of educational institutions has led to a problematic situation that must be addressed with the commitment of all parts implicated; I am referring to the plagiarism amongst students using the Internet. A review of the existing literature shows that is a increasing problem in all the levels of the educational system. Research done so far on that field comes –basically- from the "Anglo-Saxon hemisphere" (mainly United States, the UK and Australia), as few research has been developed so far in other countries. Research done it is based on giving answers to three main questions: a) prevalence of the phenomenon b) causes of it c) solutions to it In this paper I examine the work developed so far in that area and I try to determine the basic research topics and results obtained by the most relevant researchers.
The "Copy and Paste" Generation
Ruben Comas Forgas
Jaume Sureda Negre
Santos Urbina Ramírez
+#,"! 
-$%%&$%%'.!## /+#
!!0#1 1!1!!1!#*)!)! 0!##
+*.!/)1!2 *"##!!1 
"!!!!#3!)!4!5 #"! 6
*!+#( 2!++ *!!*!
+#71 
The "Copy and Paste" Generation
Plagiarism Amongst Students, a Review of Existing Literature
Ruben Comas Forgas, Balearic Islands University (UIB), Spain
Jaume Sureda Negre
Santos Urbina Ramírez
Abstract: The characteristics of the Internet and the methodology of assessment followed in the vast majority of educational
institutions has led to a problematic situation that must be addressed with the commitment of all parts implicated; I am re-
ferring to the plagiarism amongst students using the Internet. A review of the existing literature shows that is a increasing
problem in all the levels of the educational system. Research done so far on that eld comes –basically- from the "Anglo-
Saxon hemisphere" (mainly United States, the UK and Australia), as few research has been developed so far in other
countries. Research done it is based on giving answers to three main questions: a) prevalence of the phenomenon b) causes
of it c) solutions to it In this paper I examine the work developed so far in that area and I try to determine the basic research
topics and results obtained by the most relevant researchers.
Keywords: Plagiarism, Digital Literacy, Academic Dishonesty
TO DEVELOP MORE than a supercial
understanding in any eld where Information
and Communication Technologies (ICT from
now on) are involved, implies accessing a
world in constant and rapid evolution and without
any apparent borders. This is particularly true when
trying to describe the main “research lines” followed
recently in the area of cyber-plagiarism1amongst
students. There is a volume of relevant work com-
pleted during the last few years in psychology, soci-
ology, philosophy, and education. In each discipline,
researchers have tried to give an answer to 5 main
1. What is cyber-plagiarism?;
2. What kinds of cyber-plagiarism exists?;
3. How extensive is cyber-plagiarism amongst
4. What are the causes?;
5. What are the solutions?.
In this paper we present a summary of the main
answers given to those queries in recent years (pay-
ing special attention to questions 4 and 5 as we be-
lieve these are the core elements, especially in the
elds of education and psychology).
Definitions and Varieties of
Most of the surveys and research studies published
on Cyber-plagiarism point to an exponential growth
of the Internet, the day-by-day increasing ease of
access to it and the vast amount of digital content -
that it is expanding in a way that seems to have no
limits- as the main cause of plagiarism amongst stu-
dents. Plagiarism is a long standing problem in aca-
demic work but ICT has created a vastly expanded
opportunities to plagiarize, given the range of re-
sources now accessible via a desktop. There is no
doubt in afrming that the Internet has expanded the
number of sources that students can access –freely
and instantly- and that fact constitutes a “no return
revolution” in terms of educational processes in
general. However, questions arise when researchers
and commentators ask what use the students make
of that digital sources and resources.
Plagiarism in the digital era is seen in basically
the same terms as it existed in the past. The changes
lie in the way plagiarism is practiced and in the tools
(and especially the ease of access to them) used to
commit it. It seems clear too, as Paldy claims, that
plagiarism is “the problem that won’t go away”
(Paldy, 1996), indeed, many would go further and
1When we use the concept “cyber-plagiarism” we make reference, exclusively, to the use of NNTT (basically the Internet) by students to
plagiarize essays and academic works. Some authors have named it “web-napping” (Eysenbach, 2000), but we prefer to use the more ex-
tended and wider concept of cyber-plagiarism. Plagiarism is not monopolized by the “academic world” as there are many illustrative examples
of plagiarism in other areas: journalism, politics, sciences, plastic arts, literature, music, etc. (Park, 2003), but in this paper we focus on the
“university academic environment” and the students as plagiarists.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING, VOLUME 12, 2005/2006, ISSN 1447-9494 (print), 1447-9540 (online)
© Common Ground, Ruben Comas Forgas, Jaume Sureda Negre, Santos Urbina Ramírez, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:
say the problem looks as if it will become bigger
day-by-day. Many authors, especially since the
second half of the 90’s and mainly from Anglo-
Saxon contexts, have tried to give a denition of
what constitutes plagiarism2in the Internet Era (cy-
ber-plagiarism) –focusing the standard denitions
of “academic plagiarism”3- (Lipson & Reindl, 2003;
McKenzie, J, 1998; Hexham, I, 1999; Philips, M &
Horton V., 2000; Auer, N & Krupar E, 2001; Murray,
B., 2002; Oliphant, T., 2002; DonGiovanni O'Neil,
T., 2003; Ellis, L., 2003; Fawkner, M., 2004; Hart,
M. & Friesner, T., 2004; Urbina Ramírez, S., 2004
and Carroll, J., 2002).
A useful starting point would therefore seem to
be the denition of plagiarism from the Association
of American Historians
“… the misuse of the writings of another author
… included the limited borrowing, without attribu-
tion, of another’s distinctive and signicant research
ndings, hypotheses, theories … or interpretations.”
(Fialkoff, 1993)
and Gibaldi’s denition
“Using another person ideas or expressions in
your writing without acknowledging the source
…” (Gilbaldi, 1998)
We can conceptualize Cyber-plagiarism
the use of NNTT –essentially the Internet- to gather
other people writings, ideas, theories, hypotheses,
ndings, etc. and present them as your own, either
deliberately or by default, by avoiding appropriate
attribution to the original author/s-.
