Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

CHAPTER-1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Need for the study

1.3 Statement of the problem

1.4 Scope and limitation of the study

1.5 Objectives of the study

1.6 Methodology

1.7 Significance of the study

1.8 Chapterization

1.9Summing up

References

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page1

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

CHAPTER-1: INTRODUCTION

1.1Introduction

Inrecenttimes,the theft of informationparticularly in the form of digital data has

significantly increased. This issue also extendsto the academic field,whereitisreferredto

as [Link] is specifically defined as a type of research

misconductwhichinvolvesactions such as fabrication, distortion, copying or any other

practices that significantlydiverge from the accepted normswithina discipline or the

broader educational and research communities when proposing, conducting, reviewing

or reporting on research and creative [Link]

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page2

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

someone else's work and trying to present it as their own. This can pertain to

variousformsofcontent,including papers, photographs, songsand even ideas or thoughts.

Plagiarism is intricately linked to the notions of ownership, reputation and

accountability. Cultural perspectives on these notions lead to differences in the

significance attributed to the identification and prosecution of plagiarism. Although it is

primarily addressed in relation to written content, plagiarism encompasses the

appropriation of ideas, regardless of their mode of expression, whether verbal, written in

academic settings tend to highlight the detrimental reputational consequences of

plagiarism, employing academic integrity policies to reinforce this perspective,

especially since plagiarism can tarnish the reputation of educational institutions, journal

publications and academic disciplines. Technological advancements have not only

facilitated increased opportunities for plagiarism but have also introduced new detection

methods. "An act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of

another" is considered plagiarism. The unauthorized use of an author's name and the

misrepresentation of that author's work as one's own the concept of plagiarism is nothing

new.

Origin of the concept Plagiarism

The initial observation occurred in AD 561. Colmcille an Irish was the first person to see

it monk stole ideas from his religious book that belonged to Finnian a fellow monk.

Finnian discovered his deception and Finnian the author was brought before King

Diarmait who heard both sides of the case before ruling in his favor. Only had the right

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page3

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

to the original and the copy. The king declared that the original author's rights were valid

and that"Every cow has its calf, every book has its copy." The king's words became

well-known and significant in Irish.

The origin and meaning of the term plagiarism can be traced back to the Greek

word πλάγιος (plagios) which metaphorically signifies crooked or treacherous (Lidell

and Scott 1940), and the Latin term plagiārius meaning "kidnapper, seducer plunderer"

(Harper, 2001). The Roman Poet Martial referenced this term in the first century when

he accused Fidentinus of copying his poetry without attribution (Lubell, 2020). The

etymology also encompasses the Middle French plagiaire from the mid-1500s with

recorded instances in English dating back to around 1600 including the use of plagiarie

in Virgidemiarum in 1598, the term plagium by Fotherby around 1620 and Montagu's

plagiarisme in 1621 (Oxford English Dictionary 2023 plagiary, plagium, plagiarism

entries). By the 1700s the term had evolved into its present form plagiarism defined as

the action or practice of taking someone else’s work, idea, etc., and presenting it as one’s

own; literary theft.

Definitions

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary "plagiarize" means to take and

presentanotherperson's ideas or words asiftheywereyour own tousesomeoneelse's

creation without givingpropercreditandto commit literary theft byderiving an

ideaorproductfrom an existingsource and claiming it as new.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page4

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

University of Oxford (2017) defines Plagiarism is the act of presenting someone else's

work or ideas as your own, whether or not you have their permission. There is complete

approval of your work including both published and unpublished content in print or

digital format. This falls under the definition of plagiarism or neglect whether it be

intentional or unintentional. Tests performed under the intentional or negligent

plagiarism constitutes a disciplinary violation.

According to the Stanford University (2013) plagiarism is defined as using acceptable

and appropriate content without giving credit. Or acknowledge the writer or source

someone else's original creation even if it includes the author's language, ideas, research,

sources, or work methods, writing or any other kinds.

Plagiarism: Then and now

The understanding of plagiarism has evolved throughoutthe history. In the past

imitation and reproduction were often regarded as forms of flattery. In the realm of

music for instance the repetition of motifs from another composer was viewed as a

respectful acknowledgment of their influence. Notably William Shakespeare borrowed

ideas for his plays from various sources just as others drew inspiration from his works

(Thomas 2000). During this time reputation and honor were prioritized over ownership;

authors preferred their works to be copied rather than misattributed (Thomas, 2000). The

emergence of the term plagiarism coincided with the invention of the printing press in

the 16th century, which allowed authors to replicate and disseminate their works

alongside the rise of the merchant class that increased the number of individuals

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page5

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

profiting from creative endeavors beyond mere subsistence (Vint, 2008; Hansen, 2003).

This development is also linked to the economic principle of private property suggesting

that ownership is necessary for profit which in turn incentivizes investment.

Consequently,intellectual property can be seen as an extension of the notion of private

property asserting the right to benefit from both intellectual and physical labor.

1.2 Need for the study

The "need for the study" typically refers to the justification for pursuing academic or

vocational education. The rationale for doing a specific study, which frequently

emphasizes a gap in current knowledge or a need for further investigation is its

justification in the context of research. It may be used for improving theories, increasing

knowledge, or solving real-world issues. Absolutely! for research scholars, using

plagiarism detection tools is now essential.

In the world of research, where the pursuit of knowledge and truth is paramount,

plagiarism stands as a profound ethical and intellectual transgression. It is far more than

the simple act of copying; it is a betrayal of the fundamental principles upon which the

entire edifice of scholarly inquiry is built. Establishing a clear understanding of

plagiarism's relevance and importance is not merely an academic exercise but a

necessary safeguard for the credibility, integrity, and progress of all fields of study.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page6

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

1.3 Statement of the problem

“Use of plagiarism tools by the research scholars of karnatak university Dharwad: A

Study

1.4 Scope and limitations of the study

The present study is conducting on uses of plagiarism detection tools and the study is

confined to regular science research scholars of karnatak university, Dharwad.

1.5 Objectives

1. To verify the originality (self-checking)of research scholars

2. To prevent unintentional plagiarism from research scholars

3. To improve academic writing skills of research scholars

4. Promotion of academic integrity and honesty

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page7

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

5. Protection of intellectual property

1.6 Methodology

Research may be very broadly defined as systematic gathering of data and information

and its analysis for the advancement of knowledge in any subject. Research attempts to

find answer intellectual and practical questions through application of systematic

methods. Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines research as "studious inquiry or

examination; esp: investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and

interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or

practical application of such new or revised theories or laws". Some people consider

research as a movement, a movement from the known to the unknown.

Research methodology plays an important role in the research study. The researcher has

adopted a proper research method to achieve the set objectives the scientific

investigation carried out with the help of proper research design and use of standard

operating procedure viz data collection tools and tests, adequate sample by using

appropriate sampling method. The descriptive and investigative method of research

including survey studies with questionnaire tool has been followed for the current

research work. The data about the Plagiarism detection tools and the about awareness of

plagiarism detection tools used by the research scholars of karnatak university Dharwad

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page8

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

and with the random sampling method. Further collected data was fed into excel for

table work and graphical representation.

1.7 Significance of the study

Plagiarism detection tools help to preserve academic integrity uphold the

legitimacy of research and writing and avoid inadvertent or intentional plagiarism which

is crucial. These tools compare submitted text to large databases of prior material,

pointing out any possible similarities or cases of plagiarism. This enables authors to spot

and fix any problems, making sure their work is unique and correctly referenced.

It is the duty of a researcher or an academician that whatever they are supposed

to be publishing in the research paper should be their own work. But due to the existing

system of work and pressure it has come to notice that plagiarism happens. So to

sensitize and create awareness of plagiarism, use of various plagiarism Tool/ tools and

use of other tools like reference management Tool, drillbit, grammarly etc. the study is

significant.

1.8 CHAPTERIZATION

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page9

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Chapter 1 Introduction

Chapter one contains the concept of plagiarism, historical developments methods, tools,

scope and limitations, objectives of the study and methodology used.

Chapter 2 Review of the Relevant Literature `

Chapter two deals with the relevant review of literature. This analysis of the reviewed

literature is the key focus of any research which enables to be aware of the past and

current trends in any particular branch of research.

Chapter 3 Plagiarism tools: An Overview

Chapter three discusses the core concept of the study such as:

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page10

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Use of plagiarism tools, plagiarism checker, importance, awareness etc.

Chapter 4 Data Analysis and Interpretation

The data collected under the study has been analyzed using suitable statistical tests and

results have been presented in the chapter four. This chapter includes presentation of

data in form, use of statistical analysis and interpretations of data.

Chapter 5 Findings, Conclusion and Suggestion

The chapter five includes the findings of the study, suggestions and conclusion.

1.9 SUMMING UP

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page11

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

The topics pertaining to plagiarism detection are discussed in this article.

Because it's one of the most well-known kinds of writing, it's often discussed.

use it again in our environment today. The various kinds are discussed in this article.

Various methods for detecting plagiarism along with universal methods that aid the

investigation academics. The plagiarism detection technologies that are currently

available have been informed. TurnItin and Viper are the most widely used nowadays.

Instruments used in universities and academic settings to identifying plagiarism. Online,

these tools are free to use. In addition, the Tool has more features. Because of those

characteristics They are expensive.

REFERENCES

1. Abbott, A. (2012, August 15). Romanian scientists fight [Link],

488(7411), 264–265. [Link]

2. Edward Waters (2004) Loses Accreditation After Plagiarism Scandal., 2004.

Black Issues inHigher Education. 21 (23), 24.

3. Estivill-Castro, V., &Torrisi-Steele, G. (2020, March 2–4). Students’ perception

that plagiarism is exaggerated by educators. In INTED 2020 Proceedings (pp. 1524–

1530). IATED. [Link]

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page12

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

4. Harvey, N., Fornasiero, J., McCarthy, G., Macintyre, C., &Crossin, C. (Eds.).

(2012). A history of the Faculty of Arts at the University of Adelaide, 1876–2012:

Celebrating 125 years of the Faculty of Arts. University of Adelaide Press.

[Link]

5. Lund, B. D., Wang, T., Mannuru, N. R., Nie, B., Shimray, S., and Wang, Z.,

(2023). ChatGPT and a new academic reality: Artificial Intelligence-written research

papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing. Journal of the

Association for Information Science and Technology 74 (5), 570– 581.

doi:10.1002/asi.24750.

6. Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Plagiarize. In [Link] dictionary.

Retrieved June 24, 2025, from [Link]

7. Vanderschraaf, P. (2001, August 28). Common Knowledge. Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved June 24, 2025, from

[Link]

8. Walker, J. (1998b). Student plagiarism in universities: What are we doing about

it? Higher Education Research & Development, 17(1), 89–106.

[Link]

9. Vosen, M. A. (2008). Using Bloom’s Taxonomy to Teach Students about

Plagiarism.1The English Journal, 97(6), 43–46.

[Link]

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page13

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

CHAPTER-II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Introduction

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page14

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

The idea of “literature” usually conjures up images of dusty books that you are

required to read for English, American, or World literature classes. The “literature” in a

literature review, however, refers to all the previous research and scholars on a particular

topic, no matter what discipline you are studying; the “review” is your explanation of

what the literature says.

A literature review is the synthesis of the available literature regarding a research topic.

This synthesis merges the conclusions of many different sources to explain the overall

understanding of the topic, thus laying a foundation for both the research question and

primary research. Although a literature review will cite sources and should discuss the

credibility of the sources included, it is more than an annotated bibliography. literature

review needs to review all the significant sources on a topic, regardless of whether or not

they support the eventually be working towards the literature.

The initial step in research is the literature review which takes place while we are

formulating a research.A literature review is a survey of books, scholarly publications

and other sources of literature materials, pertaining to a specific topic, research field, or

theory. By doing so, literature review presents a summary, description andcritical

analysisof these works in relation to the research topic under consideration.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page15

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

There is need of literature review and it is done by two ways.

i. Review concepts and theories.

ii. Review previous research finding.

And for this purpose the abstracting and indexing journals and published or unpublished

bibliographies, academic journals, conference proceedings, government reports, books

are etc be preferred.

A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social

sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both

summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories. A summary is a

recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a

reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to

investigate a research problem.

