The awareness of plagiarism among postgraduate students at Taif University and its relationship to certain variables

Abstract

Plagiarism has permeated higher education institutions all around the world, and it continues to be a source of worry. This crime is such a widespread among the postgraduate students, some turn to the textbook or Internet for copying and pasting without citing the source. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to ascertain whether postgraduate students at Taif University were aware of plagiarism. The study’s importance may be observed in determining the extent to which Taif University students are aware of plagiarism in order to improve their ability for academic writing and their excellent scientific research skills. Descriptive- statistics was used to analyze, both: qualitative and quantitative data, and the validity and reliability of the questionnaire were validated. Thus, this study revealed that postgraduate students have a medium level of understanding of the different forms of plagiarism and a high awareness of its causes. There were also differences in the average responses of the sample based on gender, specialization, and participation in scientific research courses. Therefore, the study demonstrated the importance of improving a culture of scientific integrity among postgraduate students to facilitate their knowledge of scientific plagiarism and its forms, causes and penalties.

Keywords:

• Awareness
• plagiarism
• postgraduate students
• Taif University
• forms of plagiarism
• causes of plagiarism

1. Introduction

In general, scientific integrity is one of the basic rules for a researcher who performs a scientific investigation during his or her studies. All universities worldwide have ethical standards for scientific research that emphasize the need for scientific integrity.

Widespread use of technology and the internet has caused global revolutions in information dissemination and exchange. The internet also provides great opportunities and facilities for writing scientific research, making it easy to access references, databases, books and journals.

Searching has become straightforward and professional since it is simple to retrieve information and to receive essential information in a short amount of time, minimizing the time and effort spent in writing a scientific study. However, due to the abundance of information sources, numerous problems in the field of university education have emerged, the most notable of which is plagiarism (Chudá et al., 2013).

Plagiarism is becoming more common in universities, and it has only worsened in recent years. It has affected not only scholarly publications but also postgraduate studies, severely harming scientific research (Lunter et al., 2013). Plagiarism is one of the most important problems in higher education (Michalska, 2013).

Plagiarism is a type of opportunistic behavior and an ethical crime (Burkatzki et al., 2013; Raj & Prashanth, 2017) that encompasses a variety of behaviors and acts, ranging from a purposeful or inadvertent misuse of citations, such as paraphrasing, to an intentional copying of others’ works without proper attribution or credit (Walchuk, 2016).

Today, it is considered a major research misconduct, a dishonest activity (imitation), and involves claiming the intellectual property of others (Chang et al., 2021; De Maio et al., 2019; Yi et al., 2020). In addition, it jeopardizes academic integrity (Ali, 2021; Nwosu & Chukwuere, 2020).

Plagiarism is defined as the act of using another person’s words or ideas without referencing them (DEL Rosario & Sareno, 2020; Kumari & Lakshmi, 2015). Plagiarism often results from a lack of information or a failure to document it (DEL Rosario & Sareno, 2020; Kumari & Lakshmi, 2015; Louw, 2017). An analysis of the preceding definitions and notions of plagiarism reveals that plagiarism is a crime involving the unacknowledged use of another’ thoughts and deeds, whether knowingly or accidentally.

Research has proven that “plagiarism” is on the rise in higher education (Ali, 2021; Cheers et al., 2021; Ndebele, 2020; Raj et al., 2021; Sankar, 2020), and this has attracted more attention to finding different solutions to this problem.

Plagiarism may be unintentional when it includes some spontaneous errors that can be overlooked because they are not considered scientific violations or can entail deliberate mistakes that can be classified as practices that violate scientific integrity and may result in administrative or legal penalties for the researcher.

As students’ progress through the stages of academic achievement, they are expected to understand the nature, causes, and forms of plagiarism. They are also expected to comprehend and accept rules regarding documentation, be aware of the laws governing copyright and intellectual property rights to information, understand of academic writing, and have an understanding of academic integrity.

Raising students’ awareness of plagiarism may not be a goal in and of itself, but rather a mean for producing knowledgeable students capable of making academic and research advancements in contemporary society.

One of the most important aspects of educational institutions’ goals is making sure that students are aware of plagiarism. This guarantees that individuals advance in playing out their tasks as informed students who contribute to the advancement and development of society.

