plagiarism in research paper

• Locations and Hours
• UCLA Library
• Research Guides
• Research Tips and Tools

Citing Sources

• How to Avoid Plagiarism
• Introduction
• Reading Citations

Best Practices for Avoiding Plagiarism

The entire section below came from a research guide from Iowa State University.  To avoid plagiarism, one must provide a reference to that source to indicate where the original information came from (see the "Source:" section below).

"There are many ways to avoid plagiarism, including developing good research habits, good time management, and taking responsibility for your own learning. Here are some specific tips:

• Don't procrastinate with your research and assignments. Good research takes time. Procrastinating makes it likely you'll run out of time or be unduly pressured to finish. This sort of pressure can often lead to sloppy research habits and bad decisions. Plan your research well in advance, and seek help when needed from your professor, from librarians and other campus support staff.
• Commit to doing your own work. If you don't understand an assignment, talk with your professor. Don't take the "easy way" out by asking your roommate or friends for copies of old assignments. A different aspect of this is group work. Group projects are very popular in some classes on campus, but not all. Make sure you clearly understand when your professor says it's okay to work with others on assignments and submit group work on assignments, versus when assignments and papers need to represent your own work.
•  Be 100% scrupulous in your note taking. As you prepare your paper or research, and as you begin drafting your paper. One good practice is to clearly label in your notes your own ideas (write "ME" in parentheses) and ideas and words from others (write "SMITH, 2005" or something to indicate author, source, source date). Keep good records of the sources you consult, and the ideas you take from them. If you're writing a paper, you'll need this information for your bibliographies or references cited list anyway, so you'll benefit from good organization from the beginning.
• Cite your sources scrupulously. Always cite other people's work, words, ideas and phrases that you use directly or indirectly in your paper. Regardless of whether you found the information in a book, article, or website, and whether it's text, a graphic, an illustration, chart or table, you need to cite it. When you use words or phrases from other sources, these need to be in quotes. Current style manuals are available at most reference desks and online. They may also give further advice on avoiding plagiarism.
• Understand good paraphrasing. Simply using synonyms or scrambling an author's words and phrases and then using these "rewrites" uncredited in your work is plagiarism, plain and simple. Good paraphrasing requires that you genuinely understand the original source, that you are genuinely using your own words to summarize a point or concept, and that you insert in quotes any unique words or phrases you use from the original source. Good paraphrasing also requires that you cite the original source. Anything less and you veer into the dangerous territory of plagiarism."

Source: Vega García, S.A. (2012). Understanding plagiarism: Information literacy guide. Iowa State University. Retrieved from  http://instr.iastate.libguides.com/content.php?pid=10314 . [Accessed January 3, 2017]

Plagiarism prevention.

• Plagiarism Prevention (onlinecolleges.net) This resource provides information about preventing plagiarism, understanding the various types of plagiarism, and learning how to cite properly to avoid plagiarism.

UCLA has a campuswide license to Turnitin.com. Faculty may turn in student papers electronically, where the text can be compared with a vast database of other student papers, online articles, general Web pages, and other sources. Turnitin.com then produces a report for the instructor indicating whether the paper was plagiarized and if so, how much.

For more information, go to Turnitin.com .

Plagiarism in the News

• << Previous: Plagiarism
• Next: Get Help >>
• Last Updated: May 17, 2024 2:33 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucla.edu/citing

Plagiarism in research

• Scientific Contribution
• Published: 04 July 2014
• Volume 18 , pages 91–101, ( 2015 )

Cite this article

• Gert Helgesson 1 &
• Stefan Eriksson 2  

45 Citations

18 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Plagiarism is a major problem for research. There are, however, divergent views on how to define plagiarism and on what makes plagiarism reprehensible. In this paper we explicate the concept of “plagiarism” and discuss plagiarism normatively in relation to research. We suggest that plagiarism should be understood as “someone using someone else’s intellectual product (such as texts, ideas, or results), thereby implying that it is their own” and argue that this is an adequate and fruitful definition. We discuss a number of circumstances that make plagiarism more or less grave and the plagiariser more or less blameworthy. As a result of our normative analysis, we suggest that what makes plagiarism reprehensible as such is that it distorts scientific credit. In addition, intentional plagiarism involves dishonesty. There are, furthermore, a number of potentially negative consequences of plagiarism.

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 Philosophy Research

Only if the result of intellectual work is a novel idea about a way to process a certain task (a method) will it be possible to plagiarise by repeating the processes and not disclosing where the idea of doing it like that originated. Which is to say that (the idea of) a method may be plagiarised by using it and not disclosing that someone else came up with it, thereby implying that you invented it yourself.

It is, of course, not the writing that constitutes plagiarism in the context of ghost-writing, but the claim to have written or co-authored a text completely written by others.

It should be noted that it does not have to be the authors’ fault that a paper is misleading about who deserves credit. Leonard Fleck has brought to our attention instances of journals, unbeknown to the authors, having mistakenly removed references or quotation marks in the text, causing the text to give the impression that some phrases quoted from others are the authors’ own.

Our claims here regarding practices are based on anecdotic evidence only. However, based on our teaching about 500 doctoral students per year, and having heard this frequently in class, we believe this to be fairly common, or at least far from unique.

Anekwe, T.D. 2010. Profits and plagiarism: The case of medical ghostwriting. Bioethics 24(6): 267–272.

Article   Google Scholar  

Baždarić, K., L. Bilić-Zulle, G. Brumini, and M. Petrovečki. 2012. Prevalence of plagiarism in recent submissions to the Croatian Medical Journal. Science and Engineering Ethics 18: 223–239.

Brogan, M. 1992. Recycling ideas. College and Research Libraries 52(5): 453–464.

Bruton, S.V. 2014. Self-plagiarism and textual recycling: Legitimate forms of research misconduct. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 21(3): 176–197.

Brülde, B., and P.-A. Tengland. 2003. Hälsa och sjukdom: en begreppslig utredning (Health and disease: A conceptual inquiry) . Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Google Scholar  

Butler, D. 2010. Journals step up plagiarism policing. Nature 466(7303): 167.

Chandrasoma, R., C. Thompson, and A. Pennycook. 2004. Beyond plagiarism: Transgressive and nontransgressive intertextuality. Journal of Language, Identity and Education 3(3): 171–193.

Couzin-Frankel, J., and J. Grom. 2009. Plagiarism sleuths. Science 324(5930): 1004–1007.

DeVoss, D., and A.C. Rosati. 2002. “It wasn’t me, was it?” Plagiarism and the web. Computers and Composition 19: 191–203.

Khan, B.A. 2011. Plagiarism: An academic theft. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Investigation 1(4): 255.

Pecorari, D. 2012. Textual plagiarism: How should it be regarded? Office of Research Integrity Newsletter 20(3): 3,10.

Rathod, S.D. 2012. Plagiarism: the human solution. Office of Research Integrity Newsletter 20(3): 1,7.

Roig, M. 2006. Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing. Office of Research Integrity 2006. www.cse.msu.edu/~alexliu/plagiarism.pdf .

Samuelson, P. 1994. Self-plagiarism or fair use. Communications of the ACM 37(8): 21–25.

Sox, H. C. 2012. Plagiarism in the digital age. Office of Research Integrity Newsletter 20(3): 1,6.

Sun, Y.C. 2012. Does text readability matter? A study of paraphrasing and plagiarism in English as a foreign language writing context. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 21(2): 296–306.

Titus, S.L., J.A. Wells, and L.J. Rhoades. 2008. Repairing research integrity. Nature 453(7198): 980–982.

Vitse, C.L., and G.A. Poland. 2012. Plagiarism, self-plagiarism, scientific misconduct and VACCINE: Protecting the science and the public. Vaccine 30(50): 7131–7133. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.08.053 .

Wager, L. 2011. How should editors respond to plagiarism? COPE discussion paper. 26th April, 2011. http://publicationethics.org/files/Discussion%20document.pdf .

Yilmaz, I. 2007. Plagiarism? No, we’re just borrowing better English. Nature 449(7163): 658.

Zhang, Y. 2010. Chinese journal finds 31% of submissions plagiarized. Nature 467(7312): 153.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the participants at seminars at Stockholm Centre for Healthcare Ethics, Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics at Uppsala University, and at the International Bioethics retreat in Paris 2013 for valuable suggestions and constructive criticism of earlier versions of this paper.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Stockholm Centre for Healthcare Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden

Gert Helgesson

Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Stefan Eriksson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gert Helgesson .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Helgesson, G., Eriksson, S. Plagiarism in research. Med Health Care and Philos 18 , 91–101 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-014-9583-8

Download citation

Published : 04 July 2014

Issue Date : February 2015

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-014-9583-8

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

• Fabrication
• Intellectual contribution
• Scientific misconduct
• Scientific credit
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Utility Menu

fa3d988da6f218669ec27d6b6019a0cd

A publication of the harvard college writing program.

Harvard Guide to Using Sources 

• The Honor Code
• What Constitutes Plagiarism?

In academic writing, it is considered plagiarism to draw any idea or any language from someone else without adequately crediting that source in your paper. It doesn't matter whether the source is a published author, another student, a website without clear authorship, a website that sells academic papers, or any other person: Taking credit for anyone else's work is stealing, and it is unacceptable in all academic situations, whether you do it intentionally or by accident.

