Faculty Members’ Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Anti-Plagiarism Detection Tools: Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate predictors of the use of anti-plagiarism detection tools (APTs) in higher education institutions.

Methods

An online survey based on the theory of planned behavior was sent to members of science faculties in Jordan. Multivariate Logistic regression was conducted to determine predictors of previous use of APTs, and multivariate linear regression to predict future intentions.

Results

A total of 173 faculty members completed the survey, with 78.13% indicating previous APTs use. Turnitin® (43%) and Ithenticate® (32.8%) were the most commonly used APTs. These tools were mainly used to evaluate papers before sending them to journals (65.5%) and to detect plagiarism in theses/dissertations (50.4%). Predictors of previous use were academic rank (p = 0.02) and perceived understanding of APT use (p = 0.043). Intentions for future use were predicted by attitudes (p < 0.001) and perceived behavioral control (p = 0.036).

Conclusion

The theory of planned behavior successfully predicted intentions to use APTs. The use of APTs should be encouraged to all faculty members and students.

Keywords

plagiarism plagiarism detection tools academic integrity academic misconduct responsible conduct of research

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adekannbi

J. O.

Megwaonye

E. C.

(2020). Academics’ attitudes to and Use of institutional policy on turnitin plagiarism detection software at Nigeria’s premier university. Journal of Information Science. Systems and Technology, 4(2), 1–19.

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Alrai. (2018). Available at: https://alrai.com/article/10421025 (accessed 7 November 2021).

Al-Thwaib

Hammo

B. H.

Yagi

(2020). An academic arabic corpus for plagiarism detection: design, construction and experimentation. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), SpringerOpen: 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0174-x

Anderson

M. S.

Horn

A. S.

Risbey

, R (2007). What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists’ misbehavior? Findings from a National Survey of NIH-funded scientists. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 82(9), 853–860. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f764c

Arabyat

R. M.

Borrego

Hamidovic

Sleath

Raisch

D. W.

(2019). The impact of a theory-based web-intervention on the intention to use prescription drugs for non-medical purposes among college students: A randomized controlled trial. Health Education Research, 34(2), 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyy047

Armitage

C. J.

Conner

(2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal Of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471–499. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466601164939

Ayon

N. S.

(2017). Students’ and Instructors’ perceptions of turnitin: A plagiarism deterrent? Creative Education, 8(13), 2091. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2017.813141

Baker

J. D.

(2012). The seven Rs of supporting opinion and avoiding plagiarism. AORN Journal, 96(5), 465–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2012.09.001

10.

Baždarić

Bilić-Zulle

Brumini

Petrovečki

(2012). Prevalence of plagiarism in recent submissions to the Croatian medical journal. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(2), 223–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9347-2

11.

Braumoeller

B. F.

Gaines

B. J.

(2001). Actions do speak louder than words: deterring plagiarism with the use of plagiarism-detection software. PS: Political Science & Politics, 34(4), 835–839. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096501000786

12.

Brinkman

(2013). An analysis of student privacy rights in the use of plagiarism detection systems. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(3), 1255–1266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9370-y

13.

Camara

S. K.

Eng-Ziskin

Wimberley

Dabbour

K. S.

Lee

C. M.

(2017). Predicting Students’ intention to plagiarize: An ethical theoretical framework. Journal of Academic Ethics, 15(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-016-9269-3

14.

Chudzicka-Czupała

Grabowski

Mello

A. L.

Kuntz

Zaharia

D. V.

Hapon

Börü

(2016). Application of the theory of planned behavior in academic cheating research–cross-cultural comparison. Ethics & Behavior, 26(8), 638–659. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2015.1112745

15.

Curtis

G. J.

Cowcher

Greene

B. R.

Rundle

Paull

Davis

M. C.

(2018). Self-Control. Injunctive norms, and descriptive norms predict engagement in plagiarism in a theory of planned behavior model. Journal of Academic Ethics, 16(3), 225–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-018-9309-2

16.

