Verdict: During tests, the scanner performed reasonably well, detecting plagiarism in three out of the six sample documents
Service: www.dupeoff.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? | Online checker may be used up to four times for free with some restrictions on functionality.$5 (Basic) 5,000 credits*;$20 (Intermediate) 25,000 credits; $50 (Pro) 50,000 credits; $100 (Mega) 100,000 credits; $250 (Giga) 250,000 credits. * 1 credit = 1 request to the search engine API, so a 600 word article that consists of circa 30 – 50 sentences will count as 30 – 50 credits. |
| Maximum word count? (if any) | Unlimited/ not stated. |
| Resubmissions allowed? If so, is this limited? | Each resubmission or scan will deduct credits, the cost of this varies depending on the package subscribed to. |
| 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 | Offers facility for checking for plagiarism on webpages by entering the website’s URL. |
| Support offered? E.g. phone, email etc | There is a link to a support forum within the website in which users can post queries and comments. |
| Report / results | |
| Type of report Downloadable? Shareable? | Reports are produced within the browser and registered users with a subscription package can also have the results emailed to them. |
| 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 | 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? | |
| Dupeoff.com is an online plagiarism scanner which advertises itself as a “free online plagiarism checker”; however, this is somewhat misleading as users can only check the first four sentences of one submission per day, beyond that a subscription package is required. This in itself is quite confusing. Firstly, there are five different packages, probably four more than there needs to be, and secondly, it’s not clear what you’re getting for your money. $5 will buy 500 credits, but a 30-50 sentence article will use 30-50 credits so it’s possible to wipe out your credits in one go if you’re checking a big piece of work.No online support is offered other than a support forum – a questionable way to provide customer service as the world can see what problems individual users of the scanner encounter, and the most recent post exclaims “I have paid for something I can’t use!”The scanner itself functions like many plagiarism scanners, relying on content searches run through Google and Bing search engines. The interface itself is pretty basic, although at least searches can be carried out across Google and Bing at the same time, unlike other some other online scanners. Documents cannot be uploaded to the website and content must be pasted directly into its browser to carry out a search. The scanner also features a handy “email results’ feature. During tests, the scanner performed reasonably well, detecting plagiarism in three out of the six sample documents – about average for this type of scanner. It detected plagiarism in work which had been copied directly from the internet, in work where some of the words had been changed and in work which had plagiarised an online pdf. If did not detect plagiarism in an article where some of the words had been removed, nor did it detect an entirely paraphrased article or one which had plagiarised an electronic book.As there are more effective plagiarism scanners available which are free, purchasing a subscription package isn’t recommended. | |
