c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 75 Perceptions of Students and Teachers of the University of Montenegro on Academic Integrity Sanja Čalović Nenezić* 1 , Milena Krtolica 2 , Milica Jelić 2 and Suzana Šekarić 2 • At the University of Montenegro, increasing emphasis has recently been placed on academic integrity. Academic integrity is based on the princi - ples of honesty, objectivity, openness, freedom in teaching and research, and responsibility to academia and society/the community. One of the ba - sic principles of academic integrity is honesty. The present study is based on examining the perception of students and teachers of the University of Montenegro concerning different segments of academic honesty. The aim of the research was to examine ethical behaviour related to respect for some - one else’s work (using and referring to literature) and copying as well as us - ing illicit means in exams . The research was conducted using quantitative research on a sample of 200 students and 50 teachers at the University of Montenegro. For this purpose, the authors used a Likert-type assessment scale. The findings suggest that the respondents understand the impor - tance of academic integrity, that is, honesty as its principle, but that they do not recognise all of the segments that it covers in the same way. For example, different answers were received regarding the claim that students copy papers without paraphrasing, and despite the observed negative at - titude towards the disciplinary procedure in both groups, teachers seem to lead in this attitude. Keywords: academic integrity, cheating, plagiarism, teachers, students 1 *Corresponding Author. Faculty of Philosophy, University of Montenegro, Podgorica, Montenegro; sanjac@ucg.ac.me. 2 Faculty of Philosophy, University of Montenegro, Podgorica, Montenegro. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.1589 76 perceptions of students and teachers of the university of montenegro on ... Percepcije študentov in univerzitetnih učiteljev Univerze v Črni gori o akademski integriteti Sanja Čalović Nenezić, Milena Krtolica, Milica Jelić in Suzana Šekarić • Na Univerzi v Črni gori (Univerzitet Crne Gore) se v zadnjem času vse bolj poudarja akademska integriteta. Ta temelji na načelih poštenosti, objektivnosti, odprtosti, svobode pri poučevanju in raziskovanju ter od - govornosti do akademske sfere in družbe/skupnosti. Eno izmed osnov - nih načel akademske integritete je poštenost. Ta študija temelji na preu - čevanju percepcij študentov in univerzitetnih učiteljev Univerze v Črni gori glede različnih segmentov akademske poštenosti. Cilj raziskave je bil preučiti etično vedenje, povezano s spoštovanjem tujega dela (upo - raba in sklicevanje na literaturo) in prepisovanjem ter z uporabo nedo - voljenih sredstev pri izpitih. Raziskava je bila izvedena s kvantitativno raziskavo na vzorcu 200 študentov in 50 učiteljev na Univerzi v Črni gori. V ta namen so avtorji uporabili ocenjevalno lestvico Likertovega tipa. Ugotovitve kažejo, da anketiranci razumejo pomen akademske in - tegritete, tj. poštenosti kot njenega načela, vendar pa ne prepoznavajo vseh segmentov, ki jih zajema, na enak način. Različni so bili na primer odgovori glede trditve, da študentje prepisujejo prispevke brez parafra - ziranja, kljub opaženemu negativnemu odnosu do disciplinskega po - stopka v obeh skupinah pa se zdi, da v tem odnosu vodijo učitelji. Ključne besede: akademska integriteta, goljufanje, plagiatorstvo, univerzitetni učitelji, študentje c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 77 Introduction Various forms of cheating have been recognised as a problem both in schools and in higher education institutions recently. The present paper exam - ines various segments of academic honesty from the perspective of students and teachers at the University of Montenegro. The Code of Ethics of the Univer - sity of Montenegro (Article 2, Point 14) includes the prohibition of any form of copying and the use of illegal aids in exams, as well as other forms of deception and fraud by students. Academic Integrity, Article 2 of the Law on Academic Integrity (Official Gazette of Montenegro, No. 17/19), refers to academic behaviour that ensures the preservation of academic honesty, the dignity of the profession, the quality of work and work products, the spirit of equal cooperation with all participants in the academic process, focus on the truth as a fundamental value, and respect for legal regulations as the basic responsibility of members of the academic community, i.e., any behaviour that follows the principles of academic integrity (Law on Academic Integrity, 2019). All members of the academic community should behave following a code of ethics. The values that enable the academic community to implement these principles are trust, respect, sincerity, honesty, responsibility and courage. Academic autonomy is the result of the regulation (agreed or dictated) of the relationship between the government and the aca - demic community (Zgaga, 2022), which is a segment of academic integrity. Academic cheating or dishonesty refers to behaviour that violates the rules on taking exams or completing assignments and unfairly favours one stu - dent over another (Cizek, 2004). If one student copies from another, it is active cheating, and if s/he allows another to copy from him/her, it is passive cheating (Eisenberg, 2004). Behaviours that are considered academically dishonest can be classified into the following categories: copying during written knowledge assessment, cheating/plagiarism while writing written papers (essays, term pa - pers), inventing a bibliography, handing in someone else’s work (work written by someone else), and downloading someone else’s text without citation (Mc - Cabe et al., 2001). It seems that the culture of tolerance and support for cheat - ing among students, teachers and parents (all of whom work together to help students achieve the best possible results) is often present and that the actors do not recognise all forms of cheating (Šorgo et al., 2015). Research results (Strom & Storm, 2007; Jones, 2011; Mercè et al., 2012) show that there are several key reasons why students exhibit this behaviour. One of them may be a lack of student success and the consequent need to find a way to pass difficult exams, but another source of this behaviour may be teachers 78 perceptions of students and teachers of the university of montenegro on ... themselves, along with their lack of concern for rectifying poor student success. The reasons may also be sought in parents who believe that the ultimate goal is to achieve a good result regardless of the means. Additionally, the “spillover” of wider social influences on school learning and the individual, in the sense of achieving personal benefit at the expense of others, seems particularly impor - tant (Strom & Strom, 2007). Similar reasons have been noted by Jones (2011), who highlights grades, procrastination and a lack of time to study. Research shows a positive connection between academic dishonesty and procrastination, i.e., a high level of procrastination positively correlates with the occurrence of academic dishonesty (Mercè et al., 2012). In contrast to those who procrastinate, there are students who self-reg - ulate their learning. Self-regulation in the broadest sense refers to the ability to focus attention, manage emotions, and control and direct behaviour in order to achieve a certain goal (Blair & Razza, 2007; Calkins & Williford, 2009; Rimm- Kaufman et al., 2009). Academic self-regulation implies the ability to direct one’s own behav - iour in the field of learning. Self-regulated learners are more aware of their own cognitive strategies, ways of thinking, and control of the learning process (Weinstein & Mayer, 1986; Hamman et al., 2000; Winne & Hadwin 1998; Zim - merman 1994; Schraw & Dennison, 1994; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Academic integrity represents one of the fundamental starting points on which academic self-regulation is based. When it comes to academic honesty, motivational factors are seen as un - avoidable. They shape the intention underlying academic cheating, while vari - ous contextual factors increase the likelihood that this intention will be realised (Murdock & Anderman, 2006; see also Ramberg & Modin, 2019, according to Putarek & Pavlin-Bernardić, 2020). In addition to the culture from which the students come, contextual factors also include the characteristics of the teachers, the conditions at the college and the quantity of student obligations, and access to the Internet and telephones during exams, but also the perceived severity of the punishment, the perception of cheating others and the existence of a code of eth - ics (Putarek & Pavlin-Bernardić, 2020). Torres-Cladera et al. (2021) understands the teacher’ s professional identity as an ongoing process of interpretation and reinterpretation of experiences. These experiences are shaped in social inter - actions constructed in professional spaces of relationships with others, where each person undergoes different processes of identification, representation and attribution, creating a spiral of continuous construction or reconstruction. It is important to identify the factors associated with cheating and the ways they can be reduced or eliminated. In the present paper, we devote special c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 79 attention to attitudes about academic honesty, the use of literature and plagia - rism, as well as the use of illegal means. Citation of related literature and the problem of plagiarism The citation of sources is one of the key means by which we try to con - firm the credibility of our scientific work. Citing sources has been used to con - nect scientific texts only since 1910. Until then, the importance of respecting intellectual property was discussed, but no significant attention was paid to cit - ing references (Hebrang Grgić, 2016). When using a particular text in the form of a quotation, it is recom - mended to find the original source (if possible), transfer it to the text in an accepted form (exactly as it is), mark it with quotation marks to indicate that it is a quotation, and necessarily indicate the references. It is important to note that direct quotations should not be too long; they should be clearly marked and included in the text, thus enhancing it in terms of credibility and quality. If the quote is shorter, it is included in the text without any special formatting; if it is longer than ten words, it must be marked separately, in accordance with the instructions for citing sources. When references are available, our work gains veracity and credibility, thus improving its quality. However, it is necessary to cite exact and complete references, so that, if required, the source can be found and interested readers can gain a broader insight into the topic and synthesise knowledge. Each work considered when writing the paper should be cited as a source. Therefore, the author should include all books (both printed and e-editions), articles, sources from the Internet, pictures, diagrams, illustrations, photographs, parts of the author’s own works, unpublished works, segments of lectures, interviews, ma - terials from meetings, conferences, and the like through paraphrasing, citing or downloading or redirecting to specific data (Gotal, 2018). “Y ou must cite the sources (including images and graphs) used while creating presentations, post - ers, scripts or e-courses, video content, audio content, and posts on blogs or social networks. Citation is mandatory regardless of whether the contents will be published or not. ” (Hebrang Grgić et al., 2018, p. 10). When citing sources, paraphrasing is also used in addition to citation. Paraphrasing should be such that the use of someone else’ s text is carefully cited, written in one’s own words, but retaining the author’s original ideas. This pro - cess is very complex, so it is necessary to carefully consider the ideas, thoughts and the entire work that we are paraphrasing. Therefore, if we are not sure that we have conveyed the original ideas in the right way, it is better to quote and 80 perceptions of students and teachers of the university of montenegro on ... preserve them that way. When paraphrasing, it is very important to provide the correct information about the cited source. These data come at the end of the sentence and appear in the text as footnotes or text notes, depending on the se - lected method of citation or the instructions that have been received. This helps readers easily find the original cited/paraphrased work. The quality use of literature significantly contributes to the foundation of one’s own ideas, as well as the quality of the work. If paraphrasing is inad - equately applied, whether due to ignorance or intentionally, it can turn into plagiarism, which is one of the segments of academic “dishonesty” . Plagiarism is explained as literal theft, appropriation of someone else’s au - thorship, presentation of someone else’s work under one’s own name, as well as inclusion of parts of someone else’s work in one’s own (Gačić, 2012). Several types of plagiarism can be distinguished in professional and scientific work. The best known to us are copying (using someone else’s text without citing the source), as well as appropriating and using someone else’ s ideas or work results. By imprecise referencing, someone else’s work (the results of the work, knowledge, etc.) is pre - sented as the author’s own work. It is very important to point out that in all cases, the imprecise use of references is a criminal offence, and that there is a moral and criminal responsibility for all those who practise this type of fraud, which can result in the loss of titles and other rights achieved in this way (Gačić, 2012). Plagiarism is becoming a complex, burning issue at all levels of edu - cation. Despite numerous verification services and the many researchers and academic professionals engaged in plagiarism research, the problems of pla - giarism are still extremely salient (Altbach, 2005; Colella-Sandercock & Alah - madi, 2015; Eaton et al., 2017; Leonard et al., 2015). Studies have shown that academic “dishonesty” , including plagiarism and inadequate use of literature, was already on the rise at the end of the twentieth century (Alschuler & Blim - ling, 1995; Ludeman, 1988; Park, 2003). Although there are indications that traditional cut-paste plagiarism is on the decline (Curtis & Tremayne, 2019; Curtis & Vardanega, 2016; McCabe, 2016), possibly due to the emergence and increasing use of plagiarism detection software, this certainly does not mean that non-academic behaviour is also declining. In her monograph on the topic, Eaton (2021) points out that all of the indicators suggest that “cut-paste” copy - ing is only the tip of the iceberg, and that in practice there are numerous other varieties of academic “dishonesty” , such as online services (writing papers, ap - propriating other people’s papers), the emergence of predatory publishers and journals, paraphrasing software, and the like. Plagiarism (and non-academic actions in general) among students is typically regarded as petty fraud, and students do not think about whether their c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 81 actions are correct (Baruchson & Yaari, 2004). They are often not even aware that they are doing something bad and illegal, usually because they are not fa - miliar with the rules of quoting and citing references when writing. Universities should contribute to greater awareness and the adoption of knowledge related to the prevention of plagiarism, academic misconduct, cheating in exams, and the like. Many universities have clearly presented ways of citing sources and specific punitive procedures in case of non-compliance (Breen & Maassen, 2005). In the process of preventing academic dishonesty and cheating among students, procedures for detecting plagiarism (software and the like) make a significant contribution. In order to recognise types of plagiarism, it is necessary to understand the forms in which plagiarism occurs. Certain forms show ignorance or care - lessness, while others indicate a clear intention to plagiarise. Moreover, the imitation of the styles of other authors has also been identified as academic misbehaviour. However, the