Cited by 46Academic integrity and plagiarismSoftware Engineering ResearchTeaching and Learning Programming

Desktop Tools for Offline Plagiarism Detection in Computer Programs

Open access
MOZGOVOY, Maxim·2006·Informatics in Education

Abstract

Plagiarism in universities has always been a difficult problem to overcome. Various tools have been developed over the past few years to help teachers detect plagiarism in students' work. By being able to categorize the multitude of plagiarism detection tools, it is possible to estimate their capabilities, advantages and disadvantages. In this article I consider modern plagiarism software solutions, paying attention mostly to desktop systems intended for plagiarism detection in program code. I also estimate the speed and reliability of different plagiarism detection systems that are currently available.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.15388/infedu.2006.08

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • All implemented source code transformations are referenced from prior literature and conform to the first 5 levels of Faidhi and Robinson's transformation taxonomy.

    “To ensure the generated programs are representative of undergraduate plagiarism, all implemented source code transformations (listed in table 4) are referenced from prior literature [7], [10], [50], [51], and conform to the first 5 levels of Faidhi and Robinson's [10] transformation taxonomy.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Gitchell, D., and N. Tran (1999). Sim: a utility for detecting similarity in computer programs. In Proc. of the 30th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, New Orleans, Louisiana, pp. 266-270.
  2. Lancaster, T., and F. Culwin (2004). Using freely available tools to produce a partially automated plagiarism detection process. In Proc. of the 21st ASCILITE Conference, Perth, Australia, pp. 520-529.
  3. Wise, M.J. (1996). YAP3: improved detection of similarities in computer program and other texts. In Proc. of SIGCSE '96 Technical Symposium, Philadelphia, USA, pp. 130-134.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
MOZGOVOY, M.
Affiliations
Vilnius University (LT)
Corresponding author
MOZGOVOY, Maxim
Venue
Informatics in Education
Published
2006-04-15
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
97-112
ISSN
  • 1648-5831 (ISSN-L)
  • 2335-8971
OpenAlex
W2135409670
Cited by
46
References
36
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
4.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Informatics in Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
Keywords
plagiarism detection, academic integrity, software reliability, detection speed

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