Verdict: Not only is articlechecker.com totally ineffective, it's also misleading. Avoid it at all costs!
|What are the subscription options? e.g. free, paid only, paid and freeIf paid options, what length of subscription/price structure is offered?||Free online checker.|
|Maximum word count? (if any)||Unlimited/ not specified.|
|Resubmissions allowed? If so, is this limited?||Unlimited checks.|
|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;
|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, no contact information and no FAQ section.|
|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||Not detected. The online scanner did not identify the online pdf which contained material that had been plagiarised.|
|Basic plagiarism – copied and pasted from an online pdf||Not detected. The online scanner did not identify 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||Not detected. The online scanner did not identify the website 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||Not detected. The online scanner did not identify 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 website itself is very basic with just a header, a box in which to enter text, a search button and a toggle-button to select which search engines should be used to search for plagiarism – Google, Yahoo or both.Unlike other scanners such as plagiarismchecker.com, more than the first 18 words of any text submitted are searched for across the internet, suggesting it may be more comprehensive, however, articlechecker.com failed to detect plagiarism in any of the six test documents, making it the worst plagiarism scanner on the internet—the only other websites which scored 0/6 had broken down.Articlechecker.com, like many of the free online plagiarism checkers, runs text submitted on its website through search engines, although only two of the major search engines, Google and Yahoo, are searched. Even the most basic of checkers will identify blanket plagiarism, where none of the words have been changed, so this scanner has serious misgivings. Given that articlechecker.com failed to detect any plagiarism at all, there might be a flaw in its scanning process.
Typically it takes between eight and ten seconds for each search to be carried out if both Google and Yahoo are searched and, upon completion, an animated "search complete" icon lights up flashes, presumably to distract the user from the fact that, no matter what is searched for, the total number of matched phrases from the internet is always 0%. Samples of other plagiarised work, additional to the six test documents, were run through its scanner but, from Britney Spears song lyrics to the Lord's prayer, no plagiarism was ever detected.
Unlike the plagiarism scanning websites which simply don't work – where the user would give up and scan for plagiarism elsewhere – articlechecker.com is worse because it gives the impression that it's working. Only after several searches does it become apparent that the "matched phrases" result is always zero and that, no matter how much plagiarised material you feed into it, it will never detect it.
Not only is articlechecker.com totally ineffective, it's also misleading. Avoid it at all costs!