The ease with which you can find information of all kinds online means that you need to be extra vigilant about keeping track of where you are getting information and ideas and about giving proper credit to the authors of the sources you use. If you cut and paste from an electronic document into your notes and forget to clearly label the document in your notes, or if you draw information from a series of websites without taking careful notes, you may end up taking credit for ideas that aren't yours, whether you mean to or not.

It's important to remember that every website is a document with an author, and therefore every website must be cited properly in your paper. For example, while it may seem obvious to you that an idea drawn from Professor Steven Pinker's book The Language Instinct should only appear in your paper if you include a clear citation, it might be less clear that information you glean about language acquisition from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy website warrants a similar citation. Even though the authorship of this encyclopedia entry is less obvious than it might be if it were a print article (you need to scroll down the page to see the author's name, and if you don't do so you might mistakenly think an author isn't listed), you are still responsible for citing this material correctly. Similarly, if you consult a website that has no clear authorship, you are still responsible for citing the website as a source for your paper. The kind of source you use, or the absence of an author linked to that source, does not change the fact that you always need to cite your sources (see Evaluating Web Sources ).

Verbatim Plagiarism

If you copy language word for word from another source and use that language in your paper, you are plagiarizing verbatim . Even if you write down your own ideas in your own words and place them around text that you've drawn directly from a source, you must give credit to the author of the source material, either by placing the source material in quotation marks and providing a clear citation, or by paraphrasing the source material and providing a clear citation.

The passage below comes from Ellora Derenoncourt’s article, “Can You Move to Opportunity? Evidence from the Great Migration.”

Here is the article citation in APA style:

Derenoncourt, E. (2022). Can you move to opportunity? Evidence from the Great Migration. The American Economic Review , 112(2), 369–408. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20200002

Source material

Why did urban Black populations in the North increase so dramatically between 1940 and 1970? After a period of reduced mobility during the Great Depression, Black out-migration from the South resumed at an accelerated pace after 1940. Wartime jobs in the defense industry and in naval shipyards led to substantial Black migration to California and other Pacific states for the first time since the Migration began. Migration continued apace to midwestern cities in the 1950s and1960s, as the booming automobile industry attracted millions more Black southerners to the North, particularly to cities like Detroit or Cleveland. Of the six million Black migrants who left the South during the Great Migration, four million of them migrated between 1940 and 1970 alone.

Plagiarized version

While this student has written her own sentence introducing the topic, she has copied the italicized sentences directly from the source material. She has left out two sentences from Derenoncourt’s paragraph, but has reproduced the rest verbatim:

But things changed mid-century. After a period of reduced mobility during the Great Depression, Black out-migration from the South resumed at an accelerated pace after 1940. Wartime jobs in the defense industry and in naval shipyards led to substantial Black migration to California and other Pacific states for the first time since the Migration began. Migration continued apace to midwestern cities in the 1950s and1960s, as the booming automobile industry attracted millions more Black southerners to the North, particularly to cities like Detroit or Cleveland.

Acceptable version #1: Paraphrase with citation

In this version the student has paraphrased Derenoncourt’s passage, making it clear that these ideas come from a source by introducing the section with a clear signal phrase ("as Derenoncourt explains…") and citing the publication date, as APA style requires.

But things changed mid-century. In fact, as Derenoncourt (2022) explains, the wartime increase in jobs in both defense and naval shipyards marked the first time during the Great Migration that Black southerners went to California and other west coast states. After the war, the increase in jobs in the car industry led to Black southerners choosing cities in the midwest, including Detroit and Cleveland.

Acceptable version #2 : Direct quotation with citation or direct quotation and paraphrase with citation

If you quote directly from an author and cite the quoted material, you are giving credit to the author. But you should keep in mind that quoting long passages of text is only the best option if the particular language used by the author is important to your paper. Social scientists and STEM scholars rarely quote in their writing, paraphrasing their sources instead. If you are writing in the humanities, you should make sure that you only quote directly when you think it is important for your readers to see the original language.

In the example below, the student quotes part of the passage and paraphrases the rest.

But things changed mid-century. In fact, as Derenoncourt (2022) explains, “after a period of reduced mobility during the Great Depression, Black out-migration from the South resumed at an accelerated pace after 1940” (p. 379). Derenoncourt notes that after the war, the increase in jobs in the car industry led to Black southerners choosing cities in the midwest, including Detroit and Cleveland.

Mosaic Plagiarism

If you copy bits and pieces from a source (or several sources), changing a few words here and there without either adequately paraphrasing or quoting directly, the result is mosaic plagiarism . Even if you don't intend to copy the source, you may end up with this type of plagiarism as a result of careless note-taking and confusion over where your source's ideas end and your own ideas begin. You may think that you've paraphrased sufficiently or quoted relevant passages, but if you haven't taken careful notes along the way, or if you've cut and pasted from your sources, you can lose track of the boundaries between your own ideas and those of your sources. It's not enough to have good intentions and to cite some of the material you use. You are responsible for making clear distinctions between your ideas and the ideas of the scholars who have informed your work. If you keep track of the ideas that come from your sources and have a clear understanding of how your own ideas differ from those ideas, and you follow the correct citation style, you will avoid mosaic plagiarism.

Indeed, of the more than 3500 hours of instruction during medical school, an average of less than 60 hours are devoted to all of bioethics, health law and health economics combined . Most of the instruction is during the preclinical courses, leaving very little instructional time when students are experiencing bioethical or legal challenges during their hands-on, clinical training. More than 60 percent of the instructors in bioethics, health law, and health economics have not published since 1990 on the topic they are teaching.

--Persad, G.C., Elder, L., Sedig,L., Flores, L., & Emanuel, E. (2008). The current state of medical school education in bioethics, health law, and health economics. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 36 , 89-94.

Students can absorb the educational messages in medical dramas when they view them for entertainment. In fact, even though they were not created specifically for education, these programs can be seen as an entertainment-education tool [43, 44]. In entertainment-education shows, viewers are exposed to educational content in entertainment contexts, using visual language that is easy to understand and triggers emotional engagement [45]. The enhanced emotional engagement and cognitive development [5] and moral imagination make students more sensitive to training [22].

--Cambra-Badii, I., Moyano, E., Ortega, I., Josep-E Baños, & Sentí, M. (2021). TV medical dramas: Health sciences students’ viewing habits and potential for teaching issues related to bioethics and professionalism. BMC Medical Education, 21 , 1-11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02947-7

Paragraph #1.

All of the ideas in this paragraph after the first sentence are drawn directly from Persad. But because the student has placed the citation mid-paragraph, the final two sentences wrongly appear to be the student’s own idea:

In order to advocate for the use of medical television shows in the medical education system, it is also important to look at the current bioethical curriculum. In the more than 3500 hours of training that students undergo in medical school, only about 60 hours are focused on bioethics, health law, and health economics (Persad et al, 2008). It is also problematic that students receive this training before they actually have spent time treating patients in the clinical setting. Most of these hours are taught by instructors without current publications in the field.

Paragraph #2.

All of the italicized ideas in this paragraph are either paraphrased or taken verbatim from Cambra-Badii, et al., but the student does not cite the source at all. As a result, readers will assume that the student has come up with these ideas himself:

Students can absorb the educational messages in medical dramas when they view them for entertainment. It doesn’t matter if the shows were designed for medical students; they can still be a tool for education. In these hybrid entertainment-education shows, viewers are exposed to educational content that triggers an emotional reaction. By allowing for this emotional, cognitive, and moral engagement, the shows make students more sensitive to training . There may be further applications to this type of education: the role of entertainment as a way of encouraging students to consider ethical situations could be extended to other professions, including law or even education.

The student has come up with the final idea in the paragraph (that this type of ethical training could apply to other professions), but because nothing in the paragraph is cited, it reads as if it is part of a whole paragraph of his own ideas, rather than the point that he is building to after using the ideas from the article without crediting the authors.

Acceptable version

In the first paragraph, the student uses signal phrases in nearly every sentence to reference the authors (“According to Persad et al.,” “As the researchers argue,” “They also note”), which makes it clear throughout the paragraph that all of the paragraph’s information has been drawn from Persad et al. The student also uses a clear APA in-text citation to point the reader to the original article. In the second paragraph, the student paraphrases and cites the source’s ideas and creates a clear boundary behind those ideas and his own, which appear in the final paragraph.

In order to advocate for the use of medical television shows in the medical education system, it is also important to look at the current bioethical curriculum. According to Persad et al. (2008), only about one percent of teaching time throughout the four years of medical school is spent on ethics. As the researchers argue, this presents a problem because the students are being taught about ethical issues before they have a chance to experience those issues themselves. They also note that more than sixty percent of instructors teaching bioethics to medical students have no recent publications in the subject.

The research suggests that medical dramas may be a promising source for discussions of medical ethics. Cambra-Badii et al. (2021) explain that even when watched for entertainment, medical shows can help viewers engage emotionally with the characters and may prime them to be more receptive to training in medical ethics. There may be further applications to this type of education: the role of entertainment as a way of encouraging students to consider ethical situations could be extended to other professions, including law or even education.

Inadequate Paraphrase

When you paraphrase, your task is to distill the source's ideas in your own words. It's not enough to change a few words here and there and leave the rest; instead, you must completely restate the ideas in the passage in your own words. If your own language is too close to the original, then you are plagiarizing, even if you do provide a citation.

