Undergraduate and Postgraduate Pharmacy Students' Perceptions of Plagiarism and Academic Honesty

Abstract

Objectives. To assess undergraduate and postgraduate pharmacy students' perceptions of plagiarism and academic honesty. Methods. A questionnaire was administered to undergraduate and postgraduate pharmacy students to determine their levels of awareness of university policy concerning academic honesty; attitudes to plagiarism by rating the acceptability of a range of plagiarizing and cheating practices; and choice of appropriate penalties for a first and second occurrence. The choice of behaviors in response to a scenario about the preparation of a reading-based written assignment and the strategies that students would be prepared to use in order to submit the assignment on time were also assessed. Results. Findings indicated widespread deficiencies in student knowledge of, and attitudes towards, plagiarism. Students did not perceive plagiarism as a serious issue and the use of inappropriate strategies for sourcing and acknowledging material was common. Conclusions. The study highlights the importance of achieving a balance among the 3 dimensions of plagiarism management: prevention, detection and penalty.

Improving knowledge, skills, and attitudes of the nursing faculty members and postgraduate students towards plagiarism in academic writing

“…However, the current results were inconsistent with Ryan et al [21] results in Australia who study the knowledge and awareness of students about plagiarism, reported that the awareness level was high while the knowledge level was low.…”

Measuring attitudes toward plagiarism: issues and psychometric solutions

“…That is, if our respondents lacked a clear interpretation of the concept of plagiarism, as a consequence the students (as a group) may have indicated attitudes toward highly divergent activities (e.g., copying full papers; copying taking paragraphs of text word-for-word without proper acknowledgement of the source; copying even a single sentence word-for-word without acknowledging the source; paraphrasing without acknowledgement of the source). If this was the case, arguably better psychometric results of the scale may be attained with a more informed participant sample (such as post-graduate students, who are suggested to be better informed on matters of plagiarism than undergraduates; see Ryan et al, 2009).…”

Academic dishonesty and ethical reasoning: Pharmacy and medical school students in New Zealand

“…It is important to note that a study conducted on medical students found no differences in cheating in connection with either attitude or responses to behavioral scenarios (Rennie & Rudland 2003). It is further interesting that other studies did not factor in possible gender differences in their study design (Bates et al 2005;Harries & Rutter 2005;Ryan et al 2009;Muhney et al 2008). These studies add credence to the idea that more focused research is required in this area.…”

“…To measure self-reported engagement in academic dishonesty, students were asked to respond to 32 items regarding specific behaviors often cited in the literature in the area of academic dishonesty (Anderson & Obenshain 1994;Coverdale & Henning 1998;Howe et al 2000;Aggarwal et al 2002;Harries & Rutter 2005;Marshall & Garry 2005;Muhney et al 2008;Ryan et al 2009). The items were selected and appraised by a research panel of five academics who have an interest in academic dishonesty and the items were then randomly placed within the 32-item questionnaire.…”