english 102 resources

resource 1

Title: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS: CONCEPTUAL AWARENESS OF RESEARCH STUDENTS ABOUT PLAGIARISM.

Authors: Mahmood, Sheikh Tariq1

Mahmood, Azhar1 [email protected]

Muhammad Nasir Khan1

Allaha Bakhsh Malik1

Source: International Journal of Academic Research. Nov2010, Vol. 2 Issue 6, p193-198. 6p. 5 Charts.

Document Type: Article

Subject Terms: *PROPERTY rights

*INTELLECTUAL property

*PLAGIARISM -- Prevention

*ACADEMIC discourse

*ISLAMIC universities & colleges

Geographic Terms: ISLAMABAD (Pakistan)

PAKISTAN

Author-Supplied Keywords: avoid plagiarism

awareness

plagiarism

Quality research

research students

Abstract: A number of factors are responsible for the quality of research. An essential requirement of research is that it meets the criteria of scholarly writing or academic writing. Although, in every professional field, experts consider some ideas "common knowledge," but for the researcher it is not because the researcher is getting all this from different sources of knowledge .Researchers use this knowledge for paraphrasing, summarizing and for conceptualization during this process some times intentionally and some times unintentionally not use the citation of the proper source and hence becomes a victim of plagiarism. To find out the awareness of research students about the concept of plagiarism and to suggest possible ways to avoid it, a descriptive study was conducted. The objectives of the study were to examine the researcher's knowledge about concept of plagiarism, knowledge about specific terminologies, types of plagiarism, and consequences of plagiarism and to suggest possible ways to avoid it. Study was delimited to the research students of education at PhD, M.Phil and MA level in International Islamic University, Islamabad. A sample of sixty students was selected through cluster sampling technique, five point Likert scale questionnaire was used to collect the data. Data were analyzed through descriptive statistics. Major finding were that most of the students had misconception of plagiarism, most of them were unaware about the specific terminologies and types of plagiarism. Majority of the students were unaware about the consequences of plagiarism. On the basis of findings it was concluded that they were not properly informed/taught about the concept of plagiarism during their course work and it had implications on the quality of research. The major recommendations were to add sufficient material about plagiarism in research courses and to develop a university study guide to avoid plagiarism practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of International Journal of Academic Research is the property of International Journal of Academic Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Author Affiliations: 1Department of Education, International Islamic University Chairman, Department of Education, NUML, Islamabad (PAKISTAN)

ISSN: 2075-4124

Accession Number: 56681642

Persistent link to this record (Permalink): http://rwlib.neiu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,uid&db=a9h&AN=56681642&scope=site

Cut and Paste: <a href="http://rwlib.neiu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,uid&db=a9h&AN=56681642&scope=site">INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS: CONCEPTUAL AWARENESS OF RESEARCH STUDENTS ABOUT PLAGIARISM.</a>

Database: Academic Search Complete

resource 2

Title: Protecting student intellectual property in plagiarism detection process.

Authors: Butakov, Sergey1 [email protected]

Barber, Craig

Source: British Journal of Educational Technology. Jul2012, Vol. 43 Issue 4, pE101-E103. 3p.

Document Type: Article

Subject Terms: *PLAGIARISM -- Prevention

*PLAGIARISM -- Universities & colleges

*INTELLECTUAL property

*UNIVERSITIES & colleges

*COLLEGE students -- Conduct of life

*COLLEGE students -- Legal status, laws, etc.

*CONTRACTING out

Abstract: The article discusses the problem of plagiarism in higher education and the use of plagiarism detection services (PDS) by universities, with particular focus given to the potential of PDS to violate students' intellectual property rights. Typical PDS structures are described, and advice for creating one which avoids legal issues related to intellectual property by using small samples of student work. The problems created by the fact that most universities outsource PDS due to resource constraints are also touched on.

