journal article·2022-04-30Open access

Evaluation of Different Plagiarism Detection Methods: A Fuzzy MCDM Perspective

Kamal Mansour Jambi, Imtiaz Hussain Khan, Muazzam Ahmed Siddiqui

Applied Sciences· Volume 12· Issue 9

Abstract

Due to the overall widespread accessibility of electronic materials available on the internet, the availability and usage of computers in education have resulted in a growth in the incidence of plagiarism among students. A growing number of individuals at colleges around the globe appear to be presenting plagiarised papers to their professors for credit, while no specific details are collected of how much was plagiarised previously or how much is plagiarised currently. Supervisors, who are overburdened with huge responsibility, desire a simple way—similar to a litmus test—to rapidly reform plagiarized papers so that they may focus their work on the remaining students. Plagiarism-checking software programs are useful for detecting plagiarism in examinations, projects, publications, and academic research. A number of the latest research findings dedicated to evaluating and comparing plagiarism-checking methods have demonstrated that these have restrictions in identifying the complicated structures of plagiarism, such as extensive paraphrasing as well as the utilization of technical manipulations, such as substituting original text with similar text from foreign alphanumeric characters. Selecting the best reliable and efficient plagiarism-detection method is a challenging task with so many options available nowadays. This paper evaluates the different academic plagiarism-detection methods using the fuzzy MCDM (multi-criteria decision-making) method and provides recommendations for the development of efficient plagiarism-detection systems. A hierarchy of evaluation is discussed, as well as an examination of the most promising plagiarism-detection methods that have the opportunity to resolve the constraints of current state-of-the-art tools. As a result, the study serves as a “blueprint” for constructing the next generation of plagiarism-checking tools.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Academic integrity and plagiarism · Imbalanced Data Classification Techniques · Software Engineering Research

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Computer Science, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 80200, Saudi Arabia

Department of Information System, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 80200, Saudi Arabia

Funding

King Abdulaziz City of Science and Technology

References (51)

