Verdict: Copying and pasting text into the scanner is the same as copying and pasting text directly into a search engine.
Free plagiarism checker review: //www.plagiarismchecker.com/ | |
| What are the subscription options? e.g. free, paid only, paid and free. If paid options, what length of subscription/price structure is offered? | Free online checker. |
| Maximum word count? (if any) | Online checker will only search the first 18 words of each submission. |
| Resubmissions allowed? If so, is this limited? | Unlimited. |
| Type of scanner E.g. software download, copy and paste, upload document online. Say if multiple options are offered. | “Copy and paste’ online scanner. |
| Sources checked E.g. internet, any specific journal databases mentioned, any electronic book databases such as Google docs mentioned, past submissions from other students etc | Website – no words altered; Website – some words removed; Website – some words changed; Website – fully paraphrased; Online pdf; Electronic book. |
| File types supported E.g. doc, docx, rtf, open office, pdfs, ppts | None – the user can only cut and paste text into the online scanner. |
| Extra features? E.g. grammar checker, spelling checker | None. |
| Support offered? E.g. phone, email etc | There is no support offered for the online plagiarism checker although there is a “Report Plagiarism” link which provides instructions on how to contact the major search engines to inform them of plagiarised content. |
| Report / results | |
| Type of report Downloadable? Shareable? | Reports are generated within the website’s browser but these can’t be downloaded or shared. |
| Side by side comparison to plagiarism? | No. |
| Accuracy of results – Which sections were detected and which were not (make sure the correct source is identified) | |
| Basic plagiarism – copied and pasted from a website source | Detected. The online scanner correctly identified the webpage which contained material that had been plagiarised |
| Basic plagiarism – copied and pasted from an online pdf | Detected. The online scanner correctly identified the online pdf which contained material that had been plagiarised |
| Some words removed – copied and pasted from a website source | Not detected. The online scanner did not identify the website which contained material that had been plagiarised. |
| Some words changed – copied and pasted from a website source | Detected. The online scanner correctly identified the webpage which contained material that had been plagiarised |
| Full paraphrasing – copied and pasted from a website source | Not detected. The online scanner did not identify the website which contained material that had been plagiarised. |
| Basic plagiarism – copied and pasted from an electronic book | Detected. The online scanner correctly identified the electronic book which contained material that had been plagiarised |
| General observations Ease of use, overall experience. If other features were included (e.g. spelling, grammar check), how easy were they to use and how useful were they? | |
| The scanner works by taking the first 18 words of any submission and running them through a search engine – by default this is Google, but Yahoo may also be selected. If the document has been plagiarised, and if the site the words have been plagiarised from has been indexed by google, this will show up in the results. The results are listed as Google search results (if this has been selected) and highlight in bold any matching entries. There are a number of drawbacks with this online scanner. Firstly, as only the first 18 words of each submission are checked (because this is the maximum number of words which can be searched for in Google in one search) it would be possible to beat the scanner by taking an entirely plagiarised work and ensuring the first 18 words are original. As a result, multiple scans would be required to detect plagiarism, although there is no limit on the number of searches which may be carried out. Secondly, the purpose of the scanner is questionable as it relies entirely on search engines alone to detect plagiarism – copying and pasting text into the scanner is therefore the same as copying and pasting text directly into a search engine. The “Report Plagiarism’ link is helpful in outlining how to contact the relevant search engines to draw their attention to plagiarised work and also offers users the option of reporting plagiarism on their behalf. However, the name of the offending student is required, as well as their teacher’s email address, adding that any information being provided won’t be treated anonymously and this begs the question – if someone had evidence of plagiarism and, by chance, the email address of the plagiariser’s teacher, why would they require someone else to email on their behalf, especially if their details aren’t going to be kept anonymous? Quite like the online scanner itself, this rather over-complicates a simple process. | |
