The Quest for Quality in University Education in the Post COVID-19 Era: Do Anti-plagiarism Tools Still Matter?

Abstract

Plagiarism is a major global challenge to quality assurance in higher education. Various efforts have been made to overcome the menace including the use of anti-plagiarism tools. At the same time, many questions have been raised about the efficacy of the current generation of tools in detecting, preventing plagiarism, and guaranteeing the quality of education. This paper examines the limitations of plagiarism detection tools in enhancing quality in academic outcomes and proposes measures for improvement. The paper argues that while anti-plagiarism software has a role in preventing plagiarism in academic writing and academic integrity, they are not the panacea to the plagiarism pandemic, especially in the COVID-19 era. It proposes that there is a need to reform methods of assessment and implement forward-looking policies to address the underlying causes of plagiarism, provide students with appropriate information literacy skills training, and above all cultivate a culture of academic integrity in higher education institutions (HEIs).

Full text

The Quest for Quality in University Education in the Post COVID-19
Era: Do Anti-plagiarism Tools Still Matter?
Joseph M. Kavulya
Chuka University, jkavulya@chuka.ac.ke
Vincent Bob Kiilu
Chuka University bkiilu@chuka.ac.ke
Bernadetta N. Kyengo
The Catholic University of Eastern Africa berntta@gmail.com
Citation Format
Kavulya, J.M., Kiilu, D.V and Kyengo, B.N. (2022). The quest for quality in university
education in the post-COVID-19 era: Do anti-plagiarism tools still matter? Paper
presented at the 3rd KLISC Annual International Conference “Re-imagining
Library Services amidst COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond: Challenges and
Opportunities” 25th-26th May 2022, University of Eldoret,
Abstract
Plagiarism is a major global challenge to quality assurance in higher education. Various
efforts have been made to overcome the menace including the use of anti-plagiarism tools. At
the same time, many questions have been raised about the efficacy of the current generation
of tools in detecting, preventing plagiarism, and guaranteeing the quality of education. This
paper examines the limitations of plagiarism detection tools in enhancing quality in academic
outcomes and proposes measures for improvement. The paper argues that while anti-
plagiarism software has a role in preventing plagiarism in academic writing and academic
integrity, they are not the panacea to the plagiarism pandemic, especially in the COVID-19
era. It proposes that there is a need to reform methods of assessment and implement forward-
looking policies to address the underlying causes of plagiarism, provide students with
appropriate information literacy skills training, and above all cultivate a culture of academic
integrity in higher education institutions (HEIs).
Keywords: Antiplagiarism software; Plagiarism; University Education; Quality; COVID-19
Introduction
Plagiarism is a major global concern and a challenge to the goal of protecting academic
integrity in higher education institutions (Levine and Pazdernik, 2018; Ndebele, 2020).
According to Halgamuge, (2017), although plagiarism is not a new phenomenon and has
existed for as long as the art of writing itself, it is today an increasing problem amongst
students, academicians, and practitioners in various fields. Accordingly, plagiarism has
attracted all-around condemnation due to its negative impact on teaching, learning, and

2
research. Particularly for students, plagiarism denies them the opportunity to develop both
psychomotor and higher-level cognitive skills (Olutola, 2016).
Various efforts have been made to overcome the menace including the use of anti-
plagiarism software. However many questions have been raised about the efficacy of the
current generation of software to detect, and prevent plagiarism promote desirable
graduate traits, protect the integrity of student assessment, and consequently the quality
of university education. The paper argues that while anti-plagiarism software contributes
to identifying and preventing plagiarism in academic writing they are not the panacea to
the plagiarism pandemic. It emphasizes that the solution to the plagiarism pandemic lies
in reforming the methods of assessment and implementing policies to address the
underlying causes of plagiarism, providing students with veritable research skills and
particularly information literacy training, and above all cultivating a culture of academic
integrity in the institutions.
Definition and categories of plagiarism
The term “plagiarism” has been associated with the Latin word plagium, which means
“kidnapping” (Shin, (2019). This attribution is plausible because as summarized by Naik,
Landge, and Mahender (2015) as well as the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2017), the term
plagiarism as used today refers to the act of appropriating other people’s work and
presenting it as one’s own in literary works such as journal articles, term papers, and other
essays, textbooks, speeches, as well as photographs, songs, and even ideas and concepts.
Arising from this definition, plagiarism should be viewed as a despicable act, a vice, a threat
to intellectual property, an obstacle to the quality of student learning, and a problem whose
consequences are in real-life situations when graduates enter the job market.
Over the years various typologies of plagiarism have been proposed (Eisa, and Salim, 2015;
Mostofa, Tabassum, and Ahmed, 2021). According to Levine and Pazdernik (2018),
plagiarism can generally be divided into two categories; intentional and unintentional
plagiarism. Intentional plagiarism refers to situations where a person includes in their
writing ideas and sections lifted from other sources, fails to acknowledge it through proper
citation but rather submits it as their original work. Unintentional plagiarism occurs when
due to a lack of adequate academic writing skills individuals’ present material that is
borrowed from other sources without proper citation. At the same time, beyond this broad
taxonomy, whether intended or note, plagiarism has been grouped into several categories:
translation; copy and paste; disguised plagiarism; mosaic plagiarism; structural plagiarism;
idea plagiarism: self-plagiarism, and purchase of scholarly papers.
Plagiarism by translation involves lifting text from a source in one language and translating it to
another, either manually or using an automatic translation system, without indicating the source
(Naik et al, 2015). “Copy and paste” on the other hand involves copying relevant sections of work
and using them in one’s academic writing with little or no change at all without appropriate
referencing (Ma, Lu, Turner & Wan, 2007). Disguised plagiarism refers to the copying and
disguising of the copied material by removing, adding words, changing word order, or