2.2 General Plagiarism

Brian (1994) spoke about plagiarism and discusses two types of plagiarism viz.

competitive and institutionalized in detail. Eg Ghost writing is one of the example of

institutionalized plagiarism.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page16

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Pennycook (1996)analyzed the issues raised by borrowing others words, text, and

ownership especially when it comes from other foreign learner of the language. He tries

to find a relation between the text, memory and learning. According to the researcher it

is not adequate to observe simply on one hand that the student “copy” and on the other

hand they need to learn academic writing practices. Both observations are true but are

insufficient in terms of an awareness of culture difference and a self-reflexivity about the

practices to which we adhere.

Smith (2003) found 6 easy strategies to combat plagiarism. Strategies like knowledge

expertise, teaching faculty help the students how to use internet and apply skill to search

related terms properly on the internet. Tutoring service and use of various anti

plagiarism Tool service will help to recognize plagiarized material and providing help

and redesigning coursework will really help the students to avoid plagiarism.

Hamilton (2003) spoke about easy availability of study material on internet. With the

same access the instructor also finds plagiarism with deep and advance search. The

researcher also tells about various anti- plagiarism Tool which are useful to detect

plagiarized material and help to fight plagiarism.

Noynaert (2005) found that plagiarism detection Tool are very important in academic

field. He also speaks about manual plagiarism detection as well as modern techniques in

detecting plagiarism. He also provides steps for next generation plagiarism detection

Tool

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page17

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Maxymuk (2006) introduced various library websites whose web-pages are devoted to

the issue of plagiarism. Eg. Baylor university, university of Alberta, University of

Wisconsin etc. the author believes that plagiarism is a serious problem and the librarian

has the potential to fight these problems.

2.3 Internet and Plagiarism

Auer (2001) stated that plagiarizing is being easy for academic students because

of internet use and load of information. With examples of Virginia polytechnic institute

and state University the authors proves that the number of plagiarism has increase from

time to time. . It is brought to notice that the librarian plays a vital role. Collaboration of

teacher- librarian in curriculum work and working with assignment will help librarian to

know the student in better way and students will feel easy to talk with the librarian about

plagiarism.

Townleyand Parsell (2004) explained about the misuse and failure of

acknowledging source material that leads to plagiarism. Various questions are included

in the questionnaire on plagiarism and internet as a information tool. It also predicts that

internet plagiarism as a problem generated and solvable by emerging technologies and

also argues to build background conditions that enable and sustain ethical relationships

to nurture an intellectual community.

Dye (2007)stated about print plagiarism in academic field and how internet has help to

do the same without any burden on head of plagiarist. The researcher talks about various

anti plagiarism Tool companies such as etc who have helped to combat plagiarism by

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page18

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

using various technology like invisible digital watermark to tag content, to create

copyguard to broaden search etc.

Ukpebor (2013) aimed to provide better awareness of internet plagiarism to secondary

school students and administrators in Nigeria. He also speaks about attitudes and

perception of the term plagiarism. A survey result shows that many students are unaware

of the term plagiarism and the result also put light on how student are accepting that

internet is useful for meeting the challenges of class work . it is also found out that

teachers are not enlightening students about the rules of using content from internet ,

how to cite work of other researcher etc.

2.4 Intellectual Property Rights, Copyright and Plagiarism

Bowmen (2008) made study on concept of plagiarism withinnontextual

materials like images and figures. The paper also highlights with the copyright issues

and use of textual material in the name of fair use. The paper concludes with the growth

in availability of images through the world wide web and their increasing use as source

material in the creative arts.

Bin-Habtoor and Zaher (2012) presented a survey on plagiarism detection systems, a

summary of several plagiarism types like Plagiarism in documents, Plagiarism in code,

etcfuther it provided techniques and algorithms. Common feature of deferent detection

systems are described. At the end of this paper authors propose a web enabled system to

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page19

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

detect plagiarism in documents , code and images, also this system could be used in E-

Learning,E-Journal, and E-Business

Balve (2013) discussed plagiarism in higher education. The paper also discusses wrong

doing and intentional action. In Japanese university copying from other student during

exam is regarded as [Link] of plagiarism as a mis behavior is less developed

in Asian learning environment.

Plagiarism and Plagiarism Detection tools

Ellis (2012) found that plagiarism is spreading tremendously due to information

overload. The researcher gives example of TurnItin plagiarism detective service and

discuss about the view and reviews of people towards it. It has shown both the

effectiveness and efficiency of assessment management can be improved which is

important for plagiarism detection.

James (2004) spoke about copyright law of India and its academic community. It tells

about when copyright law in India came into existence. It tells about basics of Copyright

Law were copy right is needed to shield authors work. It also brings light to tradition

copyright issues in education and lastly it concludes with certain suggestion for

consideration.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page20

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Badke (2007)oxmine various plagiarism detection services which are now available

nowadays but at the same times warn us about their drawbacks and lawsuit. The research

tells us about some methods that can be useful for searching plagiarized work. Eg using

Google search engine, Google scholars which will help to link up with our search.

Almpanis (2015) presented the finding of a mix method study conducted in the context

of Higher Education Institutions (HELs) and focuses on the staff development needs and

the institutional issues around the deployment and support of Technology Enhanced

Learning in various UK HELs.

Taiseer et al. (2015) focussed on the identification of existing plagiarism detection

techniques, description and taxonomies. The research are more interested whether the

existing Tool detect plagiarized tables, figures or formulas etc. they have used six

electronic database resources to extract the data for synchronization. Seven major

detection patterns were identified from the selected studies and only few are able to

detect similarities based on.

Patil (2015) explained about how copy right issues and IPR issues are formed as the test

content o=is been plagiarized. She define importance on plagiarism detection Tool like

Urkund,ithenticate,TurnItin,Duplichecker etc. this useful to researchers to check their

papers,thesis,journaletc,some of these Tool tools also help in checking grammar.

2.5 Plagiarism and Plagiarism Detection Tool

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page21

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Badke(2007) made study on various plagiarism detection services which are now

available nowadays but at the same times warn us about their drawbacks and lawsuit.

The research tells us about some methods that can be useful for searching plagiarized

work. Eg using Google search engine, Google scholars which will help to link up with

our search.

Baggagley (2012) discovered two case studies analyzing the self-justification given by

an habitual plagiarist and the repeated plagiarism of a piece of plagiarized material for

over ten year period. Emphasis is placed on the exclusion method provide by the

TurnItin service in analyzing content originality.

Lukashenko et al. (2007) overviewed the various ways to detect the plagiarism. They

talk about the common ways with the help of which plagiarism can be prevented.

Various Plagiarism detection Tools like TurnItin, Eve2, CopyCatch Gold, Jplag,

Wordcheck are discussed. According to them TurnItin is best among all the Tools due to

its functionality.

Bin-Habtoor and Zaher (2012) presented a survey on plagiarism detection systems, a

summary of several plagiarism types like Plagiarism in documents, Plagiarism in code,

etcfuther it provided techniques and algorithms. Common feature of deferent detection

systems are described. At the end of this paper authors propose a web enabled system to

detect plagiarism in documents, code and images, also this system could be used in E-

Learning-Journal, and E-Business

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page22

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

2.6 Other Studies Related To Plagiarism

Braumoeller and Gaines (2001) stated that there is lot of online sources from where

student can get required material which is indeed an issue of plagiarism for the staff

members. The authors had conducted a small project and had created course websites at

blackboard .com and students were asked to handover their papers to the TAs

electronically via digital drop box features. A program (Essay Verification Engine) was

introduced. And from the finding it is concluded that simple warnings about plagiarism

are not taken seriously by the students but advertising the use of plagiarism detection

Tool seems to concentrate .we found that while a few students engage in intentional

academic dishonesty, far more were unclear on the rules against plagiarism, but,

paradoxically, had received enough lectures on it that they simply “tuned out” any

warnings. The challenge for the educator is to deter the first group and to motivate the

second to pay closer attention. Plagiarism- detection Tool seemed to serve both

functions quite well.

Cavalcanti, et al. (2004) have suggested text mining methodology and algorithms can

be used for academic dishonesty and open end college exam based on document

classification techniques. They have also proposed two classification models for

cheating detection.

Kwong, et al. (2010) stated that the purpose of paper was to compare students’ and

faculty members’ perceptions of academic integrity; their understanding of experiences

pertaining to different aspects of academic misconduct (e.g. plagiarism); and to examine

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page23

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

the underlying reasons behind academic integrity violations in a Hong Kong context. For

this purpose they have conducted a research and the result states that that faculty

members and students do not share a consensus on the definition of the seriousness of

plagiarism and collusion

Yamin (2012)made Smart, Innovative and Plagiarism-deterrent Assessments,

Mohammad Yamin / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 55 (2012) 816 – 824

talked about informative assignments for students so as to prevent them from plagiarism.

The researchers have worked and have created some assignments on “Database system

“unit which he is being teaching for 10 years.

Zimerman (2012) stated that plagiarism and detection of plagiarism are interwoven and

also finds that the librarian are very enthusiastic about detecting plagiarism and the

researcher also suggest using commercial or free plagiarism detection Tool.

Bhattacharjee and Dutta (2013)Made study on presently available systems which are

generally focused on Tool plagiarism. The researcher has tried to develop a system

focuses on the similarity of different simple equations present in a document. It can

easily extract those equations from the documents, compare them even if the variables

are changed in plagiarized document with the original one and can detect if the

document is plagiarized or not.

Dong- et al. (2016) stated that Tool birthmark is helpful to analyze similarity between to

program and the present research program has proposed a novel birthmark Authority

Histogram due to which plagiarism detection can be done more accurately.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page24

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Sindhu et al. (2016) talked about a technique for detecting full and partial copies is

proposed. SCAM algorithm which is used to find out similar paragraphs and then PP

Checker algorithm for determining degree of plagiarism at paragraph level and

document level. The system is evaluated with metrics of precision and recall. The

system obtained high precision which proves the effectiveness of the proposed method.

Vani and Gupta . (2017) discussed about the “idea plagiarism” in which the basic

source idea is plagiarized at both document and passage level. The performance of the

current approach and its variations are evaluated both at the document and passage

levels, using information retrieval and PAN plagiarism measures respectively. The

results are also compared against six top ranked plagiarism detection systems submitted

as a part of PAN13-14 competition.

Jerebet et al. (2018) focused to find out the various factor influencing plagiarism,

secondly if there are any differences between Slovene and German students regarding

factors influencing plagiarism and thirdly the paper try to find out whether male and

female student act same to the influence of plagiarism.(Jereb E, Perc, M, Lammlein B,

Jercbic j, Urh M et al. Factors influencing plagiarism in higher education : A comparison

of German and Slovene students ; PLoS ONE; 13(8); e0202252 http:// doi. Org /

101371/ [Link].0202252

Karnalim (2018) stated that Low-Level structure-based Approach is one of the source

code plagiarism detection approaches that depend on executable form to find similarities

between the text. The researcher talked about three different source code approaches viz.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page25

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

attribute-base, structure base and hybrid base .proposed technique works for each

plagiarism-suspected pair in twofold. First of all, it will enlist all possible linearization

alternatives in combinatoric manner. Afterward, it will select the correct linearization

pair based on the highest information-retrieval-based similarity degree.

2.7 Summing Up

Plagiarism detection in literature reviews is crucial for maintaining academic

integrity and ensuring the originality of research. It involves identifying instances where

someone has used another person's work without proper attribution, whether

intentionally or unintentionally. This review concludes that while technology offers

powerful tools for detecting plagiarism, a comprehensive approach requires a

combination of automated checks and human review to address various forms of

plagiarism and ensure the reliability of research findings

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page26

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

REFERENCES

1. Ali, A. M. E. T., Abdulla, H. M. D., &Snasel, V. (2011). Overview and

Comparison of Plagiarism Detection Tools. Dateso, 161–172.

2. Almpanis, T. (2015). Staff development and institutional support for Technology

Enhanced Learning in UK universities. Electronic Journal of ELearning, 13(5), 366–

375.

3. Anita, P. (n.d.). Plagiarism Tool’s Useful to Researchers: Analysis of few

Tools”. Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 5(1).

4. Auer, N. J., &Krupar, E. M. (2001). Mouse click plagiarism: The role of

technology in plagiarism and the librarian’s role in combating it.

5. Badke, W. (2007). Training plagiarism detectives: The law and order approach.

Online (Weston, CT), 31(6), 50–52.

6. Baggaley, J., & Athabasca, A. (2012). Plagiarism: Cross-cultural and

genealogical perspectives. 5th International Plagiarism Conference Proceedings &

Abstracts.

7. Balve, J. (2013). Intellectual Property, Ideology and Culture in Higher

Education. In The Creative University (pp. 85–91). Brill Sense.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page27

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

8. Bhattacharjee, D., & Dutta, S. (2013). Plagiarism detection by identifying the

equations. Procedia Technology, 10, 715–723.

