plagiarism journal paper

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Indian J Orthop
• v.50(6); Nov-Dec 2016

What is plagiarism and how to avoid it?

Ish kumar dhammi.

Department of Orthopaedics, UCMS and Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, New Delhi, India

Rehan Ul Haq

Writing a manuscript is an art. Any clinician or an academician, has a hidden desire to publish his/her work in an indexed journal. Writing has been made mandatory for promotions in certain departments, so the clinicians are more inclined to publish. Often, we note that we (Indian Journal of Orthopaedics) receive more articles from China, Turkey, and South Korea (abroad) instead of from our own country though the journal is an official publication of Indian Orthopaedic Association. Therefore, we have decided to encourage more and more publications, especially from our own country. For that reason, we have decided to educate our members by publishing an editorial on “How to write a paper?,” which is likely to be published soon. In one of our last editorials, we discussed indexing. In this issue, we will be discussing the plagiarism. In forthcoming issues, we are planning to discuss “Ethics in publication,” How to write Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Referencing, Title, Abstract, and Keywords, and then how to write case report which is acceptable. The editorial team tries to help out our readers, so that their hidden instinct of writing their own work could be made true.

D EFINITION OF P LAGIARISM

Plagiarism is derived from Latin word “ plagiarius ” which means “kidnapper,” who abducts the child. 1 The word plagiarism entered the Oxford English dictionary in 1621. Plagiarism has been defined by the Encyclopedia Britannica as “the act of taking the writings of another person and passing them off as ones own.” 2 It is an act of forgery, piracy, and fraud and is stated to be a serious crime of academia. 3 It is also a violation of copyright laws. Honesty in scientific practice and in publication is necessary. The World Association of Medical Editors 4 (WAME) defines plagiarism as “… the use of others’ published and unpublished ideas or words (or other intellectual property) without attribution or permission and presenting them as new and original rather than derived from an existing source.”

In 1999, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 5 , 6 defined plagiarism as “Plagiarism ranges from the unreferenced use of others’ published and unpublished ideas including research grant applications to submission under new authorship of a complex paper, sometimes in a different language. It may occur at any stage of planning, research, writing or publication; it applies to print and electronic versions.”

F ORMS OF P LAGIARISM

• Verbatim plagiarism: When one submits someone else's words verbatim in his/her own name without even acknowledging him publically. Copy and paste from a published article without referencing is a common form of verbatim plagiarism. Most commonly, it is seen in introduction and discussion part of manuscript 2 , 7
• Mosaic plagiarism: In this type of plagiarism each word is not copied but it involves mixing ones own words in someone else's ideas and opinions. This is copying and pasting in patchy manner 2
• Paraphrasing: If one rewrites any part/paragraph of manuscript in his/her own words it is called paraphrasing. Paraphrasing is a restatement in your own words, of someone else's ideas. Changing a few words of the original sentences does not make it your writing. Just changing words cannot make it the property of borrower; hence, this should be properly referenced. If it is not referenced, it will amount to plagiarism
• Duplicate publication: When an author submits identical or almost identical manuscript (same data, results, and discussion) to two different journals, it is considered as duplicate (redundant) publication. 9 As per COPE guidelines, this is an offense and editor can take an action as per the COPE flowchart
• Augmented publication: If the author adds additional data to his/her previously published work and changes title, modifies aim of the study, and recalculates results, it amounts to augmented publication. Plagiarism detection software usually do not pick it because it is not same by verbatim. This self plagiarism is as such technical plagiarism and is not considered with same strictness as plagiarism. The editor may consider it for publication in the following three situations: If author refers to his/her previous work; if ’methods’ cannot be written in any other form; and if author clearly states that new manuscript contains data from previous publication 10
• Segmented publication: Also called “Salami-Sliced” publication. In this case, two or more papers are derived from the same experimental/research/original work. Salami-sliced papers are difficult to detect and usually are pointed out by reviewers or readers. The decision regarding such manuscript is again on editor's shoulder. The author must be asked to refer to his/her previously published work and explain reasonably the connection of the segmented paper to his/her previously published work
• Text recycling: If the author uses large portions of his/her own already published text in his/her new manuscript, it is called text recycling. It can be detected by plagiarism software. It can be handled as per the COPE guidelines.
• Cyber plagiarism: “Copying or downloading in part or in their entirety articles or research papers and ideas from the internet and not giving proper attribution is unethical and falls in the range of cyber plagiarism” 2
• Image plagiarism: Using an image or video without receiving proper permission or providing appropriate citation is plagiarism. 7 “Images can be tampered on support findings, promote a specific technique over another to strengthen the correctness of poorly visualized findings, remove the defects of an image and to misrepresent an image from what it really is”? 11

H OW TO D ETECT P LAGIARISM ?

It is generally difficult to detect plagiarism, but information technology has made available few websites which can detect/catch plagiarism. Few of them are www.ithentical.com , www.turnitin.com , www.plagiarism.org , etc. 12

Besides this, learned and watchful reviewers and readers can detect it due to his/her familiarity with published material in his/her area of interest.

H OW TO A VOID P LAGIARISM ?

Practice the ethical writing honestly. Keep honesty in all scientific writings. Crediting all the original sources. When you fail to cite your sources or when you cite them inadequately, you commit plagiarism, an offense that is taken extremely seriously in academic world and is a misconduct. Some simple dos and don’ts 5 are outlined in Table 1 .

Dos and don’ts of plagiarism

In the following situation, permission is required to use published work from publisher to avoid plagiarism. 8

• Directly quoting significant portion of a published work. How much text may be used without approaching publisher for permission is not specified. The best approach is whenever in doubt, ask for permission
• Reproducing a table
• Reproducing a figure/image.

H OW TO D EAL W ITH P LAGIARISM

Plagiarism is considered academic dishonesty and breach of ethics. Plagiarism is not in itself a crime but can constitute copyright infringement. 7 In academia, it is a serious ethical offense. Plagiarism is not punished by law but rather by institutions. Professional associations, educational institutions, and publishing companies can pose penalties, suspensions, and even expulsions of authors. 7

As per the COPE guidelines, “If editors suspect misconduct by authors, reviewer's editorial staff or other editors then they have a duty to take action. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers. Editors first see a response from those accused. If the editors are not satisfied with the response, they should ask the employers of the authors, reviewers, or editors or some other appropriate body to investigate and take appropriate action.” 6

If the editor is satisfied that the act of plagiarism has taken place, minimum he should do is “reject” the manuscript if it is in different stage of editorial process and “retract” if it is already published.

To conclude, we must increase awareness about plagiarism and ethical issues among our scientists and authors. We must be honest in our work and should not violate copyright law. There should be serious steps against authors, which should bring disrespect to author and even loss of his academic position.

We will end it by quote of Albert Einstein “Many people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist, they are wrong, it is the character.”

R EFERENCES

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Factors influencing plagiarism in higher education: A comparison of German and Slovene students

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Department of Personnel and Education, Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Maribor, Kranj, Slovenia

Roles Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia; School of Electronic and Information Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Economics and Law, Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences, Frankfurt, Germany

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft

Affiliation Department of Methodology, Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Maribor, Kranj, Slovenia

Roles Formal analysis, Resources, Writing – original draft

Roles Funding acquisition, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

• Eva Jereb, 
• Matjaž Perc, 
• Barbara Lämmlein, 
• Janja Jerebic, 
• Marko Urh, 
• Iztok Podbregar, 
• Polona Šprajc

• Published: August 10, 2018
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202252
• Reader Comments

Over the past decades, plagiarism has been classified as a multi-layer phenomenon of dishonesty that occurs in higher education. A number of research papers have identified a host of factors such as gender, socialisation, efficiency gain, motivation for study, methodological uncertainties or easy access to electronic information via the Internet and new technologies, as reasons driving plagiarism. The paper at hand examines whether such factors are still effective and if there are any differences between German and Slovene students’ factors influencing plagiarism. A quantitative paper-and-pencil survey was carried out in Germany and Slovenia in 2017/2018 academic year, with a sample of 485 students from higher education institutions. The major findings of this research reveal that easy access to information-communication technologies and the Web is the main reason driving plagiarism. In that regard, there are no significant differences between German and Slovene students in terms of personal factors such as gender, motivation for study, and socialisation. In this sense, digitalisation and the Web outrank national borders.

Citation: Jereb E, Perc M, Lämmlein B, Jerebic J, Urh M, Podbregar I, et al. (2018) Factors influencing plagiarism in higher education: A comparison of German and Slovene students. PLoS ONE 13(8): e0202252. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202252

Editor: Andreas Wedrich, Medizinische Universitat Graz, AUSTRIA

Received: May 21, 2018; Accepted: July 6, 2018; Published: August 10, 2018

Copyright: © 2018 Jereb et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: MP was supported by the Slovenian Research Agency (Grant Nos. J1-7009 and P5-0027), http://www.arrs.gov.si/ . The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Many of those who teach in higher education have encountered the phenomenon of plagiarism as a form of dishonesty in the classroom. According to the Oxford English Dictionary online 2017, the term plagiarism is defined as ‘the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own’. Perrin, Larkham and Culwin define plagiarism as the use of an author's words, ideas, reflections and thoughts without proper acknowledgment of the author [ 1 – 3 ]. Koul et al. define plagiarism as a form of cheating and theft since in cases of plagiarism one person takes credit for another person’s intellectual work [ 4 ]. According to Fishman, ‘Plagiarism occurs when someone: 1) uses words, ideas, or work products; 2) attributable to another identifiable person or source; 3) without attributing the work to the source from which it was obtained; 4) in a situation in which there is a legitimate expectation of original authorship; 5) in order to obtain some benefit, credit, or gain which need not be monetary’ [ 5 ]. But why do students use someone else's words or ideas and pass them on as their own? Which factors influence this behaviour? That is the main focus of our research, to discover the factors influencing plagiarism and see if there are any differences between German and Slovene students.

Koul et al. pointed out that particular circumstances or events should be considered in the definition of plagiarism since plagiarism may vary across cultures and societies [ 4 ]. Hall has described Eastern cultures (the Middle East, Asia, Africa, South America) and Western cultures (North America and much of Europe) using the idea of ‘context’, which refers to the framework, background, and surrounding circumstances in which an event takes place [ 6 ]. Western societies are generally ‘low context’ societies. In other words, people in Western societies play by external rules (e.g., honour codes against plagiarism), and decisions are based on logic, facts, and directness. Eastern societies are generally ‘high context’ societies, meaning that people in Eastern societies put strong emphasis on relational concerns, and decisions are based on personal relationships. Nisbett et al. have suggested that differences between Westerners and Easterners may arise from people being socialised into different worldviews, cognitive processes and habits of mind [ 7 ]. In Germany, there has been ongoing reflection on academic plagiarism and other dishonest research practices since the late 19th century [ 8 ]. However, according to Ruiperez and Garcia-Cabrero, in Germany, 2011 became a landmark year with the appearance of an extensive public debate about plagiarism—brought back into the limelight because of an investigation into the incumbent German Defence Minister’s doctoral thesis [ 9 ]. Aside from the numerous cases of plagiarism detected in academic work since 2011, several initiatives have enriched the debate on academic plagiarism. For example, the development of a consolidated cooperative textual research methodology using a specific Wiki called ‘VroniPlag’ has made Germany one of the most advanced European countries in terms of combating these practices. Similar to Germany, Slovenia has also paid increased attention to plagiarism in recent years. The debate about plagiarism became public after it was discovered that certain Slovene politicians had resorted to academic plagiarism. Today, universities in Slovenia use a variety of tools (Turnitin, plagiarism plug-ins for Moodle, plagiarisma.net, etc.) in order to detect plagiarism. The focus of this research is to investigate the factors influencing plagiarism and if there are any differences between Slovene and German students’ factors influencing plagiarising. The research questions (RQ) of the study were divided into three groups:

• RQ group 1: Which factors influence plagiarism in higher education?
• RQ group 2: Are there any differences between male and female students regarding factors influencing plagiarism? Are the factors influencing plagiarism connected with specific areas of study (technical sciences, social sciences, natural sciences)?
• RQ group 3: Does the students’ motivation affect their factors influencing plagiarism? Are there any differences between male and female students regarding this?

In addition, for all three research question groups, we also wanted to know if there were any differences between the German and Slovene students.

Theoretical background

Plagiarism is a highly complex phenomenon and, as such, it is likely that there is no single explanation for why individuals engage in plagiarist behaviours [ 10 ]. The situation is often complex and multi-dimensional, with no simple cause-and-effect link [ 11 ].

McCabe et al. noted that individual factors (e.g. gender, average grade, work ethic, self-esteem), institutional factors (e.g., faculty response to cheating, sanction threats, honour codes) and contextual factors (e.g., peer cheating behaviours, peer disapproval of cheating behaviours, perceived severity of penalties for cheating) influence cheating behaviour [ 12 ]. Giluk and Postlethwaite also related individual characteristics and situational factors to cheating—individual characteristics such as gender, age, ability, personality, and extracurricular involvement; and situational factors such as honour codes, penalties, and risk of detection [ 13 ]. The study of Jereb et al. also revealed that specific individual characteristics pertaining to men and women influence plagiarism [ 14 ]. Newstead et al. suggested that gender differences (plagiarism is more frequent among boys), age differences (plagiarism is more frequent among younger students), and academic performance differences (plagiarism is more frequent among lower performers) are specific factors for plagiarism [ 15 ]. Gerdeman stated that the following five student characteristic variables are frequently related to the incidence of dishonest behaviour: academic achievement, age, social activities, study major, and gender [ 16 ].

One of the factors influencing plagiarism could be that students do not have a clear understanding of what constitutes plagiarism and how it can be avoided [ 17 , 18 ]. According to Hansen, students don’t fully understand what constitutes plagiarism [ 19 ]. Park states genuine lack of understanding as one of the reasons for plagiarism. Some students plagiarise unintentionally, when they are not familiar with proper ways of quoting, paraphrasing, citing and referencing and/or when they are unclear about the meaning of ‘common knowledge’ and the expression ‘in their own words’ [ 11 ].

Furthermore, it is important to remember that, in our current day and age, information is easily accessed through new technologies. In addition, as Koul et al. have stated, the belief that we as people have greater ownership of information than we have paid for may influence attitudes towards plagiarism [ 4 ]. Many other authors have also stated that the Internet has increased the potential for plagiarism, since information is easily accessed through new technologies [ 14 , 20 , 21 , 22 ]. Indeed, the Internet grants easy access to an enormous amount of knowledge and learning materials. This provides an opportunity for students to easily cut, paste, download and plagiarise information [ 21 , 23 ]. Online resources are available 24/7 and enable a flood of information, which is also constantly updated. Given students' ease of access to both digital information and sophisticated digital technologies, several researchers have noted that students may be more likely to ignore academic ethics and to engage in plagiarism than would otherwise be the case [ 24 ].

In a study of the level of plagiarism in higher education, Tayraukham found that students with performance goals were more likely to indulge in plagiarism behaviours than students who wanted to achieve mastery of a particular subject [ 25 ]. Most of the students plagiarised in order to provide the right responses to study questions, with the ultimate goal of getting higher grades—rather than gaining expertise in their subjects of study. Anderman and Midgley observed that a relatively higher performance-oriented classroom climate increases cheating behaviour; while a higher mastery-oriented classroom climate decreases cheating behaviour [ 26 ]. Park also claimed that one of the reasons that students plagiarise is efficiency gain, that is, that students plagiarise in order to get a better grade and save time [ 11 ]. Songsriwittaya et al. stated that what motivates students to plagiarise is the goal of getting good grades and comparing their success with that of their peers [ 27 ]. The study of Ramzan et al. also revealed that the societal and family pressures of getting higher grades influence plagiarism [ 21 ]. Such pressures sometimes push students to indulge in unfair means such as plagiarism as a shortcut to performing better in exams or producing a certain number of publications. Engler et al. and Hard et al. tended to agree with this idea, stating that plagiarism arises out of social norms and peer relationships [ 28 , 29 ]. Park also stated that there are many calls on students’ time, including peer pressure for maintaining an active social life, commitment to college sports and performance activities, family responsibilities, and pressure to complete multiple work assignments in short amounts of time [ 11 ]. Šprajc et al. agreed that students are under an enormous amount of pressure from family, peers, and instructors, to compete for scholarships, admissions, and, of course, places in the job market [ 30 ]. This affects students’ time management and can lead to plagiarism. In addition to time pressures, Franklin-Stokes and Newstead found another six major reasons given by students to explain cheating behaviours: the desire to help a friend, a fear of failure, laziness, extenuating circumstances, the possibility of reaping a monetary reward, and because ‘everybody does it’ [ 31 ].

Another common reason for plagiarism is the poor preparation of lecture notes, which can lead to the inadequate referencing of texts [ 32 ]. Šprajc et al. found out that too many assignments given within a short time frame pushes students to plagiarise [ 30 ]. Poor explanations, bad teaching, and dissatisfaction with course content can also drive students to plagiarise. Park exposed students’ attitudes towards teachers and classes [ 11 ]. Some students cheat because they have negative attitudes towards assignments and tasks that teachers believe to have meaning but that they don’t [ 33 ]. Cheating tends to be more common in classes where the subject matter seems unimportant or uninteresting to students, or where the teacher seemed disinterested or permissive [ 16 ].