3
paraphrasing the material without acknowledging the source (Lancaster, 2019). Mosaic
plagiarism occurs when culprits copy material from other sources, retain the original
structure of sentences and paragraphs but replaces words and phrases randomly, and fails
to acknowledge the source (Das & Panjabi, 2011; Roig, 2009).
Structural plagiarism involves copying others word for word, including ideas, their
arguments, quotations from other sources, as well as bibliography or footnotes without
providing citations (Naik et al, 2015). Idea plagiarism occurs when one appropriates
someone else's idea without permission or appropriate acknowledgment of the source
(Hollins & Perfect, 2007). Self-plagiarism involves reproducing one's ideas, data, or text
without reference to the source (Rao and Andrade; 2014). In other words, self-plagiarism
involves copying sections of one’s previous paper or even a whole paper and using these
sections in different manuscripts or presenting it as a new work, mostly with a new or
altered title (Ali and Alhassan, 2021). Ahmed, 2015)
Purchase of essays is perhaps the commonest form of plagiarism today. It involves
commissioning or outright purchasing of term papers, master’s theses, doctoral
dissertations as well other scholar papers from the so-called ghost-writers, paper-mills, and
online writing services (Pupovac, Bilić-Zulle & Petrovečki, 20014). There are myriads of
outfits that provide online writing services for a fee including term papers, short
assignments, master's theses, and doctoral dissertations (Chase, 2004 as quoted by
Pupovac, Bilić-Zulle & Petrovečki, 2008).
Current trends in plagiarism
A literature review indicates that, in recent years, the practice of plagiarism has taken an
upward trajectory (Reyneke, Shuttleworth, and Visagie, 2021; Ison, 2018). The vice is evident
in all parts of the world with cases being reported in countries on every continent for
example the USA (Higgins, Lin & Evans, 2016), Russia (Rostovtsev, 2017), across Africa
(Kigotho, 2017; Fuzile, 2013, Fengu, 2017; Opara, and, Ezeonye, 2021), Australia (Jacks, 2016),
Turkey and Pakistan (Yazici, Yazici, and Erdem, 2011), and China (Yang, Huang, and Chen,
2013).
There is also evidence that plagiarism occurs in all types of academic writing by both students,
and researchers including exams, scientific research, assignments, quizzes, research
projects, journal articles, and book publications (Mokdad, Bahrain, & Aljunaidi, 2020). As
a result, several authors argue that plagiarism has now reached “epidemic proportions” and
threatens to compromise quality in educational and research processes throughout the
world (Chireshe, 2014; Singh & Remenyi, 2016; Singh & Ganapathy, 2018).
Plagiarism occurs in face-to-face classes and virtual learning environments but is there is
an observation that it is more prevalent in online classes because students, aware that they
are alone in “hidden” fees that are not being observed by the teacher may resort to
plagiarism (Greenberger, Holdback, Steele, Dyer, 2016). Recent literature suggests that

