Pharmacy educators' experience and views on academic dishonesty

Melanie Mabins, Yevgeniya Gokun, Melody Ryan, Holly Divine

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations


Objectives: To determine faculty experiences with and perceptions of academic dishonesty and if there are inconsistencies in interpretation and handling of such violations. Methods: Faculty members within two departments at a college of pharmacy were surveyed to collect their experiences with and perceptions of academic dishonesty. These faculty were also asked to interpret and respond to potential violations via hypothetical case scenarios. Results: Of the 46 faculty members who participated in the survey, 75% reported having never experienced an Honor Code violation. Most respondents agreed that it is the responsibility of the faculty member to address every alleged Honor Code violation (95.3%) and that violations should be handled consistently (97.7%). Few respondents (34.9%) indicated that they have had adequate mentoring and training in handling situations of academic dishonesty. Most faculty respondents identified each hypothetical scenario as an Honor Code violation but reported a variety of methods to manage these potential violations. Conclusions: Faculty at one college of pharmacy, reported minimal academic dishonesty experience, but have congruent beliefs on what Honor Code violations are and how they should be handled. However, methods chosen for managing hypothetical and real violations varied widely. A uniform process for managing violations should be considered to reduce academic dishonesty in pharmacy education.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)185-193
Number of pages9
JournalCurrents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning
Issue number2
StatePublished - Mar 2014

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The survey administration tool described (REDCap) was supported by the National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, through Grant 8UL1TR000117-02. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.


  • Academic Dishonesty
  • Cheating
  • Faculty
  • Perceptions

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
  • Pharmacy


Dive into the research topics of 'Pharmacy educators' experience and views on academic dishonesty'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this