most serious form is conscious plagiarism, such as unauthorised downloads of a large part of the text, texts composed of segments of different works, plagiarism by translation, incomplete labelling, and the like (Barton, 2005). Considerable attention has been paid to these problems recently. Ac - cording to research by Finn and Frone (2004), about 30% of primary school students and as many as 70% of secondary school and university students have taken part in various forms of academic cheating, while students with lower average grades are more prone to cheating (McCabe & Treviño, 1997). Among the research that sheds light on the factors of illegal behaviour is a study con - ducted by Bernardi et al. (2012), which showed that cheating and the use of illegal means are associated with the degree of social (un)desirability, and that this further conditions the future behaviour of students. Another study links the frequency of cheating with work avoidance goals and contextual factors (Putarek et al., 2022). Different forms of illegal acquisition of diplomas, plagiarism and cheat - ing in exams are increasingly present in higher education institutions around the world (Magnus et al., 2002; Ćurak et al., 2016). This phenomenon has been recognised as a characteristic of both developed countries and countries in transition, where general conditions (economic uncertainty, insufficient num - ber of jobs, etc.) lead to a lack of ethical principles and criteria for acquiring knowledge, diplomas and qualifications at all levels of education (Ćurak et al., 2016). Plagiarism is not and should not be a solution for a lack of inspiration; instead, responsible and quality writing should be promoted. 82 perceptions of students and teachers of the university of montenegro on ... Academic cheating (use of illegal means in an exam) Academic cheating is typically associated with copying in written ex - ams: whispering answers to another student, copying from another student, using illegal written notes (“tubes”), electronic devices (mobile phones, bug microphones – “bugs”), etc. In the broadest sense, academic cheating includes all deliberate and conscious ways of achieving advantages in academic work that conflict with legal regulations, ethical and academic norms, and rules. In addition to copying in exams, this includes various forms of plagiarism, falsifi - cation of research data and results, corrupt activities such as taking advantage of friendship and family ties, and the provision of material and immaterial ser - vices in exchange for passing an exam (Ćurak et al., 2016). The issue of academic cheating is the focus of numerous studies. In coop - eration with the International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI), Donald Mc - Cabe (2016) conducted a study on academic cheating at Texas Tech colleges on a sample of 1043 students and 479 members of the academic staff (community). The results showed that about 98% of the respondents from the ranks of students and academic staff reported having noticed or witnessed forms of academic cheat - ing once, while 44% of the students and 33.9% of the teachers pointed out that it happens often or very often (DuPree & Sattler, 2010). In March 2020, the ICAI conducted research on a sample of 840 students, which showed that around 30% of the respondents cheat in exams in various ways (Facts and Statistics, 2022). Hrabak et al. (2004) conducted research on a sample of students at the Faculty of Medicine in Zagreb. The results showed that 94% of students cheated at least once during their studies. In 2006, a large survey was conducted in Bos - nia and Herzegovina on a sample of 500 students at four universities, with 55% of the students answering yes to the question of whether they had ever cheated on exams during their studies (Ćurak et al., 2016). Štambuk, Maričić and Hanzec (2015) have carried out research on academic cheating on a sample of teachers in primary and secondary schools and colleges in Croatia. The results reveal that there is no diff erence in per- reveal that there is no difference in per - ception when it comes to the frequency of cheating in relation to the levels of education, that is, the majority of teachers at all levels encountered this problem sometimes (45.9%) or often (24.2%). However, the authors point out the worry - ing fact that more than half of teachers ignore cheating in some situations. The authors also highlight the importance of making a clear distinction between teachers’ views on the acceptability of cheating and their actual behaviour: the teachers considered all allegations of cheating to be mostly or absolutely unac - ceptable, but were still willing to ignore them in some situations. c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 83 Although academic cheating is considered unethical behaviour, as it rep - resents a violation of academic integrity, it seems that it is very widespread. The Code of Ethics of the University of Montenegro (2019, p.4) clearly states that “any form of copying and use of illegal aids on exams, as well as other forms of decep - tion and fraud by students, is prohibited. Academic staff must not enable and tolerate copying nor other forms of student cheating during knowledge testing. ” However, research into this problem indicates that academic dishonesty has be - come so widespread that it is no longer possible to speak of incidental behaviour, but of widespread behaviour (Cerić, 2018), i.e., society regards cheating as an ac - ceptable, even desirable, form of behaviour (Štambuk et al., 2015). Research goal and hypothesis The goal of the present research is to examine the perceptions of Univer - sity of Montenegro teachers and students in relation to academic honesty as an important segment of academic integrity, namely: ethical behaviour in connec - tion with respecting other people’s work (using and referring to literature) and copying and using illegal means in exams. The operationalisation of the goal resulted in the following hypotheses: H1: It is assumed that teachers and students consider academic honesty as a significant segment of academic integrity. H2: It is assumed that teachers have negative attitudes towards the use of literature and students have positive attitudes. H3: It is assumed that teachers and students consider plagiarism undesirable. H4: It is assumed that teachers and students perceive that illegal means are used during studies. The independent variables in the research were: faculty, title and years of service for the teachers; and faculty, study programme, year of study and aver - age grade in studies for the students. Method Instruments and research design Quantitative research was conducted using Likert-type rating scales for teachers and students, which were created specifically for the purposes of this research. The respondents gave assessments in relation to the offered statements 84 perceptions of students and teachers of the university of montenegro on ... on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating minimum agreement and 5 indicating maximum agreement. The Academic Honesty Assessment Scale for Teachers has high reliabil - ity, as confirmed by the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α = 0.85). The Academic Honesty Assessment Scale for Students also has a high reliability coefficient (α = 0.87). In addition to descriptive statistics, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used when processing the data in order to determine whether independ - ent variables influence variability within the groups (for teachers, the treated variables were years of experience, title and faculty, and for students, they were faculty, study programme, average grades and years of study). Participants Sample overview by independent variables The research was conducted on a sample of 250 respondents (200 stu - dents and 50 teachers) at the University of Montenegro during the 2020/21 aca - demic year. More than half of the respondents were teachers from the Faculty of Philosophy (54%), while 46% were from the Faculty of Philology. The sample consisted of 14% full-time and 16% part-time teachers, while 18% of the teachers had the title of assistant