Faculty Perceptions of Academic Dishonesty: A Multidimensional Scaling Analysis

By H. S. Pincus, L. Schmelkin. 2003

126 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

First‐year university science and engineering students’ understanding of plagiarism (2007, background): “No matter how clear a definition of plagiarism might appear, it is not a universally understood or accepted concept in academia (Pincus & Schmelkin, 2003 ).”
A Multidimensional Scaling of College Students' Perceptions of Academic Dishonesty (2008, methodology): “In ad- 602 The Journal of Higher Education dition, comparisons between the students’ clarity ratings and those of the faculty in Pincus and Schmelkin (2003) and in Schmelkin et al. (2001) were also examined.”
What's in a grade? The multidimensional nature of what teacher-assigned grades assess in high school (2011, methodology): “MDS has been used in many research fields, including global health and medicine, higher education, education finance and policy, and K-12 education (Bowers, 2009; Enserink, 2008; Glass, 1967; Pincus & Schmelkin, 2003; Russell et al., 2008; Smith et al., 2004; Song & Miskel, 2007).”
Exploring academic misconduct: Some insights into student behaviour (2010, unknown): “Evidence from elsewhere suggests that the seriousness with which academics regard plagiarism is often not shared by students (Ashworth et al., 1997; Brimble and Stevenson-Clarke, 2005; Pincus and Schmelkin, 2003).”