The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Methods for identifying versioned and plagiarized documents
Abstract
The widespread use of on‐line publishing of text promotes storage of multiple versions of documents and mirroring of documents in multiple locations, and greatly simplifies the task of plagiarizing the work of others. We evaluate two families of methods for searching a collection to find documents that are coderivative, that is, are versions or plagiarisms of each other. The first, the ranking family, uses information retrieval techniques; extending this family, we propose the identity measure, which is specifically designed for identification of coderivative documents. The second, the fingerprinting family, uses hashing to generate a compact document description, which can then be compared to the fingerprints of the documents in the collection. We introduce a new method for evaluating the effectiveness of these techniques, and demonstrate it in practice. Using experiments on two collections, we demonstrate that the identity measure and the best fingerprinting technique are both able to accurately identify coderivative documents. However, for fingerprinting parameters must be carefully chosen, and even so the identity measure is clearly superior.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
How reliable are the results of large-scale information retrieval experiments?
Zobel, J. (1998) · Proceedings of the 21st annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval · doi:10.1145/290941.291014 · Cited by 579 · cited 1×
“tems [19]; however, they are not well-suited to this task.”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Cited by
Detecting near-duplicates for web crawling
Manku, G. S., Jain, A., & Das Sarma, A. (2007) · Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web · doi:10.1145/1242572.1242592 · Cited by 617
Efficient similarity joins for near duplicate detection
Xiao, C., Wang, W., Lin, X., & Yu, J. X. (2008) · Proceedings of the 17th international conference on World Wide Web · doi:10.1145/1367497.1367516 · Cited by 455
Detecting Phishing Web Pages with Visual Similarity Assessment Based on Earth Mover's Distance (EMD)
Fu, A. Y., Wenyin, L., & Deng, X. (2006) · IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing · doi:10.1109/tdsc.2006.50 · Cited by 294
Cross-language plagiarism detection
Potthast, M., Barrón-Cedeño, A., Stein, B., & Rosso, P. (2011) · Language Resources and Evaluation · doi:10.1007/s10579-009-9114-z · Cited by 286
Mining query logs: turning search usage data into knowledge
Silvestri, F. (2009) · Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval · doi:10.1561/1500000013 · Cited by 194
Metadata
- Authors
- Hoad, T. C., & Zobel, J.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-01-16
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 203-215
- ISSN
- 1532-2882 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-2890
- OpenAlex
- W2164634022
- Cited by
- 330
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 38.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Methods for identifying versioned and plagiarized documents. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/asi.10170
- The paper
- Hoad, T. C., & Zobel, J. (2003). Methods for identifying versioned and plagiarized documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10170
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.