Facilitating Conditions and the Use of Plagiarism Detection Software by Postgraduates of the University of Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria

1. Introduction

A university is a citadel for higher education and research, offering degrees across various disciplines. Postgraduate education, characterised by advanced intellectual activities, aims to equip postgraduates with enhanced knowledge and skills for optimal performance in their respective fields (Alemu, 2018; Okite-Amughoro, 2014). However, the integration of Information Communication Technology (ICT) has transformed postgraduate learning and research, enabling students to access information electronically, raising concerns about plagiarism (Gipp, 2014).

Helgesson and Eriksson (2015) define plagiarism as exploiting another person’s intellectual work and passing it off as one’s own. This includes using someone else’s concepts, procedures, findings, or reports without properly citing the original author. Awasthi (2019), in a review of literature, identifies several types of plagiarism like copy and paste, disguised plagiarism, structural plagiarism, cut and slide, self-plagiarism, unethical collaboration, duplication, repetitive research, replication, misleading attribution and complete plagiarism.

Understanding these categories is essential for students, as each carries distinct implications and penalties. Postgraduates engaging in plagiarism risk academic penalties, tarnishing their credibility and limiting future opportunities. Plagiarism also undermines the quality of research, violating ethical standards and eroding trust within the academic community (Adeyemi & Oluwabiyi, 2013; Abraham & Torunarigha, 2020). Recognising these consequences is vital for postgraduates to maintain academic honesty and integrity.

Several types of plagiarism detection software have been developed to combat plagiarism. Plagiarism detection involves comparing documents for similarity and assigning a numeric similarity score (Graudina, 2017; Mansoor, 2022). It can be manual or electronic, with manual detection being subjective and time-consuming and electronic detection utilising text-matching software for efficiency (Jadhav & Lihitkar, 2021).

Plagiarism detection software employs algorithm-based text detection to identify content similarities across various documents or websites (Meo & Talha, 2019). The various plagiarism detection software available have their advantages and disadvantages. Jadhav and Lihitkar (2021), Ahmed (2015) and Sripathy (2017) identified some including Turnitin, iThenticate, Grammarly, Urkund, Copycatch, PlagAware, PlagScan, Plagium, Plag Tracker, PaperRater, ProWritingAid, Duplichecker, Quetext, SmallSEO Tools, Copyleaks, DMCA Scan, Dustball, Viper and others. These tools differ in their capabilities, user interfaces, and pricing structures, allowing users to choose based on their needs.

Rop (2017) also conducted a case study on the application of plagiarism detection software to enhance research among Nairobi postgraduates and lecturers. Results showed that the use of plagiarism detection software was significantly low. However, the low use of plagiarism detection software could result from the influence of facilitating conditions. Almetere et al. (2020) described facilitating conditions as the belief in the existence of organisational and technical infrastructure to support system use. Similarly, Azalan et al. (2022) defined facilitating conditions as the available infrastructure that supports technology usage. Hence, facilitating conditions are related to the availability of sufficient resources and support for individuals to use technology.

Within the context of this study, facilitating conditions are measured by internet connectivity, training opportunities and electricity. Lack of internet connectivity could impede the use of plagiarism detection software by postgraduates. In addition, a lack of training opportunities could also hinder the use of plagiarism detection software by postgraduates. Constant electricity supply is also necessary for postgraduates to use plagiarism detection software.

Academic integrity fosters learning and creativity in an institution by giving postgraduates confidence and security as they explore new ideas and concepts. It also encourages students to take risks, think and ask questions without fear of criticism. It also offers opportunities for advancement, as postgraduates with high academic integrity will be able to fit in any organisation and reduce the corruption rate in the country. In addition, academic integrity will encourage creativity and originality among postgraduates, reducing plagiarism-induced sanctions and improving the integrity of the students and their institutions. Therefore, this study examines facilitating conditions and the use of plagiarism detection software among postgraduates of the University of Ibadan, Nigeria.

2. Statement of the problem

Plagiarism detection software is beneficial to postgraduate research as it aids in detecting plagiarised articles or research work. It checks plagiarism and provides editing services to improve the overall quality of articles or research papers. A postgraduate who uses plagiarism detection software will appreciate the value of originality as it will reduce the extent of copied texts and could encourage the student to be creative and innovative while writing. This could give such a student an edge over his or her colleague who does not use plagiarism detection software. Thus, plagiarism detection software enhances originality and promotes academic integrity.

