Comparer des méthodes
Examinez les méthodes sélectionnées côte à côte ; les lignes qui diffèrent sont mises en évidence.
| Plagiat textuel× | Plagiat par paraphrase× | |
|---|---|---|
| Domaine | Éthique de la recherche | Éthique de la recherche |
| Famille | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Année d'origine≠ | 1950s | 1980s |
| 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 | insufficient paraphrase, close paraphrase, lazy paraphrasing |
| 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. | Paraphrasing plagiarism occurs when an author rewrites another's ideas in different words but does not cite the source. Unlike verbatim plagiarism (copying word-for-word), paraphrasing plagiarism involves changing vocabulary and sentence structure while retaining the original argument, logic, or conceptual content without attribution. It is harder to detect than direct copying but is still a clear violation of academic integrity. |
| ScholarGateJeu de données ↗ |
|
|