In order to make sure that you are using your own words, it's a good idea to put away the source material while you write your paraphrase of it. This way, you will force yourself to distill the point you think the author is making and articulate it in a new way. Once you have done this, you should look back at the original and make sure that you have represented the source’s ideas accurately and that you have not used the same words or sentence structure. If you do want to use some of the author's words for emphasis or clarity, you must put those words in quotation marks and provide a citation.

The passage below comes from Michael Sandel’s article, “The Case Against Perfection.” Here’s the article citation in MLA style:

Sandel, Michael. “The Case Against Perfection.” The Atlantic , April 2004, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/04/the-case-against-pe... .

Though there is much to be said for this argument, I do not think the main problem with enhancement and genetic engineering is that they undermine effort and erode human agency. The deeper danger is that they represent a kind of hyperagency—a Promethean aspiration to remake nature, including human nature, to serve our purposes and satisfy our desires. The problem is not the drift to mechanism but the drive to mastery. And what the drive to mastery misses and may even destroy is an appreciation of the gifted character of human powers and achievements.

The version below is an inadequate paraphrase because the student has only cut or replaced a few words: “I do not think the main problem” became “the main problem is not”; “deeper danger” became “bigger problem”; “aspiration” became “desire”; “the gifted character of human powers and achievements” became “the gifts that make our achievements possible.”

The main problem with enhancement and genetic engineering is not that they undermine effort and erode human agency. The bigger problem is that they represent a kind of hyperagency—a Promethean desire to remake nature, including human nature, to serve our purposes and satisfy our desires. The problem is not the drift to mechanism but the drive to mastery. And what the drive to mastery misses and may even destroy is an appreciation of the gifts that make our achievements possible (Sandel).

Acceptable version #1: Adequate paraphrase with citation

In this version, the student communicates Sandel’s ideas but does not borrow language from Sandel. Because the student uses Sandel’s name in the first sentence and has consulted an online version of the article without page numbers, there is no need for a parenthetical citation.

Michael Sandel disagrees with the argument that genetic engineering is a problem because it replaces the need for humans to work hard and make their own choices. Instead, he argues that we should be more concerned that the decision to use genetic enhancement is motivated by a desire to take control of nature and bend it to our will instead of appreciating its gifts.

Acceptable version #2: Direct quotation with citation

In this version, the student uses Sandel’s words in quotation marks and provides a clear MLA in-text citation. In cases where you are going to talk about the exact language that an author uses, it is acceptable to quote longer passages of text. If you are not going to discuss the exact language, you should paraphrase rather than quoting extensively.

The author argues that “the main problem with enhancement and genetic engineering is not that they undermine effort and erode human agency,” but, rather that “they represent a kind of hyperagency—a Promethean desire to remake nature, including human nature, to serve our purposes and satisfy our desires. The problem is not the drift to mechanism but the drive to mastery. And what the drive to mastery misses and may even destroy is an appreciation of the gifts that make our achievements possible” (Sandel).

Uncited Paraphrase

When you use your own language to describe someone else's idea, that idea still belongs to the author of the original material. Therefore, it's not enough to paraphrase the source material responsibly; you also need to cite the source, even if you have changed the wording significantly. As with quoting, when you paraphrase you are offering your reader a glimpse of someone else's work on your chosen topic, and you should also provide enough information for your reader to trace that work back to its original form. The rule of thumb here is simple: Whenever you use ideas that you did not think up yourself, you need to give credit to the source in which you found them, whether you quote directly from that material or provide a responsible paraphrase.

The passage below comes from C. Thi Nguyen’s article, “Echo Chambers and Epistemic Bubbles.”

Here’s the citation for the article, in APA style:

Nguyen, C. (2020). Echo chambers and epistemic bubbles. Episteme, 17 (2), 141-161. doi:10.1017/epi.2018.32

Epistemic bubbles can easily form accidentally. But the most plausible explanation for the particular features of echo chambers is something more malicious. Echo chambers are excellent tools to maintain, reinforce, and expand power through epistemic control. Thus, it is likely (though not necessary) that echo chambers are set up intentionally, or at least maintained, for this functionality (Nguyen, 2020).

The student who wrote the paraphrase below has drawn these ideas directly from Nguyen’s article but has not credited the author. Although she paraphrased adequately, she is still responsible for citing Nguyen as the source of this information.

Echo chambers and epistemic bubbles have different origins. While epistemic bubbles can be created organically, it’s more likely that echo chambers will be formed by those who wish to keep or even grow their control over the information that people hear and understand.

In this version, the student eliminates any possible ambiguity about the source of the ideas in the paragraph. By using a signal phrase to name the author whenever the source of the ideas could be unclear, the student clearly attributes these ideas to Nguyen.

According to Nguyen (2020), echo chambers and epistemic bubbles have different origins. Nguyen argues that while epistemic bubbles can be created organically, it’s more likely that echo chambers will be formed by those who wish to keep or even grow their control over the information that people hear and understand.

Uncited Quotation

When you put source material in quotation marks in your essay, you are telling your reader that you have drawn that material from somewhere else. But it's not enough to indicate that the material in quotation marks is not the product of your own thinking or experimentation: You must also credit the author of that material and provide a trail for your reader to follow back to the original document. This way, your reader will know who did the original work and will also be able to go back and consult that work if they are interested in learning more about the topic. Citations should always go directly after quotations.

The passage below comes from Deirdre Mask’s nonfiction book, The Address Book: What Street Addresses Reveal About Identity, Race, Wealth, and Power.

Here is the MLA citation for the book:

Mask, Deirdre. The Address Book: What Street Addresses Reveal About Identity, Race, Wealth, and Power. St. Martin’s Griffin, 2021.

In New York, even addresses are for sale. The city allows a developer, for the bargain price of $11,000 (as of 2019), to apply to change the street address to something more attractive.

It’s not enough for the student to indicate that these words come from a source; the source must be cited:

After all, “in New York, even addresses are for sale. The city allows a developer, for the bargain price of $11,000 (as of 2019), to apply to change the street address to something more attractive.”

Here, the student has cited the source of the quotation using an MLA in-text citation:

After all, “in New York, even addresses are for sale. The city allows a developer, for the bargain price of $11,000 (as of 2019), to apply to change the street address to something more attractive” (Mask 229).

Using Material from Another Student's Work

In some courses you will be allowed or encouraged to form study groups, to work together in class generating ideas, or to collaborate on your thinking in other ways. Even in those cases, it's imperative that you understand whether all of your writing must be done independently, or whether group authorship is permitted. Most often, even in courses that allow some collaborative discussion, the writing or calculations that you do must be your own. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't collect feedback on your writing from a classmate or a writing tutor; rather, it means that the argument you make (and the ideas you rely on to make it) should either be your own or you should give credit to the source of those ideas.

So what does this mean for the ideas that emerge from class discussion or peer review exercises? Unlike the ideas that your professor offers in lecture (you should always cite these), ideas that come up in the course of class discussion or peer review are collaborative, and often not just the product of one individual's thinking. If, however, you see a clear moment in discussion when a particular student comes up with an idea, you should cite that student. In any case, when your work is informed by class discussions, it's courteous and collegial to include a discursive footnote in your paper that lets your readers know about that discussion. So, for example, if you were writing a paper about the narrator in Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried and you came up with your idea during a discussion in class, you might place a footnote in your paper that states the following: "I am indebted to the members of my Expos 20 section for sparking my thoughts about the role of the narrator as Greek Chorus in Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried ."

It is important to note that collaboration policies can vary by course, even within the same department, and you are responsible for familiarizing yourself with each course's expectation about collaboration. Collaboration policies are often stated in the syllabus, but if you are not sure whether it is appropriate to collaborate on work for any course, you should always consult your instructor.

• The Exception: Common Knowledge
• Other Scenarios to Avoid
• Why Does it Matter if You Plagiarize?
• How to Avoid Plagiarism
• Harvard University Plagiarism Policy

PDFs for This Section

• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Online Library and Citation Tools

How to Avoid Plagiarism in Research Papers (Part 1)

Writing a research paper poses challenges in gathering literature and providing evidence for making your paper stronger. Drawing upon previously established ideas and values and adding pertinent information in your paper are necessary steps, but these need to be done with caution without falling into the trap of plagiarism . In order to understand how to avoid plagiarism , it is important to know the different types of plagiarism that exist.

What is Plagiarism in Research?

Plagiarism is the unethical practice of using words or ideas (either planned or accidental) of another author/researcher or your own previous works without proper acknowledgment. Considered as a serious academic and intellectual offense, plagiarism can result in highly negative consequences such as paper retractions and loss of author credibility and reputation. It is currently a grave problem in academic publishing and a major reason for paper retractions .

It is thus imperative for researchers to increase their understanding about plagiarism. In some cultures, academic traditions and nuances may not insist on authentication by citing the source of words or ideas. However, this form of validation is a prerequisite in the global academic code of conduct. Non-native English speakers  face a higher challenge of communicating their technical content in English as well as complying with ethical rules. The digital age too affects plagiarism. Researchers have easy access to material and data on the internet which makes it easy to copy and paste information.

Related: Conducting literature survey and wish to learn more about scientific misconduct? Check out this resourceful infographic today!

How Can You Avoid Plagiarism in a Research Paper?

Guard yourself against plagiarism, however accidental it may be. Here are some guidelines to avoid plagiarism.

