This study examines Chinese undergraduates’ perceptions of plagiarism in English academic writing in relation to their disciplinary background (i.e., hard vs. soft disciplines), academic enculturation (i.e., length of study in university), and gender. Drawing on data collected from 270 students at two universities in China, it finds clear discipline-based differences in participants’ knowledge of plagiarism and perceptions about its causes; an enculturational effect on perceived acceptability of and condemnatory attitudes toward plagiarism, with senior students being less harsh than their junior (...) counterparts; and complex interactions among disciplinary background, length of study, and gender. Furthermore, it reveals conceptions of (il)legitimate intertextuality (i.e., textual borrowing) differing from those prevalent in Anglo American academia and clearly punitive stances on perceived plagiarism. These results suggest the need to take an educative rather than punitive approach to source use in English academic writing. (shrink)

Previous research on plagiarism has increased awareness and knowledge of the various aspects of this issue, such as contributing factors to plagiarism, students’ and teachers’ perceptions of plagiarism, and institutional policies and regulations on plagiarism. Yet much of this research, especially on the latter two aspects, has been conducted in Anglo-American contexts or English-as-a-second-language settings, while the diversity of English-as-a-foreign-language contexts remains relatively under-researched. Of those studies that did focus on EFL contexts, the majority were based on survey data that (...) were limited in the depth of information collected. To address this relative lack of in-depth understanding of how plagiarism is understood and acted against in EFL contexts, this paper reports on an interview study with 13 EFL teachers from 12 universities in mainland China. The study focused on the teachers’ knowledge and attitudes concerning plagiarism, plagiarism-related pedagogical practices, as well as perceived stances and expectations of their institutions in plagiarism prevention. Its findings contribute to the current knowledge base of EFL academics’ views and practices regarding plagiarism, add to our understanding of EFL teachers’ experiences concerning plagiarism in specific educational settings, and inform institutions’ efforts to develop and improve strategies and policies for preventing plagiarism. (shrink)

Academic journal publications may be retracted following institutional investigations that confirm allegations of research misconduct. Retraction notices can provide insight into the role institutional investigations play in the decision to retract a publication. Through a content analysis of 7,318 retraction notices published between 1927 and 2019 and indexed by the Web of Science, we found that most retraction notices (73.7%) provided no information about institutional investigations that may have led to retractions. A minority of the retraction notices (26.3%) mentioned an (...) institutional investigation either by journal authorities (12.1%), research performing organizations (10.3%), joint institutions (1.9%), research integrity and ethics governing bodies (1.0%), third-party institutions (0.5%), unspecified institutions (0.4%), or research funding organizations (0.1%). Comparing retraction notices issued before and after the introduction of retraction guidelines by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in 2009 revealed that those published after the guidelines’ publication were more likely to report investigations by journal authorities. Comparing retraction notices from different disciplines revealed that those from social sciences and the humanities were more likely to disclose investigations by research performing organizations than those from biomedical and natural sciences. Based on these findings, we suggest that the COPE retraction guidelines in the future make it mandatory to disclose in retraction notices institutional investigations leading to retractions. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Although much has been written about Chinese students’ understandings of illegitimate intertextual practices, few studies have investigated Chinese university teachers’ perceptions of plagiarism, let alone the effects of their disciplinary background on their knowledge of and attitudes toward plagiarism. This paper reports on a study that examined the knowledge that 128 Chinese university teachers of different disciplinary backgrounds had of plagiarism, their attitudes toward identified plagiarism, and their own ability to engage in legitimate paraphrasing. Multiple regression analyses showed that (...) disciplinary background and teaching experience were significant predictors of the participants’ knowledge of plagiarism, whereas disciplinary background and overseas experience significantly predicted their stance on plagiarism. A logistic regression analysis identified disciplinary background as a significant predictor of the participants’ ability to produce legitimate paraphrases. Qualitative analyses of the participants’ open-ended responses revealed that their criteria for plagiarism aligned with Anglo-American conceptions of plagiarism and that intertextual competence was dependent in no small measure on linguistic competence. (shrink)