9. Bin-Habtoor, A. S., &Zaher, M. A. (2012b). A survey on plagiarism detection

systems. International Journal of Computer Theory and Engineering, 4(2), 185.

10. Bowman, S. (2008). The Creativity of Plagiarism. Third International

Plagiarism Conference.

11. Braumoeller, B. F., & Gaines, B. J. (2001). Actions do speak louder than words:

Deterring plagiarism with the use of plagiarism-detection Tool. PS: Political Science

and Politics, 34(4), 835–839.

12. Cavalcanti, E. R., Pires, C. E., Cavalcanti, E. P., &Pires, V. F. (2012). Detection

and evaluation of cheating on college exams using supervised classification. Informatics

in Education, 11(2), 169–190.

13. Chae, D.-K., Ha, J., Kim, S.-W., Kang, B., Im, E. G., & Park, S. (2016b).

Credible, resilient, and scalable detection of Tool plagiarism using authority histograms.

Knowledge-Based Systems, 95, 114–124.

14. Dye, J. (2007). To catch a thief: Tools and tips to combat digital content

plagiarism. EContent (Wilton, Conn.), 30(7).

15. Eisa, T. A. E., Salim, N., &Alzahrani, S. (2015a). Existing plagiarism detection

techniques. Online Information Review.

16. Ellis, C. (2012). Streamlining plagiarism detection: The role of electronic

assessment management. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 8(2).

17. Hamilton, D. (2003). Plagiarism: Librarians help provide new solutions to an old

problem. Searcher, 11(4), 26–28.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page28

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

18. James, T. C. (2004). Copyright law of India and the academic community

19. Jereb, E., Perc, M., Lämmlein, B., Jerebic, J., Urh, M., Podbregar, I., &Šprajc, P.

(2018). Factors influencing plagiarism in higher education: A comparison of German

and Slovene students. PloS One, 13(8), e0202252.

20. .Kwong, T., Ng, H.-M., Mark, K.-P., & Wong, E. (2010). Students’ and faculty’s

perception of academic integrity in Hong Kong. Campus-Wide Information Systems.

21. Lukashenko, R., Graudina, V., &Grundspenkis, J. (2007). Computer-based

plagiarism detection methods and tools: An overview. Proceedings of the 2007

International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies, 1–6.

22. Maxymuk, J. (2006). The persistent plague of plagiarism. The Bottom Line.

23. Noynaert, J. E. (2005a). Plagiarism detection Tool. Proc. Of 38th Annual

Midwest Instruction and Computing Symposium, Eau Claire, Wisconsin.

24. Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others’ words: Text, ownership, memory, and

plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 201–230.

25. Sindhu, L., &Idicula, S. M. (2016). A plagiarism detection system for

Malayalam text based documents with full and partial copy. Procedia Technology, 25,

372–377.

26. Smith, C. B. (2003). Fighting cyber plagiarism. Library Journal, 22–22.

27. The Writing Center @ the University of Wisconsin – Madison. (n.d.). Learn how

to write a review of literature. University of Wisconsin – Madison. Retrieved July 29,

2011, from [Link]

28. Ukpebor, C. O., &Ogbebor, A. (2013). Internet and plagiarism: Awareness,

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page29

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

attitude and perception of students of secondary schools. International Research:

Journal of Library and Information Science, 3(2).

29. Vani, K., & Gupta, D. (2017). Detection of idea plagiarism using syntax–

semantic concept extractions with genetic algorithm. Expert Systems with Applications,

73, 11–26.

30. Yamin, M. (2012). Smart, Innovative and Plagiarism-deterrent Assessments.

Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 55, 816–824.

31. Zimerman, M. (2012). Plagiarism and international students in academic

libraries. New Library World.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page30

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

CHAPTER- 3

PLAGIARISM DETECTION TOOLS: AN OVERVIEW

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page31

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Plagiarism detection tools are software applications that compare the text of

written documents against a huge database of published works and internet resources in

order to find cases of plagiarism or incorrect referencing. These tools are essential for

upholding academic and professional integrity because they help authors, publishers,

and educators confirm the originality of their work. By emphasizing comparable textual

passages, they allow users to identify and address any possible plagiarism concerns.

According to TehEng Choo (Elaine) and Megan Paull (2013) “Plagiarism debate is

notion of the core values of academic integrity; part of the bigger picture of personal

integrity. Many universities are taking initiative to provide proper guidelines regarding

how plagiarism is ethically wrong and how students can avoid it. Oxford university has

developed an online course which is helpful to overview the issues surrounding

plagiarism and how to avoid it by practical ways. To plagiarize is an offence. Ethics

don’t allow a person to plagiarize. According to Foltýnek et al “In research, plagiarism

is included in the three “cardinal sins”, FFP Fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism.”

People do find ways to plagiarize as it is easy to cut and paste things from others

content. Technology has influenced many fields and there are pros and cons of

technology. Due to the technology people can easily plagiarize, and morally it is not

accepted. Also now to plagiarize is a serious offence and people doing it will get various

punishments for plagiarizing.

3.2 Definition and Meaning of Plagiarism

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page32

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Oxford University (2000)

Definition: "Plagiarism is presenting someone else's work or ideas as our own,

with or without their consent, by incorporating it into your work without full

acknowledgement. All published and unpublished material, whether in manuscript,

printed or electronic form, is covered under this definition."

Kent State University(2000)

Definition: "In an instructional setting, plagiarism occurs when a writer deliberately

uses someone else's language, ideas, or other original (not common-knowledge) material

without acknowledging its source. This definition applies to texts published in print or

online, to manuscripts, and to the work of other student wri1ters."

Harvard University (late 1990)

Definition: "Plagiarism is the theft of someone else's ideas and work. 3 It is the

incorporation of facts, ideas, or specific language that are not common knowledge, are

taken from another source, and are not properly cited. Whether a student copies verbatim

or simply rephrases the ideas of another without properly acknowledging the source, the

theft is the same4."5 (Harvard Extension School, similar definitions across other Harvard

faculties)

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page33

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Stanford University (May 24, 2011)

Definition: "For purposes of the Stanford University Honor Code, plagiarism is defined

as the use, without giving reasonable and appropriate credit to or acknowledging the

author or source, of another person's original work, whether such work is made up of

code, formulas, ideas, language, research, strategies, writing or other form. Moreover,

verbatim text from another source must always be put in (or within) quotation marks.”

Yale University (Early 2000s)

Definition: "Plagiarism is the use of another's work, words, or ideas without attribution.

The word 'plagiarism' comes from the Latin word for 'kidnapper' and is considered a

form of theft, a breach of honesty in the academic community. Plagiarizers suffer serious

consequences in Yale College including suspension or expulsion from school."

Council of Writing Program Administration (WPA 2003, P.1) Plagiarism is when a

writer deliberately uses someone else language, idea, or other original (not common

knowledge) material without acknowledging its source.” From the above definitions

researcher get a brief idea of what plagiarism is. We can also say that plagiarism is

copying others idea or material without the author’s concern.

3.3 Etymology of Plagiarism

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page34

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

The word "plagiarism" has a fascinating and somewhat stark etymology, directly

linking it to an act of theft and abduction. The word "plagiarism" ultimately derives from

the Latin word plagiarius, which literally means "kidnapper" or "abductor."This Latin

term, in turn, comes from plagium, meaning "kidnapping," and earlier from plaga,

which refers to a "snare" or "hunting net." The underlying Indo-European root relates to

the idea of "weaving" or "something extended," perhaps referring to the net itself. The

Roman Poet Martial (c. 40 – 104 AD) is credited with first using plagiarius in a

figurative sense to describe someone who stole his verses and presented them as their

own.4 He essentially called such a person a "literary kidnapper" because they were

"kidnapping" his intellectual "property."

The term entered the English language in the early 17th century. 5The form "plagiary"

(meaning a literary thief) was used around 1600, notably by playwright Ben Jonson in

1601.6 The more familiar noun "plagiarism" followed shortly after, with its earliest

known use recorded in 1621. So, the etymology of "plagiarism" strikingly highlights its

original and enduring connotation of theft and unlawful appropriation, specifically of

someone else's creative work or ideas.7

3.4 Types of Plagiarism.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page35

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Plagiarism isn't a single, monolithic act; it comes in various forms, ranging from

direct copying to more subtle forms of uncredited borrowing. Understanding these

different types is crucial for both avoiding plagiarism and identifying it.

Here are the most common types of plagiarism:

 Global Plagiarism (Complete Plagiarism/Ghostwriting):

a) Definition: This is the most severe form, where an entire piece of work is taken

from another source and presented as one's own. This includes buying an essay,

submitting a paper written by someone else, or taking an entire document from the

internet without any changes and putting your name on it.

b) Severity: Extremely high, as it represents a complete fabrication of authorship.

 Verbatim Plagiarism (Direct Plagiarism/Clone Plagiarism):

o Definition: Copying text word-for-word from a source without using quotation

marks and without proper citation. Even changing a few words or phrases does not

excuse this if the original structure and core wording remain.

o Severity: High. It's a clear act of intellectual theft.

 Paraphrasing Plagiarism:

o Definition: Rephrasing or summarizing someone else's ideas, arguments, or

information in your own words without providing proper attribution (citation). Even if

you change every word, the idea still belongs to the original author.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page36

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

o Severity: Moderate to high. Often unintentional due to a misunderstanding of

how to properly paraphrase and cite, but still a serious academic offense.

 Mosaic Plagiarism (Patchwork Plagiarism/Patchwriting):

o Definition: This involves stitching together phrases, sentences, or ideas from

various sources without proper quotation marks or citation. The plagiarizer might

change a few words, use synonyms, or alter sentence structures, but the core ideas and

significant portions of the original wording remain without acknowledgment. It's like a

"cut-and-paste" job from multiple sources.

o Severity: Moderate to high. It can be harder to detect manually but is picked up

by plagiarism detection software.

 Self-Plagiarism (Auto-Plagiarism/Recycling Plagiarism):

o Definition: Reusing significant portions of your own previously submitted or

published work without proper acknowledgment or permission. This applies even if you

are the original author, as academic contexts often require new, original work for each

assignment or publication.

o Severity: Varies. While not stealing from another person, it's considered

unethical because it can misrepresent the originality of the current work or seek multiple

credits for a single effort. This often requires explicit permission from instructors or

publishers.

 Source-Based Plagiarism:

o Definition: This occurs when a writer cites sources incorrectly or misleadingly.

Examples include:

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page37

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

 Citing a secondary source but only listing the primary source in the bibliography,

implying you consulted the primary source directly when you didn't.

 Fabricating sources or including non-existent sources in a bibliography.

 Falsifying data or research findings.

o Severity: High, as it undermines the integrity of research and can mislead

readers.

 Accidental Plagiarism (Unintentional Plagiarism):

o Definition: Occurs when a writer unintentionally plagiarizes due to poor note-

taking, misunderstanding of citation rules, misplacing sources, or simply not realizing

that certain information needs to be cited.

o Severity: While the intent might be innocent, the consequences can still be

serious in academic and professional settings. It highlights the importance of thorough

research practices and understanding citation guidelines.

 Inaccurate Authorship/Improper Collaboration:

o Definition: This involves issues related to who gets credit for a work.

 Ghostwriting: Someone else writes the work, but you submit it under your

name.

 Undeserved authorship: Giving authorship credit to someone who did not

significantly contribute to the work.

 Excluding authors: Failing to include someone who legitimately contributed to

the work as an author.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page38

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

 Unauthorized collaboration: Working with others on an assignment meant to

be individual work without permission.

o Severity: High, as it misrepresents intellectual contributions.

 Understanding these different types empowers individuals to practice academic

and professional integrity more effectively.

There are several ways that plagiarism has been classified by various groups and

institutions. These are the following:

Table No. 3.4.1: “TURNITIN” Plagiarism Type

[Link] TYPE DESCRIPTIONS

1 CLONE An act of submitting another’s work, word-for-word, as one’s own

2 CTRL-C A written piece that contains significant portions of text from a single

source without alterations.

3 REMIX An act of paraphrasing from other sources and making the content fit

together seamlessly

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page39

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

4 HYBRID The act of combining perfectly cited sources with copied passages—

without citation—in one paper

5 FIND REPLACE The act of changing keywords and phrases but retaining the essential

content of the source in a paper

6 RECYCLE The act of borrowing generously from one’s own previous work without

citation; To self-plagiarize

7 MASHUP A paper that represents a mix of copied material from several different

sources without proper citation

8 404 ERROR A A written piece that includes citations to non-existent or inaccurate

information about sources

9 AGGREGATOR The “Aggregator” includes proper citation, but the paper contains almost no

original work

10 RE-TWEET includes proper citation, but relies too closely on the text’s original wording

and/or structure

Source: TurnItin. (2013). WHITE PAPER The Plagiarism Spectrum.