Researchers have conducted numerous studies in various universities worldwide to determine students’ knowledge, awareness of plagiarism, as well as its forms and causes. Alhadlaq et al. (2020) investigated attitudes toward and perceptions of plagiarism among medical students in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, demonstrating that there is a link between a rejection of plagiarism and high student grades, that students who study medical ethics received the highest scores, and that the majority of the study’s participants rejected plagiarism. Furthermore, Elshafei and Jahangir (2020) investigated the factors that influence plagiarism among students at Jazan University and discovered that time management, fear of failure, and social pressure all has an impact on plagiarism. According to Lulu-Pokubo and Echem (2020), there is no correlation between student perceptions of plagiarism and their awareness of it. According to Mahmoud et al. (2020) the rate of plagiarism among students was approximately 33%, with some of the causes for plagiarism being a lack of knowledge regarding it and students’ lack of English language aptitude.

Memon and Mavrinac (2020) found that the most frequent cause of plagiarism was a lack of time (16.1%), and the most frequent effect was the belief that people who plagiarize are not appreciated or seen positively. Utilizing plagiarism-detection tools helps increase public awareness of plagiarism.

The study of Nwosu and Chukwuere (2020) aimed to determine the attitude of students toward online plagiarism, and it showed some factors affect plagiarism in students such as poorly prepared study notes, a lack of understanding, ambition, and family pressure. Similarly, Rodhiya et al. (2020) studied students’ knowledge and awareness of plagiarism, and reported that most of students claimed to recognize what plagiarism is. But most of them seemed to lack a basic comprehension of the different forms of plagiarism, leading to inadvertent plagiarism. Sankar’s study (Sankar, 2020) by examining students’ awareness, found that the most important causes of plagiarism were a heavy workload, plagiarism rationalization, and ineffective penalties. Similarly, Yi et al.’s (2020) study indicated that the most common forms of plagiarism are duplicating text without citing its source and utilizing others’ ideas without verification. Similarly, Williams’s study (Yi et al., 2020) found that the following factors lead to plagiarism: student pressure, inadequate time management, poor research ability, and ignorance of plagiarism. Elkhatat et al. (2021) investigated students’ understanding of and competence with plagiarism. They discovered that a lack of comprehension of or enthusiasm for a task as well as an inability to manage time were the most common causes for attempted plagiarism. Khan et al. (2021) showed that although there were differences in the definitions of plagiarism, the sample was aware of the notion. The respondents’ awareness was not strong regarding citation styles, certain anti- plagiarism regulations and plagiarism penalties. According to Mehregan (2021), there are several techniques to prevent plagiarism in academic settings, the most effective of which is for institutions to implement rigorous punitive measures against persons who engage in such immoral behavior and to enforcing sanctions against them. Raj et al. (2021) stated that participation of students was insufficiently informed on how to avoid plagiarism, that there was a lack of training regarding ethics of research and publication, and a lack of academic integrity policies.

Taif University undertakes many efforts to reduce plagiarism, whether among graduate students or faculty members, through awareness programs, monitoring and follow-up activities, and plagiarism detection software. In addition, workshops, seminars, lectures, and advertisements have been introduced to improve plagiarism awareness.

Furthermore, in the university’s central library, the “Ithenticate” program is used to detect plagiarism in research, theses, and postgraduate students’ graduation projects.

Accordingly, these considerations demonstrate that there is interest in the topic of plagiarism and its forms, causes and effects. To my knowledge, there are few studies on plagiarism in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the topic has not received sufficient attention.

2. Problem of the study

The basis of the scientific community is the author and the researcher. He is the one who does tests, searches for information, and investigates facts to get to scientific conclusions. If this researcher is exposed to scientific thievery and attributes his ideas to others, this will cause him financial, moral and literary losses and make him unable to complete his research career. In doing so, the scientific community loses its most valuable elements, a good and serious researcher at the same time.

Following the rapid advancement of technology, awareness of scientific plagiarism has come to the forefront of society’s and academia’s attention. Increasing awareness of plagiarism among graduate students is vital since they are the qualified human energy to contribute to scholarly research at the university. A comprehensive approach to eradicating plagiarism must be taken, starting with a strong understanding of the term, causes, forms, and effects, as well as the values and principles of scientific integrity. This has a significant impact on students and their academic and research roles.

Plagiarism is a threat to the educational process because it allows students to take credit for others’ work without obtaining the required learning objectives (Foltýnek et al., 2020). It is a type of research fraud and a major violation of scientific principles (Anderson & Steneck, 2011). This indicates that plagiarists do not provide the correct documentation for their information; they simply copy what others have done, and they lack the creativity and originality required by academia. In this regard, Klein (2011) and Sibomana et al. (2018) reported that plagiarism occurs because students are not aware of plagiarism’s causes, misunderstand what it is, or believe that it has no impact on their behavior. According to Alhadlaq et al. (2020), Saudi students lack awareness of both scientific methodology and scientific and academic misconduct.

