UK system which concentrates on comparison within a group of
students. The software compares text from work collected by
email or on disk using a similarity threshold that will detect
essays which are very similar or dissimilar to other class essays
by communality of words and phrases.
The JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee - HEFCE-funded
UK organization) gave this software five stars for detection,
clarity, value, user-friendliness, speed and reliability.
CONS: Detects only collusion among students, and cannot detect material
downloaded from the Web
$700 AUD to purchase software.
Plagiarism Screening Program (GPSP)
the 'fingerprint' method. It exploits the uniqueness of each
individual's linguistic patterns - 'cloze' technique. It eliminates
every fifth word of a student's paper and replaces the words
with a blank which the student is asked to fill in. The number
of correct responses is one of the factors considered in the
production of a final probability score.
Useful for detecting plagiarism where the original source
material cannot be located.
CONS: Students actually have to sit down to a test to fulfil the
$580 AUD to purchase software.
financial commitment is required for a subscription to the Plagiarism
Screening Service to provide the scoring for submitted tests.
is the user portal for
technology used is called 'document source analysis'. It uses
a set of algorithms to make a digital fingerprint of any text
document, and then compares it against Internet sources and
against an in-house database. Results are compiled into an 'originality
report' which colour-codes and underlines text passages showing
similarities to other sources, and gives the URLs of the sources.
Covers a huge range of sources. Offers a digital portfolio service.
in which students' work is archived.
CONS: The user has to check the report carefully because the software
detects correctly-cited material as well as plagiarised material. As in
similar programs, formatting is lost in the checking procedure, so essays
for marking have to be submitted separately from essays for checking.
free one-month trial is available. Costs are for subscription
rather than purchase and vary according to extent of commitment.
The web page provides quotations depending on numbers of classes,
numbers of students, and so on.
- Essay Verification Engine
searches to find Internet sites with similarities to the submitted
text. Produces report underlining text passages possibly plagiarised.
Tests against wide area of internet.
CONS: Each piece of work has to be individually loaded and checked
by the lecturer.
free for 15 days; purchase for approx $40 AUD. Each user must
purchase a separate copy and licence.
system which checks the originality of reports by comparing
students' work with its own database and the internet. It provides
an originality report that colour codes possibly plagiarised
passages and provides direct links to the original source.
Tests against extensive in-house database and internet searches
Formatting is lost during the checking process, so material has to be handed
in separately. Has been claimed to be associated with cheat sites.
which profiles documents by identifying key word use, allowing
users to search manually for matching documents based upon word
use and frequency patterns. Uses an internal database. Produces
report with key-word profiles and word frequency lists.
Similar system to Copycatch.
only internal database. Manual checking of each piece of work is very
($115 academic price)
Profiler Pro $570
($345 academic price)
Users can add "profile capacity" as they go:
2,000 profiles - $380
5,000 profiles - $760
10,000 profiles - $1,540
(All dollars approximate AUD.)
upmarket package which is aimed at academic research rather
than student assignments. Works on the same principles as the
As for the DP version.
CONS: As for
the DP version.
Individual Desktop $380
($185 academic price)
RA Department Desktop $1,925
($1,347 academic price)
plus profile expansion
(All dollars approximate AUD.)
is an acronym for Measure of Software Similarity - an internal
system at Berkeley developed specifically for computer programming
Designed with a special focus on computer programming code rather
CONS: Limited in scope.
but restricted to instructors and staff of computer programming
courses. A request must be sent to use.
computer code plagiarism detector. SIM tests lexical similarity
in a number of languages including Java, Pascal, Lisp, and Miranda.
It detects potentially duplicated code fragments in software
As for Moss
CONS: As for
free through the website of the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam,
where the software was developed.
that finds similarities among multiple sets of source code files.
Designed for detecting plagiarism in computer programming but
can support plain text as well (although with less satisfactory
The only software that can deal with programming-type work as
well as ordinary text.
CONS: Limited and less effective in its use with ordinary text.
but an account must be applied for on the website.
a search engine and not a plagiarism detector, Google is nevertheless
able to detect phrases and can rapidly identify source material
from the Internet.
Quick and free. Google extracts from pdf files, which many search
engines cannot do.
CONS: Unsystematic, and involves manual entry of strings. Labour-intensive.