Advacheck

Analyzes submitted student documents against a multi-source database (academic papers, web content, student submission history) using fingerprinting and similarity algorithms to identify potential plagiarism. The system generates a similarity percentage score and highlights matched passages with source attribution, enabling educators to distinguish between properly cited material and unattributed copying. Detection operates on uploaded documents (PDF, DOCX, TXT) and processes them through a cloud-based comparison engine that maintains institutional submission archives.

Embeds plagiarism detection directly into Canvas, Blackboard, and Moodle assignment submission pipelines through LMS-native plugins or API integrations. When students submit assignments through their institution's LMS, documents are automatically routed to Advacheck for analysis, and originality reports are returned and displayed within the LMS gradebook interface without requiring educators to manually upload files or switch between platforms. Integration uses OAuth 2.0 authentication and LMS-specific APIs (Canvas REST API, Blackboard Learn API, Moodle Web Services) to synchronize user rosters, assignment metadata, and submission status.

Generates comprehensive originality reports that display similarity percentages, matched passages highlighted in context, and detailed source attribution including URLs, publication dates, and citation formats. Reports use color-coded highlighting (typically green for original content, yellow/orange for paraphrased matches, red for direct copies) and provide side-by-side comparison views showing student text alongside matched source material. Reports can be exported as PDF or viewed interactively within the platform, with options to exclude common phrases, citations, and quoted material from similarity calculations.

Maintains a searchable archive of all student submissions within an institution, indexed by course, semester, and student ID. When new documents are submitted, the system compares them against this institutional archive to detect internal plagiarism (students submitting identical or near-identical work across different courses or semesters) and collusion (multiple students submitting highly similar work in the same assignment). Archive indexing uses document fingerprinting and semantic similarity algorithms to identify matches even when text is paraphrased or reformatted. Institutions can configure retention policies (e.g., keep submissions for 3-5 years) and control which submissions are included in the archive.

Processes multiple student submissions in a single batch operation, queuing documents for plagiarism detection and generating reports for entire assignment cohorts without requiring individual file uploads. Batch processing accepts CSV manifests with document file paths or direct folder uploads containing multiple student submissions, automatically assigns submissions to students based on filename patterns or metadata, and generates consolidated reports showing similarity scores for all submissions in a single view. The system manages queue prioritization, handles processing failures with retry logic, and provides progress tracking and completion notifications via email or webhook.

Allows institutional administrators to define custom academic integrity policies specifying similarity thresholds, exclusion rules, and automated actions triggered by plagiarism detection results. Policies can be configured per course, department, or institution-wide, with rules such as 'flag submissions with >25% similarity for manual review', 'automatically exclude citations and quoted material from similarity calculations', 'notify instructor when similarity exceeds threshold', or 'require student review of originality report before grade posting'. The system enforces these policies consistently across all submissions and provides audit logs documenting which policy rules were applied to each detection result.

Provides students with an interactive interface to review their originality reports, understand plagiarism detection results, and access educational resources on proper citation and paraphrasing. The student-facing report displays similarity scores, highlights matched passages, and explains why content was flagged, with options to view matched sources and understand the difference between proper citation and plagiarism. The interface includes embedded tutorials on citation formats (APA, MLA, Chicago), paraphrasing techniques, and academic integrity standards, enabling students to learn from plagiarism detection results rather than viewing them as purely punitive. Instructors can optionally require students to review their report and acknowledge understanding before grade posting.

Aggregates plagiarism detection results across courses, departments, and semesters to provide institutional-level analytics on academic integrity trends. Analytics dashboards display metrics such as average similarity scores by course, percentage of submissions flagged above institutional threshold, plagiarism rate trends over time, and identification of high-risk courses or departments with elevated plagiarism rates. Reports can be filtered by course, instructor, student cohort, or time period, and exported as CSV or PDF for institutional review. The system also provides comparative analytics showing how institutional plagiarism rates compare to anonymized benchmarks from similar institutions.

Detects plagiarism in student submissions written in multiple languages (English, Spanish, French, German, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, etc.) by applying language-specific tokenization, stemming, and similarity algorithms. The system automatically detects document language and applies appropriate linguistic processing before comparing against multilingual source databases. Cross-language plagiarism detection is also supported, identifying cases where students translate plagiarized content from one language to another. Language detection uses statistical models trained on multilingual text corpora, and similarity matching accounts for language-specific variations in phrasing and grammar.