Dishonest behavior can be understood as a set of inappropriate behaviors practiced by an individual in different institutional environments, covering a variety of unethical attitudes ( Veludo-de-Oliveira et al., 2014). In the context of higher education, the appropriation of content made by third parties for use in academic works as if they were their own authorship is considered plagiarism ( Lyon et al., 2006), in addition to other dishonest academic practices such as collusion, or undue collaboration in tasks (mainly individual ones) to benefit all participants ( Barrett & Cox, 2005). Plagiarism has legal and even criminal repercussions and is also considered an ethical deviation ( Pithan & Vidal, 2013).

Information and communication technologies have facilitated access to knowledge, also enabling dishonest behavior, especially those linked to plagiarism, which has been occurring on a large scale in the academic context, among researchers, professors, and students of undergraduate and graduate programs ( Veludo-de-Oliveira et al., 2014).

Given that ethics is a conduct guide that enables discerning what is right or wrong and helps in understanding “why” some people seek to obtain personal advantages and others remain with moral firmness, regardless of the context ( Motta & Alcadipani, 1999), it helps to explain what morality is and what its specific characteristics are ( Cortina et al., 1996). Its origin derives from the Greek term ethos, which means “dwelling”, and was later interpreted as a “way of being” acquired during life ( Cortina et al., 1996). The term “moral” originates from the Latin word that originally meant “custom”, and currently means “way of being” or “character” ( Veludo-de-Oliveira et al., 2014). While morality seeks to answer the question “What should we do?”, ethics answers the question “Why should we?” ( Cortina et al., 1996).

Moreover, dishonest behavior in the academic include practices such as plagiarism, fraud (electronic or otherwise) and external assistance (from people or materials that should not be available) ( Iyer & Eastman, 2008; Krou et al., 2021). And despite being considered a global academic phenomenon ( Baran & Jonason, 2020), it suffers influence by regional and cultural elements in Brazil. Thus, the main objective of this study is to analyze the meanings and perceptions of graduate programs students (master’s and doctoral students) in Business Administration, as well as professors of graduate programs (PPGs) from different institutions, in relation to possible practices of dishonest behavior and plagiarism in the academic context. The specific objectives include: (i) analyzing the perceptions of respondents about possible causes and consequences of dishonest behavior and academic plagiarism and about (ii) possible ways to combat these ethical deviations. To carry out the study, the opinions of 28 academics, including professors and students, were accessed.

It should be noted that there is extant research on such theme in Brazil, such as the articles referenced in this paper, however, the field of administration in Brazil still needs to be deepened, as evidenced in the annals of several conferences: e.g., on academic plagiarism: four articles in SemeAd/FEA-USP and one in EnANPAD; on academic dishonesty: three in SemeAd/FEA-USP and one in EnANPAD. In the journals hosted by the SciELO platform, only seven articles were found on academic plagiarism and only one on academic dishonesty in applied social sciences. In the above studies, it was found that plagiarism occurs when an author’s ideas or words are used inappropriately and without proper mention of the source ( Innarelli et al., 2011). And according to Lima, Lima e André ( 2021), this was facilitated by wide access to information and communication technologies. Authors such as Sanchez and Innarelli ( 2012) report several dishonest practices in academia, such as self-plagiarism, ghost authorship, co-authors without relevant participation, and copying texts or ideas without due credit. And according to the authors, among 162 articles retracted between 2002 and 2019 by Brazilian authors, almost 60% were associated with some form of misconduct ( Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo [FAPESP], 2022). These practices are also influenced by professors that accept non-original work from their students ( Lima et al., 2021; Veludo-de-Oliveira et al., 2014). However, none of these studies have conducted a primary data collection highlighting the phenomenon of academic dishonesty, which are sometimes overlooked by several stricto sensu management post graduate programs. In the present study it is evidenced four metacategories, through reports by professors and students, namely: (i) meaning and perception of the phenome-non, (ii) causes, (iii) consequences and (iv) forms of combat, which in turn generated seven other categories. Therefore, the possible causes and implications of plagiarism are discussed, as well as ways to combat or mitigate the impact of these acts in Business Administration teaching programs, fostering the debate about these deleterious practices in the academic context.

