Plagiarism among Higher Education Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Very nice article with unfortunately unsurprising results. 

Sources for statements about academic fraud factors (l. 64-86) are missing. With this exception the sources are correctly cited. Literature review is comprehensive enough and correlates with the topic of the article. Methodology is clear, I only lack information which questions belong to the variables (class attendance, self-efficacy, digital learning methods, and academic dishonesty).

The results looks logical and discussion is correct.

l. 249 How was reliability determined?

I suppose that more questions belong to one variable, how was the data prepared to create Linear Regession Analysis?

Author Response

Please find the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses a very relevant topic, plagiarism; a topic that has gained even more relevance with the emergence of generative AI.

It is noted that the authors were concerned with clarifying some fundamental concepts of the work, however, given the evolution of the use of AI, the article would have more impact on HEIs if it focused more on this challenge.

As for the structure, it is suggested to divide section 1 - introduction into two sections: introduction and theoretical contextualization; as an introduction it is too long. It would also be clearer to read the article if the Discussion and Conclusion were in separate sections

The questionnaire design requires more detail, namely on how/if it was validated before being applied, and how the questions were chosen, to understand their relevance.

The authors referred to background variables gender, religious sector, faculty, year of study, study track, level of religiosity, mother tongue, and year of birth. However, the discussion does not show the impact of these variables in the results obtained.

Not all conclusions presented (lines 449-468) are evident from the discussion presented.

It would be interesting in future work to focus in more detail on the impact of generative AI on plagiarism.

Some "less important" suggestions:

Review keywords – academia and exams are too generic; maybe include HEI

Check citation style in lines 75 and 83

In References list, review reference 18 – does not match the citation in the text and it is incomplete

Avoid repeating “The data were analyzed using the SPSS software, version 28.” In lines 247 and 271

Author Response

Please find the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research topic is very relevant and in demand. A very interesting study. However, some comments should be made:

Regarding the structure of the work and the logic of evidence. The introduction is very lengthy. There is an emotional interest of the authors. There is no literature review section that clearly presents all the key concepts used and previous research in the field. In the future, the authors talk about 83 empirical research papers, but who these scientists are, what kind of work the authors do not disclose. There is no Conclusion section, where I would like to see not the emotional perception of the problem, but specific conclusions from the study. The proposed recommendations in the Discussion section have no validity.

There are no links to works in the list of references: 5, 16.

Author Response

Please find the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf