CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 48Academic integrity and plagiarismSoftware Engineering ResearchSpam and Phishing Detection

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Classifications of plagiarism detection engines

Lancaster, Thomas, Culwin, Fintan·2005·Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences
DOI 10.11120/ital.2005.04020006
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Plagiarism detection engines are programs that compare documents with possible sources in order to identify similarity and so discover student submissions that might be plagiarised. They are currently classified as either attribute counting systems or structure metric systems. However these classifications are inconsistently applied and inadequate, an area of particular relevance when classifying free text detection engines as this is where most current research is focused.This paper proposes a new and alternative set of classifications based primarily around the types of the metrics the engines use. Current detection engines are classified using the new groupings. These new classifications are intended to allow detection engines to be discussed and compared without ambiguity.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.11120/ital.2005.04020006

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. 10.1016/S1096-7516(99)00004-4 · DOI
  2. 10.1109/FIE.1999.840376 · DOI
  3. Culwin F., 2000, A Descriptive Taxonomy of Student Plagiarism
  4. Culwin F., 2000, Proceedings of 1st LTSN-ICS Conference, 54
  5. Culwin F., 2001, Plagiarism Issues for Higher Education, 10.1108/03055720010804005 · DOI
  6. Culwin F., 2001, Source Code Plagiarism in UK HE Computing Schools, Issues, Attitudes and Tools
  7. Halstead M. H., 1977, Elements of Software Science
  8. Irving R., 2002, Big Brother (Glasgow University Computer Science Department’s Collusion Detector System, version 2.0) User Manual
  9. 10.1109/13.762946 · DOI · Paper page
  10. LancasterT. (2003) Effective and Efficient Plagiarism Detection, PhD thesis, available from London South Bank University, London, UK.
  11. Lancaster T., 2004, To appear in Journal of Computer Science Education
  12. Lathrop A., 2000, Student Cheating and Plagiarism in the Internet Era - A Wake Up Call
  13. 10.1145/382222.382462 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Prechelt L., 2001, Journal of Universal Computer Science
  15. Saxon S., 2000, Part II Computer Science Project
  16. Tetlow M., 2004, Final Year Computing Project
  17. Trott J., 2004, Final Year Computing Project
  18. 10.1093/comjnl/39.9.741 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Lancaster, T., & Culwin, F.
Affiliations
  • Birmingham City University (GB)
  • London South Bank University (GB)
ORCID
Lancaster, Thomas
Venue
Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2005-05
Volume
4
Issue
2
Pages
1-16
ISSN
1473-7507 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.11120/ital.2005.04020006
OpenAlex
W2334034354
Cited by
48
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
Keywords
academic integrity, student submissions

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