Many authors include plagiarism as a part of a
wider phenomenon, that of ‘cheating’. (Deikhof et
al., 1999; McCabe, 2001; Argetsinger, A., 2001;
Carrol, J. & Appleton, J., 2001; Jones, R. et al., 2001;
Burke, M., 2004). The concept of plagiarism –in the
academic environment is located in relation to a
range of different behaviours (Park, 2003):
as a consequence of academic misconduct
as a consequence of academic dishonesty
as a consequence of lack of academic integrity
as a consequence or unethical behaviours
The difculties increase considerably when trying
to frame the ways in which plagiarism can be found.
There is extensive literature on this aspect (Park,
2003; Roig, 2001; Wilhoilt, 1994; Brandt, 2002;
Fawkner, M., 2004; MacCabe, 2001).
With the objective of avoiding starting a “never
ending” list of classications we have decided to
establish a simple double category that helps under-
standing the different forms of plagiarism based on
intent or motive (Park, 2003; Colon, 2001; Bugeja,
2001; University of Southern Australia, 2005; Bauer,
M., 2004), namely:
1. Intentional Plagiarism4and
2. Accidental Plagiarism5.
Cyber-plagiarizing by students can be
summarized as:
1. buying or downloading an essay, paper, etc.
from a term paper mill or essay bank6on the
2. copying a whole text –basically from a web-site
or from a le on the Internet (e.g. articles in
word or PDF format)- without any quotation
and submitting it as own
2Relevant references about plagiarism –from a general perspective- are:
Anderson, J.: Plagiarism, Copyright violation and other thefts of intellectual property: an annotated bibliography with a lengthy intro-
duction. (Jefferson, N.C., 1998)
Shelley, A.: Stolen language? Plagiarism in writing. (: Pearson Education Limited, 2000)
Stearns, L.: Copy wrong: plagiarism, process, property and the law. In: Buranen, L. and Roy, E.: Perspectives on plagiarism and intel-
lectual property in a post-modern world. (New York: State University of New York Press, 1998)
3We use the concept “Academic Plagiarism” to dene the cases of plagiarism in which students are involved in their academic work
–academic misconduct-; not including under that concept the cases of plagiarism amongst lecturers, teachers, professors, etc. as has been
used by some authors (Roig, 2001).
4We nd useful the denitions of Intentional and Unintentional (accidental) Plagiarism given by Park (Park, 2003, pg. 476): “ Intentional
plagiarism is intentional if it is pre-meditated, designed to deceive and thus a deliberate act of literary theft. Whilst intentionality might
be difcult to establish or prove, there is no doubt that some plagiarism is accidental or inadvertent. Such unintentional plagiarism occurs
when a student fails to adopt (perhaps because they do not know) proper protocols for referring to academic material, including appropriate
ways of quoting, acknowledging ideas and compiling reference lists”
5“ Unintentional plagiarism can be caused by what psychologists describe as cryptomnesia or ‘hidden memory’ (Brown & Halliday,
1991; Marsh & Landau, 1995), which is ‘an intriguing type of mental illusion in which people mistakenly believe that they have produced
a new idea when in fact they have simply unwittingly retrieved an old, previously encountered idea from memory’ (Macrae et al ., 1999)”
(Park, 2003, pg. 476)
6On term paper mills we suggest the article: Groark, M et al. "Term paper mills, anti-plagiarism tools and academic integrity." Educase.
September 2001. 05 July 2005
3. copying parts of text from one or more than one
sources and passing it as one’s own (collage
4. translating and submitting -without quotation-
as one’s own a text (complete or parts of it) that
originally was in a different language than the
one the student uses to submit the essay or paper
5. using improper paraphrasing7
Prevalence, Profile of Students who
Plagiarize and Causes of the
Much has been written over the last few years on the
theme of plagiarism by students using the Internet.
The differences in the ways, methodologies, object-
ives, disciplines, etc. followed by different studies
and authors means that it is very difcult to draw a
consistent and solid “portrait” based on the range of
different analysis and approaches. As Park afrms
(Park 2001), it is very difcult to nd comparative
data because:
studies differ in focus –some examine cheating in
general, some examine only plagiarism, some exam-
ine academic integrity, etc-.
the methodology is so diverse –some studies are
focused on self-reports by students, some studies are
focused on analysing texts (essays and papers sub-
mitted by students), some are focused on lecturers
and teachers opinions, and we would include a third
difculty when trying to compare different analysis:
the conceptualization of plagiarism used by the
author/s of the research.
Based on the principal results gathered through
the analysis of diverse studies it is clear that plagiar-
ism exists and has increased with the growth of the
Internet. If we simply focus on available data we
nd that there are studies that suggest that more than
75% of students plagiarize (having done it at least
once) while others quantify it as less than 15%.
(Hansen, 2003)
It is difcult to prole a typical student who pla-
giarizes. Some studies suggest that university stu-
dents plagiarize more than secondary schools stu-
dents (Hansen, 2003; Ercegovac, 2004) (there is no
research done with primary schools students) and
others that suggest the contrary. Most studies claim
that men plagiarize more than women, but we can
not conrm that position from the research published.
Some studies afrm that students enrolled in techno-
logical courses plagiarize more than students from
social, humanities, medicine, etc. disciplines –but
again this is speculative and non-rigorous and needs
conrmation through further research- (Hansen,
Many authors would seem to agree over the reas-
ons8why students plagiarize. A survey conducted
by Dordoy (Dordoy, 2002) about perceptions from
students and university staff showed that students
plagiarize mostly because:
1. they want to get a better grade
7Poor paraphrasing’ is described by Edlund: “Perhaps the most difcult part of the research paper process for most students is paraphrasing
sources. Instructors often say that you must write the information "in your own words." What does this mean?
In order to paraphrase a passage from a source, you have to understand it very well. You have to know what all the words mean, at least
in that particular context, and you have to know other words that have similar meanings.