During data analysis, according to Donaires et al. ( 2023), when using an inductive, open, and simultaneous process, the metacategories of this study were generated, directly linked to the main phenomenon investigated, namely: (1) meaning and perception of the phenomenon; (2) causes; (3) consequences; and (4) ways to combat dishonest practices. Therefore, derived from the procedures of segmentation and attribution of codes to the discursive fragments, seven categories were generated in the segmentation and codification: (1.1) plagiarism behavior – PLB, (1.2) other unethical behavior – OUB; (2.1) intrinsic factors – ITF, (2.2) extrinsic factors – ETF; (3.1) career obstacles – CAO; (4.1) post-incident actions – PIA, and (4.2) prevention policies – PVP. Table 2 explains the definition of each code and its categories.

Table 2 -

Metacategories	Definition of each category	Code
Meaning and perceptions of the phenomenon (1)	(1.1) plagiarism behavior – plagiarism itself and its different interpretations.	PLB
Meaning and perceptions of the phenomenon (1)	(1.2) other unethical behaviors – other types of dishonest behaviors in the academic world.	OUB
Causes (2)	(2.1) intrinsic factors – related to the characteristics of dishonest behaviors in the academic world.	ITF
Causes (2)	(2.2) extrinsic factors – related to the academic environment.	ETF
Consequences (3)	(3.1) career obstacles – possible negative career consequences for someone caught plagiarizing.	CAO
Ways to combat dishonest practices (4)	(4.1) post-incident actions – possible actions to be taken after identifying dishonest behaviors in the academic world.	PIA
Ways to combat dishonest practices (4)	(4.2) prevention policies – possible preventive actions to be taken to curb dishonest behaviors in the academic world.	PVP

Source: own elaboration (2022)

Figure 1 shows the general design of the research, with the metacategories and categories identified and defined in Table 2, by a set of analysis units, aligned to the thematic axis of their corresponding category.

Figure 1 – Source: own elaboration based on Donaires et al. ( 2023)

These units of analysis, in turn, were captured through excerpts from the transcripts of the interviews that were coded and, with each unit of analysis having a frequency count, showing how many respondents expressed themselves about the same idea, perception and meaning of the investigated phenomenon in this study.

Category 1 – Meaning and perception of the phenomenon: is a metacategory that explains the assumptions behind dishonest behavior in academia. As shown in Table 3, plagiarism behavior is much more frequent in the interviewees’ reports, with 48 occurrences, while other unethical practices add up to 12 reports. However, the reports of other unethical conducts help in the broader understanding of the phenomenon of academic dishonesty.

Table 3 -

Plagiarism behavior – PLB(1.1)	Other unethical behaviors – OUB (1.2)
(11x) Copy of subject papers.	(2x) “Collaboration network” (exchange of favors)
(10x) Incorrect citation of other authors.	(2x) “Salami science”: clipping broad research into smaller pieces to obtain several publications.
(9x) Use text from third parties without citing authors.	(2x) Lack of commitment to teaching duties: non-compliance with subject´s syllabus and workload and/or non-compliance with their contract.
(7x) Theft of ideas in publication.	(2x) Taking advantage with the asymmetry between professor and student to exploit the student and/or humiliate, detract from student.
(6x) Copy answers in text and evaluations.	(1x) Abusing people´s trust.
(3x) Make comments about something you read or heard in seminars, appropriating the ideas.	(1x) “Moral flexibility”: teaching omission that does not educate students in situations of plagiarism and dishonesty.
(1x) Modify terms to appropriate third-party ideas.	(1x) Hire someone to do your final paper or part of your dissertation.
(1x) Self-plagiarism and self-citation.	(1x) Download pirated book on the internet.

