According to thean artical inle on the Internet, there is a huge difference exist between European education systems and the education system oin Asia.

You would say “the article” if you had already introduced it in the text and were to refer to it again.

You would say “on the Internet”.

I would probably say “there is a huge difference”, but you could also say “a huge difference exists”.

You would probably say “the huge difference” if you were actually saying what the difference was here (i.e. you could change the sentence to “the huge difference between European education systems and the education system in Asia is that…”).

It would be ok to not have an article if you said “education systems in Asia” (I think articles tend to be used more often with singular nouns than plurals), but since it’s a singular noun (education system), you would say “the”. Using “an” here would feel very weird - if you were to say “an”, it’d likely be referring to a singular country, in which case “the education system in (name of country).

You would use “in” for both continents and countries.

In the context of this topic, it means that students from many Asian countries don’t have nota similar attitude to the European knowleage aboutunderstanding of plagiarism.

Saying “have not” or “haven’t” would most commonly be used to say that someone hasn’t done something (e.g. “I have not read this book”, “I haven’t had this type of food before”).
However, to put “have” in the negative, you would say “do/does not have” or “don’t/doesn’t have”.

You would need to say “a similar attitude” and “the European knowledge/understanding”.

“Knowledge” feels like it would be used to say how much they’ve actually discovered about the topic. It isn’t necessarily wrong, but “understanding” does feel a little more natural.

You could also say “about”, at least with “knowledge”, but “of” feels more natural.

They shouldhave to change it, if they decide to study in Europe, alsos they also have to follow the procedures and rules of European education systems.

I changed this sentence with the interpretation of the individual students having to change their attitude to plagiarism if they study in Europe due to how they also have to follow the other procedures and rules of European education systems.

However if you meant that the entire system should be changed due to how students have to change/adjust their understandings of everything if they choose to study in Europe which can be very confusing/difficult, I would say something like:
“The education system in Asia should be changed, as if students decide to study in Europe, they have to follow the procedures and rules of European education systems.”

Putting “also” before “they” feels more like something that happens in casual situations (often in conversation), and more so at the start of a sentence than in the middle of one. Because of this, “they also” feels more natural here.

“Procedures and rules” without “the” in front feels very general, which doesn’t really work here since saying “of European education systems” makes it more specific.

You need to use “of” to indicate that the procedures and rules belong to the European education systems.

Using originalsthers’ ideas without the references is a part of plagiarism.

You don’t need to put the ‘s’ at the end of “original” since here it was being used as an adjective, not a noun.

Not having “others’” makes it sound like you’re talking about your own original ideas, in which case not including references wouldn’t count as plagiarism (as you wouldn’t have anything to reference, due to it being your own original idea).
Once you add in “others’”, it makes the “original” unnecessary and it sounds weird with both.

“The references” would be used more so if you had already talked about a specific group of references (although that feels like a very weird scenario so it’s pretty unlikely to need to say “the references”, at least when writing things here). If anything you might hear it being used in conversation (e.g. “where are the references?”, “here are the references” or “the references are in the bibliography at the end of the paper”, where “the references” would likely be referring to the student’s references).

That is why all Uuniversities use computer programs to detect cheating.

“University/universities” is only capitalised in the name of a specific university, or of course at the beginning of a sentence. Otherwise, when used generally like you have here, it would not be capitalised.

However, when students do not reference ideas which are common, it is acceptable practice.

Feels a little unnecessarily long (i.e. there’s probably a shorter way to reword it), but the sentence is technically right.

It is not aso important to find (out) the information, how important as it is to analyze and process it.

This is for if you’re trying to say that finding the information is less important than analysing and processing it.

In your original sentence, the first half was technically ok, just a little unnatural. The second half is where it really got confusing, particularly with the “how important to” part.

“Out” is optional, but I prefer how it sounds without it.

That is why no one can copy and paste information from the Internet to their academic texts.

You would usually say “the Internet” when talking about things that are on it.

If a/some member of a project group uses the research of his colleagues without permission and reference, it willould be a plagiarism too/as well.

I prefer how “a” sounds over “some” here. “Some” is used before singular countable nouns sometimes, but usually in much more casual situations. “Some” kind of feels dismissive of the thing that it comes before when used with a singular noun.

You would need “a” before “project group”. Or if you were talking about a specific project group (which you’re not here), you could say “the project group”.

“Will” is ok, but it kind of depends on the situation. Since you’re talking generally about a hypothetical situation, I’d use “would”. But if a teacher was saying that sentence, I could see them saying “will” to kind of emphasise that it applies to the students.

You would never use an article with plagiarism unless you have another noun first (e.g. an example of plagiarism). Essentially the article would never apply to plagiarism itself, only something that might be half related to it.

Even if a student submits the sameir own piaece of his work twice, it willould be a self-plagiarism.

You would need to say “even if” here.

You need the article “a” here, since you’re talking about a random, singular student.

Since “student” is singular, you would say “submits”.

I changed “his” to “their” to make it more general and impersonal.

“The same piece of their work” makes sense and is ok, but I think “their own piece of work” sounds a little more natural.

Same reasoning for “will/would” and removing “a” as in the last sentence.

However, students can ask proofreaders to make changes in their essay, if it will beis only grammar and language correction.

You would ask someone to do something (emphasis on the “to (do something)”) when using a verb after “ask”.

You don’t really need the comma after “in their essay”.

You don’t need to put it in the future (or what the actual proper wording is) with “will” here. You can just keep it in the present tense.

I’d add in “only” to emphasise that only language and grammar correction is allowed.

According to thean artical inle on the Internet, there is a huge difference exist between European education systems and the education system oin Asia.

or "...between European and Asian education systems"

In the context of this topic, it means that students from many Asian countries don't have nota similar attitude to the European knowleage aboutunderstanding of plagiarism.

They should change it, if they decide to study in Europe, also; they also have to follow the procedures and rules of European education systems.

I think this place is more natural for "also" in this sentence.

Using others' [originals] ideas without the references is a part of plagiarism.

That is why all Uuniversities use computer programs to detect cheating.

However, when students dit is acceptable to not reference ideas which are common, it is acceptable practic knowledge.

"Common knowledge" is a set phrase here.

It is not so important to find out the information, how important to analyze and process it.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Maybe, "It's not only about the information itself, but also how it's analyzed and processed."

That is why no one can copy and paste information from the Internet to their academic texts.

If some member of project group uses the research of his colleagues without permission and reference, it willthat would be a plagiarism too.

"Plagiarism" isn't a countable noun

Even if student submits the same piaece of his [own] work twice, it willthat would be a self-plagiarism.

"Own" here is for emphasis

However, students can ask proofreaders make changes in their essay, if it will bethey are [only] correcting grammar and language correction.