Due to the vast amount of digital intellectual creation and some researchers’ ignorance of their own actions,—whether on purpose or not—studies are necessary to help increase this awareness.

Although Taif University aspires to be a pioneer in graduate education and to deliver exceptional scientific and professional services, additional research is needed to help its students understand intellectual property rights, scientific research ethics, and academic writing abilities.

As a result, this study aims to address a real problem that postgraduate students face at a number of universities, including Taif University.

3. Study questions

• What is the degree of awareness of plagiarism (forms & Causes) among Taif University postgraduate students?

• Do the variables of gender, specialization, and participation in scientific research courses have statistically significant effects on the averages of the sample responses?

4. Purpose and significance of the study

The study aimed to accomplish the following:

• Identify the degrees of awareness of plagiarism among postgraduate students at Taif University.

• Identify any statistically significant differences in the sample’s average responses that can be attributable to gender, specialization, or participation in scientific research courses.

The study’s significance is that it reveals the extent to which postgraduate students at Taif University are aware of plagiarism, helping university administration to focus on the issue and offer training courses and seminars to educate students. This research is part of the strategy at Taif University that aims to improve the educational process and conduct regarding educational research. Moreover, the results of the study may help university administration and educational planners develop programs, training courses, and workshops that help students develop a culture of outstanding scientific research.

5. Literature review

5.1. Study terminology

There are numerous definitions of plagiarism, some of which cover broad concepts. For example, Sibomana et al. (2018) defined plagiarism as a noun that comes from the verb “to plagiarize”. “To plagiarize” is defined by The Longman Dictionary (2020) as borrowing words or ideas from another person’s work and using them in your work without disclosing that they are not your own. “To plagiarize” thus means to “take and pass off (another’s ideas or words) as one’s own: use (another’s creation) without crediting the source”. According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2021), plagiarism is a form of research misconduct because it involves taking someone else’s intellectual property.

Kumar Akr and Mohindra (2019) suggested that plagiarism is a form of research misconduct that occurs when authors steal material, ideas, or images from another source and take credit for it. Plagiarism is defined as the act of duplicating someone else’s ideas, sentences, words, or a portion of their research without correctly citing the original work.

According to the above, the term “plagiarism” refers to claiming ownership of something that belongs to others either intentionally or unintentionally. It is a risky practice with potentially disastrous results. The variety of the definitions of plagiarism can be attributed to the fact that it may occur in many areas of life.

5.2. Forms of plagiarism

Several studies have identified many forms of plagiarism. Bahadori et al. (2012) and Mohammed et al. (2015) indicated that there are two types of plagiarism. The first is intentional plagiarism, which occurs when an author fully understands plagiarism and is willing to plagiarize. Accidental plagiarism is the second type of plagiarism, which occurs when someone plagiarizes due to ignorance or a lack of writing talent.

Plagiarism can occur in numerous ways, including copying and pasting from the internet without revealing the original author, using an author’s idea without citing it (Ramadhan, 2017), excessively referring to an original article’s terms (Yoshimura, 2018), or duplicating an idea or notion without consulting the original source (Kumar Akr & Mohindra, 2019).

Elshafei and Jahangir (2020), Nwosu and Chukwuere (2020), Krokoscz (2021), and Romanowski (2022) identified a number of forms of plagiarism, including the following:

• When an entire paragraph or portion of text is copied exactly without citing or mentioning the source, this is known as direct plagiarism.

• When a plagiarist borrows terms without citing them, this is known as mosaic plagiarism.

• When an author plagiarizes his or her own previous work without citing, this is known as self-plagiarism.

There are several forms of plagiarism according to Anney and Mosha (2015) and B. A. Williams (2021), including when a researcher borrows a statement from a source and changes a few words without mentioning the source, known as word-switch theft, and when someone uses another person’s creative style to promote their own ideas without giving credit to this source.

5.3. Causes of plagiarism

Several studies have revealed that some of the causes of plagiarism are writing under duress (Abou-Setta, 2012), citing sources erroneously (Moore, 2014), being academically immature, having the intent to deceive (Mohammed et al., 2015), having easy access to online materials and lacking guidance regarding scientific research ethics (Anney & Mosha, 2015; Šprajc et al., 2017; Vázquez-Recio et al., 2016). Some other causes are student laziness, time constraints, incapacity to communicate in English (Louw, 2017; Ramadhan, 2017), poor academic writing skills, rapidly completed work (Rodhiya et al., 2020; A. S. Williams, 2020), insufficient research experience or enthusiasm, ignorance of the many types of plagiarism, and lack of penalties for plagiarizing (Chaturvedi, 2018). Hafsa (2021) also stated that weak research ethics and difficulty understanding and recalling important information from scientific publications are additional causes of plagiarism. Moreover, the rapid increase in online learning has provided students more opportunities for plagiarism (Šprajc et al., 2017).