[Link]

Table No. 3.4.2 Oxford University Plagiarism Type

Oxford University have given 8 forms of Plagiarism. They are as follows

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page40

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

SNO. TYPE DESCRIPTION

1 Paraphrasing Paraphrasing is the act of altering a few words from different sources and combining them.

It is also that the user is following the structure and is not acknowledging the author.

2 Verbatim (word for word) quotation without clear acknowledgement. Which means that while

indicating quotation use of proper quotation marks must be involve.( “….”) and the user

should always refers the full source.

3 Collusion Unauthorized collaboration between students, failure to attribute assistance received, or

failure to follow precisely regulations on group work projects. It is your responsibility to

ensure that you are entirely clear about the extent of collaboration permitted, and which

parts of the work must be your own

4 Cutting and pasting When the user is taking information directly from the Internet than the user must refer or

should the cite properly in the bibliography. As lot of information is found on the internet,

we cannot fully rely on the uploaded information as likely we rely on peer reviewed sources.

5 Failure to The user should acknowledge whatever assisted he have received from other. Eg fellow

acknowledge students, technical assistance and also from external source.

assistance

6 Inaccurate citation Citation is very important. The user has to cite the source properly as well as the user has to

enlist them in the bibliography

7 Use of material Under Statute XI on University Discipline, all members of the University are prohibited

written by from providing material that could be submitted in an examination by students at this

professional University or elsewhere Use of work bought from professional agencies is prohibited. .

agencies or other

persons

8 Auto-plagiarism User is not allowed to submit his own work twice whether or not for current course or for

another course. When the same work is submitted twice it is Auto plagiarism.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page41

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Source: University of Oxford. (2021). Plagiarism.

[Link]

University of New South Wales Plagiarism Types

Table No. 3.4.3 University of New South Wales Plagiarism Types

SI No. Type Description

1 Copying Copying from other document or research paper

2 Inappropriate Burrowing words from various

Paraphrasing

3 Collusion Collusion happens when more than one student contributes to a piece of work that is

submitted as the work of an individual.

4 Relying too When the user is submitting the paper but his own contribution is less and have relied on

much on other more on other people’s material.

people’s

material

5 In appropriate When the person do not cite properly and don’t acknowledge the source it is plagiarism.

Citation

6 Self-Plagiarism Copying from own paper and submitting it to the same course or other is self-plagiarism.

Source: University of New South Wales (UNSW). (2025). Academic Integrity and

Plagiarism. Current Students. [Link]

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page42

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Types of plagiarism identified by Lucas

Table No. 3.4.4 Lucas Types of Plagiarism

SI Type Descriptions

No.

1 Global Plagiarism Copying word to word from other person without credits

or acknowledge and passing the work as own is Global

Plagiarism

2 Patch work Copying from various different sources and create a

Plagiarism different work and pass as own

3 Incremental When the author fail to give credit for specific parts

Plagiarism which were borrowed from other source.

Source: Lucas, S. E. (2001). The art of public speaking. (Often cited as 2001, but newer editions

exist and would contain this information).

Bowdoin College has given some common types of Plagiarism

Table No.3.4.5: Bowdoin College Common Types of Plagiarism

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page43

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

SI No. Types Descriptions

1 Direct Plagiarism Word to word copy without giving credit to author

2 Self-Plagiarism When the person copy from self-work, to different

assignment

3 Mosaic When the user uses synonyms for the original authors

Plagiarism language or steal phrase. This can be called patch work

4 Accidental When the user do not cite properly or neglect sources

Plagiarism

Source: Bowdoin College, Dean of Students. (2021). The common types of plagiarism.

[Link]

[Link]

3.5 Intellectual Property Rights (1967)

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) defines Intellectual as

“Creations of the mind: inventions; literary and artistic works; and" is how property is

defined. Pictures, names, and symbols used in business. “Copyright: encompasses

“literary works (such as novels, poems and plays), films, music, creative creations (such

as photographs, paintings, sculptures, and drawings), and the design of buildings.

Copyright rights include those of performing artist’s in producers of phonograms in their

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page44

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

recordings, their performances, and broadcaster’s in their radio and television shows.

“The library's Research Guide Auraria holds that Intellectual Property Rights Although

plagiarism is an academic transgression that must be addressed, law safeguards it. The

teachers and students both took some measures to prevent it. In the Theterm Fair Use

refers to the ability to utilize a portion of another person's writing. The Study Guide

Additionally, the Auraria library offers tips for avoiding plagiarism, like giving giving

credit to the original author, properly citing sources, and using quotation marks As it

should be, you should use your own words to express the central theme when

summarizing it. assigned to the primary source, etc.

3.6 COPYRIGHT ACT 1957

In India the copyright act has started during 1957. According to this law

“copyright” means the exclusive right subject to the provisions of this Act, to do or

authorize the doing of any of the following acts in respect of a work or any substantial

part thereof, namely in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, not being a

computer programmer Copyright helps to protect literary work. The copy right is

provided for a specific span until than if the work is under copyright act than stealing or

copying may cause serious issues and punishment.

3.7 Plagiarism vs. Copyright

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page45

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Plagiarism vs. Copyright Infringement: The "unlawful practice of using the"

copyright has been characterized as copyright infringement. work that was originally

done by someone else. “Copying the is copyright infringement. other people's labor

without the author's consent, which may be deemed a crime if The work is protected by

the copyright law. That is, violating the law is copyright infringement. violation.

Copyright Infringement and Plagiarism, according to the Author Alliance website

are connected to one another. However, the Copyright Act is protected, while plagiarism

is not. well-covered by all laws. Plagiarism is not subject to any strict penalties.

However, financial concerns might arise from copyright infringement.

3.8 PLAGIARISM

Plagiarism is ethical issue. It is one kind of literary theft. Stealing the other person ideas

or words can be called as plagiarism. when the texted in open for all and is available

without copyright can easily be stole and this cause plagiarism. the plagiarist may or

may not get penalty for the act.

3.9 PLAGIARISM LINKED WITH COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

Plagiarism and Copyright infringement are interlinked to each other. On the blog of

DupliChecker a very good example of plagiarism and copyright infringement has been

quoted. In that example a engineering student have used dynamic facts that have already

been used by another engineer. The student didn’t used quotation marks for that purpose

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page46

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

and thus steals the other person work. Thus the very act of copying is plagiarism and

also copyright infringement.

3.10 UGC REGULATIONS 2018

The UGC Commission has given regulations on 23 rd July 2018, which is named

as Promotion and Integration of Plagiarism in Higher Education Institutes (HEIs)

regulations 2018. In this regulations following things are taken into considerations:

1. This regulation shall be applied to all the students, faculty members and staff of

all HEI in the country.

2. Regulations shall come into force from the date of notification in official gazette.

The regulation is distributed in 12 different points such as short title, definition,

objectives, duties of HELs, Awareness program and training, Curbing Plagiarism,

similarity check for exclusion of plagiarism, levels of plagiarism, penalties, etc. UGC

Regulations have given duties to HEI to enhance awareness about responsible conduct

of research and for this purpose they have to provide awareness and training programs

for the students as well as faculty. Use of various technological tools/ plagiarism tools is

allowed for the same. UGC has also given criteria for how much plagiarism is allowed

in the research work and the penalty is also decided in the regulation

3.10.1 Preamble

Whereas the University Grants Commission (UGC), as per UGC Act, 1956, is

mandated to coordinate and determine the standards of higher education. And whereas,

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page47

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

assessment of academic and research work done leading to the partial fulfillment for the

award of degrees at Masters and Research level, by a student or a faculty or a researcher

or a staff, in the form of thesis, dissertation and publication of research papers, chapters

in books, full-fledged books and any other similar work, reflects the extent to which

elements of academic integrity and originality are observed in various relevant processes

adopted by Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs).

Therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (j) of Section 12 read with

clauses (f) and (g) of subsection (1) of Section 26 of the University Grants Commission

Act, 1956, the University Grants Commission hereby makes the following regulations:

Short title, application and commencement –

a. These regulations shall be called the University Grants Commission (Promotion

of Academic integrity and Prevention of Plagiarism in Higher Educational Institutions)

Regulations, 2018.

b. They shall apply to the students, faculty, researchers and staff of all Higher

Educational Institutions in the country.

c. These regulations shall come into force from the date of their notification in the

Official Gazette.

3.10.2 Definitions

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page48

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

In these regulations, unless the context otherwise requires

a. “Academic Integrity” is the intellectual honesty in proposing, performing and

reporting any activity, which leads to the creation of intellectual property;

b. “Author” includes a student or a faculty or a researcher or staff of Higher

Educational Institution (HEI) who claims to be the creator of the work under

consideration;

c. “Commission” means the University Grants Commission as defined in the

University Grants Commission Act, 1956;

d. "Common Knowledge" means a well-known fact, quote, figure or information

that is known to most of the people;

e. “Degree” means any such degree specified by the University Grants

Commission, by notification in the Official Gazette, under section 22 of the University

Grants Commission Act, 1956;

f. “Departmental Academic Integrity Panel” shall mean the body constituted at the

departmental level to investigate allegations of plagiarism;

g. “Faculty” refers to a person who is teaching and/or guiding students enrolled in

an HEI in any capacity whatsoever i.e. regular, ad-hoc, guest, temporary, visiting etc;

h. “Higher Educational Institution (HEI)” means a university recognized under

section 2(f) of the UGC Act, 1956 or an institution deemed to be university under

section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956 or an affiliating college / institution or a constituent unit

of a university;

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page49

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

i. "Information" includes data, message, text, images, sound, voice, codes,

computer programs, Tool and databases or microfilm or computer generated microfiche;

j. “Institutional Academic Integrity Panel” shall mean the body constituted at

Institutional level to consider recommendations of the departmental academic integrity

panel and take appropriate decisions in respect of allegations of plagiarism and decide

on penalties to be imposed. In exceptional cases, it shall investigate allegations of

plagiarism at the institutional level;

k. “Notification” means a notification published in the Official Gazette and the

expression “notify” with its cognate meanings and grammatical variation shall be

construed accordingly;

l. “Plagiarism” means the practice of taking someone else’s work or idea and

passing them as one’s own.

m. “Programme” means a programme of study leading to the award of a masters and

research level degree;

n. “Researcher” refers to a person conducting academic / scientific research in

HEIs;

o. “Script” includes research paper, thesis, dissertation, chapters in books, full-

fledged books and any other similar work, submitted for assessment / opinion leading to

the award of master and research level degrees or publication in print or electronic

media by students or faculty or researcher or staff of an HEI; however, this shall exclude

assignments / term papers / project reports / course work / essays and answer scripts etc.;

p. “Source” means the published primary and secondary material from any source

whatsoever and includes written information and opinions gained directly from other

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page50

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

people, including eminent scholars, public figures and practitioners in any form

whatsoever as also data and information in the electronic form be it audio, video, image

or text; Information being given the same meaning as defined under Section 2 (1) (v) of

the Information Technology Act, 2000 and reproduced here in Regulation 2 (l); q.

“Staff” refers to all non-teaching staff working in HEIs in any capacity whatsoever i.e.

regular, temporary, contractual, outsourced etc.;

q. “Student” means a person duly admitted and pursuing a programmer of study

including a research programmer in any mode of study (full time or part-time or distance

mode);

r. “University” means a university established or incorporated by or under a

Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes an institution deemed to be

university under section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956; t. “Year” means the academic session

in which a proven offence has been committed.

Words and expressions used and not defined in these regulations but defined in the

University Grants Commission Act, 1956 shall have the meanings respectively assigned

to them in UGC Act, 1956.

3.10.3. Objectives

I. To create awareness about responsible conduct of research, thesis, dissertation,

promotion of academic integrity and prevention of misconduct including plagiarism in

academic writing among student, faculty, researcher and staff.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page51

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

II. To establish institutional mechanism through education and training to facilitate

responsible conduct of research, thesis, dissertation, promotion of academic integrity and

deterrence from plagiarism.

III. To develop systems to detect plagiarism and to set up mechanisms to prevent

plagiarism and punish a student, faculty, researcher or staff of HEI committing the act of

plagiarism.