Park mentioned students’ academic skills (researching and writing skills, knowing how to cite, etc.) as another reason for plagiarism [ 11 ]. New students and international students whose first language is not English need to transition to the research culture by understanding the necessity of doing research, and the practice and skills required to do so, in order to avoid unintentional plagiarism [ 21 ]. According to Park to some students, plagiarism is a tangible way of showing dissent and expressing a lack of respect for authority [ 11 ]. Some students deny to themselves that they are cheating or find ways of legitimising their behaviour by passing the blame on to others. Other factors influencing plagiarising are temptation and opportunity. It is both easier and more tempting for students to plagiarise since information has become readily accessible with the Internet and Web search tools, making it faster and easier to find information and copy it. In addition, some people believe that since the Internet is free for all and a public domain, copying from the Internet requires no citation or acknowledgement of the source [ 34 ]. To some students, the benefits of plagiarising outweigh the risks, particularly if they think there is little or no chance of getting caught and there is little or no punishment if they are indeed caught [ 35 ].

One of the factors influencing plagiarism could be also higher institutions’ attitudes towards plagiarism, that is, whether they have clear policies regarding plagiarism and its consequences or not. The effective communication of policies, increased student awareness of penalties, and enforcement of these penalties tend to reduce dishonest behaviour [ 36 ]. Ramzan et al. [ 21 ] mentioned the research of Razera et al., who found that Swedish students and teachers need training to understand and avoid plagiarism [ 37 ]. In order to deal with plagiarism, teachers want and need a clear set of policies regarding detection tools, and extensive training in the use of detection software and systems. According to Ramzan et al., Dawson and Overfield determined that students are aware that plagiarism is bad but that they are not clear on what constitutes plagiarism and how to avoid it [ 21 , 38 ]. In Dawson and Overfield’s study, students required teachers to also observe the rules set up to avoid plagiarism and be consistently kept aware of plagiarism—in order to enforce the university’s resolve to control this academic misconduct.

According to this literature review and our experiences in higher education teaching, we determined that the following factors influence plagiarism: students’ individual factors, information-communication technologies (ICT) and the Web, regulation, students’ academic skills, teaching factors, different forms of pressure, student pride, and other reasons. The statements used in the instrument we developed, and the results of our research are presented in the following chapters.

Participants

The paper-and-pencil survey was carried out in the 2017/18 academic year at the University of Maribor in Slovenia and at the Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences in Germany. Students were verbally informed of the nature of the research and invited to freely participate. They were assured of anonymity. The study was approved by the Ethical Committee for Research in Organizational Sciences at Faculty of Organizational Sciences University of Maribor.

A sample of 191 students from Slovenia (SLO) (99 males (51.8%) and 92 (48.2%) females) and 294 students from Germany (GER) (115 males (39.1%) and 171 (58.2%) females) participated in this study. Slovene students’ ages ranged from 19 to 36 years, with a mean of 21 years and 1 months ( M = 21 . 12 and SD = 1 . 770 ) and German students’ ages ranged from 18 to 40 years, with a mean of 22 years and 10 months ( M = 22 . 84 and SD = 3 . 406 ). About half (49.2%) of the Slovene participants were social sciences students, 34.9% were technical sciences students, and 15.9% were natural sciences students. More than half (58.5%) of the German participants were social sciences students, 32% were technical sciences students and 2% were natural sciences students. More than half of the Slovene students (53.4%) attended blended learning, and 46.6% attended classic learning. The majority of German students (87.8%) attended classic learning, and 6.8% attended blended learning. More than half of the Slovene students (61.6%) were working at the time of the study, and 39.8% of all participants had scholarships. In addition, in Germany, more than half the students (65.0%) were working at the time of the study, but only 10.2% of all the German participants had scholarships. More than two thirds (68.9%) of the Slovene students were highly motivated for study and 31.1% less so; 32.6% of the students spend 2 or fewer hours per day on the Internet, 41.6% spend between 2 and 5 hours on the Internet, and 25.8% spend 5 or more hours on the Internet per day. Also, more than two thirds (73.1%) of the German students were highly motivated for study and 23.8% less so; 33.3% of the students spend 2 or fewer hours per day on the Internet, 32.3% spend between 2 and 5 hours on the Internet, and 27.9% spend 5 or more hours on the Internet per day. The general data can be seen in S1 Table .

The questionnaire contained closed questions referring to: (i) general/individual data (gender, age, area of study, method of study, working status, scholarship, motivation for study, average time spent on the internet), and factors influencing plagiarism (ii) ICT and Web, (iii) regulation, (iv) academic skills, (v) teaching factors, (vi) pressure, (vii) pride, (viii) other reasons. The items in the groups (ii) to (viii) used a 5-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5), with larger values indicating stronger orientation.

The statements used in the survey were as follows:

• 1.1 It is easy for me to copy/paste due to contemporary technology
• 1.2 I do not know how to cite electronic information
• 1.3 It is hard for me to keep track of information sources on the web
• 1.4 I can easily access research material using the Internet
• 1.5 Easy access to new technologies
• 1.6 I can easily translate information from other languages
• 1.7 I can easily combine information from multiple sources
• 1.8 It is easy to share documents, information, data
• 2.1 There is no teacher control on plagiarism
• 2.2 There is no faculty regulation against plagiarism
• 2.3 There is no university regulation against plagiarism
• 2.4 There are no penalties
• 2.5 There are no honour codes relating to plagiarism
• 2.6 There are no electronic systems of control
• 2.7 There is no systematic tracking of violators
• 2.8 I will not get caught
• 2.9 I am not aware of penalties
• 2.10 I do not understand the consequences
• 2.11 The penalties are minor
• 2.12 The gains are higher than the losses
• 3.1 I run out of time
• 3.2 I am unable to cope with the workload
• 3.3 I do not know how to cite
• 3.4 I do not know how to find research materials
• 3.5 I do not know how to research
• 3.6 My reading comprehension skills are weak
• 3.7 My writing skills are weak
• 3.8 I sometimes have difficulty expressing my own ideas
• 4.1 The tasks are too difficult
• 4.2 Poor explanation—bad teaching
• 4.3 Too many assignments in a short amount of time
• 4.4 Plagiarism is not explained
• 4.5 I am not satisfied with course content
• 4.6 Teachers do not care
• 4.7 Teachers do not read students' assignments
• 5.1 Family pressure
• 5.2 Peer pressure
• 5.3 Under stress
• 5.4 Faculty pressure
• 5.5 Money pressure
• 5.6 Afraid to fail
• 5.7 Job pressure
• 6.1 I do not want to look stupid in front of peers
• 6.2 I do not want to look stupid in front of my professor
• 6.3 I do not want to embarrass my family
• 6.4 I do not want to embarrass myself
• 6.5 I focus on how my competences will be judged relative to others
• 6.6 I am focused on learning according to self-set standards
• 6.7 I fear asking for help
• 6.8 My fear of performing poorly motivates me to plagiarise
• 6.9 Assigned academic work will not help me personally/professionally
• 7.1 I do not want to work hard
• 7.2 I do not want to learn anything, just pass
• 7.3 My work is not good enough
• 7.4 It is easier to plagiarise than to work
• 7.5 To get a better/higher mark (score)

All statistical tests were performed with SPSS at the significance level of 0.05. Parametric tests (Independent–Samples t-Test and One-Way ANOVA) were selected for normal and near-normal distributions of the responses. Nonparametric tests (Mann-Whitney Test, Kruskal-Wallis Test, Friedman’s ANOVA) were used for significantly non-normal distributions. Chi-Square Test was used to investigate the independence between variables.

The average values for the groups (and standard deviations) of the responses referring to the factors influencing plagiarism can be seen in Table 1 (descriptive statistics for all statements can be seen in S2 Table ), shown separately for Slovene and German students. An Independent Samples t-test was conducted to obtain the average values of the responses, and thus evaluate for which statements these differed significantly between the Slovene and German students.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202252.t001

According to the Friedman’s ANOVA (see Table 2 ), the Slovene students’ factors influencing plagiarism can be formed into four homogeneous subsets, where in each subset, the distributions of the average values for the responses are not significantly different. At the top of the list is the existence of ICT and the Web (group 1). The second subset consists of teaching factors (group 4). The third subset is composed of academic skills, other reasons, and pride, in order from highest to lowest (groups 3, 7 and 6). The fourth subset is composed of other reasons, pride, pressure, and regulation, respectively (groups 7, 6, 5 and 2).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202252.t002

For the Slovene students, ICT and the Web were detected as the dominant factors influencing plagiarism and, as such, we investigated them in greater detail. A Friedman Test ( Chi-Square = 7.180, p = .066) confirmed that the distributions of the responses to the statements 1.1, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.8—those with the highest sample means—are not significantly different. Consequently, the average values (means) of the responses to the statements 1.1, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.8 are not significantly different. The average values of the responses for all the other statements (1.7, 1.6, 1.2, and 1.3 listed in the descending order of sample means) are significantly lower. A Mann-Whitney Test showed that there is no statistically significant difference between the distributions of the responses in the group of ICT and Web reasons considering gender (male, female) and motivation for study (lower, higher). For statement 1.2, a Kruskal-Wallis Test ( Chi-Square = 7.466, p = .024) confirmed that there are different distributions for the responses when the area of study is considered (technical sciences, social sciences, natural sciences).

According to the Friedman’s ANOVA (see Table 3 ), the German students’ factors influencing plagiarism can be formed into five homogeneous subsets, where in each subset, the distributions of the average values for the responses are not significantly different. At the top of the list is the existence of ICT and the Web (group 1). The second subset is composed of pressure and pride, in order from highest to lowest (groups 5 and 6). The third subset consists of pride, teaching factors and other reasons, respectively (groups 6, 4 and 7). The fourth subset is composed of teaching factors, other reasons and academic skills, in order from highest to lowest (groups 4, 7 and 3). Finally, the last subset consists of regulation (group 2).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202252.t003

Just like the Slovene students, for the German students ICT and the Web were detected as the dominant factors influencing plagiarism. That the distributions of the responses to the statements 1.4, 1.5 and 1.8—those with the highest sample means—are not significantly different was confirmed by Friedman Test ( Chi-Square = 5.815, p = .055). Consequently, the average values (means) of the responses to the statements 1.4, 1.5 and 1.8 are not significantly different. The average values of the responses for all the other statements (1.1, 1.7, 1.6, 1.2, and 1.3 listed in the descending order of sample means) are significantly lower. A Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Tests also confirmed that the distributions of the responses to the statements 1.6 and 1.7 are not statistically significantly different ( Z = -0.430, p = .667). The same holds for statements 1.2 and 1.3 ( Z = -0.407, p = .684). A Mann-Whitney Test showed that there is no statistically significant difference between the distributions of the responses in the group of ICT and Web reasons considering gender (male, female), area of study (technical and social sciences (students of natural sciences were omitted due to the small sample size)) and motivation for study.

ICT and Web reasons were detected as the dominant factors influencing plagiarism for Slovene and German students. As can be seen in Table 1 , there are significant differences ( t = 4.177, p = .000 ) between the Slovene and German students regarding this factor. It seems that the Slovene students ( M = 3.69, SD = 0.56) attribute greater importance to the ICT and Web reasons than the German students ( M = 3.47, SD = 0.55). There are also significant differences ( t = 5.137, p = .000 ) between the Slovene and German students regarding regulation. It seems that the Slovene students ( M = 2.35, SD = 0.63) attribute greater importance to regulation reasons than the German students ( M = 2.05, SD = 0.61). Both, however, consider this factor to have the lowest impact on plagiarism overall. There are no significant differences ( t = 1.939, p = .053 ) between the Slovene students ( M = 2.56, SD = 0.67) and the German students ( M = 2.44, SD = 0.68) regarding academic skills. The Slovene students ( M = 2.87, SD = 0.68) attribute greater importance to teaching factors than the German students ( M = 2.56, SD = 0.72). The differences are significant ( t = 4.827, p = .000 ) . There are significant differences ( t = -3.522, p = .000 ) between the Slovene and German students regarding pressure, whereas the German students ( M = 2.71, SD = 0.91) attribute greater importance to this reason than the Slovene students ( M = 2.42, SD = 0.86). The same goes for pride. The German students ( M = 2.67, SD = 0.80) attribute greater importance to pride reasons than the Slovene students ( M = 2.43, SD = 0.84). The differences are significant ( t = -3.032, p = .003 ) . There are no significant differences ( t = - 0.836, p = .404 ) between the Slovene students ( M = 2.47, SD = 0.82) and the German students ( M = 2.54, SD = 0.94) regarding other factors influencing plagiarism.

We conducted an Independent Samples t-test to compare the average time (in hours) spent per day on the Internet by the Slovene students with that of the German students. The test was significant, t = -2.064, p = .004. The Slovene students on average spent less time on the Internet ( M = 3.52, SD = 2.23) than the German students ( M = 4.09, SD = 3.72).

The average values of the responses for individual statements according to gender (male, female) and the significances for the t-test of equality of means are shown in S3 Table for the Slovene students and in S4 Table for the German students. The average values of the responses for these statements are significantly different. They are higher for males than for females (except in the case of statement 3.8 for the Slovene students and 4.1 for the German students). Slovene and German male students think that they will not get caught and that the gains are higher than the losses. Both also think that teachers do not read students’ assignments.

The average values of the responses for individual statements according to area of study (technical sciences, social sciences, natural sciences) and the results for ANOVA for the Slovene students are shown in S5 Table . Gabriel's post hoc test was used to confirm the differences between groups. The significant difference between the students of technical sciences and the students of social sciences was confirmed for all statements listed in S5 Table . There were higher average values of responses for the students of technical sciences. The only significant difference between the students of technical sciences and the students of natural sciences was confirmed for statement 5.6 (there were higher average values of responses for the students of technical sciences). No other pairs of group means were significantly different.

The average values of the responses for individual statements according to area of study (technical sciences, social sciences) and the significances for the t-test of equality of means for German students are shown in S6 Table . For German students, only technical and social sciences were considered because of the low number of natural sciences students. The average values of responses for these statements are significantly different. They were higher for the students of technical sciences than for the students of social sciences.

The average values of the responses for individual statements according to the motivation of the students (lower, higher) and the significances for t-Test of equality of means are shown in S7 Table for the Slovene students and in S8 Table for the German students. The average values of the responses for these statements are significantly different. They were higher for students with lower motivation for both groups of students, except in the case of statements 2.1 and 6.6 for Slovene students.

We conducted an Independent Samples t-test to compare the average time (in hours) spent per day on the Internet by groups of low motivated students with groups of highly motivated students. For Slovene students, the test was not significant, t = -1.423, p = .156. For German students, the test was significant, t = 2.298, p = .024. Students with lower motivation for study ( M = 5.24, SD = 4.84) on average spent more time on the Internet than those with higher motivation for study ( M = 3.76, SD = 3.27).

The Chi-Square Test of Independence was used to determine whether there is an association between gender (male, female) and motivation for study (lower, higher). There was a significant association between gender and motivation for the Slovene students ( Chi-Square = 4.499, p = .034). Indeed, it was more likely for females to have a high motivation for study (76.9%) than for males to have a high motivation for study (61.6%). For the German students, the test was not significant ( Chi-Square = 0.731, p = .393).

In this study, we aimed to explore factors that influence students’ factors influencing plagiarism. An international comparison between German and Slovene students was made. Our research draws on students from two universities from the two considered countries that cover all traditional subjects of study. In this regard the conclusions are representative and statistically relevant, although we of course cannot exclude the possibility of small deviations if other or more institutions would be considered. Taken as a whole, there are no major differences between German and Slovene students when it comes to motivation for study and working habits. In both cases, more than two thirds of the students were highly motivated for study and more than 60% were working during their time of study. About 33% of the surveyed students spend on average two or less hours a day on the Internet, and about one quarter spend on average more than five hours a day on the Internet.

When it comes to explaining plagiarism in higher education, the German and Slovene students equally indicated the ease-of-use of information-communication technologies and the Web as the top one cause for their behaviour. Which does not lag behind other notions of current contributions to the topic of plagiarism in the world. Indeed, our findings reinforce the notion that new technologies and the Web have a strong influence on students and are the main driver behind plagiarism [ 20 , 21 , 22 ]. An academic moral panic has been caused by the arrival in higher education of a new generation of younger students [ 39 ], deemed to be ‘digital natives’ [ 40 ] and allegedly endowed with an inherent ability for using information-communication technologies (ICT). This younger generation is dubbed ‘Generation Me’ [ 41 ], and it is believed that their expectations, interactions and learning processes have been affected by ICT. Introna, et al., Ma et al., and Yeo, agree that the understanding of the concept of plagiarism through the use of ICT is the main contributor to it being a problem [ 42 , 43 , 44 ]. The effortless use of ICT such as the Internet has made it easy for students to retrieve information with a simple click of the mouse [ 45 , 46 ].

The Slovene students in our study nominated the teaching factor as the second most important reason for plagiarism. This result is also found in other studies, namely those of Šprajc et al. [ 30 ] and Barnas [ 47 ]. Young people in Slovenia are, like in other Western societies, given a prolonged period of identity exploration and self-focus, i.e., freedom from institutional demands and obligations, competence, and freedom to decide for themselves [ 48 , 49 ]. The results of the German students however, contradict this finding that teaching factors are one of the most important factors influencing plagiarism. Indeed, the top two factors influencing plagiarism for the German students are actually pressure and pride—and not teaching factors. Overall though, the findings for both the German students and the Slovene students are in line with e.g. Koul et al., who suggest that factors influencing plagiarism may vary across cultures [ 4 ]. Among German students, the pressure and pride in the second and third places in terms of importance are mostly reflected, which does not lag behind the mention of the author Rothenberg stated that in Germany today ‘pride could be expressed for individual accomplishments’ [ 50 ]. As far as the Slovene students are concerned, the authors Kondrič et al. presumed that there is a specific set of values in Slovenia, which perhaps intensify the distinction between the collectivist culture of former socialist countries and the individualism of Western countries [ 51 ]. This might shed light on why the Slovene students consider teaching factors as being one of the most important factors influencing plagiarism.