Despite the benefits associated with using plagiarism detection software by postgraduates, studies have revealed that most students, including postgraduates, do not use plagiarism detection software as expected. This could be a function of facilitating conditions as they could either promote or discourage the use of plagiarism detection software. Although some studies have been conducted on the use of plagiarism detection software, few, perhaps none, have studied the relationship between facilitating conditions and the use of plagiarism detection software, especially within Nigeria. Thus, this study, entitled “Facilitating conditions and the use of plagiarism detection software among postgraduates of the University of Ibadan, Nigeria”, became imperative.

3. Research questions

The research questions derived from the specific objectives are:

• 1) What are the facilitating conditions provided by the University of Ibadan to enhance the use of plagiarism detection software by postgraduates?
• 2) What types of plagiarism detection software are used by postgraduates of the University of Ibadan, Nigeria?
• 3) What is the frequency of use of plagiarism detection software used by postgraduates of the University of Ibadan, Nigeria?
• 4) What is the purpose of use of plagiarism detection software by postgraduates of the University of Ibadan, Nigeria?
• 5) What are the challenges faced by postgraduates of the University of Ibadan, Nigeria, in the use of plagiarism detection software?
• 6) What is the relationship between facilitating conditions and the use of plagiarism detection software by postgraduates of the University of Ibadan, Nigeria?

4. Literature review

5. Methodology

A descriptive survey research design of the correlational type was adopted for the study. The population of this study consists of postgraduates of the University of Ibadan, Nigeria. According to the data collected from the Record Office of the Postgraduate College of the University of Ibadan, there are 12,296 postgraduates in the University of Ibadan, Nigeria (Table 1).

Table 1.

Population of the study

The multi-stage random sampling technique was used for this study. In the first stage, 60% of the faculties at the University of Ibadan were selected through the balloting method. The selected faculties are Education, Social Sciences, Arts, Pharmacy, Public Health, Agriculture, Technology, Clinical Science, Veterinary Medicine and Basic Medical Sciences. In the second stage, 20% of the departments in the selected faculties were selected through balloting. This selection included 4 departments in Education, 2 in Arts, 1 in Pharmacy, 2 in Public Health, 2 in Agriculture, 2 in Technology, 3 in Clinical Science, 2 in Veterinary Medicine and 1 in Basic Medical Sciences. In the third stage, a sampling fraction of 10% was used to select the sample from the randomly selected departments. The justification for using 10% came from Gay & Airason (2003), who stated that in descriptive research, 10% of the accessible population should be sampled. Thus, the study’s sample size is 242 (Table 2).

Table 2.

Sample size for the study

The questionnaire was the instrument used for data collection. Before administration, the instrument was validated by subject experts in the Department of Library, Archival and Information Studies, University of Ibadan. Data was analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPPS) version 21. The descriptive statistics of frequency counts, mean, and standard deviation were used to analyse research questions 1-5, while Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation (PPMC) was used to answer research question 6.

6. Results

6.1 Questionnaire distribution

A total of 242 copies of the questionnaire were administered to the postgraduates of the University of Ibadan, Nigeria. However, 211 copies were returned and found useful for analysis, giving a response rate of 87.2% (Table 3).

Table 3.

Distribution of questionnaire administration and return rate

6.2 Demographic characteristics of the respondents

Table 4 presents the demographic characteristics of the respondents. Results of the demographic characteristics of the postgraduates showed that most of the respondents, 117 (55.5%), were master’s degree students, while 8 (3.79%) were MPhil students. There were more male postgraduates, 128 (60.7%), than their female counterparts, 83(39.3%). The majority of the respondents, 45 (21.3%), were between 30-34 years of age, while the least 4 (1.90%) were 50 and above.

Table 4.

Demographic information of respondents

6.3 Answers to research questions

▪ Research question 1: What are the facilitating conditions provided by the University of Ibadan to enhance the use of plagiarism detection software by postgraduates?