1. Paraphrase your content

• Do not copy–paste the text verbatim from the reference paper. Instead, restate the idea in your own words.
• Understand the idea(s) of the reference source well in order to paraphrase correctly.
• Examples on good paraphrasing can be found here ( https://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/QPA_paraphrase.html )

2. Use Quotations

Use quotes to indicate that the text has been taken from another paper. The quotes should be exactly the way they appear in the paper you take them from.

3. Cite your Sources – Identify what does and does not need to be cited

• The best way to avoid the misconduct of plagiarism is by self-checking your documents using plagiarism checker tools.
• Any words or ideas that are not your own but taken from another paper  need to be cited .
• Cite Your Own Material—If you are using content from your previous paper, you must cite yourself. Using material you have published before without citation is called self-plagiarism .
• The scientific evidence you gathered after performing your tests should not be cited.
• Facts or common knowledge need not be cited. If unsure, include a reference.

4. Maintain records of the sources you refer to

• Maintain records of the sources you refer to. Use citation software like EndNote or Reference Manager to manage the citations used for the paper
• Use multiple references for the background information/literature survey. For example, rather than referencing a review, the individual papers should be referred to and cited.

5. Use plagiarism checkers

You can use various plagiarism detection tools such as iThenticate or HelioBLAST (formerly eTBLAST) to see how much of your paper is plagiarised .

Tip: While it is perfectly fine to survey previously published work, it is not alright to paraphrase the same with extensive similarity. Most of the plagiarism occurs in the literature review section of any document (manuscript, thesis, etc.). Therefore, if you read the original work carefully, try to understand the context, take good notes, and then express it to your target audience in your own language (without forgetting to cite the original source), then you will never be accused with plagiarism (at least for the literature review section).

Caution: The above statement is valid only for the literature review section of your document. You should NEVER EVER use someone else’s original results and pass them off as yours!

What strategies do you adopt to maintain content originality? What advice would you share with your peers? Please feel free to comment in the section below.

If you would like to know more about patchwriting, quoting, paraphrasing and more, read the next article in this series!

Nice!! This article gives ideas to avoid plagiarism in a research paper and it is important in a research paper.

the article is very useful to me as a starter in research…thanks a lot!

it’s educative. what a wonderful article to me, it serves as a road map to avoid plagiarism in paper writing. thanks, keep your good works on.

I think this is very important topic before I can proceed with my M.A

it is easy to follow and understand

Nice!! These articles provide clear instructions on how to avoid plagiarism in research papers along with helpful tips.

Amazing and knowledgeable notes on plagiarism

Very helpful and educative, I have easily understood everything. Thank you so much.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Language & Grammar
• Reporting Research

Best Plagiarism Checker Tool for Researchers — Top 4 to choose from!

While common writing issues like language enhancement, punctuation errors, grammatical errors, etc. can be dealt…

How to Use Synonyms Effectively in a Sentence? — A way to avoid plagiarism!

Do you remember those school days when memorizing synonyms and antonyms played a major role…

• Manuscripts & Grants

Reliable and Affordable Plagiarism Detector for Students in 2022

Did you know? Our senior has received a rejection from a reputed journal! The journal…

• Publishing Research
• Submitting Manuscripts

3 Effective Tips to Make the Most Out of Your iThenticate Similarity Report

This guest post is drafted by an expert from iThenticate, a plagiarism checker trusted by the world’s…

How Can Researchers Avoid Plagiarism While Ensuring the Originality of Their Manuscript?

How Can Researchers Avoid Plagiarism While Ensuring the Originality of Their…

Is Your Reputation Safe? How to Ensure You’re Passing a Spotless Manuscript to Your…

Should the Academic Community Trust Plagiarism Detectors?

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

As a researcher, what do you consider most when choosing an image manipulation detector?

Plagiarism in research

Affiliation.

• 1 Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Stockholm Centre for Healthcare Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden, [email protected].
• PMID: 24993050
• DOI: 10.1007/s11019-014-9583-8

Plagiarism is a major problem for research. There are, however, divergent views on how to define plagiarism and on what makes plagiarism reprehensible. In this paper we explicate the concept of "plagiarism" and discuss plagiarism normatively in relation to research. We suggest that plagiarism should be understood as "someone using someone else's intellectual product (such as texts, ideas, or results), thereby implying that it is their own" and argue that this is an adequate and fruitful definition. We discuss a number of circumstances that make plagiarism more or less grave and the plagiariser more or less blameworthy. As a result of our normative analysis, we suggest that what makes plagiarism reprehensible as such is that it distorts scientific credit. In addition, intentional plagiarism involves dishonesty. There are, furthermore, a number of potentially negative consequences of plagiarism.

• Ethical Analysis
• Ethics, Research*
• Plagiarism*

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.

Research Paper Plagiarism Checker AcademicHelp

Secure the uniqueness of your scholarly work.

Advanced Scholarly Database Access

Contextual Analysis Technology

Source Integration Guidance

Bolster your research integrity.

Remember Me

What is your profession ? Student Teacher Writer Other

Forgotten Password?

Username or Email

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
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Plagiarism, Cheating and Research Integrity: Case Studies from a Masters Program in Peru

Andres m. carnero.

1 School of Public Health and Administration, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru

Percy Mayta-Tristan

2 School of Medicine, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas, Lima, Peru

Kelika A. Konda

3 David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Edward Mezones-Holguin

Antonio bernabe-ortiz.

4 CRONICAS, Center of Excellence in Chronic Diseases, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru

German F. Alvarado

Carlos canelo-aybar, jorge l. maguiña.

5 Department of Parasitology, U.S. Naval Medical Research Unit No. 6 (NAMRU-6), Lima, Peru

Eddy R. Segura

Antonio m. quispe.

6 Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA

Edward S. Smith

7 School of Medicine, Universidad San Martin de Porres, Lima, Peru

Angela M. Bayer

Andres g. lescano.

Plagiarism is a serious, yet widespread type of research misconduct, and is often neglected in developing countries. Despite its far-reaching implications, plagiarism is poorly acknowledged and discussed in the academic setting, and insufficient evidence exists in Latin America and developing countries to inform the development of preventive strategies. In this context, we present a longitudinal case study of seven instances of plagiarism and cheating arising in four consecutive classes (2011–2014) of an Epidemiology Masters program in Lima, Peru, and describes the implementation and outcomes of a multifaceted, “zero-tolerance” policy aimed at introducing research integrity. Two cases involved cheating in graded assignments, and five cases correspond to plagiarism in the thesis protocol. Cases revealed poor awareness of high tolerance to plagiarism, poor academic performance, and widespread writing deficiencies, compensated with patchwriting and copy-pasting. Depending on the events’ severity, penalties included course failure (6/7) and separation from the program (3/7). Students at fault did not engage in further plagiarism. Between 2011 and 2013, the Masters program sequentially introduced a preventive policy consisting of: (i) intensified research integrity and scientific writing education, (ii) a stepwise, cumulative writing process; (iii) honor codes; (iv) active search for plagiarism in all academic products; and (v) a “zero-tolerance” policy in response to documented cases. No cases were detected in 2014. In conclusion, plagiarism seems to be widespread in resource-limited settings and a greater response with educational and zero-tolerance components is needed to prevent it.

Science aims at expanding knowledge through systematic generation and testing of hypotheses, which can then be used for the benefit of humanity. To achieve this goal, science is guided by several values, including objectivity, honesty and unselfishness ( Allchin 1999 ; Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy et al. 2009 ). Disregard to these values can result in research misconduct ( Steneck 2006 ; Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy et al. 2009 ), which distorts the scientific record, wastes resources, and undermines the trust of society in science ( Steneck 2006 ). Plagiarism, the misappropriation of other’s intellectual contribution, is a serious form of research misconduct, and probably one of the most frequently reported type of research misconduct ( Smith 2000 ). Despite the challenges in ascertaining the true frequency of plagiarism, recent estimates (around 2 %) suggest that it is much more common than previously thought ( Pupovac and Fanelli 2015 ). However, this high frequency compared to other forms of research misconduct may partially result from enhanced detection by electronic methods.

Plagiarism can occur at any point in the career of a researcher, but it is more frequently reported in the early stages ( Martinson et al. 2005 ), and relatively few studies have explored its origins during undergraduate and early post-graduate research ( Swazey et al. 1993 ; Wadja-Johnston et al. 2001 ; Krstic 2015 ). Early training stages may constitute a critical period to prevent plagiarism, when students begin to actively engage in research. If uncorrected, plagiarism and cheating may continue throughout the researcher’s career, and can potentially lead to other misconduct ( Lovett-Hopper et al. 2007 ; Park 2003 ). During training, plagiarism can become part of a broader set of dishonest behaviors aimed at obtaining undeserved academic advantage (such as copying in an exam, taking credit for another’s work, and prohibited collaboration between students), which are collectively termed “cheating” ( Park 2003 ).