Furthermore, several studies have implied that individual characteristics, especially gender, play an important role when it comes to plagiarism [ 12 , 13 , 15 , 16 ]. A number of studies from around the world have shown that men more frequently plagiarise than women do. For example, Reviews of North American’s research into conventional plagiarism has indicated that male students cheat more often than female students [ 12 ]. The results we found are basically in line with these findings. Since the average values of responses are significantly different for male and female students, gender seems to play an important role in terms of plagiarism.

Park pointed out that one reason for plagiarism is efficiency gain [ 11 ]. About 15 years after this statement, the study at hand is empirical evidence that efficiency gain due to different forms of pressure is still a factor that influences students’ behaviour in terms of plagiarism. Lack of knowledge and uncertainties about methodologies are additional factors that are frequently recognized as reasons for plagiarism [ 11 , 17 , 18 ]. The results at hand support these studies since the responses about e.g. academic skills demonstrate students’ lack of knowledge.

Another interesting finding of our study shows that students with a lower motivation for study spend more time on the Internet, which complements our finding that the Internet is one of the simplest solutions for studying. The German students showed a somewhat higher level of motivation to study than the Slovene students, but the difference is not statistically significant.

We would nevertheless like to draw attention to the perceived difference, which refers to the perception of the factors influencing the plagiarism of the teacher factors and academic skills (Slovene students) and pride and pressure (German students). The perceived difference between students is one of the social dimensions that represents a tool to promote true motivation for study and proper orientation without ethically disputable solutions (such as plagiarism). In all this, it makes sense to direct students and educate them from the beginning of education together with information technology, while also builds responsible individuals who will not take technology and the Internet as a negative tool for studying and succeeding, but to help them to solve and make decisions in the right way. The main aim of this research into Slovene and German students was to increase understanding of students’ attitudes towards plagiarism and, above all, to identify the reasons that lead students to plagiarise. On this basis, we want to expose the way of non-plagiarism promotion to be developed in a way that will be more acceptable and more understandable in each country and adequately controlled on a personal and institutional level.

Conclusions

In contrast to a number of preliminary studies, the major findings of this research paper indicate that new technologies and the Web have a strong and significant influence on plagiarism, whereas in this specific context gender and socialisation factors do not play a significant role. Since the majority of the students in our study believe that new technologies and the Web have a strong influence on plagiarism, we can assume that technological progress and globalisation has started breaking down national frontiers and crossing cultural boundaries. These findings have also created the impression that at universities the gender gap is not predominant in all areas as it might be in society.

Nevertheless, some minor results in our study indicate that there are still some differences between Slovene and German students. For example, it seems like in Slovenia, teaching factors have a greater influence on plagiarism than in Germany. Indeed, in Germany, the focus should rest on the implementation and publication of a code of ethics, and on training students to deal with pressure.

This research focuses on only two countries, Slovenia and Germany. Thus, the findings at hand are not necessarily generalizable, though they do manifest a certain trend in terms of the reasons why students resort to plagiarism. Furthermore, the results could be a starting point for additional comparative studies between different European regions. In particular, further research into the influence of digitalization and the Web on plagiarism, and the role of socialisation and gender factors on plagiarism, could contribute to the discourse on plagiarism in higher education institutions.

Understanding the reasons behind plagiarism and fostering awareness of the issue among students might help prevent future academic misconduct through increased support and guidance during students’ time studying at the university. In this sense, further reflection on preventive measures is required. Indeed, rather than focusing on the detection of plagiarism, focusing on preventive measures could have a positive effect on good scientific practice in the near future.

Supporting information

S1 table. frequency distributions of the study variables..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202252.s001

S2 Table. Descriptive statistics for items referring to the factors influencing plagiarism, by nationality and results of the t-Test.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202252.s002

S3 Table. Descriptive statistics for items referring to the factors influencing plagiarism, by gender and results of the t-Test (SLO).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202252.s003

S4 Table. Descriptive statistics for items referring to the factors influencing plagiarism, by gender and results of the t-Test (GER).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202252.s004

S5 Table. Descriptive statistics for items referring to the factors influencing plagiarism, by area of study and results of the One-Way ANOVA (SLO).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202252.s005

S6 Table. Descriptive statistics for items referring to the factors influencing plagiarism, by study area and results of the t-Test (GER).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202252.s006

S7 Table. Descriptive statistics for items referring to the factors influencing plagiarism, by motivation and results of the t-Test (SLO).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202252.s007

S8 Table. Descriptive statistics for items referring to the factors influencing plagiarism, by motivation and results of the t-Test (GER).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202252.s008

S1 File. Individual data.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202252.s009

• 1. Perrin R. Pocket guide to APA style. 3 rd ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth; 2009.
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 5. Fishman T. We Know it When We See it is not Good Enough: Toward a Standard Definition of Plagiarism that Transcends Theft, Fraud, and Copyright. Paper presented at the 4th Asia Pacific Conference on Educational Integrity, NSW, Australia. 2009. Available from: http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/09-4apcei/4apcei-Fishman.pdf
• 6. Hall TE. Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Books; 1979.
• PubMed/NCBI
• 8. Schwinges RC. (Ed.). Examen, Titel, Promotionen. Akademisches und Staatliches Qualifikationswesen vom 13. bis zum 21. Jahrhundert [Examinations, Titles, Doctorates, Academic and Government Qualifications from the 13th to the 21th Century]. Basilea: Schwabe; 2007. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199694-044.003.0009
• 16. Gerdeman RD. Academic dishonesty and the community college, ERIC Digest, ED447840; 2000. Available from: https://www.ericdigests.org/2001-3/college.htm
• 27. Songsriwittaya A, Kongsuwan S, Jitgarum K, Kaewkuekool S, Koul R. Engineering Students' Attitude towards Plagiarism a Survey Study. Korea: ICEE & ICEER; 2009.
• 37. Razera D, Verhage H, Pargman TC, Ramberg R. Plagiarism awareness, perception, and attitudes among students and teachers in Swedish higher education-a case study. Paper Presented at the 4th International Plagiarism Conference-Towards an authentic future. Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK. 2010. Available from http://www.plagiarismadvice.org/researchpapers/item/plagiarism-awareness
• 39. Bennett S, Maton K. Intellectual field or faith-based religion: moving on from the idea of ‘digital natives’. In Thomas M, editor. Deconstructing digital natives. London: Routledge; 2011. pp. 169–185.
• 40. Prensky M. Digital wisdom and homo sapiens digital. In Thomas M, editor. Deconstructing digital natives. London: Routledge; 2011. pp. 15–29.
• 42. Introna L, Hayes N, Blair L, Wood E. Cultural attitudes towards plagiarism. Lancaster: University of Lancaster; 2003.
• 48. Puklek-Levpušček M, Zupančič M. Slovenia. In Arnett JJ, editor. International encyclopedia on adolescence. New York: Routledge; 2007. pp. 866–877. 10.1007/s10734-011-9481-4 .
• 49. Zupančič M. Razvojno obdobje prehoda v odraslost—temeljne značilnosti. [Developmental period of transition to adulthood—basic characteristics]. In Puklek-Levpušček M, Zupančič M, editors. Študenti na prehodu v odraslost [Students in transition to adulthood]. Ljubljana: Znanstveno raziskovalni inštitut Filozofske fakultete; 2011. pp. 9–38.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free plagiarism check.

• Knowledge Base

How to Avoid Plagiarism | Tips on Citing Sources

Published on October 10, 2021 by Tegan George . Revised on November 21, 2023.

Plagiarism means using someone else’s words or ideas without properly crediting the original author. Sometimes plagiarism involves deliberately stealing someone’s work, but more often it happens accidentally, through carelessness or forgetfulness.When you write an academic paper, you build upon the work of others and use various credible sources for information and evidence. To avoid plagiarism, you need to correctly incorporate these sources into your text.

You can avoid plagiarism by :

• Keeping track of the sources you consult in your research
• Paraphrasing or quoting from your sources (by using a paraphrasing tool and adding your own ideas)
• Crediting the original author in an in-text citation and in your reference list
• Using a plagiarism checker before you submit
• Use generative AI tools responsibly (outputs may be detected by an   AI detector )

Even accidental plagiarism can have serious consequences , so take care with how you integrate sources into your writing.

Table of contents

Keeping track of your sources, avoiding plagiarism when quoting, avoiding plagiarism when paraphrasing, citing your sources correctly, using a plagiarism checker, using ai tools responsibly, checklist: plagiarism prevention, free lecture slides, frequently asked questions.

One of the most common ways that students commit plagiarism is by simply forgetting where an idea came from and unintentionally presenting it as their own. You can easily avoid this pitfall by keeping your notes organized and compiling a list of citations as you go.

Clearly label which thoughts are yours and which aren’t in your notes, highlight statements that need citations, and carefully mark any text copied directly from a source with quotation marks.

In the example below, red indicates a claim that requires a source, blue indicates information paraphrased or summarized from a source, and green indicates a direct quotation.

Notes for my paper on global warming

• Greenhouse gas emissions trap heat and raise global temperatures [cite details]
• Causes more severe weather: hurricanes, fires, water scarcity [cite examples]
• Animal habitats across the world are under threat from climate change [cite examples]
• Just this year, 23 species have been declared extinct (BBC News 2021)
• “Animals are changing shape… some are growing bigger wings, some are sprouting longer ears and others are growing larger bills” in order to cool off (Zeldovich 2021)

Managing sources with the Scribbr Citation Generator

To make your life easier later, make sure to write down the full details of every source you consult. That includes not only books and journal articles, but also things like websites, magazine articles, and videos. This makes it easy to go back and check where you found a phrase, fact, or idea that you want to use in your paper.

Scribbr’s Citation Generator allows you to start building and managing your reference list as you go, saving time later. When you’re ready to submit, simply download your reference list!

Generate accurate citations with Scribbr

Prevent plagiarism. run a free check..

Quoting means copying a piece of text word for word. The copied text must be introduced in your own words, enclosed in quotation marks , and correctly attributed to the original author.

In general, quote sparingly. Quotes are appropriate when:

• You’re using an exact definition, introduced by the original author
• It is impossible for you to rephrase the original text without losing its meaning
• You’re analyzing the use of language in the original text
• You want to maintain the authority and style of the author’s words

Long quotations should be formatted as block quotes . But for longer blocks of text, it’s usually better to paraphrase instead.

Paraphrasing means using your own words to explain something from a source.

Paraphrasing does not mean just switching out a few words from a copy-pasted text. To paraphrase properly, you should rewrite the author’s point in your own words to show that you have fully understood it.

Every time you quote or paraphrase, you must include an in-text or footnote citation clearly identifying the original author. Each citation must correspond to a full reference in the reference list or bibliography at the end of your paper.

This acknowledges the source of your information, avoiding plagiarism, and it helps your readers locate the source for themselves if they would like to learn more.

There are many different citation styles, each with its own rules. A few common styles are APA , MLA , and Chicago . Your instructor may assign a particular style for you to use, or you may be able to choose. The most important thing is to apply one style consistently throughout the text.

The examples below follow APA Style.

Citing a single source

Citing multiple sources.

If you quote multiple sources in one sentence, make sure to cite them separately so that it’s clear which material came from which source.

To create correctly formatted source citations, you can use our free Citation Generator.

APA Citation Generator MLA Citation Generator

And if you’re citing in APA Style, consider using Scribbr’s Citation Checker , a unique tool that scans your citations for errors. It can detect inconsistencies between your in-text citations and your reference list, as well as making sure your citations are flawlessly formatted.

Most universities use plagiarism checkers like Turnitin to detect potential plagiarism. Here’s how plagiarism checkers work : they scan your document, compare it to a database of webpages and publications, and highlight passages that appear similar to other texts.

Consider using a plagiarism checker yourself before submitting your paper. This allows you to identify issues that could constitute accidental plagiarism, such as:

• Forgotten or misplaced citations
• Missing quotation marks
• Paraphrased material that’s too similar to the original text

Then you can easily fix any instances of potential plagiarism.

There are differences in accuracy and safety between plagiarism checkers. To help students choose, we conducted extensive research comparing the best plagiarism checkers .

Generative AI tools like ChatGPT can be helpful at different stages of the writing and research process. However, these tools can also be used to plagiarize in various ways (whether intentionally or unintentionally). When using these tools, it’s important to avoid the following:

• AI-assisted plagiarism:   Passing off AI-generated text as your own work (e.g., research papers, homework assignments)
• Plagiarism :   Using the tool to paraphrase content from another source and passing it off as original work
• Self-plagiarism :   Using the tool to rewrite a paper you previously submitted

It’s important to use AI tools responsibly and to be aware that AI-generated outputs may be detected by your university’s AI detector .

When using someone else’s exact words, I have properly formatted them as a quote .

When using someone else’s ideas, I have properly paraphrased , expressing the idea completely in my own words.

I have included an in-text citation every time I use words, ideas, or information from a source.

Every source I cited is included in my reference list or bibliography .

I have consistently followed the rules of my required citation style .

I have not committed self-plagiarism by reusing any part of a previous paper.

I have used a reliable plagiarism checker as a final check.

Your document should be free from plagiarism!

Are you a teacher or professor who would like to educate your students about plagiarism? You can download our free lecture slides, available for Google Slides and Microsoft PowerPoint.

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

Accidental plagiarism is one of the most common examples of plagiarism . Perhaps you forgot to cite a source, or paraphrased something a bit too closely. Maybe you can’t remember where you got an idea from, and aren’t totally sure if it’s original or not.

These all count as plagiarism, even though you didn’t do it on purpose. When in doubt, make sure you’re citing your sources . Also consider running your work through a plagiarism checker tool prior to submission, which work by using advanced database software to scan for matches between your text and existing texts.

Scribbr’s Plagiarism Checker takes less than 10 minutes and can help you turn in your paper with confidence.

To avoid plagiarism when summarizing an article or other source, follow these two rules:

• Write the summary entirely in your own words by paraphrasing the author’s ideas.
• Cite the source with an in-text citation and a full reference so your reader can easily find the original text.

Plagiarism can be detected by your professor or readers if the tone, formatting, or style of your text is different in different parts of your paper, or if they’re familiar with the plagiarized source.

Many universities also use plagiarism detection software like Turnitin’s, which compares your text to a large database of other sources, flagging any similarities that come up.

It can be easier than you think to commit plagiarism by accident. Consider using a plagiarism checker prior to submitting your paper to ensure you haven’t missed any citations.

Some examples of plagiarism include:

• Copying and pasting a Wikipedia article into the body of an assignment
• Quoting a source without including a citation
• Not paraphrasing a source properly, such as maintaining wording too close to the original
• Forgetting to cite the source of an idea

The most surefire way to avoid plagiarism is to always cite your sources . When in doubt, cite!

If you’re concerned about plagiarism, consider running your work through a plagiarism checker tool prior to submission. Scribbr’s Plagiarism Checker takes less than 10 minutes and can help you turn in your paper with confidence.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

George, T. (2023, November 21). How to Avoid Plagiarism | Tips on Citing Sources. Scribbr. Retrieved April 8, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/plagiarism/how-to-avoid-plagiarism/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, consequences of mild, moderate & severe plagiarism, types of plagiarism and how to recognize them, what is self-plagiarism | definition & how to avoid it, what is your plagiarism score.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts

Plagiarism and duplicate publication

On this page, plagiarism and fabrication, due credit for others' work, nature portfolio journals' policy on duplicate publication, nature portfolio journals' editorials.

Plagiarism is unacknowledged copying or an attempt to misattribute original authorship, whether of ideas, text or results. As defined by the ORI (Office of Research Integrity), plagiarism can include, "theft or misappropriation of intellectual property and the substantial unattributed textual copying of another's work". Plagiarism can be said to have clearly occurred when large chunks of text have been cut-and-pasted without appropriate and unambiguous attribution. Such manuscripts would not be considered for publication in a Nature Portfolio journal. Aside from wholesale verbatim reuse of text, due care must be taken to ensure appropriate attribution and citation when paraphrasing and summarising the work of others. "Text recycling" or reuse of parts of text from an author's previous research publication is a form of self-plagiarism. Here too, due caution must be exercised. When reusing text, whether from the author's own publication or that of others, appropriate attribution and citation is necessary to avoid creating a misleading perception of unique contribution for the reader.

Duplicate (or redundant) publication occurs when an author reuses substantial parts of their own published work without providing the appropriate references. This can range from publishing an identical paper in multiple journals, to only adding a small amount of new data to a previously published paper.

Nature Portfolio journal editors assess all such cases on their individual merits. When plagiarism becomes evident post-publication, we may correct,retract or otherwise amend the original publication depending on the degree of plagiarism, context within the published article and its impact on the overall integrity of the published study. Nature Portfolio is part of Similarity Check , a service that uses software tools to screen submitted manuscripts for text overlap. 

Top of page ⤴

Discussion of unpublished work

Manuscripts are sent out for review on the condition that any unpublished data cited within are properly credited and the appropriate permission has been attained. Where licenced data are cited, authors must include at submission a written assurance that they are complying with originators' data-licencing agreements.