Table 5 presents results on the facilitating conditions provided by the university to enhance the use of plagiarism detection software. Findings revealed that most of the postgraduates agreed that the university provided facilitating conditions like internet connectivity (Weighted = 2.81), training opportunities (Weighted = 2.59) and electricity (Weighted = 2.77). However, the most prominent facilitating condition to most of the respondents was internet connectivity, followed by electricity and training opportunities.

Table 5.

Facilitating conditions provided to enhance the use of plagiarism detection software

▪ Research question 2: What types of plagiarism detection software are used by postgraduates of the University of Ibadan, Nigeria?

Table 6 presents the responses of the postgraduates on the types of plagiarism detection software used. From the results, most respondents, 85 (40.3%), noted that they moderately used Turnitin. On the other hand, PaperRater 107 (50.7%), Dustbell 101 (47.9%), ProWritingAid 95 (45.0%) and Copyscape 95 (45.0%) were never used by a significant number of postgraduates.

Table 6.

Types of plagiarism detection software used by postgraduates in the University of Ibadan, Nigeria

▪ Research question 3: What is the frequency of use of plagiarism detection software used by postgraduates of the University of Ibadan, Nigeria?

The frequency of use of plagiarism detection software is presented in Table 7. Results revealed that 66 (33.1%) of the postgraduates noted that they used Turnitin monthly. However, slightly more than half of the respondents, 106 (50.2%), never used Viper. In addition, about two-fifths of the postgraduates, 92 (43.6%) and 90 (42.7%), never used PaperRater and WhiteSmoke. The same pattern of results was recorded for Dustbell 89 (42.2%) and ProWritingAid 88 (41.7%).

Table 7.

Frequency of use of plagiarism detection software used by postgraduates of the University of Ibadan, Nigeria

▪ Research question 4: What is the purpose of use of plagiarism detection software by postgraduates of the University of Ibadan, Nigeria?

The purpose of use of plagiarism detection software by postgraduates is presented in Table 8. Results showed that most of the respondents (=3.10) noted that they used plagiarism detection software to paraphrase their work and also to check the correctness of the grammar in their documents. Many postgraduates (=3.09) also noted that they used plagiarism detection software to edit their work. The majority of the respondents (=3.08) also noted that they used plagiarism detection software to determine the level of plagiarism in their work.

Table 8.

Purpose of use of plagiarism detection software by postgraduates of the University of Ibadan, Nigeria

▪ Research question 5: What are the challenges faced by postgraduates of the University of Ibadan, Nigeria, in the use of plagiarism detection software?

The results of the challenges affecting the use of plagiarism detection software by postgraduates are presented in Table 9. Results revealed that the most prominent challenges confronting the use of plagiarism detection software by most of the respondents (=2.61) and (=2.53) were their inability to afford subscription payment to use the plagiarism detection software and slow internet connectivity that hinders the use of plagiarism detection software.

Table 9.

Challenges to the use of plagiarism detection software by postgraduates of the University of Ibadan, Nigeria

▪ Research question six: What is the relationship between facilitating conditions and the use of plagiarism detection software by postgraduates of the University of Ibadan, Nigeria?

Table 10 presents the results of the correlation analysis conducted to examine the relationship between facilitating conditions and the use of plagiarism detection software by the respondents. Results revealed a significant positive relationship between facilitating conditions and the use of plagiarism detection software by the postgraduates of the University of Ibadan, Nigeria (r=.339**; df =210; p< 0.01). This implies that the more the facilitating conditions like internet connectivity, training opportunities and electricity are provided, the more the postgraduates are expected to use the plagiarism detection software.

Table 10.

Relationship between facilitating condition and use of plagiarism detection software by postgraduates in the University of Ibadan

7. Discussion of findings

Results showed that the most prominent facilitating condition provided to most of the respondents was internet connectivity, followed by electricity and training opportunities. This indicates that the university’s management tries as much as possible to ensure that the postgraduates have what they need to use the plagiarism detection software. The facilitating conditions captured in this study, internet connectivity, electricity, and training opportunities, were identified by Thompson (2013) as essential in using internet-based technology. The finding of this study differs from that of Shehu, Urhefe, and Aworo (2015), who carried out a study on accessibility and use of internet services in Nigerian libraries and reported that most participants claimed that they had no access to internet services.

