Plagiarism has become a serious problem in education, and several plagiarism detection systems have been developed for dealing with this problem. This study provides an empirical evaluation of eight plagiarism detection systems for student essays. We present a categorical hierarchy of the most common types of plagiarism that are encountered in student texts. Our purpose-built test set contains texts in which instances of several commonly utilized plagiaristic techniques have been embedded. While Sherlock was clearly the overall best hermetic detection system, SafeAssignment performed best in detecting web plagiarism. TurnitIn was found to be the most advanced system for detecting semi-automatic forms of plagiarism such as the substitution of Cyrillic equivalents for certain characters or the insertion of fake whitespaces. The survey indicates that none of the systems are capable of reliably detecting plagiarism from both local and Internet sources while at the same time being able to identify the technical tricks that plagiarizers use to conceal plagiarism.
Canexus Inc.EVE2- Essay Verification Engine. Retrieved February 5, 2009, from http://www.canexus.com/
7.
CloughP. (2000). Plagiarism in natural and programming languages: An overview of current tools and technologies. Internal Report CS-00–05, University of Sheffield, UK.
FaidhiJ., & RobinsonS. (1987). An empirical approach for detecting program similarity within a university programming environment. Computers & Education, 11(1), 11–19.
11.
HarrisR. (2004). Anti-plagiarism strategies for research papers (dated November 17, 2004). Retrieved September 29, 2009, from http://www.virtualsalt.com/antiplag.htm
12.
HengP.JoyM.BoyattR., & GriffithsN. (2005). Evaluation of the BOSS Online Submission and Assessment System. Research Report CS-RR-415, University of Warwick.
13.
HoadT. C., & ZobelJ. (2003). Methods for identifying versioned and plagiarised documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(3), 203–215.
JoyM., & LuckM. (1999). Plagiarism in programming assignments. IEEE Transactions on Education, 42(2), 129–133.
17.
LancasterT., & CulwinF. (2004). Using freely available tools to produce a partially automated plagiarism detection process. Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference, Perth, Australia.
18.
LathropA., & FossK. (2000). Student cheating and plagiarism in the Internet era. A wake-up call.Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Mediaphor Software Entertainment AG.Plagiarism-Finder. Retrieved September 29, 2009, from http://www.m4-software.com/
21.
MozgovoyM.FredrikssonK.WhiteD.JoyM., & SutinenE. (2005). Fast plagiarism detection system. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3772, 267–270.
22.
MozgovoyM.KakkonenT., & SutinenE. (2007). Using natural language parsers in plagiarism detection. Proceedings of SLaTE'07 Workshop, Farmington, Pennsylvania.
23.
OttensteinK. (1976). An algorithmic approach to the detection and prevention of plagiarism. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 8(4), 30–41.
24.
ParkC. (2003). In other (people's) words: Plagiarism by university students—Literature and lessons. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5), 471–488.
25.
PosnerR. A. (2007). The little book of plagiarism.New York: Pantheon Books.
26.
PrecheltL.MalpohlG., & PhilippsenM. (2002). Finding plagiarisms among a set of programs with JPlag. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 8(11), 1016–1038.
27.
SchleimerS.WilkersonD., & AikenA. (2003). Winnowing: Local algorithms for document fingerprinting. Proceeding of the International Conference of the Association for Computer Machinery Special Interest Group on Management of Data. San Diego, California.
UzunerÖ.KatzB., & NahnsenT. (2005). Using syntactic information to identify plagiarism. Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics Workshop on Educational Applications, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
31.
VercoK., & WiseM. (1997). Plagiarism à la mode: A comparison of automated systems for detecting suspected plagiarism. The Computer Journal, 39(9), 741–750.
32.
WhaleG. (1990). Identification of program similarity in large populations. The Computer Journal, 33(2), 140–146.
33.
WiseM. J. (1996). YAP3: Improved detection of similarities in computer program and other texts. Proceedings of the 27th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