Similarly, A. S. Williams (2020) listed various causes for student plagiarism, including that it is simple or that students are certain that it will not be detected, are unaware that plagiarism exists, or do not know how to avoid it.

As evidenced by the abovementioned causes, students have different motives for plagiarism according to their cultural backgrounds. The basis of the problem is a lack of a clear and unified understanding of the problem and its dimensions. Plagiarism is an educational concern that universities must address by raising awareness of it, encouraging students to avoid it, and imposing appropriate penalties on those who plagiarize.

5.4. Consequences of plagiarism

Plagiarism has a number of negative consequences; for example, it stifles creativity and originality, which are critical components of academic success (Sibomana et al., 2018). It is one of the most serious forms of research misconduct according to Foltýnek et al. (2019).

Plagiarism not only obstructs independent thought but also leads to moral degradation (Sankar, 2020). In addition, creativity and research development skills have decreased due to a disrespect for scientific research’s ethical standards and principles (Sibomana et al., 2018).

Plagiarism can lead to dissatisfaction among researchers, reduce the prospects for outstanding scientific research and damage the reputations of local and international universities. It also eliminates distinguished scientific mentalities, replaces them with fragile and scientifically empty mentalities that are devoid of the spirit of innovation and competition, impeding scientific progress and real civilizational progress.

6. Methodology

6.1. Population and participants

The study population consisted of all postgraduate students at Taif University, a total of 2,290 in the 2020/2021 academic year. 720 respondents randomly responded; and therefore, the response rate is 31.4 % which is a good response. The characteristics of the participants in this study are indicated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Gender, specialization, and training courses in research respondents’ field of scientific research.

(Figure 1) showed that the percentage of females in the sample is high, which is due to the large number of females in the university. Notably, 60% of the sample comes from humanities colleges, a proportion that is even higher in the category of “less than three training courses”, which may be due to the low attendance of master’s students in scientific research training programs.

7. Study instrument

Based on a review of the literature, a structured questionnaire was electronically prepared (using Google forms) to collect data from postgraduate students. The questionnaire consisted of two parts. The first part was dedicated to learning about the study sample’s demographic characteristics in terms of gender, specialization, and participation in scientific research courses. The second part was divided into two axes to measure postgraduate students’ awareness of the forms and causes of plagiarism. The first axis contains thirteen paragraphs and is titled “Forms of Plagiarism.” The second axis is titled “Reasons for Plagiarism” and contains fifteen paragraphs in total.

The questionnaire was prepared in English, translated into Arabic by translators who had mastered both languages, and then emailed to the university’s postgraduate students.

All data were stored in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet linked to the online survey. Descriptive statistical techniques like table of percentages and frequency counts were used in the analysis of the background data (Gender, Specialists, Training Courses); as well as, Cronbach’ Alpha values, Pearson values were employed to verify the reliability and validity of the study tool. In addition, Mean score, standard deviation, Independent Sample T. test; One Way-Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used in answering the research questions. The data were statistically processed using the statistical packages for social sciences (SPSS, v22) software.

8. Validity and reliability of the study instrument

The instrument was validated in two ways. First, the instrument was presented to academics who could truly assess its suitability for the study’s objectives, the validity of the items, and their relevance to the various themes. These academics could also suggest any changes and offer their own observations and recommendations. Second, the estimates of the “Pearson” correlation coefficient were used to calculate the subjective validity of the instrument. The correlation coefficient of the axis of plagiarism forms was 0.834, for reasons for plagiarism it was 0.861, and for the instrument as a whole it was 0.847. All these values are high, indicating that the tool is actually testing what it is measuring.

Cronbach’s alpha measured the stability of the instrument. The alpha coefficient for the forms of plagiarism was 0.964, for reasons for plagiarism it was 0.889, and for the instrument as a whole it was 0.926, all of which are large coefficients of reliability that affirm the validity of the application tool.

Following a five-point Likert scale, the response scale of the questionnaire terms is five degrees, strongly agree, agree, somewhat agree, disagree and strongly disagree, corresponding to scores of 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1, respectively. The author reported the following ratios to explain the results in each class: very low in the category from 1 to less than 1.80; low in the category from 1.80 to less than 2.60; moderate in the category from 2.60 to less than 3.40; strong from 3.40 to less than 4.20; and very strong from 4.20 to 5.