Author Affiliations: 1SolBridge International School ofBusiness, 151-13 Samsung 1-Dong, Dong-gu, Daejeon 300-814, South Korea

Full Text Word Count: 1475

ISSN: 0007-1013

DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01290.x

Accession Number: 77387221

Persistent link to this record (Permalink): http://rwlib.neiu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,uid&db=a9h&AN=77387221&scope=site

Cut and Paste: <a href="http://rwlib.neiu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,uid&db=a9h&AN=77387221&scope=site">Protecting student intellectual property in plagiarism detection process.</a>

Database: Academic Search Complete

Colloquium

Introduction

The rapid development of the Internet along with increasing computer literacy has made it easy and tempting for digital natives to copy-paste someone's work. Plagiarism is now a burning issue in education, industry and even in the research community. In this study, we concentrate on plagiarism detection with particular focus on the technical and legal sides of it. Usually, schools outsource plagiarism detection as it is a very resource-demanding procedure. Outsourcing of plagiarism detection may lead to intellectual property (IP) protection charges from the students (Bennett, 2009). This colloquium paper proposes an improved way to build a Plagiarism Detection Service (PDS) allowing the school use applicable IP policy and yet allow the PDS to maintain an acceptable search quality. The proposed framework is based on the idea that only a limited amount of information from the student submission is required to locate potentially similar documents on the Web.

Typical architecture for plagiarism detection service

Plagiarism detection is applicable to many areas including but not limited to education, publishing and research proposal evaluations. Some of these areas may be sensitive to IP protection. Most likely, in education, not all studentworks are subject to IP protection, but senior-level papers as well as master's and PhD theses fall in to this category.

The Internet plagiarism search assumes that the paper in question has to be compared against all possible sources on the open Web. The typical process is composed of four major steps:

University receives a digital submission from the student and transfers it to external PDS along with some other related information such as course name, code, institution, etc.

PDS performs a check-up over its own database of papers submitted to the service earlier and to the index of web documents.

PDS prepares a plagiarism check-up report, which includes links to detected sources and highlights paragraphs that had been possibly plagiarised. It may also notify the school that the report is complete.

University retrieves a report from PDS on professor's or student's request.

Such an approach is used by major players on PDS market--iParadigms LLC--in its well-known Turnitin service (http://www.turnitin.com) and BlackBoard's SafeAssign (http://www.safeassign.com). There are two important points that should be highlighted here: the complete student submission is transmitted to the PDS and the PDS retains a copy of the document to use it for the comparison with other submissions in the future. Many universities are aware of IP protection concerns. For example, University of Maryland University College suggests faculty members to consider the following factors while choosing PDS (Virtual Academic Integrity Laboratory, 2011):

"Will the [plagiarism detection] service archive all student submissions for further detection?"

"Will all submissions be immediately destroyed after a report is generated?"

The next section analyses a few cases on IP protection and provides insights on how the information flow could be improved to avoid collisions with IP protection mechanisms.

Legal issues related to plagiarism detection

There has been considerable controversy about the PDS by iParadigms LLC called Turnitin. Turnitin requires the teacher or student to submit the student paper to themwhole.Turnitin then creates a "digital fingerprint" of the paper and archives the paper. This had generated considerable outrage on the part of students and, interestingly, in certain parts of the academic world (Horovitz, 2008). The complaints have gone as far as legal action including law suits against iParadigms LLC (Bennett, 2009; Sharon, 2009). In legal cases against the Turnitin service, iParadigms LLC was using fair use doctrine to protect its way of doing business. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is of fair use, the factors to be considered shall include:

"The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;

The nature of the copyrighted work;

The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" (The Copyright Act § 107, 17 USC § 107, 1976).

Based on the brief analysis of the four US Turnitin cases (A.V. ex rel. Vanderhye v. iParadigms, 2009; A.V. v. iParadigms, LLC, 2008; Christen v. Iparadigms, LLC, 2010; Mawle v. Texas A & M University Kingsville, 2010),we can see that a PDS will be less subject to legal actions if it is based on the following principles: do not transfer the student work to third-party computers in a form that can be considered a copy of thework and do not store the copy of the paper on the third-party computers for later use. The next section outlines the details of the proposed architecture based on these principles and can serve as a blueprint for PDS development.

