Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27112550›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2016

Academic dishonesty in higher education: students' perceptions and involvement in an African institution.

Sixtus Bieranye Bayaa Martin Saana, Ephraim Ablordeppey, Napoleon Jackson Mensah, Thomas K Karikari

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Why Students Cheat and How Understanding This Can Help Reduce the Frequency of Academic Misconduct in Higher Education: A Literature Review.Journal of undergraduate neuroscience education : JUNE : a publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sixtus Bieranye Bayaa Martin SaanaDepartment of Dispensing Technology, School of Applied Science and Technology, Wa Polytechnic, P. O. Box 553, Wa, Ghana. bayaasixtus@gmail.com.
Ephraim AblordeppeyDepartment of Building Technology and Estate Management, School of Applied Science and Technology, Wa Polytechnic, Wa, Ghana.
Napoleon Jackson MensahDepartment of Science Laboratory Technology, School of Applied Science and Technology, Wa Polytechnic, Wa, Ghana.
Thomas K KarikariDepartment of Science Laboratory Technology, School of Applied Science and Technology, Wa Polytechnic, Wa, Ghana.
Kwara State Polytechnic · NG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntegrity in academic work is a critical benchmark of every profession. For this reason, special attention should be devoted to addressing academic dishonesty (AD) in higher education to prevent the potential transfer of these practices to the workplace. In order to effectively address AD in Africa, further information about correlates of, and barriers to, the effectiveness of existing AD-controlling measures is needed. In Ghana, little is known about AD from the perspective of students. Here, we present a first report of Ghanaian undergraduate students' self-reported understanding of, and support for, institutional AD regulations, their involvement in specific dishonest behaviours, as well as their motivation factors.

resultsApproximately 92% of respondents said they were aware of institutional regulations on AD. However, only 31% rated their understanding as high. Respondents believed that their lecturers had better understanding of, and support for, these regulations than the students (p < 0.001 and p < 0.0001 respectively). Approximately 40% of respondents had witnessed their colleagues engage in AD before, but the majority (94%) had never reported these acts. The pursuit of good grades, high academic load and pressure to please family and guardians were the leading causes of AD. Cheating during examinations and inappropriately sharing answers in the preparation of assignments were some of the highly-occurring forms of AD. Respondents believed that copying colleagues' work without their permission was a serious offense but doing so with their permission was not.

conclusionOur findings suggest that the sampled students consent to cheating-they believed that they committed no misconduct once the parties involved had agreed on the act. Considering these misconceptions, institutions should do more to help their students better understand the different forms of AD and how to avoid them.

Indexed as

DeceptionSelf ReportUniversitiesAdultFemaleGhanaHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedMotivationPerceptionProfessional MisconductStudentsSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultAcademic dishonestyAfricaCheatingGhanaHigher educationPlagiarismUndergraduate

Identifiers

PMID27112550
PMCPMC4843210
OpenAlexW2345155263

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.