Discussion of published work

When discussing the published work of others, authors must properly describe the contribution of the earlier work. Both intellectual contributions and technical developments must be acknowledged as such and appropriately cited.

Material submitted to a Nature Portfolio journal must be original and not published or concurrently submitted for publication elsewhere. 

Authors submitting a contribution to a Nature Portfolio journal who have related material under consideration or in press elsewhere should upload a clearly marked copy at the time of submission, and draw the editors' attention to it in their cover letter. Authors must disclose any such information while their contributions are under consideration by a Nature Portfolio journal - for example, if they submit a related manuscript elsewhere that was not written at the time of the original Nature Portfolio journal submission.

If part of a contribution that an author wishes to submit to a Nature Portfolio journal has appeared or will appear elsewhere, the author must specify the details in the covering letter accompanying the Nature Portfolio submission. Consideration by the Nature Portfolio journal is possible if the main result, conclusion, or implications are not apparent from the other work, or if there are other factors, for example if the other work is published in a language other than English.

Nature Portfolio will consider submissions containing material that has previously formed part of a PhD or other academic thesis which has been published according to the requirements of the institution awarding the qualification.

The Nature Portfolio journals support prior publication on recognized community preprint servers for review by other scientists in the field before formal submission to a journal. More information about our policies on preprints can be found here .

Nature Portfolio journals allow publication of meeting abstracts before the full contribution is submitted. Such abstracts should be included with the Nature Portfolio journal submission and referred to in the cover letter accompanying the manuscript.

In case of any doubt, authors should seek advice from the editor handling their contribution.

If an author of a submission is re-using a figure or figures published elsewhere, or that is copyrighted, the author must provide documentation that the previous publisher or copyright holder has given permission for the figure to be re-published. The Nature Portfolio journal editors consider all material in good faith that their journals have full permission to publish every part of the submitted material, including illustrations.

• There are tools to detect non-originality in articles, but instilling ethical norms remains essential. Nature . Plagiarism pinioned, 7 July 2010.
• Scientific plagiarism—a problem as serious as fraud—has not received all the attention it deserves. Nature Medicine . The insider’s guide to plagiarism , July 2009.
• Tackling plagiarism is becoming an easier fight. Nature Physics. The truth will out , July 2009.
• Accountability of coauthors for scientific misconduct, guest authorship and deliberate or negligent citation plagiarism, highlight the need for accurate author contribution statements. Nature Photonics. Combating plagiarism , May 2009.
• Plagiarism is on the rise, thanks to the Internet. Universities and journals need to take action. Nature . Clamp down on copycats , 3 November 2005.

Fraud and replication

• When it comes to research misconduct, burying one's head in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist is the worst possible plan. Nature Chemistry. They did a bad bad thing, May 2011.
• Commit to promoting best practice in research and education in research ethics. Nature Cell Biology . Combating scientific misconduct, January 2011.
• Scientific misconduct may be more prevalent than most researchers would like to admit. The solution needs to be wide-ranging yet nuanced. Nature . Solutions, not scapegoats, 19 June 2008.
• Related Commentary by S. Titus et al. in the same issue of Nature: Repairing research integrity .
• The use of electronic laboratory notebooks should be supported by all concerned. Nature . Share your lab notes, 3 May 2007.
• Record-keeping in the lab has stayed unchanged for hundreds of years, but today's experiments are putting huge pressure on the old ways. Nature News Feature. Electronic notebooks: a new leaf, 7 July 2005.
• The true extent of plagiarism is unknown, but rising cases of suspect submissions are forcing editors to take action. Nature special report. Taking on the cheats , 19 May 2005.

Duplicate publication

• Clarifying journal policies on overlapping or concurrent submissions and embargo. Nature Neuroscience . Navigating issues of related submission and embargo, July 2014.
• Duplicate publication dilutes science. Nature Photonics. Quality over quantity , September 2011.
• On fragmenting one coherent body of research into as many publications as possible. Nature Materials . The cost of salami slicing , January 2005.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Original article
• Open access
• Published: 07 January 2021

Plagiarism in articles published in journals indexed in the Scientific Periodicals Electronic Library (SPELL): a comparative analysis between 2013 and 2018

• Marcelo Krokoscz   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6869-864X 1  

International Journal for Educational Integrity volume  17 , Article number:  1 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

30k Accesses

6 Citations

7 Altmetric

Metrics details

This study analyzes the possible occurrence of plagiarism and self-plagiarism in a sample of articles published in the Scientific Periodicals Electronic Library (SPELL), an open database that indexes business journals in Brazil. The author compared one sample obtained in 2013 ( n  = 47 articles) and another selected from 2018 ( n  = 118 articles). In both samples, we verified the guidelines that each of the journals provided to authors regarding plagiarism and the adoption of software to detect textual similarities. In the analysis conducted in 2013, it was found that only one journal (2%) mentioned the word “plagiarism” in its policies, although the majority of the directives required guarantees that no type of violation of authors’ rights was contained in the manuscript. In the analysis conducted in 2013, it was determined that there were literal reproductions in 31 published articles (65.9%), and no relevant similarities with other publications were encountered in 16 articles (34.1%). In the 2018 analysis, 69 of the publications (58%) included observations and guidelines related to plagiarism and self-plagiarism. In the analysis conducted in 2018, it was found that similarities (plagiarism and self-plagiarism) occurred in 52 articles (44%), and no relevant evidence of plagiarism or self-plagiarism was found in 66 (56%) manuscripts. Although a reduction in the index of the occurrence of plagiarism was observed, as was an increase in the instructions on the prevention of plagiarism by authors, practices directed at guiding authors by means of directives concerning the importance of preventing plagiarism in manuscripts submitted for publication can be recommended.

Introduction

It has been reported in the literature that studies marred by a lack of scientific integrity due to scientific misconduct such as plagiarism or redundant publication (self-plagiarism) and works containing gift or ghost authorship are a recurring problem, which has intensified as of late (Amos 2014 ; Associação Nacional de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração (ANPAD) 2017 ; Committee On Publication Ethics (COPE) 2011 ; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) 2011 ; Council of Science Editors (CSE) 2018 ; Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) 2011 ; Koocher and Keith-Spiegel 2010 ; Van Nordeen 2011 ).

In January, 2011, the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Graduates - CAPES) Footnote 1 recommended that all Brazilian institutions of higher education create “policies of awareness and information concerning intellectual property, adopting specific procedures seeking to limit the practice of plagiarism in the preparation of theses, monographs, articles and other texts on the part of students and other members of their communities” (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior 2011 ). In the same year, the main of research support agencies in Brazil presented policies aimed at restraining the occurrence of fraud and misconduct in scientific publications, citing the fabrication or invention of data, the falsification of results, and authorship fraud (plagiarism) among the types of fraud and misconduct (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico Tecnológico 2011 ; Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo 2011 ).

These measures were aligned with those which institutions of higher education around the world were practicing and were in conformity with the codes of research integrity of international organizations, such as the following: the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ( 2005 ), the Australian government ( 2007 ), and the Research Councils UK ( 2017 ). International entities, including CSE beginning in 1957 and COPE since 1997, have given support to science editors with the goal of creating and implementing a culture of ethics and good practices in scientific research activities.

In Brazil, the Associação Nacional de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração - ANPAD (National Association of Research and Graduate Studies and Research in Administration) had its manual “Boas Práticas da Publicação Científica: um manual para autores, revisores, editores e integrantes de corpos editoriais” (Good Practices in Scientific Publishing: a manual for authors, reviewers, editors and members of editorial committees) approved during the II Fórum de Editores Científicos de Administração e Contabilidade (II Forum of Scientific Editors in Administration and Accounting), held in 2010. In addition, in 2011, the Associação Brasileira dos Editores Científicos - ABEC (Brazilian Association of Scientific Editors - ABEC) held the Encontro Nacional de Editores Científicos (National Meeting of Scientific Editors), with the theme “Integrity and Ethics in Scientific Publishing”. Among its objectives, the association sought “to develop and refine the publication of technical-scientific periodicals and refine the communication and dissemination of information”. In February 2015, ABEC signed an agreement with iThenticate®, a software for detecting plagiarism in articles submitted to periodicals for publication, enabling the employment of this tool by its members. In 2017, ABEC, in partnership with CSE, published the “Diretrizes do CSE para Promover Integridade em Publicações em Periódicos Científicos” (Policies of the CSE for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journals) in Portuguese.

All these organizations agree that misconduct in scientific research manifests itself fundamentally via three practices condemned by researchers: fabricating research data; falsifying results; and authorship fraud, that is, the undue appropriation of another author’s content without the due attribution of credit. Furthermore, condemnable practices such as redundancy in publications (self-plagiarism) are considered in the same category as the sloppy handling of research subjects or piracy.

Focusing more closely on the object of this study, plagiarism can be defined as “signing or otherwise presenting oneself as the author of an artistic or scholarly work belonging to another person. To imitate someone else’s work” (Ferreira 1986 , p. 249). According to Brazil’s law concerning the rights of an author (Law, 9610/98), the practice, which is considered forgery, is characterized as the unauthorized reproduction of a work, meriting the penalties outlined in Article 184 of the Penal Code. However, in the Brazilian academic environment, the problem is understood to be academic misconduct or dishonest intellectual practice, which can manifest itself through self-plagiarism or the purchase of academic works produced by others. These modalities of the occurrence of plagiarism are extrapolated from the juridical notion related to plagiarism by not including the characteristic of using someone else’s work in an incorrect manner. Self-plagiarism, for instance, is not addressed by the law because it is a situation in which authors themselves reuse their own works; i.e., there is no offense in relation to others’ rights. Therefore, it falls beyond legal issues and is essentially considered essentially an ethical problem since a redundant publication (self-plagiarism) “disrupts scientific publishing by over-emphasizing results, increasing journal publication costs, and artificially inflating journal impact, among other consequences” (Eaton and Crossman 2018 ).

Table  1 presents the most common types of plagiarism in the international academic context according to the literature and the practices in some teaching institutions. It is interesting that types 1 and 3 describe some forms of plagiarism that can be considered misappropriation a legislative standpoint. However, types 4 and 7 are kinds of plagiarism that do not harm authorship rights but are considered scientific misconduct and, consequently, ethically unacceptable practices.

Despite the increasing interest in academic plagiarism on the part of institutions involved in teaching and research, the subject can still be considered to have arisen relatively recent in Brazil, and little original work on the topic has been produced; however, it is currently being increasingly studied in the academic community (Demo 2011 ; Krokoscz 2011 ; 2012a , b ). For example, in a search for the keywords “plagiarism” and “plagio” Footnote 2 in the SPELL platform, among 48 thousand documents, only two publications on the topic were found: Veludo-de-Oliveira et al. ( 2014 ) and Costa et al. ( 2017 ). Nevertheless, beyond these, through other platforms, Brazilian discussions related to business plagiarism can also be found in Andrade ( 2011 ), Barbastefano and Souza ( 2007 ), Barros and Duque ( 2015 ); Fachini and Domingues ( 2008 ), Innarelli ( 2011 ), Valente et al. ( 2010 ), Neumann ( 2018 ), Silva and Domingues ( 2008 ), and Tomazelli ( 2011 ).

In summary, although these studies contribute to deepening the subject, have been only incipient discussions over the last 8 years. Nevertheless, in an article published in the Revista da Associação dos Docentes da USP (Journal of the Association of Professors of the University of São Paulo), researchers Luiz Henrique Lopes dos Santos and Erney Plessmann de Camargo, faculty members at the University of São Paulo University (USP), recognized that the concerns regarding plagiarism are becoming increasingly important and that knowledge about the subject is scant. Luiz Menna-Barreto, another researcher that was interviewed, considered that the climate concerning “productivism” (measurable professorial productivity), which has characterized the academic scenario in recent years, could be a factor related to this (Biondi 2011 ). In addition, an article published in Nature showed that, among researchers, plagiarism was third among the practices of academic dishonesty in the judgment of peer reviewers (Koocher and Keith-Spiegel 2010 ). Indeed, the problem has attained international importance and has been verified as one of the reasons for the increase in retracted articles (Van Nordeen 2011 , p. 27). This study revealed that cases of retractions occurring among the articles published in the Web of Science , as well as in PubMed , 44% correspond to problems of scientific misconduct, including plagiarism and self-plagiarism; and the other 56% were problems associated with research errors and nonreproducible results, among other problems. Carver et al. ( 2011 ) also emphasize that plagiarism has significantly contributed to the increase in the number of retractions; and for Masic ( 2014 , p. 145), “the biggest reason for retractions in the last thirty years is plagiarism and self-plagiarism.”

According to the website Retraction Watch, launched in 2010 with the aim of monitoring the indices of the occurrence and motives of the retraction of scientific articles in publications, in the field of life sciences, in 2013, there were 203 retractions related to plagiarism involving text, image, data or articles. In 2018, the database of the website catalogued 182 retractions for the same reasons (Retraction Watch 2019 ).

Another study found further evidence of the occurrence of plagiarism in scientific publications in the field of biomedicine found in PubMed for the period from 2008 to 2012. The study found that 35% of the retractions could be attributed to plagiarism or self-plagiarism in the sample studied. In addition, the study identified the 20 countries with the greatest numbers of works retracted as a result of plagiarism and self-plagiarism. Brazil was included among them, with 44,4% of the articles by its authors being retracted due to the same motives (Amos 2014 ).

Although the proportion, in percentages, of works retracted is low, it must be remembered that there is no standard minimum acceptable index for such practices in the academic world.

In addition, it is still unclear whether the numbers of retractions that have been verified are related to an increase in the frequency of plagiarism-related practices in recent years or result from increasing the identification of such instances because of the rigor in editing and whistle-blowing processes, internet visibility and the use of technological resources such as software that detects textual similarities.

Considering this scenario, the main objective of this study was to analyze the possible occurrence of plagiarism and self-plagiarism in a nonrandom sample of articles published in learned journals in the field of administration indexed in the Scientific Periodicals Electronic Library (SPELL) information database, a repository of scholarly studies that offers free access to technical and scientific information in the area of business ( www.spell.org.br ). In addition, the study sought to compare the results obtained with those reported in a similar study in 2013 and to analyze the guidelines that each of the journals composing the sample provided to authors regarding plagiarism.

The study is justified as a consequence of the increasing attention given to the problem of plagiarism by important Brazilian institutions concerned with research, such as the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Graduates (CAPES), the National Council of Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) and the Foundation for the Support to Research of the State of São Paulo (FAPESP), requiring that this issue be addressed.

The positions held by these institutions regarding the need to disseminate guidelines and take action to address plagiarism and other types of scientific misconduct was first put forth in 2011 when CAPES issued a document containing recommendations for all public and private universities in Brazil to adopt procedures to address academic plagiarism (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior 2011 ). It is important to note that the initiative taken by CAPES occurred due to a request by the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB) in the state of Ceará that recommended, inter alia, that all institutions of higher education in Brazil should “use software to search for similarity in the Internet [ … ], adopt policies of awareness and information about intellectual property, aiming at suppressing plagiarism in the academic community” (OAB 2010 ). Footnote 3 Since then, some measures have been implemented to address plagiarism. For instance, since 2013, FAPESP, one of the major public agencies financing research in the state of São Paulo, has kept a “shame page” on its institutional website on which it publishes a list of researchers and projects having revealed scientific misconduct (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo 2014 ). In 2017, FAPESP started to refuse projects from research institutions that did not have an office of academic integrity (Alves 2017 ).

In addition, despite repercussions from reports of recent cases of plagiarism by Brazilian researchers uncovered in learned journals in the national media, the reduced number of studies conducted and submitted for publication by Brazilian authors has been concentrated on higher education. However, it is known that some of the major obstacles related to the rejection of scholarly articles submitted for publication are the problems of a methodological nature or may be related to a lack of theoretical depth or difficulties in referencing (i.e., the correct identification of the sources consulted), among other issues (Job et al. 2009 ).

Nevertheless, it is important to learn which measures related to the verification and prevention of plagiarism have been adopted by scientific journal editors in relation to the articles submitted for publication. Likewise, there are no diagnostic evaluations that can provide evidence of the extent to which the submissions of researchers do or do not possess plagiarized sections. Obviously, the scope of this study excludes “exposing” authors or learned journals. It seeks to contribute to the identification and discussion of the question insufficiently addressed in the Brazilian scientific literature. Consequently, it is hoped that the findings of this investigation will contribute to improving the procedures for elaborating and submitting research reports for publication.

Methodology

The articles analyzed in the study were obtained from the SPELL database, a repository of scholarly articles in the field of business. The main reason to choose this database for the analysis is its free access to full-text technical and scientific information.

In 2013, using the bibliographic search for published articles cited in the SPELL database, 546 articles published in 47 different journals were identified. After 5 years, a new survey of articles published from 08/2013 to 08/2018 was performed. In this period, 121 journals were identified, and three of them were disregarded because they were no longer published (Desafio: Revista de Economia e Administração (published until 2010 and then continued as Desafio Online) (ISSN 1678–1821); RAC-Eletrônica (ISSN 1981–5700), published until January 2009; and Revista de Estudos de Administração – Rea (ISSN 1518–3645), published until December 2009), resulting in the identification of 28,259 published articles.

A random sample corresponding to one article from each journal in both periods was selected. This was done by means of attributing an identification number (ID) to each article in the database. The ID of the first article and that of the last one published were verified, and a number was drawn using the website www.random.org . After the number was drawn, the selected article was downloaded and input to the plagiarism detection software iThenticate®. All the articles selected and input to the plagiarism detector were then classified in a control spreadsheet, consisting of the following information: the Qualis/Capes identifier, article title, DOI or permanent link, authors, and publication date.

