VAIL Virtual Academic Integrity Laboratory UMUC Home
  home  sitemap  forum  chat  
Faculty art (briefcase + computer)
Faculty and Administrators Students
  Tutorials  Guides  Workshops  Survey Research  Policies  AI@UMUC  Links

     
 Introduction  
     
     
 Factors To Consider Before You Begin  
     
     
 Student Copyright and Detection Services  
     
     
 The Detection Process  
     
  

Choosing a Detection Tool
  
     
 Detection Workshops and Training  
     
     
 Resources for UMUC Faculty  
     
     
 Bibliography  
     
Detection Tools and Methods

Adobe PDFPrintable Version


Choosing a Detection Tool:
Stand-alone Desktop Software
Previous
Previous
Next
Next

 

Online Tools | Desktop Tools | Web Search Engines | Subscription Databases

 

Tool Name Type of Detection URL  
CopyCatch Gold Collusion http://www.copycatch.freeserve.co.uk  MORE INFORMATIONdown pointer
EVE2 Cut & Paste http://www.canexus.com/eve/index.shtml MORE INFORMATIONdown pointer
Glatt Plagiarism Screening Program (GPSP) Cut & Paste;
Collusion;
Fraud
http://www.plagiarism.com/ MORE INFORMATIONdown pointer
WordCheck Keyword DP Collusion http://www.wordchecksystems.com/wordcheck-dp.html MORE INFORMATIONdown pointer
Wcopyfind Collusion http://plagiarism.phys.virginia.edu/Wsoftware.html MORE INFORMATIONdown pointer

 


CopyCatch Gold
(Collusion)

Top
top

Vendor CFL Software Development
Demo/Trial Not readily offered on site; possibly available by request.
Pricing Structure 250£
Platform Windows; installed on user's PC; can be installed on network; Java version soon available.
Submission Formats Various document formats, e-mail; by faculty and students
Scope of Search Compares work collected by instructor to web resources as well as an internal database.
Results Format Web based
Results Turnaround Results are nearly instantaneous because they happen on your network. (CopyCatch)
Archives Student Papers No. The program lives on your computers. It uses the work your students produce or any electronic sources you have on your site, so (it) can compare last year with this year if you have the data. (CopyCatch)
Summary of Reviews Culwin & Lancaster (2001):"wins hands down on value and money."
Comments Instructor can set due dates within the system; results are processed in a batch after the due date; password necessary to access results.
Identified Limitations Will not accept student submissions after the due date; cannot access subscription websites.
Special Features Can be used to assist writing development, by allowing students to see where they are not interpreting text but are simply repeating it. Also allows students to see if and where they are repeating their own ideas. Campus license includes CopyCheck (used by students, allows the loading of electronic sources on one side of the screen and lets them practice paraphrase on the other side....; under development).
Report Samples From Copycatch: http://www.copycatch.freeserve.co.uk/ccessay1.htm

From "Results of Oxford's test of four text-based plagiarism detection tools" by Frances Condron (2001): http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/reports/plag.xml.ID=appendix

JISC Ratings* Key: Excellent ***** Good **** Acceptable *** Poor ** Unsatisfactory *
Developers Stability *
Speed of Response *****
Clarity of Reports *****
Accuracy of Reports *****
Reliability of Software/Service *****

 


EVE2
(Cut & Paste)

Top
top

Vendor CaNexus.com
Demo/Trial Yes; Free 15 trial
Pricing Structure Individual instructor- $19.95 (one time charge with free updates). Site license is a one time charge, start at $299.00 for high schools and grade schools, and $399 for Universities and Colleges.
Platform Windows(PC); Installed on user's workstation
Submission Formats Plain text, Microsoft Word, or Corel Word Perfect; text must be cut and paste into a text box by instructor.
Scope of Search Searches Internet resources through internet search engines; does not collect student work.
Results Format Windows based with URLs of possible Internet sources
Results Turnaround Depends on the speed of your computer, and the speed of your Internet connection, and the size of the paper. A typical time is a few minutes per 2500 words. (CaNexus)
Archives Student Papers No. We will never share your students' work with anyone else; our software is designed to make this impossible. (CaNexus)
Summary of Reviews Culwin & Lancaster suggest using a web-based tool instead (p.5).
Comments After submission the software then begins the search for the suspected text. This requires a continued connection to the Internet during the searching process. Results are presented in a pop-up window.
Identified Limitations Students cannot submit their own papers; does not trace documents that are not in HTML format; cannot search for collusion within your students' coursework unless they are published on the web; cannot access subscription websites; not easily installed on server.
Special Features  EVE 2.4 under development
Report Samples From "Results of Oxford's test of four text-based plagiarism detection tools" by Frances Condron (2001): http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/reports/plag.xml.ID=appendix
JISC Ratings* Key: Excellent ***** Good **** Acceptable *** Poor ** Unsatisfactory *
Developers Stability ***
Speed of Response ***
Clarity of Reports ***
Accuracy of Reports ***
Reliability of Software/Service ***