Some students copy the passage and then try to substitute new words in the same sentence structure. The result has the same grammatical
structure as the original, with some of the words changed. Others will keep the same words, but reorganize the sentence structure, perhaps
re-ordering the sentences at the same time.” (Edlund, 2001)
8The University of Alberta (Canada) has, on its library department web-site, a list of causes that explain why students plagiarize (University
of Alberta, 2004):
1. Writing and Research Skills
2. Lack of research skills
3. Problems evaluating Internet sources
4. Confusion between plagiarism and paraphrasing
5. Confusion about terminology
6. Careless note-taking
7. Confusion about how to properly cite sources
8. Misunderstanding Key Concepts
9. Misconception of plagiarism
10. Misconception of intellectual property, copyright, and public domain
11. Misconception of common knowledge
12. Perception of online information as public knowledge
13. External Factors
14. Pressure from family, competition for scholarships and jobs
15. Student ethics and relationship with the University
16. The commodication of knowledge and education
17. Internal Factors
18. Poor time management and organizational skills
19. Cultural Factors
20. Culturally based attitudes towards plagiarism
2. of laziness or bad time management
3. of easy access to material via the internet
4. they do not understand the rules
5. it happens unconsciously9
In trying to complete the list of causes or motiva-
tions, we would suggest that sometimes the method-
ology of work used by teachers, lecturers, professors,
etc. and the type of essays and papers asked of stu-
dents encourages plagiarism. The example of a lec-
turer who enters the classroom on the rst day of the
course and explains to his/her students that by the
end of the semester they have to present a 10.000
word paper about a theme developed during the
course, is an example of a teaching strategy that
contains an implicit invitation to be “plagiarized”.
In some cases there is another important, contrib-
utory factor identied when describing the causes
of the cyber-plagiarism. This is the “digital gap”: the
electronic distance that separates some lecturers,
professors, etc. from their students. Students from
the Balearic Islands University when asked why they
plagiarize using the Internet suggested, amongst
other reasons, that the lack of knowledge and skills
amongst their lecturers or professors was a key factor
in deciding to plagiarize and especially of being
condent that they would not get caught. Further
research in this area is needed in order to give credit
to these suggestions.
Detecting and Preventing Plagiarism
In detecting plagiarism we nd two main ways Lec-
turers approach the issue: a) professional detection
and b) technological detection. Professional detection
is based on the personal experience of the lecturer,
professor, etc. and as McLafferty and Foust point
“… instructor can systematically watch for signals
that are consistent with plagiarism.” (McLafferty
and Foust, 2004)
The main way of detecting plagiarism in this case
is by trying to detect incongruence at different
Incongruence in the ideas, theories, hypotheses
and thoughts expressed
Incongruence in the writing style of the text
Incongruence in the logic and “normal develop-
ment” of the text (introduction, main theme,
Incongruence between the ideas, thoughts, etc.
of the student expressed in the text and previous
papers or essays
Incongruence in the bibliography and sources
Incongruence in the presentation formatting (i.e.
there are imbedded links, page breaks, incorrect
page numbers in the paper)
Incongruence in the citations
The tools that instructor possesses are based on
the professional knowledge and experience and in
particular detailed knowledge of the area in which
the students are writing about, and many times in-
stinct is the key element when detecting a plagiarized
paper. However it is very difcult and time-consum-
ing to detect plagiarized papers (or hints of it) just
by reading them and identifying any incongruence.
Lately a good number of software and technolo-
gical detection tools have been developed and many
universities in the USA, the UK and Canada use
these detection tools routinely. They operate on the
basis that a problem created by the use of technology
must be open to being solved by the same techno-
logy. These programs check the content of a paper
automatically and compare it with either a database
of papers that the program has stored or with Internet
content. However, these programs can require large
volumes of storage space and require rapid search
devices. They also experience further problems when
students become aware of the use of such software,
they can use counter-measures to hide their plagiar-
ism (i.e. changing words by synonyms, translating
papers from other languages, and even by inserting
intentional errors in spelling and grammar). A further
problem is the rapid growth of the internet. It is
simply impossible to control the whole of the inform-
ation available because the Internet is increasing in
size at such velocity. As with virus detection, if stu-
dents only plagiarize from new sources of material
on the Net, they are less likely to be detected:
It should be recognized, however, that the
software provides no magical answers. Some
is expensive; most is time-consuming. No soft-
ware seems to discriminate between quotations
which are properly cited and those which are
unacknowledged: what the software detects and
noties is duplication. So reports issued by
plagiarism software alert the user to what may
appear to be plagiarized material that is in fact
appropriately referenced. Manual checking and
9If interested, read “Plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria of college and University Professors” (Roig, 2001) –in bibliography-.
10 Many universities and colleges –specially from the USA, Canada, Australia and UK- give advices to instructors about how to detect
plagiarism. Amongst all we nd interesting the web-sites of: Univ. of Iowa State
guides/plagiarism/detect.html ; Slippery Rock Univ. ; Dalhousie Univ.
ulty/detecting.html ; The Univ. of Queensland ; The Univ. of Newcastle ht-
tp:// .
human judgment are still needed.” (Devlin,
Some authors, (Humes et al, 2003; Clough, 2003;
Cutwin, 2000) have studied the utility of the pro-
grams available and have compared them; others
have argued that, whatever the effectiveness of de-
tection software, the knowledge that they are in use
(like speed cameras on the highway) is enough to
deter many students. As McCabe says: “I have no
research evidence on this question, but would assume
that it would discourage plagiarism 11 .
There is another technological oriented way of
detecting plagiarism based on the use of search en-
gines (i.e. Google, Yahoo, Scirus, etc.) to check the
authenticity of the paper submitted by a student
(Holmberg, M. & McCullough, M., 2004). By select-
ing and adding a number of phrases to a Search En-
gine–of between 3 and 6 per page- from a text, we
can discover if there is a signal of plagiarism on it12.
As more and more material becomes web-based this
can be a very effective detection method, although
it is very time consuming and requires a lot of dedic-
Alongside detecting the incidence of plagiarism
cases there is also another method to ght against it:
preventing students from doing it. Much has been
written lately on the issue of prevention –especially
from universities and colleges- (Hedrich, 2004;
Fortney, 2003; Canada Academic Integrity Commit-
tee, 2004). These suggest that there are three ap-
proaches in trying to prevent students from plagiar-
izing when writing a paper or essay:
1. punitive regulation;
2. information and awareness; and
3. students’ and university/college staff training
and formation.