Deanship of Research. (2011) Regulations-Academic staff. Available at: https://www.just.edu.jo/Deanships/DeanshipofResearch/Regulations/Forms/AllItems.aspx (accessed 7 November 2021).

17.

Deanship of Scientific Research. (2020). Plagscan. Available at: http://www.gju.edu.jo/content/plagscan-10971 (accessed 7 November 2021).

18.

Definition of Research Misconduct ORI - The Office of Research Integrity. (n.d.). Available at: https://ori.hhs.gov/definition-misconduct (accessed 18 March 2019).

19.

Gasparyan

A. Y.

Nurmashev

Seksenbayev

Trukhachev

V. I.

Kostyukova

E. I.

Kitas

G. D.

(2017). Plagiarism in the context of education and evolving detection strategies. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 32(8), 1220–1227. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2017.32.8.1220

20.

Khathayut

Walker-Gleaves

Humble

(2020). Using the theory of planned behaviour to understand Thai students’ conceptions of plagiarism within their undergraduate programmes in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, Routledge: 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1750584.

21.

Kim

Wise

J.-M.

(2009). Measuring college Students’ perceptions and attitudes toward anti-plagiarism detection tools and their behaviors. Beliefs, and Moral Judgment regarding Plagiarism. In: Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 2009, 256–264.

22.

Liddell

(2003). A comprehensive definition of plagiarism. Community & Junior College Libraries, 11(3), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1300/J107v11n03_07

23.

Memon

A. R.

(2020). Similarity and plagiarism in scholarly journal submissions: bringing clarity to the concept for authors, reviewers and editors. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 35(27), 27. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e217

24.

Mermelstein

R. J.

Revenson

T. A.

(2013). Applying theory across settings, behaviors and populations: translational challenges and opportunities. Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology. American Psychological Association, 32(5), 592–596. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030582

25.

Perkins

Gezgin

U. B.

Roe

(2018). Understanding the relationship between language ability and plagiarism in Non-native English speaking business students. Journal of Academic Ethics, 16(4), 317–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-018-9311-8

26.

Sridharan,

(2020) Think insights - turnitin: company analysis & business model. Available at: https://thinkinsights.net/digital/turnitin-business-model/ (accessed 9 November 2021).

27.

StataCorp. (2013). Stata statistical software: release 13. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP. (n.d.) (Computer Program).

28.

Stone

T. H.

Jawahar

I. M.

Kisamore

J. L.

(2010). Predicting academic misconduct intentions and behavior using the theory of planned behavior and personality. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32(1), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530903539895.

29.

Taber

K. S.

(2018). The use of cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2

30.

Turnitin®. (2021) Turnitin similarity robust plagiarism checker. Available at: https://www.turnitin.com/products/originality (accessed 2 November 2021).

31.

Ursachi

Horodnic

I. A.

Zait

(2015). How reliable are measurement scales? External factors with indirect influence on reliability estimators. Procedia Economics and Finance, 20, 679–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00123-9

32.

van Griethuijsen

R. A. L. F.

van Eijck

M. W.

Haste

den Brok

P. J.

Skinner

N. C.

Mansour

Savran Gencer

BouJaoude

(2015). Global patterns in Students’ views of science and interest in science. Research in Science Education, 45(4), 581–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9438-6

33.

Venkatesh

Davis

F. D.

(2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), INFORMS: 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9438-6.

34.

Yeo-Teh

N. S. L.

Tang

B. L.

(2021). Research ethics courses as a vaccination against a toxic research environment or culture. Research Ethics, 17(1), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016120926686

35.

Zietman

A. L.

(2013). Falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism: The unholy TRinity of scientific writing. International Journal Of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 87(2), 225–227. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.07.0044

36.

Zigmond

M. J.

Fischer

B. A.

(2002). Beyond fabrication and plagiarism: The little murders of everyday science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(2), 229–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-002-0024-3n