Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 41Academic integrity and plagiarismSoftware Engineering ResearchSpam and Phishing Detection

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Plagiarism: Taxonomy, Tools and Detection Techniques

Open access
Chowdhury, Hussain A, Bhattacharyya, Dhruba K·2018·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1801.06323arXiv 1801.06323
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

To detect plagiarism of any form, it is essential to have broad knowledge of its possible forms and classes, and existence of various tools and systems for its detection. Based on impact or severity of damages, plagiarism may occur in an article or in any production in a number of ways. This survey presents a taxonomy of various plagiarism forms and include discussion on each of these forms. Over the years, a good number tools and techniques have been introduced to detect plagiarism. This paper highlights few promising methods for plagiarism detection based on machine learning techniques. We analyse the pros and cons of these methods and finally we highlight a list of issues and research challenges related to this evolving research problem.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1801.06323

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. [1]1. S. Brin, J. Davis, H. Garcia-Molina, Copy detection mechanisms for digital documents, in: ACM SIGMOD Record, Vol. 24, ACM, 1995, pp. 398-409. 24
  2. [3]3. M. S. Anderson, N. H. Steneck, The problem of plagiarism, in: Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, Vol. 29, Elsevier, 2011, pp. 90-94.
  3. [7]7. A. Bin-Habtoor, M. Zaher, A survey on plagiarism detection systems, International Journal of Computer Theory and Engineering 4 (2) (2012) 185.
  4. [8]8. R. R. Naik, M. B. Landge, C. N. Mahender, A review on plagiarism detection tools, International Journal of Computer Applications 125 (11).
  5. [9]9. A. M. E. T. Ali, H. M. D. Abdulla, V. Snasel, Overview and comparison of plagiarism detection tools., in: DATESO, Citeseer, 2011, pp. 161{172.
  6. [12]12. V. Scherbinin, S. Butakov, Using microsoft sql server platform for plagiarism detection, in: Proc. SEPLN, 2009, pp. 36{37.
  7. [14]14. M. Elhadi, A. Al-Tobi, Duplicate detection in documents and webpages using improved longest common subsequence and documents syntactical structures, in: Computer Sciences and Convergence Information Technology, 2009. ICCIT'09. Fourth International Conference on, IEEE, 2009, pp. 679--684.
  8. [15]15. D. R. White, M. S. Joy, Sentence-based natural language plagiarism detection, Journal on Educational Resources in Computing (JERIC) 4 (4) (2004) 2.
  9. [16]16. L. Moussiades, A. Vakali, Pdetect: A clustering approach for detecting plagiarism in source code datasets, The computer journal 48 (6) (2005) 651--661.
  10. [17]17. R. Kuppers, S. Conrad, A set-based approach to plagiarism detection., in: CLEF (Online Working Notes/Labs/Workshop), 2012.
  11. [18]18. A. Barron-Cedeno, P. Rosso, On automatic plagiarism detection based on n-grams comparison, in: European Conference on Information Retrieval, Springer, 2009, pp. 696-700.
  12. [19]19. T. C. Hoad, J. Zobel, Methods for identifying versioned and plagiarized documents, Journal of the American society for information science and technology 54 (3) (2003) 203-215.
  13. [20]20. C. Grozea, C. Gehl, M. Popescu, Encoplot: Pairwise sequence matching in linear time applied to plagiarism detection, in: 3rd PAN Workshop. Uncovering Plagiarism, Authorship and Social Software Misuse, 2009, p. 10.
  14. [21]21. C. Basile, D. Benedetto, E. Caglioti, G. Cristadoro, M. Esposti, A plagiarism detection procedure in three steps: Selection, matches and squares, in: Proc. SEPLN, 2009, pp. 19-23.
  15. [23]23. M. Elhadi, A. Al-Tobi, Use of text syntactical structures in detection of document duplicates, in: Digital Information Management, 2008. ICDIM 2008. Third International Conference on, IEEE, 2008, pp. 520-525.
  16. [24]24. C. Fellbaum, WordNet, Wiley Online Library, 1998.
  17. [29]29. J. Koberstein, Y.-K. Ng, Using word clusters to detect similar web documents, in: International Conference on Knowledge Science, Engineering and Management, Springer, 2006, pp. 215--228.