Plagiarism is a global problem, yet evidence of its occurrence comes almost exclusively from developed countries ( Ana et al. 2013 ). Studies exploring plagiarism in developing countries are critically needed ( Ana et al. 2013 ), given that cultural and economic factors may affect the perception of and engagement in plagiarism ( Davis 2003 ; Martin 2012 ). In developing countries, several unique factors may enable plagiarism such as: (i) lack of training in the Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) ( Rodriguez and Lolas 2011 ; Davis 2003 ; Vasconcelos et al. 2009 ; Cameron et al. 2012 ); (ii) poor development of writing skills ( Heitman and Litewka 2011 ; Vasconcelos et al. 2009 ; Cameron et al. 2012 ); (iii) tolerance to misconduct during education and professional activities ( Heitman and Litewka 2011 ; Vasconcelos et al. 2009 ); (iv) lack of institutional policies and oversight of academic centers and journals ( Rodriguez and Lolas 2011 ; Heitman and Litewka 2011 ; Vasconcelos et al. 2009 ); (v) differing perceptions of intellectual property and misconduct ( Heitman and Litewka 2011 ; Davis 2003 ; Cameron et al. 2012 ); (vi) the pervasive effect of corruption ( Heitman and Litewka 2011 ); and (vii) cultural differences in values ( Rodriguez and Lolas 2011 ; Heitman and Litewka 2011 ; Davis 2003 ; Vasconcelos et al. 2009 ; Cameron et al. 2012 ). Discussing plagiarism in Latin America is an important issue, given the dramatic growth of research activities in the region in the last two decades ( Van Noorden 2014 ; Catanzaro et al. 2014 ). In particular, sporadic reports have highlighted the occurrence of plagiarism in research conducted in Latin America ( Vasconcelos et al. 2009 ; Alfaro-Tolosa et al. 2013 ), and the reaction of scientific journals ( Alfaro-Tolosa et al. 2013 ; Almeida et al. 2015 ). In addition, Latin American countries share many cultural features, arising from their common colonial history, that may affect how plagiarism and cheating are perceived ( Martin 2012 ; Salter and Guffey 2001 ), including collectivism, high uncertainty avoidance, high power distance, high indulgence, and a short-term orientation ( Hofstede 2011 ). Finally, the fact that Latin American countries share a common language (mainly Spanish, but also Portuguese, which are closely related) and culture may facilitate the development of effective control strategies with the potential to reach >10 % of the world’s population. Despite its importance, plagiarism has not been systematically studied in Latin America ( Vasconcelos et al. 2009 ; Alfaro-Tolosa et al. 2013 ), and little evidence exists on its frequency, determinants, and consequences in the Latin American setting. In particular, there is a lack of evidence about the implementation of effective, affordable, and context-specific interventions targeted at preventing plagiarism and promoting research and academic integrity among research students in Latin America ( Vasconcelos et al. 2009 ).

In this article, we present a case study of seven instances of plagiarism and cheating detected between 2011 and 2014 in our Masters program in Epidemiologic Research in Lima, Peru, that receives students from a broad range of countries in Latin America. We also describe the implementation and outcomes of a feasible, low-cost, “zero tolerance” policy tailored to promote research integrity among postgraduate research students in Latin America.

The Program

The Masters in Epidemiologic Research of Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia is a postgraduate program offered annually since 2007 in Peru. The program aims at training epidemiologists capable of designing and executing high-quality research and publishing in top-tier peer-reviewed international journals. It was created jointly by Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia (UPCH), the leading university in biomedical research in Peru ( SCImago Research Group 2015 ), and the U.S. Naval Medical Research Unit No. 6 (NAMRU-6), and was created with funding from the Fogarty International Center (grant 2D43 TW007393). The courses are structured in four 10-week terms, and an overall coursework of 10 months. It is coordinated and taught almost entirely by young scientists with international graduate training, many of them doctorates from U.S. and European universities. The core coursework includes three series of courses taught in each of the four terms of the program, progressively advancing into more complex topics: Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Methods. Additional compulsory courses address complementary research topics: Outbreak investigation (Term 1), Epidemiologic surveillance (Term 2), Validation of instruments (Term 2), Health situation analysis (Term 3), Qualitative research (Term 3), Program evaluation (Term 4), and Writing research proposals (Term 4). Topics on career-advancement are discussed as part of the Research Methods I-IV courses. Since 2013, the program is offered by the UPCH School of Public Health and Administration, whereas past editions were offered by the School of Medicine (2007–2009) and the School of Postgraduate Studies (2010–2012). Academic and research misconduct are critically important issues, and lectures addressing RCR, research ethics, and scientific writing have been part of the program since its inception. Students also complete the CITI research ethics course early in the program ( Braunschweiger and Goodman 2007 ; Litewka et al. 2008 ). Contents on research integrity have evolved in time, expanding the discussion of plagiarism, responsible authorship, and adequate referencing as needed ( Table 1 ). Each class has 20–30 students, usually junior researchers with a biomedical background from local research groups, governmental agencies and clinical/medical centers. Since 2011, the program has received an increasing number of international students from countries in South and Central America and the Caribbean.

Summary of RCR and scientific writing contents in the Masters in Epidemiologic Research Program curriculum (2011–2013), Lima, Peru

CITI Collaborative institutional training initiative ( www.citiprogram.org ), IRB institutional review board

Case Studies

We present here all seven cases of plagiarism and cheating discovered between the fourth (2011) and seventh (2014) classes of the Masters program, although other cases probably remained undetected because of limited surveillance, particularly before 2011. The information presented is based on the experiences of faculty directly handling the cases. All conversations with the students at fault took place in private settings, and class discussions about the events preserved their anonymity. All cases are described as male here to further support anonymity. Figure 1 summarizes key information of the cases and the response measures implemented by our program.

Timeline of cases of academic misconduct in the Masters in Epidemiologic Research Program (2011–2013), Lima, Peru

Cheating Case 1: Epidemiology I Course, April 2011

During the first term Epidemiology course, students were asked to complete a brief individual take-home assignment consisting of short-answer questions, and e-mail their responses to the teaching assistant (TA). Explicit instructions regarding the individual nature of the assignment were given and no discussion was allowed between students. One hour before the deadline, the TA received an e-mail with a student’s homework attached, which had been shared with the rest of the class:

Hi guys! Continuing with the love chain!!!! Hahahaha. I’m sending Epi’s exercise 2, for those of you that are on a tight schedule … please let me know if you find anything wrong!:) ….

The student’s behavior violated the standards of conduct by sharing individual work and requesting review of an individual assignment by other students. The event was immediately communicated to the course and program coordinators, and was discussed with the class 3 h later, preserving the anonymity of the student involved in the case. During the discussion, the class tried to minimize the importance of the event, and faculty required substantial effort to explain that the incident constituted severe academic misconduct and would not be tolerated. Coordinators evaluated potential sanctions to both the student who shared the assignment and the whole class, given that no student reported the incident. Finally, the coordinators decided jointly to fail the student on the assignment, and initiate disciplinary probation for the rest of the academic year. Penalty to the class was waived, given the short time students had to report the event (3 h). Additional sessions to discuss plagiarism and research integrity were added to the curricula. Given that the incident occurred early in the academic year, no information exists regarding the student’s academic performance prior to the incident. The student completed all the required coursework that year under close supervision and intensive counseling, maintaining a low academic performance (ranked 18 of 22), without any evidence of further misconduct.

Plagiarism Case 1: Research Methods I Course, May 2011

A student’s final assignment (first draft of the thesis proposal) exhibited highly heterogeneous writing, with clear and well-written sections interspersed with less-developed sections and poorly presented arguments. In addition, some of the cited material was unrelated to the sources quoted, and the text included uncommon terminology (e.g. general practitioners were referred as “generalist physicians”). The coordinator searched the suspiciously-written sections in Google ® , as described by Rojas-Revoredo et al. (2007) . Several paragraphs were found to be unacknowledged verbatim fragments of published articles. The next day, the course and program coordinator met at the student’s workplace to discuss the incident with the student in private. After initial denial, the student finally accepted committing plagiarism, and was failed in the course and separated from the program for the rest of the year. The university authorities were informed and a misconduct report was filed in the student’s permanent academic record. In addition, the student was warned that consideration of future readmission was conditional on preparing an RCR guide for future students. The incident was discussed with the class at the beginning of the second term and substantial knowledge gaps and ambivalence towards plagiarism were noted. Plagiarism was thoroughly discussed, and five writing workshops were added to each term, at the class’ request. The student contacted the program coordinator in 2012 and was readmitted to the program after completing the required material. Prior to the event, the student had poor performance (ranked 29 of 30). After readmission, the student completed all the required courses under close monitoring and intensive counselling, exhibiting average performance (ranked 16 of 30), and without evidence of any further incidents. After this incident, a paragraph describing plagiarism and its potential sanctions (including course failure) was added to the syllabi of all courses.

Plagiarism Cases 2 and 3: Research Methods II Course, July 2011

The final assignment (final draft of the thesis proposal) of two separate students presented evidence highly suggestive of plagiarism. One case exhibited partial use of quotation marks, while the other presented evidence of self-plagiarism. After searching for the suspicious fragments in the web, plagiarism and self-plagiarism were confirmed. Upon confrontation, both students initially denied the events, but eventually one accepted the misconduct, while the student who committed self-plagiarism did not accept having engaged in any misbehavior. Both students were failed in the course, separated from the program for the rest of the year, and the event was notified to the School of Postgraduate Studies. Two weeks later, the student who did not admit fault contacted the university authorities to start legal action. The authorities from the School of Postgraduate Studies discussed the case in depth with the program coordinator and endorsed program’s decision. Finally, the student desisted from taking legal action, and contacted the program in early 2013 to inquire about readmission, but did not complete the re-admission process. Both students had low academic performance in the program (ranked 26 out of 27). The other student was readmitted in 2012 but exhibited poor performance (ranked 26 of 26), and has not completed all the required coursework yet. The event was discussed with the class, and some students argued that throughout their education they repeatedly witnessed and resorted to similar behavior without any indication that it constituted a dishonest practice. One student even mentioned that a mentor in medical residency once said: “all has been written already, (publishing) only requires putting the pieces together”, which seemed to be an invitation to plagiarize. Starting the following year, all students were required to sign an integrity agreement accepting to avoid plagiarism, disclose any misconduct cases witnessed (whistle-blowing) and acknowledge that failure to do so would make them accomplices. The document also specified the potential sanctions for such behaviors. Finally, content on RCR, responsible authorship, plagiarism and adequate referencing was thoroughly enhanced in the first term Research Methods course.

