Most cases of plagiarism involve a power differential where not every person has the same ability to enter into a social contract. A social contract requires that each party understands the expectations or norms of the contract, has a voice in setting or changing the norms and has the ability to exit the contract. If those with less power want to gain power then they have to engage in activities bound by norms set by others with little or no ability to exit and no voice. Even if one determines that it is an option to choose a role that requires academic writing, even at the earliest grades, then the social contract demands a shared norm of what constitutes correct behavior. This study reviewed the abstracts of articles indexed in Google Scholar from 1999–2019 through the lens of integrative social contract theory (ISCT) and found, in the case of plagiarism, an existing consensus of correct behavior does not exist. Recommendations for establishing a social contract conclude the article.

多数gi窃案件涉及一种权力差异，在这种权力差异中，并非每个人都有相同的订立社会契约的能力。社会合同要求每一方都了解合同的期望或规范，在制定或更改规范时有发言权，并具有退出合同的能力。如果那些权力较小的人想要获得权力，那么他们就必须参加别人制定的准则所束缚的活动，而他们很少或根本没有退出的能力，也没有发言权。即使人们认为选择一个需要学术写作的职位是一种选择，即使是在最早的年级，社会契约也要求对构成正确行为的行为有共同的规范。这项研究通过整合社会契约论（ISCT）的角度回顾了1999-2019年在Google学术搜索中收录的文章的摘要，发现，在of窃的情况下，不存在关于正确行为的现有共识。建立社会契约的建议在本文的结尾。