4
during the COVID-19 pandemic period, plagiarism and other forms of academic dishonesty
have increased drastically due to the shift of education, research, and other operations to
virtual environments as a result of the prolonged COVID-19 lockdown (Gregory, 2020).
ODEL courses and increased work-at-home arrangements for researchers, undergraduate
and postgraduate students, are also associated with increased stress and pressure among
students, lack of clear norms on how to conduct themselves in online environments, and
higher use of online materials hence a higher propensity to engage in plagiarism
(Lederman, 2020; Mokdad, Bahrain & Aljunaidi, 2020).
Overview of causes and impact of plagiarism
Several factors have been proposed to explain the recent increase in cases of plagiarism.
Javaid, Sultan, and Ehrich, (2020) as well as Pecorari and Petric, (2014) have argued that
poor research skills are the major reasons why students plagiarize. This argument is echoed
by Burger (2018) as well as Eldin, and Ela, 2016) and Ibegbulam and Eze, 2015) who observe
that many forms of plagiarism result from a lack of information literacy skills such as
information searching and retrieval, writing skills coupled with difficult assignments,
sometimes beyond the abilities of students. Akbulut, et al. (2008) on their part have blamed
the vice on the desire to have better grades than others, in the face of stiff competition for
limited opportunities.
Several authors have observed that students often experience an excess workload and are
many times under immense pressure to produce pieces of academic writing which may
drive them to commit plagiarism (Ocholla and Ocholla, 2016; Pupovac, Bilić-Zulle &
Petrovečki, 2014 Catacutan, 2021). Postgraduate students have deadlines to publish to
graduate while academics earnestly strive for promotion or tenure both of which contribute
to ghost-writing (Elkhatat et al. Elsaid, Almeer, 2021, Global Times, 2016). Therefore the
tenet ‘publish or perish' which puts immense pressure on faculty members to publish more
and faster has been decried as a possible cause of plagiarism by academics (Catacutan, 2021,
Chandere, et al, 2021).
Ndebele (2020) has argued that the spread and availability of information technologies and
easy access to electronic information resources in form of e-journals, e-books, etc.
encourage copying, cutting, pasting, and editing to suit their research purposes. This view
is shared by Shankar and Ramasesh (2014), Levine & Pazdernik, 2018, and Sentleng and
King (2012). More fundamentally, the spread of plagiarism has been blamed on the absence
or existence of weak, unclear, or poorly implemented institutional policies and procedures
on plagiarism (Wheeler, Anderson, 2010). According to Ramzan et al. (2012), and Gullifer
and Tyson, (2014) an environment where culprits of plagiarism are not caught or go
unpunished due to a lack of policy or lack of its enforcement are likely to propagate all
types of plagiarism.
The foundational case for eradication of plagiarism is that it is a hindrance to quality in
educational processes such as teaching, learning, and research. Written assignments are

5
aimed at providing opportunities for students to learn cognitive knowledge in specific
subjects as well as develop skills of analysis, evaluating ideas from diverse sources, and
applying them in various contexts. By encouraging students to pass through an education
system without reflecting or assimilating knowledge, plagiarism hinders students’ learning,
intellectual growth, and development of skills for creative thinking, generating and
contributing to knowledge in their respective academic disciplines (Catacutan, 2021;
Dipongkor, et al, 2021, Ndebele, 2020; Atkins and Nelsen, 2001; Wheeler, and Anderson,
2010).
Plagiarism occurs mainly in the context of the assessment of learning which is geared
towards gauging academic performance and revealing the level of knowledge obtained by
the students (Youmans, 2011). Plagiarism is a form of academic dishonesty that gives an unfair
advantage to its perpetrators over other students (Svirina and Excelia, 2022; Dipongkor, et al, 2021).
In an environment where plagiarism is rampant, assessment of the academic achievement
of learners objectively is difficult and may produce misleading academic outcomes
(Dipongkor, et al, 2021; Nguyen, Keuseman, and Humston, 2020; Bilen and Matros, 2020;
Suseela, 2016)
Plagiarism is globally considered a dishonest, unfair practice and a violation of the law and
intellectual property rights of authors and publishers (Krimsky, 2021; Chandere, Satish &
Lakshminarayanan, 2021 Tsatsaronis, Varlamis, Giannakoulopoulos & Kanellopoulos,
2010). Students who engage in unethical practices such as plagiarism during their university
education process are likely to do the same upon graduation (Thomas & De Bruin, 2012;
Winrow, 2016). Indeed considerable literature suggests that plagiarism has long-term
damage to the moral sensitivity of students and therefore may be a predictor of future
corrupt behaviour among professionals when they join the workplace and in the wider
community. Catacutan, (2021) has underlined the corrupting nature of plagiarism where students
are habituated to corruptly receive an unfair advantage over others and cultivate a negative attitude
toward honest work which they carry within their adult life. Therefore this is a manifestation of a
lack of integrity and can damage not just the reputation of the educational system, academic
institutions, and its academicians, and disadvantage its graduates (Ndebele, 2020; Ramdani, 2018).
The Efficacy of plagiarism detection software
Educators, university administrators, academic leaders, publishers, librarians, and
researchers are desperately looking for solutions to the problem of plagiarism (Chireshe,
2014; Singh & Remenyi, 2016; Singh & Ganapathy, 2018). Many universities have used
various methods to minimize the occurrence of plagiarism among them by subjecting
scholarly works produced by both staff and students to plagiarism detection software
(Halgamuge, 2017). There are many kinds of free or commercial antiplagiarism software in
use by different institutions to detect plagiarism. Key among these are Turnitin, Plagscan,
Copyleaks, Whitesmoke, Paperrater, Grammarly, Essay Toolbox, ArticleChecker,
PlagiarismCheck, Dustball, Copyscape, search engine reports, Plagiarisma, Viper,
Plagtracker, among others (Chandere, et al, 2021; Sabeeh & Khaled, 2021; Ahmed, 2015;