Proposed architecture

The proposed architecture proposes to divide PDS into two parts: an internal part running on university infrastructure and an external part running on a third party system. Most of the data processing is happening on university infrastructure. The only outsourced part performed on third-party infrastructure is pre-selection of probable sources of plagiarised paper from theWeb. The second step in the typical process outlined earlier has to be split into two:

Pre-select possible sources from the Internet. This step is performed by the third party.

Detailed comparison is done on the university infrastructure.

The major difference between typical approach presented and the proposed one is the amount and form of the information that is being transferred to the third party infrastructure. The proposed architecture sends out the essential queries instead of sending complete submission. These essential queries should be prepared in theway thatwould allowfinding candidate sources on theWeb, but on the other hand, these queries should not be sufficient to recover the original document submitted by a student. The assumption that exhaustive search is not required to detect plagiarism is based on the results of two reports: Culwin and Child have indicated the exact phrase search technique with use of public search engine can be effective to locate the source (Culwin & Child, 2010).The authors of the second report also indicated that if a significant part of the paper was plagiarised from the Internet, there is no need to send all possible queries to the search engine: even as lowas 10% of these queries can help to locate the source (Butakov & Shcherbinin, 2009).

Questions to be answered

To evaluate the practical value of the proposed approach, two major questions has to be answered with a pilot project:

How to select indicative queries from the submission to pre-select potential sources from the Web? Howmuch of the document these queries should cover to make a reliable decision on the question whether the submission was plagiarised from the Web?

How scalable are these approaches in terms of additional workload to the university infrastructure? Will it significantly raise the cost of infrastructure on the university side?

Authors would like to encourage the readers to provide some additional concerns and questions that should be addressed during the pilot part of the project.

References

A.V. ex rel. Vanderhye v. iParadigms, LLC, 562 F.3d 630, 2009 Copr.L.Dec. P 29,743, 90 U.S.P.Q.2d 1513 (4th Cir. 2009).

A.V. v. iParadigms, LLC, 544 F.Supp.2d 473, 232 Ed. Law Rep. 176 (4th Cir. 2008).

Bennett, M. G. (2009). A nexus of law & technology: analysis and postsecondary implications of A.V. et al. v. iParadigms. LLC Journal of Student Conduct Administration, 2, 1, 40-45.

Butakov, S. & Shcherbinin, V. (2009). On the number of search queries required for internet plagiarism detection. In Proceedings of the 2009 Ninth IEEE international Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (July 15-17, 2009), ICALT, IEEE Computer Society, (pp. 482-483).

Christen v. Iparadigms, LLC, August 4, 2010, 2010 WL 3063137, Copr.L.Dec. P 29,960 (E.D.Va. 2010).

Culwin, F. & Child, M. (2010). Optimizing and automating the choice of search strings when investigating possible plagiarism. In Proceedings of 4th International Plagiarism Conference, Newcastle, June 2010. Retrieved November 20, 2010, from http://www.plagiarismadvice.org/

Horovitz, S. (2008). Two wrongs don't negate a copyright. Florida Law Review, 60, 229-275.

Mawle v. Texas A & M University Kingsville, 2010 WL 1782214 (S.D.Tex. 2010).

Sharon, S. (2009). Do students turn over their rights when they turn in their papers? A Case Study of Turnitin.com (June 1, 2009). Available at SSRN. Retrieved December 1, 2011, from http://ssrn.com/ abstract=1396725

The Copyright Act § 107, 17 USC § 107 (1976).

VAIL (Virtual Academic Integrity Laboratory) (2011). Detection tools and methods. Student copyright and detection services. Retrieved December 1, 2011, from http://www.umuc.edu/cip/vail/faculty/ detection&lowbar;tools/services.html

~~~~~~~~

By Sergey Butakov and Craig Barber

Address for correspondence: Dr Sergey Butakov, SolBridge International School of Business, 151-13 Samsung 1-Dong, Dong-gu, Daejeon 300-814, South Korea. Email: [email protected]