We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
Google versus other text similarity tools in detection of plagiarism: a pilot study in the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research.
- Authors
Jain, Hemant; Das, Sunanda; Garg, Aarti
- Abstract
Background: We practised using plagiarism detection software in the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, but after a few significant items were missed, we re-assessed our strategy and compared Google with three other text similarity programmes. Method: 25 manuscripts (16 original articles and 9 case reports) were randomly selected, where the decision to publish had been greatly affected by plagiarism. These manuscripts were checked for plagiarism, searching each sentence using Google. The same manuscripts were run through three text similarity software programmes (iThenticate, Viper, and Plagiarism Checker X). For original research, we considered methodology, results, and discussion; and for case reports, we considered case details and discussion. Each report was checked by the investigators for scoring in addition to the percentage of plagiarism reported in the software. Results: When checking original articles, Google performed the best, iThenticate missed a few minor sections, and Plagiarism Checker X had a lower number of hits, followed by Viper. On analysing the case reports, Google and iThenticate were found to be similar. Plagiarism Checker X missed minor sections, and Viper missed significant parts and was therefore considered less reliable. Conclusions: Based on the study results, we suggest using two software programmes and manual verification of the manuscript.
- Subjects
PLAGIARISM; GOOGLE (Web resource); PILOT projects; MANUSCRIPTS; COMPUTER software; TEXT processing (Computer science)
- Publication
European Science Editing, 2016, Vol 42, Issue 4, p87
- ISSN
0258-3127
- Publication type
Article
- DOI
10.20316/ESE.2016.42.012