Comparer des méthodes
Examinez les méthodes sélectionnées côte à côte ; les lignes qui diffèrent sont mises en évidence.
| Plagiat textuel× | Plagiat mosaïque× | |
|---|---|---|
| Domaine | Éthique de la recherche | Éthique de la recherche |
| Famille | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Année d'origine≠ | 1950s | 1990s |
| Auteur d'origine | Academic integrity framework (modern definition) | Academic integrity framework (modern definition) |
| Type | Concept | Concept |
| Source fondatrice≠ | Council of Canadian Academies (2019). The state of science and technology in Canada. Ottawa: Council of Canadian Academies. link ↗ | Roig, M. (2015). Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity. link ↗ |
| Alias | direct plagiarism, copy-and-paste plagiarism, literal copying | patch-writing, patchwork plagiarism, incremental plagiarism |
| Apparentées | 4 | 4 |
| Résumé≠ | Verbatim plagiarism is the most straightforward and recognizable form of academic misconduct: copying text word-for-word from a source without quotation marks, citation, or attribution. It is the most easily detected form of plagiarism and carries severe institutional and career consequences. | Mosaic plagiarism, also called patch-writing, occurs when an author mixes copied phrases and sentences from a source with original text, rearranges material from multiple sources, or interweaves paraphrased and verbatim passages without proper citation or quotation marks. It is difficult to detect because the copied portions are interspersed with original writing, creating a surface appearance of original work. |
| ScholarGateJeu de données ↗ |
|
|