or associate professor with a doctorate, and 34% were teaching associates. The group of teachers with up to 5 years of experience ac - counted for 16% of the teachers surveyed, while 30% had 6–5 years of teaching experience. The largest group of the respondents (44%) had 16–25 years of ser - vice, while 8% had 26–35 years and only 2% had more than 35 years of service. Of the total number of students surveyed, 68% were from the Faculty of Philosophy and 32% from the Faculty of Philology. The study programme for Pedagogy participated with 23% of the respondents, Psychology with 15.5%, Teacher Education with 14.5%, Preschool Education with 9.5%, Languages with 28.5% and other study programmes with 9%. The majority of the respondents (61%) were engaged in undergraduate studies and 39% were undertaking mas - ter’s studies. The largest group of the respondents had an average grade of C (42.5%), followed by 31% with a grade of D and 16.5% with an average grade of B, while the grades of E and A were each represented by 5% of the respondents. c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 85 Results and discussion The importance of academic honesty The first research task was related to an assessment of the importance of academic honesty. The respondents had to evaluate the importance of cer - tain segments of academic integrity, of which academic honesty is an integral part. The statements were rated from 1 to 5, where 1 is not significant at all, 2 is mostly not significant, 3 is moderately significant, 4 is mostly significant, and 5 is extremely significant. Figure 1 shows the results of the assessment, i.e., the calculated arithmetic means received for the answers given by our two groups of respondents: students and teachers. Figure 1 The importance of academic honesty The results obtained show that the majority of the teachers and students consider academic honesty to be extremely important. The most highly rated claim among the teachers is Respect for other people’ s works, books and articles (M = 4.78), while students placed the greatest importance on Mutual respect of students and teachers (M = 4.75). The lowest average score for the teachers was obtained for the statement Basing the content of the teaching on valid and scientifically current sources, with an average score of 4.56, while for students the statement Negative attitude towards the use of any forms of copying was rated with a mean score of 3.94. This is the only statement that is rated below 4 on a scale of 1 to 5. 86 perceptions of students and teachers of the university of montenegro on ... Using literature The second research task was related to attitudes towards the use of lit - erature. The respondents expressed their views on certain claims (Figure 2) and evaluated certain segments concerning the proper reference to literature when writing papers (Figure 3). Figure 2 Adequate use of literature: attitudes of teachers and students Figure 3 Adequate use of literature: attitudes of teachers and students c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 87 The findings of the research show that both teachers and students are aware of the necessity of the proper use of literature. Both rated respecting the rules when citing references as the most important statement (teachers: M = 4.68; students: M = 4.37). Contrasting attitudes of teachers and students can, however, be identified, as teachers think that students do not refer to literature in the right way (M = 2.90), while students think that they mostly do it well (M = 4.40). In terms of the importance and quality of references to literature, favouring foreign research received the lowest rating (teachers: M = 3.42; students: M = 3.22). When we summarise the attitudes of students and teachers in relation to the way they use literature, all of the grades are relatively uniform. The exception is the afore - mentioned reference to literature, as well as copying papers (teachers: M = 3.20; students: M = 1.76). Teachers believe that a much higher percentage of students copy papers than the students themselves indicate. Plagiarism The third research task examined attitudes towards plagiarism (the fourth and fifth questions in the questionaries). In the fourth question, the respondents of both groups were asked to state what happens when teachers notice plagiarism (Figure 4). The fifth question asked the teachers what they would do in a situation where they noticed plagiarism, while the students were asked to assess what teachers should do in that situation (Figure 5). Figure 4 Reactions to plagiarism The results obtained indicate that in the case of recognition of plagia - rism, the works are most often returned after the inspection (teachers: M = 4.38; students: M = 3.54), while the least popular measures are reporting to the board 88 perceptions of students and teachers of the university of montenegro on ... (teachers: M = 2.00; students: M = 2.65) and cancelling the mentorship (teach - ers: M = 2.32; students: M = 2.47). Figure 5 Reactions to plagiarism (forecast) Since we could not assume with certainty that all of the teachers had encountered plagiarism, or that the students followed the reactions of teach - ers in relation to plagiarism, we also asked what the teachers would do in that situation (Figure 5). The results are complementary to the data received regard - ing the previous claims. The opinion is repeated that in case of plagiarism, the work would be returned (teachers: M = 4.36; students: M = 4.15), and the least popular measures are reporting to the board (teachers: M = 2.70; students: M = 3.10) and cancelling the mentorship (teachers: M = 2.76; students: M = 2.77). Use of illegal means The fourth research task was related to the use of illegal means during different types of student performance checks. Arithmetic averages based on individual scale values are shown on the graphs. The first question within this task was related to the assessment of whether the respondents had had an opportunity to observe the following situ - ations regarding theses (graduation and seminar papers): a graduation thesis taken from another author and rewritten, a finished thesis downloaded from the Internet, or a so-called “bought” thesis. The average values of all of the an - swers are around the 3, that is, it happens, but rarely (Figure 6), which means that the situations mentioned are not unknown to the respondents, but nor are they a frequent occurrence at the faculties where the research was conducted. c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 89 Figure 6 Use of illegal means: diploma and other theses The seventh question investigated the attitude of the respondents re - garding warning or reporting a colleague who had plagiarised work. The ma - jority of the respondents from both groups answered that they would warn their colleagues, but not report them (Figure 7). It is important to point out that the teachers are stricter than the students in their reactions to the use of illegal means when writing papers, which was expected by the researchers. Figure 7 Reactions to the use of illegal means In the eighth question, the respondents assessed the extent to which students use certain illegal means in written knowledge tests. The calculated arithmetic averages of the answers showed that the least used illegal means are bugs (teachers: M = 2.78; students: M = 2.47), and the most used are phones (teachers: M = 3.72; students M = 3.59). Overall, the results show that illicit means are used moderately. 