| NAME |
FEATURES/TECHNIQUES |
PROS/CONS |
COSTS |
| Copycatch
http://www.copycatch.free
serve.co.uk/vocalyse.htm
|
A
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. |
PROS:
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
|
Approx
$700 AUD to purchase software. |
| Glatt
Plagiarism Screening Program (GPSP)
http://www.plagiar
ism.com/INDEX.HTM
|
Uses
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. |
PROS:
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
requirements.
|
Approx
$580 AUD to purchase software.
Additional
financial commitment is required for a subscription to the Plagiarism
Screening Service to provide the scoring for submitted tests.
|
Turnitin.com
is the user portal for
Plagiarism.org.
http://www.turnitin.com/
|
The
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. |
PROS:
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.
|
A
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. |
| EVE2
- Essay Verification Engine
http://www.canexus.com/
eve/index.shtml
|
Performs
searches to find Internet sites with similarities to the submitted
text. Produces report underlining text passages possibly plagiarised.
|
PROS:
Tests against wide area of internet.
CONS: Each piece of work has to be individually loaded and checked
by the lecturer.
|
Download
free for 15 days; purchase for approx $40 AUD. Each user must
purchase a separate copy and licence. |
| Plagiserve
http://www.plagiserve.com/
|
A
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.
|
PROS:
Tests against extensive in-house database and internet searches
CONS:
Formatting is lost during the checking process, so material has to be handed
in separately. Has been claimed to be associated with cheat sites.
|
Free. |
| WordCHECK
DP
http://www.wordcheck
systems.com/word
check-dp.html
|
Software
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.
|
PROS:
Similar system to Copycatch.
CONS: Uses
only internal database. Manual checking of each piece of work is very
time-consuming.
|
Profiler
Basic $185
($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.)
|
| WordCHECK
RA
http://www.wordcheck
systems.com/word
check-ra.html
|
An
upmarket package which is aimed at academic research rather
than student assignments. Works on the same principles as the
DP version.
|
PROS:
As for the DP version.
CONS: As for
the DP version.
|
RA
Individual Desktop $380
($185 academic price)
RA Department Desktop $1,925
($1,347 academic price)
plus profile expansion
(All dollars approximate AUD.)
|
| Moss
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu
/~aikenn/moss/html
|
MOSS
is an acronym for Measure of Software Similarity - an internal
system at Berkeley developed specifically for computer programming
fields. |
PROS:
Designed with a special focus on computer programming code rather
than text.
CONS: Limited in scope.
|
Free
but restricted to instructors and staff of computer programming
courses. A request must be sent to use. |
| SIM
http://www.cs.vu.nl
/~dick/sim.html
and http://www.cs.vu.nl
/pub/dick/s
imilarity_tester/
|
Another
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
projects. |
PROS:
As for Moss
CONS: As for
Moss
|
Available
free through the website of the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam,
where the software was developed. |
| JPlag
http://wwwipd.ira.uk
a.de:2222/
|
System
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
results). |
PROS:
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.
|
Free,
but an account must be applied for on the website. |
| Google
http://www.google.com
|
Primarily
a search engine and not a plagiarism detector, Google is nevertheless
able to detect phrases and can rapidly identify source material
from the Internet. |
PROS:
Quick and free. Google extracts from pdf files, which many search
engines cannot do.
CONS: Unsystematic, and involves manual entry of strings. Labour-intensive.
|
Free |
