If your articles are being used elsewhere without your permission (or without the rightsholder’s permission if you’ve given away or sold the rights) then you’re the victim of plagiarism. All I’m saying in the article is that matching software does what it says on the tin — it matches. A match isn’t necessarily plagiarism. Wholesale copying is.

But I don’t know what you mean by ‘matching software being set to 60%’ — it can be set to match in different ways as I said in the last comment but I don’t understand what ‘being set to 60%’ would mean in this context. It might give a result of 60% matched but that doesn’t automatically imply 60% plagiarised. I don’t understand what you mean by someone ‘doing a 60% match’ — it’s the software that does the match and gives the percentage.

I used the software as a tool prior to assessing student work that would then go towards degree-level qualifications. It was just that, a tool, that was useful when used properly, but dangerous if not. And of course I didn’t give details of any of my students’ work, that would have been a breach of confidentiality. I was making a general point. Matching software can — and has — been used in uncovering blatant plagiarism and people have ended up severely sanctioned because of it. But, like Grammarly and any of these things, it’s a tool to be used appropriately, and I was reacting to its misuse.