Punitive regulation: Many universities and col-
leges in the USA, the UK, Germany, Hong-Kong
and Australia, have developed strict rules to reduce
the incidence of cases of plagiarism –most of the
time taking the form of honour codes and academic
integrity policies that students must follow. Penalties
faced by students that are found guilty of plagiarizing
can be:
Meeting with the dean (or appointed designee).
Written reprimand.
Honour probation - This includes specica-
tion of whether or not the student placed on
probation shall be subject to suspension or to
separation upon conviction of a second Honour
Loss of academic credit.
Suspension - This suspension may be for any
period up to a maximum of three college years
and loss of credit in one or more courses en-
rolled in at the time of the violation.
Separation from the University and loss of
credit in all courses enrolled in at the time of
the violation13.
Several cases have been reported of students being
expelled for plagiarism. Perhaps the most well-
known example occurred at the University of Virgin-
ia – famous for having a tough honour code - where
48 students between April 2001 and November 2002
were excluded after discovering that they had plagi-
arized. At the same university three degrees were
revoked from students who had plagiarized and had
graduated before their cases were studied by the
Honour Committee (Hansen, 2003).
Information and awareness
Many universities, colleges and high schools are
trying to inuence students not to plagiarize through
awareness campaigns –most of the time providing
information about plagiarism, its consequences, and
the ways of avoiding it14:
Through information hosted on the web-site of
the faculty, university, college, etc.
Through publications as leaets, posters, etc.
Through making clear the academic integrity
policy of the centre to all new students when
formalizing the matriculation process
Through speeches of the instructors when
presenting the subject to students
Students’ and university/college staff
training and formation:
The third of the elements involved in preventing
plagiarism concerns training and formation at two
different levels: 1) training students about: how to
write an essay, how to cite information used in a
paper, how to look for and evaluate information
11 The words of McCabe cited are extracted from an interview appeared in the Chronicle of Higher Education on July the 6th 2001 ht-
tp:// (accessed on July 8th 2005)
12 Although it is not a rigorous system it works to some extent. We used that methodology when analysing47 papers from an undergraduate
course in the Department of Education of the Balearic Islands University. Results showed that nearly 30% of the papers were completely
or partially plagiarized.
13 Example taken from the University of Richmond Honor Code
14 Some examples can be found at: // //
available on the Internet, etc. and 2) training Lectur-
ers in ways to detect plagiarism, methodology on the
development of the course – what kind of assess-
ments would be appropriate and to try to encourage
active and creative essays from students, etc.-.
In this paper we have tried to present a series of ar-
guments that explore the new phenomenon of cyber-
plagiarism by students when writing papers and es-
says. In summary these were:
Cyber-plagiarism is based on the use of NNTT
–especially the Internet - to plagiarize.
Recent research has tried to answer 5 main
questions: 1) what is the prevalence of cyber-
plagiarism; 2) what are the proles of students
that plagiarize; 3) what types of cyber-plagiarism
exist; 4) what motives students and causes them
to plagiarise; 5) what solutions work.
Research and literature has increased over the
last few years and are drawn from different dis-
ciplines: education, economy, medicine, psycho-
logy, sociology, librarians and documentation,
computing, etc. Almost of the research has been
done in Anglo-Saxon contexts (, , and ), though
some comes from European countries, such as ,
and , and other examples can be found in and .
No rigorous study has been carried out yet in the
Spanish-speaking area. The rst academic refer-
ence –in the Spanish-speaking context- to cyber-
plagiarism by students is an investigation done
by Sureda and Comas in a qualitative research
programme focused on the use of ICT amongst
minors in the (Sureda & Comas, 2004). The rst
conceptual approximation –in the Spanish- to the
subject was the work of Urbina (Urbina, 2004).
The Research that has been carried out follows
a wide spectrum of methodologies that include
both qualitative and quantitative studies. These
were based on instructors and university staff
opinions vs. based on students opinions; self-re-
ported cases vs. others based on technical tools.
Others were focused on secondary education vs.
university level student experiences. This range
of target subjects makes the comparison of results
and the extraction of trends and denitive conclu-
sions very difcult. However, we would suggest
that a rigorous interventive approach to cyber-
plagiarism must be based on what we dene as
the three realities:
the “reality” of the students;
the “reality” of the instructors and colleges/uni-
versity staff and
the “reality” of the essays and papers.
Following those three realities UIB is develop-
ing a research project – as part of the Doctoral
Thesis of Ruben Comas - that will determine
how extensive cyber-plagiarism is amongst UIB
students. We will be asking why UIB students
plagiarize; the extent to which instructors are
aware of cyber-plagiarism, and making sugges-
tions as to what solutions should be implemen-
Plagiarism amongst university and college
students has increased due to the exponential
growth of the internet and NNTT.
The Internet makes the task of plagiarizing
Universities and colleges –especially from
the UK, the USA, Australia and Canada- seem
to be aware of the problem and are developing
strategies to minimize plagiarism (policies,
honour codes, regulations, sanctions to infrac-
tions, etc).
There would seem to be two main solutions
to tackling the problem of cyber-plagiarism:
detection and prevention.
Technological solutions have not proved to
be the optimal solution.
Further research is needed in order to determ-
ine the impact of cyber-plagiarism (not only at
the university and college levels but at second-
ary and primary levels of the educational sys-
tem), its causes and how to solve the problem.
Argetsinger, A. "Technology Exposes Cheating at U-Va." Washington Post Wednesday, May 9, 2001: Page A01.
Auer, N & Krupar E. "Mouse Click Plagiarism: The Role of Technology in Plagiarism and the Librarian's Role in Combating
It - Statistical Data Included." Library Trends Winter, 2001. 04 July 2005 <http://www.
Bauer, M. "Accidental vs. Intentional Plagiarism." Avoiding Plagiarism in the classroom. 01 November 2004. University
of Hawaii. 04 July 2005 <>.
Brandt, D. “Copyright’s (not so) little cousin, plagiarism.” Computers in libraries 2002, 22, pp.39-42.
Bugeja, M. “Collegiate copycats” Editor and publisher 2001, 134, p. 22.
Burke, M. "Deterring Plagiarism: A New Role for Librarians." Library Philosophy and Practice Spring 2004. 04 July 2005
Canada Academic Integrity Committee. "Tips for Preventing Plagiarism." . August 2004. Canada Academic Integrity
Committee. 14 July 2005 <>.