Cheating Case 2: Biostatistics I Course, April 2012

On April 2012, during an individual quiz, two students turned in identical solutions, even with the same variable names and Stata ® code. The next day, the TA and course coordinator interviewed both students, one of which admitted having requested repeatedly the exam to the other student, whom eventually shared the answers. One day later, the program coordinator received an e-mail from the student apologizing for the misconduct, accepting all the responsibility for the incident, relieving the other student from any liability, and resigning from the program. The e-mail was promptly answered with the indication that resignation from the program was not possible, as the student was going to be expelled from the program. The School of Postgraduate Studies was then notified about this event, and the student was expelled from the program. After extensive discussion among the coordinators, the student that shared the exam was failed in the exam with a grade of zero, and was allowed to continue in the program at the end of the term. As the program had just started, no evidence is available on the academic performance of the two students prior to this event. The student that shared the exam eventually failed the Research Methods IV course, nearly failing the program due to low academic performance (ranked 19 of 20). No evidence exists of involvement in further events. An 8-week Research Integrity course was added to the first term’s curriculum the following year, addressing extensively research integrity, RCR, plagiarism and appropriate referencing, among other topics.

Plagiarism Case 4: Research Methods III Course, October 2013

The introduction section of a thesis proposal contained passages highly suggestive of plagiarism. After searching for these sections in Google ® , literal plagiarism from research articles and the web was confirmed. Upon questioning by the course and program coordinator, the student admitted committing plagiarism, albeit without realizing that it constituted misconduct. The student was failed in the course, and the incident was discussed anonymously with the rest of the class, reiterating the severity of plagiarism and how to avoid it. Also, students were warned that any further plagiarism cases would be expelled from the program. Until the event occurred, the student had very low academic performance (ranked 26 of 26). The student completed the rest of the program’s coursework under close monitoring and intensive counseling, with low performance (ranked 25 of 25), and was not involved in other misconduct incidents.

Plagiarism Case 5: Research Methods III Course, October 2013

One week after the class discussion of the previous case of plagiarism, the final assignment of a student (full thesis proposal) had several sections strongly suggestive of literal plagiarism. A Google ® search evidenced that these paragraphs were identical to the content of several websites, including Wikipedia ® . The program and course coordinator discussed the incident with the student, and after a long explanation of the definition of plagiarism, the student recognized having plagiarized inadvertently. Given the thorough discussion of plagiarism in the Research Integrity course, writing workshops, and the previous plagiarism case a week before, the student was failed in the course and separated from the program for the rest of the year. The event was reported to the university, and a misconduct report was filed in the student’s permanent academic record. When given the opportunity to address the class, the student described the case, accepted all responsibility for having plagiarized, and warned the class about the severity and importance of preventing plagiarism. The class recognized the severity of the event, but unanimously asked for a more lenient sanction, arguing that the student may have missed prior warnings. Despite accepting misconduct, the student argued the sanction was too harsh and presented a notarized letter requesting a formal decision. The student’s work supervisors contacted the program coordinator in coordination with the student, inquiring about the incident and the program’s response, and full details were provided. The university confirmed the sanction imposed by the program and the student recently contacted the program to try to finish the coursework. Prior to the event, the student had a low performance (ranked 24 of 26).

Most of the cases of plagiarism and cheating detected involved students with a record of suboptimal academic performance in the program. Indeed, 20 % of students in the lowest quartile of their class were involved in plagiarism and cheating compared to only 2 % of students in higher grade quartiles (risk ratio = 12.2; 95 % confidence interval: 2.5–60.2, Fisher’s exact p value = 0.008). Also, none of the four cases described above who actually completed their coursework later had successfully defended their dissertations. No cases were detected in the 2014 class, which suggests a very strong impact of the policy implemented, despite the fact that the reduction in the incidence of plagiarism and cheating is only marginally significant (Fisher’s exact p value = 0.187).

Discussion In three consecutive annual classes of our Epidemiology Masters in Peru, we detected five cases of plagiarism and two cases of cheating, including literal plagiarism, self-plagiarism, inappropriate sharing of work, and appropriation of other students’ work. We believe that these are not isolated events, but rather the manifestation of a widespread and frequent misconduct that has probably gone undetected beyond our program. This is consistent with the high rates of cheating and plagiarism reported worldwide among high school and undergraduate students ( McCabe 2005 ; McCabe et al. 2001 ), including students of medical and allied health sciences ( Rennie and Crosby 2001 ; Taradi et al. 2010 ). It is likely that plagiarism and cheating may originate in high school and undergraduate education, and continue to graduate education. Thus, the widespread occurrence of plagiarism at all levels of education suggests that prevention, detection and response to plagiarism should hold a much higher priority in academic institutions in contexts like Peru and Latin America.

Students committing plagiarism and cheating shared several predisposing characteristics, including poor awareness of research integrity and plagiarism, widespread deficiencies in writing and referencing skills, poor academic performance, and a high tolerance to plagiarism. However, a significant portion of the rest of the class also shared a limited awareness of research integrity and tolerance to plagiarism, and many students had difficulty in grasping research integrity concepts. This is consistent with previous reports evidencing insufficient knowledge of RCR and plagiarism in graduate students in the U.S., particularly among international graduates ( Heitman et al. 2007 ; Ryan et al. 2009 ). These knowledge gaps may be particularly severe in Latin America, where shortcomings in higher education neglect the discussion of plagiarism and academic and research integrity. In addition, lack of development of analytic and writing skills may lead some students to use plagiarism as a maladaptive, compensatory writing strategy. The situation is further complicated by a widespread tolerance to plagiarism throughout the education system in Latin America ( Vasconcelos et al. 2009 ; Heitman and Litewka 2011 ). In Peru, for example, the National Assembly of Rectors reduced the sanction of two undergraduate law students guilty of literal plagiarism from a semester suspension to a simple reprimand, arguing that “copying without indicating the source is a natural behavior in students” ( Tantaleán Odar 2014 ), and that “teaching consists fundamentally in a constant repetition of external ideas, often omitting the sources for brevity” ( Tantaleán Odar 2014 ). Furthermore, several authors have reported that a large proportion of undergraduate research and approved theses contain plagiarism ( Saldana-Gastulo et al. 2010 ; Huamani et al. 2008 ). The synergic effect of limited awareness of plagiarism, RCR, and scientific writing, and the widespread tolerance to plagiarism highlights the need to couple intensive anti-plagiarism education with stronger response policies.

Any attempt to expunge plagiarism is unlikely to succeed without institutional commitment with scientific integrity ( Whitley and Keith-Spiegel 2001 ; Park 2004 ). Institutions should have a transparent, comprehensive and uniformly applied policy that is embedded in a context of promotion of academic integrity. UPCH has an established institutional policy against academic misconduct, which is supplemented by the regulations of each school ( Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia 2009 ). However, such a framework focuses almost exclusively on punitive aspects, neglecting preventive and detection strategies. Additionally, regulations have not been widely disseminated and/or discussed across the university’s academic programs, and their application seems inconsistent across programs. Nevertheless, our findings are probably not an isolated case, as lack of comprehensive policies against and widespread tolerance to plagiarism appear to be nearly universal in educational institutions in countries such as Peru. Thus, the institutions’ commitment and proactivity to address plagiarism is critical for the implementation of any effective and sustainable intervention against cases of plagiarism in the future. As a program, we are disappointed to see our students falling due to misconduct, but are not embarrassed to admit we had these issues. We believe many other programs face the same challenges and should come forward to admit it openly and therefore create greater awareness and response.

In this complex scenario, we adopted a “zero tolerance” policy against plagiarism ( Titus et al. 2008 ), in which we actively searched for potential research misconduct and all suspected cases are reported, investigated and sanctioned as dictated by the severity of the case. Although there is no current consensus worldwide on the best way to respond to plagiarism findings, we believe that a zero tolerance approach is the most acceptable alternative, as it results in a clear, strong message that plagiarism and other forms of research misconduct are wrong and can never be justified. In low-resource settings, resource constraints and dependence on external funding may discourage investigating apparently “mild” cases to avoid the associated costs and potential damages in reputation. However, the long term adverse consequences of tolerating plagiarism and therefore graduating student with poor RCR knowledge, outweigh any of these short term apparent benefits. None of the students who committed/attempted plagiarism were known to engage in further events during the program and no additional misconduct events have been detected in the 2014 class.

Our “zero tolerance” policy was actively complemented by intensive education on research integrity and scientific writing. Also, policies were reinforced through discussion sessions, written statements describing the policy in all course syllabi, and a modified honor code in the form of a signed agreement to maintain research and academic integrity and report any observed cases. Honor codes constitute a simple, low-cost strategy that has been shown to prevent academic misconduct ( McCabe et al. 2001 ). However, our experience collaborating with several Latin American educational institutions, has led us to believe that honor codes are not frequently used in Latin America. Furthermore, we feel that although many Latin American educational institutions may have codes of conduct, these are probably not discussed with students, faculty and researchers. We feel that signing a short but very clear and explicit honor code may be a more effective alternative for preventing misconduct by directly engaging students and all the academic and scientific community.