The articles drawn were input to iThenticate® software in the two phases of the research. The software operates by creating a search for similarities between the submitted text and texts that have been published on the internet, including in publications with restricted access, such as in the case of publishers (Elsevier, Springer, Nature, Taylor & Francis, and Wiley-Blackwell), indexers, and databases (EBSCOHost; Emerald Journals; Proquest; Pub-Med/Medline, and Cengage Learning), among other scholarly journals, and its own software database, thus consolidating a repertory for comparison with some 142 million documents (IThenticate® 2019 ).

Findings and discussion

Initially, the analysis was conducted using the policies and instructions for authors and/or submission manuals provided by the journals to authors interested in submitting their work for publication. The intention was to verify the existence or lack of guidelines related to plagiarism or self-plagiarism in publications seeking to clarify these issues for authors beforehand. This guidance is part of the flowchart concerning what to do in cases of the suspicion of plagiarism and redundancy in scholarly manuscripts that can be found in the document elaborated by the Committee On Publication Ethics (COPE) and that is aimed at editors of scholarly journals. The text notes that “the instructions to authors should include a definition of plagiarism and state the journal’s policy on it” (Committee On Publication Ethics 2016 ; 2018 ).

In the analysis conducted in 2013 in which data were analyzed but not published, it was found that only one journal (2%) among the 47 analyzed journals mentioned the word “plagiarism” in its policies, although the majority of the directives required guarantees on the part of authors that no type of violation of authors’ rights were contained in the submitted work. However, we also observed that one of the publications studied cited a directive related to redundancy (self-plagiarism) in its submission guidelines, although it utilized a different term to refer to the subject: overlapping of publication (Ebape 2014 ).

According to Eaton and Crossman ( 2018 ), self-plagiarism is a sub-category of plagiarism and is considered to be complex and polemical. The study and debate of self-plagiarism have received growing interest from editors with the objective to establish clear and specific guidelines about the issue to authors during the process of submitting scientific work in social science areas. One of the topics that has demanded attention is defining the percentage of a previously written text that an author can reuse, considering that some parts of the work, such as the description of the methods, do not usually vary substantially, which justifies their reproduction. Several authors have considered that up to 30% of a previous text could be reused, but this does not serve as a fixed rule since it depends on the area of study and the guidelines of each periodical (Bird and Sivilotti 2008 ; Roig 2015 ; Samuelson 1994 ).

Usually, the publication of two articles with considerable overlap is not acceptable, even if they are published in different academic periodicals. Various publications that have a unique data collection should only be permitted under the following guidelines: (a) if it is impossible to write a single article within the maximum number of 30 pages, and (b) if the articles present distinct approaches and purposes. The editor should be advised of a submission when the article has, in some form, already been published online.

Periodicals were also found that established directives in relation to the originality of the work, whether in Brazil or abroad, clarifying that they considered work that had been presented in preliminary versions in scholarly events acceptable for publication. Some journals encouraged and authorized authors to publish and disseminate their work in online vehicles such as institutional repositories or on personal pages, considering that this could have a positive effect on the visibility and increased probability of the work being cited. For example, “Authors have permission and are encouraged to publish and disseminate their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their own personal pages) at any time before or during the editorial process, since this could generate productive alterations, as well as increase the impact and the citing of the published work [ …]” (Revista de Gestão, Finanças e Contabilidade 2014 ).

In relation to what was learned about plagiarism and self-plagiarism in the analyses conducted in 2013, it was determined that there was word-for-word plagiarism (copying verbatim from a source without any acknowledgement) in 31 published articles (65.9%), and no relevant similarities with other publications were encountered in 16 articles (34.1%).

Table  2 presents the list of the periodicals analyzed with the numbers of articles that were published by the time the similarity analysis was conducted. In this stage of the investigation, we only identified whether there were instances of plagiarism and self-plagiarism.

The column “Qualis” refers to a scale established by the Brazilian Ministry of Education that is used to classify the level of qualification of periodicals that publish scientific work in postgraduate programs in Brazil. During the time of this study, the evaluation strata adopted by this program varied from the highest quality, A1, to A2, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, and C (zero). (BRASIL 2016 ). As can be seen in the data in Table  2 , it is possible to notice that there are occurrences of plagiarism/self-plagiarism in both more qualified (A2) and less qualified periodicals (B5).

The types of plagiarism mostly found were those copying the sentences of a source or paragraphs of other sources verbatim without the use of quotation marks or indenting the text and lacking any indication of the original document or source. Furthermore, we discovered cases of self-plagiarism (redundancy), that is, works by the same author that had already been published in other periodicals or event annals.

The present work did not analyze the extension of occurrences of self-plagiarism. The observations conducted identified the following: the copy of entire articles the same authors had previously presented in scientific events and published in conference proceedings, and parts of texts published in other studies and reused without proper citation.

The software did not allow us to identify the occurrence of indirect plagiarism (paraphrasing; i.e., when the original source is rewritten but no source is credited through an indirect quote (indication of authorship within the text), and no reference given to the source in the form of detailed identification at the end of the work. The use of a reference to the source and quoting the author are two essential conditions for avoiding the inappropriate use of a reproduced source.

In the 2018 analyses, the website of each of the 118 journals selected for this research and indexed in the database was visited. Initially, we identified the existence of directions or guidelines related to ethics or good research practices on the principal page. Then, a second step was searching for information connected to these topics in the section “about the journal.” In these sections, we searched for “plágio or plagiarism.” If this information was not encountered on these pages, analysis of the sections containing information, directives or instructions to authors followed.

It was found that on the websites of the 118 periodicals analyzed, 69 of them (58%) have on some page or document observations and instructions related to plagiarism and self-plagiarism, which corresponds to a significant increase in relation to what was observed in the study conducted in 2013. However, it was ascertained that some journals, such as Revista de Gestão – REGE (ISSN 2177–8736), recommended that authors follow the directives of scientific integrity such as those established by COPE, though no description of those directives concerning plagiarism was offered. Other journals, such as the International Journal of Professional Business Review (e-ISSN: 2525–3654), opted for a single page concerning good conduct or policies regarding ethics in research, clearly stating the following: “Originality and Plagiarism: The authors should insure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.” Still, other journals, such as the Revista de Administração IMED – RAIMED (ISSN 2237–7956), Revista de Ciências da Administração – RCA (ISSN 1516–3865) and the Revista Pensamento Contemporâneo em Administração (ISSN 1982–2596), provided a link to the document “Boas Práticas da Publicação Científica: um manual para autores, revisores, editores e integrantes de corpos editoriais” (Good Practices of Scientific Publishing: a handbook for authors, reviewers, editors and members of editorial councils) on their websites (Associação Nacional de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração (ANPAD) 2017 ).

To clarify the interpretation of the reports of the software used, it is important that sections of text with similarities are highlighted in color. Here, each color corresponds to a different source, and there is a superscript number in each section that permits direct access to the source with similar text. This in turn allows more precise analysis, such as the examination of whether the text comes the same author, if it was published before or after the manuscript under examination, the type of document, and other information.

From this type of analysis, by including additional documents, it is possible to affirm the occurrence of plagiarism or self-plagiarism. It is for this reason that the software detection service is offered as a verifier of similarities and not of plagiarism because not every similarity corresponds to an author’s fraud. The following are three examples extracted from similarity reports generated by the iThenticate® software. The examples were classified in three categories: low, medium and high incidences of plagiarism. The parameter used for each category represents the portion of paragraphs copied in relation to the manuscript.

Although there are no defined guidelines establishing the level of the seriousness of plagiarism regarding the amount reproduced, in the guidelines provided by Committee On Publication Ethics ( 2018 ) about “What to do if you suspect plagiarism”, it is recommended that one consider reporting it in the following cases: “a) Unattributed use of large portions of text and/or data; b) Minor copying of short phrases only (e.g. in discussion of research paper from non-native language speaker). No misattribution of data.” When large portions of text are identified, COPE recommends that editors contact the corresponding author and document the evidence of plagiarism. In the case of a satisfactory reply addressing an honest error, unclear journal instructions or a very junior researcher, the editor can reject the manuscript or ask for a revision in the hope of obtaining improvements. Conversely, if the author’s explanation is unsatisfactory, the manuscript must be rejected without the option of requesting a revision.

The first case (Fig.  1 ) was considered of “low incidence” because the similarities without attribution of credit appear only sporadically in some passages of the manuscript.

Low incidence/reviewed with QUALIS A2/2013. Source: iThenticate®

Figure  2 presents a case of “medium incidence” because the text reveals sections reproduced inadequately in different parts of the manuscript, but only on some pages of the entire manuscript.

Medium incidence/reviewed with QUALIS B2/2018 . Source: iThenticate®

The third example (Fig.  3 ) was considered a case of “high incidence” because it is possible to observe textual reproductions without the attribution of credit in different paragraphs on various pages, as well as differences in the provenance of the original sources copied (different colors).

High incidence/reviewed with QUALIS B1/2018. Source: iThenticate®

A repeated observation refers to the quantity of identical terms in the same sequence of a sentence, which could indicate plagiarism. It is important to mention that the identification of patterns of similarity by software may not indicate plagiarism if the reproduced texts were correctly quoted and referenced. Therefore, it is not possible to categorically affirm that there is a predetermined amount of identical words between texts that determines plagiarism since this conclusion depends on analysis.

Some authors support the criterion of beginning a sequence with seven identical words as a parameter for judging the sequence as a verbatim copy (Saraiva and Carrieri 2009 ). This principle was adopted considering that “the chances of a human creating a sentence identical to another already created diminishes exponentially in relation to the number of words the sentence contains. Footnote 4 ” The authors demonstrated this evidence by conducting the following experiment: they used the sentence between quotation marks to search for similarity on Google ( www.google.com.br ) with the equivalent terms in Portuguese. The results found are presented in Table  3 .

This experiment makes sense from the perspective of “the ‘uniqueness of utterance principle’, supported in linguistics, which states that when we produce a text (spoken or written) we make lexico-grammatical choices that create a sequence which is not repeated identically in other situations.” (Abreu 2016 , p. 5). Also, Wager ( 2014 ) have summarized some ideas regarding the extent of copy and attribution of plagiarism:

The most blatant forms of plagiarism involve the copying of entire papers or chapters which are republished as the work of the plagiarist. Such cases usually involve not only plagiarism but also breach of copyright. Whole articles or chapters may also be plagiarized in translation." (Wager 2014 , p. 35) Nevertheless, these criteria cannot be considered inflexible because, first, it is acceptable to literally reproduce any quantity of text as long as the source is cited; and, second, in the specific case of plagiarism called “apt phrase,” even fewer than six words can characterize plagiarism (Wager, 2014 ).

Nevertheless, these criteria cannot be considered inflexible because, first, it is acceptable to literally reproduce any quantity of text as long as the source is cited; and, second, in the specific case of plagiarism called “apt phrase,” even two words can characterize plagiarism. That is the case of expressions created by authors to designate specific theoretical discoveries or statements in their area of research, such as the following: “I think, therefore I exist” (René Descartes), “somatic marker” (Antonio Damásio), and “knowledge conversion” (Ikugiro Nonaka & Hirotaka Takeuchi). However, according to Committee On Publication Ethics ( 2009 ), rather than a retraction, in the case of small plagiarized parts of a text, the editor may consider, with respect to the readers and the plagiarized author, that the text be corrected.

In the analyses conducted in 2018, it was found that similarities (plagiarism and self-plagiarism) occurred in 52 articles (44%), and there was no relevant evidence of plagiarism or self-plagiarism found in 66 (56%) manuscripts (Table 4 ).

Comparing the results of the similarity reports in the two periods studied (2013 versus 2018), it is possible to confirm a reduction of 21.9% in the index of the occurrence of plagiarism and self-plagiarism. This is a relevant volume for a five-year period, although 44% is an elevated index for fraud by authors when taking into account the parameters appearing in the literature (Amos 2014 ). When weighing the fact that the SPELL database included a total of 28,259 articles published in the 2013–2018 period, the percentage of observed fraud by authors was 0.18%, which represents a highly noteworthy number compared to the study conducted by Amos ( 2014 ). From a sample of 0.02% of the retracted articles in the PubMed database in the period from 2008 to 2012, that study deemed 35% included plagiarism or self-plagiarism.

Notably, 16 articles (14%) were determined to have evidence of self-plagiarism, or rather they were manuscripts that had been published in the form of theses. They were indexed in open-access repositories, had been presented at scientific events and appeared in their proceedings, or even were published in other journals. Self-plagiarism, or redundancy, is considered a fraudulent practice in the international and Brazilian contexts. COPE warns that published articles should be retracted if, among other reasons, “they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g., data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error); the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication); it constitutes plagiarism; it reports unethical research” (Committee On Publication Ethics 2009 ).

Still, it is necessary to recognize that there is a certain degree of controversy related to self-plagiarism. First, definitions concerning the undue appropriation of published works refer to the presentation as one’s own of someone else’s work. Therefore, considering the copying of one’s own work (self-plagiarism) as fraud cannot be accepted either conceptually or juridically. Regarding the system for attributing scientific credibility that considers the number of publications as a form of ascertaining scientific productivity, it might make sense to characterize self-plagiarism as redundancy. Thus, decreasing self-reproduction can be a way of preventing a single work from being presented as several works, giving a false notion of productivity.

It is fitting to discuss at what point plagiarism is considered a problem by editors and researchers because if it is not a concern, then its absence in the mechanisms of control and punishment is not warranted. Nevertheless, the directives of COPE for editors clearly recommend that mechanisms for the detection of plagiarism be adopted and that reviewers be supported and encouraged to verify the occurrence of plagiarism (Committee On Publication Ethics 2011 ).

Although the occurrence of plagiarism and self-plagiarism is not well known, it can be questioned whether the absence of editorial guidelines concerning these issues in the policy directives given to authors influences the numerical results. The fact that observation reveals that only one periodical sets forth specific directives concerning plagiarism appears to suggest that this problem apparently does not concern editors in relation to the requirements that must be met by authors. Nevertheless, plagiarism is a problem that exists in the academic world, and its occurrence has been measured among researchers in different fields and countries, with clear indications that its frequency is increasing.

COPE itself offers two flowcharts showing possible actions when plagiarism is suspected in manuscripts and in articles already published to help editors. These guidelines vary depending on the seriousness of the plagiarism, the degree of intentionality, and the extent of the responsibility of the author because there are works that contain a few sentences or many segments of literally and improperly reproduced material, cases in which the sources used were not correctly identified due to the researcher’s technical failure, and differences between the plagiarism occurring in a manuscript by a novice researcher and that of a senior investigator.

It is well known that the objective of research work is to contribute to human development; therefore, the greater the visibility a scientific discovery has, the greater the number of people that are able to obtain the resulting benefits. Thus, it is possible to note in the publication directives that it is considered acceptable to publish work previously presented at conferences or divulged in repositories.

The results obtained in this study contribute to the understanding of plagiarism in the context of scientific publications in the area of business in Brazil. Although a reduction in the indices of the occurrence of plagiarism was observed in published articles, as was an increase in the support regarding the prevention of plagiarism by authors in the editorial requirements of periodicals, evidence of the problem continues to remain a concern due to it impact on the reputations of researchers and journals. Nevertheless, it is possible to argue that these indices result from bad faith on the part of researchers less than might be thought. Indeed, it is often found that plagiarism can occur accidentally due to technical difficulties or ignorance of the practices involved in attributing sources. This thinking supports the idea that no scientist should risk having his name and reputation exposed publicly due to a manuscript with fraudulent textual segments since it is currently extremely easy to determine textual similarity using specialized software. Hence, the verification of such occurrences generally reveals carelessness, a lack of concern, or unpreparedness in relation to the matter. Similarly, just as it is not a question of simply attributing the responsibility of plagiarism to the researcher, one must consider the portion of responsibility of others involved in the process of the production and publication of scientific knowledge, such as the editors and the financing agencies.

Consequently, it can be recommended that the editors of the periodicals studied adopt practices directed at informing authors of the importance of preventing plagiarism in the manuscripts submitted for publication via directives. In addition, this action has been recommended by diverse institutions related to scientific production and should be increased by augmenting the capacity of reviewers such that they evaluate the articles submitted for publication, verify the occurrence of plagiarism, and adopt the use of plagiarism detection software as a standard procedure for periodicals. In this way, many works that are published today and are accused of plagiarism can be identified in the submission process, and their authors can be advised to make appropriate preventive corrections.

In conclusion, plagiarism is a problem that must be considered not from the perspective of finding culprits, but rather as a challenge to be overcome that requires collective and committed work on the part of all those involved in the research process, including researchers, editors, research institutions, and financing agencies, among others. However, the first and most fundamental step is the recognition that the problem exists and requires a response and a position from all those involved. This was clearly demonstrated in the present study.

It is recommended that similar studies be conducted using other databases with indices or other types of scientific publications and in different areas of study. It is additionally recommended that the results of these studies be compared with those of similar studies conducted in other contexts, always with the essential objective of contributing to the improvement of the actions for combating plagiarism and consequently strengthening the credibility of science in Brazil and other countries.

