Research is rarely just sitting in your chamber and doing your thing. An important aspect is to seek the conversation and discourse. Talk about your idea in your research group, or with other people you think might be knowledgable. In early stages you can try to position a poster at a conference or contribute to a workshop. If the reviewers won't point you to related work, the audience will.

Use keywords of your research and search in scholar.google.com. This also result useful publication about your idea.

You are in the right track, proceed in your ideas. browse the literature then compare and improve your work.

other than ur own hunting, ask your teacher. Because they are only people who are standing at the edge of research. Secondly if you do encounter every time that you have some idea and someone already implemented or discover, then its lack of you understanding. You are far behind, from what actually going on. I encounter same stuff, jumping like one mountain to another, but at the end only demotivation left. Its better to hang up with some Gurrus and ask them whats going on. And friendly speaking there are thousands of thousand ideas especially in optimization.

I am puzzling this too

Don't forget to also look at non-academic sources. Unless your field is extremely abstract (if it was, you wouldn't be running into this problem) you should be able to find out in general what is going on by looking at various companies, magazines, documentaries, and even the news. Of course, these sources don't explain technical details like computational complexity of their algorithms, but they do mention applications and implementations that you should be looking at. Look for the keywords the non-academic sources use, especially the popular ones, as you are sure to find those keywords in academic publications.

Another way to find the actual state of research from a specific domain is to read review papers. This kind of papers should give you a general idea of what's going on and what are the main approaches that can be used for solving specific problems.

Somebody has said: "There is nothing new under the sun".

However, I think that you must not search if your work is new or not, instead of this you should looking for the research that is similar to your own and find the difference.

Keep in mind that the "title" of someone's research rarely identifies everything that's being encompassed. You will actually have to read the entire body of the document (research paper, for example).

What I do is search scholar.google.com as long as I can for a "somewhat similar" document. Then I skim the document searching for references and citations that lead more closely to what it is I'm actually interested in (and this process repeats). This may take a few hours to an entire day, but it's much better than developing for 6 months to find out it's been done.

Come to think of it, practically there is nothing new under the sun. For example, jogging shoes.

But when NIKE introduce a running shoes in 1970s using lighter material for the shoe sole, it opened up a whole new industry for sports shoes. People suddenly realised that there are a lot of user requirements which have not been satisfactorily met in the earlier designs. To conclude, as with research, we can always focus on technical areas which are of interest to us, or to our sponsors.

sometimes, although the idea might not be new, the approach can be, and thus, lead to new and unpredicted scientific endeavors. Stick with online / journal research, and if you find a similar research, include it in your reference.

Only very bad ideas have no ancestors. The more interesting is an idea and the oldest are its ancestors. To find out the ancestry tree of your idea use google with multiple combinations of two words. The art is in the choosing of the words.

One process that could save you some time is reading first the title, trying to figure the application area, then read the abstract, if present, and reading the introduction and conclusion after them.

This wil allow you to judge if a reading of the complete work is worth of the effort.

Finding that your idea is not new is not unusual. It happened to me in many occasions. We are not in a field of stupid, unimaginative people, so, conversely, if you find a new idea, one good question would be "why nobody has put this forth before?". Maybe the monster is bigger than you think.

Hope this helps somehow.

Best regards.

start with your own idea but always think if I think that why not billions of people think it... then start reading and reading and reading.... but always try to find some points which lack in that paper/journal/conference proceeding... and keep purify your idea

Research is rarely just sitting in your chamber and doing your thing. An important aspect is to seek the conversation and discourse. Talk about your idea in your research group, or with other people you think might be knowledgable. In early stages you can try to position a poster at a conference or contribute to a workshop. If the reviewers won't point you to related work, the audience will.

My suggestion would be to do a literature search for the general topic under which your idea falls and compile a list of the authors in the field that come somewhat close to your research area. Shoot those folks an email or give them a call to introduce yourself and to pick their brains. Try to get a feel for the person before you just give away your ideas, though.

There are some reference manager software. You may study how new is your field or interests based on the references. Please try http://www.mendeley.com/

Referring the topic frequently will avoid these confusions. Since you need to publish your results, reference is a matter of concern otherwise not.

