Therefore, higher education authorities should make an effort to constitute one unified, comprehensive and detailed law against unethical behaviours, mainly plagiarism, in academia.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study follows a case study pattern of qualitative research while examining the practical manageability of Turkish regulations against plagiarism in academic platforms.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The dataset comprises the Law of Intellectual and Artistic Works and four higher education regulations.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Therefore, higher education authorities should make an effort to constitute one unified, comprehensive and detailed law against unethical behaviours, mainly plagiarism, in academia.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Plagiarism in academic platforms · Legal responses to plagiarism · Case of Turkish regulations
Abstract
This study follows a case study pattern of qualitative research while examining the practical manageability of Turkish regulations against plagiarism in academic platforms. The dataset comprises the Law of Intellectual and Artistic Works and four higher education regulations. This study analyses these documents according to descriptive content analysis technique. The analysis shows that the variety of legal regulations have led to a sophistication of procedures following during the investigation and decision-making of plagiarism cases in academic platforms. Therefore, higher education authorities should make an effort to constitute one unified, comprehensive and detailed law against unethical behaviours, mainly plagiarism, in academia.
YAMAN, A. (2022). Legal Responses to Plagiarist Academics: The Practicality of Regulations in Turkish Higher Education. Higher Education Governance and Policy, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 1, 59–70. https://ajindex.com/articles/763859
Alev, B./Genç, F.N. (2015): Türkiye’de üniversite etik kurulları üzerine bir inceleme [A review of the university ethics committee in Turkey], in: Akdeniz İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 31, 135-182. ARC (Australian Research Council). (2007): Codes and guidelines, available at ARC: http://www.arc.gov.au/codes and-guidelines Beauvais, L.L./Desplaces, D.E./Melchar, D.E./Bosco, S.M. (2007): Business faculty perceptions and actions regarding ethics education, in: Journal of Academic Ethics, 5, 1, 121-136.
Berlinck, R.G.S. (2011): The academic plagiarism and its punishments - a review, in: Brazilian Journal of Pharmacognosy, 21, 3, 365-372.
Blum, S.D. (2009): My word! Plagiarism and college culture. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Bowen, G.A. (2009): Document analysis as a qualitative research method, in: Qualitative Research Journal, 9, 2, 27-40. CIPO (Canadian Intellectual Property Office). (2017): Laws and regulations, available at CIPO: http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/Home
Ceska, Z./Toman, M./Jezek, K. (2008): Multilingual plagiarism detection, in: Dochev, D./Pistore, M./Traverso, P. (eds.): AIMSA 2008: Artificial intelligence: Methodology, systems, and applications, Berlin: Springer, 83-92.
Creswell, J.W. (2007): Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.de Jager, K./Brown, C. (2010): The tangled web: Investigating academics’ views of plagiarism at the University of Cape Town, in: Studies in Higher Education, 35, 5, 513-528.
De Wet, K. (2010): The importance of ethical appraisal in social science research: Reviewing a faculty of humanities’ research ethics committee, in: Journal of Academic Ethics, 8, 4, 301-314.
Demiral-Bakırman, B. (2015): İntihal suçları [The crimes of plagiarism], Ceza Hukuku ve Kriminoloji Dergisi, 3, 2, 57-77.