
doi: 10.1007/11735106_66
Current research in the field of automatic plagiarism detection for text documents focuses on algorithms that compare plagiarized documents against potential original documents. Though these approaches perform well in identifying copied or even modified passages, they assume a closed world: a reference collection must be given against which a plagiarized document can be compared. This raises the question whether plagiarized passages within a document can be detected automatically if no reference is given, e. g. if the plagiarized passages stem from a book that is not available in digital form. We call this problem class intrinsic plagiarism detection. The paper is devoted to this problem class; it shows that it is possible to identify potentially plagiarized passages by analyzing a single document with respect to variations in writing style. Our contributions are fourfold: (i) a taxonomy of plagiarism delicts along with detection methods, (ii) new features for the quantification of style aspects, (iii) a publicly available plagiarism corpus for benchmark comparisons, and (iv) promising results in non-trivial plagiarism detection settings: in our experiments we achieved recall values of 85% with a precision of 75% and better.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 66 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 1% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