Literature survey is essential for any research. Google, etc can give you a feel for related work elsewhere. It helps to avoid dead-ends, well-tried areas, challenges already identified, and so on. Talk to your research supervisor -- he/she can give you some estimate of novelty (though not always). Post in forums like these. No credit for "i dreamed up this all on my own".

I would count Google scholar and pubmed to provide me with answers. If I know some knowledgeable people in the field, I will also search their publication records to check if they have mentioned or worked on the idea I consider NOVEL. A thorough literature search is mandatory when you think your idea is novel. Most of the times, similar ideas in non-related fields may be present (eg. bioinformatics and computational science). You may also try searching blogs of scientific people where they discuss ideas not yet published or conference proceedings where you can know about half baked ideas.

We are making a website which will tell you about ideas to be implemented. just wait for some time. And there are many another websites which have this featr.

Short Answer - the a-priory probability that it is new - very low.

Long Answer - there is no easy way except for an exhaustive literature and patent search + Short Answer.

There is lot written in research methodology book about research. First go for literature survey and download all the related file since last five year. Finally make some model of your idea. discuss with your guide. if all goes well then try to finish the work and post it in any international journal or transaction quickly. Because u r not the one who is thinking, there may be lot.

The standard answer to your question is "do an extensive literature search and contact key researchers". However you should keep in mind that your idea may have been expressed with totally different terms (one of my students was looking for "discontinuous n-grams" while some researchers call that "gappy patterns"). Even worse, your idea could already exist in another domain.

Search engines like Google scholar are relatively inefficient to address these issues.

I found it helps to search for other terms as well. Sometimes, I will find an idea and run with it, really get into the literature, and along the way find that there are other terms to describe the same or similar idea - so maybe I had been searching after the wrong key words all along.

Maybe you will find it funny, I also find it funny when first hear about it: there is a theory about this. In a few words, the theory considers that there will always be the 101st human that will be placed in a totally different geographical region, that will find the same solution that is discovered and used by 100 human (the original theory refers to monkeys, but I've adapted to humans here); the 101st human doesn't know about the solution found by others 100.

Not a very encouraging theory for your question posted here, but seems that no one wants to be the 101st human that have a nice idea and find out that was already presented or implemented by many others...

We are changing how academic research is being done.

At ISCE we have built a one click "what should I be reading next" system unlike anything else on the net -- where you can upload a search query of up to 7000 words of your own text

(note the ISCE library is centered around cognitive science, the philosophy of science, organizational theory, and systems science so results are focused on those areas)

go to http://isce-library.net

login as

user: [email protected]

password: sfishort

be sure to click on the my research link at the upper right -- where you can then upload a search query of up to 7000 words of your own text

for instructions look at http://isce.edu/demo.html

for a preview of our next iteration look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6hr38VYPxE

I just wonder if semantic web URI's will be able to change all this: we may need to perform 'novelty detection' or 'knowledge discovery' by inference, in AI-ish speak.

Since your idea is under an issue, the scientific way is to be knowledgeable about the issue and its literature. If there is no time to search and read about the issue, the fast way can be asking from an expert.

We do not have a way to tell if an idea, proposal, or topic is unique, but sometimes you can tell if it is not unique, by finding another study about your idea. If you find your idea in the literature already, it is not unique. Failing to find it does not prove that it is unique. For example, I had this problem during a patent search. Sometimes keyword searches on titles in patent databases do not yield the desired results because titles tend to be vague and keword searches tend to be more specific. I failed to find the patent application like mine but it was there. Sometimes it is sufficient to have an idea that ties in with a research topic that is already in progress but it is a different angle on the subject. This is one reason why researchers collaborate. Hope this helps.

I believe the best approach is to start by doing a "systematic review of literature". The systematic review itself is the very beggining of your research. You should not treat it as as your research begin AFTER find a new idea. Your research starts WHEN YOU GO TO THE LITERATURE in a systematic way looking for all publication in a specific domain / theme.

You must choose a topic you love to work with. After that, you must specify the field and do some iterative refinement of the field, trying to put it as more specific as you can. You can use literature (this step doesn't need to be systematic) to help you at this stage.

Once you got a topic defined to work with, you do a systematic review looking for what spaces in the field you chose are not completely studied/investigated. So it's time for you to put your energy in these topics preparing your experiments, software and all kind of development you need.