6
Aarthi & Rajagopal, 2018; Saini, Bahl, Kumari & Singh, 2016; Lukashenko, Graudina &
Grundspenkis, 2007; Ali, Abdulla & Snasel, 2011).
Generally, antiplagiarism software prevents plagiarism through the following processes:
i. Identify the fragments of text borrowed from other sources (Dodigovic &
Jiaotong, 2013; Gosavi & Deshmukh, 2021; Tsatsaronis, Varlamis,
Giannakoulopoulos & Kanellopoulos, 2010; Gosavi & Deshmukh, 2021).
ii. Show written falsification rate through a similarity index (Gosavi & Deshmukh,
2021).
iii. Provides an “originality report which suggests the percentage of the author’s
work that matches other academic sources in an online database (Davis &
Carroll, J. (2009).
iv. Indicate the percentage of matching text for each named source and presents
these in a ranked list in order of quantity. With each author’s text, the reviewer
can click on a matched section and see the suggested ‘original’ text side-by-side
for an instant comparison between the two texts”.
The main limitation of anti-plagiarism software is that they do not detect plagiarism
directly. Rather, they identify phrases that match others in works created earlier hence the
term “similarity checks” which in many cases is mistakenly interpreted as a measure of
plagiarism (Mphahlele and McKenna, 2019; Royce, 2003). Secondly, several anti-plagiarism
software is not capable of searching all available online material and thus give incomplete
reports, and over-report similarity by flagging commonly used phrases, and legitimate
sections of the work as plagiarised which can lead to incorrect plagiarism index (Weber-
Wulff, Moller, Touras, Zincke, Berlin & Berlin, 2013; Royce, 2003).
Thirdly, the ability of these somewhere to detect similarity is very low in case the plagiarism
involves translation from different languages and virtually impossible if it involves material
that has not yet been digitized (Mphahlele and McKenna, 2019). Similarly, ghost-writing,
dot replacement, fake references, and data manipulation cannot be easily detected by
software in the same way as text plagiarism and so far indeed there is no effective solution
for it (Lancaster, 2019; Patel, Bakhtiyari, and Taghavi, 2011).
Fourthly, there are many cases and possibilities of manipulating work and plagiarism
results by the perpetrators. For example, writers may change sentences or keywords within
the passage so that they cannot be matched with the sources (Elkhatat et al. Elsaid, Almeer,
2021). In other cases, individuals can revise a non-authentic work until it passes the
plagiarism check, without consideration of possible quality deterioration. Particularly,
there is increased use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) plagiarism removers to “whitewash”
documents such that similarity cannot be detected even by the best plagiarism detection
software (Patel, Bakhtiyari, and Taghavi, 2011).
There are reported cases of anti-plagiarism software being used within institutions, as a
tool for policing rather than for furthering academic goals (Mphahlele and McKenna, 2019).

7
According to many experts, focusing on detecting plagiarism and punishing the culprits is counter-
productive since the root causes of plagiarism remain unresolved and do contribute to better
academic writing practices (Marjanović, Tomašević, and Živković, 2015).
Ways of improving the impact of plagiarism detection
software
Anti-plagiarism software has a significant role in the eradication of plagiarism. The key to
making plagiarism detection software more effective in this role is to adopt them as a
learning tool rather than a diagnostic tool for the ‘catch and punish” policy. Rather anti-
plagiarism tools should be used to identify, prevent, and eliminate plagiarism in
assignments and improve academic writing (Dodigovic, 2013; Patel, Bakhtiyari, and
Taghavi, 2011). Positive results have been reported in situations where these similarity
reports from antiplagiarism software have been used to engage students in evaluating and
improving their writing assignments. This practice gradually improves skills of analysis,
synthesis, and presenting ideas from other sources among students (Mostofa, Tabassum, and
Ahmed, 2021; Eisa, and Salim, 2015).
Another approach to augmenting the use of antiplagiarism software is a review of
pedagogical approaches in favour of a constructivist, evidence-based by creating an
environment where students are responsible for their learning (Reyneke, Shuttleworth, and
Visagie, (2021). This includes providing fewer class notes and handouts, providing more
general guidance on the purpose and expected learning outcomes of a particular course,
comprehensive course content, core-reading reading as well as revision quizzes to assess
learning. This enables students to directly engage with global experts of the subject one is
studying, engage in analyzing different issues, topics, and ideas, gain the expected
knowledge and skills and discover by themselves, deeper meaning and their application in
life situations
Another suggestion for combating plagiarism among students is the review of assessment
methods by focusing on assignments that test critical thinking, analysis, and application of
knowledge rather than the acquisition of cognitive knowledge. Additionally, there is a need
to avoid repetitions of assignments in any given course, in favour of multiple-choice
questions that require research, and those that require progressive build-up through other
tasks towards final submission (Patel, Bakhtiyari, and Taghavi, 2011)
Comprehensive, carefully-crafted, forward-looking and fully implemented policies have
been identified as key to addressing and eradicating academic scientific dishonesty such as
plagiarism (Olutola, 2016; Anney and Mosha
(2015), Pecorari and Petric, 2014 and Maxel, 2013). Useful policies, in this case, include
those on research integrity, intellectual property rights, and anti-plagiarism. Importantly,
these policies should not just focus on a deterrent measure of “catch and punish” but also
promote the proactive participation of members of the community in promoting values,
skills, and best practices in scholarship. According to several authors for policies to be