  18. [30]30. S. M. Alzahrani, N. Salim, On the use of fuzzy information retrieval for gauging similarity of arabic documents, in: Applications of Digital Information and Web Technologies, 2009. ICADIWT'09. Second International Conference on the, IEEE, 2009, pp. 539-544.
  19. [32]32. T. W. Chow, M. Rahman, Multilayer som with tree-structured data for efficient document retrieval and plagiarism detection, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 20 (9) (2009) 1385-1402.
  20. [33]33. S. M. Zu Eissen, B. Stein, M. Kulig, Plagiarism detection without reference collections, in: Advances in data analysis, Springer, 2007, pp. 359--366.
  21. [34]34. E. Stamatatos, A survey of modern authorship attribution methods, Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology 60 (3) (2009) 538-556.
  22. [36]36. A. H. Osman, N. Salim, A. Abuobieda, Survey of text plagiarism detection, Computer Engineering and Applications Journal (ComEngApp) 1 (1) (2012) 37-45.
  23. [37]37. J.-P. Bao, J.-Y. Shen, X.-D. Liu, Q.-B. Song, A survey on natural language text copy detection, Journal of software 14 (10) (2003) 1753{1760.
  24. [40]40. D. Zou, W.-J. Long, Z. Ling, A cluster-based plagiarism detection method, in: Notebook Papers of CLEF 2010 LABs and Workshops, 22-23 September, 2010.
  25. [41]41. M. Zini, M. Fabbri, M. Moneglia, A. Panunzi, Plagiarism detection through multilevel text comparison, in: 2006 Second International Conference on Automated Production of Cross Media Content for Multi-Channel Distribution (AXMEDIS'06), IEEE, 2006, pp. 181--185.
  26. [42]42. A. Si, H. V. Leong, R. W. Lau, Check: a document plagiarism detection system, in: Proceedings of the 1997 ACM symposium on Applied computing, ACM, 1997, pp. 70-77.
  27. [43]43. B. Gipp, J. Beel, Citation based plagiarism detection: a new approach to identify plagiarized work language independently, in: Proceedings of the 21st ACM conference on Hypertext and hypermedia, ACM, 2010, pp. 273--274.
  28. [45]45. in: Proceedings of the 11th ACM symposium on Document engineering, ACM, 2011, pp. 249--258.
  29. [45]45. D. Atkinson, S. Yeoh, Student and sta perceptions of the effectiveness of plagiarism detection software, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 24 (2) (2008) 222-240.
  30. [49]49. E. A. Ochroch, Review of plagiarism detection freeware, Anesthesia & Analgesia 112 (3) (2011) 742--743.
  31. [50]50. U. Garg, Plagiarism and detection tools: An overview, Research Cell: An International Journal of Engineering Sciences 2 (2011) 92--97.
  32. [52]52. I. Sochenkov, D. Zubarev, I. Tikhomirov, I. Smirnov, A. Shelmanov, R. Suvorov, G. Osipov, Exactus like: Plagiarism detection in scientific texts, in: European Conference on Information Retrieval, Springer, 2016, pp. 837--840.
  33. [58]58. A. H. Osman, N. Salim, M. S. Binwahlan, Plagiarism detection using graphbased representation, arXiv preprint arXiv:1004.4449. · arXiv
  34. [59]59. U. Garg, V. Goyal, Maulik: A plagiarism detection tool for hindi documents, Indian Journal of Science and Technology 9 (12).
  35. [60]60. P. Mulay, K. Puri, Hawk eye: Intelligent analysis of socio inspired cohorts for plagiarism, in: Innovations in Bio-Inspired Computing and Applications, Springer, 2016, pp. 29--42.
  36. [61]61. X. Chen, B. Francia, M. Li, B. Mckinnon, A. Seker, Shared information and program plagiarism detection, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 50 (7) (2004) 1545-1551.
  37. [62]62. D. Gitchell, N. Tran, Sim: a utility for detecting similarity in computer programs, in: ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 31, ACM, 1999, pp. 266--270.
  38. [63]63. M. J. Wise, Yap3: Improved detection of similarities in computer program and other texts, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 28 (1) (1996) 130--134.

Cited by

See all 41

Metadata

Authors
Chowdhury, H. A., & Bhattacharyya, D. K.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2018
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1801.06323
arXiv
1801.06323
OpenAlex
W2784593916
Cited by
41
References
4
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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
plagiarism detection, plagiarism detection software, research 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