Comparing and combining C ontent‐ and C itation‐based approaches for plagiarism detection
Open accessAbstract
The vast amount of scientific publications available online makes it easier for students and researchers to reuse text from other authors and makes it harder for checking the originality of a given text. Reusing text without crediting the original authors is considered plagiarism. A number of studies have reported the prevalence of plagiarism in academia. As a consequence, numerous institutions and researchers are dedicated to devising systems to automate the process of checking for plagiarism. This work focuses on the problem of detecting text reuse in scientific papers. The contributions of this paper are twofold: (a) we survey the existing approaches for plagiarism detection based on content, based on content and structure, and based on citations and references; and (b) we compare content and citation‐based approaches with the goal of evaluating whether they are complementary and if their combination can improve the quality of the detection. We carry out experiments with real data sets of scientific papers and concluded that a combination of the methods can be beneficial.
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
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Approaches that use non-textual elements like citations, math expressions, figures also adopt machine learning for plagiarism detection.
“Complementary to such textual analysis-based methods, approaches that use non-textual elements like citations, math expressions, figures, etc. also adopt machine learning for plagiarism detection (Pertile et al., 2016).”
From Proactive and reactive engagement of artificial intelligence methods for education: a review (2023) · cites this paper as Pertile et al., 2016
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 56 · Cited by 36
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Maurer, H., Kappe, F., & Zaka, B. (2006). Plagiarism -A Survey. J-JUCS , 12 (8), 1050-1084.
- Potthast, M., Hagen, M., Stein, B., Grassegger, J., Michel, M., Tippmann, M., & Welsch, C. (2012). ChatNoir: A Search Engine for the ClueWeb09 Corpus. In Proceedings of the 35th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 1004-1004).
- Vallés Balaguer, E. (2009). Putting Ourselves in SME's shoes: Automatic Detection of Plagiarism by the Wcopyfind tool. In Proceedings of the SEPLN'09 Workshop on Uncovering Plagiarism, Authorship and Social Software Misuse (pp. 34-35).
- Authors
- Pertile, S. D. L., Moreira, V. P., & Rosso, P.
- Affiliations
- Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (BR)
- Universitat Politècnica de València (ES)
- Corresponding author
- Pertile, Solange de L.
- Moreira, Viviane P.
- Rosso, Paolo
- Venue
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-08-07
- Volume
- 67
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2511-2526
- ISSN
- 2330-1635 (ISSN-L)
- 2330-1643
- OpenAlex
- W2100464830
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 56
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 7.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- RiuNet (Universitat Politècnica de València) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- CNPq (478979/2012-6)
- CAPES
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Keywords
- plagiarism detection, text reuse, content-based detection, scientific publications, originality checking, academic integrity
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