Show source-provided references
1. Shared information and program plagiarism detection10.1109/TIT.2004.830793 ↗
2. A comparison of source code plagiarism detection engines10.1080/08993400412331363843 ↗
3. Potthast, M., Stein, B., Barrón-Cedeño, A., and Rosso, P. (2010). An evaluation framework for plagiarism detection. Coling 2010: Posters, Coling 2010 Organizing Committee.
4. Lukashenko, R., Graudina, V., and Grundspenkis, J. (2007, January 14–15). Computer-based plagiarism detection methods and tools: An overview. Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies, Ruse, Bulgaria.10.1145/1330598.1330642 ↗
5. STORE: Security threat oriented requirements engineering methodology
6. Study on Extrinsic Text Plagiarism Detection Techniques and Tools
7. P-STORE: Extension of STORE methodology to elicit privacy requirements10.1007/s13369-021-05476-z ↗
8. Donaldson, J.L., Lancaster, A.M., and Sposato, P.H. (1981, January 26–27). A plagiarism detection system. Proceedings of the Twelfth SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, St. Louis, MO, USA.10.1145/800037.800955 ↗
9. Computer algorithms for plagiarism detection10.1109/13.28038 ↗
10. Eissen, S.M.Z., and Stein, B. (2006). Intrinsic plagiarism detection. European Conference on Information Retrieval, Springer.10.1007/11735106_66 ↗
11. Si, A., Leong, H.V., and Lau, R.W. (March, January 28). Check: A document plagiarism detection system. Proceedings of the 1997 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, San Jose, CA, USA.10.1145/331697.335176 ↗
12. Cross-language plagiarism detection10.1007/s10579-009-9114-z ↗
13. Sorokina, D., Gehrke, J., Warner, S., and Ginsparg, P. (2006, January 18–22). Plagiarism detection in arXiv. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM’06), Hong Kong, China.10.1109/ICDM.2006.126 ↗
14. Ansari, M.T.J., and Pandey, D. (2018). Risks, security, and privacy for HIV/AIDS data: Big data perspective. Big Data Analytics in HIV/AIDS Research, IGI Global.10.4018/978-1-5225-3203-3.ch005 ↗
15. Evaluation of state-of-the-art paraphrase identification and its application to automatic plagiarism detection10.1142/S0218001420530043 ↗
16. Gipp, B., Meuschke, N., and Beel, J. (2011, January 13–17). Comparative evaluation of text-and citation-based plagiarism detection approaches using guttenplag. Proceedings of the 11th Annual International ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, Ottawa, ON, Canada.10.1145/1998076.1998124 ↗
17. zu Guttenberg, K.T. (2009). Verfassung und Verfassungsvertrag: Konstitutionelle Entwicklungsstufen in den USA und der EU, Duncker & Humblot.10.3790/978-3-428-52534-8 ↗
18. Guttenplag, W. (2022, March 12). Online Resource. Available online: http://de.guttenplag.wikia.com.
19. Modiba, P., Pieterse, V., and Haskins, B. (2016, January 4–6). Evaluating plagiarism detection software for introductory programming assignments. Proceedings of the Computer Science Education Research Conference, Pretoria, South Africa.10.1145/2998551.2998558 ↗
20. Barrón-Cedeño, A., Potthast, M., Rosso, P., and Stein, B. (2010, January 17–23). Corpus and evaluation measures for automatic plagiarism detection. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’10), Valletta, Malta.
21. Hermetic and web plagiarism detection systems for student essays—An evaluation of the state-of-the-art10.2190/EC.42.2.a ↗
22. Juričić, V., Jurić, T., and Tkalec, M. (2011, January 9–11). Performance evaluation of plagiarism detection method based on the intermediate language. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference “The Future of Information Sciences: INFuture2011–Information Sciences and e-Society”, Zagreb, Croatia.
23. Acampora, G., and Cosma, G. (2015, January 2–5). A Fuzzy-based approach to programming language independent source-code plagiarism detection. Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE), Istanbul, Turkey.10.1109/FUZZ-IEEE.2015.7337935 ↗
24. Ali, A.M.E.T., Abdulla, H.M.D., and Snasel, V. (2011). Overview and comparison of plagiarism detection tools. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, VŠB-Technical University of Ostrava.10.1109/AMS.2011.19 ↗
25. Hage, J., Rademaker, P., and Van Vugt, N. (2010). A Comparison of Plagiarism Detection Tools, Utrecht University.
26. Kasprzak, J., and Brandejs, M. (2022, March 15). Improving the Reliability of the Plagiarism Detection System. Lab Report for PAN at CLEF 2010. Available online: http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1176/CLEF2010wn-PAN-KasprzakEt2010.pdf.
27. Gutbrod, M.A. (2007). Nachhaltiges E-Learning Durch Sekundäre Dienste. [Ph.D. Thesis, Technische Universität Braunschweig].
28. Juola, P. (2017, January 24–26). Detecting contract cheating via stylometric methods. Proceedings of the Conference on Plagiarism across Europe and Beyond, Brno, Czech Republic.
29. Surveying stylometry techniques and applications10.1145/3132039 ↗
30. Gipp, B., and Beel, J. (2010, January 13–16). Citation based plagiarism detection: A new approach to identify plagiarized work language independently. Proceedings of the 21st ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, Toronto, ON, Canada.10.1145/1810617.1810671 ↗
31. Words versus character n-grams for anti-spam filtering10.1142/S0218213007003692 ↗
32. Word n-gram attention models for sentence similarity and inference10.1016/j.eswa.2019.04.054 ↗
33. Bao, J., Lyon, C., Lane, P.C., Ji, W., and Malcolm, J. (2022, March 15). Comparing Different Text Similarity Methods. Available online: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.578.841&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
34. Paraphrase identification and semantic text similarity analysis in Arabic news tweets using lexical, syntactic, and semantic features10.1016/j.ipm.2017.01.002 ↗
35. A Persian fuzzy plagiarism detection approach
36. Expressive signals in social media languages to improve polarity detection10.1016/j.ipm.2015.04.004 ↗
37. Katta, J.Y.B. (2018). Machine Learning for Source-Code Plagiarism Detection. [Ph.D. Thesis, International Institute of Information Technology Hyderabad, University of Science and Technology].
38. Chong, M.Y.M. (2013). A Study on Plagiarism Detection and Plagiarism Direction Identification Using Natural Language Processing Techniques, University of Wolverhampton.
39. The ethical implications of plagiarism and ghostwriting in an open society10.5590/JOSC.2017.09.1.04 ↗
40. Hourrane, O., and Benlahmar, E.H. (2017, January 29–30). Survey of plagiarism detection approaches and big data techniques related to plagiarism candidate retrieval. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Big Data, Cloud and Applications, Tetouan, Morocco.10.1145/3090354.3090369 ↗
41. Meuschke, N. (2021). Analyzing Non-Textual Content Elements to Detect Academic Plagiarism. arXiv.
42. Weber-Wulff, D. (2014). False Feathers: A Perspective on Academic Plagiarism, Springer Science & Business.10.1007/978-3-642-39961-9 ↗
43. Jhi, Y.C., Wang, X., Jia, X., Zhu, S., Liu, P., and Wu, D. (2011, January 21–28). Value-based program characterization and its application to software plagiarism detection. Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering, Honolulu, HI, USA.10.1145/1985793.1985899 ↗
44. Academic plagiarism detection: A systematic literature review
45. Hwang, C.L., and Yoon, K. (1981). Methods for multiple attribute decision making. Multiple Attribute Decision Making, Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9 ↗
46. Fuzzy MCDM approach to select service provider
47. A fuzzy TOPSIS based analysis toward selection of effective security requirements engineering approach for trustworthy healthcare software development10.1186/s12911-020-01209-8 ↗
48. Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with objective weights10.1016/S0305-0548(99)00069-6 ↗
49. Atrocious impinging of COVID-19 pandemic on software development industries10.32604/csse.2021.014929 ↗
50. Ansari, M.T.J., Agrawal, A., and Khan, R.A. (2022). DURASec: Durable Security Blueprints for Web-Applications Empowering Digital India Initiative, EAI Endorsed Transactions on Scalable Information Systems.
51. Integrated fuzzy multi criteria decision making method and multi-objective programming approach for supplier selection and order allocation in a green supply chain10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.02.010 ↗