The majority of the postgraduates used Turnitin monthly. However, slightly more than half of the respondents never used Viper, and about two-fifths of the postgraduates never used PaperRater and WhiteSmoke. This also indicates that Turnitin still has an edge over the other types of plagiarism detection software. The findings of this study align with those of Hayden, Eaton and Patrick (2021), who conducted a scoping review of text-matching software used for student academic integrity in higher education in Canada and reported that Turnitin was the most frequently used text-matching software.

Findings showed that most respondents noted that they used plagiarism detection software to paraphrase their work, check the correctness of the grammar in their documents, edit their work, and determine the level of plagiarism. Plagiarism detection software can be used for different purposes as deemed fit by the postgraduates. This agrees with the function of plagiarism detection software, as noted by Sarwar et al. (2016), who stated that plagiarism detection software is a tool used to identify plagiarism in academic work. It aims to identify overlapping content and indicate potential plagiarism by highlighting matching or similar sections.

The most prominent challenges confronting the use of plagiarism detection software by most respondents were their inability to afford subscription payment to use the plagiarism detection software and slow internet connectivity. These constraints can no doubt inhibit the respondents’ use of plagiarism detection software. The result of this study corroborates that of Subaveerapandiyan and Sakthivel (2022), who studied the obstacles in subscribing to plagiarism detection software by colleges in Tamil Nadu, India and reported that one of the challenges that hindered the use of plagiarism detection software was the expensive cost of subscribing to the plagiarism detection software.

There was a significant positive relationship between facilitating conditions and the use of plagiarism detection software by the postgraduates of the University of Ibadan, Nigeria. If there is fast internet collection, a stable power supply, and adequate skills to use plagiarism detection software, postgraduates will be motivated to use it more. This result tallies with that of Abduldayan et al. (2019), who conducted a study on internet connectivity and the use of anti-plagiarism detection software among students at the Federal University of Technology, Minna, Nigeria and reported that robust internet connectivity was identified as a factor that could promote the use of the software. Similarly, Adekanbi and Megwaonye (2020) studied the use of institutional policy on Turnitin plagiarism detection software at Nigeria’s Premier University, and they recommended that training workshops should be organised for students on the use of Turnitin software to promote its use.

8. Conclusion and recommendations

Plagiarism is a menace that is ravaging the academic world and can tarnish the image of the ivory towers. In as much as information and communication technology can be used to plagiarise, the same tool can deter individuals, especially students, from plagiarising. This is done through the use of plagiarism detection software, which sends a signal that plagiarism is not tolerated and that plagiarists will not go undetected. If postgraduates who are more into research activities know that the universities have such a provision, they would be careful to uphold the ethics of academic writing.

pay attention to facilitating conditions like internet connectivity, training opportunities, and electricity. The more these conditions are favourable, the more motivated the postgraduates will be to use the plagiarism detection software. In an environment where internet connectivity is not available or very slow, the postgraduates are not trained to use this software, and the electricity used to charge their devices is epileptic, they would be discouraged from using it. Thus, facilitating conditions like internet connectivity, training opportunities, and electricity are determinants of the use of plagiarism detection software by postgraduates. Based on the outcome of the study, the following recommendations are hereby presented:

• 1) In order to improve the provision of facilitating conditions like internet connectivity and electricity, the institution’s management should harness the vast network of alumni willing to give back to the institution that made them. Their intervention in the areas of internet connectivity and electricity could go a long way in improving the situation for the better.
• 2) Additionally, to sustain the organisation of training programmes on the use of plagiarism detection software, the institution’s management could incorporate this into the orientation of new postgraduates so that the students can use the skills acquired throughout their programme.
• 3) Furthermore, the faculty can motivate postgraduates to use plagiarism detection software often by ensuring that assignments are submitted with similarity reports. If the postgraduates know this, their use of plagiarism detection software will improve.
• 4) In conclusion, to address the challenge of the inability to pay for data subscriptions to use plagiarism detection software, the management of the Postgraduate College should give the registered students access to the university’s Wi-Fi connection. The cost of this can be subsidised and incorporated into their school fees.