3.10.4. Duties of HEI:

Every HEI should establish the mechanism as prescribed in these regulations, to enhance

awareness about responsible conduct of research and academic activities, to promote

academic integrity and to prevent plagiarism.

3.10.5. Awareness Programs and Trainings

 HEI shall instruct students, faculty, researcher and staff about proper attribution,

seeking permission of the author wherever necessary, acknowledgement of source

compatible with the needs and specificities of disciplines and in accordance with rules,

international conventions and regulations governing the source.

(b) HEI shall conduct sensitization seminars/ awareness programs every semester on

responsible conduct of research, thesis, dissertation, promotion of academic integrity and

ethics in education for students, faculty, researcher and staff.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page52

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

(c) HEI shall:

i. Include the cardinal principles of academic integrity in the curricula of Undergraduate

(UG)/Postgraduate (PG)/Master’s degree etc. as a compulsory course work/module.

ii. Include elements of responsible conduct of research and publication ethics as a

compulsory course work/module for Masters and Research Scholars.

iii. Include elements of responsible conduct of research and publication ethics in

Orientation and Refresher Courses organized for faculty and staff members of the

HEI.

iv. Train student, faculty, researcher and staff for using plagiarism detection tools and

reference management tools.

v. Establish facility equipped with modern technologies for detection of plagiarism.

vi. Encourage student, faculty, researcher and staff to register on international

researcher’s Registry systems.

3.10.6. Curbing Plagiarism

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page53

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

a) HEI shall declare and implement the technology based mechanism using

appropriate Tool so as to ensure that documents such as thesis, dissertation, publications

or any other such documents are free of plagiarism at the time of their submission.

b) The mechanism as defined at (a) above shall be made accessible to all engaged in

research work including student, faculty, researcher and staff etc.

c) Every student submitting a thesis, dissertation, or any other such documents to

the HEI shall submit an undertaking indicating that the document has been prepared by

him or her and that the document is his/her original work and free of any plagiarism.

d) The undertaking shall include the fact that the document has been duly checked

through a Plagiarism detection tool approved by the HEI.

e) HEI shall develop a policy on plagiarism and get it approved by its relevant

statutory bodies/authorities. The approved policy shall be placed on the homepage of the

HEI website.

f) Each supervisor shall submit a certificate indicating that the work done by the

researcher under him / her is plagiarism free.

g) HEI shall submit to INFLIBNET soft copies of all Masters, Research program’s

dissertations and thesis within a month after the award of degrees for hosting in the

digital repository under the “Shodh Ganga e-repository”.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page54

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

h) HEI shall create Institutional Repository on institute website which shall include

dissertation / thesis / paper / publication and other in-house publications.

3.10.7. Similarity checks for exclusion from Plagiarism

The similarity checks for plagiarism shall exclude the following:

i. All quoted work reproduced with all necessary permission and/or attribution.

ii. All references, bibliography, table of content, preface and acknowledgements.

iii. All generic terms, laws, standard symbols and standards equations.

Note:

The research work carried out by the student, faculty, researcher and staff shall be based

on original ideas, which shall include abstract, summary, hypothesis, observations,

results, conclusions and recommendations only and shall not have any similarities. It

shall exclude a common knowledge or coincidental terms, up to fourteen (14)

consecutive words.

3.10.8. Levels of Plagiarism Plagiarism would be quantified into following levels in

ascending order of severity for the purpose of its definition:

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page55

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

i. Level 0: Similarities up to 10% - Minor similarities, no penalty

ii. Level 1: Similarities above 10% to 40%

iii. Level 2: Similarities above 40% to 60%

iv. Level 3: Similarities above 60%

3.10.9. Detection/Reporting/Handling of Plagiarism

If any member of the academic community suspects with appropriate proof that a case of

plagiarism has happened in any document, he or she shall report it to the Departmental

Academic Integrity Panel (DAIP). Upon receipt of such a complaint or allegation the

DAIP shall investigate the matter and submit its recommendations to the Institutional

Academic Integrity Panel (IAIP) of the HEI.

The authorities of HEI can also take suomotu notice of an act of plagiarism and initiate

proceedings under these regulations. Similarly, proceedings can also be initiated by the

HEI on the basis of findings of an examiner. All such cases will be investigated by the

IAIP.

3.10.10. Departmental Academic Integrity Panel (DAIP)

i. All Departments in HEI shall notify a DAIP whose composition shall be as given

below:

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page56

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

a. Chairman - Head of the Department

b. Member - Senior academician from outside the department, to nominated by the

head of HEI.

c. Member - A person well versed with anti plagiarism tools, to be nominated by the

Head of the [Link] tenure of the members in respect of points 'b' and 'c' shall

be two years. The quorum for the meetings shall be 2 out of 3 members (including

Chairman).

ii. The DAIP shall follow the principles of natural justice while deciding about the

allegation of

plagiarism against the student, faculty, researcher and staff.

iii. The DAIP shall have the power to assess the level of plagiarism and recommend

penalty(ies)

accordingly.

iv. The DAIP after investigation shall submit its report with the recommendation on

penalties to be imposed to the IAIP within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt

of complaint / initiation of the proceedings.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page57

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

3.10.11. Institutional Academic Integrity Panel (IAIP)

i. HEI shall notify a IAIP whose composition shall be as given below:

o Chairman - Pro-VC/Dean/Senior Academician of the HEI.

o Member - Senior Academician other than Chairman, to be nominated by the

Head of HEI.

o Member - One member nominated by the Head of HEI from outside the HEI

o Member - A person well versed with anti-plagiarism tools, to be nominated by

the

o Head of the HEI. The Chairman of DAIP and IAIP shall not be the same. The

tenure

o of the Committee members including Chairman shall be three years. The quorum

for

o the meetings shall be 3 out of 4 members (including Chairman).

ii. The IAIP shall consider the recommendations of DAIP. iii. The IAIP shall also

investigate

cases of plagiarism as per the provisions mentioned in these regulations.

iii. The IAIP shall follow the principles of natural justice while deciding about the

allegation of

plagiarism against the student, faculty, researcher and staff of HEI.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page58

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

iv. The IAIP shall have the power to review the recommendations of DAIP including

penalties

with due justification.

v. The IAIP shall send the report after investigation and the recommendation on

penalties to be

imposed to the Head of the HEI within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of

recommendation of DAIP/ complaint / initiation of the proceedings.

vi. The IAIP shall provide a copy of the report to the person(s) against whom inquiry

report is

submitted.

3.10.12. Penalties

Penalties in the cases of plagiarism shall be imposed on students pursuing studies at the

level of Masters and Research programs and on researcher, faculty & staff of the HEI

only after academic misconduct on the part of the individual has been established

without doubt, when all avenues of appeal have been exhausted and individual in

question has been provided enough opportunity to defend himself or herself in a fair or

transparent manner.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page59

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

3.10.12. Penalties in case of plagiarism in submission of thesis and dissertations

Institutional Academic Integrity Panel (IAIP) shall impose penalty considering the

severity of the Plagiarism.

[Link] 0: Similarities upto 10% - Minor Similarities, no penalty.

ii. Level 1:Similarities above 10% to 40% - Such student shall be asked to

submit a revised script within a stipulated time period no exceeding 6

months.

iii. Level 2: Similarities above 40% to 60% - Such student shall be debarred from

submitting a revised script for a period of one year.

[Link] 3: Similarities above 60% -Such student registration for that programme shall

be cancelled.

Note 1:

Penalty on repeated plagiarism- Such student shall be punished for the plagiarism of one

level higher than the previous level committed by him/her. In case where plagiarism of

highest level is committed then the punishment for the same shall be operative.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page60

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Note 2:

Penalty in case where the degree/credit has already been obtained - If plagiarism is

proved on a date later than the date of award of degree or credit as the case may be then

his/her degree or credit shall be put in abeyance for a period recommended by the IAIP

and approved by the Head of the Institution.

12.2 Penalties in case of plagiarism in academic and research publications

I. Level 0: Similarities up to 10% - Minor similarities, no penalty.

II. Level 1: Similarities above 10% to 40% i) Shall be asked to withdraw

manuscript.

III. Level 2: Similarities above 40% to 60%

i) Shall be asked to withdraw manuscript.

ii) Shall be denied a right to one annual increment.

iii) Shall not be allowed to be a supervisor to any new Master’s, [Link].,

Ph.D. Student/scholar for a period of two years.

[Link] 3: Similarities above 60%

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page61

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

i) Shall be asked to withdraw manuscript.

ii) Shall be denied a right to two successive annual increments.

iii) Shall not be allowed to be a supervisor to any new Master’s, [Link]., Ph.D.

Student/scholar for a period of three years.

 Note 1: Penalty on repeated plagiarism - Shall be asked to withdraw manuscript

and

 shall be punished for the plagiarism of one level higher than the lower level

 committed by him/her. In case where plagiarism of highest level is committed

 then the punishment for the same shall be operative. In case level 3 offence is

repeated

 then the disciplinary action including suspension/termination as per service rules

shall

 be taken by the HEI.

 Note 2: Penalty in case where the benefit or credit has already been obtained - If

plagiarism is proved on a date later than the date of benefit or credit obtained as the case

may be then his/her benefit or credit shall be put in abeyance for a period recommended

by IAIP and approved by the Head of the Institution.

 Note 3 : HEIs shall create a mechanism so as to ensure that each of the paper

publication/thesis/dissertation by the student, faculty, researcheror staff of the HEI is

checked for plagiarism at the time of forwarding/submission.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page62

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

 Note 4: If there is any complaint of plagiarism against the Head of an HEI, a

suitable action, in line with these regulations, shall be taken by the Controlling Authority

of the HEI.

 Note 5: If there is any complaint of plagiarism against the Head of

Department/Authorities at the institutional level, a suitable action, in line with these

regulations, shall be recommended by the IAIP and approved by the Competent

Authority.

 Note 6: If there is any complaint of plagiarism against any member of DAIP or

IAIP, then such member shall excuse himself / herself from the meeting(s) where his/her

case is being discussed/investigated.

3.10.13. Removal of Difficulty

The UGC reserves the right to remove difficulty/difficulties in the course of

implementations of these Regulations in consultation with the Government of India/

Ministry of Human Resource Development

 The University Grants Commission (UGC) has adopted DrillBit-Extreme

Plagiarism Detection Software for use in Indian Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) as

part of the ShodhShuddhi initiative. This software, provided by the INFLIBNET Centre,

aims to detect plagiarism in research reports and articles, particularly in PhD theses.

DrillBit was introduced on November 1, 2023, replacing the previous software,

Ouriginal, as part of the ShodhShuddhi program.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page63

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

ShodhShuddhi Initiative

DrillBit is part of the ShodhShuddhi program, which aims to enhance research quality

by providing access to plagiarism detection software for Indian HEIs.

INFLIBNET Centre

The INFLIBNET Centre, an autonomous inter-university centre of UGC, is responsible

for providing DrillBit to HEIs.

Transition from Ouriginal

The transition to DrillBit from Ouriginal (formerly Urkund) occurred on October 1,

2023, when access to Ouriginal through the ShodhShuddhi program ended.

Focus on PhD Theses

DrillBit is primarily used to check for plagiarism in PhD theses, research reports, and

other academic papers submitted by students and researchers.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page64

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Features

DrillBit uses AI and ML technologies to identify similarities, manipulations, and text

formatting irregularities in research documents. It also allows for excluding references,

bibliography, and quoted works during the plagiarism check.

Indian Initiative:

DrillBit is Indian software, developed by a startup company in Karnataka, with the goal

of providing an affordable and accessible alternative to foreign plagiarism detection

software.

3.10.14 Preventive Measures for avoiding Plagiarism:

Plagiarism can be avoided if follow and put some good efforts:

1. Students, research scholars as well as teachers should be well educated about

plagiarism rules and ethics of research.

2. Teachers as well as students should be provided by proper training.

3. Use of Plagiarism Tool should be implemented.

4. Information literacy should be increased in students and teachers of all academic

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page65

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

fields.

5. Encouragement of using Reference Management Tools like Zotero, Endnote etc

6. References, use of Quotation marks, crediting the author should be encouraged.

3.11 OVERVIEW OF PLAGIARISM DETECTION TOOLS

Number of Plagiarism Detection Tools under study

S. Name of Tools Subscription Status

No.

1 DrillBit Commercial

2 TurnItin Commercial

3 iThenticate Commercial

4 Urkund Commercial

5 Plagscan Commercial

6 DupliChecker Free

3.11.1. DrillBit

DrillBit is cloud-based Plagiarism Detection Tool for Students, Researchers and

Faculties/Professors/[Link] uses cutting edge AI and ML technology to

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page66

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

produce outstanding results Proprietary AI-based matching algorithm, DrillBit detects

the similarities, manipulations, and text formatting irregularities.