8
effective they should have a training component on techniques of quality research and
academic writing, intellectual property rights, and ethical values and laid down procedures
for detecting, removing, and remedying plagiarism.
A major solution to plagiarism is the impartation of information literacy skills to various
players in the scholarly communication eco-system, including students (Morris, 2016).
Information literacy includes skills and competencies of how to identify the information
required in a particular context, how to discover, access, information, analyze, synthesize,
and apply it and share them with others with due consideration to the ethical expectations
that preclude plagiarism. This includes the skill of academic writing techniques, and
respect for the ethical values and legal requirements in the use of use and sharing of
information in scholarly activities (Library and Information Association, 2018). Already
institutions across the globe have information literacy courses that include topics such as
citation techniques, and academic integrity (Khan, Richardson, and Izhar, 2021; Yang,
Stockwell, and McDonnell, 2019).
According to many writers, the ultimate solution to the plagiarism pandemic lies in
developing and sustaining a culture that values academic integrity and upholds best
practices in scholarship in the academic community (Stappenbelt and Rowles, 2009). This
includes training students on ethical practices in scholarship, dangers of plagiarism, and
respect for intellectual property (Olutola, 2016; Wheeler, and Anderson, 2010).
Conclusion and recommendations
Plagiarism in higher education largely occurs due to many factors including, a willful
attempt to earn undeserved academic credit, and a lack of competencies in research and
information literacy to support the proper use of information resources or other people's
ideas in learning and research. The vice is an increasing risk to quality in teaching and
compromises assessment of learning. Therefore concerted action by all stakeholders is
required to minimize its erosive effect on the quality of university education. Plagiarism
detection software is useful in detecting and removing plagiarism in student assignments
work and therefore components of quality assurance mechanism in university education.
However, these tools are not a panacea to the menace, since they do not address the root
causes of the problem and are ineffective in addressing some forms of plagiarism. However,
in overcoming the plagiarism menace there is a need to complement the use of anti-
plagiarism software such as the implementation of forward-looking policies, review of
methods of assessment, and improving the research and information literacy skills of
various players. Therefore the ultimate solution to the plagiarism menace lies in the
cultivation of a culture of academic integrity within academic and research institutions.
References
Aarthi, G. V., & Rajagopal, A. (2018). Online compiler with plagiarism
checker. International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 118(18), 1547-1555

9
Ahmed, R. A. (2015). Overview of different plagiarism detection tools. International Journal
of Futuristic Trends in Engineering and Technology, 2(10), 1-3.
Akbulut, Y., Sendag, S., Birinci, G., Kilicer, K., Sahin, M.C. and Odabasi, H.F. (2008).
Exploring types and reasons of internet-triggered academic dishonesty among
Turkish undergraduate students: development of internet-triggered academic
dishonesty scale (ITADS). Computers and Education, 51(1), 463-473.
Ali, A. M. E. T., Abdulla, H. M. D., & Snasel, V. (2011, April). Overview and comparison of
plagiarism detection tools. In V. Snasel, J. Pokorny, K. Richta (Eds.) Dateso (pp. 161-
172). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-706/poster22.pdf
Ali, H. I. H., & Alhassan, A. (2021). Fighting contract cheating and ghostwriting in higher
education: Moving towards a multidimensional approach. Cogent Education, 8(1),
1885837.
Anney, V.N. and Mosha, M.A. (2015), Student’s plagiarisms in higher learning institutions
in the era of improved internet access: A case study of developing countries. Journal
of Education and Practice, 6(13), 203-216
Atkins, T and Nelson, G. (2001). Plagiarism and the internet: Turning the tables. The English
Journal, 90, (4), 101-104
Bilen E. and Matros, A (2020). Online cheating amid COVID-19. SSRN Electronic Journal
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3691363
Burger, A. (2018). Reframing anti-plagiarism efforts in the academic library. Georgia Library
Quarterly, 55(1). Retrieved from
https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/glq/vol55/iss1/11
Carrol, J. (2002), A handbook for detecting plagiarism in higher education. Oxford: The
Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.
Catacutan, M.R (2021). Attitudes toward cheating among business students at a private
Kenyan university. Journal of International Education in Business 14(10), 20-36
Chandere, V., Satish, S., and Lakshminarayanan, R. (2021). Online plagiarism detection
tools in the digital age: A Review Annals of the Romanian Society for Cell Biology,
7110-7119.
Chireshe, R. (2014). Academic dishonesty: Zimbabwe university lecturers’ and students’
views. South African Journal of Higher Education 28(1) pp 45–59
Das, N., & Panjabi, M. (2011). Plagiarism: Why is it such a big issue for medical
writers? Perspectives in Clinical Research, 2(2), 67.
Dipongkor, A.K., et al, (2021) AcPgChecker: Detection of plagiarism among academic and
Scientific Writings. Joint 10th International Conference on Informatics, Electronics &
Vision (ICIEV) and 2021 5th International Conference on Imaging, Vision Pattern
Recognition (icIVPR).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353587403_AcPgChecker_Detectionof_
Plagiarism_among_Academic_and_Scientific_Writings
Dodigovic, M., and Jiaotong, X. (2013). The role of anti-plagiarism software in learning to
paraphrase effectively. Computer-Assisted Language Learning-Electronic
Journal, 14(02), 23-37.
Dodigovic, M (2013). The role of anti-plagiarism software in
learning to paraphrase effectively. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-