9. Results and discussion

Descriptive analysis, including standard deviations and mean, is used to determine respondents’ views about the forms and causes of plagiarism to understand the level of awareness of plagiarism among postgraduate students at Taif University.

9.0.1. 1 -Forms of plagiarism

Table 1 shows that postgraduate students are moderately aware of the various types of plagiarism, which indicates that they may practice plagiarism, and they agreed on the forms that occur at a high or low degree with a mean of 3.21 and a standard deviation of 0.79. The mean of the items ranged between 3.82 and 2.57. These findings are in accordance with those of Sorea et al. (2021), who indicated that all their respondents were 100% aware of plagiarism.

Table 1. The responses of individuals from the research sample aligned with the awareness degree for the forms of plagiarism

N	Items	Mean	Standard deviation
1	Transferring information from the internet and formulating it without mentioning its source.	3.67	0.781
2	Incorrectly writing citations by attributing the work to a nonoriginal author.	3.07	0.770
3	Using diagrams, maps, statistics, images, and other media without properly documenting them.	2.99	0.771
4	Transferring words or phrases from the internet or from a book with minor changes.	3.05	0.845
5	Using the author’s idea but in different words without mentioning the original source.	3.60	0.894
6	Making a substitution that is, duplicating a piece of text after changing a few words while keeping the source’s core information and not referring to it.	2.76	0.740
7	Paraphrasing or summarizing information from the source without explicit acknowledgment of this.	3.49	0.762
8	Translating scientific knowledge into a different language without referencing the original source.	3.30	0.850
9	Mixing materials copied from multiple sources without mentioning their sources.	3.82	0.675
10	Taking a statement from a source and modifying a few words to make it sound unique.	3.54	0.830
11	Rephrasing and altering thoughts in a new language without mentioning the original source(s).	3.17	0.996
12	Fabricating data in research, i.e., the researcher invokes data from his or her imagination and fabricates it as data regarding the examinees to influence the results of the research.	2.57	0.641
13	Citing fictitious sources that do not exist.	2.67	0.767
Total		3.21	0.794

Furthermore, Saliu et al. (2021) showed that postgraduate students had an average awareness of plagiarism. This is also consistent with Sharaf and Banu’s (2021) findings, which indicated that most research academics are well aware of plagiarism and its penalties. On the other hand, Ramzan et al. (2012) indicated that students were not sufficiently informed of plagiarism regulations and procedures at their universities.

According to the findings, the most common forms of plagiarism among postgraduate students are copying items from multiple sources without recognizing their sources and transferring information from the internet without mentioning its source(s). These findings suggest that cut-and-paste is a common practice. This indicates that participants are unable to accurately identify internet sources as the primary sources of plagiarism. Babalola (2012) found that more than 60% of students admitted to copying content from the web without giving proper attribution.

The findings also demonstrate students’ inefficiency in documenting their references within their research and in their attempts to separate texts or phrases during the transfer process. This suggests that postgraduate students are not overly concerned with the issue of plagiarism and do not perceive anything wrong with citing sources within their research, or that respondents don’t think plagiarism is a major deal.

The students also mentioned paraphrasing or summarizing information from a source without explicitly acknowledging it, i.e., quoting a sentence from a source and changing some of its words to appear innovative. This result contrasts with Sharaf and Banu (2021) findings, who demonstrated that all researchers viewed the absence of citations for text from other sources as plagiarism. The preceding results indicate that postgraduate students agree that many of them may not invest the effort required to prepare scientifically acceptable papers and that the quantity of electronic data tempts many students to utilize and claim them as their own. Because so much electronic material is undocumented, the sample assumes that utilizing search engines is the simplest way to acquire information, and students will mix an author’s ideas with their own.

The sample also indicated that students might utilize phrases that enrich a written sentence or syllable by translating the meaning of a paragraph into their own words, which is known as word-replacement plagiarism. This showed that students lack confidence in their ability to properly cite sources when conducting research or writing assignments.

The paragraphs that obtained an average score ranged between 3.30 and 2.57. These included several types of plagiarism, such as translating scientific content into another language without referring to its source, paraphrasing ideas and translating them into a new language without acknowledging their source, and writing citations incorrectly, as indicated by Bielska and Rutkowski (2021). These results indicate that some students practice deception by presenting the distorted works of others and claiming ownership of them and that students may not be aware of how to properly attribute such ideas to their creators. This implies that some students may think that the information on the internet is public, open-source and can be accessed by anyone. Some students may also resort to excluding or increasing information that they think affects their research.

The sample indicated that there is a category of students that makes minor changes in words or phrases copied from the internet or a book and that also uses illustrations, maps, statistics, and images without proper documentation and replacement, i.e., these students copy part of a text after changing some words while preserving the source’s basic information without referring to it.