Availability of data and materials

The data and materials are not available to readers because they are sensitive content that may embarrass the authors of the manuscripts in which plagiarism and or self-plagiarism were found. However, they can be made available for controlled access by editors and reviewers. Despite the unavailability of data and materials from the selected sample, the reproducibility of the study results can be performed because access to the material is open-access in the Scientific Periodicals Electronic Library (SPELL).

“CAPES is a public institution, linked to the Ministry of Education, responsible for graduate education in Brazil (Master and PhD courses). Its role includes evaluation of such courses, access and communication of scientific production, investment on preparation of high level human resources (as professors and researchers) and promotion of international and scientific information.” (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior 2009 ).

“Plágio” is the term in Portuguese that corresponds to “plagiarism” in English. Since the platform contains articles principally in Portuguese and some others also in English, the search was done in both languages using the two key words.

Free translation of the following passage: “utilizem softwares de busca de similaridade na internet […] adotem políticas de conscientização e informação sobre a propriedade intelectual, visando coibir o plágio na comunidade acadêmica” (OAB 2010 ).

Free translation of the following quote: “chance de um ser humano criar uma frase idêntica a outra já criada diminui exponencialmente com o número de palavras que a frase contém”

Abbreviations

Brazilian Association of Scientific Editors

National Association of Research and Graduate Studies and Research in Administration

Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Graduates

National Council of Scientific and Technological Development

Committee on Publication Ethics

Council of Science Editors

Foundation for the Support to Research of the State of São Paulo

Brazilian Bar Association

Scientific Periodicals Electronic Library

São Paulo University

Abreu, BB (2016) Investigating plagiarism in the academic context. 2016. 220 f. Tese (Doutorado) - Curso de Programa de Pós-Graduação em Inglês, Estudos Linguísticos e Literários, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianopolis

Google Scholar  

Alves, G (2017) Fapesp bloqueará verba de instituição que não adotar medidas antiplágio . Jornal Folha de São Paulo. Retrieved from https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/ciencia/2017/04/1878564-fapesp-bloqueara-verba-de-instituicao-que-nao-adotar-medidas-antiplagio.shtml?origin=folha . Accessed 04 Oct 2020

Amos KA (2014) The ethics of scholarly publishing: exploring differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication across nations. J Med Libr Assoc 102(2):87–91

Article   Google Scholar  

Andrade JX (2011) Má conduta na pesquisa em ciências contábeis. 2011, p 125 Tese (Doutorado em Ciências Contábeis – Universidade de São Paulo

Associação Nacional de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração (ANPAD) (2017) Boas Práticas da Publicação Científica : um manual para autores, revisores, editores e integrantes de corpos editoriais 2017. Retrieved from http://www.anpad.org.br/~anpad/diversos/2017/2017_Boas_Praticas.pdf . Accessed 04 Jul 2019

Australian Government (2007) Australian code for the responsible conduct of research 2007. Retrieved from https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/australian-code-responsible-conduct-research-2007 . Accessed 05 Jul 2019

Badge, J, Scott, J (2009) Dealing with plagiarism in the digital age What is electronic detection of plagiarism? Retrieved from http://evidencenet.pbworks.com/w/page/19383480/Dealing%20with%20plagiarism%20in%20the%20digital%20age . Accessed 5 Jul 2019

Barbastefano, RG & Souza, CG (2007) Percepção do conceito de plágio acadêmico entre alunos de engenharia de produção e ações para sua redução. Revista Produção Online , Florianópolis, 7 (4)

Barros, TD & Duque, APO (2015) O cenário do plágio acadêmico sob a ótica informacional de pesquisadores brasileiros na BDTD e no ENANPAD. In: CONVIBRA 2015, Rio de Janeiro. Anais... Rio de Janeiro. Retrieved from http://www.convibra.com.br/upload/paper/2015/31/2015_31_11898.pdf . Accessed 06 Jul 2019

Biondi, A (2011) Plágio na produção acadêmica, vespeiro intocado. Ou não? Revista Adusp, São Paulo, 50 (90)

Bird SB, Sivilotti MLA (2008) Self-plagiarism, recycling fraud, and the intent to mislead. J Med Toxicol 4:69

Brasil (2016) Ministério Da Educação. Plataforma sucupira: Qualis. Retrieved from https://sucupira.capes.gov.br/sucupira/public/index.jsf;jsessionid=tVIr+CEzblCSaOT2ls0tR+yd.sucupira-205 #. Accessed 03 Oct 2020

Carver JD et al (2011) Ethical considerations in scientific writing. Indian J Sex transm Dis 32(2):124–128

Committee On Publication Ethics (2009). Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics . Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/files/u661/Retractions_COPE_gline_final_3_Sept_09__2_.pdf . Accessed 05 Jul 2019

Committee On Publication Ethics (2011) Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for jornal editors. Retrieved from http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf . Accessed 05 Jul 2019

Committee On Publication Ethics (2016) What to do if you suspect redundant (duplicate) publication (b) Suspected redundant publication in a published manuscript . Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/files/redundant%20publication%20A_0.pdf . Accessed 05 Jul2019

Committee On Publication Ethics (2018) What to do if you suspect plagiarism (a) Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/files/plagiarism%20A.pdf . Accessed 05 Jul 2019

Concordia University (2019) What is Plagiarism . Retrieved from https://www.concordia.ca/students/academic-integrity/plagiarism.html . Accessed 05 Jul 2019

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico Tecnológico (2011) Relatório da Comissão de Integridade de Pesquisa do CNPq. Retrieved from http://www.cnpq.br/documents/10157/a8927840-2b8f-43b9-8962-5a2ccfa74dda . Accessed 07 Jul 2019

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (2009) What are CAPES's main activities. Retrieved from http://www.periodicos.capes.gov.br/?option=com_pnews&component=Clipping&view=pnewsclipping&cid=57&mn=0 . Accessed 19 October 2020

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (2011). Orientações Capes: combate ao plágio. Retrieved from http://www.capes.gov.br/images/stories/download/diversos/OrientacoesCapes_CombateAoPlagio.pdf . Accessed 05 Jul 2019

Costa FJ, Socorro CTS, Muzzio H (2017) Uma Reflexão sobre Autoria Acadêmica. Teoria e Prática em Administração 7(1):1–25

Council of Science Editors (2018) CSE’s White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications. Retrieved from https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/wp-content/uploads/CSE-White-Paper_2018-update-050618.pdf . Accessed 06 Jul 2019

Demo P (2011) Remix, pastiche, plágio: autorias da nova geração. Meta: Avaliação 3(8):125–144

Eaton SE, Crossman K (2018) Self-plagiarism research literature in the social sciences: a scoping review. Interchange 49:285–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-018-9333-6

Cadernos Ebape (2014). Diretrizes para autores . Retrieved from http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/ojs/index.php/cadernosebape/pages/view/normas . Accessed 15 Jan 2014

Fachini GJ, Domingues MJCS (2008) Percepção do plágio acadêmico entre alunos de programas de pós-graduação em administração e contabilidade. Anais dos Seminários em Administração São Paulo, SP, Brasil, XI

Ferreira ABH (1986) Novo dicionário da Língua Portuguesa, 2nd edn. Nova Fronteira, Rio de Janeiro

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (2011) Código de boas práticas científicas . Retrieved from http://www.fapesp.br/boaspraticas/codigo_050911.pdf . Accessed 05 Jul 2019

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (2014). Sumário de casos . Retrieved from https://fapesp.br/8577/sumarios-de-casos . Accessed 04 Oct 2020

Garcia, GR (2013) Fraude y plagio academic en los ambientes virtuales de aprendizaje 2013. Retrieved from https://portafolis.urv.cat/artefact/file/download.php?file=12835&view=3272 . Accessed 05 Jul 2019

Georgetown University (2019) Examples of Plagiarism . Retrieved from https://honorcouncil.georgetown.edu/system/what-is-plagiarism/x . Accessed 05 Jul 2019

Harris R (2001) The plagiarism handbook. Pyrczak Publishing, Los Angeles

Innarelli, PB (2011) Fatores antecedentes na atitude de alunos de graduação frente ao plágio . (Dissertação de Mestrado). Universidade Metodista de São Paulo, São Bernardo do Campo, SP, Brasil

IThenticate® (2019) Prevent Plagiarism in Published Works . Retrieved from http://www.ithenticate.com/ . Accessed 04 Jul 2019

Job I, Mattos AM, Trindade A (2009) Processo de revisão pelos pares: por que são rejeitados os manuscritos submetidos a um periódico científico. Movimento, Porto Alegre 15(3): 1-17.

Koocher GP, Keith-Spiegel P (2010) Peers nip misconduct in the bud. Nature 466(7305):438–440

Krokoscz M (2011) Abordagem do plágio nas três melhores universidades de cada um dos cinco continentes e do Brasil. Rev Brasileira de Educação 16(48):745–818

Krokoscz M (2012a) A literature review of scientific research and reflections on plagiarism in Brazil since 1990. In 5th International Plagiarism Conference 16-18 July, Newcastle UK.

Krokoscz M (2012b) Autoria e Plágio: um guia para estudantes, professores, pesquisadores e editores. Atlas, São Paulo

Loui MC (2002) Seven ways to plagiarise. Sci Eng Ethics 8(4):529-539.

Martin B (1994) Plagiarism: a misplaced emphasis. J Inf Ethics 3(2):36–47

Masic I (2014) Plagiarism in scientific research and publications and how to prevent it. Materia Socio Medica 26(2):141

Massachusetts Institute Of Technology (2018) Academic Integrity: Incorporating the Words and Ideas of Others. Retrieved from http://integrity.mit.edu/sites/default/files/documents/AcademicIntegrityHandbook2018-color.pdf . Accessed 05 Jul 2019

Neumann, E (2018) Relação entre os fatores antecedentes e a atitude de plágio em estudantes de administração . (Dissertação de Mestrado). Universidade Regional de Blumenau, Blumenau, SC, Brasil

OAB (2010) Combate ao Plágio - Comissão Nacional de Relações Institucionais do Conselho Federal da OAB. Retrieved from http://www2.ib.usp.br/files/doc_%20plagio_OAB.pdf . Accessed 04 Oct 2020

Research Councils UK (2017) RCUK Policy and Code of Conduct on the Governance of Good research Conduct . Retrieved from https://www.ukri.org/files/legacy/reviews/grc/rcuk-grp-policy-and-guidelines-updated-apr-17-2-pdf/ . Accessed 5 Jul 2019.

Retraction Watch (2019) The Retraction Watch Database. Version 1.0.5.5. 2019. Retrieved from http://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx . Accessed 04 Jul 2019

Revista Brasileira de Marketing (2014) Diretrizes para autores. Retrieved from http://www.revistabrasileiramarketing.org/ojs-2.2.4/index.php/remark/about/submissions#onlineSubmissions . Accessed 16 Jan 2014

Revista de Administração e Contabilidade da Unisinos (2014) Diretrizes para autores . Retrieved from http://revistas.unisinos.br/index.php/base/about/submissions#onlineSubmissions . Accessed 14 Jan 2014

Revista de Gestão, Finanças e Contabilidade (2014) Diretrizes para autores . Retrieved from https://www.revistas.uneb.br/index.php/financ/about/submissions#authorGuidelines . Accessed 14 Jan 2014

Roig, M (2015) Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: a guide to ethical writing. Retrieved from https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/plagiarism.pdf . Accessed 28 Sep 2012

Samuelson P (1994) Self-plagiarism or fair use? Commun ACM 37(8):21–25

Saraiva EV, Carrieri AP (2009) Citações e não citações na produção acadêmica de estratégia no Brasil: uma reflexão crítica. Rev de Administração - RAUSP 44(2):158–166

Silva AKL, Domingues MJCS (2008) Plágio no meio acadêmico: de que forma alunos de pós-graduação compreendem o tema. Perspect Contemp 3(2):117–135

Stanford University (2019) Sample plagiarism . Retrieved from https://communitystandards.stanford.edu/policies-and-guidance/what-plagiarism/sample-plagiarism-cases . Accessed 05 Jul 2019

The University of Hong Kong (2019) What is plagiarism . Retrieved from http://www.rss.hku.hk/plagiarism/page2s.htm . Accessed 05 Jul 2019

Tomazelli, KG (2011) Desonestidade acadêmica e profissional: avaliação das percepções de estudantes de Administração e Contabilidade. (Trabalho de conclusão de curso). Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil

U.S. Department Of Health And Human Services (2005) Public health service policies on research misconduct. Final rule. Federal register 70(94):28369-28400.

Universiteit Ghent (2019) Education and Examination Code Academic Year 2019–2020 . Retrieved from https://www.ugent.be/student/en/class-exam-exchange-intern/class-exam/education-examination-code/oeren20192020.pdf/at_download/file . Accessed 20 Apr 2013

University of Cambridge (2019a) University-wide statement on plagiarism . Retrieved from http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/plagiarism/students/statement.html . Accessed 05 Jul 2019

University of Cambridge (2019b) Collusion . Retrieved from https://www.plagiarism.admin.cam.ac.uk/what-plagiarism/collusion . Accessed 05 Jul 2019

University of Cape Town (2019) Avoiding plagiarism: a guide for students. Retrieved from https://www.uct.ac.za/sites/default/files/image_tool/images/328/about/policies/Guide_StudentGuideOnAvoidingPlagiarism.pdf . Accessed: 05 Jul 2019

University of Oxford (2019) What is plagiarism . Retrieved from http://www.ox.ac.uk/students/academic/goodpractice/about/ . Accessed 05 Jul 2019

University of Pretoria (2019) What is plagiarism . Retrieved from https://www.up.ac.za/students/article/2745913/what-is-plagiarism . Accessed 20 Apr 2013

Valente, NTZ et al. (2010) Reasons that lead undergraduate students in the business administration course to misuse ready papers taken from the internet. Anais do CONTECSI - International Conference on Information Systems and Technology Management, 7. São Paulo, SP, Brasil

Van Noorden R (2011) Science publishing: the trouble with retractions. Nature 478:26–28.

Veludo-De-Oliveira TM et al (2014) Cola, plágio. Ram, Rev Adm. Mackenzie 15(1):73–97

WAGER, E (2014) Defining and responding to plagiarism. Learned Publishing , 27 (1): 33–42.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. Fredric Michael Litto with who I am having the opportunity to share ideas and reflections on plagiarism and academic integrity. I am also grateful for his contribution translating this manuscript to English. I would like also to say thank you to Talita Fonseca, for her support collecting data.

Code availability

Not applicable.

This research did not receive any external funding. Fundação Escola de Comércio Álvares Penteado (FECAP) provided funding for openly publishing the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Fundação Escola de Comércio Álvares Penteado/FECAP, Av. Liberdade, 532, São Paulo, SP, 01502-001, Brazil

Marcelo Krokoscz

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The research was done by a single author. Collaborators were thanked in the corresponding section. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcelo Krokoscz .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

Although the data analysis was developed using the iThenticate®, a commercial software to detect similarities in the text, the author declare that he has no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Krokoscz, M. Plagiarism in articles published in journals indexed in the Scientific Periodicals Electronic Library (SPELL): a comparative analysis between 2013 and 2018. Int J Educ Integr 17 , 1 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-020-00063-5

Download citation

Received : 25 May 2020

Accepted : 09 November 2020

Published : 07 January 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-020-00063-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Self-plagiarism
• Authors’ guidelines
• Academic integrity

International Journal for Educational Integrity

ISSN: 1833-2595

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Free plagiarism checker by EasyBib

Check for plagiarism, grammar errors, and more.

• Expert Check

Check for accidental plagiarism

Avoid unintentional plagiarism. Check your work against billions of sources to ensure complete originality.

Find and fix grammar errors

Turn in your best work. Our smart proofreader catches even the smallest writing mistakes so you don't have to.

Get expert writing help

Improve the quality of your paper. Receive feedback on your main idea, writing mechanics, structure, conclusion, and more.

What students are saying about us

"Caught comma errors that I actually struggle with even after proofreading myself."

- Natasha J.

"I find the suggestions to be extremely helpful especially as they can instantly take you to that section in your paper for you to fix any and all issues related to the grammar or spelling error(s)."

- Catherine R.

Check for unintentional plagiarism

Easily check your paper for missing citations and accidental plagiarism with the EasyBib plagiarism checker. The EasyBib plagiarism checker:

• Scans your paper against billions of sources.
• Identifies text that may be flagged for plagiarism.
• Provides you with a plagiarism score.

You can submit your paper at any hour of the day and quickly receive a plagiarism report.

What is the EasyBib plagiarism checker? 

Most basic plagiarism checkers review your work and calculate a percentage, meaning how much of your writing is indicative of original work. But, the EasyBib plagiarism checker goes way beyond a simple percentage. Any text that could be categorized as potential plagiarism is highlighted, allowing you time to review each warning and determine how to adjust it or how to cite it correctly.

You’ll even see the sources against which your writing is compared and the actual word for word breakdown. If you determine that a warning is unnecessary, you can waive the plagiarism check suggestion.

Plagiarism is unethical because it doesn’t credit those who created the original work; it violates intellectual property and serves to benefit the perpetrator. It is a severe enough academic offense, that many faculty members use their own plagiarism checking tool for their students’ work. With the EasyBib Plagiarism checker, you can stay one step ahead of your professors and catch citation mistakes and accidental plagiarism before you submit your work for grading.

Why use a plagiarism checker? 

Imagine – it’s finals week and the final research paper of the semester is due in two days. You, being quite familiar with this high-stakes situation, hit the books, and pull together a ten-page, last-minute masterpiece using articles and materials from dozens of different sources.