DrillBit plagiarism tool has both desktop and web-based versions, with system

requirements varying depending on the deployment type. Generally, it requires a

standard computer with internet access for web-based usage and compatible operating

systems for desktop versions. DrillBit supports various file formats, including PDF,

DOC, DOCX, TXT, HTML, HTM, DOTX, ODT, PPTX, XLSX, RTF, and TIFF.

DrillBit Plagiarism Tool system requirement:

For desktop operating system-

For desktop operating systems, DrillBit Plagiarism Tool typically requires the following:

 Operating System

o Windows (e.g., Windows 10, Windows 11)

o macOS (recent versions, e.g., macOS Ventura, Sonoma)

o Linux (specific distributions might be supported, often those with common desktop

environments like Ubuntu, Fedora, or Debian) - Less common for direct desktop apps,

more often web-based.

 Processor: Intel Core i3 equivalent or higher (or AMD equivalent).

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page67

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

 RAM: 4 GB RAM minimum (8 GB or more recommended for smoother

performance, especially with large documents).

 Hard Disk Space: At least 500 MB to 1 GB of free space for installation and

temporary files.

 Internet Connection: A stable and active internet connection is essential for

submitting documents, accessing the plagiarism database, and receiving results.

 Web Browser: A modern, up-to-date web browser (e.g., Google Chrome,

Mozilla Firefox, Microsoft Edge, Safari) is usually required as DrillBit is predominantly

a web-based application, even if accessed from a desktop. There might be browser

extensions or specific plugins needed.

 Software Dependencies (less common for web-based, but possible for local

clients):

o Java Runtime Environment (JRE) if the application is Java-based.

o .NET Framework for Windows-based applications.

Important Note: As DrillBit is primarily a web-based service, the "system

requirements" for a desktop often refer more to the requirements for running a

compatible web browser and having a reliable internet connection. There might be

specific desktop applications for integration (e.g., with Learning Management Systems

like Moodle or Canvas, or with word processors), but the core plagiarism check happens

online.

 Green (less than 10%):

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page68

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Indicates a satisfactory level of originality, meaning the document has a low degree of

similarity with other sources.

 Blue (11% to 40%):

 Suggests that there are some areas of similarity that need to be addressed,

possibly through paraphrasing or rephrasing.

 Orange (41% to 60%):

 Indicates a higher degree of similarity, requiring significant revision to ensure

originality.

 Red (more than 60%):

 Signifies that a large portion of the document is similar to other sources,

potentially indicating plagiarism and requiring substantial changes.

[Link]

3.11.2. TurnItin

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page69

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

TurnItin plagiarism detection Tool is a commercial product to check plagiarism. It is a

web-based product provided by [Link]. TurnItin has progressed in a span of 2-3

years from a peer review application made by four university students to [Link]

serving around the world. Now the TurnItin plagiarism detection Tool have offices

around the world with its head quarter in Oakland, US. In the year 2007 the company

has partnered with Crossref to develop a scholarly database.

TurnItin Plagiarism Tool system requirement:

 For desktop operating system-

 Operating System:

o Windows: Windows 10, Windows 11 (or newer versions supported by

Microsoft).

o macOS: Recent versions of macOS (e.g., macOS Sonoma, Ventura, Monterey).

o Linux: While not officially listed with specific distributions, any Linux

distribution capable of running a supported modern web browser should work.

 Web Browser (Most Critical): Turnitin supports the most recent stable versions

of popular web browsers. It's crucial to keep your browser updated for optimal

performance and security.

o Google Chrome

o Mozilla Firefox

o Microsoft Edge

o Apple Safari

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page70

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

(Internet Explorer is no longer supported by Turnitin or Microsoft Edge Legacy.)

 Internet Connection: A stable and reliable internet connection is essential for

submitting papers, accessing originality reports, and using all features. A broadband

connection is recommended.

 Hardware:

o Processor: A modern processor (e.g., Intel Core i3 or equivalent AMD processor

or better) is generally sufficient for running a compatible web browser.

o RAM: 4 GB of RAM minimum (8 GB or more recommended for smoother

performance, especially if you have many tabs open or are working with large

documents).

o Hard Drive Space: Minimal space is required for browser cache and temporary

files, as most processing occurs on Turnitin's servers.

 Software/Plugins (Less Common Now):

o JavaScript: Must be enabled in your web browser.

o Cookies: Must be enabled in your web browser.

o (Some older features or integrations might have required specific plugins like

Flash, but these are largely phased out now.)

Important Note: Since Turnitin functions through your web browser, the performance

largely depends on your browser's capabilities and your internet speed. Always refer to

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page71

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

the official Turnitin support website for the most current and detailed system

requirements.

TurnItin Color Scheme Similarity in %

i. Blue (0%): Indicates no matched text found.

ii. Green (1% - 24%): Suggests a low to moderate amount of matched text, often

acceptable.

iii. Yellow (25% - 49%): Points to a moderate to high level of matched text, warranting

closer review.

iv. Orange (50% - 79%): Signifies a very high level of matched text, indicating significant

potential plagiarism.

v. Red (80% - 100%): Denotes an extremely high similarity, strongly indicating severe

plagiarism.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page72

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

[Link]

3.11.3. iThenticate

iThenticate is a commercial plagiarism detection service which is provided by

iParadigms, LLC the same company who also runs TurnItin. The TurnItin is for

Intuitions where as iThenticate works with individual professionals who have less

research work to check than the Institutions. The company has started its work in 2004

and now is a established service having its head quarter in Oakland, US. company also

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page73

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

work with government bodies. The official website of iThenticate is

[Link]

Operating System

o Windows: Windows 10, Windows 11 (or any recent, supported version).

o macOS: Recent versions of macOS (e.g., macOS Sonoma, Ventura,

Monterey).

o Linux: Any Linux distribution capable of running a supported modern web

browser should work.

 Web Browser (Most Important): iThenticate supports the latest stable versions

of leading web browsers. Keeping your browser updated is crucial for security and full

functionality.

o Google Chrome

o Mozilla Firefox

o Microsoft Edge

o Apple Safari

 Internet Connection: A stable and high-speed internet connection is essential

for uploading documents, processing submissions, and viewing originality reports. A

broadband connection is highly recommended.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page74

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

 Hardware:

o Processor: A modern processor (e.g., Intel Core i3 or equivalent AMD

processor or better) is sufficient for running a compatible web browser.

o RAM: 4 GB of RAM minimum (8 GB or more is recommended for smoother

performance, especially when managing multiple browser tabs or large documents).

o Hard Drive Space: Minimal space is needed, primarily for browser cache and

temporary files, as the core processing and storage occur on iThenticate's servers.

 Software/Browser Settings:

o JavaScript: Must be enabled in your web browser.

o Cookies: Must be enabled in your web browser.

o Pop-up Blocker: May need to be configured to allow pop-ups from

iThenticate, as some features or reports might open in new windows.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page75

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

[Link]

3.11.4. Urkund

It was initially developed by some teachers and developer to reduce or fight

plagiarism. Afterwards it was developed by Stockholm based Prio Info center AB, and

from 2020 Urkund is owned by original, a company formed by fusion of Urkund and

Plagscan.

Urkund is fully automated system and is used for detecting plagiarism. In India the

University Grants Commission along with Information and Library Network Centre

(INFLIBNET) has tied up with Urkund Plagiarism detection Tool to all Universities of

India.

System Requirement: API (Application Programming Interface)

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page76

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

 No requirement of Tool installation

 Work via – Mostly Email

Urkund Tool is an online Tool which the user can use through email service. The

Urkund team create the administrator address, which is called as analysis addresses. This

address belongs to the individual teacher where the teacher can have access to the

document, which the students have sent for checking the plagiarism.

Features of Urkund:

i. Urkund can be used easily by the administrator as it is emailed based.

ii. The Tool can support number of file types like .doc, docx. ,xls., xlsx, ppt, pptx.,

pdf., txt. , rtf., html, wps. Odt. Etc.

iii. Total 6 languages are supported by Urkund. i.e. English, French, Spanish,

German, Portuguese and Swedish.

iv. Urkund is easy to handle.

v. Less efforts for teachers as document for checking plagiarism are tobesemt by

email.

vi. Urkund had access to scholarly database of various publisher so the it checks

through millions of document for similarity.

Student do not need to register, they can sent their file for checking from the valid

analysis address which is provided to the admin. The student can submit it as an

attachment via email or by registering to web inbox. Then the report is finished an email

will be sent out to the owner of the analysis address that contains a link to the analysis

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page77

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

report of the document. Although many teachers find it perfectly sufficient to view the

analysis reports through the link received in the report email, there is also the possibility

of setting up a web inbox for viewing all incoming documents. The teachers are invited

to create web inboxes when they are first registered in our system. Should the teacher

miss that opportunity, and find themselves with an invalid link – please contact our

support team and we will resend the web inbox creation link.

[Link]

3.11.5. Plagscan:

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page78

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Plagscan is the paid version for detecting plagiarized work from your research

work or [Link] was founded by Markus Goldbach and Johannes Knabe in

2009. Their mission was to help the instructors in improving the quality of teaching and

saving their time in detecting plagiarism[Link] Plagscan

is now a product of Ouriginal which is established by fusion of Plagscan and Urkund in

2020.

[Link] You can register to plagscan free of charge.

Two types of registration are available with Plagscan. First is individual registration and

the second registration is the institution registration. The official website of plagscan is

[Link] .

System Requirement:

 Operating System

 Windows: Windows 10, Windows 11, or any currently supported version.

 macOS: Recent versions of macOS.

 Linux: Any distribution that can run a supported modern web browser.

 Web Browser: PlagScan supports the most recent stable versions of popular web

browsers. Keeping your browser updated is highly recommended for security,

performance, and full functionality.

 Google Chrome

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page79

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

 Mozilla Firefox

 Microsoft Edge

 Apple Safari

 Internet Connection: A stable and reliable internet connection is essential for

uploading documents, accessing the plagiarism database, and viewing your reports. A

broadband connection is recommended for optimal speed.

 Software/Browser Settings:

 JavaScript: Must be enabled in your web browser.

 Cookies: Must be enabled in your web browser.

 PlagScan recommend to use the recent version of Linux Debian installed on the

suitable server with completed DNS and firewall configuration: Minimal hardware

requirement:

 12 processing cores

 SSD HD 120 GB

 Hardware RAID

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page80

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

 RAM 32 GB

[Link]

3.11.6. DupliChecker

Plagiarism checker is a free plagiarism detection Tool available online. It claims to have

a team with different expertise in different fields with the intention to help user with

their need.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page81

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

· It was started in the year 2006 and is a company providing web content to the best

[Link]://[Link]/organization/duplichecker. They also provide

SEO services like proof reading, editing of the online content,High-quality website

content, SEO Optimization and website ranking to their [Link] with these feature

DupliChecker also provide free plagiarism detection.

System Requirement:

 For desktop operating system-

o Windows® 7, 8.1, 10

o Mac OS X Intel v10.7+, El Capitan 10.11

o ChromeOSF or browser-

o Chrome

o Firefox

o Safari

 Tool Profile

 ID: S13-10

 Product: DupliChecker

 Web-Site: [Link]

 Tool- Type: Online

 Pricing: Free

 Test-date: 23/05/2013

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page82

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

DupliChecker is a free plagiarism detection Tool. User can register or signup to use the

plagiarism detection Tool. It the user is a register user than the user can avail the facility

without any interruption. DupliChecker allows 1000 words to search at a time. If the

document exceeds from the given word limit, the user can easily split the document for

checking. It the user do not want to use the Tool continuously then he can use it directly

without registration. DupliChecker search is claimed to have billion pagers search. And

after searching through the internet and other sources the data is analyzed and statistical

results are shown When we see the website a text box is shown where the user can copy

or paste the text to be checked for plagiarism. the user can also upload the document for

checking plagiarism. the file format for uploading the document is docx. Or txt. After

uploading the document, the search button. When there are matches for the document

text than it is shown and if there are no match for the text, it is unique and the document

is free from plagiarism.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page83

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

[Link]

3.12. Summing up

Though plagiarism has been documented it has never been as since antiquity. as

common as it is today. The rise ofThe speed of the internet has aided plagiarism

instances. The Internet's evolution. In fact, new Digital resources have improved

opportunities for disregarding the work of others while taking advantage of them,

creating additional forms of plagiarism like these hard to find and keep an eye on. This

Unethical conduct has grown to be so prevalent. so pervasive as to be corrupting and

corrosive The effects might be felt everywhere. In consequence, the fight against

plagiarism has been intensified through the the implementation of a range of techniques,

the majority of which that include software systems. Consequently, It's fun to emphasize

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page84

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

that point. The origin and end of technology are the same. a remedy to the issue of

plagiarism.