Students may mistakenly plagiarize by using the words and ideas of others without realizing that they must document them. These results may be related to students’ poor writing skills or to their view that information on the internet is public and open to anyone. This is not true, as copyright protects the majority of online content, including images. According to Šprajc et al. (2017), the causes that may lead university students to plagiarize include not knowing how to properly credit information sources. Additionally, few respondents thought that poor language skills are one of the causes of plagiarism (Sharaf & Banu, 2021).

Plagiarism was also described in the sample as citing fake sources that do not exist and fabricating research data, i.e., a researcher collects data from his or her imagination and then fabricates them as if they were data that could shape research outcomes. In the peaceful climate and punishment free-environment, students feel comfortable to engage in plagiarism. This result is due to students’ lack of understanding of scientific research ethics and their lack of plagiarism awareness, which undermine research credibility and value, and reflects students’ desires to complete research the quickest and with the least effort; this result is consistent with the findings of De Lima et al. (2022). Williams (2020) stated that several students failed to study the institution’s policy against plagiarism. Students could readily engage in these behaviors out of carelessness or ignorance. Plagiarism is widespread among students, and there is no consequence for it, as well as, some students even assert that plagiarism is not a crime, according to study by Quispe et al. (2019). This result is also attributed to the students’ lack of knowledge of plagiarism detection programs such as Turnitin, Grammarly and Ithenticate, Which will reveal the degree of plagiarism among students.

The majority of students’ responses showed that their understanding of plagiarism is limited to failing to attribute opinions and ideas to their appropriate authors and that they practice various forms of plagiarism. The responses also showed that students are less aware of the consequences of plagiarism; this indicates a misunderstanding of the concept of scientific honesty and a lack of a culture of scientific research among the students. They lack academic writing skills, and some do not grasp documentation integrity. This confirms the insufficient training of students as researchers, which harms both students’ and the university’s scientific reputation. These findings are consistent with Taif University’s goal of developing specialized competencies that compete locally and contribute to the production of knowledge for the achievement of development.

10. 2 -Causes of plagiarism

Table 2 shows that there are many reasons for plagiarism among postgraduate students at Taif University, and the mean of the axis is 3.44. This indicates that postgraduate students are aware of the causes of plagiarism, which allows them to reduce the instances of plagiarism, raising their awareness of scientific integrity, and this is reflected in the high quality of postgraduate students’ research.

Table 2. The responses of individuals from the research sample aligned with the awareness degree for the causes of plagiarism

N	Items	Mean	Standard deviation
1	Poor language skills of students, especially writing skills.	3.73	0.813
2	Lack of understanding about how to conduct scientifically sound research.	3.26	0.800
3	Students’ lack understanding of scientific research norms and ethics.	2.89	1.124
4	Students are not given enough training in scientific writing guidelines and how to avoid plagiarism.	2.97	0.892
5	Lack of controls and punishment, and if any, they are simple and not strict.	3.38	0.842
6	The internet is an open, uncensored space.	3.92	0.766
7	Availability and prevalence of various information and resources on the internet.	3.84	0.894
8	Desire to conduct research rapidly and earn a higher degree.	4.06	0.496
9	Leniency in the arbitration of postgraduate student research.	2.73	0.990
10	Lack of student ability to paraphrase using their own style.	3.16	0.930
11	Lack of student interest in scientific writing and avoiding plagiarism.	3.17	0.869
12	Large number of burdens and tasks required of students.	4.16	0.645
13	Poor skills of students in foreign languages.	3.31	0.962
14	Copying and pasting is commonplace, and everyone does it.	3.79	0.717
15	The student thinks that no one will discover him or her.	3.37	0.972
Total		3.44	0.847

Opinions on this axis ranged from high to medium, and the arithmetic mean of the items ranged from 4.16 to 3.73. The most common items were the large workloads that are imposed on postgraduate students and their desire to complete their research and to obtain faster results.

The findings show that extensive multitasking puts students under time limitations, making it difficult for them to work well. As a result, the students turn to plagiarism to avoid failing,

The sample also pointed out that copying and pasting is common on the internet, and everyone does it. This is explained by students’ conclusion that knowledge is freely available online and thus all they have to do is copy and paste it.

They also believe that searching for information using search engines is the simplest research method. This result is supported by Madaan and DLIS (2020) and Bielska and Rutkowski (2021), who found that advances in communication and information technology are followed by major academic issues, such as plagiarism.

The items with average values, which ranged from 3.38 to 2.73, showed that there are no explicit penalties for plagiarism because the university assumes the credibility and integrity of researchers and that plagiarism penalties are limited to implementing a required modifications or canceling research when the research has been stolen from another scholar.