In the good old years, when there was no Internet or Google, we used person-to-person communications to find out. We used "reprint request" postcards which we sent out to people whose work was related to the area which we were exploring. And, we spoke a lot to people who spoke a lot to other people and got us that important lead which changed the course of our research. Technology is a lot faster now, but is much less communicative now. So, your best bet would be to make contact with peers. Use a forum like Research Gate. And be patient. Never give up or take things for granted.

There is no magic answer to your question, unfortunately.

partha

"fast" is relative. I would suggest looking at the problem first in the literature, that is, study approaches to the problem being solved and other similar problems in different domains. Try searches based on general statements of these problems.

Then write about it. Submit papers in different domains. Get reviewer responses, from faculty and journals. Develop bits and pieces and write about the results. If what you propose is old hat, a known approach, you'll hear about it.

I think if one discourage the reinvent the wheel then can prevent from such situation. Always look for available solution for your problem and one way to do this is literature review. Adopt proposed solutions and you will find the issues in proposed solutions in order to fit your scenario. Here you go, find way to fit for your solution, document then and share with world as well ! I believe from here the cycle start as described in Juergen Bock's answer

I fully agree with the traditional way of reading the state of the art related literature, send your proposal to a workshop and let the research community interact with you to get feedback. The difference is that, nowadays, we can do the search for papers faster with databases like Scopus or WOK. We can use specialized mailing lists to post our questions or ask for similar proposals (instead of waiting for a workshop) and, in few words, use communication technologies to speed up the "interact with the research community" task. But it is the same... with better tools ;-)

If you can identify accurately the scientific level of your idea (e.g. algorithmic level or very high conceptual level) you might get more useful concrete suggestions.

You cannot just ignore the literature and focus on idea; you need a good balance of effort on search and development.

The habit is generally making a Google search; but then you are missing the link between the different inputs from literature. You need to MAP what's going on in that domain to assess the potential value of you research, potential... It is often the case you may be introducing some small change, but can have a large impact...

You can begin with a related paper, then check the reference at the back. Pick a few papers you think that are related. And you do the same for every paper you have read. By the time when you pick a new paper and have seen 60-80%% of the reference and YOU DO NOT find any of your new idea there, you can safely say that your idea is novel.

Wondering when one will come up with a new search engine.. "Google Idea" ? Oh yeah.

Very few ideas are new. In any case, it makes more sense to focus on the question that is being answered for the first time or in a new way. If the question is not a good one (trivial, unconventional, vague etc), then the idea is in trouble.

There is no easy way - or at least I don't know any. I use google and scholar google. I type some words, but then the most time-eating thing has to be done. I try to read some works. Then I search more articles in a subject interesting for me.

I collect articles, that have something to say in my work, but still - much work has to be done and I don't mind, that somebody researched the same issue.

Although our point of view is quite different then a common opinion, so even the same photo of a tissue could mean something different for me, then for somebody else. Interpretation is very important.

Even, if Your idea is similar to somebody else's, it may be very important, cause it corroborate with something, confirm something, check it once more. Do it anyway.

I came across this tutorial recently that could help significantly with literature searches. I know they can sometimes be intimidating and you don't always get hits that really apply to your search, so it's good to learn all the techniques surrounding the search process.

http://library.mssm.edu/tutorials/pubmed.html

Reviewing state-of the-art and cutting edge research as well as old literature might answer this question. Besides, intern discussion (inside the research team) and in workshops or conferences will increase your confidence about the originality of your hypothesis.

As pointed out above, speak to your supervisor/mentor/advisor, who may be able to point you to similar work. Dig into the similar work to see how original you are.

I question your statement "but after a while I find it is an old one". Define "old".

"Great minds think alike", but just as it's hard for an idea to be totally innovative, if you spend some time refining it, you'll find that it's also nearly impossible to find previous work that is *exactly* the same as yours.

I personally do not agree with conducting literature reviews prematurely, which unfortunately is the norm in traditional research methods.

In my opinion a thorough literature review is indeed essencial, but only after the researcher has spent the time to explore the limits of her own creativity whilst addressing the problem.

Well, how i feel about this topic is that once one gets into a field and really develops a strong knowledge base of that particular field, then it is easier to gauge what is a novel idea. That is probably why people choose a field and have such a fine focus within that particular field, as it would lessen the pain (time spent) associated with experiences like yours.