References

• Abduldayan, F., Yusuf, H., & Olatunde, A. (2019). Perception of undergraduates on the use of Turnitin plagiarism checker in Federal University of Technology, Minna, Nigeria. Covenant Journal of Library & Information Science, 2(1), 38-54. Retrieved from http://journals.covenantuniversity.edu.ng/index.php/cjlis/
• Abraham, O., & Torunarigha, Y. (2020). Academic dishonesty: Examining the causes and consequences of plagiarism in higher educational institutions of learning. International Journal of Innovative Social Science & Humanities Research, 8(4), 88-19.
• Adekanbi, S. O., & Megwaonye, E. C. (2020). Academics’ attitudes to and use of institutional policy on Turnitin plagiarism detection software at Nigeria’s premier university. Journal of Information Science, Systems and Technology, 4(2). Retrieved from http:arcis.ui.edu.ng
• Adeyemi, B. M., & Oluwabiyi, M. (2013). Scholarly use of information for research by postgraduate students: The role of Kenneth Dike Library (KDL), 5(8). [https://doi.org/10.5897/IJLIS2013.0366]
• Ahmed, Rana Khudhair. (2015). Overview of different plagiarism detection tools. International Journal of Futuristic Trends in Engineering and Technology, II, 1-3.
• Ajanaku, J. O. (2019). Utilisation of the internet by undergraduate students of the University of Ibadan, Nigeria. International Journal of Science and Technology Education Research, 10(3), 30-36. [https://doi.org/10.5897/ijster2018.0441]
• Alemu, S. K. (2018). Meaning, idea and history of University/Higher Education: Brief Literature Review. FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education, 4(3). [https://doi.org/10.32865/fire20184312]
• Almetere, E., Kelana, B., & Mansor, N. (2020). Using UTAUT model to determine factors affecting Internet of Things acceptance in public universities. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 10(2). [https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v10-i2/6915]
• Anson, C. M., & Kruse, O. (2023). Plagiarism detection and intertextuality software. In Digital Writing Technologies in Higher Education: Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 231-243). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
• Appiah, M. K. (2016). Incidence of plagiarism among undergraduate students in higher institutions in Ghana. International Journal of Research in Economics and Social Sciences, 6(3), 269-279. Retrieved from http://www.euroasiapub.org/
• Awasthi, S. (2019). Plagiarism and academic misconduct: A systematic review. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 39(2).
• Ayon, N. (2017). Students’ and instructors’ perceptions of Turnitin: A plagiarism deterrent? Creative Education, 08(13), 2091-2108. [https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2017.813141]
• Azalan, N., Mokhtar, M., & Karim, A. (2022). The role of facilitating conditions in e-zakat adoption. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 12(12). [https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v12-i12/15960]
• Babalola, Y. (2012). Awareness and incidence of plagiarism among undergraduates in a Nigerian private university. African Journal of Library, Archives and Information Science, 22(1), 53-60.
• Colligan, C., Joyce, M., Bull, S., & Loyen, C. (2016). Humanities research software design: The Wilde Trials web app. Scholarly and Research Communication, 7(2/3). [https://doi.org/10.22230/src.2016v7n2/3a256]
• Gipp, B. (2014). Citation-based plagiarism detection: Detecting disguised and cross-language plagiarism using citation pattern analysis. Springer.
• Gow, S. (2013). Plagiarism across Europe and beyond. Shanghai. Retrieved from https://academicintegrity.eu/conference/proceedings/2013/Gow_Cultural.pdf, .
• Graudina, V. (2007). Computer-based plagiarism detection methods and tools. Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies - CompSysTech ’07. [https://doi.org/10.1145/1330598.1330642]
• Hayden, K. A., Eaton, S. E., Pethrick, H., Crossman, K., Lenart, B. A., & Penaluna, L.-A. (2021). A scoping review of text-matching software used for student academic integrity in higher education. Education Research International, 2021, 1-15. [https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/4834860]
• Helgesson, G., & Eriksson, S. (2015). Plagiarism in research. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 18, 91-101. Retrieved from https://aliah.ac.in/upload/media/04-04-20_1585985620.pdf
• Idiegbeyan-ose, J., Nkiko, C., & Osinulu, I. (2016). Awareness and perception of plagiarism of postgraduate students in selected universities in Ogun State, Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-Journal). Retrieved from http://eprints.lmu.edu.ng