The sample also indicated that students’ weakness in the English language is one of the causes of plagiarism. This result is attributed to the lack of interest by faculty members in supporting students’ language skills and to the lack of curricula that meet students’ linguistic needs to help them acquire language skills. Plagiarism can also be due to a lack of academic writing skills and students’ lack of English language courses at the bachelor’s level. There is also a lack of organized training courses to help students improve their English language skills and conduct scientifically sound research. This result is consistent with the study of Mahmoud et al. (2020), who confirmed that one of the causes of plagiarism is students’ lack of knowledge of the English language.

The sample revealed a lack of interest among postgraduate students in the topic of scientific writing and plagiarism avoidance, which might be due to students’ poor research skills. Also, some students’ research (especially research projects) is not submitted to plagiarism detection programs. Furthermore, there is a lack of seminars and workshops for students on scientific research and academic writing skills and of research methodology courses that students can study in different programs. A large number of students may also rely on self-learning to acquire research skills. In addition, the students do not have enough information about how to prepare research before entering postgraduate programs, and undergraduate programs do not allocate enough time to train students to properly prepare scientific research. This result is in accordance with the study of Ehrich et al. (2016), who found a lack of awareness of plagiarism among their sample.

One of the causes for plagiarism is a lack of instructions and guidelines for scientific writing and the prevention of plagiarism offered to postgraduate students. This item did not receive the required grade because Taif University holds many workshops, training courses, and lectures related to scientific research and plagiarism detection programs, but students may not be interested in attending these because of their preoccupation with their jobs, social conditions, or other factors. This result differs from the results of Abraham and Torunarigha (2020), who indicated that a lack of training influenced plagiarism.

The lack of awareness of postgraduate students about the regulations and ethics of scientific research is due to faculty members’ failure to discuss these regulations with them, and this result may also be related to the lack of a scientific research ethics course within the master’s curricula. In this regard, Abraham and Torunarigha (2020) showed that there is a lack of clarity in university regulations for students. Anney and Mosha (2015) also found that students lacked guidance in research ethics.

Regarding leniency in scientific research arbitration, this was the last reason for plagiarism according to postgraduate students. This result might be explained by the students’ belief that their supervisor does not have the time for accurate reading and thus will not care. Some faculty members do not obligate students to correct documentation and are not punished for it and other faculty members are focused on their teaching burden. These results were supported by the study of Abraham and Torunarigha (2020), who reported that professors are flexible in their application of scientific research standards.

The above data indicate that the issue of plagiarism deserves attention, and most postgraduate students are aware of the causes of plagiarism but are not aware of its consequences. This may be due to poor guidance and counseling they are provided with regarding plagiarism, poor English language or research skills, a lack of time for students to conduct scientific research, or students’ lack of interest in mastering scientific research skills.

To distinguish the differences between the average responses of the research sample in the forms and causes of plagiarism that are attributable to the variables of gender and specialization, a T test was used (independent samples T test) for the study sample (Tables 3, 4).

Table 3. Results of the T test of the differences between the average responses of the research sample according to variable of type

Dimension	Type	N	Mean	t	Sig.	F
Forms of plagiarism	Male	284	46.58	11.240	0.000	11.912
	Female	436	38.51
Reasons for plagiarism	Male	284	52.67	7.429	0.000	18.558
	Female	436	48.61
Total	Male	284	99.25	11.382	0.000	1.691
	Female	436	87.12

Table 4. Results of the T test of the differences between the average responses of the research sample according to the variable of specialization

Dimension	Specialization	N	Mean	t	Sig.	F
Forms of plagiarism	Scientific	291	46.49	11.253	0.000	9.837
	Humanitarian	429	38.44
Reasons for plagiarism	Scientific	291	52.76	7.909	0.000	18.227
	Humanitarian	429	48.48
Total	Scientific	291	99.25	11.661	0.000	2.556
	Humanitarian	429	86.92

Table 3 shows that there are statistically significant differences at the level (p < 0.001) between the average responses of the study sample members regarding the forms and causes of plagiarism due to gender, with differences in favor of males. These results can be explained by the different views of the male and female samples regarding the forms and causes of plagiarism. This indicates that males have a better understanding of the forms and causes of plagiarism. This could be related to a culture of scientific inquiry and scientific honesty and to males’ awareness of the dangers of plagiarism and its consequences. These results agree with that of Sankar (2020) but differ from the results of Alhadlaq et al. (2020), Abbas et al. (2021) and Ali (2021), who indicated that there are no differences between the genders.

