(2)<\/strong> had been able to attribute all sentences to one source<\/p>\nThis way, we were able to test whether checkers with a high plagiarism percentage actually had been able to find and fully match the source, or if they simply attributed a few sentences of the source text to multiple sources. This method also helped screen for false positives (e.g., highlighting non-plagiarized parts or common phrases as plagiarism).<\/p>\n
Data analysis<\/h3>\n
For the test document containing unedited text, we calculated the total score for each tool and divided this score by the total possible score (which was 280). We then converted this number to a percentage.<\/p>\n
We repeated this procedure for the edited text, but this time the total possible score was 62, since we only included the 31 source texts that had been found by all plagiarism checkers.<\/p>\n
Results<\/h2>\n
The following results indicate how much plagiarism the tools were able to detect in the unedited, lightly edited, moderately edited, and heavily edited document.<\/p>\n
For the edited categories, we only used sources from the unedited document that were found by all plagiarism checkers during the first round. Therefore, some checkers were able to score more highly in subsequent rounds.<\/span><\/p>\nThis table is ranked based on the unedited column, but all the results were taken into account in our analysis.<\/p>\n
\n\n\nPlagiarism checker<\/th>\n | Paid or free?<\/th>\n | Unedited<\/th>\n | Lightly edited<\/th>\n | Moderately edited<\/th>\n | Heavily edited<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n |
\n\nScribbr (in partnership \nwith Turnitin)<\/th>\n | Paid (free version doesn\u2019t have full report)<\/td>\n | 84%<\/td>\n | 98%<\/td>\n | 87%<\/td>\n | 63%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
\nPlagaware<\/th>\n | Paid<\/td>\n | 71%<\/td>\n | 87%<\/td>\n | 48%<\/td>\n | 23%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
\nViper<\/th>\n | Paid<\/td>\n | 51%<\/td>\n | 61%<\/td>\n | 39%<\/td>\n | 23%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
\nSmall SEO Tools<\/th>\n | Free (premium version available)<\/td>\n | 49%<\/td>\n | 50%<\/td>\n | 47%<\/td>\n | 31%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
\nDupliChecker<\/th>\n | Free (premium version available)<\/td>\n | 48%<\/td>\n | 50%<\/td>\n | 47%<\/td>\n | 32%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
\nQuetext<\/th>\n | Paid (free trial)<\/td>\n | 48%<\/td>\n | 63%<\/td>\n | 63%<\/td>\n | 23%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
\nPlagiarism Detector<\/th>\n | Free (premium version available)<\/td>\n | 47%<\/td>\n | 48%<\/td>\n | 42%<\/td>\n | 23%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
\nCheck Plagiarism<\/th>\n | Paid (free trial)<\/td>\n | 45%<\/td>\n | 44%<\/td>\n | 44%<\/td>\n | 26%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
\nPre Post SEO<\/th>\n | Paid (free trial)<\/td>\n | 44%<\/td>\n | 48%<\/td>\n | 44%<\/td>\n | 31%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
\nSearch Engine Reports<\/th>\n | Free (premium version available)<\/td>\n | 44%<\/td>\n | 39%<\/td>\n | 37%<\/td>\n | 31%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
\nPlagiarism Checker<\/th>\n | Paid (free trial)<\/td>\n | 43%<\/td>\n | 32%<\/td>\n | 31%<\/td>\n | 15%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
\nGrammarly<\/th>\n | Paid<\/td>\n | 37%<\/td>\n | 68%<\/td>\n | 36%<\/td>\n | 19%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
\nWriter<\/th>\n | Paid<\/td>\n | 34%<\/td>\n | 42%<\/td>\n | 24%<\/td>\n | 8%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
\nSmodin<\/th>\n | Paid<\/td>\n | 33%<\/td>\n | 42%<\/td>\n | 31%<\/td>\n | 19%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
<\/tr>\n
\nCompilatio<\/th>\n | Paid<\/td>\n | 30%<\/td>\n | 47%<\/td>\n | 29%<\/td>\n | 18%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
\nCopyleaks<\/th>\n | Paid<\/td>\n | 20%<\/td>\n | 45%<\/td>\n | 42%<\/td>\n | 27%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\nEvaluating the plagiarism checker tools<\/h2>\nOur next step was a qualitative analysis, during which quality of matches, usability, and trustworthiness were assessed, with the help of pre-set criteria. These contributed to a more standardized, objective evaluation. All plagiarism checkers were evaluated the same way.<\/p>\n The selected criteria cover a great deal of users\u2019 needs:<\/p>\n \n- Quality of matches:<\/strong> It’s crucial for plagiarism checkers to be able to match the entire plagiarized section to the right source. Partial matches, where the checker matches individual sentences to multiple sources, result in a messy, hard-to-interpret report. False positives, where common phrases are incorrectly marked as plagiarism, are also important to consider, because these skew the plagiarism percentages.<\/li>\n
- Usability:<\/strong> It’s essential that plagiarism checkers show a clear overview of potential plagiarism issues. The report should be clear and cohesive, with a clean design. It is also important that users can instantly resolve the issues, for example by adding automatically generated citations.<\/li>\n
- Trustworthiness:<\/strong> It’s important for students and academics that their documents are not stored or sold to third parties. This way, they know for sure that the plagiarism check will not result in plagiarism issues when they submit their text to their educational institution or for publication. It is also important that the tool offers customer support if problems occur.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In seeking to find the best plagiarism checker tool on the market in 2023, we conducted an experiment comparing the performance of 10 checkers. We also carried out a separate experiment comparing 10 free plagiarism checkers. There was some overlap between the two experiments in terms of the tools covered. We focused on a series […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_relevanssi_hide_post":"","_relevanssi_hide_content":"","_relevanssi_pin_for_all":"","_relevanssi_pin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_unpin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_include_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_exclude_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_no_append":"","_relevanssi_related_not_related":"","_relevanssi_related_posts":"","_relevanssi_noindex_reason":""},"categories":[41],"tags":[],"acf":[],"yoast_head":" Comparing Plagiarism Checker Tools | Methods & Results<\/title>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n |