• Jadhav, S. D., & Lihitkar, S. R. (2021). Plagiarism Detection Software: A Comparative Evaluation. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). 6206. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11753&context=libphilprac
• Jiffriya, M. A., Jahan, M. A., Ragel, R. G., & Deegalla, S. (2014). AntiPlag: Plagiarism detection on electronic submissions of text-based assignments. 2013 IEEE 8th International Conference on Industrial and Information Systems. [https://doi.org/10.1109/iciinfs.2013.6732013]
• Jiffriya, M., Jahan, M. A., & Ragel, R. (2021). Plagiarism detection tools and techniques: A comprehensive survey. Journal of Science-FAS-SEUSL, 2(02), 47-64. https://seu.ac.lk/jsc/publication/v2n2/Manuscript%205.pdf
• Johnson, R. (2015). Examining the boundaries between musical borrowing, influence, and plagiarism. [https://doi.org/10.17615/2pf8-z714]
• Krokoscz, Marcelo, & Ferreira, S. M. S. P. (2019c, April 25). Perceptions of graduate students at the University of São Paulo about plagiarism practices in academic works. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências. Retrieved from https://www.scielo.br
• Mansoor, M. N., & Al-Tamimi, M. S. H. (2022). Computer-Based Plagiarism Detection Techniques: A Comparative Study, 13(1), 3599-3611. [https://doi.org/10.22075/ijnaa.2022.6140]
• Meo, S. A. & Talha, M. (2019). Turnitin: Is it a text-matching or plagiarism detection tool? Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia, 13(5), 48. [https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.sja_772_18]
• Ogunsuji, O. O., & Fagbule, O. F. (2020). Plagiarism: the curse of internet in African academia? Annals of Ibadan Postgraduate Medicine, 18(2), 98. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8369403/
• Okite-Amughoro, F. A. (2014). The use of electronic information resources for academic research by postgraduate students at Delta State University, Abraka, Nigeria. South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science, 80(2). [https://doi.org/10.7553/80-2-1527]
• Olutola, F. O. (2016). Towards a more enduring prevention of plagiarism. African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies, 9(1), 83-97. Retrieved from https://www.umes.edu
• Omojola, O., & Oyebanji, O. (2019). Journal of Education Review, 11(2), 86-95. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352102977
• Oyekan, O. (2013). Academic Integrity: Study & Guide. Xlibris. Xlibrispublishing. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.ng, .
• Razera, D. (2011). (Thesis). Awareness, attitude and perception of plagiarism among students and teachers at Stockholm University. Retrieved from https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:432681/fulltext01.pdf, .
• Rop, F. K. (2017). Application of Plagiarism Detection Software to Enhance Research: A Case of University of Nairobi Post Graduate Students and Lecturers (Doctoral dissertation).
• Sarwar, M., Moin, M., & Jabeen, M. (2016). Role of Plagiarism Detecting Software in Reducing Academic Dishonesty at M.Phil Level. The Dialogue, 11(4), 414. Retrieved from https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A480607986/
• Selemani, A., Chawinga, W. D., & Dube, G. (2018). Why do postgraduate students commit plagiarism? An empirical study. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 14(1). [https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-018-0029-6]
• Sharaf, N., & Banu, K. (2021). Plagiarism: Awareness, perception and attitude of research scholars in Farook College, Kozhikode, Kerala, India scholars in Farook College. Library Philosophy and Practice.
• Shehu, H., Urhefe, A., & Aworo, P. (2015). Accessibility and Utilisation Of Internet Service In Nigeria Libraries: An Empirical Study. International Journal of Academic Research and Reflection, 3(5), 78-89.
• Sripathy, T. (2017). Plagiarism Detection Softwares and their useful applications to Indian Researchers, Teachers, Writers & Students: Literature Review. International Journal of Advance Research in Science and Engineering, 6(8), 1497-1502. http://www.ijarse.com/images/fullpdf/1503324393_IETEbanglore645.pdf
• Stephenson, S. (2018). Plagiarism Conference, Turkey. Retrieved from http://academicintegrity.eu/conference/wp-content/files/presentation18/Stephenson.pdf, .
• Subaveerapandiyan, A., & Sakthivel, N. (2022). A study of obstacles in plagiarism software subscribing by colleges in Tamil Nadu. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 42(5), 318-324. [https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.42.5.18273]
• Walcott, P. (2016). Attitudes of second-year Computer Science undergraduates toward plagiarism. Caribbean Teaching Scholar, 6, 63-80.