10
Role-of-Anti-Plagiarism-Software-in-Learning-to
Dodigovic/6bf1b41c9994855697b4ab5f06bb2897aa90f884
Eldin, Y. K., Z. and Ela, L.A. E (2016), Implementing plagiarism awareness workshop to
nursing faculty members, Damanhour University. Journal of Nursing Education and
Practice 7(1), 124
Elkhatat et al. Elsaid, K Almeer, S., (2021). Some students plagiarism tricks, and tips for
effective check. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 17(15)
Eisa, TAE. and Salim, N., (2015). Existing plagiarism detection techniques: A systematic
mapping of the scholarly literature. Online Information Review Vol. 39(3), 383-400
Fengu, M. (2017). Academics stole work.
https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/academics-stole-work-20170729
Fuzile, B(2013). Plagiarism cases rock Fort Hare. https://www.pressreader.com/south-
africa/the-times-south
Global Times (2016), Academics pay journals to publish ghost-written articles to get
promotions. https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1010453.shtml
Gosavi, N., and Deshmukh, U. B. (2021). Anti-Plagiarism Tools: A Review. World, 1(1).
[Google Scholar]
Greenberger, S., Holdback. R., Steele, J., and Dyer, T., (2016), Plagiarism due to
misunderstanding: online instructor perceptions. Journal of the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning, 16(6), 72-84.
Gregory, J.L., (2020). COVID-19 elevating the problem of plagiarism: The implied social
contract of academic integrity. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin: International
Journal for Professional Educators, 87 (1), 18- 23
Gullifer, J.M., and Tyson, G.A. (2014), Who has read the policy on plagiarism? Unpacking
students’ understanding of plagiarism. Studies in Higher Education, 39(7), 1202-1218.
Halgamuge, M. N. (2017). The use and analysis of anti-plagiarism software: Turnitin tool
for formative assessment and feedback. Computer Applications in Engineering
Education, 25(6), 895-909. [Google Scholar].
Hollins, T.J. and Stark, L (2012), Unconscious plagiarism in recall: Attribution to the self,
but not for self-relevant reasons, Europe's Journal of Psychology 8(2), 275-283
Ibegbulam, I. J., & Eze, J. U. (2015). Knowledge, perception and attitude of Nigerian students
to plagiarism: A case study. IFLA journal, 41(2), 120-128. [Google Scholar].
Ison, D. C. (2018). An empirical analysis of differences in plagiarism among world
cultures. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 40(4), 291-304.
[Google Scholar].
Jacks, T. (2016). Deakin University students kicked out for ’contract cheating’.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/deakin-university-students-kicked-out-for-
contract-cheating-20160517- goxm1y.html
Javaid, S. T., Sultan, S., and Ehrich, J. F. (2020). Contrasting first and final year
undergraduate students' plagiarism perceptions to investigate anti-plagiarism
measures. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education. [Google Scholar]
Khan, A., Richardson, J. Izhar, M. (2021). Awareness about plagiarism and the effectiveness
of library literacy programme towards its deterrence: A perspective of postgraduate
resident doctors. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication Vol(70), 731-755