Table 4 displays that there are statistically significant differences at the level (p < 0.001) between the response averages of the study sample regarding the forms and causes of plagiarism and concerning the instrument as a whole due to the specialization variable, in favor of the scientific specialization. This can be explained by the fact that scientific specializations have their research prepared in English and are submitted to a plagiarism detection program, ensuring that they adhere to scientific integrity and avoid plagiarism in any form. This indicates that the scientific specializations’ sample members are more aware of the forms and causes of plagiarism. These results are in contrast to the findings of Lee et al. (2019), who found no differences.

To distinguish the differences between the averages regarding the forms and causes of plagiarism that are due to the variable of training courses in the field of scientific research, a (P) test was used to analyze ANOVA between several groups in the study sample (Tables 5, 6).

Table 5. Results of the (F) test of the differences between the response averages of the study sample according to the variable of training courses in the field of scientific research

Dimension		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Forms of plagiarism	Between group	2690.797	2	1345.398	13.361	0.000
	Within group	72,200.368	717	100.698
	Total	74,891.165	719
Reasons for plagiarism	Between group	3139.999	2	1570.000	30.857	0.000
	Within group	36,481.333	717	50.881
	Total	39,621.332	719
Total	Between group	11,596.860	2	5798.430	27.020	0.000
	Within group	153,868.335	717	214.600
	Total	165,465.194	719

Table 6. Results of the “Chefia” test of the directions of differences between the categories of training courses in the field of scientific research

No	Dimension	Years of experience	N	Mean	Less than 3 courses	From 3 to less than 5 courses
1	Forms of Plagiarism	Less than 3 courses	326	39.59	-	3.494*
		From 3 to less than 5 courses	206	43.08	-	-
		5 courses or more	188	43.82	4.230*	-
2	Reasons for plagiarism	Less than 3 courses	326	47.91	-	4.159*
		From 3 to less than 5 courses	206	52.07	-	-
		5 courses or more	188	52.15	4.235*	-
3	Total	Less than 3 courses	326	87.50	-	7.652*
		From 3 to less than 5 courses	206	95.16	-	-
		5 courses or more	188	95.97	8.465*	-

Table 5 demonstrates that there are statistically significant differences in the average sample responses (p < 0.001) level regarding the forms and causes of plagiarism according to the variable of training courses in scientific research. This means that the views of the sample members about these dimensions differ. Schiff’s test was applied to determine whether the direction of the differences favored any of the training courses.

Table 6 shows that there are differences regarding the forms and causes of plagiarism between the category of less than three training sessions and the category of from three to five training sessions, in favor of the latter. The differences between less than three training sessions and more than five training courses also favored the latter category. Alhadlaq et al. (2020) also found differences in training courses in favor of more courses. This could explain why training courses are important for creating an awareness about plagiarism and its different forms and causes. This is accomplished by training students in academic writing skills, scientific integrity, and how to document a variety of sources scientifically, which may explain why training courses are critical for informing students about plagiarism and its various forms and causes.

11. Recommendations

In view of the theoretical and empirical findings of the study, the recommendations are implement a set of preventive and control measures to limit plagiarism such as organizing training courses for postgraduate students on the laws of scientific research and the concept of plagiarism, its forms, and its harmful impacts on researchers, scientific research, and the university. The scientific research and documentation ethics scale should be used at all levels of postgraduate studies. Postgraduate students should be educated about scientific research principles through lectures, workshops, conferences, seminars, and other media, and they should be warned about the moral and criminal consequences of infringing on intellectual property. Content on plagiarism, its causes and punishments, and detection programs should be included and taught it in an applied manner during research curricula courses. The university’s ethics committee should be activated to combat plagiarism by adopting deterrent techniques and penalties. In addition, emphasizing the necessity of faculty members to participate in college-sponsored training courses and seminars on plagiarism in scientific research to promote scientific honesty among postgraduate students in research fields. Interest in holding training courses and workshops for postgraduate students to investigate the reasons of scientific honesty and plagiarism from the perspectives of both themselves and faculty members and to improve postgraduate students’ academic writing skills. Adding a course for postgraduate students to train them to write research and theses and to use and exploit plagiarism detection tools. Furthermore, providing financial incentives to eminent scholars who publish their findings in high-impact journals; as well as, supplying plagiarism detection systems in Arabic and other languages at Taif University and training scholars to use them to promote a plagiary-free culture.

Acknowledgements

The author extends appreciation to The Scientific Research Agency at Taif University in Saudi Arabia for funding this research through project number 1-442-16.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the The Scientific Research Agency at Taif University in Saudi Arabia [1- 442 - 16].