Source: own elaboration based on Donaires et al. ( 2023)

Category 1.1 – Plagiarism Behavior – PLB: it was identified as one of the main dishonest academic practices in the statements of all respondents, diverging from what Sanchez and Innarelli ( 2012) state, that plagiarism would be solely deliberate and rational, which is reflected below:

Among the characteristic behaviors of academic plagiarism, the ones most frequently reported were copying coursework and incorrect citation in papers. And although the participants claim that academic plagiarism is not rare, they manifested a certain distance from such a practice, emphasizing that it would occur more frequently in undergraduate than in stricto sensu postgraduate courses (masters and doctorates), as reported below:

Intentional plagiarism emerged from the speeches as a “theft of ideas”, both in academic and professional terms. One report (E5_D) mentioned the case of a student who plagiarized another’s article and managed to publish it in an impact journal, causing confusion after the discovery by the plagiarized author, and another (E4_M) that mentioned a professor who appropriated ideas from the dissertation of a former advisee, but without due credit.

In the case of graduate students, which include many who already work as professors, there are also reports such as the one cited below:

Similarly, taking advantage of his power in the institutional hierarchy, interviewee E3_M commented that an evaluator rejected an article for publication and later published the same article in another journal as if it were his own. After the discovery, the fraudulent appraiser was disconnected from the university with which he had a link. In a report by a student who did part of his doctorate abroad, there was plagiarism on the part of the tutor’s work, with misappropriation of his work.

Another point addressed was self-plagiarism, that is, the reuse of an idea or previous research as something new and original, without proper references. One of the testimonies (E4_D) mentions the need to check the references used to avoid repeated quotations or reuse of ideas from previous works, especially when writing multiple works on the same subject.

In addition to intentional plagiarism, respondents also commented on when self-plagiarism occurs unintentionally, due to lack of knowledge or forgetfulness, resulting in the undue absence of a citation, as reported by participant E5_D. One respondent to the questionnaire states that he has already committed “self-plagiarism once or twice, [since] it is difficult to say the same thing in 20 different ways” (E24_PG).

Category 1.2 – Other Unethical Behaviors – OUB:

Although most respondents understand plagiarism as a sort of academic dishonesty behavior, some participants related unethical behavior to other situations shown in Table 3.

Regarding the publication of articles, two types of behavior were reported by the participants. In the first case, there is the “salami science” process, where the student, instead of publishing a broad article with a significant impact, “slices” the contribution into several less relevant articles, to give an image of productivity. Another practice mentioned is the undue exchange of collaborations between researchers, with credit to a co-author who did not participate in the work, which can occur in a reciprocal and systematic way, where each author writes an article and puts the name of others, and then all now have several publications – and not just one.

Reflection was also raised on another silent and potentially dishonest conduct, a “moral flexibility” where the professional presents a speech to combat academic plagiarism, but in the end is conniving with certain dishonest practices:

This type of behavior is also related to that of the professor who is not committed to his/her duties and often takes advantage of the asymmetry between professor and student to exploit the advisee, and/or humiliate him, or even the professor who does not follow the syllabus entirely or misses work a lot (absenteeism), providing an inappropriate environment for student learning. In general, it is understood that there is plagiarism among professors, with 14 of the 22 who answered the questionnaires categorically affirming this, and another three of the 22 respondents to the questionnaire affirmed that “perhaps” there was.

Morality according to Cortina, Orts, and Navarro ( 1996) is not immutable, and at various times professionals are faced with ethical dilemmas in their work environments, and this is no different in academia. “Moral flexibility” has an imminent risk of biased interpretation and the normalization of undesirable behavior. This is somewhat related to the culture of the “Brazilian way” ( Oliveira & Machado-da-Silva, 2001), which includes, among other characteristics, the flexibility of social values ​​to meet personal interests and thus obtain advantages.

Category 2 – Causes of the Phenomenon:

There are several causes that help justify dishonest behavior in the academic environment, but without a main factor. Table 4 divides these factors into intrinsic and extrinsic, with relative imbalance in the reports obtained, with 51 for intrinsic factors, attributable by respondents to internal, contextual, social, and academic factors and 21 for extrinsic factors (from the academic environment).

