ArticleHeliyon2023
Are paid tools worth the cost? A prospective cross-over study to find the right tool for plagiarism detection.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perspectives of Artificial Intelligence Use for In-House Ethics Checks of Journal Submissions.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Review
- Reflections on the Potential and Risks of AI for Scientific Article Writing after the AI Endorsement by Some Scientific Publishers: Focusing on Scopus AI.Actas espanolas de psiquiatria · 2025Review
- Authors, beware of plagiarism in medical writing.Journal of postgraduate medicine · 2025Article
- Knowledge and practices of plagiarism among journal editors of Nepal.Research integrity and peer review · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The increasing pressure to publish research has led to a rise in plagiarism incidents, creating a need for effective plagiarism detection software. The importance of this study lies in the high cost variation amongst the available options for plagiarism detection. By uncovering the advantages of these low-cost or free alternatives, researchers could access the appropriate tools for plagiarism detection. This is the first study to compare four plagiarism detection tools and assess factors impacting their effectiveness in identifying plagiarism in AI-generated articles. Methodology: A prospective cross-over study was conducted with the primary objective to compare Overall Similarity Index(OSI) of four plagiarism detection software(iThenticate, Grammarly, Small SEO Tools, and DupliChecker) on AI-generated articles. ChatGPT was used to generate 100 articles, ten from each of ten general domains affecting various aspects of life. These were run through four software, recording the OSI. Flesch Reading Ease Score(FRES), Gunning Fog Index(GFI), and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level(FKGL) were used to assess how factors, such as article length and language complexity, impact plagiarism detection. Results: The study found significant variation in OSI(p < 0.001) among the four software, with Grammarly having the highest mean rank(3.56) and Small SEO Tools having the lowest(1.67). Pairwise analyses revealed significant differences(p < 0.001) between all pairs except for Small SEO Tools-DupliChecker. Number of words showed a significant correlation with OSI for iThenticate(p < 0.05) but not for the other three. FRES had a positive correlation, and GFI had a negative correlation with OSI by DupliChecker. FKGL negatively correlated with OSI by Small SEO Tools and DupliChecker. Conclusion: Grammarly is unexpectedly most effective in detecting plagiarism in AI-generated articles compared to the other tools. This could be due to different softwares using diverse data sources. This highlights the potential for lower-cost plagiarism detection tools to be utilized by researchers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.