Education in the RCR is a critical pillar for maintaining research integrity and preventing plagiarism ( Steneck and Bulger 2007 ; Kalichman 2007 ), and comprised the medullar aspect of our policy. Seminars on plagiarism and scientific writing were upgraded into an obligatory course on research integrity. Short online research integrity courses were used as additional activities, including both the required CITI basic RCR course for biomedical researchers ( Braunschweiger and Goodman 2007 ; Litewka et al. 2008 ), as well as the optional, free, online RCR course recently created by UPCH and NAMRU-6 ( http://www.cri.andeanquipu.org/index.php/es/ ). The definition, forms, implications and case studies of plagiarism were thoroughly discussed, and practical advice was given on preventing plagiarism ( Roig 2009 ; Fischer and Zigmond 2011 ). Frequent maladaptive forms of writing, such as “patchwriting”, in which original and borrowed text are intermixed ( Cameron et al. 2012 ), and “copy/paste” were thoroughly discussed, emphasizing their intimate relation to plagiarism. Students were advised to express ideas taken from external sources in their own words, always linking each idea to its original source, and never to copy and paste. Other educative interventions implemented included: (i) breaking down extensive written assignments into multiple, smaller assignments, to allow the incremental development of writing skills ( Fischer and Zigmond 2011 ); (ii) provision of templates, so that students have a clear idea of what is expected for each assignment ( Fischer and Zigmond 2011 ); (iii) review of progress in an increased number of writing workshops, to provide detailed and timely guidance, allow early detection and correction of maladaptive writing strategies ( Fischer and Zigmond 2011 ); and, (iv) requirement of more student-advisor meetings, in order to increase the oversight of the students’ work, and promote mentoring, an important strategy for maintaining research integrity ( Anderson et al. 2007 ).

As a complement to educative interventions, we now screen academic products for plagiarism ( Barret et al. 2003 ; McKeever 2006 ) using widely-available search engines (e.g. Google ® ) ( McKeever 2006 ). Searching actively for plagiarism allowed close monitoring the policy’s efficacy, and early identification and guidance of students with inadequate referencing skills ( Barret et al. 2003 ; McKeever 2006 ). This measure closely parallels the routine screening of submissions that has been increasingly implemented by scientific journals ( Butler 2010 ). In Peru, NAMRU-6 requires that the final version of all articles reporting research conducted at the institution is checked for plagiarism before being submitted using iThenticate ® (Andres G. Lescano personal communication, April 2015). In our program, plagiarism is evaluated on a case-by-case basis, after investigation and discussion among all coordinators and the faculty involved in the case. Penalties were also defined individually, following the program and university’s policy, and were complemented with rehabilitative measures ( Whitley and Keith-Spiegel 2001 ), such as intensive counseling by an experienced faculty and remedial educative activities.

The case study approach we adopted does not allow a formal evaluation of the efficacy of our program’s policy against plagiarism and cheating, but it may expand the extant literature in Latin America. Our experience delivered several important learning points. First, plagiarism seems to be widespread, likely involving all stages of the educative system. Second, it is possible to implement a “zero tolerance” plagiarism prevention policy with a strong educational component in postgraduate research programs. We implemented a promising, feasible, low-cost policy tailored for postgraduate research students in Latin America, with the aim to offer educators and researchers practical alternatives to prevent and address plagiarism that they could continue to evaluate in their practice. Third, key features associated with plagiarism in Latin America that should be considered when discussing plagiarism in the classroom include the unawareness of plagiarism and its implications, the pervasiveness of poorly-developed writing skills, and the extensive use of “patchwriting” and “copy/paste”. Fourth, students with low academic performance may be at higher risk of committing plagiarism, and implement personalized tutoring and close surveillance to prevent them from plagiarizing. Given that our experience pertains a taught Masters program that receives students from several Latin American countries, we believe that our findings are applicable to postgraduate research students in Latin America. However, we emphasize that our findings may also be useful for educators and postgraduate research programs in other resource-limited, non-English speaking settings after critical assessment and a context-sensitive adaptation. Finally, it is urgent that educative institutions at all levels recognize the frequent occurrence of academic and research misconduct and integrity as an active, institutional duty. Furthermore, as the methods for engaging in dishonesty have expanded in the Internet era, preventive approaches coupled with zero tolerance for plagiarism and cheating will have a major role for controlling academic and research misconduct, even in low resource settings ( Grieger 2007 ).

Plagiarism and cheating appear to be a frequent problem in research training programs in resource-limited settings, such as Peru. These instances of misconduct should be addressed at institutional and programmatic levels through policies that prioritize preventive strategies, instead of purely punitive actions. Educational activities and mentoring should be complemented with strict, active detection and zero tolerance to misconduct.

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the training Grant 2D43 TW007393-06 awarded to AGL by the Fogarty International Center of the U.S. National Institutes of Health. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright Statement One author of this manuscript is an employee of the U.S. Government. This work was prepared as part of his duties. Title 17 U.S.C. § 105 provides that ‘Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government.’ Title 17 U.S.C. § 101 defines a U.S. Government work as a work prepared by a military service member or employee of the U.S. Government as part of that person’s official duties. The Corresponding Author has the right to grant on behalf of all authors and does grant on behalf of all authors, a worldwide license to the Publishers and its licensees in perpetuity, in all forms, formats and media (whether known now or created in the future), to (i) publish, reproduce, distribute, display and store the Contribution, (ii) translate the Contribution into other languages, create adaptations, reprints, include within collections and create summaries, extracts and/or, abstracts of the Contribution, (iii) create any other derivative work(s) based on the Contribution, (iv) to exploit all subsidiary rights in the Contribution, (v) the inclusion of electronic links from the Contribution to third party material wherever it may be located; and, (vi) license any third party to do any or all of the above.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: all authors had financial support from the NIH Fogarty International Center for the submitted work; all authors had paid teaching positions at Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia in the previous 3 years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Disclaimer The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, nor the U.S. Government.

