Electronic detection of plagiarism

Under the Higher Education Academy’s enhancing learning through technology work, Jon Scott and I have a funded project to look at the effectiveness and implications of electronic detection of plagiarism in Higher Education. This is  part of the 2009 evidence net series of synthesis projects.

We are in the process of producing a synthesis on the evidence of the effectiveness, use and implementation of plagiarism detection by electronic means ‘Dealing with plagiarism in the digital age. To support and continue the project, all the references for the synthesis will be added to a group in citeulike.

The citeulike group ‘e-plagiarism’ is open for anyone to join. You can contribute to the collection of references in this area as well as benefitting from access to a shared bibliography. Searching for papers in this area is not straightforward, since the subject cuts across many different boundaries in education and much of the research has been published in subject specific education journals. Using social bookmarking will provide a resource that can be added to as more papers in this area are published.

If you have an interest in this area of research, or have a favourite paper that I haven’t included in the bibliography so far, please join the group and add your contribution!


5 thoughts on “Electronic detection of plagiarism”

  1. Hi

    Im displacing. Interesting to hear about how you are shaping resources / access etc using mind mapping. We are building a website on teaching international students linked to Evidence net for refs etc…. using a chronology.

    Anyway, the reason for this post: My mate Janette informs me that someone at Monash has just designed and launched hios own electronic detection tool and the name of this thing?


    How’s that for a metaphor?????

    As in Sword of….
    So along with investigating ‘effectiveness’ how about checking ‘effectiveness for what?’

    1. @Jude I was interested in looking at ‘effectiveness’ in terms of trying to find evidence to show that the introduction of electronic detection had improved student awareness and implementation of good citation practice, paraphrasing and academic scholarship. Unsurprisingly there are almost no empirical studies in this area 😦 I’ve broadened out the review otherwise it would have been very short indeed. I’ve included information about the testing of electronic detection systems (Weber-Wulff software reviews and other tests) and literature comparing the systems. The overall message is still the same though – you need to know what you are looking for and be able to teach students how to write well whatever tool you are thinking of using.

  2. Great idea
    I would be very interested in any outcomes, i’m in the process of trying to put together evidence to support wider adoption here at LJMU.
    What’s your star rating criteria?

    1. @jim as I said to Jude, this is about looking at the effect of plagiarism detection tools in higher education, so I don’t be assigning star ratings to different software systems if that is what you are after? Hopefully the review will point you to some literature that could provide you with some background on the lessons others have learned from implementation of such systems. I’d be interested to hear your views.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s