Table 4 –

Intrinsic factors – ITF (2.1)	Extrinsic factors – ETF (2.2)
(12x) Ignorance of scientific methodology and difficulty finding the original source.	(7x) Professor´s unsatisfactory scientific orientation
(9x) Stress, cognitive, physical, emotional fatigue due to overload of scientific and academic activities.	(6x) Pressure for results: overload of scientific and academic activities.
(8x) Low emotional maturity, anxiety, and self-demand.	(6x) Effects of technology.
(8x) Absence of ethical, moral values and character, academic dishonesty.	(2x) Challenging sociodemographic context for the student: double journey, lack of resources.
(4x) Laziness to study and prepare own´s work.
(4x) Lack of interest in the topic studied, and urgency to finish the task/exercise, minimizing scientific work.
(3x) Difficulty assimilating content.
(3x) Interest in the diploma only.

Source: own elaboration based on Donaires et al. ( 2023)

Respondents to the questionnaire/survey reported multiple simultaneous causes for the occurrence of plagiarism, the most relevant being mentioned below:

2.1 – Intrinsic Factors – ITF:

Intrinsic motivators for unwanted academic behavior include individuals’ needs, interests, and values, which support certain behaviors while detracting from others. In this category, the intrinsic motivators reported are linked to the pursuit of academic, research and teaching goals imposed by HEIs ( see Zuin & Bianchetti, 2015; Morais, 2020).

Ethics is a guide of conduct, of principles of what is right or wrong, helping to understand why some people seek to obtain personal advantages and others remain with moral firmness, regardless of the context ( Cortina et al., 1996). For Veludo-de-Oliveira et al. ( 2014), the ability to reflect on the consequences of their own moral actions helps individuals to develop emotional maturity and to overcome negative feelings of self-demand, anxiety, and immediacy in the face of the countless demands and dilemmas of everyday life.

Another element that emerged in the speeches is the pressure to produce and time as a scarce resource. The overload of subjects, other activities and physical and mental fatigue make individuals must choose what would be most urgent, allocating their cognitive efforts to the execution of these tasks, and neglecting others (Bianchetti et al., 2018), which is corroborated in the report:

When considering the demand of the job market for the diploma and the academic lack of interest in the subject studied, the demotivation in the face of the effort that needs to be made to understand, reflect, and learn about a certain subject can be one of the triggers of these undesirable behaviors (Moraes, 2004). However, some reports attest that this phenomenon is less frequent in postgraduate students (enrolled in Graduate Programs), either due to the postgraduate student’s awareness of developing a reflective-critical capacity to become a good researcher and professor or due to more emphatic training in scientific methodologies ( see Zuin & Bianchetti, 2015).

As mentioned in one of the testimonies (E5_D), plagiarism can also occur unintentionally and unconsciously, due to lack of knowledge in scientific methodologies and even the student’s inexperience. In this case, the student who makes the mistake of copying sentences, including excerpts from works by other authors without properly citing the original source, usually recants and changes his behavior.

Category 2.2 – Extrinsic Factors – ETF

Contextual and social factors in which individuals are inserted motivate academically dishonest behavior. According to one of the reports (E6_D), there are students who, in normal situations, would not use unethical practices to achieve their goals, but who end up committing academically dishonest acts due to external pressures (Morais, 2020).

Plagiarism does not only affect students, but also professors and, in some cases, reviewers of journals, positions that should ensure scientific ethical conduct ( Nunes et al., 2012), as the report points out:

According to the participants, the pressure for results is a preponderant factor for academically dishonest behavior, being leveraged by incentives from funding agencies, through development projects, by HEIs that require publication of articles in high-impact journals, by the environment corporate, by the family context, or by other social pressures exerted by different groups that affect the individual ( Zuin & Bianchetti, 2015; Morais, 2020).

Even the lack of adequate working and studying conditions can impose pressure that indirectly leads to a higher incidence of unethical academic behavior ( Zuin & Bianchetti, 2015; Morais, 2020). In one of the reports, it is mentioned that due to the need to reconcile the study with a professional journey, there is not always time or conditions for the required activities to be carried out.