• Alfaro-Tolosa P, Mayta-Tristan P, Rodriguez-Morales AJ. Publication misconduct and plagiarism retractions: A Latin American perspective. Current Medical Research and Opinion. 2013; 29 (2):1–2. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allchin D. Values in science: An educational perspective. Science & Education. 1999; 8 :1–12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Almeida RM, de Albuquerque Rocha K, Catelani F, Fontes-Pereira AJ, Vasconcelos SM. Plagiarism allegations account for most retractions in major latin American/Caribbean databases. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2015 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ana J, Koehlmoos T, Smith R, Yan LL. Research misconduct in low- and middle-income countries. PLoS Medicine. 2013; 10 (3):e1001315. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson MS, Horn AS, Risbey KR, Ronning EA, De Vries R, Martinson BC. What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists’ misbehavior? Findings from a national survey of NIH-funded scientists. Academic Medicine. 2007; 82 (9):853–860. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barret R, Malcolm J, Lyon C. Are we ready for large scale use of plagiarism detection tools?; 4th Annual LTSN-ICS Conference, 2003; 2003. [Accessed Jan 2012]. http://www.ics.heacademy.ac.uk/Events/conf2003/Ruth%20Barrett.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Braunschweiger P, Goodman KW. The CITI program: An international online resource for education in human subjects protection and the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine. 2007; 82 (9):861–864. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Butler D. Journals step up plagiarism policing. Nature. 2010; 466 (7303):167. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cameron C, Zhao H, McHugh MK. Publication ethics and the emerging scientific workforce: Understanding “Plagiarism” in a global context. Academic Medicine. 2012; 87 (1):51–54. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Catanzaro M, Miranda G, Palmer L, Bajak A. South American science: Big players. Nature. 2014; 510 (7504):204–206. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, & Institute of Medicine. On being a scientist: A guide to responsible conduct in research. 3rd. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2009. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davis MS. The role of culture in research misconduct. Accountability in Research. 2003; 10 (3):189–201. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fischer BA, Zigmond MJ. Educational approaches for discouraging plagiarism. Urologic Oncology. 2011; 29 (1):100–103. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grieger MC. Ghostwriters and commerce of scientific papers on the internet: science at risk. Revista Da Associacao Medica Brasileira. 2007; 53 (3):247–251. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heitman E, Litewka S. International perspectives on plagiarism and considerations for teaching international trainees. Urologic Oncology. 2011; 29 (1):104–108. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heitman E, Olsen CH, Anestidou L, Bulger RE. New graduate students’ baseline knowledge of the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine. 2007; 82 (9):838–845. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hofstede G. Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in contex. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture. 2011; 2 (1):26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huamani C, Dulanto-Pizzorni A, Rojas-Revoredo V. ‘Copy and paste’ in undergraduate research: Abusing Internet. Anales de la Facultad de Medicina. 2008; 69 (2):117–119. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalichman MW. Responding to challenges in educating for the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine. 2007; 82 (9):870–875. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krstic SB. Research integrity practices from the perspective of early-career researchers. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2015; 21 (5):1181–1196. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Litewka S, Goodman K, Braunschweiger P. The ClTI program: An alternative for research ethics education in Latin America. Acta Bioethica. 2008; 14 (1):54–60. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lovett-Hopper G, Komarraju M, Weston R, Dollinger SJ. Is plagiarism a forerunner of other deviance? Imagined futures of academically dishonest students. Ethics and Behavior. 2007; 17 (3):323–336. [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin DE. Culture and unethical conduct: Understanding the impact of individualism and collectivism on actual plagiarism. Management Learning. 2012; 43 (3):261–273. [ Google Scholar ]
• Martinson BC, Anderson MS, de Vries R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature. 2005; 435 :737–738. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCabe DL. Cheating among college and university students: A North American perspective. International Journal for Educational Integrity. 2005; 1 (1):1–11. [ Google Scholar ]
• McCabe DL, Treviño LK, Butterfield KD. Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. Ethics and Behavior. 2001; 11 (3):219–222. [ Google Scholar ]
• McKeever L. Online plagiarism detection services-saviour or scourge? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 2006; 31 (2):155–165. [ Google Scholar ]
• Park C. In other (People’s) words: Plagiarism by university students—literature and lessons. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 2003; 28 (5):471–488. [ Google Scholar ]
• Park C. Rebels without a clause: Towards an institutional framework for dealing with plagiarism by students. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 2004; 28 (3):291–306. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pupovac V, Fanelli D. Scientists admitting to plagiarism: A meta-analysis of surveys. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2015; 21 (5):1331–1352. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rennie SC, Crosby JR. Are “tomorrow’s doctors” honest? Questionnaire study exploring medical students’s attitudes and reported behaviour on academic misconduct. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 2001; 322 :274–275. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodriguez E, Lolas F. The topic of research integrity in Latin America. Bioethikos. 2011; 5 (4):362–368. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roig M. Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing. [Accessed 12 Sept, 2011]; 2009 http://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/plagiarism/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Rojas-Revoredo V, Huamani C, Mayta-Tristan P. Plagiarism in undergraduate publications: Experiences and recommendations. Revista Medica de Chile. 2007; 135 :1087–1088. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan G, Bonanno H, Krass I, Scouller K, Smith L. Undergraduate and postgraduate pharmacy students’ perceptions of plagiarism and academic honesty. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 2009; 73 (6):105. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saldana-Gastulo JJ, Quezada-Osoria CC, Pena-Oscuvilca A, Mayta-Tristan P. High frequency of plagiarism in medical thesis from a Peruvian public university. Revista Peruana de Medicina Experimental y Salud Publica. 2010; 27 (1):63–67. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salter SB, Guffey DM. Truth, consequences and culture: A comparative examination of cheating and attitudes about cheating among U.S. and U.K. students. Journal of Business Ethics. 2001; 31 :37–50. [ Google Scholar ]
• SCImago Research Group. SCImago Institution Rankings. [Accessed 2015 Mar 19]; Ranking Iberoamericano SIR 2015. 2015 http://www.scimagoir.com/pdf/iber_new/SIR%20Iber%202015%20HE.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith R. What is research misconduct. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. 2000; 30 :4–8. [ Google Scholar ]
• Steneck NH. Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2006; 12 :53–74. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steneck NH, Bulger RE. The history, purpose, and future of instruction in the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine. 2007; 82 (9):830–834. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Swazey J, Anderson M, Louis K. Ethical problems in academic research. American Scientist. 1993; 81 :542–553. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tantaleán Odar RM. ¡¿Ya podemos plagiar?! Crítica a las resoluciones No 191-2009 y 288-2009-CODACUN. Derecho y Cambio Social, Año XI. 2014;(36):23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Taradi SK, Taradi M, Knezevic T, Dogas Z. Students come to medical school prepared to cheat: A multi-campus investigation. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2010; 36 (1):666–670. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Titus SL, Wells JA, Rhoades LJ. Repairing research integrity. Nature. 2008; 453 :980–982. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia. Reglamento Disciplinario. 2009 http://www.upch.edu.pe/portal/images/stories/files/REGLAMENTO_DISCIPLINARIO.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Noorden R. The impact gap: South America by the numbers. Nature. 2014; 510 (7504):202–203. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vasconcelos S, Leta J, Costa L, Pinto A, Sorenson ME. Discussing plagiarism in Latin American science. EMBO Reports. 2009; 10 (7):677–682. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wadja-Johnston VA, Handal PJ, Brawer PA, Fabricatore AN. Academic dishonesty at the graduate level. Ethics and Behavior. 2001; 11 (3):287–305. [ Google Scholar ]
• Whitley BE, Jr, Keith-Spiegel P. Academic integrity as an institutional issue. Ethics and Behavior. 2001; 11 (3):325–342. [ Google Scholar ]

50% off on all orders (Limited time only)

50% off (Limited time only)

How Can I Be Sure That You Will Write My Paper Uniquely

How Can I Be Sure That You Will Write My Paper Uniquely? Read!

Published on: May 25, 2024

Last updated on: May 25, 2024

Worried whether your paper will be unique? Don’t be!

To ensure that you get custom and original work only, we provide a free plagiarism report with each paper or order. Your concern is absolutely genuine because no one wants to spend money on something that is either copied or written poorly.

We do acknowledge the consequences of submitting low-quality and plagiarised work. Unfortunately, many times, high school students fall prey to amateur and non-reliable writing companies.

They rob their money and give plagiarised work in return.

Therefore, many students are skeptical about working with these companies. With SharkPapers.com, you do not have to worry about anything. Just say “ write my paper online ”, and we will get it done for you. We are a professional and reliable service , and we make sure that you get original and custom work only.

Buying an academic assignment can help students , so why wait? Order now.

Can Someone Help Me Write My Paper?

Yes, professional and expert writers working here can easily help you write your paper. Academic writing comes with responsibility, and we pride ourselves on that all of our writers are responsible and help students like you achieve their academic goals easily.

We know that sometimes everyone needs help, and there is nothing bad in it. You can easily get all the work done by our expert writer and, rest assured, it will be unique and 100% written from scratch.

How Do You Write a Unique Essay?

Writing a unique and top-notch essay is not a choice, but it is a necessity. And our professional essay writers do their best to write each essay and paper uniquely. Here is how they will work on their paper.

• Study the Essay Topic and Guidelines Properly

Before working on your essay, they properly study the main topic and the paper’s guidelines. It is important to know everything about the topic, so they never miss this step.

• Conduct Thorough and In-depth Research

After familiarizing themselves with the paper’s topic and guidelines, they conduct thorough and proper research regarding the paper’s topic. And collect credible sources for it.

• Make a Workable Paper Outline

After collecting relevant and important data, he creates an outline for the paper. The outline ensures that he stays focused throughout the work.

• Write the First Draft

The writer writes the first draft of your paper and uploads it on the portal. From there, you can download the paper and check it for content. In case of any revisions, you can ask for them.

• Edit and Proofread the Work

Once the final draft is prepared, the writer checks it for any grammatical or structural errors.

• Run a Plagiarism Test

Once everything is done, he runs your paper through a plagiarism checker tool. We use Turnitin and deliver the plagiarism report along with your paper. This is a complete system through which our paper writer works and delivers high-quality and custom paper.

Can I Pay Someone to Write My Research Paper?

Yes, like your classroom paper, you can also pay an expert writer to write your research paper. Research papers are different and more difficult than essays and usual college or university papers.

This is why students hire expert writers to help them with their research papers. At SharkPapers.com, you get to work with professional writers who are experienced and are always ready to help you.

All you have to do is fill out the online order form and place the order for your term paper and other academic assignments. We will make sure that your essay adheres to your instructor’s guidelines .

Where Should I Pay Someone to Write My Paper?

You should pay an expert writer here to write your paper for you. Finding and choosing a reliable writer and writing service is hard, but you can do it with little diligence.

Responsible writers and a genuine essay writing service works 24/7 , and they have native English writers to do your essays and papers. This is what makes them ideal to do your work.

Moreover, you should choose one of our expert writers to ensure that you get quality and custom essays and other kinds of academic work.

Our writing service is U.S based and helps you with all your academic tasks.

Is it Illegal to Pay Someone to Write Papers?

No, paying an expert writer or a writing service is not at all illegal. These writers work responsibly, and instead of giving copied or plagiarised work, they write each paper from scratch and with perfection.

Our writers can help you with multiple types of academic papers, including essays, research papers, college papers, and other types of papers. Our customer support is 24/7, and on-time delivery is one of our defining qualities.

Legally hire an easy writing service , so just place the order and get a chance to work with an expert essay writer.

Other Write My Paper Questions You May Have

• Is It Possible for Someone to Write My Paper for Me?
• Can You Help Me Write My Research Paper Fast?
• Where Can I Hire Someone to Write My Paper for Cheap?
• Can You Write My Paper For Me Confidentially?
• How Much Time Will You Take to Write My Paper?
• Where Can I Pay Someone to Write My Paper?
• How Long Does It Take To Write 5000 Words?
• How Do You Write a Paper In One Night?
• How Can I Get a Paper Written For Me?

© 2024 - All rights reserved

2000+ SATISFIED STUDENTS

95% Satisfaction RATE

30 Days Money Back GUARANTEE

95% Success RATE

Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Contact Us

© 2021 SharkPapers.com(Powered By sharkpapers.com). All rights reserved.

© 2022 Sharkpapers.com. All rights reserved.

LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

SIGN UP TO YOUR ACCOUNT

• Your phone no.
• Confirm Password
•    I have read Privacy Policy and agree to the Terms and Conditions .

FORGOT PASSWORD

• SEND PASSWORD