Carrol, J. & Appleton, J. "Plagiarism A Good Practice Guide." Joint Information Systems Committee May 2001. 04 July
2005 <>.
Carroll, J. A Handbook for Deterring Plagiarism in Higher Education. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Devel-
opment, 2002, 96pp. ISBN: 1-873-57656-0
Clough, P. "Old and new challenges in automatic plagiarism detection." Plagiarism Advisory Service February 2003. 8 July
Colon, A. “Avoid the pitfalls of plagiarism” Writer 2001, 114, p. 8.
Culwin, F. and Lancaster, T. (2000), A review of electronic services
Devlin M. et al.. Assessing Learning in Australian Universities. Melbourne: Centre for the study for higher education for
the Australian Universities Teaching Committee, 2002.
Diekhoff, G. “College cheating in Japan and the United States” Research in Higher Education 1999, 40, pp. 343-353.
DonGiovanni O'Neil, T. "Technology and Academic Integrity Cheating Goes Cyber." EDSIG November 2003. 04 July
2005 <>.
Dordoy, A. "Cheating and Plagiarism: Staff and Student Perceptions at Northumbria." Northumbria Conference 2002. 12
May 2005 < Publication 2002/AD.doc>.
Edlund, R. "What is plagiarism and why do people do it?" University writing centre. . University of California Los Angeles.
05 July 2005 <>.
Ellis, L. "MP3s, Plagiarism, and the Future of Knowledge." ClickZ Network 24 September 2003. ClickZ Experts. 04 July
2005 <>.
Ercegovac, Z. “Academic dishonesty, plagiarism included, in the digital age: a literature review.” College and Research
Libraries July 2004, 65, pp. 301-318.
Eysenbach, G. "Report of a case of cyber-plagiarism - and reections on detecting and preventing academic misconduct
using the Internet." Journal of medical Internet Research 2000. 04 July 2005 <>.
Fawkner, M.. "Plagiarism, cheating and academic dishonesty: have you been there?." Information and Security. An Interna-
tional Journal 2004. 04 July 2005 <>.
Fialkoff, F. "There is no excuse for plagiarism." Library Journal 1993: 54-59. for plagiarism detection in student submissions,
Proceedings of
Fortney, L. "Preventing Plagiarism." Information Technology Learning Centres. January 2003. Montgomery College. 12
July 2005 <>.
Gibaldi, G. MLA style manual and guide to scholarly publishing. New York: Modern Language Association, 1998.
Hansen, B.. "Combating plagiarism." CQ Researcher September 2003. 04 July 2005 <
Hart, M. & Friesner, T. "Plagiarism and Poor Academic Practice – A Threat to the Extension of e-Learning in Higher Edu-
cation?." Electronic Journal on e-Learning February 2004. 04 July 2005 <
Hedrich, A. et al.. Preventing & Detecting Plagiarism Faculty Workshop. 2004. 12 July 2005. http:// lib- Plagiarism_Docs/Plagdesignassinghand.pdf
Hexham, I. "Items of Academic Interest." THE PLAGUE OF PLAGIARISM. 1999. The University of Calgary. 04 July
2005 <>.
Holmberg, M. & McCullough, M.. "Anti-Plagiarism Tools: Scirus v. Google.". 2004. Université Laval. 12 July 2005 <ht-
Humes, M. "Examining anti-plagiarism software." Claremont Makeena College 2003. 12 July 2005 <
Jones, R. et al. "Academic Dishonesty, Cheating, and Plagiarism." Humanities & Communication DepartmentFlorida Institute
of Technology Melbourne, Florida May 2001. 04 July 2005 <http://www.>.
Lipson, A & Reindl, S. "The responsible plagiarist." About Campus July-August 2003. 04 July 2005 <http://me->.
McCabe, D. “Cheating in academic institutions: a decade of research” Ethics and Behavior 2001, 11.
McKenzie, J. "The New Plagiarism: Seven Antidotes to Prevent Highway Robbery in an Electronic Age." From Now On
The Educational Technology Journal May 1998. 04 July 2005 <>.
McLafferty, C. & Foust K. "Electronic Plagiarism as a College Instructor's Nightmare - Prevention and Detection." Journal
of Education for Business 2004
Murray, B. "Keeping plagiarism at bay in the Internet age." Monitor on physiology 2 February 2002. 04 July 2005 <ht-
Oliphant, T. "Cyber-Plagiarism: Plagiarism in a Digital World." Canadian Library Association 2002. 04 July 2005. 78-80.
Paldy, L. G. "The problem that won't go away: addressing the causes of cheating." Journal of college science teaching 1996:
Park, C. "In Other (People’s) Words: plagiarism by university students—literature and lessons." Assessment & Evaluation
in Higher Education October 2003. 12 July 2005
Philips, M & Horton V. "Cyber-cheating: has morality evaporated in business education?" The International Journal of
Educational Management April 2000: 150-155.
Roig, M. "Plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria of college and University Professors." Ethics and behaviour 2001: 307-324.
Roig, M. “Plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria of college and university professors.” Ethics and Behaviour 2001, 11, pp.
Sureda, J. & Comas, R. "The use of new technologies amongst minors in the Balearic islands." AARE - Australian Association
for Research in Education 2004. 12 July 2005
University of Alberta. "Why Students Plagiarize.". 2004. University of Alberta. 04 July 2005 <http://www.library.ual->.
University of Southern Australia. "Forms of Plagiarism.". University of Southern Australia. 04 July 2005 <ht-
Urbina Ramírez, S. "Ciberplagio: “construyendo” trabajos universitarios." EDUTEC 2004. 2004. 04 July 2005 <ht-
Wilhoilt, S. “Helping students avoid plagiarism” College teaching 1994, 42, pp.161-165.
About the Authors
Mr. Ruben Comas Forgas
Balearic Islands University (UIB), Spain
Prof. Jaume Sureda Negre
Jaume Sureda is Professor at the Department of Education at the Balearic Islands University (UIB) and his areas
of interest are: Environmental Education, Distance learning and Information Literacy. Has published many
books and papers on that subjects and nowadays is the Director of the research Group "Citizenship and Education"
based at the UIB.
