Comparative Analysis of Plagiarism Detection Systems

Abstract

This article compares plagiarism detection systems according to the list of criteria, compiled from the most challenging and important features for users in Ukrainian higher educational institutions. In addition it describes types of text-based plagiarism and provides an overview of the most common and serious forms of plagiarism around the world and in Ukraine in particular.The authors carried out a comparative analysis of three plagiarism detection systems − Turnitin, Unicheck, eTXT − and highlighted advantages and disadvantages of each one for the use in Ukraine. However, in further studies there might be a need for revising and expanding the list of criteria depending on the subject and the aim of using plagiarism checkers.

Testing of support tools for plagiarism detection

“…Software that checks text-based documents, source code, or both (Chowdhury & Bhattacharyya, 2016;Clough, 2000;Lancaster & Culwin, 2005;Lukashenko et al, 2007); Software that is free, private, or available by subscription (Chowdhury & Bhattacharyya, 2016;Lancaster & Culwin, 2005;Lukashenko et al, 2007;Nahas, 2017;Pertile et al, 2016;Shkodkina & Pacauskas, 2017;Urbina et al, 2010;Vandana, 2018); Software that is available online (web-based) or can be installed on a desktop computer (Lancaster & Culwin, 2005;Marjanović et al, 2015;Nahas, 2017;Pertile et al, 2016;Shkodkina & Pacauskas, 2017;Vandana, 2018); Software that operates intra-corpally, extra-corpally, or both (Lancaster & Culwin, 2005;Lukashenko et al, 2007;Marjanović et al, 2015).…”

“…McKeever (2006) classifies text-matching software tools into search-based systems, systems performing linguistic analysis, software based on collusion detection, and systems for detecting software plagiarism. Shkodkina and Pacauskas (2017) have defined 28 comparison criteria that are divided into four categories: affordability, material support, functionality, and showcasing. They compared three tools based on the criteria defined.…”