References

1. Bowdoin College, Dean of Students. (2021). The common types of plagiarism.

[Link]

plagiarism/[Link]

2. [Link]. (2021). [Link] is the world’s favorite online dictionary.

Retrieved July 2, 2025, from [Link]

3. Fleming, M. (2007). Academic honesty and avoiding plagiarism: A self-guided

tutorial. W. W. Norton & Company.

[Link]

4. Garg, U. (2011). Research Cell: An International Journal of Engineering

Sciences. Research Cell: An International Journal of Engineering Sciences, 1(1).

5. Indiana University. (2021). [Definition of plagiarism].

/[Link]/~istd/[Link] (Note: The original source provided an

incomplete URL and no specific title; title was inferred.)

6. James, T. C. (2004). Copyright law of India and the academic community. (Note:

Publisher information was not provided in the original source.)

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page85

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

7. Merriam-Webster. (2021). Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-

trusted online dictionary. Retrieved July 2, 2025, from [Link]

[Link]/

8. Ouriginal. (2021). Our company. [Link]

9. ScanMyEssay. (2019). Plagiarism guide—Definition and avoidance. Viper

Online. [Link]

10. [Link]. (2021). Plagiarism=Copyright Infringement.

[Link]

11. UGC. (2021). New Draft UGC Regulation-2018-9-2.

[Link]

(Note: The title was inferred from the URL.)

12. University Grants Commission. (2018). University Grants Commission

(Promotion of Academic Integrity and Prevention of Plagiarism in Higher Educational

Institutions) Regulations, 2018. The Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part III, Section 4s

13. University of Oxford. (2021). Plagiarism. Retrieved July 2, 2025, from

[Link]

(Note: The URL was missing in the original source.)

14. [Link]. (2021). Untitled document.

[Link]

Harvard Extension School. (n.d.). Plagiarism. The Harvard Guide to Using Sources.

Retrieved July 7, 2025, from [You would insert the specific URL for Harvard's

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page86

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

plagiarism guide here if you used it directly. A general search for "Harvard University

plagiarism definition" would lead you to their resources.]

Kent State University. (n.d.). Plagiarism. [You would insert the specific policy number

or handbook name/URL here, e.g., University Policy Register 3342-3-01.8]. Retrieved

July 7, 2025, from [You would insert the specific URL for Kent State's plagiarism policy

here.]

[Link] Dictionary. (n.d.). Plagiarize. Retrieved July 7, 2025, from

[Link]

Oxford University. (n.d.). Plagiarism. Oxford LibGuides. Retrieved July 7, 2025, from

[You would insert the specific URL for Oxford's plagiarism guide here. A general search

for "Oxford University plagiarism definition" would lead you to their resources.]

Stanford University. (n.d.). Honor Code: Plagiarism. Office of Community Standards.

Retrieved July 7, 2025, from [You would insert the specific URL for Stanford's Honor

Code here, often found on their Office of Community Standards page.]

Yale University. (n.d.). Understanding and Avoiding Plagiarism. Poorvu Center for

Teaching and Learning. Retrieved July 7, 2025, from [You would insert the specific

URL for Yale's plagiarism guide here.]

Explanation of Citations:

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page87

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

15. University Definitions: For the university definitions, since you didn't provide

specific dates or direct URLs, I've used "n.d." (no date) for the publication date, which is

standard for online sources where a specific date of publication or last update is not

clear. The retrieval date is important for dynamic online content. You would replace the

bracketed placeholders with the actual URLs and any more specific document titles if

you used them.

16. Etymology: The etymology of "plagiarism" is widely known and consistent

across reputable dictionaries and linguistic resources. Citing a well-known dictionary

like Merriam-Webster is appropriate for general etymological information.

17. General Introduction to Plagiarism Detection Tools: This section is

considered common knowledge in the academic and technological fields. While specific

facts might come from various sources, the general explanation doesn't typically require

a direct citation unless you are quoting a specific author or definition from a particular

source. If you did refer to a specific article or website for this overview, you would cite

it accordingly.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page88

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

CHAPTER - 4

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The present chapter deals with analysis and interpretation of data. The

sample survey method was employed and the questionnaire tool to collect

the data from Research Scholars of Science Discipline, Karnataka

University Dharwad.

A total of 100 questionnaires were distributed to the Scholars who were

Regular Scholars. Out of 100 questionnaires 76 questionnaires were

received back. The total response rate is 76.00 % which is represented under

the study using MS Excel software.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page89

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

4.2 Analysis and Interpretation of Data

Table 1: Gender Wise Distribution of Ph.D. Scholars of Science

Departments

[Link] Gender No. of Percentage

. Respondents (%)
1 Female 33 43.40%
2 Male 43 56.60%
Total 76 100.00%

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page90

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Table 1 representing gender distribution of Ph.D. scholars of Karnatak

University Dharwad Among 76 respondents, the donut chart displays a gender

distribution where males comprise 57.1% and females 42.9%, indicating a clear

male majority within the observed group. This is represented in figure 1clearly.

Table.2: Department wise distribution of questionnaires

[Link]. No. of No. of

questionnaires Questionnaires Percentage
Department distributed Recovered (%)
1 Applied Genetics 2 2.60%
2 Biochemistry 12 15.60%
3 Botany 5 6.50%
4 Chemistry 12 15.60%
5 Computer Science 5 6.50%

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page91

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

6 Geography 1 1.30%
7 Mathematics 8 10.40%
8 Molecular Biology 1 1.30%
9 Physics 12 15.60%
10 Psychology 3 3.90%
11 Statistics 4 5.20%
12 Zoology 11 14.30%
Total 76 100%

Figure 1 : Department wise [Link] Respondents

The pie Chart reveals a diverse departmental distribution, with

Biochemistry, Chemistry, and Physics each dominating with 15.6% of the

total and 12 counts, followed closely by Zoology at 14.3% (12 counts). In

contrast, departments like Applied Genetics, Molecular Biology, and

Geography represent the smallest proportions, each with very low counts,

highlighting significant disparities in representation across the various

academic fields. This is represented in figure 2 clearly.

Table 3: Stage of Research

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page92

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Pursuing No. of.

Year Respondents Percentage)
1st year 11 14.50%
2nd year 20 26.30%
3rd year 22 28.90%
4th year 13 17.10%
5th year 10 13.20%
Total 76 100%

Figure 2- Pursing year of Research Scholars

The bar chart indicates a varied distribution of counts across academic

years, with the 3rd year having the highest count at 22 (approximately 28.9%),

followed by the 2nd year at 20 (approximately 26.3%). Conversely, the 5th year

has the lowest count at 10 (approximately 13.2%), suggesting a decline in

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page93

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

numbers towards the later academic years compared to the peak in the middle

years. This has been shown in figure-3.

Table 4: Awareness of Plagiarism

Respons No. of. Percentage

e Respondents (%)
Yes 76 100 %
No 0 0.00 %
Total 76 100%

Table 5: Information Sources through which about Plagiarism is Known

No. of.
Source of Responden
[Link]. Information ts Percentage
Fellow students and
1 colleagues 22 28.90%
2 Research Guide 20 26.30%
Through
Orientation/Worksh
3 ops 18 23.70%
4 Friends 10 13.20%
By using the
plagiarism checker
5 directly 5 6.60%
6 Advertisement 1 1.30%
Total 76 100.00%

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page94

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Figure 5 Individuals Acquire Information on Plagiarism

The provided donut chart illustrates that individuals primarily gain

information through fellow students (28.9%), research guides (26.3%), and

orientations/workshops (23.7%), collectively accounting for over three-quarters

of the responses. Less common sources include friends (13.2%), direct use of

plagiarism checkers (6.6%), and advertisements (1.3%). This suggests that

interpersonal interactions and structured educational programs are the most

effective channels for information dissemination, significantly outweighing

passive or independent learning methods.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page95

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Table 6: Familiarity of Plagiarism Detection Tools

Plagiarism No. of. Percentage(%)

Detection
Tool Respondents
Turnitin 28 36.80%
Drillbit 16 21.10%
Grammarly 12 15.80%
iThenticate 10 3.20%
Urkund 5 6.60%
Plagscan 4 5.30%
Ouriginal 1 1.30%
Total 76 100%

Figure 6- Different Tools Used to Detect Plagiarism

The bar chart vividly illustrates the varying popularity of plagiarism

detection tools, with Turnitin overwhelmingly dominating with 28 users

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page96

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

(approximately 36.8%), indicating its widespread use. Drillbit follows as the

second most popular with 16 users (21.1%), while Grammarly and iThenticate

also have significant adoption. Conversely, tools like Ouriginal, Plagscan, and

Urkund show much lower usage, with Ouriginal being used by only one person,

suggesting a highly skewed preference towards a few established tools. This is

represented in Figure 6 clearly.

Table 7: Purposes of using Plagiarism

No. of
Purposes Respondents Percentage(%)
Detecting Plagiarism 18 23.68%
Enhancing Writing
Quality 19 25.00%
Preventing Plagiarism 21 27.63%
To check originality 18 23.68%
Total 76 100.00%

Figure 7- Purposes of using Plagiarism

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page97

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

The data indicates that "Preventing Plagiarism" is perceived as the most

significant aspect, accounting for approximately 27.63% of the responses, with 21

counts. "Enhancing Writing Quality" follows closely at 25.00% (19 counts).

"Detecting Plagiarism" and "To check originality" received an equal number of

responses (18 each), representing approximately 23.68% individually. This

suggests a strong emphasis on proactive measures against plagiarism and

improving writing, with a slightly higher priority on prevention over detection or

general originality checks. This is represented in Figure 7 clearly.

Table 8: Places of Access Plagiarism Detection Tools

Places [Link]. Respondents Percentage (%)

At home 08 10.53%
In department 37 48.68%
Library 27 35.53%
Others 04 5.26%
Total 76 100.00%

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page98

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Figure 8- Places of Accessing Plagiarism Tools

The data clearly indicates that the "In department" category is the most

prominent, accounting for nearly half (48.68%) of the responses with a count of

37. The "Library" also represents a significant portion at 35.53% (27 counts). In

contrast, categories like "At home" (10.53%) and the various single-count

categories ("All", "All places", "My friends have taken access", "Plagiarism

zone") have very low representation. This suggests that the activity or preference

being measured is predominantly carried out or preferred "In department" and in

the "Library," with other locations or options being far less common.

Table 9: Use of Plagiarism Detection Tools

Category [Link]. Respondents Percentage (%)

No 11 14.50%
Yes 65 85.50%
Total 76 100.00%

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page99

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Figure9- Use of Plagiarism Detection Tools

The data clearly indicates a strong majority response for "Yes," accounting for 65

out of 76 total counts, which is 85.5% of the total. Conversely, "No" responses

are significantly fewer, with only 11 counts, representing 14.5%. This suggests a

highly skewed distribution towards the "Yes" category, implying strong

agreement, adoption, or preference for whatever the "Yes" response represents in

the context of the survey.

Table 10: Frequency Used in the Plagiarism Detection Tools

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page100

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

[Link]. Percentage
[Link]. Frequency of Use Respondents (%)
As and when I write
1 Article/Chapter 53 69.74%
2 Every month 12 15.79%
3 Weekly 11 14.47%
Total 76 100.00%

Figure 10- Frequency Used in the Plagiarism Detection Tools

The data clearly indicates that the activity is most frequently performed "As

and when I write Article/Chapter," accounting for a dominant 69.74% of the

responses (53 counts). This suggests that the activity is largely event-driven and

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page101

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

tied to the production of written content. The other frequencies, "Every month"

and "Weekly," are significantly less common, representing 15.79% and 14.47%

respectively. This implies that for the majority of respondents, the activity is not a

regular, fixed-interval routine but rather occurs on an as-needed basis related to

their writing tasks.

