Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17992584›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2008

Is there an effective approach to deterring students from plagiarizing?

Lidija Bilic-Zulle, Josip Azman, Vedran Frkovic, Mladen Petrovecki

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Pharmacy students' interpretation of academic integrity.American journal of pharmaceutical education · 2014
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Ethical considerations in scientific writing.Indian journal of sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS · 2011
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lidija Bilic-ZulleDepartment of Medical Informatics, Rijeka University School of Medicine, 20 Brace Branchetta St., 51000, Rijeka, Croatia. lbilicz@medri.hr
Josip Azman
Vedran Frkovic
Mladen Petrovecki
University of Rijeka · HR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of plagiarism detection software and penalty for plagiarizing in detecting and deterring plagiarism among medical students. The study was a continuation of previously published research in which second-year medical students from 2001/2002 and 2002/2003 school years were required to write an essay based on one of the four scientific articles offered by the instructor. Students from 2004/2005 (N = 92) included in present study were given the same task. Topics of two of the four articles were considered less complex, and two were more complex. One less and one more complex articles were available only as hardcopies, whereas the other two were available in electronic format. The students from 2001/2002 (N = 111) were only told to write an original essay, whereas the students from 2002/2003 (N = 87) were additionally warned against plagiarism, explained what plagiarism was, and how to avoid it. The students from 2004/2005 were warned that their essays would be examined by plagiarism detection software and that those who had plagiarized would be penalized. Students from 2004/2005 plagiarized significantly less of their essays than students from the previous two groups (2% vs. 17% vs. 21%, respectively, P < 0.001). Over time, students more frequently choose articles with more complex subjects (P < 0.001) and articles in electronic format (P < 0.001) as a source for their essays, but it did not influence the rate of plagiarism. Use of plagiarism detection software in evaluation of essays and consequent penalties had effectively deterred students from plagiarizing.

Indexed as

PlagiarismAdultFemaleHumansMalePrevalenceScientific MisconductStudents, Medical

Identifiers

PMID17992584
OpenAlexW2064658178

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.