Crossref-Similarity-Check-favicon

Crossref Similarity Check

Plagiarism detection service for scholarly publishers using iThenticate

Globe Linkedin Youtube Facebook Twitter
  • Overview
  • Features
  • Pricing
  • Pros
  • Cons
  • Reviews

Crossref Similarity Check Overview

  • Updated February 7, 2026

Crossref Similarity Check is a plagiarism detection service designed for scholarly publishers and editors. Powered by iThenticate, it enables Crossref members to compare manuscripts against a vast database of academic publications and web content.

The service integrates into editorial workflows, provides detailed similarity reports, and helps ensure research originality before publication.

Key Features

  • iThenticate Integration: Uses Turnitin’s iThenticate engine to compare manuscripts against millions of scholarly works.
  • Scholarly Content Database: Includes over 78 million full-text academic items contributed by participating publishers.
  • Detailed Similarity Reports: Provides similarity scores with highlighted text matches for editorial assessment.
  • Workflow Integration: Supports manual uploads and API-based submission through editorial systems.
  • Unlimited Users: Allows unrestricted editor and staff access within a member organisation.

Price

Plan Price Featured
Similarity Check – Small Publisher Tier $40/year (Annual, based on <$1k revenue) Unlimited users per organisation, iThenticate access, Read-only full-text comparisons
Similarity Check – Mid Publisher Tier $110/year (Annual, $1M–$5M revenue) Discounted plagiarism checks, API submission option, Enhanced document viewer
Similarity Check – Large Publisher Tier $780/year (Annual, $10M–$25M revenue) High-volume editorial workflows, Full scholarly corpus access, Priority infrastructure
Per-Document Checking (1–100) $0.00 per document (up to 25,000 words) First 100 documents free, Full similarity report, No usage commitment
Per-Document Checking (101–2,000) $0.75 per document (Annual invoicing) Volume discount, Standard similarity scoring, Editorial review support
Per-Document Checking (>200,001) $0.25 per document (Annual invoicing) Maximum volume discount, Large-scale screening, Cost-efficient compliance

Price details: https://www.crossref.org/fees/#similarity-check-fees

Pros

Competitor

Pros
Turnitin iThenticate (Direct) Crossref Similarity Check is more cost-effective for publishers because fees are discounted through collective participation. It also grants access to publisher-contributed full texts that are not always available in standalone iThenticate plans, making it better suited for academic originality screening.
Copyscape Compared to Copyscape, Crossref Similarity Check is purpose-built for scholarly publishing. It analyzes academic literature rather than mainly web pages, offering editors more relevant comparisons and clearer context for citation-based overlap in research manuscripts.
PlagScan Unlike PlagScan, Similarity Check integrates deeply with DOI metadata and publisher workflows. This makes it easier for journals to automate checks at scale and maintain consistent editorial standards without managing multiple external tools.
Grammarly Plagiarism Checker Similarity Check provides far more comprehensive academic coverage than Grammarly, which is aimed at general writing. Editors benefit from access to peer-reviewed literature and publisher content rather than surface-level web matches.
Unicheck Crossref’s service is better aligned with professional publishing needs, offering unlimited organisational users and integration with manuscript systems, while Unicheck is more commonly positioned for educational institutions and classroom use.

Cons

Competitor

Cons
Turnitin iThenticate (Direct) Compared to direct iThenticate subscriptions, Crossref Similarity Check is limited to Crossref members only. This excludes independent researchers and smaller organizations that do not publish DOI-assigned content.
Copyscape Copyscape is simpler and faster for quick web checks, while Similarity Check can feel complex. The setup requires Crossref membership, metadata preparation, and ongoing compliance, which increases administrative overhead.
PlagScan PlagScan offers more flexible standalone plans, whereas Similarity Check pricing is tied to Crossref membership tiers. This makes cost estimation harder for organizations with fluctuating publishing volumes.
Grammarly Plagiarism Checker Grammarly is easier for non-technical users. In contrast, Similarity Check is editor-focused and assumes familiarity with academic publishing norms, which can slow adoption for less experienced editorial teams.
Unicheck Unicheck provides more user-facing dashboards and reports for educators. Similarity Check prioritizes editorial judgment, offering fewer explanatory tools for authors or students reviewing their own submissions.

Verified Customer Reviews

  • Crossref Community Review (Rating: 4/5): Users value the deep scholarly database and reduced costs, but mention that onboarding and metadata requirements can be time-consuming.
  • Elsevier Support Review (Rating: 4/5): The service is trusted for detecting overlap, but editors report that similarity scores alone cannot determine misconduct.
  • Cochrane Editorial Review (Rating: 4/5): Praised for reliability in editorial workflows, though smaller teams may find the cost structure complex.
  • Crossref Blog Review (Rating: 4/5): Publishers report strong confidence in originality checks, but acknowledge dependence on accurate metadata and full-text links.