Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35669590›Full record

ArticleHigher education2023

Denying the accusation of plagiarism: power relations at play in dictating plagiarism as academic misconduct.

Idhamsyah Eka Putra, Nur Inda Jazilah, Made Syanesti Adishesa, Dhia Al Uyun, Herlambang Perdana Wiratraman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Higher education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Idhamsyah Eka PutraFaculty of Psychology, Persada Indonesia University, Jakarta, Indonesia.ORCID 0000-0001-5371-7273
Nur Inda JazilahIndonesian Caucus for Academic Freedom (KIKA), Surabaya, Indonesia.
Made Syanesti AdishesaFaculty of Psychology, Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Dhia Al UyunFaculty of Law, University of Brawijaya, Malang, Indonesia.
Herlambang Perdana WiratramanFaculty of Law, University of Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In academia, plagiarism is considered detrimental to the advancement of sciences, and the plagiarists can be charged with sanctions. However, the plagiarism cases involving three rectors of universities in Indonesia stand out, as they could defend their stand for not committing academic misconduct despite evidence found. By analyzing the three rectors' cases, the present study aims to answer how power relations take a role in plagiarism discourse in Indonesia, particularly in determining what is considered academic misconduct and what is not. By employing critical discourse analysis, we found that when the accusation of plagiarism appears during rectorial elections, the accused could equivocate that the accusation was meant to undermine them as a political opponent. When the accused plagiarists win the election, they have more power to deny and tackle the accusations of plagiarism. The findings indicate that plagiarism issues can be politicized, in which by those in power it can be used as a tool to undermine their political opponents, whereas the accused plagiarists can claim that the actual problem is personal and not about plagiarism. It is also shown that in the real context, whether something is called plagiarism or not is subject to interpretation by those in power. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10734-022-00875-z.

Indexed as

Academic misconductCultural contextPlagiarismPolitical power

Identifiers

PMID35669590
PMCPMC9143710

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.