Santos Urbina Ramírez
Belongs also to the Balearic Islands University. Santos is a lecturer at the Department of Education at the
Balearic Islands University and his areas of interest are: information literacy, distance learning and NNTT and
!!  "
&' ( ) " 
&' ( )" 
*+, +& " *
&&  +
&' "
&"( & "
#$! .
% (/
. (0
. (0
 1 
&' "
&' + +
()$ "*- "&0(
&' (  " 
% 2+
*$ &0 .(
+&"( & " *
&+,&' /" 0&(
&' /" 0&(
--(0 &"( %3+ !0
. '/(0 &"( %3+ !0
0&%( -
) "0"
&(((0 +" !1
#70-788///+) ( !
#70-788///+) ( !
#70-788///+) ( !
!7(+)-- : ( !! + "-10+( !
... When the factors that are related to this problem are analyzed, it is observed that it is a multi-causal phenomenon (Sureda, Comas & Urbina, 2005;Sureda, Comas & Morey, 2009), because it involves not only issues related to the social context and technological development such as the ease of access, manipulation, distribution, ... information, but also personal aspects (motivations, beliefs and values of each individual) and institutional aspects, such as the academic organization and teacher training (Cebrián- Robles, Raposo-Rivas & Sarmiento-Campos, 2016). ...
... Also, in many cases, the ignorance of the APA norms on how to cite the homework of others, is a motive for dishonest practices (Montenegro, 2017) which places the responsibility on the institution to develop a targeted training programme to this end. The digital and generational gap between students and teachers plays an important role too, where the students feel more confident in the digital domain, and think that they will not be detected by teachers (Sureda, Comas & Urbina, 2005). Several of these factors could have a common denominator: the self-regulation of learning. ...
Full-text available
The Internet has become a source of information for most young people. It provides opportunities but also poses dangers for which they must acquire digital skills. This is the case for young students intending to become teachers who, in turn, will have to train other young people in these digital skills. The research focuses on students’ opinions on two issues relating to dishonest practices: a. the reason or reasons they and their fellow students plagiarize and, b. finding solutions to avoid academic plagiarism. The study analyzes data of 539 students from faculties of education of eight universities and two different countries (Portugal and Spain). A common model for young people has been found from validated instruments. There is a common pattern in the students of all the universities and countries studied, justified by three interrelated reasons to plagiarize: "internal" and "external" reasons to the students and the lack of motivation required for the task.
... Unibertsitateirakasleen ustetan (Sureda, Comas eta Morey;2009) ikasleek plagioa egiteko arrazoi nagusiak hauek dira: oso erraza delako plagioa egitea Interneten, ikasleek ez dutelako baloratzen esfortzua eta lan egitea, ikasleek ez dutelako denbora era egokian kudeatzen, ikasleek ez dakitelako nola egin lan akademikoak, eta irakasleek ez dutelako ikasleen lanen jarraipen egokirik egiten. Era berean, irakasleek erabiltzen dituzten ikaste-irakaste metodologiek eta ikasleei eskatzen zaizkien lan akademikoen ezaugarriek ere badirudi eragina dutela ikasleek plagiorako duten jarreran (Hunt, 2003;Sureda, Comas eta Urbina, 2005). ...
... Other attributes of neo-millennials are that they prefer active learning based on experience (real and simulated), and co-designing of learning experiences (Dede, 2005). But there is also the danger that students prefer a "copy and paste" attitude, exploiting the wide range of information available on the web (Comas, Sureda, & Santos, 2006), instead of actually creating new content or drawing new inferences. There are two aspects to it: (i) students might use wrong information, because not all sources on the web are equally trustworthy, and (ii) it may encourage a tendency to plagiarism, which is a big problem so that special software had to be developed to identify plagiarism. ...
Full-text available
ABSTRACT This article aims to investigate the Grand Challenges which arise in the current and emerging landscape of rapid technological evolution towards more intelligent interactive technologies, coupled with increased and widened societal needs, as well as individual and collective expectations that HCI, as a discipline, is called upon to address. A perspective oriented to humane and social values is adopted, formulating the challenges in terms of the impact of emerging intelligent interactive technologies on human life both at the individual and societal levels. Seven Grand Challenges are identified and presented in this article: Human-Technology Symbiosis; Human-Environment Interactions; Ethics, Privacy and Security; Well-being, Health and Eudaimonia; Accessibility and Universal Access; Learning and Creativity; and Social Organization and Democracy. Although not exhaustive, they summarize the views and research priorities of an international interdisciplinary group of experts, reflecting different scientific perspectives, methodological approaches and application domains. Each identified Grand Challenge is analyzed in terms of: concept and problem definition; main research issues involved and state of the art; and associated emerging requirements. BACKGROUND This article presents the results of the collective effort of a group of 32 experts involved in the community of the Human Computer Interaction International (HCII) Conference series. The group’s collaboration started in early 2018 with the collection of opinions from all group members, each asked to independently list and describe five HCI grand challenges. During a one-day meeting held on the 20th July 2018 in the context of the HCI International 2018 Conference in Las Vegas, USA, the identified topics were debated and challenges were formulated in terms of the impact of emerging intelligent interactive technologies on human life both at the individual and societal levels. Further analysis and consolidation led to a set of seven Grand Challenges presented herein. This activity was organized and supported by the HCII Conference series. This is a Public Access article available at:
In recent years, the field of artificial intelligence (AI) has grown rapidly and has revolutionized various areas of life. One of these areas is research, where AI is used to enhance and streamline the research process. Students are among those who have benefited from the use of AI in research, as it has made the process more efficient and effective. The use of AI applications to improve essays and reports is a growing trend that needs being taken into account by professors in order to assess properly the student’s contributions. A large concern affects faculties worldwide regarding the possibility of cheating. How it will influence the educational process is another question. Changes about how assess and how to teach are needed or the trend will end somehow and somewhat? In that sense, we will explore the impact of AI on student research, and how it has changed the way students approach writing reports. Finally, we will focus on how professorship has modified the way to assess students work.KeywordsStudent’s reportsAI applicationsWritingResearch
Full-text available
El avance tecnológico trajo consigo ventajas y desventajas en el ámbito académico, dando la posi-bilidad a las personas estudiantes y al profesorado de acceder a una amplia información especializada. Entre las desventajas, se ubica el plagio, la copia y otras acciones similares. De hecho, la práctica deshonesta más frecuen-te entre las estudiantes y los estudiantes del mundo es el plagio académico. Al respecto, las indagaciones en esta área son múltiples y desde diferentes aproximaciones teóricas. A nivel iberoamericano, Sureda, Comas y Urbina (2005) y Comas-Forgas y Sureda-Negre (2010) realizaron estudios pioneros en el campo. En este marco, esta in-vestigación tiene como objetivo comparar conocimiento, prevalencia y valoración de prácticas deshonestas por parte de las estudiantes y los estudiantes ingresantes a la universidad de las disciplinas de Artes y Humanidades (Perú) y de las Ciencias de la Salud (Chile). El método utilizado es el cuantitativo descriptivo con un diseño no experimental y transversal, la muestra consideró 217 participantes, a los cuales se les aplicó un cuestionario vali-dado previamente. Tras el análisis, los resultados muestran que el conocimiento del plagio y de las referencias no difiere entre ambos campos del saber. En cuanto a la prevalencia y a la valoración, en su mayoría presentan datos similares, salvo acciones y prácticas específicas que su sanción podría estar más normada por cuerpos legales.
