ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2018
Students' and supervisors' knowledge and attitudes regarding plagiarism and referencing.
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- "I need to learn how to cite without the website": using think alouds to understand students' struggles with academic referencing.Emerging topics in life sciences · 2025Article
- Do biomedical researchers differ in their perceptions of plagiarism across Europe? Findings from an online survey among leading universities.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Knowledge and Attitude of Saudi Students towards Plagiarism-A Cross-Sectional Survey Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Self-Reported Academic Misconduct among Medical Students: Perception and Prevalence.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReferencing is an integral part of scientific writing and professional research conduct that requires appropriate acknowledgement of others' work and avoidance of plagiarism. University students should understand and apply this as part of their academic development, but for this, it is essential that supervisors also display proper research integrity and support.
methodsThis study used an online educative questionnaire to understand the knowledge and attitudes of students and supervisors at two institutes in Europe and Africa. The results were then used to create discussion around education of students and faculty in workshops and lectures.
resultsOverall, 138 students and 14 supervisors participated: most were Swedish (89) and Kenyan (11). Overall, 98% had heard about plagiarism, and 35% believed it was common. Only 45% had heard about self-plagiarism, and when explained what it was, 44.5% considered it morally wrong. Europeans and North Americans had more knowledge than other nationalities. Most (85%) had received some training on referencing, but there was little consensus about principles, with more than 30% considering it acceptable to cite a reference in a paper they had not read. Discussing these results and the questions in workshops was helpful; it was also clear that there was no consensus among supervisors on what constituted correct behavior.
conclusionsThis survey shows a need for greater consensus on appropriate referencing, and that there is need for more discussions and training on the topic for both students and faculty.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.