90 perceptions of students and teachers of the university of montenegro on ... Figure 8 The most common illegal means used in written knowledge tests The ninth question was aimed at the students. We wanted to determine the extent to which they consider certain behaviours correct, e.g., copying from a colleague’s test, using illegal means, etc. (Figure 9): Figure 9 Students’ reactions to academic misdemeanour The results obtained showed that students do not think it is right to take an exam instead of another colleague (M = 1.3), use illegal means (M = 1.96) or copy from others in an exam (M = 2.12). On the other hand, they would not report a colleague who was using illegal means (M = 1.7) and partially consider it correct to allow another student to copy from them in an exam (M = 3.34). The next question relates to examining the measures taken when a stu - dent uses illegal means. The answers are shown in Figure 10. c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 91 Figure 10 Measures for a committed misdemeanour It is evident that, according to the opinion of both groups of respond - ents, teachers are least likely to resort to initiating disciplinary proceedings against those who use illegal means (teachers: M = 1.96; students: M = 2.31). Re - moval is the measure most often used (teachers: M = 3.74; students: M = 3.85). Finally, the students assessed how teachers should react in the case of us - ing illegal means (Figure 11). They believe that teachers should ask the student to leave the test/exam (M = 3.72), warn the offender (M = 3.25), or cancel his/ her test/exam (M = 3.2). They mostly believe that the teacher should not initiate disciplinary proceedings (M = 2.24). Figure 11 Students’ preferred measures for use of illegal means 92 perceptions of students and teachers of the university of montenegro on ... Differences in students’ attitudes towards academic honesty regarding faculty, study programme, year of study and average grades In this section, the differences in students’ attitudes towards academic honesty are determined with regard to faculty, study programme, year of study and average grades. The first step is to determine whether there are differences in the aforementioned attitudes of the students of the Faculty of Philosophy and the Faculty of Philology. Table 1 Differences in the students’ answers regarding faculty (descriptive statistics and ANOVA) Sums Faculty N M SD F df sig. S2 Philosophy 136 18.66 3.20 6.34 1 0.01 Philology 64 19.92 3.51 Total 200 19.07 3.34 S3 Philosophy 136 22.18 3.82 8.33 1 0.00 Philology 64 20.56 3.38 Total 200 21.66 3.76 Based on the presented results, it can be concluded that there are statis - tically significant differences in the attitudes of the students of the Faculty of Philosophy and the Faculty of Philology, particularly regarding answers related to the statements investigating attitudes about the use of literature (S2 3 and S3 4 : correct use and citation of literature). The following values were obtained: S2: F = 6.34 and p = 0.01 and S3: F = 8.33 and p = 0.00, which confirms statistically significant differences at the 0.01 level. According to these results, we can con - clude that students from different faculties have different views on using and citing literature. The following table presents the identified differences within certain study programmes. The differences were identified within the statements related to the 3 S2: Statements about attitudes: When studying and writing papers, I try to use the most recent, current research and findings; I try to systematise the achievements of researchers who previously worked/researched in a certain field; I use foreign research and literature in English; I take over other people’s work while respecting the rules of citing literature; I follow the referencing rules consistently . 4 S3: Questions about use of literature: I refer to the literature in the right way (I respect certain rules of writing papers, e.g., APA style); Sometimes I use parts of other people’s works as my own without citing references; Sometimes I copy works, even if I don’t paraphrase them; When I paraphrase a text, it is not always necessary to refer to the literature; I use a small number of sources when writing papers; I always check the credibility of sources (especially those downloaded from the Internet); I list literature in the list of references of the diploma or other thesis, even if I have not used it; I use recent, foreign research when writing papers . c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 93 very understanding of academic integrity (S1), 5 use of references (S2), handling in the event of plagiarism (S4) 6 and copying and use of illegal means (S9). 7 Table 2 Differences in the students’ answers regarding study programme (descriptive statistics and ANOVA) Sums Study Programme N M SD F df sig. S1 Pedagogy 46 31.61 2.43 2.94 5 0.01 Psychology 31 31.77 2.93 Preschool Education 19 31.16 4.61 Teacher Training 29 31.31 2.90 Languages 57 31.53 3.60 Others 18 28.22 5.72 Total 200 31.22 3.62 S2 Pedagogy 46 18.72 2.78 3.40 5 0.01 Psychology 31 20.06 4.10 Preschool Education 19 17.21 2.74 Teacher training 29 18.07 3.05 Languages 57 19.98 3.55 Others 18 18.89 2.35 Total 200 19.07 3.34 S4 Pedagogy 46 11.09 1.68 2.86 5 0.02 Psychology 31 9.19 2.66 Preschool Education 19 10.74 1.94 Teacher Training 29 10.24 1.92 Languages 57 10.56 2.57 Others 18 10.22 2.31 Total 200 10.41 2.29 S9 Pedagogy 46 17.52 3.32 3.64 5 0.00 Psychology 31 15.19 3.92 Preschool Education 19 16.89 2.85 Teacher Training 29 17.14 2.81 Languages 57 17.89 3.39 Others 18 15.67 2.14 Total 200 16.99 3.35 5 S1: Understanding of academic integrity: Having respect for personality (of students and colleagues); Respecting other people’s work; Mutual respect of students and teachers; Negative attitude towards the use of any forms of copying, cheating and other misdemeanours in exams; Objective testing and evaluation; Respect for copyright (independent creation of seminar papers etc.); Basing the teaching content on valid and current scientific sources. 6 S4: Handling in the event of plagiarism: Returned the work after the inspection; Reported to the board; For partial plagiarism, returned the work and suggested changes; Cancelled the mentorship. 7 S9: Copying and use of illegal means: Copy from others in an exam; Allow someone else to copy from you in the exam; Use various ways of cheating (tubes, telephone, bugs); Take the exam instead of another student; Report a colleague if you see him/her using illegal means. 94 perceptions of students and teachers of the university of montenegro on ... The results obtained indicate that there are significant differences in the at - titudes of students whose answers were synthesised in the groups: Pedagogy, Psy - chology, Preschool Education, Teacher Training and Other Study Programmes. The conclusion is based on the obtained F values: F = 2.94 and p = 0.01 for the sums received in relation to the statements examining attitudes towards the im - portance of academic integrity; F = 3.40 and p = 0.01 for the statements regarding using a reference; F = 2.86 and p = 0.02 for the sums calculated for answers related to dealing with plagiarism; F = 3.64 and p = 0.00 for using illegal means and re - writing in exams. Further statistical processing involving multiple comparisons made it possible to compare individual study programmes. Table 3 Differences in the students’ answers regarding study programme (multiple comparison) Sums Study Programme (I) Study Programme (J) Difference AS (I-J) Sig. S1 Pedagogy Psychology Preschool Education Teacher Training Languages Others -0.16 0.45 0.30 0.08 3.39 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 Psychology Pedagogy Preschool Education Teacher Training Languages Others 0.16 0.62 0.46 0.25 3.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 Languages Pedagogy Psychology Preschool Education Teacher Training Others -0.08 -0.25 0.37 0.22 3.