Try epi-search upload your text and it will tell you!!

http://epi-search.com

Then, of course remember to check in the other libraries and databases besides for ISCE!

However, if you are not working in the field of the theory of social complexity, do not even bother to try epi-search.

Michael, epi-search will not tell you anything. It will list 3 books from the ISCE library, and that's it.

I think, there is no short cut. One has to spend good amount of time in going through the literature to see whether someone had already worked on a particular idea or not. But with the online resources available today, it is not too difficult and one can be able to do a thorough literature survey in a very short span of time.

If you are paranoid, search for the parts, and not the whole.

Structure your query/search phrase using 1. broad term, 2.narrow terms (avoiding exact one, very cleverly). Narrow ones will yield less hits, which you can scan one by one manually.

First search using Google then you can opt for online databases like Chemical abstract database (CAS covers patents also), Patents databases -- total 8-12. Further you can pick a database related to your subject domain.

Check the project in most of the search engines using any good plagiarism software.

Hello!

You should first focus in an specific area, and then look for papers, read them all, fast.

Try to capture what are the main problems, what problems are the more interesting. You should also check the most important conferences in that field, in those conferences you can see the current trends of the comunity.

When an idea arise, go to literature, and check if there are solutions, you can improve your proposal and compare against the old ones.

Hi,

What you are searching is kind of a "holy grail". It takes some effort to learn what has already been done and some of the answers here may help. I have made up a video for my students, explaining how I do a state of the art research using the web, it is available here: http://youtu.be/MrV59hMEy5o

Often, a problem that I find is that sometimes it is not easy to know what are the correct keywords that you need to use in the search. Under different perspectives or fields, I often find similar concepts that translate into very distinct keywords...

Regards,

Paulo Cortez

I think querying the main indexing service in your area is a quick and still effective way to do this. Type in the keywords most able to describe your idea, or if no luck, try search the keywords just describing your topic and questions, then follow the resulting links and look into those that have probably already there. After that you differentiate yours and others' and conclude about the novelty of yours

I think doing a good state of the art is the first step to know about the last advances in your reseach field. Reading surveys and papers from specialized journals and conferences is a good starting point. This will help you to know of your idea is new or not. Anyway, an idea which is not new may also have weaknesses that can be interesting to propose something new :-)

Hello,

I think that for this matter there's no granted way to be sure that one's idea is completely revolutionary. A good state-of-the-art review helps, but often you get the sense that someone already surpassed you. I guess all the points of view matters, even if they contribute to solve a well known problem with tested solutions. Humans invented the wheel, but they keep perfecting it.

Sometime ago I found a video that is quite inspiring from Steven Johnson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NugRZGDbPFU). I think this is a ratter known video, but it presents a perspective that good ideas often emerge from apparently non-applicable or non-innovative thoughts.

Best regards

I think we can write a a good paper from your excellent thoughts hers

Alongside a simple search (for example in Google scholar), you have to just find a recent Survey about the field you are working on.

there is not a straight forward answer to your question regarding the tools, like google, scholar Google etc., that are handy now. even the best search engine can not find even 50% of the targeted search. on the other hand there are tools like Thomson Reuters web of knowledge that are too expensive to be affordable for all of the scientists. I've read in Thomson Reuters help for web of knowledge that there is a tool for discovering frontiers of science in disciplines. I haven't worked with the tool yet because I have not afford to use it yet and with respect to the sanctions in Iran the condition will be worse!

@Hamidreza: Sanctions, stingy university library or research budgets, recessions and paywalls do limit the ability to do a perfect literature survey. However there are still innovative ways of doing independent, niche research without sanction-busting or beating up the bean counters!

Don't try to prove that no-one has done the research you are proposing. Just be satisfied with a probability of 99%. Don't propose research in an over-researched area. Try a niche that uniquely matches your curiosity profile. Don't try to do million dollar research during your Masters: Aim a bit lower! Don't rely on hi-tech equipment: use lots of medium-tech, as hi-tech may not come.

Regarding my suggestion for using Thomson Reuters web of knowledge, I found the page on ESSENTIAL SCIENCE INDICATORS, which can show people, papers, disciplines, countries etc. that are influential in a discipline; but the problem will remain: too expensive, not 100 percent satisfactory. plz follow the link for ESI: http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/science_products/a-z/essential_science_indicators/

Between Google Scholar and the patent and trademark offices, I'd wager that you'll get to the 80% certainty pretty quickly. Then write it down! writing and submitting material is good practice, even if your reviewer says "see Jon Doe's work in Medica Obscurous, April 1873".

