Cited by 112Academic integrity and plagiarismSoftware Engineering ResearchSpam and Phishing Detection

State-of-the-art in detecting academic plagiarism

Open access
Meuschke, Norman, Gipp, Bela·2013·International Journal for Educational Integrity

Abstract

The problem of academic plagiarism has been present for centuries. Yet, the widespread dissemination of information technology, including the internet, made plagiarising much easier. Consequently, methods and systems aiding in the detection of plagiarism have attracted much research within the last two decades. Researchers proposed a variety of solutions, which we will review comprehensively in this article. Available detection systems use sophisticated and highly efficient character-based text comparisons, which can reliably identify verbatim and moderately disguised copies. Automatically detecting more strongly disguised plagiarism, such as paraphrases, translations or idea plagiarism, is the focus of current research. Proposed approaches for this task include intrinsic, cross-lingual and citation-based plagiarism detection. Each method offers unique strengths and weaknesses; however, none is currently mature enough for practical use. In the future, plagiarism detection systems may benefit from combining traditional character-based detection methods with these emerging detection approaches.

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 · 10.21913/ijei.v9i1.847

Cites

85 of 85 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?

  • Some of these tricks were highlighted as technical weaknesses, decreasing the detection accuracy in TMSPs.

    “Some of these tricks were highlighted as technical weaknesses, decreasing the detection accuracy in TMSPs (Meuschke & Gipp, 2013).”

    From Some students' plagiarism tricks, and tips for effective check (2021) · cites this paper as Meuschke & Gipp, 2013

  • Some students find ways to trick TMSPs.

    “some students found ways to trick them.”

    From Some students' plagiarism tricks, and tips for effective check (2021) · cites this paper as Meuschke & Gipp, 2013

  • Students can fool TMSPs by different acts that hamper them from identifying the text correctly by intentionally hiding the copied text, stated as 'Disguised Plagiarism'.

    “Students can fool the TMSPs by different acts that hamper them from identifying the text correctly by intentionally hiding the copied text, stated as”

    From Some students' plagiarism tricks, and tips for effective check (2021) · cites this paper as Meuschke & Gipp, 2013

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

6 of the 91 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Fano, R. M. (1956). Information theory and the retrieval of recorded information. Documentation in Action (pp. 238-244). New York: Reinhold Publ.
  2. Heintze, N. (1996). Scalable document fingerprinting. In 1996 USENIX Workshop on Electronic Commerce.
  3. Lancaster, T. (2003). Effective and efficient plagiarism detection. PhD thesis, School of Computing, Information Systems and Mathematics South Bank University.
  4. Maurer, H., Kappe, F., & Zaka, B. (2006). Plagiarism -A survey. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 12(8), 1050-1084.
  5. Oberreuter, G., L'Huillier, G., Ríos, S. A., & Velásquez, J. D. (2010). FastDocode: Finding approximated segments of N-Grams for document copy detection. In Notebook Papers of CLEF 2010 LABs and Workshops, Padua, Italy.
  6. Oberreuter, G., L'Huillier, G., Ríos, S. A., & Velásquez, J. D. (2011). Approaches for intrinsic and external plagiarism detection. In Notebook Papers of CLEF 2011 LABs and Workshops, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
  7. Palkovskii, Y. (2009). "Counter Plagiarism Detection Software" and "Counter Counter Plagiarism Detection" Methods. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Uncovering Plagiarism, Authorship and Social Software Misuse and 1st International Competition on Plagiarism Detection.
  8. Si, A., Leong, Hong, V., & Lau, R. W. H. (1997). CHECK: A document plagiarism detection system. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (pp. 70-77). ACM.
  9. Suárez, P., González, J. C., & Villena Román, J. (2010). A plagiarism detector for intrinsic plagiarism. In Notebook Papers of CLEF 2010 LABs and Workshops, Padua, Italy.
  10. Tsatsaronis, G., Varlamis, I., Giannakoulopoulos, A., & Kanellopoulos, N. (2010). Identifying free text plagiarism based on semantic similarity. In Proceedings of the 4th International Plagiarism Conference, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
  11. Weber-Wulff, D. (2010). Test cases for plagiarism detection software. In Proceedings of the 4th International Plagiarism Conference, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Meuschke, N., & Gipp, B.
Affiliations
University of California, Berkeley (US)
Venue
International Journal for Educational Integrity
Published
2013-06-06
Volume
9
Issue
1
ISSN
1833-2595 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2096194908
Cited by
112
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2
FWCI
17.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal for Educational Integrity (publishedVersion)
  • KOPS (University of Konstanz) (submittedVersion)
  • GRO (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › 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 plagiarism, plagiarism detection

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