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 S2 Psychology Pedagogy Preschool Education Teacher Training Languages Others 1.35 2.85 2.00 0.08 1.18 1.00 0.04 0.28 1.00 1.00 Preschool Education Pedagogy Psychology Teacher Training Languages Others -1.51 -2.85 -0.86 -2.77 -1.68 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.02 1.00 S4 Pedagogy Psychology Preschool Education Teacher Training Languages Others 1.89 0.35 0.85 0.53 0.86 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 S9 Pedagogy Psychology Preschool Education Teacher Training Languages Others 2.33 0.63 0.38 -0.37 1.85 0.03 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.62 c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 95 The results shown in Table 3 highlight the differences identified in the domain of assessment of elements of academic integrity between students from the study programme Pedagogy and other study programmes (difference of arithmetic means 3.39; p = 0.01); the study programme Psychology and other study programmes (difference of arithmetic means 3.55; p = 0.01); and Lan - guage study programmes and other study programs (difference of arithmetic means 3.30; p = 0.01). The students planning to become kindergarten teachers and psycholo - gists show different attitudes towards the statements related to the use of litera - ture (difference of arithmetic means 2.85; p = 0.04), as well as those studying at the Preschool department compared to those studying Philology (difference of arithmetic means -2.77; p = 0.02). The students of Pedagogy and Psychology evaluate statements related to plagiarism of works differently (difference of arithmetic means 1.89; p = 0.00), as well as copying and use of illegal means (difference of arithmetic means 2.33; p = 0.03). These differences are somewhat surprising, as the two study pro - grammes are related, being connected and referring to each other methodo - logically and in an interdisciplinary sense. One of the causes of the differences in relation to the use of literature may lie in the fact that in the preparation of future educators, more attention is paid to practical activities at the expense of academic writing and the use of literature. Table 4 shows the differences in the students’ answers regarding the use of literature. For example, some of the point states are: I follow the referencing rules consistently; I use foreign research and literature in English; I refer to the literature in the right way (I respect certain rules of writing papers, e.g., APA style). The results are presented with regard to the year of study (please note that only second-year, third-year and master’s students were included in the sample, since freshmen are not sufficiently familiar with all of the elements of academic honesty and the rules of citing literature). 96 perceptions of students and teachers of the university of montenegro on ... Table 4 Differences in the students’ answers regarding year of study (descriptive statistics and ANOVA) Sums Year of study N M SD F df sig. S2 Second 39 20.21 2.56 3.15 2 0.04 Third 83 18.98 3.58 Master’s degree 78 18.59 3.33 Total 200 19.07 3.34 S3 Second 39 20.79 3.25 3.60 2 0.03 Third 83 21.27 3.92 Master’s degree 78 22.51 3.69 Total 200 21.66 3.76 The starting point for the research was the assumption that students have different prior knowledge in relation to the year of study they attend, with regard to different segments of academic honesty. As we assumed, the most significant differences were observed in students’ attitudes regarding the use of literature (F = 3.15; p = 0.04 and F = 3.60; p = 0.03). In order to supplement these findings, a multiple comparison for the variable of year of study was ap - plied (Table 5). Table 5 Differences in students’ answers in relation to the year of study (multiple comparison) Sums Year of study (I) Year of study (J) Difference AS (I-J) sig. S2 Second year Third year Master’s degree 1.23 1.61 0.17 0.04 Third year Second year Master’s degree -1.23 0.39 0.17 1.00 Master’s degree Second year Third year -1.61 -0.39 0.04 1.00 S3 Second year Third year Master’s degree -0.47 -1.72 1.00 0.05 Third year Second year Master’s degree 0.47 -1.25 1.00 0.10 Master’s degree Second year Third year 1.72 1.25 0.05 0.10 The most significant differences were observed between master’s stu - dents and second-year students (F = 3.15, sig = 0.04 for the second question, and F = 3.60, sig = 0.03 for the third question). This result is somewhat expected, c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 97 since master’s students have more experience and a wider body of knowledge (they have completed more seminar papers and essays, as well as final papers, which necessarily imply respect for the rules of using literature). Tables 6 and 7 show the differences in the students’ answers with regard to their average grades. Table 6 Differences in the students’ answers regarding average grades (descriptive statistics and ANOVA) Sums Average Grade N M SD F df sig. S2 Pass grade E 10 16.40 3.98 2.78 4 0.03 Sufficient D 62 19.24 3.20 Good C 85 18.76 3.33 Very good B 33 20.06 3.29 Excellent A 10 19.90 2.64 Total 200 19.07 3.34 Potential differences in the students’ answers regarding their success in studying (average grade) are illustrated by the presented results, i.e., the obtained values (F = 2.78; p = 0.03), at a statistically significant level of 0.05. Statistical indicators, including calculated arithmetic means and standard de - viations, refer to the second block of statements with which attitudes to the literature were examined. When a multiple comparison was applied within this variable, it was possible to determine the categories of students between which differences were found, regarding their success and average grade. Table 7 Differences in the students’ answers compared to average grades (multiple comparison) Factors Average Grade (I) Average Grade (J) Difference AS (I-J) sig. S2 Pass grade E Sufficient D Good C Very good B Excellent A -2.84 -2.36 -3.66 -3.50 0.12 0.33 0.02 0.18 It is interesting that, in the segment related to referring to literature, sta - tistically significant differences were found between the answers of students who have sufficient and very good success in their studies. It was assumed that the average grades could be the basis of the obtained differences, and the pre - sented results show that the most prominent differences are between students 98 perceptions of students and teachers of the university of montenegro on ... whose average grade is a pass grade E and very good B (difference of arithmetic means -3.66; p = 0.02). Differences in teachers’ attitudes towards academic honesty with regard to faculty, work experience and academic position In addition to testing the differences in the students’ attitudes, statistical analysis was used to identify differences in the teachers’ attitudes according to the aforementioned variables. Applying descriptive statistics and ANOV A pro - cedures, we did not identify any differences. However, with regard to the title of the teacher, a result was obtained that is at the very limit of statistical signifi - cance (F = 2.66; p = 0.045) and that is based on the sums calculated for the sev - enth block of claims, which refers to plagiarising papers from colleagues, more precisely dealing with plagiarism, and through possible procedures: warning, condemnation, reporting or ignoring. This result is noteworthy and could be a stimulus for further research in this area, as it relates to ethical behaviour in relation to colleagues in the academic community. Conclusions The results of our research indicate that academic honesty is a signifi - cant issue in the academic community of the University of Montenegro. All segments of academic honesty, such as respect for personality (of either stu - dents or colleagues), respect for other people’s work, mutual respect between students and teachers, respect for copyright, and objective examination, were considered extremely important by our respondents. In the first research task, our attention was drawn by the result indicating that the worst average score was given to the statement: Negative attitude towards the use of any forms of copying and cheating (M = 3.94). The students and teachers surveyed also stated that the rules were con - sistently followed when citing references. This result offers an even more opti - mistic picture, along with the previously obtained results on the importance of academic honesty. However, the mean score (M 2.90) obtained for the teachers’ response to the statement Students refer to the literature in the right way, and the mean score for the same statement among the students (M 4.40) speak of different assessments of this extremely significant segment. In addition, dif - ferent answers were received for the claim that students copy papers without paraphrasing (the arithmetic mean for the teachers’ answers was 3.20, but it was only 1.76 for the students’ answers). c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 99 Considering that the problem of plagiarism is defined in multiple ways – forms of