Full-text available
Generation Z those born after 1995 account for the vast majority of students currently studying at Turkish universities, including Information and Records Management departments. This generation has always been familiar with the internet, social media and mobile technology, and is probably the most technologically savvy generation to date. The last decade has witnessed an increase in the number of Information and Records Management departments opening up at Turkish universities, and generally speaking, curricula aims to equip students with the skills necessary to enter the archival or information management profession in the digital age. The following character archetypes will be used throughout the talk to analyse the issues faced by students upon entering the archival profession in the digital age: students are protagonists, who are responsible for shaping their own professional destinies but face obstacles along the way; they can also act as advocates for change but this is dependent on their own personal development. Mentors are universities and academics, who support the intellectual development of students, the Sage represents knowledgeable government agencies who offer advice and guidance on archival practice (primarily archives), and the Trickster represents the fluidity and flux of the field of information management and recordkeeping-sometimes luring the student (protagonist) into a false sense of security in the digital age. This false sense of security stems from the fact that electronic records and archival management poses risks and challenges that didn't exist in the paper world, such as the long-term preservation of born-digital records. Upon graduation students in Turkey will enter a profession that requires the innovative rethinking of current practices. This article examines whether the education students receive in terms of electronic information management and recordkeeping equips them to work with born-digital records in an archival context. ÖZ 1995'ten sonra doğan Z kuşağı, Bilgi ve Belge Yönetimi bölümleri de dahil olmak üzere Türkiye'deki üniversitelerde okuyan öğrencilerin büyük çoğunluğunu oluşturmaktadır. Bu kuşak internet, sosyal medya ve mobil teknolojiye aşinadır ve muhtemelen bugüne kadar teknolojik anlamda en bilgili nesildir. Son on yılda, Türkiye'deki üniversitelerde açılan Bilgi ve Belge Yönetimi bölümlerinin sayısında bir artış görülmektedir ve müfredatlar öğrencileri dijital çağda arşiv veya bilgi yönetimi mesleklerindeki gerekli becerilerle donatmayı amaçlamaktadır.. Konuşma boyunca, farklı rol modelleri ele alınacaktır; öğrenciler, kendi profesyonel kaderlerini şekillendirmekten sorumlu olan ancak yol boyunca engellerle karşılaşan Ana Karakterlerdir; değişimin savunucusu olarak da hareket edebilirler, ancak bu kendi kişisel gelişimlerine bağlıdır. Mentorlar, öğrencilerin entelektüel gelişimini destekleyen üniversiteler ve akademisyenlerdir. Bilge, arşiv uygulamaları hakkında yol gösteren kamu kurumları temsil eder (başta olmak üzere arşivler). Yanıltıcı ise bilgi ve belge yönetimi alanının akışkanlığını ve değişkenlini temsil eder-kimi zaman hilekâr, öğrenciye (ana karakteri), dijital çağda, sahte bir özgüven duygusu hissettirir. Bu sahte özgüven duygusu, elektronik belge ve arşiv yönetimlerinin, dijital belgelerin uzun süreli korunması gibi, fiziksel belgelerin dünyasında var olmayan risklerinden ve zorluklarından kaynaklanmaktadır. Mezunlar hâlihazırda kullanılan uygulamalarının girişimci bir şekilde gözden geçirilmesi gerektiren bir mesleğe adımlarını atacaklardır. Bu çalışma, elektronik bilgi ve belge yönetimi eğitiminin mezun öğrencilerin ileride doğuştan dijital belgelerle çalışmak için yeterli olup olmadığını inceleyecektir.
Full-text available
El plagio es un fenómeno de naturaleza compleja con cada vez más presencia en el mundo universitario. Escribir un texto académico exige el uso de ideas, datos, etc. ajenos y el riesgo de que esas fuentes no estén correctamente referenciadas y de que las ideas se plasmen sin el debido reconocimiento a su autor es elevado. Sin embargo, es necesario distinguir entre el plagio deliberado, el realizado con pleno conocimiento de su gravedad, y el plagio inconsciente, aquel que se produce por falta de conocimiento de uso de las fuentes. En este estudio se analizan las producciones escritas de 100 estudiantes de primer curso universitario del grado en Educación Primaria. Se trata de unas actas de congreso fruto de un curso en el que se ha seguido la metodología basada en proyectos y cuya finalidad es el desarrollo de la competencia comunicativa académica de los estudiantes. Estos han sido instruidos en el sistema de citación APA. El análisis se ha realizado a partir del estudio cualitativo de los informes de un software de detección de plagio. El fin no es otro que observar los usos de la información que podrían ser considerados plagio y que se deben, en realidad, a una falta de conocimiento de estrategias de uso de la información. Este análisis da lugar a la creación de una taxonomía de casos de plagio inconsciente. Los resultados obtenidos serán clave a la hora de diseñar propuestas para la formación del alumnado en escritura académica.
