Online Mind Mapping and Brainstorming

Create your own awesome maps

Online Mind Mapping and Brainstorming

Even on the go

with our free apps for iPhone, iPad and Android

Get Started

Already have an account? Log In

electronic detection of plagiarism by Mind Map: electronic detection of
0.0 stars - 0 reviews range from 0 to 5

electronic detection of plagiarism


pilot studies

Mulcahy & Goodacre 2004

Evans 2006

institutional roll outs

Badge paper

Heap & Woolls, 2006

guidelines for use by staff

lindsay 2003

perceptions of staff

perceived benefits, increased detection, prevention of pl, decrease in workload, increase in quality of work

perceived problems/ barriers, increase in workload, Mulcahy & Goodacre 2004, Sutherland-smith & Carr 2005, Atkinson & Yeoh 2008, warn 2006, evans 2006, increase in cases/ cases take time to process thru disciplinary, Atkinson & Yeoh, not improving work just avoiding copying, not working properly, Atkinson & Yeoh 2008

training of staff, staff need training in interpretation of OR, Mulcahy & Goodacre 2004, Goddard & Rudzki 2005

ethical considerations, Jenson & Castell 2004

perceptions of students

self-reported levels of cheating, McCabe etc.., Szabo & Underwood 2004, evans 2006, Franklyn-Stokes & Newstead 1995

perception of being caught

concern at being unjustly accused or accidental plagiarism, martin, stubbs and troop 2006

ease of use/ electronic handing in, Atkinson & Yeoh 2008, dahl 2007

copyright concerns, Purdy 2005

student view on seeing OR, Dahl 2007

software/ systems in use

type of detection


copying from internet, Atkinson & Yeoh 2008, Culwin & Lancaster 2004

both collusion and internet copying, Butakov & Scherbinin, Knight & Bimber, Knight, Alermoth & Bimber 2004 conf, Barrie & Presti 1996

overall reviews, VAIL 200?, McKeever 2006, briggs 2008, Bull 2001

paraphrasing/ ideas

Chester 2001

comparison of usability

comparison of accuracy

Weber-Wuff 2008a, b

limitations, Purdy 2005, not searching certain sources, Atkinson & Yeoh 2008, legal problems, Purdy 2005, Royce 2003, Warn 2006

Braumoeller & Gaines 2001

detection rates

Braumoeller & Gaines 2001

mode of use


student led: using own systems to check work, viper/, write check (TII), online tutorials, Jackson 2006

tutor led, resubmission of work/ using drafts, tutor supported, tutors check work and view OR with student for resubmission, KEY PAPER Davis & Carroll in press, Barrett & Malcolm 2006, Hyland 2001, Lakomy & Price 2004, Culwin 2006 conf, culwin 2006 aehe, student use, peer review, Ledwith & Risquez 2008, student open access and multiple drafts allowed, Davis 2007


whole class submission, results demonstrated to students, next assignment decrease in plagiarism, Braumoeller & Gaines 2001, Ledwith & Risquez 2008

suspect cases only

resubmission, Barrett & Malcolm 2006

prevention/ deterrent

perception of punishment as education, Sutherland-smith & Carr 2005, Johnson 2004, Bennett 2005

perception of risk/benefit analysis by students dependent on penalties, Woessner 2004, martin, stubbs and troop 2006

rates of plagiarism observed to decrease over time, Culwin 2006 conf


uptake by institutions


USA, Auer & Krupar 2001

Australia, Mulcahy & Goodacre 2004

drivers for uptake?

external examiners



policy and penalties


consistency of practice/ quality assurance?


public effects

adverse publicity, Schemo 2001

effects of penalties on students, Sutherland-smith & Carr 2005, Johnson 2004