I'm back with another idea! I think reading review papers can help a lot . in most of the scientific disciplines ,nowadays, there are some helpful review journals with great papers. the important task of a review paper is to critically summerizing the frontiers' ideas of the field. It is expected from a PhD candidate that until the end of the first year of her education publish a review paper and analyse the recent and most important ideas of the field. So you can compare your idea with the ones that are appearing in the recent review journal and have a somewhat good judgement about its importance and freshness.

Investigators are like inventors. You can borrow several good pointers from the inventors methodology.

The first thing to do is to ask yourself the question "How developed is your idea(in this case your research)?. Most initial thoughts on inventions (and research) start with a general idea. At this stage it is highly likely that your idea is not new due to the amount of previous work done in a particular field.

The second is to determine if your idea is worth pursuing. For inventors this usually means will it have a market, etc. The same thing applies to investigation in terms of the chosen field and topic. For example, is the field new and people are publishing actively?

The third is to do a preliminary search. If you want a simple process you might try:

1) Refine your idea. At this stage develop enough of the theory and try to pinpoint the strengths of what you consider is new.

2) From the results of step 1 you should specify 3-7 keywords for your initial search

3) Do a preliminary search on these keywords.The results are at this stage preliminary. Compare your results with your idea and select 3-7 keywords that distinguish your work from your results

4) Do a combined search with the keywords in steps 2 and 3

5) Go to step 1 if you feel your idea is still not defined enough, go to step 2 to get more keywords if you found positive results but you need to validate, or terminate if satisfied or you feel it is not worth pursuing anymore.

Though simpler than the algorithm that I use, it conveys the general approach.

Hope this helps

I usually start with a literature review for our project proposals. In this process I can evaluate if our ideas are somewhat novel or have already been successfully presented. In the latter case, can we contribute some more results? Using a different method?

Search with relevant keywords & subscribe to alerts on http://scopus.com

@Ahmad: Assuming that you are some way into your research, put a preprint of your AI paper onto arXiv and see if anybody says that your research idea is not new. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv for an overview.

Brains? I will not start speaking of MINDS that are alert or "aware" as a mart. Arts actor once put it, but I have a basic question. As pointed out in the TechReview.com article highlighted by Joachim Pimiskern, the next Google may not be too far away. The company Quid uses software (1 only?) to pin-point the next one or at least predict it. But as 1 brain cannot do this, because it does not know what the other billions of brains are doing at the same time (or rather, what they have achieved in the past!), how can 1 totally unconscious peice of software "have knowledge of" what the many other software packages are doing?

I myself cannot think of a suitable solution. But I can confirm the following:

1/Searching data bases to confirm an idea's absence in it or ;

2/wondering whether a (very limited) number of brains could stumble accross you ideas in a publication archive ;

remain extremely reduced solutions to the problem brought up by Ahmad as it requires, I think, a holistic or global approach. Any others wish to have a go at it?

@Ahmad: Be really, really, reallyreally creative in finding and using information sources, throughout your research project.

In addition to literature search, ask yourself how likely the project was already done long time ago without the current science and technology.

Find the best journal in your field and look through the title and abstracts of papers published in the last 3 years, next find some of the most up-to-date survey paper and follow it through. scopus, google scholar helps a lot too. Of course, ask someone most knowledgeable in the field is usually the fastest way.

If it's exclusively for a paper in journal it is necessary that it would not have repeated or already implemented but there are quite chances that across the world there even though more or less probability getting same thoughs might happen. Although this is not what your are looking for,I would say while starting with a subject look for the citations and then think out thebest possible thing that you can come up with on those.That will give clear goal on the paper.

Even if you discover that your idea has already been explored by someone else, that does not necessarily mean that you wasted your time. Rather, you would have gained a deeper understanding of your issue, which you can use as a spring board to your next idea. The important thing is to not get discouraged.

All this said, sometimes casually talking with other experienced researchers can be a good way to figure out if your idea is unique. Also, such discussions can also lead your mind to come up with newer ideas and approaches that you may not have thought of before.