Full-text available
Existe una creciente preocupación en las instituciones universitarias por el aumento de prácticas deshonestas. Frente a este problema se comprueba en la literatura que es insuficiente utilizar las herramientas antiplagio como instrumento de detección, por lo que se recomienda conjugar con otras estrategias y medidas preventivas. El artículo analiza el conocimiento que poseen los estudiantes universitarios sobre las herramientas antiplagio, las medidas preventivas y sus competencias para evitar el plagio, a fin de comprender y diseñar estrategias conjuntamente con ellos para evitarlo. El diseño de investigación es un estudio descriptivo, con correlaciones causales al emplear análisis factorial con una muestra de 545 estudiantes pertenecientes a seis universidades de España y Portugal, utilizando un instrumento validado con el alpha de Cronbach de .773. Los resultados indican que más de la mitad de los estudiantes desconocen la existencia de plataformas antiplagio (54,1%) y software específico (49,4%), así como la información y orientación para la prevención y la existencia de protocolos y normativas (67%). Existe una correlación significativa de mayor conocimiento cuando los estudiantes son de postgrado; por lo que, se recomienda y propone diferentes medidas y acciones formativas en este sentido.
Full-text available
This article presents an analytical perspective about the plagiarism related issues in digital age with special reference to Indian Universities. Presently, India is third world's largest country for higher education system where more than 677 universities and 35829 collages are available for providing higher education. Plagiarism is an issue of research misconduct in academic and research community. In digital age plagiarism is copying words/text from any kind of information sources (Internet, books, magazines, journals, project reports, publications, white papers etc.) without proper citation. Plagiarism is the act of stealing someone else's work and attempting to pass it off as your own. In ICT era plagiarism detection is very easy job for academicians, researchers and publishers. To Preventing the plagiarism in Indian universities, INFLIBNET Centre on behalf of UGC, MHRD, and Govt. of India provided two anti-plagiarism software's "iThenticate" and "Turnitin" under the Shodhganga project to 110 universities for the one year in 2014. Currently, INFLIBNET Centre provided "Urkund" anti-plagiarism software to selected 135 Indian universities for the year 2015-16. Today, many more plagiarism detection software's (open source and proprietary) are available for easily use by academic institutions/universities. This paper also suggests the sustaining skills to avoid plagiarism or reduce the percentage of plagiarism in their submission research work to respective university/institution
Full-text available
The reviewed literature reported on plagiarism in the context of the digital era from the perspective of a broader educational spectrum. The authors of this review ask questions with regard to what constitutes plagiarism, how prevalent plagiarism is in our schools, colleges, and society, what is done to prevent and reduce plagiarism, the attitudes of faculty toward academic dishonesty in general, and individual differences as predic- tors of academic dishonesty. This article identifies research questions that have not been addressed sufficiently in the literature and suggests specific research areas for further investigation.
Full-text available
Automatic methods of measuring similarity between program code and natural language text pairs have been used for many years to assist humans in detecting plagiarism. For example, over the past thirty years or so, a vast number of approaches have been proposed for detecting likely plagiarism between programs written by Computer Science students. However, more recently, approaches to identifying similarities between natural language texts have been addressed, but given the ambiguity and complexity of natural over program languages, this task is very difficult. Automatic detection is gaining further interest from both the academic and commercial worlds given the ease with which texts can now be found, copied and rewritten. Following the recent increase in the popularity of on-line services offering plagiarism detection services and the increased publicity surrounding cases of plagiarism in academia and industry, this paper explores the nature of the plagiarism problem, and in particular summarise the approaches used so far for its detection. I focus on plagiarism detection in natural language, and discuss a number of methods I have used to measure text reuse. I end by suggesting a number of recommendations for further work in the field of automatic plagiarism detection.
THE PROLIFERATION OF PAPER MILLS, FULL-TEXT DATABASES, and World Wide Web pages has made plagiarism a rapidly growing problem in academia. Possible factors influencing student behaviors and attitudes toward plagiarism include ignorance, lack of personal investment in their education, situational ethics, and lack of consistent styles among and within various disciplines. Librarians are in a unique position to help prevent and detect plagiarism by forming partnerships with faculty to re-examine assignments and instructional sessions and by informing them of Internet paper mills and useful Internet search strategies.
Plagiarism, aided by the emergence of massive databases of information on the World Wide Web, has become commonplace on college campuses and in business schools. Because prevention is preferable to policing, in this article the authors (a) present methods for educators to define plagiarism and educate students in appropriate citation and paraphrasing and (b) provide assignments and expectations that will minimize the need and possibility of cheating. The authors also suggest potential "red flags" as well as software and Web services that aid in investigation of possible Internet plagiarism.
This paper reports the results of a survey onacademic dishonesty given to samples of 392 American and276 Japanese college students in 1994 and 1995. Our datarevealed both cross-cultural differences and similarities in cheating behavior andattitudes. Compared to American students, Japanesestudents reported a higher incidence rate of cheating onexams, a greater tendency to neutralize (i.e., justify) cheating, and a greater passivity in theirreactions to the observed cheating of others. Amongcheaters of both nationalities, Japanese students ratedsocial stigma and fear of punishment as less effective in deterring cheating than did Americanstudents. Our data also revealed cross-culturalsimilarities. Among noncheaters of both nationalities,guilt was the most effective deterrent. Among cheatersof both nationalities, fear of punishment was the mosteffective deterrent. And students of both cultures,cheaters and noncheaters alike, viewed social stigma asthe least effective deterrent to cheating. In both cultures, most students react to cheating byignoring it, about one-third react by resenting it, andactive reactions (i.e., reporting the cheating orconfronting the cheater) were seldom reported.Explanations for cross-cultural differences are suggested,and implications of these findings for efforts to reducecheating are discussed.
In Study 1, college professors determined whether each of 6 rewritten versions of a paragraph taken from a journal article were instances of plagiarism. Results indicated moderate disagreement as to which rewritten versions had been plagiarized. When another sample of professors (Study 2) was asked to paraphrase the same paragraph, up to 30% appropriated some text from the original. In Study 3, psychology professors paraphrased the same paragraph or a comparable one that was easier to read. Twenty-six percent of the psychologists appropriated text from the original version, whereas only 3% appropriated text from the one that was easier to read. The results of these studies are discussed in the context of existing definitions of paraphrasing and plagiarism.