Plagiarism through Paraphrasing Tools—The Story of One Plagiarized Text
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a well-written paper, congratulations to the authors. I recommended to accept this study in its present form.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your kind review.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
I propose you take into consideration a few suggestions:
- I think you should mention what is "water literacy"?
- at chapter 2.1 I think you don't have an introduction and is necessary
- at the same chapter 2.1 you mention DiffChecker but do not mention why you chose this application and not others?
- at line 133 - I think is better to give more details about the structure of the plagiarized text
- at chapter 3.1 - I think you could insert more examples of plagiarized text because you wrote that you found a lot; please demonstrate this!
- at line 333 you have a question but from the below sentences we can't understand exactly what you propose?
- at the conclusions - chapter 5 - you have to detail the conclusions because are so so short and evasive
Good luck!
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors - Reviewer 2:
Dear authors,
I propose you take into consideration a few suggestions:
Point 1: I think you should mention what is "water literacy"?
Response to point 1: Thank you for this comment. It is hard to say what it means exactly. There is no standard definition. McCarroll and Hamann (https://doi.org/10.3390/w12102803) analysed 26 different definitions. These authors highlighted that current water literacy definitions, understandings, and applications vary substantially. E.g. Fielding et al. (https://watersensitivecities.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/A2.3_National_survey_WaterLiteracy_web.pdf) define water literacy as “water-related knowledge”.
We added this information to the article (lines 111-116).
Point 2: at chapter 2.1 I think you don't have an introduction and is necessary
Response to point 2: We added a short introduction to each section of the article to the end of the Introduction (lines 91-95).
Point 3: at the same chapter 2.1 you mention DiffChecker but do not mention why you chose this application and not others?
Response to point 3: You are right. There was no exact reason for using this one instead of other tools. Is it important? Other tools will have very similar results because plain text was compared.
Point 4: at line 133 - I think is better to give more details about the structure of the plagiarized text
Response to point 4: Thank you for this comment. We have long considered how to describe the structure of the plagiarism in order to keep the text of the article clear for readers. We selected a way where the structure of the original article is described in detail and only the differences are described from the plagiarised text in the article. Detailed comparison of structure is shown in the Supplementary material. We added a link to Supplementary material into the article (lines 153-154).
Point 5: at chapter 3.1 - I think you could insert more examples of plagiarized text because you wrote that you found a lot; please demonstrate this!
Response to point 5: We do not understand this comment. The whole article is one plagiarised text. It is completely shown in the Supplementary material.
Point 6: at line 333 you have a question but from the below sentences, we can't understand exactly what you propose?
Response to point 6: We agree. The question was deleted because it was an unimportant rhetorical question.
Point 7: at the conclusions - chapter 5 - you have to detail the conclusions because are so so short and evasive
Response to point 7: Thanks for this comment. We extended it.
Good luck!
Response: Thank you very much.
Reviewer 3 Report
The content of the article is important and aims to show practices that can help identify plagiarism.
The methodology is good and I have no considerations.
I only suggest improving the text of small information errors, as in line 42, where it is not only students who can use this practice.
I suggest you better explore the work "Handbook of Academic Integrity" and find other possible citations for subjects related in the text.
Text for revision because the similarity at other works, see iThenticate Report.
Line
37-39
40-41
49-53
71-72
74-75
97-99
295-297
comments
line
42 only students?
383 date 2004
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors - Reviewer 3:
The content of the article is important and aims to show practices that can help identify plagiarism.
The methodology is good and I have no considerations.
Point 1: I only suggest improving the text of small information errors, as in line 42, where it is not only students who can use this practice.
Response to point 1: Thank you for this comment. You are right. The text was expanded (lines 43-44 in revised version)
Point 2: I suggest you better explore the work "Handbook of Academic Integrity" and find other possible citations for subjects related in the text.
Response to point 2: Thank you for this comment. The Handbook of academic integrity is a very useful source for studying academic dishonesty. There are a lot interesting chapters. We quoted several chapters from this book. Have we missed any other chapter that closely corresponds to the topic of our article?
Point 3: Text for revision because the similarity at other works, see iThenticate Report. – lines 37-39
Response to point 3: Sorry for this, we changed the sentence to be clear that it is a direct citation.
Point 4: Text for revision because the similarity at other works, see iThenticate Report – lines 40-41
Response to point 4: Sorry for this, we changed the sentence to be clear that it is a direct citation.
Point 5: Text for revision because the similarity at other works, see iThenticate Report – lines 49-53
Response to point 5: Sorry for this, we changed the sentence to be clear that it is a direct citation (lines 52-55 in revised version).
Point 6: Text for revision because the similarity at other works, see iThenticate Report – lines 71-72
Response to point 6: Sorry for this, we changed the sentence to be clear that it is a direct citation (lines 73-75 in revised version).
Point 7: Text for revision because the similarity at other works, see iThenticate Report – lines 74-75
Response to point 7: Sorry for this, we changed the sentence to be clear that it is a direct citation (lines 75-78 in revised version).
Point 8: Text for revision because the similarity at other works, see iThenticate Report – lines 97-99.
Response to point 8: Sorry for this, we changed the sentence to be clear that it is a direct citation (lines 106-109 in revised version).
Point 9: Text for revision because the similarity at other works, see iThenticate Report – lines 295-297
Response to point 9: Text is rewritten (lines 310-314 in revised version).
Point 10: comments to line 42: … only students?
Response to point 10: It is the same as point 1
Point 11: Comments to line 383: date 2004?
Response to point 11: Thank you for this comment. This error was based on automatic import metadata into the reference management system which we use. Metadata were corrected and now the item in the list of literature is correct. Sorry for that.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Without any comments. Good luck with the publication!
Author Response
Thank you very much.
