ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences
Perceptions of plagiarism among undergraduate medical students in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Faculty versus students: different perceptions of misconducts at university.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Extent of knowledge and attitudes on plagiarism among undergraduate medical students in South India - a multicentre, cross-sectional study to determine the need for incorporating research ethics in medical undergraduate curriculum.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- Comparison of the effect of training academic honesty using two workshop and virtual training methods on the knowledge and attitude of M. S. students.Journal of education and health promotion · 2021Article
- Self-Reported Academic Misconduct among Medical Students: Perception and Prevalence.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2021Article
- Plagiarism detection and prevention: a primer for researchers.Reumatologia · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWith the rise in the number of published papers in the biomedical field, plagiarism has become a major ethical concern as it has a direct effect on the quality of these papers. The objective of this research was to determine the perceptions of medical students towards plagiarism, the reasons students engage in plagiarism, the types of plagiarism, the consequences of plagiarism, and solutions to the problem of plagiarism.
methodsThis is a cross-sectional study conducted in two medical colleges in Rawalpindi, Pakistan from June to September, 2018, using self-administered structured questionnaires.
resultsOf the 1100 participants, up to 86.91% (n=956) were not aware of the existence of plagiarism, but the majority, i.e. 71.18% (n=783) have plagiarised the work of others before. Copying from colleagues or senior students is the most common type of plagiarism that medical students engage in owing to the ease with which fellow students' work can be shared and copied. However, a lack of institutional awareness of the extent to which plagiarism exists, poor vigilance in detecting it, and the absence of clear policies to deal with plagiarism are mostly to blame.
conclusionPlagiarism is common among medical students in developing countries, and it is necessary to create awareness about the consequences of engaging in this unethical practice both in the academic field and in the larger medical research society, in order to reduce its prevalence.
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.