ArticlePloS one2025
Comparative analysis of text-based plagiarism detection techniques.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sequential boundary tracking via reinforcement learning for overlapping cell resolution in sickle cell imaging.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Logistics equipment condition monitoring and prediction based on digital twin and machine learning.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Identifying artificial intelligence-generated content using the DistilBERT transformer and NLP techniques.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In text analysis, identifying plagiarism is a crucial area of study that looks for copied information in a document and determines whether or not the same author writes portions of the text. With the emergence of publicly available tools for content generation based on large language models, the problem of inherent plagiarism has grown in importance across various industries. Students are increasingly committing plagiarism as a result of the availability and use of computers in the classroom and the generally extensive accessibility of electronic information found on the internet. As a result, there is a rising need for reliable and precise detection techniques to deal with this changing environment. This paper compares several plagiarism detection techniques and looks into how well different detection systems can distinguish between content created by humans and content created by Artificial Intelligence (AI). This article systematically evaluates 189 research papers published between 2019 and 2024 to provide an overview of the research on computational approaches for plagiarism detection (PD). We suggest a new technically focused structure for efforts to prevent and identify plagiarism, types of plagiarism, and computational techniques for detecting plagiarism to organize the way the research contributions are presented. We demonstrated that the field of plagiarism detection is rife with ongoing research. Significant progress has been made in the field throughout the time we reviewed in terms of automatically identifying plagiarism that is highly obscured and hence difficult to recognize. The exploration of nontextual contents, the use of machine learning, and improved semantic text analysis techniques are the key sources of these advancements. Based on our analysis, we concluded that the combination of several analytical methodologies for textual and nontextual content features is the most promising subject for future research contributions to further improve the detection of plagiarism.
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.