Are there any standardized criteria to interpret an Ithenticate report?
What should the upper limit of similarity percentage as a whole or an individual article to be able say "unacceptable" ?
How many similar full sentences can be considered "acceptable"?
Do criteria change when the author(s) are same for the similar article?
iThenticate does not check for plagiarism in a submission. It checks a submission against the content database, and if there are instances where the submission's content is similar to, or matches against, one or more sources, it will be flagged for review. The database includes billions of web pages (both current and archived content), a repository of work that has been submitted to Crossref Similarity Check and Turnitin in the past, and a collection of documents, which comprises of thousands of periodicals, journals, and publications.
Please check out the manual for iThenticate!
Thanks for the comments but the answer I am looking for is quite different than your suggestion. It can sometimes be very challenging to interpret a report.
I think there should be some cut-off values to consider a paper whether it is “acceptable” or “unacceptable”.
there is no acceptable cutoff point for similarity rates. the referee must decide whether these programs are plagiarized after comparing them. Sometimes even a sentence can be an important plagiarism. so it is important that what is quoted is how much it is quoted. programs are just helping. the last decision should give rewiever or referee
Yes I agree with @Balci. As she mentioned it is totally depends on the guide/reviewer's decision to move further. The reason why we use iThenticate is to check how similar our text is with existing content. If we get more similarity then we have to think seriously to revise our writing. Means that similar to our manuscript content is already exist in the database. But scientific community will not accept similarity index if it comes more. So, iThenticate can only help us to write in a better way to be unique. Finally, it's our decision to move with uniqueness or go in the usual way.
Also the reviewer should bear in his/her mind the similarity of common technical terms before he or she ask for modification or re-phrase the sentences
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, SARS, corona virus disease ( the words in this sentence are common and can be detected by the IAuthenticate as plagiarised
Metin Akgun Thank you for your topic. I have a problem when using via web Ithenticate. When I finish checking, I can not upload a new file. Please help me if you solved it
The plagiarism based on a Ithenticate report needs to be considered by the reviewers and editors. It is important to check which sentences are detected as similar because sometimes these reports even consider the Funding, Acknowledgements, Data availability, or References sections, which does not make any sense at all. I do not also agree with the idea that Methods sections need to be always rephrased when the sample includes a previous cohort by the same group. The Methods section is important for replicating research in the scientific community and I think that similarity of wording in this section, particularly when the manuscript deals with the same cohort by the same group (e.g. which is testing another different hypothesis), is not as problematic such as other sections (Introduction, Results or Discussion). Sometimes Ithenticate reports detect >50 articles with
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Esthetics
- Interpretation