11
Kigotho, W. (2017). Plagiarism: The rising threat to academic integrity.
https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/education/article/2001257943/plagiarism-the-
rising-threat-to-academic-integrity
Krimsky, S. (2021). Disguised academic plagiarism. A typology and case studies for
researchers and editors. Research Ethics Forum 8. Accountability in Research, 28(1),
44-46.
Lancaster, T. (2019). Profiling the international academic ghost writers who are providing
low-cost essays and assignments for the contract cheating industry. Journal of
Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 17 (1), 72-86
Lancaster, T. (2003). Effective and efficient plagiarism detection. Ph.D. Thesis. School of
Computing, Information System and Mathematics South Bank University.
Lederman, D. (2020) Will Shift to Remote Teaching Be Boon or Bane for Online Learning.
Inside Higher Education, 1-27. https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-
learning/article/2020/03/18/most-teaching-going-remote-will-help-or-hurt-online-
learning
Levine, J., & Pazdernik, V. (2018). Evaluation of a four-prong anti-plagiarism program and
the incidence of plagiarism: a five-year retrospective study. Assessment & Evaluation
in Higher Education, 43(7), 1094-1105. [Google Scholar]
Library and information Association (2018) CILIP Definition of Information Literacy 2018.
https://infolit.org.uk/ILdefinitionCILIP2018.pdf
Lukashenko, R., Graudina, V., and Grundspenkis, J. (2007, June). Computer-based
plagiarism detection methods and tools: an overview. In Proceedings of the 2007
international conference on Computer systems and technologies (pp. 1-6).
https://dl.acm.org/doi/proceedings/10.1145/1330598
Ma, H., Lu, E. Y., Turner, S., and Wan, G. (2007). An empirical investigation of digital
cheating and plagiarism among middle school students. American Secondary
Education, 69-82. [Google Scholar]
Maxel, O.J.M. (2013), “Plagiarism: the cancer of east African university education”, Journal
of Education and Practice, 4 (17), 133-143
Marjanović, M., Tomašević, V., and Živković D., (2015). Anti-plagiarism software: Usage,
effectiveness and issues. International Scientific Conference of IT and Business-
Related Research.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300485038_Anti-
plagiarism_Software_Usage_Effectiveness_and_Issues
Merriam Webster Dictionary (2017). Definition of plagiarism. https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/plagiarizing
Mokdad, M., Bahrain, s., and Junaidi, A. (2020). Whither plagiarism in distance learning
academic assessment during COVID-19? 2020 Sixth International Conference on e-
Learning (Econf), https://econf20.uob.edu.bh/
Mostofa, SM., Tabassum, M., and Ahmed, S.M.Z. (2021) Researchers’ awareness about
plagiarism and impact of plagiarism detection tools – does awareness effect the
actions towards preventing plagiarism? Digital Library Perspectives 37(3), 254-271
Morris, E., (2016). Academic integrity policy and practice. In: Introduction handbook of
academic integrity 409–412 Singapore: Springer Nature

12
Mphahlele, A and McKenna, S. (2019). The use of Turnitin in the higher education sector:
Decoding the myth, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44, (7), 1079–1089
Naik, R. R., Landge, M. B., & Mahender, C. N. (2015). A review on plagiarism detection
tools. International Journal of Computer Applications, 125(11).
Ndebele, H. (2020). Demystifying student plagiarism in academic writing: Towards an
‘educational’ solution. Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning, 8(2). [Google
Scholar]
Nguyen J. G., Keuseman, K. J., and Humston, J. J (2020). Minimize online plagiarism for
online assessments during COVID-19 Pandemic,” Journal of Chemical Education, 97,
(9), 3429– 3435,
Ocholla, D.N and Ocholla, P (2016). Does Open Access prevent plagiarism in higher
education? Afr. J. Lib. Arch. & Inf. Sc. 26, (2) 187-200
Olutola, F. O. (2016). Towards a more enduring prevention of scholarly plagiarism among
university students in Nigeria. African Journal of Criminology and Justice
Studies, 9(1), 83-97.
Opara, I. N and, Ezeonye, S.N (2021). Assessing the awareness and implementation of anti-
plagiarism tools by postgraduate students in the University of Port Harcourt, Rivers
State. East African Scholars Journal of Psychology and Behavioural Sciences. 3 (3), 33-
41
Pàmies, M.D.M., Valverde, M. and Cross, C. (2020). Organising research on university
student plagiarism: a process approach, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education, 45(3), 401-418, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2019.1658714.
Patel, A. Bakhtiyari, K., and Taghavi, M., (2011). Evaluation of cheating detection methods
in academic writings. Library Hi Tech, 29(4), 623-640
Pecorari, D. and Petric, B. (2014), “Plagiarism in second-language writing”, Language
Teaching, 47( 3), pp. 269-302
Pupovac, V., Bilic-zulle, L. & Petrovecki, M. (2008). On academic plagiarism in Europe. An
analytic approach based on four studies. In: R. Comas, J. Sureda (coords.). Academic
cyberplagiarism [online dossier]. Digithum, 10. UOC.
Pupovac, V., Bilic-zulle, L. & Petrovecki, M. (2014). On academic plagiarism in Europe. An
analytic approach based on four studies. In: R. Comas, J. Sureda (coords.). Academic
cyberplagiarism [online dossier]. Digithum, 10. UOC. [Google Scholar]
Ramdani, Z. (2018). Construction of academic integrity scale. International Journal of
Research Studies in Psychology, 7(1), 87–97. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsp.2018.3003
Ramzan, M., Munir, M.A., Siddique, N. and Asif, M. (2012), “Awareness about plagiarism
amongst university students in Pakistan”, Higher Education, 64(1),73-84, doi:
10.1007/s10734-011-9481-4.
Reyneke, Y., Shuttleworth, C. C., and Visagie, R. G. (2021). Pivot to online in a post-COVID-
19 world: critically applying BSCS 5E to enhance plagiarism awareness of accounting
students. Accounting Education, 30(1), 1-21, DOI: 10.1080/09639284.2020.1867875
Roig, M. (2006) "Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing
practices: A guide to ethical writing". [Online] Available at:
http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/products/plagiarism/plagiarism.pdf[Google Scholar]

