Systematic Literature Review to Identify and Rank the Most Common Reasons for Plagiarism

  • Gerhardus Hattingh F
  • A. K. Buitendag A
  • Lall M
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
16Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Aim/Purpose: In this paper the authors explore and analyse the literature to determine the common reasons why a student may choose to plagiarise. The predominant purpose of the research formed part of a larger study to develop metrics and methods to identify potential plagiarism within coding-based assignments. Methodology: A systematic literature review with the objective to identify and rank the most common reasons for plagiarism was conducted. This was achieved by identi-fying primary studies conducted on the reasons for plagiarism. The identified studies were subsequently subjected to a top down quality assessment with a number of criteria. In total, 37 studies made it through the selection process. The results of the selected studies were synthesized to obtain a ranked list of reasons why students plagiarise. Contribution: This paper contributes a ranked list of reasons that may influence a student’s decision to plagiarise, based on a set of categories emerging from the literature. Findings: Eleven possible categories indicating the common reasons behind a student’s decision to plagiarise are identified. The literature revealed that aspects such as the external values of the student and attitudes towards academia and teaching styles are significant factors that impact a student’s willingness and decision to plagiarise. Impact on Society: Instructors may gain a better understanding on why their students decided to plagiarise.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Gerhardus Hattingh, F., A. K. Buitendag, A., & Lall, M. (2020). Systematic Literature Review to Identify and Rank the Most Common Reasons for Plagiarism. In Proceedings of the 2020 InSITE Conference (pp. 159–182). Informing Science Institute. https://doi.org/10.28945/4576

Readers over time

‘21‘22‘23‘24‘2502468

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 2

50%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

25%

Researcher 1

25%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Computer Science 2

50%

Environmental Science 1

25%

Psychology 1

25%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0