plagiarism, inadequate use of sources, illegal copying of text, use of paraphrasing software (Rogerson & McCarthy, 2017), “cut and paste” , inad - equate transcription of material, as well as unauthorised and/or inadequate translations (Eaton, 2021) – we examined how teachers react when they notice plagiarism among students, or how they would handle it in the case that they had not encountered this problem in their practice to date. It is interesting that the results in both cases are complementary, i.e., the least popular measures are reporting to the board (teachers: M = 2.70; students: M = 3.10), as well as terminating mentoring (teachers: M = 2.76; students: M = 2.77). The use of illegal means in exams is, along with plagiarism, a particu - larly important segment of our work. The fact that students undertake various illegal actions in exams was confirmed by the answers of our respondents. The average values obtained indicate slightly higher use of the telephone. Moreover, we consider the result that students would not report a colleague who uses il - legal means (calculated arithmetic mean M = 1.7) to be worrying, even though students think it is wrong for someone to take an exam instead of someone else (M = 1.3) and to use illegal means (M = 1.96). The results obtained by ex - amining teachers are entirely complementary to the results regarding students. Although teachers are keen on using removal as a disciplinary measure (M = 3.84), they avoid initiating disciplinary proceedings against those who use ille - gal means (M = 1.96). The students surveyed believe that the teacher generally does not need to initiate a disciplinary procedure (M = 2.24). It is interesting that, despite the observed negative attitude towards the disciplinary procedure in both cases, the teachers seem to lead in this attitude. Limitations and recommendations for future studies Certain limitations of our research should be mentioned with regard to generalisation of the obtained findings. Although the sample included teach - ers and students from the Faculty of Philosophy and the Faculty of Philology, more complete and objective findings would have been obtained by sampling respondents from others faculties at the University of Montenegro (not only faculties oriented predominantly towards social sciences and the humanities). Future research could include multidimensional analyses that would consider all of the factors that encourage academic integrity (the present research is predominantly of a quantitative type, and qualitative analysis would provide a significant addition). Furthermore, we must keep in mind that our respond - ents were making their own assessments in relation to the offered claims, 100 perceptions of students and teachers of the university of montenegro on ... and that possible subjectivity in the answers received must also be taken into consideration. The results of the research can help us identify problematic situations and define recommendations for work activities with students and teachers that would enable the prevention of unacceptable behaviour from the point of view of academic integrity. These results could be a starting point for future more extensive research on this topic, which would be part of the university’s devel - opment strategy in the area of academic honesty. References Alschuler, A. S., & Blimling, G. S. (1995). Curbing epidemic cheating through systemic change. College Teaching, 43 (4), 123–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.1995.9925531 Altbach, P .  (2005). Academic corruption: The continuing challenge. International Higher Education, 38 . https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ihe/article/view/7454#:~:text=Education%2C%20(38) Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In T. Urdan, & F. Pajares (eds.), Self- efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Information Age Publishing. Barton BE. (2005). Six word rule could turn description into plagiarism. Nature, 436 (24). https://doi.org/10.1038/436024c Baruchson, S. & Y aari, E. (2004). Printed versus internet plagiarism: A study of students’ perception. International Journal of Information Ethics, 1 . http://container.zkm.de/ijie/ijie/no001/ijie_001_05_baruchson.pdf Bernardi, R. A., Banzhoff, C. A., Martino A. M., &. Savasta, K. J. (2012). Challenges to academic integrity: Identifying the factors associated with the cheating chain, accounting education. Accounting Education, 21 (3), 247–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2011.598719 Blair, C., & Razza, R. P . (2007). Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Development, 78 (2), 647–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01019.x Breen, L., & Maassen, M. (2005). Reducing the incidence of plagiarism in an undergraduate course: The role of education. Issues in Educational Research, 15 (1), 1–16. Calkins, S. D., & Williford, A. P . (2009). Taming the terrible twos: Self-regulation and school readiness. In O. A. Barbarin, & B. H. Wasik (eds.), Handbook of child development and early education: Research to practice (pp. 172–198). The Guilford Press. Cerić, H. (2018). „ Varati ili ne varati, pitanje je sad. ” O razlozima akademske nečestitosti. [“To cheat or not to cheat, that is the question now. ” About the reasons for academic dishonesty]. Educa, XI (11), 63–67. Cizek, G. (2004). Cheating in academics. In C. Spielberger (ed.), Encyclopaedia of applied psychology (pp. 307–311). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-657410-3/00815-1 c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 101 Colella-Sandercock, J. A., & Alahmadi, H. W . (2015). Plagiarism education: Strategies for instructors. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 13 (1), 76–84. http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter/article/view/395/190 Ćurak, N., Cerić, H. , & Turcalo, S. (2016). Nelegalni oblici stjecanja znanja na visoko školskim institucijama u Bosni i Hercegovini: Studija socijalne deformacije u akademskoj kulturi [Illegal forms of knowledge acquisition at higher education institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina: A study of social deformation in academic culture]. Atlantic Initiative. Curtis, G. J., & Tremayne, K. (2019). Is plagiarism really on the rise? Results from four 5-yearly surveys. Studies in Higher Education , 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1707792 Curtis, G., & Vardanega, L. (2016). Is plagiarism changing over time? A 10-year time-lag study with three points of measurement. Higher Education Research & Development, 35 (6), 1167–1179. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1161602 DuPree, D., & Sattler, S. (2010). McCabe academic integrity survey report . Texas teach University. Eaton, S. E. (2021). Plagiarism in higher education. Tackling tough topics in academic integrity. Libraries Unlimited An Imprint of ABC-CLIO. Eaton, S. E., Guglielmin, M., & Otoo, B. (2017). Plagiarism: Moving from punitive to pro-active approaches. In A. P . Preciado Babb, L. Y eworiew, & S. Sabbaghan (eds.), Selected proceedings of the IDEAS Conference 2017: Leading Educational Change Conference (pp. 28–36). Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary. https://prism.ucalgary.ca/items/0ada9efa-bf13-4d47-948d-61063258113d Eaton, S.E. (2021). Plagiarism in higher education: Tackling tough topics in academic integrity. Libraries Unlimited. Eisenberg, J. (2004). To cheat or not to cheat: Effects of moral perspective and situational variations on students’ attitudes. Journal of Moral Education, 33 (2), 163–178. Finn, K. V ., & Frone, M. R. (2004). Academic performance and cheating: Moderating role of school identification and self-efficacy. The Journal of Educational Research, 97 (3), 115–122. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.97.3.115-121 Gačić, M. (2012). Pisanje znanstvenih i stručnih radova . [Scientific and professional paper writing]. Školska knjiga. Gotal, E. (2018). Uloga visokoškolske knjižnice u informiranju studenata o citiranju i plagiranju: na primjeru Knjižnice Filozofskog fakulteta . [The role of the university library in informing students about citation and plagiarism: The example of the Faculty of Philosophy Library]. Diplomski rad. Filozofski fakultet. Hamman, D., Berthelot, J., Saia, J., & Crowley, E. (2000). Teachers’ coaching of learning and its relation to students’ strategic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 (2), 342–348. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-05663.92.2.342 Hebrang Grgić, I. (2016). Časopisi i znanstvena komunikac ija [Newspapers and scientific communication]. Naklada Ljevak. 102 perceptions of students and teachers of the university of montenegro on ... Hebrang Grgić, I. Ivanjko, T., Melinščak Zlodi, I., & Mučnjak, D. (2018). Citiranje u digitalnom okruženju. Priručnik. [Citation in the digital environment. A manual]. Hrvatska akademska i istraživačka mreža. https://pilot.e-skole.hr/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Prirucnik_Citiranje-u-digitalnom-okruzenju-1.pdf Hrabak, M., Vujaklija, A., Vodopivec, I., Hren, D., Maru šić, M., & Maru šić, A. (2004). Academic misconduct among medical students in a post-communist country. Medical Education, 38 (1), 276–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2004.01766.x International Center for Academic Integrity (2020). Facts and Statistics. https://academicintegrity.org/resources/facts-and-statistics Jones, D. L. R. (2011). Academic dishonesty: Are more students cheating? Business communication quarterly, 74 (2), 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569911404059 Karabalić, V . (2016). O citiranju u suvremenim hrvatskim pisanim medijima. [About citation in Croatian contemporary written media]. In V . Rišner (ed.), Jezik medija nekada i sada (pp. 148–163). Hrvatska sveučilišna naklada / Filozofski fakultet u Osijeku. Law on Academic Integrity. (2019). Official Gazette of Montenegro, 17/19. Leonard, M., Schwieder, D., Buhler, A., Beaubien Bennett, D., & Royster, M. (2015). Perceptions of plagiarism by STEM graduate students: A case study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21 (6), 1587–1608. Ludeman, R. (1988). A survey of academic integrity practices in U.S. higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 29 , 172–173. Magnus, J. R., Polterovich, V . M., Danilov, D. L., & Savvateev, A. V . (2002). Tolerance of cheating: An analysis across countries. Journal of Economic Education, 33 , 125–135. Mccabe, D., & Trevino, L. (1997). Individual and contextual influences on academic dishonesty: A multicampus investigation. Research in Higher Education, 38 . https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024954224675. McCabe, D. (2016). Cheating and honor: Lessons from a long-term research project. In T. Bretag (ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 187–198). Springer Singapore. McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research . Ethics and Behavior, 11 (3), 219–232. Mercè, C., Concepción G., M. del Mar, B., & Ramon C. (2012). Procrastination and cheating from secondary school to university . Facultat de Psicologia, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Park, C. (2003). In other (people’s) words: Plagiarism by university students—literature and lessons. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28 (5), 471–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293032000120352 Pintrich, P ., & Schunk, D. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research and applications . Merill- Prentice Hall. Pintrich, P . (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P . Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (eds.), Handbook of self-regulation . Academic Press. Putarek, V , Pavlin-Bernadić, N., & Bunoza, B. (2022). Varanje na ispitima: uloga motivacije za učenje i kontekstualnih čimbenika [Cheating at exams: The role of learning motivation and contextual factors] , Društvena istraživanja, 31 (1), 89–111. c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 103 Rimm-Kaufman, S., Curby, T., Grimm, K., Nathanson, L., & Brock L. (2009). The contribution of children’s self-regulation and classroom quality to children’s adaptive behaviors in the kindergarten classroom. Developmental Psychology, 45 (4), 958−972. https://doi.org/10.1037/a001586 Rogerson, A., & McCarthy, G. (2017). Using Internet-based paraphrasing tools: Original work, patchwriting or facilitated plagiarism? International Journal for Educational Integrity, 13 (1), 2. https://doi:10.1007/s40979-016-0013-y Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19 (4), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033 Strom, P ., & Strom, R. (2007.). Cheating in middle school and high school. The Educational Forum, 71, 104–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720708984924 Šorgo, A., Vavdi, M., Cigler, U., & Kralj, M. (2015). Opportunity makes the cheater: High school students and academic dishonesty. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 5 (4), 67-87. Štambuk, M., Maričić, A. , & Hanzec, I. (2015). Cheating is unacceptable, but... teachers’ perceptions of and reactions to students’ cheating at schools and universities. Croatian Journal of Education, 17(4), 259–288. https://doi.org/10.15516/cje.v17i0.1258 Torres-Cladera, G., Simó-Gil, N., Domingo-Peñafiel, L., & Amat-Castells, V . (2021). Building professional identity during pre-service teacher education. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 11 (3), 35–55. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.1070 University of Montenegro (2022, November). The Code of Ethics of the UCG (Article 2, point 14) . https://www.akademskiintegritet.ucg.ac.me/dokumenta. Univerzitet Crne Gore (2019, September). Etički kodeks Univerziteta Crne Gore . [Code of Ethics of the University of Montenegro]. https://www.akademskiintegritet.ucg.ac.me/wp-content/ uploads/2019/10/Eticki-kodeks-Univerziteta-Crne-Gore.pdf Usher, E., & Pajares, F. (2008). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning: A validation study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68 (3), 443–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164407308475 Weinstein, C., & Mayer, R. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In Wittrock, M. (ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315–327). Macmillan. Winne, P ., & Hadwin, A. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice, (pp. 277–304). Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410602350-19 Zgaga, P . (2022). The saga of academic autonomy in Slovenia (1919–1999). Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal. 2023: Recently Accepted Paper (V ARIA) https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.1475 Zimmerman, B. (1994). Dimensions of academic self regulation: A conceptual framework for education. In D. Schunk, & B. Zimmerman (eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 3–21). Erlbaum. 104 perceptions of students and teachers of the university of montenegro on ... Biographical note Sanja Čalović Nenezić, MA, is a teaching assistant, and a PhD stu - dent at Pedagogy Department at the Faculty of Philosophy in Niksic, University of Montenegro, Montenegro. Her research interests include research in educa - tion, teaching and learning, learning strategies and metacognition. Milena Krtolica, MA, is a teaching assistant, elementary school principal and a PhD student at Pedagogy Department at the Faculty of Phi - losophy in Niksic, University of Montenegro, Montenegro. Her research in - terests include research in education, teaching and learning, family and school pedagogy. Milica Jelić, PhD, is an assistant professor in the field of General ped - agogy and Comparative pedagogy, at the Faculty of Philosophy at University of Montenegro, Montenegro. Her research interests include teaching and learning in contemporary and social education problems, preschool education and com - parative perspective of educational issues. Suzana Šekarić, MA, is an assistant in human resources (HR man - ager). She completed her master studies at the Faculty of Philosophy in Niksic at University of Montenegro, Montenegro. Her research interests include areas of General pedagogy, teaching organization and department leadership, team work and communication skills, improving the knowledge and skills of em - ployees in order to do better business.