13
Rostovtsev, A. (2017). Plagiarism in the dissertations and scientific publications in Russia.
In: Plagiarism across Europe and beyond 2017. Conference proceedings (pp. 107-112).
Royce, J. (2003, Has Turnitin.com got it all wrapped up? Teacher Librarian, 30(4), 26-30.
Russikoff, K., Fucaloro, L., & Salkauskiene, D. (2003). Plagiarism as a cross-cultural
phenomenon. The CATESOL Journal, 15(1), 127-142. [Google Scholar]
Sabeeh, M., & Khaled, F. (2021). Plagiarism Detection Methods and Tools: An
Overview. Iraqi Journal of Science, 2771-2783 [Google Scholar]
Saini, A., Bahl, A., Kumari, S., & Singh, M. (2016). Plagiarism checker: text
mining. International Journal of Computer Applications, 134(3), 8-11. [Google
Scholar]
Sentleng, M. P., & King, L. (2012). Plagiarism among undergraduate students in the Faculty
of Applied Science at a South African higher education institution. South African
Journal of Libraries and Information Science, 78(1), 57-67.
Shankar, M.P and Ramasesh, C.P (2014). Anti-plagiarism Software – A tool to ensure quality
research output (https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Anti-plagiarism-
Software-%E2%80%93-A-tool-to-ensure-quality-Shankar-
Ramasesh/b2e8910b22faedd176bc6ea157c66d16e065bd6a
Shin, S. (2019). Plagiarism. Journal of Periodontal & Implant Science (JPIS, 2019 Apr;49(2):59
https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2019.49.2.59 ISSN 2093-2278·eISSN 2093-2286 [Google
Scholar]
Singh, M. K. M & Ganapathy, M. (2018), Understanding Plagiarism from the Lens of First-
Year Tertiary Level Students, Pertanika Journal of Social Science and
Humanities 26(Special), 159-177
Singh S, Remenyi D. (2016), Plagiarism and ghostwriting: The rise in academic misconduct.
S Afr J Sci. 112(5/6), Art. #2015-0300,. http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/ sajs.2016/20150300
Stappenbelt, B. and Rowles, C (2009). The effectiveness of plagiarism detection software as
a learning tool in academic writing education. 4th Asia Pacific Conference on
Educational Integrity (4APCEI) 28–30 September 2009,
https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/09-4apcei/4apcei-Stappenbelt.pdf
Suseela, V.J (2016)., Plagiarism: The Academic Dishonesty The Significance of Anti-
plagiarism Software (Tools) in Plagiarism Detection, Pearl A Journal of Library and
Information Science 10(1),11
Svirina, A and Excelia, A.A. (2022). Dubious or decisive? Digging deeper into the
unchartered path of academic ghostwriting. Journal of Organizational Change
Management 35 (1), 38-58
Thomas, A., & De Bruin, G.P. (2012), Student academic dishonesty: What do academics
think and do and what are the barriers to action? African Journal of Business
Ethics 6(1):13-24
Tss, R., and Andrade, C. (2014) Policy of the Indian Journal of Psychiatry on the problem of
plagiarism, Indian Journal of Psychiatry 56(3), 211-212
Tsatsaronis, G., Varlamis, I., Giannakoulopoulos, A., & Kanellopoulos, N. (2010), Identifying
free text plagiarism based on semantic similarity. Conference: 4th International
Plagiarism Conference (IPC 2010). Conference:

14
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232262495_Identifying_free_text_plagi
arism_based_on_semantic_similarity
Weber-Wulff D, Möller C, Touras J, Zincke E (2013) Plagiarism detection software test
2013. http://plagiat.htw-berlin.de/software-en/test2013/report-201
Wheeler, D., and Anderson, D. (2010). Dealing with plagiarism in a complex information
society. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues 3 (3),
166-177
Winrow, B. (2016). Do perceptions of the utility of ethics affect academic cheating? Journal
of Accounting Education, 37, 1-12
Yang, S., Huang, C. and Chen, A. (2013), “An investigation of college students’ perceptions
of academic dishonesty, reasons for dishonesty, achievement goals, and willingness
to report dishonest behavior”, Ethics and Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 501-522.
Yang A, Stockwell S, McDonnell L (2019). Writing in your own voice: an intervention that
reduces plagiarism and common writing problems in students' scientific writing.
Biochem Mol Biol Educ 47(5):589–598. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21282
Yazici, A., Yazici, S. and Erdem, M. (2011), “Faculty and student perceptions on college
cheating: evidence from Turkey”, Educational Studies, 37(2), 221-231.