CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 299Academic integrity and plagiarismSoftware Engineering ResearchTeaching and Learning Programming

Plagiarism in programming assignments

Open access
Joy, M., Luck, M.·1999·IEEE Transactions on Education
DOI 10.1109/13.762946
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The assessment of programming courses is usually carried out by means of programming assignments. Since it is simple to copy and edit computer programs, however, there will always be a temptation among some students following such courses to copy and modify the work of others. As the number of students in these courses is often high, it can be very difficult to detect this plagiarism. The authors have developed a package which will allow programming assignments to be submitted online, and which includes software to assist in detecting possible instances of plagiarism. In this paper, they discuss the concerns that motivated this work, describe the developed software, tailoring the software to different requirements and finally consider its implications for large group teaching.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/13.762946

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Plagiarism-hiding transformations are usually cosmetic: they alter source code appearance and structure while preserving the original program's behaviour.

    “Such source code transformations are typically cosmetic in nature, in that they change the appearance and structure of the source code [6], [7], [10], but retain the original behaviour of the plagiarised assignment.”

    From Academic Source Code Plagiarism Detection by Measuring Program Behavioral Similarity (2021) · cites this paper as [7]

  • Most plagiarism-hiding transformations leave a program's execution behaviour unchanged.

    “The majority of these transformations do not modify the execution behaviour of a program.This is as a plagiariser is commonly somebody who is either: inept, lazy or time-poor [7], [36], [37].”

    From Academic Source Code Plagiarism Detection by Measuring Program Behavioral Similarity (2021) · cites this paper as [7]

  • All implemented source code transformations are referenced from prior literature and conform to the first 5 levels of Faidhi and Robinson's transformation taxonomy.

    “To ensure the generated programs are representative of undergraduate plagiarism, all implemented source code transformations (listed in table 4) are referenced from prior literature [7], [10], [50], [51], and conform to the first 5 levels of Faidhi and Robinson's [10] transformation taxonomy.”

    From Academic Source Code Plagiarism Detection by Measuring Program Behavioral Similarity (2021) · cites this paper as [7]

  • A SCPDT does not detect plagiarism; it identifies indications of plagiarism.

    “Contrary to as the name suggests, a SCPDT does not detect plagiarism.Instead, a SCPDT identifies indications of plagiarism [7].”

    From Academic Source Code Plagiarism Detection by Measuring Program Behavioral Similarity (2021) · cites this paper as [7]

  • Mossad demonstrates its effectiveness against various plagiarism detectors, including MOSS, Sherlock, and JPlag.

    “Mossad demonstrates its effectiveness against various plagiarism detectors, including MOSS [1], Sherlock [16], and JPlag [36,37].”

    From Detecting Automatic Software Plagiarism via Token Sequence Normalization (2024) · cites this paper as [16]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Joy, M., & Luck, M.
Affiliations
University of Warwick (GB)
ORCID
Joy, M.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Education
Publisher
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Published
1999-05
Volume
42
Issue
2
Pages
129-133
ISSN
0018-9359 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1109/13.762946
OpenAlex
W2148484595
Cited by
299
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 15
FWCI
12.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Education (publishedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Warwick (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
Keywords
plagiarism detection, programming exercises, academic integrity, online submission system, source code plagiarism, large group teaching, programming education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review