iThenticate, a US-based provider of professional plagiarism detection and prevention technology, has conducted a survey that captures respondents' attitudes about and direct experience with plagiarism. The study - of more than 400 researchers, authors and editors at scholarly publications - reveals that while most agree that plagiarism is a serious problem on the rise, tactics to prevent or detect plagiarism are often inconsistent or absent.
Nearly one in three editors encounters plagiarism "regularly." Overall, 95 percent of editors and 84 percent of researchers reported that they "occasionally" or "regularly" encounter instances of plagiarism. Sixty percent of those surveyed believe plagiarism is increasing.
Researchers reported the highest level of concern, with more than one in four stating that plagiarism is a "very serious" problem in their field. However, they were among the least likely of those surveyed to be utilising plagiarism detection tools— nearly half report that they have never used professional plagiarism detection software.
Editors at scholarly publications were the exact opposite, with a majority reporting routinely checking submitting authors' work for plagiarism. The web site Retraction Watch estimates that the number of retractions in scholarly publications doubled between 2010 and 2011.
When asked to rate factors that might deter a plagiarism check, three issues topped the list — time, cost and, perhaps most surprisingly, "don't believe plagiarism is an issue" in their own work. Editors were most likely to perceive time concerns as the leading deterrent (30 percent) whereas researchers perceived cost as the major barrier, at 24 percent. The factor that rated highest across all respondent groups was the belief that plagiarism wasn't an issue in their work, with 22 percent stating that as the leading reason to forego checking for plagiarism.