The participants also reported the unsatisfactory guidance and the teaching inability of the professor as possible causes of academically dishonest behavior (E2_M), given the student’s stage of development and need for follow-up. It was also reported that scientific methodology is part of the curriculum, however, in some cases, it does not receive the proper attention from professors, causing difficulties for the student at the end of the course (E1_M).

Finally, all interviewees reported that the use of new ICTs facilitated plagiarism and other unethical behavior by providing mass and agile access to articles and academic papers. However, these same ICTs can also be used as instruments to combat plagiarism, through anti-plagiarism check applications, which identify copied excerpts ( Nunes et al., 2012), as the report points out:

Category 3- Consequences of the Phenomenon

Category 3.1 – Career Obstacles – CAO

Unethical behavior and plagiarism practices can have consequences that go beyond a poor assessment in a subject in case these behaviors are discovered, which can be an obstacle to critical-reflexive self-development and reduce the future competitiveness of a professional still in training ( Colares et al., 2011). According to the respondents’ reports, three factors that may be obstacles to the future career of this graduate, arising from the analysis of the Metacategory “Consequences of the Phenomenon”: (i) professional development; (ii) Negative feelings like regret and (iii) having your image and credibility eroded.

Some students end up engaging in unethical practices to facilitate their insertion and professional consolidation, however, such a practice could reflect negatively on the preparation of these individuals for the job market, as in the report of the interviewee E2_M, who highlighted that the most prestigious business schools in the country usually make strict selections of their candidates evaluating their real academic skills and experiences.

The participants also reported the feeling of guilt as a possible consequence and future obstacle to the career of these graduates, where after resorting to dishonest behavior to fulfill a certain objective without meritocracy, negative feelings such as regret, indignation and fear arise, not to mention the possibility of future punishments and a tarnished image if such conduct is discovered.

Category 4 – Ways to combat dishonest practices

To raise awareness of these acts and their consequences, participants suggested some actions to combat the investigated phenomenon through corrective (28 citations) and preventive (26 citations) actions, as shown in Table 5 and corroborating academic work on the subject. ( e.g., Zuin & Bianchetti, 2015; Morais, 2020).

Table 5 -

Post-incident actions – PIA (4.1)	Prevention policies – PVP (4.2)
(11x) Post-incident mediation (call attention, warn, give advice).	(9x) Awareness and training, disseminating the rules for scientific writing, teaching about what plagiarism is and telling cases + consequences.
(10x) Disciplinary punishemnet (would give zero, report it, notify the advisor)	(7x) Use of detection
(6x) Request rectification or correction of the text.	(7x) Investment in structure for ethical and scientific training (incentive to seek answers).
(1x) I would ask that credits to be given to the authors.	(2x) Exemplary conduct by the professor, competent and ethical behavior.
	(1x) Incorporate a clear and objective policy against plagiarism in the course PPC.

Source: own elaboration based on Donaires et al. ( 2023)

Category 4.1 – Post-incident Actions – PIA

According to the perceptions of most respondents to the questionnaire, the two most cited actions are (i) post-incident mediation (e.g., drawing attention, warning of the consequences, or giving advice) and (ii) disciplinary punishment (e.g., disapproval, report, notification to advisor). The disciplinary attitude is seen by some interviewees as a means of making students aware of the impact and consequences of unethical conduct on others and on themselves (harming their career, citizenship education and the development of critical-reflective thinking), as pointed out by the good practices undertaken by university libraries ( Colares et al., 2011; Alves et al., 2016).

In fact, punishment is cited by several respondents to the questionnaire as a mechanism that should be combined with guidance. Respondents suggest:

The other half of the interviewees defended that the best way to combat a dishonest act already committed would be through a conciliatory posture, with dialogues that guide students to overcome their difficulties. According to them, students practiced such acts out of mere immaturity, and for not knowing how to produce a work in accordance with scientific norms, sometimes due to a lack of adequate teaching guidance, or even omission and toxic conduct that, according to the reports, is a type of common practice among some of these professionals who work in academia. This statement corroborates the article that points out the good practices of anti-plagiarism scientific guidance ( Alves et al., 2016) and with the report:

Another report worth mentioning is the need for these professors to manifest a consistent ethical conduct in their academic routine, transparency, emotional intelligence, and empathy, given the historical and social role of this professional as a trainer and even an inspirer, of conscious and trained professionals for the labor market.