However, in those late, coffee-fueled hours, are you fully confident that you correctly cited all the different sources you used? Are you sure you didn’t accidentally forget any? Are you confident that your teacher’s plagiarism tool will give your paper a 0% plagiarism score?

That’s where the EasyBib plagiarism checker comes in to save the day. One quick check can help you address all the above questions and put your mind at ease.

What exactly is plagiarism? 

Plagiarism has a number of possible definitions; it involves more than just copying someone else’s work. Improper citing, patchworking, and paraphrasing could all lead to plagiarism in one of your college assignments. Below are some common examples of accidental plagiarism that commonly occur.

Quoting or paraphrasing without citations

Not including in-text citations is another common type of accidental plagiarism. Quoting is taking verbatim text from a source. Paraphrasing is when you’re using another source to take the same idea but put it in your own words. In both cases, it’s important to always cite where those ideas are coming from. The EasyBib plagiarism checker can help alert you to when you need to accurately cite the sources you used.

Patchwork plagiarism

When writing a paper, you’re often sifting through multiple sources and tabs from different search engines. It’s easy to accidentally string together pieces of sentences and phrases into your own paragraphs. You may change a few words here and there, but it’s similar to the original text. Even though it’s accidental, it is still considered plagiarism. It’s important to clearly state when you’re using someone else’s words and work.

Improper citations

Depending on the class, professor, subject, or teacher, there are multiple correct citation styles and preferences. Some examples of common style guides that are followed for citations include MLA, APA, and Chicago style. When citing resources, it’s important to cite them accurately. Incorrect citations could make it impossible for a reader to track down a source and it’s considered plagiarism. There are EasyBib citation tools to help you do this.

Don’t fall victim to plagiarism pitfalls. Most of the time, you don’t even mean to commit plagiarism; rather, you’ve read so many sources from different search engines that it gets difficult to determine an original thought or well-stated fact versus someone else’s work. Or worse, you assume a statement is common knowledge, when in fact, it should be attributed to another author.

When in doubt, cite your source!

Time for a quick plagiarism quiz! 

Which of the following requires a citation?

• A chart or graph from another source
• A paraphrase of an original source
• Several sources’ ideas summarized into your own paragraph
• A direct quote
• All of the above

If you guessed option E than you’d be correct. Correct punctuation and citation of another individual’s ideas, quotes, and graphics are a pillar of good academic writing.

What if you copy your own previous writing?

Resubmitting your own original work for another class’s assignment is a form of self-plagiarism, so don’t cut corners in your writing. Draft an original piece for each class or ask your professor if you can incorporate your previous research.

What features are available with the EasyBib plagiarism checker? 

Along with providing warnings and sources for possible plagiarism, the EasyBib  plagiarism checker works alongside the other EasyBib tools, including a grammar checker  and a spell checker . You’ll receive personalized feedback on your thesis and writing structure too!

The  plagiarism checker compares your writing sample with billions of available sources online so that it detects plagiarism at every level. You’ll be notified of which phrases are too similar to current research and literature, prompting a possible rewrite or additional citation. You’ll also get feedback on your paper’s inconsistencies, such as changes in text, formatting, or style. These small details could suggest possible plagiarism within your assignment.

And speaking of citations, there are also  EasyBib citation tools  available. They help you quickly build your bibliography and avoid accidental plagiarism. Make sure you know which citation format your professor prefers!

Great! How do I start? 

Simply copy and paste or upload your essay into the checker at the top of this page. You’ll receive the first five grammar suggestions for free! To try the plagiarism checker for free, start your EasyBib Plus three-day free trial.* If you love the product and decide to opt for premium services, you’ll have access to unlimited writing suggestions and personalized feedback.

The EasyBib plagiarism checker is conveniently available 24 hours a day and seven days a week. You can cancel anytime.  Check your paper for free today!.

*See Terms and Conditions

Visit www.easybib.com for more information on helpful EasyBib writing and citing tools.

For informational guides and on writing and citing, visit the EasyBib guides homepage .

Turnitin for Research & Publication

Everything you need to publish with confidence

Most complete database of scholarly work

Compare work against premier content from Open Access Journals and top publishers like Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, and IEEE.

Flexible exclusions for rigorous checking

Add efficiency to the manuscript review process with customizable exclusion options that let you evaluate only the most critical matches.

Streamline reviews & collaboration

Work with peers and advisers easily to review and revise submissions using a simple system of folders and folder sharing.

Safeguard your institution's reputation

Identify text similarities early in a high-stakes publication process so the quality of your manuscripts maintains your institution’s reputation.

The #1 plagiarism checker, trusted by researchers & publishers

iThenticate

This high-stakes plagiarism checking tool is the gold standard for academic researchers and publishers.

Used by leading academic publishers

• Teaching centers

Plagiarism prevention and detection

Instructors play a pivotal role in addressing plagiarism and upholding academic honesty. To encourage a culture of academic integrity, faculty must first recognize the signs of plagiarism and provide effective strategies for the prevention of it. However, not all students intentionally mean to commit plagiarism and simply do not understand how to properly cite information. Therefore, prevention is crucial, and being able to detect plagiarism is key for when it occurs. Recognizing potential issues and using plagiarism software like Turnitin can aid in the detection of plagiarism (Heckler, Rice, & Bryan, 2013), but when it comes to the recognition of Generative AI written text, it can be more challenging.

Understanding and preventing plagiarism

Plagiarism is a multifaceted issue, and it can encompass many different types of behaviors that include copying and pasting material and unintentional plagiarism caused by a lack of understanding for how to properly cite material. It is crucial for faculty members to have a clear understanding of what constitutes plagiarism so they can address it appropriately. The University of Missouri System defines the different types of plagiarism in the Standard of Conduct.

Early intervention is the first line of defense in preventing plagiarism (Hopp & Speil, 2021). It is critical for instructors to communicate to students clear guidelines for citing sources and proper formatting. Resources should also be offered to students, like the University of Missouri library or writing center , so they can receive support.

Expectations should also be outlined so students understand the seriousness and real-life consequences of committing plagiarism. The assignments themselves can discourage plagiarism by having students develop projects that are more challenging for them to plagiarize (Insley, 2011). Using detection software can also aid in preventing plagiarism, since students know their work will be cross-checked.

Educate students: Start by providing clear expectations and educating students about what constitutes plagiarism, including examples of various types of plagiarism, such as direct copying, paraphrasing without citation, and self-plagiarism.

Promote proper citation: Teach students how to properly cite sources in various citation styles (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago). Offer resources and tutorials on citation and referencing.

Scaffold the written assignments: Complete larger written assignments through a series of steps to check progress and correct mistakes along the way. This can include completing an annotated bibliography prior to starting a research paper.

Low stakes assignments: Have some of the written assignments be lower stakes, which focus on the writing process to be sure students understand how to cite sources properly.

Peer review and group work: Encourage peer review and group work, which can promote collaboration and reduce the temptation to plagiarize. Ensure that students understand the importance of their contribution to group projects.

Regular communication: Maintain open communication with students throughout the course. Regular feedback and discussions can help deter plagiarism and address any questions that have been raised.

Promote a culture of academic integrity: Encourage a culture of academic integrity within the institution. This can include discussions, workshops, and awareness campaigns on the importance of honesty and encourage originality.

Randomized written assignments and unique projects: If possible, create randomized essay prompts and unique project ideas to reduce the likelihood of students finding and copying from existing materials.

• Source verification: Ask students to provide copies or links to the sources they use in their work. This can help verify that the sources exist and match the citations.

Detecting and addressing plagiarism

It is important to address plagiarism in higher education to maintain academic integrity and teach ethical research and writing practices. When plagiarism is detected, a fair and consistent approach is recommended. Recognizing potential issues: A student copies and pastes text that seems different from their writing style. This could include text written by AI. Use plagiarism detection software: Using detection software like Turnitin can flag possible issues with plagiarism, but being able to spot AI generated text may be more challenging since it does not show up on many detection software applications yet. For those where it does, it is not reliable, so looking for red flags is key. Reviewing citations: Check the citations to be sure they are legitimate sources. Students using fake sources may also plagiarize the content. AI generated sources may also not exist.

Discuss consequences: Be transparent about the consequences of plagiarism. Let students know that there will be penalties for academic dishonesty, which could include failing the assignment, the course, or even expulsion, depending on institutional policies.

Plagiarism detection: Turnitin identifies instances of plagiarism, and here is a resource for students to interpret their Turnitin results. The results can also be shared with the student to use as a starting point for discussions.

Encourage self-reporting: Create an environment where students feel comfortable confessing to unintentional plagiarism. Emphasize the importance of learning from their mistakes and growing as scholars.

Meet with students: When plagiarism is detected, meet with the students in Zoom to discuss the issue and use it as a teaching opportunity. They may have misunderstood how to properly cite sources. Let them explain their understanding of plagiarism. This can help you to address any misunderstandings.

Offer a learning opportunity: Instead of immediately resorting to punitive measures, consider offering students a chance to correct their work and learn from the mistake. For example, you can ask them to rewrite the plagiarized sections, emphasizing the University of Missouri System’s proper citations.

• Document the incident: Keep records of the plagiarism incident, including any correspondence with the student, the evidence, and the actions taken. This documentation may be necessary if the issue escalates.

Addressing plagiarism is an opportunity for both education and prevention. It's important to strike a balance between providing a learning opportunity for students to correct their behavior and applying appropriate consequences when necessary. Always follow the University of Missouri System institution's policies and guidelines when dealing with plagiarism cases.

Related resources

Sprint 2.D Academic integrity

This sprint discusses how to create a learning environment that supports academic integrity in any modality.

Promoting academic integrity

Brief summaries along with citations on the topic of academic integrity in distance education are provided. Research findings are mixed.

Generative AI

This resource explores what generative AI means for our teaching and students’ learning.

Heckler, N. C., Rice, M., & Bryan, C. H. (2013). Turnitin Systems: A Deterrent to Plagiarism in College Classrooms. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(3), 229–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2013.10782604

Hopp, C., & Speil, A. (2021). How prevalent is plagiarism among college students? Anonymity preserving evidence from Austrian undergraduates. Accountability in Research: Policies & Quality Assurance, 28(3), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1804880

Insley, R. (2011). Managing Plagiarism: A Preventative Approach. Business Communication Quarterly, 74(2), 183–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569911404058

Our top 3 Campus resources

• University of Missouri-Columbia
• University of Missouri-Kansas City
• Missouri University of Science and Technology
• University of Missouri-St. Louis

Created on: April 8, 2024

Self Plagiarism

(Authors Note: This section of the module has been substantially modified from its earlier version)

** Note: 42 CFR Part 93 does not consider self-plagiarism to be research misconduct. **

Given that plagiarism is often conceptualized as theft, the notion of self-plagiarism does not seem to make much sense. After all, is it possible to steal from oneself? In fact, Hexam (1999) has pointed out that it is, indeed, possible to steal from oneself as when one engages in embezzlement or insurance fraud. However, when applied to research and scholarship, self-plagiarism refers to authors who reuse their own previously disseminated content and pass it off as a ”new” product without letting the reader know that this material has appeared previously. According to Hexam, “… the essence of self- plagiarism is [that] the author attempts to deceive the reader.” Let us remember that the concept of ethical writing, upon which the present instructional resource is grounded on, entails an implicit contract between reader and writer whereby the reader assumes, unless otherwise noted, that the material was written by the individual/s listed as authors, and that it is new and is accurate to the best of the author’s abilities. As such, self-plagiarism misleads the reader about the novelty of the material. In this section we review some of the most common instances of self- plagiarism and provide guidelines to avoid these pitfalls.

Self-plagiarism is often described in the context of several distinct practices in which some or all elements of a previous publication (e.g., text, data, and images) are reused in a new publication with ambiguous acknowledgement or no acknowledgement at all as to their prior dissemination. Perhaps the most blatant of these practices occurs when a previously published paper is later published again with very little or no modification. However, less blatant forms of duplication exist and these are sometimes classified with various labels, such as redundant, dual or overlapping publication. In examining these types of malpractices, the reader should keep in mind that the various forms of self-plagiarism are best thought as laying in a continuum in which the extent and the type of duplication can vary from substantial to minor, as does their potentially serious effects on the integrity of the scientific record.

A common practice for authors of trade books is to send their manuscript to several publishers. However, for authors of scientific or scholarly papers the acceptable practice is to submit their paper for publication to a single journal. Of course, an author may submit the same paper or a revised version of it to another journal, but only if it is determined that the journal to which it was first submitted has declined to publish it. Only under specific circumstances (see below) would it be acceptable for a paper published in one journal to appear in another journal.

In spite of these universally accepted practices, redundant publication1 continues to be a problem in the biomedical sciences. For example, in one editorial, Schein (2001) describes the results of a study he and a colleague carried out which found that 92 out of 660 studies taken from 3 major surgical journals were actual cases of redundant publication. The rate of duplication in the rest of the biomedical literature has been estimated to be between 10% to 20% (Jefferson, 1998), though one review of the literature suggests the more conservative figure of approximately 10% (Steneck, 2000). However, the true rate may depend on the discipline and even the journal and more recent studies in individual biomedical journals do show rates ranging from as low as just over 1% in one journal to as high as 28% in another (see Kim, Bae, Hahm, & Cho, 2014) The current situation has become serious enough that biomedical journal editors consider redundancy and duplication one of the top areas of concern (Wager, Fiack, Graf, Robinson, & Rowlands, 2009) and it is the second highest cause for articles to be retracted from the literature between the years 2007 and 2011 (Fang, Steen, & Casadevall, 2012). Many biomedical journals now have explicit policies clarifying their opposition to multiple submissions of the same paper. Some journals even request that authors who submit a manuscript for publication must also submit previously published papers or those that are currently under review that are related to the topic of the manuscript under consideration. This requirement has been implemented to allow editors to determine whether the extent of overlap between such papers warrants the publication of yet another similar paper. If, in the opinion of the editor, the extent of overlap were substantial, the paper would likely not be published.  

Email Updates

How to make a solar eclipse viewer with a cereal box and some foil

If you don't have solar glasses yet to watch the total eclipse happening April 8 , not to worry. The good folks at NASA have an easy way you can view the eclipse by making a box pinhole projector with common items found around your home — no degree in rocket science required.

A  rare total solar eclipse  Monday is set to chart a 115-mile-wide path over portions of Mexico, the United States and Canada. Millions of people are expected to flock toward the path of totality where they can catch a glimpse of this once-in-a-lifetime spectacle.

Experts caution those watching the eclipse to be careful: it's never safe to look directly at the Sun. Doing so can permanently damage your vision. Except for a brief moment during the totality when the moon completely blocks out the Sun's rays, you should wear specialized eye protection when viewing an eclipse.

To safeguard your vision, here's how to make a box pinhole projector with common household items.

Solar eclipse events: How long to travel to Indiana, Kentucky events from Louisville

Step 1 to create a box pinhole projector, gather these items

To make a box pinhole project, gather up the following items:

• A cardboard box (you can use a cereal box, shoe box, or a box from Amazon)
• Aluminum foil
• A white sheet of paper (make sure it's large enough to cover one end of the box)

Step 2, making the pinhole projector

Follow these instructions for creating your box pinhole projector.

• Using a pencil, trace one end of the box onto the white sheet of paper. Next, cut out the shape. The paper shape you cut out should be able to fit snugly inside the box.
• Next, cut two square holes on the opposite end of the box — one on the right side and the other on the left. If you're using a cereal box, tape up the middle so your box doesn't fall apart.
• Cover one of the square holes completely with aluminum foil. Use tape to keep the foil in place.
• Take a push pin and punch a small hole carefully in the center of the aluminum foil. This is the hole sunlight will enter. The larger square hole you made is where you'll look into the box.
• Congrats, you're done!

Step 3, using your pinhole projector to look at a solar eclipse

To use your box pinhole projector, stand with your back to the sun, then hold the large square hole up to your eye and move the box around until sunlight enters the tiny hole in the aluminum foil. In a moment, you should see the sun projected onto the white paper inside the box.

You can find more ways to view the solar eclipse courtesy of NASA or by visiting exploratorium.edu/eclipse/how-to-view-eclipse .

Protect your eyes: How to get solar glasses by Monday in Louisville before the 2024 total solar eclipse

John Tufts covers trending news for the Indianapolis Star. Send him a news tip at  [email protected] . Follow him on X at  @JTuftsReports .

Self-plagiarism in academic journal articles: from the perspectives of international editors-in-chief in editorial and COPE case

• Published: 08 February 2020
• Volume 123 , pages 299–319, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

• Wen-Yau Cathy Lin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4894-8031 1  

3261 Accesses

10 Citations

22 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Scholarly misconduct causes significant impact on the academic community. To the extremes, results of scholarly misconduct could endanger public welfare as well as national security. Although self-plagiarism has drawn considerable amount of attention, it is still a controversial issue among different aspect of academic ethic related discussions. The main purpose of this study is to identify two concerns including what is self-plagiarism in academic journals, conceivable point of contention, based on journal editors’ viewpoint. Between 1990 and 2015, content of 57 editorials indexed in Scopus and WoS and 75 cases of self-plagiarism raised by international editors in COPE were analyzed to explore how journal editors identify these problems. The results show that self-plagiarism can be categorized to four facets, including its identification, types, norm, and remedy. And the editors are concerned about the issues about the detection software, salami-slicing and overlapping publication, the harm of copyright, and the retractions of published articles. Results from this study not only could obtain in-depth understandings on self-plagiarism among academic journal articles but also being applied on establishing academic guidelines in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Plagiarism in articles published in journals indexed in the Scientific Periodicals Electronic Library (SPELL): a comparative analysis between 2013 and 2018

Marcelo Krokoscz

Self-Plagiarism Research Literature in the Social Sciences: A Scoping Review

Sarah Elaine Eaton & Katherine Crossman

IL and Information Ethics: How to Avoid Plagiarism in Scientific Papers?