In engineering research, sometimes one can discover a new way to accomplish something that has already been done, but which has not been done economically or efficiently. Sometimes such discoveries can revolutionize an entire field of science. The example of the use of lasers in Raman spectroscopy comes to mind.

Moreover, even if someone has performed your study under one set of conditions, sometimes one can perform the same study under different conditions to provide a broader understanding of the subject.

Why seek far afield when the good could not be any closer by? Ask researchers on RG, who are professionals in your targeted field of study, for help. I think many of us are ready to drop a line or two.

@Marion, rightly said. Same is true for mathematics, when researchers try to find an easier way of solving problems or proving theorems.

For your query I would suggest you to go through my Ppt Presentation on several aspects of Research, titled, "Amusing Musings on Research by a Re-Searcher" uploaded by me and available in Research Gate.

All Research work need not be original only.It can be an extension,improvement,or application of new tools to save time,improve accuracy,new aspects not projected earlier,cost involved and savings etc. In such cases you have to compare your results with that of the other Researcher and establish your claims.

If every Research had been original,then the world would have become Richer with Original Thinkers and Philosophers by now in plenty.

Even in Original Research,better solve using different tools or methods and compare the results obtained by such approaches,as there will be no previous results for comparison."Comparison increases the Value of the Work".

Even in Patents absolute originality is not insisted.

P.S.

Referring to Sree Sindhusruti's remarks,"there are quite chances that across the world there even though more or less probability getting same thoughts might happen", I may say that such an occurrence is rarest of the Rares.There will be at-least some slight difference in approach or application of the tools.

Even in such cases be quick in publishing your work to lay first claim over it by you.

That is why in Research the slogan,"Publish or Perish" is very Popular.

P.S.

During my Research Work at I.I.T.,Madras,when internet and Search Engines were yet to see the light of the day,it struck me by God's Grace that application of the Popular Millman's Theorem,well known to any B.Tech.student could lead to easy solution for the difficult Ungrounded Faults in Power System and I applied it with some modifications in Matrix Form for Six Phase System with Mutual Induction being considered.Of-course that was only a small part of the Thesis.

Even though I made Literature survey in the Libraries of not only at I.I.T.,Madras, but also in some other Reputed Institutes going through IEEE Transactions,IEE Proceedings and also English translations of Russian,Japan and a few Journals, I could not find its use even for Three Phase Faults.

Yet, even after Submission of the Ph.D. Thesis,I was worrying whether some Researcher has applied it any where in the World as so many people were doing Research in so many Countries. I was worried that if such a simple idea has struck to my mind, it might have been used else where by some body or other earlier. .

Only after Good Reports of the Examiners were received I got rid of that worry. And to my Great Surprise I learnt that one Examiner from U.S. was so appreciative of that idea that he devoted one full paragraph for praising the idea.

Such worries and doubts are likely to occur even for Original ideas,though not very common.We can call it Pangs of Pain for the Birth of the Fruit of the Researcher's labor and It has to be endure patiently if at all it occurs.

P.S..

A thorough literature study on the problem by referring the good journal databases like IEEE, Science direct will help you to know the happenings of your topic of interest around the world. I hope due to reach of these databases at present you can easily decide on your idea is a new one or not. A different perception of looking into the problem or alternate solution of a particular problem will also results in a good research.

Unfortunately no,

I think there is no easy way to find out if your idea is new or not.

But, there are three aspects i would like to mention:

1st: working on your Master Thesis or PhD Thesis: your supervisor should know

2nd: talk to other researchers, directly in your department, identify the relevant conferences, try to publish there, sometimes the reviewers and the audience will give you the necessary feedback. but please, scan the relevant literature before you submit a paper.

3rd: experience shows, that even if an idea has in principle been investigated and published before, there are always different ways to reach these results, which are worth to be investigated further.

No, comprehensive literature review is necessary. Otherwise, discussion with an expert of domain may help.

Extensive Literature survey is essential. Try to Google your idea with key words and see relevant research papers. Careful literature survey will help to build research project and either can give you some good direction.

As stated by Kamran Rasool Google Search and Google Scholar Search will be helpful.

Anti Plagiarism Soft Ware (Some Free offline checking Packages are also available for Download) will help you in finding out the Percentage of Copy and Source o f copy .

This is useful while sending the paper for Publication or submitting the Thesis.

P.S.