Attitudes toward plagiarism among pharmacy and medical biochemistry students – cross-sectional survey study

Introduction: Plagiarism is one of the most frequent and serious forms of misconduct in academic environment. The cross-sectional survey study was done with aim to explore the attitudes toward plagiarism. Materials and methods: First year students of Faculty of Pharmacy and Medical Biochemistry, University of Zagreb, Croatia (N = 146) were anonymously tested using Attitude toward Plagiarism (ATP) questionnaire. The questionnaire is composed of 29 statements on a 5 point Likert scale, (1 - strongly disagree, 2 - disagree, 3 - neither agree nor disagree, 4 - agree and 5 - strongly agree) measuring three attitudinal factors (positive and negative attitude and subjective norms) toward plagiarism. Results were presented as score (mean ± SD) followed by reference range (divided in three equal parts: low, moderate and high score). Score range expends from 12 to 60 (low: 12-28; moderate: 29-45; high: 46-60) measuring positive attitude toward plagiarism, from 7 to 35 (low: 7-16; moderate: 17-26; high: 27-35) measuring negative attitude toward plagiarism and from 10 to 50 (low: 10-23; moderate: 24-37; high: 38-50) measuring subjective norms. Response rate was 99% (N = 144). Results: Results revealed moderate positive attitude (36 ± 7) and subjective norms (32 ± 6) toward plagiarism and moderate to high negative attitude (26 ± 4). Plagiarism is perceived as not very important (63% of students), harmless (59%), justified under special circumstances (42%), and sometimes necessary (35%). Conclusion: Students\u27 attitudes reflect insufficient level of seriousness and awareness with which plagiarism is perceived. They are lacking knowledge on scientific methodology, academic and scientific misconduct. Plan and program to educate students about academic integrity and research methodology is required on all educational level

An Integrative Alternative For America\u27s Privacy Torts

Rugg and Smith encapsulate a transition between two approaches to tort protection of privacy. Rugg reflects the unitary-tort theory, which recognizes a single tort and seeks only to determine if the plaintiff\u27s interest in privacy has been breached by the defendant\u27s behavior. Smith reflects the multiple-tort approach that recognizes four torts, encompassing four ways in which privacy is breached, that have in common only an interference with a loosely defined understanding of privacy. This understanding of the privacy tort was lifted from the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1977), which adopted a construct first proffered by Dean William Prosser in a 1960 law review article. This Comment argues that the flexibility envisioned by the Restatement can best be achieved through an alternative offered by the Government of Ireland in the summer of 2006. The Irish proposal recognizes a single tort for invasion of privacy, defining the degree of privacy that an individual may expect as that which is reasonable under all the circumstances. It lists a series of factors to consider when evaluating all the circumstances, as well as defenses and recognized violations. The Irish integrative approach seeks to incorporate the elasticity of the unitary-tort approach with the clarity of the multiple-tort approach in a single statute. Adoption of the Irish approach would allow American jurisdictions to more clearly articulate the privacy tort and to better channel the adaptive powers of American common law. Part I of this Comment explains that modern American privacy-tort law is the result of the tension between two conflicting viewpoints on invasion-of-privacy torts. Part II shows how the widespread acceptance of the four tort structure in the United States has stunted the development of the privacy tort. Part III surveys the provisions of the Irish proposal, while Part IV analyzes the benefits offered by the Irish integrative approach. Part V explores how an American jurisdiction can utilize a structure like that in the Irish bill to take advantage of these benefits. Finally, Part VI concludes that the Irish proposal offers an opportunity for American privacy-tort jurisprudence to embrace the adaptive and evolutionary power of the common law

An Integrative Alternative For America\u27s Privacy Torts

Rugg and Smith encapsulate a transition between two approaches to tort protection of privacy. Rugg reflects the unitary-tort theory, which recognizes a single tort and seeks only to determine if the plaintiff\u27s interest in privacy has been breached by the defendant\u27s behavior. Smith reflects the multiple-tort approach that recognizes four torts, encompassing four ways in which privacy is breached, that have in common only an interference with a loosely defined understanding of privacy. This understanding of the privacy tort was lifted from the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1977), which adopted a construct first proffered by Dean William Prosser in a 1960 law review article. This Comment argues that the flexibility envisioned by the Restatement can best be achieved through an alternative offered by the Government of Ireland in the summer of 2006. The Irish proposal recognizes a single tort for invasion of privacy, defining the degree of privacy that an individual may expect as that which is reasonable under all the circumstances. It lists a series of factors to consider when evaluating all the circumstances, as well as defenses and recognized violations. The Irish integrative approach seeks to incorporate the elasticity of the unitary-tort approach with the clarity of the multiple-tort approach in a single statute. Adoption of the Irish approach would allow American jurisdictions to more clearly articulate the privacy tort and to better channel the adaptive powers of American common law. Part I of this Comment explains that modern American privacy-tort law is the result of the tension between two conflicting viewpoints on invasion-of-privacy torts. Part II shows how the widespread acceptance of the four tort structure in the United States has stunted the development of the privacy tort. Part III surveys the provisions of the Irish proposal, while Part IV analyzes the benefits offered by the Irish integrative approach. Part V explores how an American jurisdiction can utilize a structure like that in the Irish bill to take advantage of these benefits. Finally, Part VI concludes that the Irish proposal offers an opportunity for American privacy-tort jurisprudence to embrace the adaptive and evolutionary power of the common law