These are the four files submitted
to Liverpool John Moores and to Cambridge
University Research Integrity Office in September
2025. They were compiled using various pieces of
software and then checked visually by a number of
academics and journalists: Jack Grove, David
Harris and several other UK academics who prefer
to remain anonymous. Particular thanks are due to
David Sanders, of Purdue University, a leading
research integrity expert.The files should be seen
as complementing the analysis already published by
Nathan Cofnas.
https://ncofnas.com/p/dei-fraud-and-cover-up-at-cambridge
We invite anyone with an interest to download and
consider these (lengthy) files and join an online
discussion on plagiarism (to be announced).
All the files are in ZIP format
File 1
File 2
File 3
File 4
This is a preliminary version of an independent
analysis by a US computer engineer. It was
constructed using LLM and basic statistics, not
Copyleaks or similar. Try this superb interactive
version:
Jason
Arday interactive viewer
Independent (free)
Turnitin
analysis of Arday's PhD by an anonymous
substacker with
commentary.
I have not checked it myself.
NB according to a leaked lawyer's letter, Arday's
PhD was also checked for plagiarism 'by
individuals' at Cambridge and by himself:
"We are instructed that,
following the 19 September Enquiry, our client
has arranged for his PhD thesis to be
independently peer-reviewed by individuals at
the University of Cambridge. As part of this
review, his thesis has been run through
Copyleaks, a similar plagiarism detection
program to Turnitin, and it returned a result of
2.6%. Scribber, another similar platform,
returned a percentage of 7%. Our client has also
processed his PhD thesis himself through
Turnitin and it returned a similarity result of
6%. As set out above, none of those scores are
sufficient to substantiate an allegation of
plagiarism, and the variance between these
scores on the different platforms is indicative
of the difficulties associated with plagiarism
reviews."