Table 11: Method of Accessing Plagiarism Detection Tools

[Link]

. Method of Access [Link]. Percentage

Respondents (%)
1 Free online versions 30 39.47%
University-provided
2 account 24 31.58%
Through a friend or
3 peer's account 16 21.05%
4 Personal subscription 3 3.95%
5 Service provider 3 3.95%
Total 76 100.00%

Figure 10- Method of Accessing Plagiarism Detection Tools

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page102

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

The data shows that "Free online versions" are the most popular method of

access, accounting for 39.47% (30 counts) of the total. "University-provided

accounts" follow as the second most common, making up 31.58% (24 counts),

indicating significant institutional support for access. Access "Through a friend or

peer's account" is also notably utilized by 21.05% (16 counts). Both "Personal

subscription" and "Service provider" methods are considerably less common,

each accounting for 3.95% (3 counts). This distribution suggests a primary

reliance on free or institutionally supported access, along with some peer-to-peer

sharing, while direct personal or service provider subscriptions are niche.

Table 12: Use of Ph.D. Tools during the stage of Research

[Link]. Steps Involved [Link]. Percentage

Respondents (%)
1 At the beginning 12 15.79%
After completion of
2 a chapter/Article 21 27.63%
After receiving
3 reviewer feedback 11 14.47%
4 After publication 32 42.11%
Total 76 100.00%

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page103

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Figure 12- Use of Ph.D. Tools during the stage of Research

The data indicates that the activity measured is most frequently performed

"After publication," accounting for the largest share at 42.11% (32 counts). This

suggests that post-publication checks or actions are highly emphasized. The

second most common time is "After completion of a chapter/Article," with

27.63% (21 counts), implying a significant focus on reviewing content once a

major writing piece is finished. "At the beginning" and "After receiving reviewer

feedback" are less common, with 15.79% (12 counts) and 14.47% (11 counts)

respectively.

Table 13: Awareness and Use of UGC Regulations on Plagiarism

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page104

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Category [Link]. Respondents Percentage (%)

No 9 11.84%
Yes 67 88.16%
Total 76 100.00%

Figure 13-Awareness and Use of UGC Regulations on Plagiarism

The data reveals a strong majority response for "Yes," accounting for

88.16% (67 counts) of the total. Conversely, "No" responses are significantly

fewer, with only 9 counts, representing 11.84%. This indicates a highly skewed

distribution towards the "Yes" category, suggesting a strong consensus,

agreement, or positive affirmation regarding the subject of the survey.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page105

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Table 14: Opinion on the Importance of Plagiarism Detection Tools

[Link]. Percentage
[Link]. Levels Respondents (%)
1 Extremely important 23 30.26%
2 Moderately important 15 19.74%
3 Slightly important 7 9.21%
4 Very important 31 40.79%
Total 76 100.00%

Figure 14 Opinion on the Importance of Plagiarism Detection Tools

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page106

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

The data indicates that the aspect being surveyed is predominantly considered

"Very important" by respondents, accounting for the largest share at 40.79% (31

counts). "Extremely important" is the second most chosen category with 30.26%

(23 counts). Together, these two categories represent over 70% of responses,

highlighting a very strong collective perception of high importance. "Moderately

important" accounts for 19.74% (15 counts), while "Slightly important" is the

least selected option at 9.21% (7 counts). This distribution signifies that the vast

majority of the surveyed group perceives the subject as either "Very important" or

"Extremely important," with very few considering it of low importance.

Table 15: Opinion on the replacement of manual checking and writing

practises

[Link]. Category [Link]. Percentage

Respondents (%)
1 No 9 11.80%

2 Yes 67 88.20%

Total 76 100.00%

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page107

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Figure 15 Opinion on the replacement of manual checking and writing

practises

The data reveals a strong consensus among respondents, with 88.2% believing

that plagiarism tools can replace manual checking and ethical writing practices.

This indicates a high reliance on automated solutions, potentially overlooking that

ethical writing encompasses broader principles of integrity, critical thinking, and

proper attribution that tools cannot fully substitute. While valuable aids, these

tools should complement, not replace, fundamental human ethical engagement

and manual review processes.

Table 16: Awareness on Plagiarism Misconduct

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page108

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Response [Link]. Respondents Percentage (%)

No 43 56.60%
Yes 33 43.40%
Total 76 100.00%

"Awareness on Plagiarism Misconduct" reveals that a majority of

respondents, specifically 56.6%, are unaware of plagiarism misconduct, while

only 43.4% indicate awareness. This significant imbalance underscores a

concerning lack of understanding regarding plagiarism, suggesting a critical need

for enhanced educational initiatives to improve awareness and prevent

unintentional misconduct within the surveyed population.

Table 17: Opinion on the Challenges faced on misconduct of Plagiarism

[Link].
Challenges Respondent Percentage
s (%)
No 43 56.58%

Yes 33 43.42%

Total 76 100.00%

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page109

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Figure 17: Opinion on the Challenges faced on misconduct of Plagiarism

The data indicates that the "No" response is more prevalent, accounting for

56.58% (43 counts) of the total. The "Yes" response is less frequent, with 43.42%

(33 counts). This suggests that for the question asked, there is a leaning towards

disagreement or a negative answer, though the difference between "No" and

"Yes" is not overwhelmingly large, indicating a notable proportion of affirmative

responses as well.

Table 18: Methods for Ensuring Originality

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page110

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

[Link]. Percentage
[Link] Methods Respondents (%)
1 Change of concept 14 18.40%
2 Giving citation 14 18.40%
3 Paraphrasing 22 28.90%
Write in my own
4 words 26 34.20%
Total 76 100%)

Figure 18- Methods for Ensuring Originality

The data indicates that "Write in my own words" is the most frequently

chosen method, accounting for the largest share at 34.2% (26 counts).

"Paraphrasing" is the second most common strategy, representing 28.9% (22

counts). This highlights a strong preference for original or rephrased content

creation among respondents. "Change of concept" and "Giving citation" are

equally chosen, each accounting for 18.4% (14 counts). This suggests that while

direct quotation with citation and conceptual changes are utilized, they are less

common than active rephrasing or writing original content.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page111

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Table 19: Guide's Recommendation on Plagiarism Tools

[Link].
Respondent Percentage
Recommendation s (%)
No 7 9.21%
Yes 69 90.79%
Total 76 100.00%

Figure 19- Guide's Recommendation on Plagiarism Tools

The data clearly indicates a strong majority response for "Yes,"

accounting for a significant 90.79% (69 counts) of the total. Conversely, "No"

responses are very low, with only 7 counts, representing 9.21%. This suggests an

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page112

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

overwhelming consensus or positive affirmation regarding the subject of the

survey, with almost all respondents agreeing or responding affirmatively.

Table 20: Training/ Workshop Attended by Scholars

[Link]. Percentage
Response Respondents (%)
Yes 65 85.5%
No 11 14.5%
Total 76 100%.00

Figure 20- Training/ Workshop Attended by Scholars

Table 21: Methods for Plagiarism Prevention

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page113

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Method [Link]. Respondents Percentage (%)

Write in my own
words 26 34.20%
Paraphrasing 22 28.90%
Change of concept 14 18.40%
Giving citation 14 18.40%
Total Respondents 76 100.00%

Figure 21 Methods for Plagiarism Prevention

The survey on methods to overcome plagiarism indicates a primary

reliance on original thought and rephrasing, with "Write in my own words"

(34.2%) and "Paraphrasing" (28.9%) being the top two strategies. Less emphasis

is placed equally on "Changing the concept" and "Giving citation," both at 18.4%.

This suggests respondents predominantly favor transformative approaches to

information rather than solely relying on attribution for avoiding plagiarism.

Table 22: Difficulties Encountered with Plagiarism Detection Tools

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page114

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Challenges [Link]. Respondents Percentage (%)

Limited access 34 44.70%
High cost 27 35.50%
Lack of training 14 18.40%
All of the above 1 1.30%
Total Respondents 76 100.00%

Figure 22- Difficulties Encountered with Plagiarism Detection Tools

The primary challenges in using plagiarism detection tools are

identified as "Limited access" (44.7%) and "High cost" (35.5%), indicating that

the availability and affordability of these tools are major barriers for users. "Lack

of training" affects a smaller but still significant portion of respondents (18.4%),

while a negligible number faced all listed challenges. This suggests that

increasing accessibility and reducing costs, alongside providing adequate training,

are crucial steps to improve the utilization of plagiarism detection tools.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page115

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Table 23: User Preferences for Plagiarism Tool Functionality

[Link].
Preferences Respondents Percentage (%)
Similarity index report 21 28.40%
Source link identification 16 21.60%
Suggestions for
paraphrasing 15 20.30%
Highlighted matched text 14 18.90%
Grammar and citation
check 8 10.80%
Total Respondents 74 100.00%

Most useful feature in plagiarism detection tools, according to the survey, is the

"Similarity index report" (28.4%), demonstrating a user preference for a clear,

summary score. This is closely followed by features that provide actionable help,

such as "Source link identification" (21.6%) and "Suggestions for

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page116

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

paraphrasing" (20.3%). The least useful feature was identified as the "Grammar

and citation check," indicating that respondents place less value on this function

compared to the core detection and remediation capabilities.

Table 24: Analyzing the Impact of Plagiarism Prevention Strategies

Prevention Method Count Percentage (%)

Developing the
original 26 34.2%
Use of quotations 18 23.7%
Proper paraphrasing 18 23.7%
For accurately and... 14 18.4%
Total 76 100.00%

Figure 1Analyzing the Impact of Plagiarism Prevention Strategies

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page117

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

Survey on plagiarism prevention methods indicates that a significant

portion of respondents (34.7%) believe that "Developing the original" content is

the most effective approach. This is followed by "Proper paraphrasing"

(24.0%) and the "Use of quotations" (22.7%), suggesting that users see a

combination of original thought and correct handling of sources as key. The least

favored method, at 18.7%, is likely "accurate citation," which implies that while

respondents understand the need to rephrase or quote, they may place less

emphasis on formal citation practices.

Summing Up

This study, conducted among 76 PhD scholars from science departments at

Karnataka University Dharwad, provides comprehensive insights into

various aspects related to plagiarism, its detection, and academic integrity.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page118

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

The demographic data reveals a slight male majority among the

participating scholars, with a diverse departmental representation

highlighting Biochemistry, Chemistry, and Physics as having the highest

respondent counts. The distribution of scholars across academic years peaks

in the 2nd and 3rd years, indicating strong engagement during the core

research phases.

A critical finding is the universal awareness of plagiarism (100%) among

the respondents, underscoring the success of various information

dissemination channels. Information primarily flows through interpersonal

interactions (fellow students, research guides, and friends) and structured

educational programs (orientations/workshops), significantly outweighing

direct tool use or advertisements.

In terms of plagiarism detection tool usage, Turnitin is the clear market

leader, followed by Drillbit and Grammarly, indicating a preference for

well-established solutions. The primary purposes for using these tools are

balanced between proactive measures like "Preventing Plagiarism" and

"Enhancing Writing Quality," alongside "Detecting Plagiarism" and

"Checking Originality."

Access to these tools is predominantly facilitated within the department

and at the library, suggesting strong institutional support or common

practice within these academic settings. The high rate of personal use of

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page119

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

plagiarism detection tools (85.5%) further emphasizes scholars' individual

commitment to ensuring originality in their work, primarily "as and when

they write an article/chapter", indicating an event-driven approach rather

than a fixed routine.

Regarding the timing of checks, the data reveals a notable emphasis on

post-publication checks (42.11%), followed by checks "after completion

of a chapter/article," suggesting a strong focus on final verification.

A significant insight into the perception of tools is the overwhelming belief

(88.2%) that plagiarism tools can replace manual checking and ethical

writing practices. While this indicates high confidence in technological

solutions, it also highlights a potential over-reliance, potentially overlooking

the broader scope of ethical writing, which requires human judgment,

critical thinking, and adherence to foundational principles of academic

integrity that extend beyond mere textual similarity detection.

Finally, a vast majority of scholars (90.79%) report that their research

guides recommend the use of plagiarism tools, signifying that mentors

play a crucial role in promoting these tools as part of the research process.

Despite this, a notable proportion (56.58%) are not familiar with the

specific UGC Regulations on Plagiarism (2018), indicating a gap between

practical tool usage and formal policy awareness.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page120

 Use of Plagiarism Tools by the Research Scholars of Karnatak University Dharwad: A study

In conclusion, the study portrays a landscape where PhD scholars are highly

aware of and actively use plagiarism detection tools, largely influenced by

their peers and mentors. While these tools are integrated into their writing

workflow to ensure originality, there exists a strong perception that these

tools can substitute for the comprehensive ethical writing practices,

highlighting an area where further educational emphasis on the holistic

nature of academic integrity may be beneficial. The findings also suggest a

need to bridge the gap between practical tool usage and formal policy

awareness, especially concerning the UGC regulations.

Dept. of Library and Information Science Page121