Verdict: Despite its glowing testimonials, Duplichecker only detected plagiarism in three out of the six tests conducted.
Service: www.duplichecker.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? | Free online checker. |
| Maximum word count? (if any) | No maximum. |
| Resubmissions allowed? If so, is this limited? | Unregistered users can carry out one search. Registered users can carry out unlimited searches and there is no cost associated. |
| Type of scanner E.g. software download, copy and paste, upload document online. Say if multiple options are offered. | Two options offered: “Copy and Paste’ online scanner;File uploader. |
| 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 | Only text (.txt) files can be uploaded. |
| Extra features? E.g. grammar checker, spelling checker | None. |
| Support offered? E.g. phone, email etc | Online support is featured – but see general observations. A “contact us’ page also features along with a page of FAQs. |
| 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 | 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 | Detected. The online scanner correctly identified 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 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? | |
| The overall design of the website is professional in tone and easy to use. In addition to the plagiarism scanner there are also a number of tabs providing contact information, testimonials, FAQs and a series of blogs entries. The blog entries themselves are an eclectic mix of articles – those concerned with plagiarism or writing in general are relevant to the aims of the website, although the inclusion of some articles—such as Palm Jumeirah Dubai Real Estate—rightly seem out of place.The plagiarism scanner which features on the website allows the user to either copy and paste text directly into the browser or upload a text (.txt) file, which means documents created in any other format must first be converted. As the search is carried out, it lists the websites from which material has been taken and provides a very handy “compare text” feature which, when selected, opens a new web-page which shows the source of the plagiarism as well as providing a brief summary, such as this one:The comparison below was created by Duplichecker (scroll down to the bottom of this review).The page below has 192 words matching 100% of the text as highlighted by Duplichecker : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism  Duplichecker made a good start, identifying the correct source of an entirely plagiarised article and pdf as well as detecting the source of a website where some of the words had been removed. However, the scanner failed to spot plagiarism in a web source where some of the words had been changed and failed to detect a paraphrased article. It also didn’t spot plagiarised content from an ebook – accordingly, despite its glowing testimonials, it only detected plagiarism in three out of the six tests conducted.Although an interactive – chat utility is featured, no operator was ever available (despite checking back a few times over a one week period at different times). However, as this is a free online scanner with no associated fees, a dedicated operator is perhaps too much to expect! In addition to the unmanned interactive chat facility, there is also an option to email a query via a contact form. | |
