Who Should Have Access to Plagiarism Detection Tools?

In 2009, Turnitin launched a service named WriteCheck. The idea was that, for a small fee, students could check their papers to ensure they were free of plagiarism.

However, the tool was deeply controversial, particularly with universities. They argued that WriteCheck was unethical and enabled cheating students to defeat Turnitin. Several accused the company of playing both sides and trying to profit from an arms race of their creation.

In 2019, Turnitin stopped selling credits for WriteCheck before fully shuttering it in 2020. At the time, they claimed that improvements to their Feedback Studio made WriteCheck unnecessary. However, they also said, “Our values to support originality and academic integrity are most upheld when tied to institutional use.”

This was likely in response to allegations that essay mills were using WriteCheck to verify the papers they sold, further stoking the anti-WriteCheck fires.

More recently, Turnitin announced they were ending private plans for PlagScan, a plagiarism detection service they acquired in 2021. With that imminent closure, individuals can only access Turnitin’s services through iThenticate, which costs $125 per search, or a third-party partner like Scribbr.

However, Christian Moriarty, an ethics and law professor at St. Petersburg College, asked on X (formerly Twitter) in response to my previous article, “I wonder if part of the argument is that it SHOULDN’T be too accessible to individual users, and it’s an ethics choice?”

In short, how accessible should these services be to individuals and small companies? The answer, of course, is complicated.

The Argument Against Broad Access

The argument against granting broad access to plagiarism detection tools, particularly high-end ones, has two major components.

First, the primary use of these tools is by authority figures (whether academic or business) to detect and prevent plagiarism. Offering these tools broadly may hinder that purpose.

The concern is that someone who is knowingly plagiarizing may run their work through the tool so they can eliminate any plagiarism it finds before submission. In short, the plagiarism detection tool becomes a weapon to assist in plagiarism rather than a tool to stop it.

The second is that these tools are inherently complex. It’s easy to misunderstand or misrepresent the findings.

We saw this earlier this year with many plagiarism allegations against black university officials at prominent schools. Many of the actual allegations were weak, and misunderstood what plagiarism is and is not. Harvard’s own analysis of former school president Claudine Gay’s work had findings very similar to my own.

In short, people lacking the training, skill or understanding of these tools often misuse them, intentionally or not. Limiting access to them may be a means to discourage bad-faith investigations and unfounded allegations.

The Argument in Favor of Broad Access

The first problem with restricting access is that there’s no effective way to truly restrict it. Those with money and/or connections will always have access to these tools and will always be able to use or misuse them as they see fit.

Looking back on the Harvard plagiarism allegations from earlier this year, those were well-funded and supported, at least somewhat, by billionaire Bill Ackman. There’s no effective way to limit someone like him from accessing these tools and using them to launch dubious claims of plagiarism.

The only people who are shut out are those with the money or connections to bypass the gate.

While most people have no need for a high-end plagiarism detection tool, there is sometimes a legitimate need. Authors need to check that their collaborators are honest. Journalists need to ensure that legislation isn’t overly influenced by outside material. Teachers who may not have institutional access need to perform plagiarism checks on students.

To be clear, these are edge cases. However, on the internet, where we are both creators and consumers of content, a plagiarism checker can be a powerful tool. Restricting access to those tools may make it even easier for plagiarism to thrive in public spaces that aren’t behind the walled gardens of major institutions.

My Thoughts

Personally, I’ve never put much faith in the argument that students will use plagiarism detection software to remove plagiarism from their work. That is a great deal of work, and those who maliciously choose to plagiarize aren’t likely to invest that kind of time.

Plagiarism is about finding the path of least resistance. Spending money and time running a document through WriteCheck and then editing it is the opposite of a shortcut. While it might be useful in cases of contract cheating (checking the authenticity of a purchased paper), there are better approaches for detecting contract cheating than a traditional plagiarism check.

Most students want a tool like WriteCheck because they fear they made a mistake and may be punished. That is a better argument for better education around plagiarism than restricting access to tools.

However, I must also acknowledge that the argument favoring broader access is often very circular. Why do so many people want access to such tools? Because they fear being falsely accused of plagiarism or severely punished for a mistake. Why do they fear that? Because there’s broad access to these tools, anyone can make such allegations.

There is a climate of fear around plagiarism. However, much of that climate is driven by broad access to the tools.

Still, there’s no practical way to restrict access to just those with good intentions. The only effective way to restrict access is through money and connections. That doesn’t limit misuse of the tools. It just limits the tools to the already wealthy and powerful.

Bottom Line

In the end, I acknowledge I am an edge case. I am a consultant and expert witness with a significant legitimate need to access plagiarism detection tools. I am a rare individual in that regard.

Most people have little to no need for high-end plagiarism detection tools. In that light, the focus on institutions makes sense. Universities, news publications and publishers all have institutional needs for plagiarism detection tools.

But that doesn’t mean individuals should be excluded. The misuse of plagiarism detection tools isn’t limited to one group or another. As we saw earlier this year, unintentional and intentional misuse is simply a fact of life at all levels.

So, while I find the argument around access interesting and admit that I don’t have a clear answer, the real long-term solution is better education and deeper conversations about plagiarism.

However, that isn’t likely to happen. It’s unrealistic in today’s climate.

As such, we’re stuck without any real answers. I don’t see either restricting or opening up access as likely to fix our current problems. The issues are far too deep.