 


Glatt Plagiarism Screening Program (GPSP) (Cut & Paste; Collusion; Fraud)

Top
top

Vendor Glatt Plagiarism Services, Inc
Demo/Trial No
Pricing Structure $300.00; $250.00 if purchased with Glatt Plagiarism Self-Detection Program
Platform Windows(PC); Installed on user's workstation
Submission Formats Plain text files
Scope of Search "Knowledge tester"--The program eliminates every fifth word and evaluates the student's accuracy and speed in replacing them. The score is based on a proprietary database, statistical variables, and probability theory.
Results Format Program based; Windows
Results Turnaround Reported to be immediate. (Glatt)
Archives Student Papers N/A
Summary of Reviews  
Comments Program available in CD-ROM format; Useful for detecting plagiarism from an unidentifiable source, because it evaluates how well a student remembers 'own' writing"; Glatt Plagiarism Teaching Program for student use to prevent plagiarism is also available.
Identified Limitations Program does not detect the source of suspected text, it evaluates a student's knowledge of their own writing
Special Features Program does not detect the source of suspected text, it evaluates a student's knowledge of their own writing
Report Samples N/A

 


WordCheck Keyword DP (Collusion)

Top
top

Vendor Information Analytics
Demo/Trial Yes; Free 30-day trial; 5 documents
Pricing Structure WordCHECK DP Profiler Basic - $59 academic price, 1000 profiles; WordCHECK DP Profiler Pro - $179 academic price, 3,000 profiles and WordCHECK Site License Program—see http://www.wordchecksystems.com/sitelicense.html
Platform Windows(PC)
Submission Formats Word processing file formats, plain-text
Scope of Search Searches and compares content stored on local hard drive
Results Format Program based; Windows
Results Turnaround Reported to be quick (WordCheck); processing time is < 1 minute.
Archives Student Papers N/A; searches and compares content stored on local hard drive in user controlled database only.
Summary of Reviews According to JISC study (2001), results are quick, but less quick than CopyCatch; easy to mass distribute; poor technical support; and pricing is cost effective.
Comments Fully functional trial subscription.
Identified Limitations Does not detect plagiarism from Internet sources; Cannot be installed on network for multiple users.
Special Features Stand-alone product that does not need web access.
Report Samples From Wordcheck.com: http://www.wordchecksystems.com/examples/gettysburg.htm
JISC Ratings* Key: Excellent ***** Good **** Acceptable *** Poor ** Unsatisfactory *
Developers Stability ***
Speed of Response *****
Clarity of Reports *
Accuracy of Reports *
Reliability of Software/Service *****

 


Wcopyfind (Collusion)

Top
top

Vendor Lou Bloomfield, Professor of Physics, University of Virginia
Demo/Trial N/A
Pricing Structure Free
Platform Windows(PC)
Submission Formats Complete files, HTML
Scope of Search Local files on hard drive or a local file server, including local files with .htm or .html extensions; web-resident documents that are pointed to by local Internet shortcuts (URLs).
Results Format HTML
Results Turnaround Reported to be quick (Wcopyfind); processing time is < 1 minute.
Archives Student Papers N/A; program only scans through documents that you have in your collection or have identified on the web.
Summary of Reviews  
Comments  
Identified Limitations Cannot search Internet resources unless you specify an exact URL you suspect as a possible source; cannot access subscription websites.
Special Features  
Report Samples  
Previous
Previous
Next
Next
 

This project was developed by the Center for Intellectual Property at UMUC.

© 1996-2005 University of Maryland University College
3501 University Blvd. East
Adelphi, Maryland 20783 USA

Contact Us