Finally, when analyzing the study by Aires and Pilatti ( 2017), which separately points out regulatory actions (such as policies and regulations) and preventive actions (such as community orientation), it is concluded that, the measures of the fight against plagiarism, promoted by HEIs, were ineffective, even in those Institutions that formalized some of their actions, with the need to improve or intensify the confrontation of dishonest academic practices.

Category 4.2 – Prevention Policies – PVP

In addition to punishing, it is also necessary to think about ways to prevent dishonest behavior and plagiarism in the academic environment ( Nunes et al., 2012). For most of the participants in this study, such prevention depends on changing people’s mentalities and values, through a structural transformation of universities, often focused on scientific productivity and neglecting the formation of ethical values, on the development of an academic structure that discuss topics such as good conduct in research, among professors, students, technical-administrative staff, etc.

But, however, the reports brought other interesting preventive suggestions:

Some participants reported that an effective way to minimize dishonest activities would be through the professor’s ability to engage during the school period, because according to them, a professor who can adapt to student needs and manage to offer a course that engages students will naturally be able to reduce cases of plagiarism in academic papers and assessments, this is because the student will feel motivated to study and will be committed to the content of the course.

The interviews evidenced several important issues revealed according to the categories. They explain possible origins and causes of the phenomenon, such as pressure to produce and time as a scarce resource, as well as the unintentionally and unconsciously occurrence of plagiarism, for example. Due to these pressures and unconscious behaviors, masters and doctoral students engage in certain dishonest practices. Therefore, the current paper is important to highlight possible consequences and practices to prevent dishonest practices in academia. The next section consolidates the final considerations of this paper.

The article aimed to analyze the meanings and perceptions of graduate programs students (master’s and doc-toral students) in Business Administration, as well as professors of graduate programs (PPGs) from different institutions, in relation to possible practices of dishonest behavior and plagiarism in the academic context. Therefore, the reports addressed unethical practices linked to the postures of university students and professors in their academic daily lives.

The findings of this research are consistent with the idea that such dishonest behavior is motivated by intrinsic and extrinsic factors, and that these frauds occur despite laws that prohibit appropriating third-party content ( Aires & Pilatti, 2017). The participants expressed concern about the consequences that academic dishonesty may cause for the future careers of these individuals, corroborating the findings of studies such as those by Innarelli et al. ( 2011), Sanchez and Innarelli ( 2012), as well as Veludo-de-Oliveira et al. ( 2014).

As theoretical contributions, the study brings current and contextualized evidence in testimonials from students and professors, mostly from PPGs in the area of management, which, as informed in the introduction, would be a research gap to be explored. Respondents reported preventive and corrective practices to combat plagiarism and dishonest behavior but did not specify more detailed planning to seek to resolve such challenges in graduate business programs. Although many proposals have already been tried in other contexts ( e.g., Nunes et al., 2012; Aires & Pilatti, 2017), the present study points to certain paths including the use of more than one preventive and corrective approach. Practical implications encompass the discussion of possible causes and implications of plagiarism and the forms to combat or mitigate the impact of these acts in Business Administration teaching programs, fostering the debate about these deleterious practices in the academic context.

Furthermore, the ethical training of these professionals is a point that can be improved, aiming at their civic development. Limitations of the current research encompass the size of the sample and the fact that the research was conducted only on Brazilian universities. Thus, future research can also expand the investigation to the perceptions of professors and undergraduate students, to graduate programs with different profiles, such as federal institutes focused on technical education, private HEIs, or located in other regions and countries. Finally, it may be interesting to systematically investigate current structures to combat plagiarism and existing ethics committees in PPGs, aiming to assess their performance and perceived effectiveness in combating plagiarism and other unethical behaviors that have affected these HEIs.