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the american psychological association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Google Scholar  

Anderson, M. S., & Steneck, N. H. (2011). The problem of plagiarism. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, 29 (1), 90–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2010.09.013 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Andreescu, L. (2013). Self-plagiarism in academic publishing: The anatomy of a misnomer. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19 (3), 775–797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9416-1 .

Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research . (2018). Retrieved from https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/australian-code-responsible-conduct-research-2018 .

Babalola, O., Grant-Kels, J. M., & Parish, L. C. (2012). Ethical dilemmas in journal publication. Clinics in Dermatology, 30 (2), 231–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2011.06.013 .

Berlin, L. (2009). Plagiarism, salami slicing, and Lobachevsky. Skeletal Radiology, 38 (1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-008-0599-0 .

Berquist, T. H. (2013). Self-plagiarism: A growing problem in biomedical publication! American Journal of Roentgenology, 200 (2), 237. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.12.10327 .

BioMed Central. (2014a). Editorial policies: Text recycling . Retrieved from https://www.biomedcentral.com/getpublished/editorial-policies#text+recycling .

BioMed Central. (2014b). How to deal with text recycling. Retrieved from http://media.biomedcentral.com/content/editorial/BMC-text-recycling-editorial_guidelines.pdf .

Bird, S. (2002). Self-plagiarism and dual and redundant publications: What is the problem? Science and Engineering Ethics, 8 (4), 543–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-002-0007-4 .

Bretag, T., & Carapiet, S. (2007). A preliminary study to identify the extent of self-plagiarism in Australian academic research. Plagiary: Cross-Disciplinary Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication, and Falsification, 2, 92–103.

Broome, M. E. (2004). Self-plagiarism: Oxymoron, fair use, or scientific misconduct? Nursing Outlook, 52, 273–274.

Chrousos, G. P., Kalantaridou, S. N., Margioris, A. N., & Gravanis, A. (2012). The ‘self-plagiarism’ oxymoron: Can one steal from oneself? [editorial]. European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 42 (3), 231–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2362.2012.02645.x .

Code of Conduct for Scientists - Revised Version . (2013). Science Council of Japan. Retrieved from http://www.scj.go.jp/en/report/Code_of_Conduct_for_Scientists-Revised_version.pdf .

Code of Practice for Research: Promoting good practice and preventing misconduct . (2009). UK Research Integrity Office. Retrieved from http://www.ukrio.org/wp-content/uploads/UKRIO-Code-of-Practice-for-Research.pdf .

Collberg, C., & Kobourov, S. (2005). Self-plagiarism in computer science. Communications of the ACM, 48 (4), 88–94.

Collberg, C., Kobourov, S., Louie, J., & Slattery, T. (2003). SPlaT: A system for self-plagiarism detection. Paper presented at the IADIS international conference WWW/INTERNET Algarve, Portugal .

Committee on Publication Ethics. (2013). Text recycling guidelines. Retrieved December 30, 2013, from http://publicationethics.org/text-recycling-guidelines .

Cronin, B. (2013). Self-plagiarism: An odious oxymoron. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64 (5), 873. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22966 .

Dellavalle, R. P., Banks, M. A., & Ellis, J. I. (2007). Frequently asked questions regarding self-plagiarism: How to avoid recycling fraud. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 57 (3), 527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2007.05.018 .

European Science Foundation. (2017). The European code of conduct for research integrity . Retrieved from https://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf .

García-Romero, A., & Estrada-Lorenzo, J. (2014). A bibliometric analysis of plagiarism and self-plagiarism through Déjà vu. Scientometrics, 101 (1), 381–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1387-3 .

Green, L. (2005). Reviewing the scourge of self-plagiarism. M/C Journal, 8 (5). Retrieved from http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0510/07-green.php .

Guidelines for the Conduct of Research in the Intramural Research Program at NIH . (2016). National Institutes of Health. Retrieved from https://oir.nih.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/sourcebook/documents/ethical_conduct/guidelines-conduct_research.pdf .

Halupa, C., & Bolliger, D. (2013). Faculty perceptions of student self plagiarism: An exploratory multi-university study. Journal of Academic Ethics, 11 (4), 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-013-9195-6 .

Halupa, C., & Bolliger, D. (2015). Student perceptions of self-plagiarism: A multi-university exploratory study. Journal of Academic Ethics, 13 (1), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-015-9228-4 .

Halupa, C., Breitenbach, E., & Anast, A. (2016). A Self-plagiarism intervention for doctoral students: A qualitative pilot study. Journal of Academic Ethics, 14 (3), 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-016-9262-x .

Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Horbach, S. P. J. M. S., & Halffman, W. W. (2019). The extent and causes of academic text recycling or ‘self-plagiarism’. Research Policy, 48 (2), 492–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.004 .

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2016). Overlapping publications. Retrieved from http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/overlapping-publications.html .

Kokol, P., Završnik, J., Železnik, D., & Vošner, H. B. (2016). Creating a self-plagiarism research topic typology through bibliometric visualisation. Journal of Academic Ethics, 14 (3), 221–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-016-9258-6 .

Lancet. (2009). Self-plagiarism: Unintentional, harmless, or fraud? [editorial]. Lancet, 374 (9691), 664. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(09)61536-1 .

Loui, M. C. (2002). Seven ways to plagiarize: Handling real allegations of research misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8, 2002.

Martin, B. R. (2013). Whither research integrity? Plagiarism, self-plagiarism and coercive citation in an age of research assessment. Research Policy, 42 (5), 1005–1014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.03.011 .

Ministry of Science and Technology. (2017). Academic ethics guidelines for researchers by the ministry of science and technology . Retrieved from https://www.most.gov.tw/most/attachments/3d81520a-b403-4603-b8ef-b191c38ce80c? .

Neville, C. W. (2005). Beware the consequences of citing self-plagiarism. Communications of the ACM, 48 (6), 13.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Pierson, C. A. (2015). Salami slicing: How thin is the slice? Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 27 (2), 65.

Plagiarism.org., glossary. Retrieved December 30, 2013, from http://www.plagiarism.org/plagiarism-101/glossary .

Roig, M. (2015). Avoiding plagiarism, self - plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing. Retrieved from https://bsc.ua.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/plagiarism-1.pdf .

Rosenzweig, M., & Schnitzer, A. E. (2013). Self-plagiarism: Perspectives for librarians. College and Research Libraries News, 74 (9), 492–494.

Rosing, C. K., & Cury, A. A. D. (2013). Self-plagiarism in scientific journals: An emerging discussion [editorial material]. Brazilian Oral Research, 27 (6), 451–452.

Samuelson, P. (1994). Self-plagiarism or fair use? Communications of the ACM, 37 (8), 2125.

Scanlon, P. M. (2007). Song from myself: An anatomy of self-plagiarism. Plagiary, 2, 1–10.

Sun, Y. C., & Yang, F. Y. (2015). Uncovering published authors’ text-borrowing practices: Paraphrasing strategies, sources, and self-plagiarism. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 224–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.05.003 .

Text Recycling . Committee on publication ethics. Retrieved from http://publicationethics.org/files/u661/Text%20recycling_notes%20from%20Forum%20meeting_final.pdf .

Wager, E., Barbour, V., Yentis, S., & Kleinert, S. (2009). Retraction guidelines. Retrieved December 29, 2013, from http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf .

Zhang, Y., & Jia, X. (2012). A survey on the use of CrossCheck for detecting plagiarism in journal articles. Learned Publishing, 25 (4), 292–307. https://doi.org/10.1087/20120408 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, under Grant No. MOST 103-2410-H-032-067.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Information and Library Science, Tamkang University, No. 151, Yingzhuan Rd., Tamsui Dist., New Taipei City, 25137, Taiwan

Wen-Yau Cathy Lin

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wen-Yau Cathy Lin .

Appendix 1: List of editorials containing self-plagiarism-related articles

• a Non-medical discipline journals

Appendix 2: List of self-plagiarism issues covered by the COPE cases

Rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Lin, WY.C. Self-plagiarism in academic journal articles: from the perspectives of international editors-in-chief in editorial and COPE case. Scientometrics 123 , 299–319 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03373-0

Download citation

Received : 24 August 2019

Published : 08 February 2020

Issue Date : April 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03373-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Self-plagiarism
• Academic journal
• Redundant publication
• Overlapping publication
• Research ethics
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Forgot to get solar eclipse glasses? Here's how to DIY a viewer with household items.

By now, everyone has heard that the rare 2024 total solar eclipse is coming – and it's got people excited.

While cities brace for traffic, schools brace for absences and space enthusiasts are planning parties, the glasses that enable safe viewing of the eclipse have become something of a hot commodity.

Peeking directly at the eclipse before it reaches totality without proper eye protection can cause permanent eye damage, experts have warned, making glasses a necessity for safe viewing. But, as the day approaches, they may become harder to find .

Luckily, people who didn't manage to get their hands on glasses are not completely down and out. There are other safe ways to view the eclipse, say experts, and a lot of them only require a little bit of craftiness and items you can find lying around the house.

Here are a few DIY eclipse viewers you can make at home.

As a reminder, none of these options allow you to look directly at the eclipse: you need special eclipse glasses for that.

Solar eclipse guide: When is the 2024 total solar eclipse? Your guide to glasses, forecast, where to watch.

NASA's DIY cereal box viewer

This NASA project uses components you almost certainly already have at home. Using a cereal box, cardboard, foil, paper, scissors and tape or glue, you can put together this projection eclipse viewer.

As always, NASA advises not to look directly into the sun using this tool.

Steps to make the cereal box eclipse viewer:

• Get an empty, clean cereal box.
• Cut a white piece of cardboard that will fit snuggly in the bottom of the box, or secure it permanently by gluing it in place.
• Cut the top of the cereal box, removing both ends and leaving the center intact.
• Put a piece of tape across the center of the top to securely hold it closed.
• Tape a piece of heavy-duty foil or double a single layer for additional strength, covering one of the openings at the top of the cereal box. The other opening will remain open for viewing.
• Using a small nail (approximately 3mm in diameter) push a hole in the foil.
• Cover the entire box with construction paper, leaving the single-viewing opening and the foil uncovered.

How to use the DIY viewer :

• The finished box should be held with the pin-hole side facing the sun. It may take a little practice pointing the box.
• With your back facing the sun, look through the viewing opening. A small image of the sun, about ½ cm in diameter can be seen projected on the white paper inside the box.

Watch the demo here:

The Planetary Society DIY paper viewer

While the Planetary Society also offers instructions for box or projector viewers that are more "fancy," as they put it, it doesn't get easier than their simple pinhole paper projector.

To make it, you only need two index cards (3-by-5 or A6 or A7 size) or small paper plates for each person and basic pushpins. Simply use the pushpin to punch a small hole close to the middle of one of the cards and you're done.

Another super easy version that requires no crafting? A kitchen colander. An ordinary kitchen colander can easily be used to view a solar eclipse in the same way as other projector viewers; the colander's circular holes project crescent images of the sun onto the ground.

To make the "fancier" version, you'll need 2 index cards (larger, 5-by-7 or A5 cards work better for this) or small paper plates for each person, a pencil, pushpins and a towel, sweatshirt, blanket, flattened corrugated cardboard box, carpet, or other soft substrate to place underneath card during pin pushing.

To make the fancier version:

• Draw a simple design on a card. The lines should not be too close together
• Place the card on top of something soft (blanket, towel, etc)
• Using the push pin, make small holes along your design lines. Not too close together – about 5 millimeters (1/4 inch) apart.

To use it, you'll again want to avoid looking directly at the sun:

• Go to your eclipse observing spot and make sure you can see the shadow of your head and shoulders clearly.
• Hold up the card with the hole on top of your shoulder so that you can see the shadow of the card above the shadow of your shoulder.
• Now hold up the other card and make sure you can see its shadow, too.
• Move the second card and watch how its shadow moves. Keeping the card in front of you, move its shadow until the second card's shadow overlaps the first card's shadow.
• Now look at the second card. You should see a dot on the card for every hole you punched. Those dots are actually images of the sun.

Cardboard or paper tube eclipse viewer

Sticking with the theme of using items you can easily find around the house, tube viewers can be made using cardboard tubes from household items like paper towels or toilet paper rolls. You can also use thick cardstock rolled up and taped to make your own tube.

To make one, you'll need a cardboard tube, white paper, aluminum foil, tape and a pushpin or something else sharp to poke a small hole. According to "Let's Talk Science," you can put this viewer together with these steps :

• Trace the opening of the tube on a piece of white paper. Draw a slightly bigger circle around it. Cut around the bigger circle. Cut small slits to the inner circle.
• Cut an opening near one end of the tube to make a viewing window.
• Tape the paper circle to the end of the tube near the viewing window.
• Cut a piece of aluminum foil that is a bit larger than the opening of the tube.
• Poke a small hole in the center of the aluminum foil.
• Tape the aluminum foil over the other opening of the tube.

How to use the viewer:

• With your back to the sun, hold the tube parallel to the path of the sun. Look through the viewing hole. Move the viewer until a small white circle appears on the paper.

See an example below:

Where to buy solar eclipse glasses near me? Some locations may still have glasses for last-minute eclipse watchers

Today's the day when the moon's shadow will (partially) blot out the sun for millions of Floridians, and some of them may still be scrambling for eclipse glasses so they can safely look at it without frying their eyes. Where can you still find them?

You may have to call around, or do some driving. Many retail locations have been selling solar eclipse glasses this year and some places have been giving them away, but availability is "while supplies last" and that will be different for every place.

There's an eclipse today? The procrastinator's guide to viewing the solar eclipse in Florida

Where can I find eclipse glasses?

Here are some places to check. Remember, some may have sold out, and not all locations may have been carrying them. Make sure any eclipse glasses you buy are legitimate and include an ISO rating, an ISO number and an address, avoid any that say "NASA Approved," and test them before you look up .

7-Eleven, Buc-ee's, Circle K and more

You may not have to go farther than the end of your street. Many convenience stores and gas stations have been carrying eclipse glasses and may still have some in stock.

Eclipse glasses have been spotted at 7-Eleven , Circle K, and Buc-ee's locations and many individual stores may have jumped on the opportunity.

Fake eclipse glases on sale online: Are yours safe? How to test before the April solar eclipse

Big chain stores such as Walmart, Lowes

Walmart has offered a wide variety of eclipse glasses in different styles, so has Target . However, all of the glasses on their websites are shipping only which will be a little late, so check your local store for availability.

Some other places where eclipse glasses have been spotted:

• Ace Hardware
• Cracker Barrel

Does Publix have eclipse glasses?

No, Publix did not carry eclipse glasses this year, according to a local customer service rep.

Warby Parker, Sonic offering free eclipse glasses

Prescription eyeglasses retailer Warby Parker began handing out free eclipse glasses at their locations on April 1 so definitely call first.

Sonic Drive-in locations are offering free eclipse glasses with the purchase of their new Blackout Sonic Float.

Does Amazon offer same-day delivery of eclipse glasses?

Online stores are great for fast service, but you may want to give it a miss this time. The   American Astronomical Society (AAS) does not recommend buying eclipse glasses online due to the number of counterfeit, unsafe glasses that have hit the market this year.

Shooting the eclipse with your phone: Can I take a photo of the eclipse with my phone? Yes, but take these steps so you don't fry it

Do I need to wear solar eclipse glasses?

If you plan to look directly at the sun, yes. Even a brief glance may cause temporary or permanent damage to your eyes and eyesight.

"Do NOT look at the Sun through a camera lens, telescope, binoculars, or any other optical device while wearing eclipse glasses or using a handheld solar viewer," NASA advises . "The concentrated solar rays will burn through the filter and cause serious eye injury."

How can I tell if my eclipse glasses are legitimate?

If you didn't buy your eclipse glasses directly from one of the vetted venders on the AAS list or a trusted source, check the text on the glasses for the  ISO 12312-2 standard listing and the address of the company. But these can be copied.

Don't trust any glasses that say they are NASA Approved . NASA doesn't do that.

Test your glasses first by putting them on inside and looking at a strong light source. You shouldn't be able to see anything, according to the AAS, although very bright lights may show up but would be very faint.

Go outside, put them on, and look at sunlight reflections or glance at the sun very quickly. You shouldn't see anything around you and the sun should appear to be a "sharp-edged, round disk" that's comfortably bright.

Can I watch the eclipse without looking at it?

Yes! If you don't manage to get glasses in time, there are several ways to see the eclipse that won't risk your eyes with items you probably have around the home.

Anything with a round hole in it can be held up to cast an image of the eclipse onto the ground or a sheet of white paper. Pinhole projectors, colanders, a slotted spoon, a Ritz cracker, even lacing your fingers together.

Or you can look under a tree. The sun shining through tree leaves and branches creates its own pinhole projector, casting lots of little crescent-moon shapes on the ground.

What time is the eclipse in Florida?

The eclipse will last roughly 2½ hours in Florida, starting around 1:40 p.m. EDT and ending around 4:17 EDT. The time of maximum coverage will be just before 3 p.m. EDT for most of the state.

You can find eclipse times for your ZIP code on the map below, just tap your location: