Overview
Tools such as Turnitin, iThenticate (the engine behind Crossref Similarity Check, which many journals use) and other checkers compare your document with web pages, published articles and previously submitted papers, then highlight strings of matching text. The headline percentage is simply the share of your document that matched something. It says nothing about whether the match was quoted, cited, common phrasing, a required template or someone else's idea presented as yours. That judgment belongs to a human reader.
People usually come to us in one of two moods. Some are alarmed by a number (a 32% on a thesis chapter, a journal desk editor asking about overlap) and need to know whether there is a real problem. Others have a low score and still want reassurance that paraphrases of key sources are adequate, because a low score can hide close paraphrase that software does not catch. In both cases we work through the report match by match rather than chasing the percentage.
Where a match does point to a genuine issue — a missing citation, a paraphrase that follows the source's structure too closely, reused text from your own earlier paper — we explain the problem and the correct remedy. You make the revisions. We never offer to 'lower the score' by disguising text, swapping synonyms or using paraphrasing tools, because that hides the source rather than crediting it and is itself treated as misconduct at most institutions.
Who it’s for and the problems it solves
This is for you if you are…
- Students who received a similarity report from their course or thesis portal and do not know which highlighted passages matter
- Doctoral candidates preparing a thesis for final submission where the graduate school sets a similarity threshold
- Authors whose manuscript was queried by a journal after a Crossref Similarity Check (iThenticate) screen
- Researchers turning a thesis into articles, or reusing methods text across papers, who are unsure about text recycling
- Writers in English as an additional language who worry that their paraphrasing stays too close to the sources
Common problems we help with
- Your score looks high, but much of it seems to come from your reference list, quotations or a university cover page
- A single source accounts for a large block of matches and you are not sure whether your paraphrase is acceptable
- Your methods section matches your own previously published paper and the journal has asked about it
- Your supervisor mentioned a percentage threshold and you do not know how it is applied in practice
- You have heard of 'paraphrasing tools' to lower scores and want to know the legitimate way to deal with overlap instead
What’s included — and what isn’t
Included
- Review of the full similarity report you share (PDF export or screenshots of the match overview and highlighted text)
- Classification of each significant match: properly quoted and cited, common or technical phrasing, template or boilerplate text, reference-list entries, self-reuse, or a genuine attribution problem
- Explanation of how exclusion settings (bibliography, quoted material, small matches) affect the number and whether your institution applies them
- For genuine issues: guidance on correct quotation, citation, summarizing and paraphrasing, with a worked example from your own text
- Advice on text recycling and self-plagiarism: when reusing your own methods text is acceptable and how to disclose or cite it
- Optional pre-submission check using a similarity tool we have access to, clearly labeled as indicative because different databases give different results
- A short written summary you can use when discussing the report with your supervisor or editor
Not included
- Rewording, 'spinning' or synonym-swapping text to reduce a similarity score — we explain the fix and you revise your own writing
- Promising a target percentage or that your institution's checker will return the same result as ours
- Submitting documents to your university's Turnitin account on your behalf or using another person's login
- Deciding whether misconduct occurred — that is your institution's or journal's decision under its own policy
What you receive
- Annotated match review
- Your report or a match table with each significant source marked as no action, cite or quote properly, rewrite in your own words, or discuss with supervisor or editor, with a one-line reason for each.
- Fix guide for genuine issues
- For each passage that needs work, an explanation of what is wrong and a worked example showing the correct technique (quotation, citation, summary) using neutral sample text, so you can revise in your own voice.
- Settings and threshold note
- A plain-language note on which exclusions were applied, how they change the headline number, and questions to ask about your institution's or journal's policy.
- Follow-up call
- A short session to go through the annotated report and answer questions before you revise or reply to your supervisor or editor.
How it works
Share the report and context
Send the similarity report, the document it was generated from, and any guidance or threshold your institution or journal has given you.
Match-by-match review
We work through every source above a small-match cut-off, checking the original source where accessible and noting whether each overlap is cited, quoted, formulaic or problematic.
Annotated findings
You receive the annotated review, the fix guide for genuine issues and the settings note.
Walkthrough and your revision
We go through the findings together. You revise your text; if you wish, we look at the revised passages to confirm the citation technique is now correct.
How similarity reports work, and how we read them
- Similarity index
- The percentage of your document that overlaps with sources in the tool's database. It includes correctly quoted and cited material unless those are excluded, which is why a well-referenced literature review can score higher than a poorly referenced essay.
- Match overview and sources
- Matches are grouped by source. A few large blocks from one source are more informative than many 1–2% matches scattered across dozens of sources, which usually reflect common phrases.
- Exclusion filters
- Tools let instructors exclude the bibliography, quoted text and small matches under a word count. Whether these were applied changes the number considerably, so we note the settings before interpreting anything.
- Crossref Similarity Check (iThenticate)
- Publishers that are Crossref members use iThenticate to screen submissions against a large database of scholarly full text. Editors review the matches and make their own decision; there is no universal acceptable percentage.
- Patchwriting and close paraphrase
- Text that keeps a source's sentence structure while changing some words. It may produce partial matches or none at all, so we look for it by comparing your passage with the source, not only by reading the highlighting.
- Text recycling
- Reuse of your own previously published or submitted text. Norms differ by field and publisher: reused methods descriptions are often tolerated with citation, reused findings or discussion usually are not.
Why a percentage alone tells you very little
Two documents with the same 18% can be in completely different situations. In one, the matches are a correctly quoted definition, standard phrases such as 'the results indicate that', and reference-list entries that the checker did not exclude. In the other, 12% comes from a single uncited paragraph lifted from a textbook. Most institutions say explicitly that no fixed percentage defines plagiarism, and journal editors screening with Crossref Similarity Check are asked to review the matches rather than apply a cut-off.
That is why our review is organized around sources and passages rather than the headline figure. If your institution does set a threshold, we explain how it is typically applied, but we still focus on whether each match is legitimately attributed.
- Usually harmless: quoted and cited text, reference-list entries, titles of instruments and scales, standard methods phrases, institutional cover pages and declarations
- Worth a closer look: long matches to a single source, matches to another student's paper, overlap with your own earlier work
- Needs fixing: uncited passages, quotations without quotation marks, paraphrases that follow the original sentence by sentence
Fixing genuine issues without hiding anything
When a passage really is a problem, the remedy is attribution, not disguise. Depending on the case, that means placing the original words in quotation marks with a page-specific citation, summarizing the idea much more briefly in your own structure and citing it, or combining several sources into your own argument so the paragraph does real synthesis. We show each technique with examples so you can apply it to your own paragraphs.
Synonym-swapping or running text through a paraphrasing tool may change the number but leaves the underlying problem — someone else's ideas and structure presented without credit — in place, and many institutions now treat deliberate obfuscation as a separate integrity breach. We will not do it, and we will tell you plainly if a passage needs more than cosmetic change.
Self-plagiarism and reusing your own work
Researchers often reuse their own words legitimately: a thesis chapter becomes an article, a methods description is repeated across a series of studies. Whether that is acceptable depends on the publisher's text-recycling policy, copyright in the earlier version and whether you disclose it. We help you identify which reused passages to cite or rewrite, and how to mention prior publication or thesis origin in a cover letter. For converting a thesis chapter into a paper more broadly, see thesis-to-article support.
What the work can look like
Illustrative example — fictional data
Sample excerpt: annotated similarity review
A master's student received a 27% similarity index on a 9,000-word dissertation draft, with bibliography exclusion switched off. The sources and figures below are invented to illustrate the format of our review.
Summary
Of the 27%, about 9 percentage points come from the reference list and 5 from correctly quoted and cited definitions. With the bibliography and quotes excluded, the index would be roughly 13%. Of that, most is scattered short phrasing; one source needs attention.
Source 3 (a 2019 review article, 4%)
Section 2.3, paragraphs 2–3, follows the source's sentence order and key terms closely, with one citation at the end. Action: rewrite as a shorter summary in your own structure, cite at the point each idea is used, and quote the one definition you want to keep verbatim.
Source 7 (another institution's student paper, 2%)
Matches are the standard wording of a published scale's instructions, which both papers quote. Action: none beyond confirming the scale is cited and the wording is presented as quoted.
Illustrative example only. The percentages, sources and document are fictional and do not describe a real client.
What you’ll need to provide
- The full similarity report, not just the percentage (a downloadable PDF or screenshots of every highlighted page)
- The document that was checked, in an editable format
- Your institution's or journal's policy on similarity, text recycling and any threshold you have been told about
- Your reference list and, for key sources, the PDFs you paraphrased
- Any message from your supervisor, examiner or editor about the report
You don’t need everything ready to ask for a quote — tell us what you have and we’ll say what’s missing.
What affects price and turnaround
Price depends on
- Length of the document and the number of significant sources in the report
- Whether we need to compare passages against original sources to assess close paraphrase
- Whether you want an additional indicative check run with a tool we have access to
- Follow-up review of your revised passages
- Deadline, for example a thesis portal closing date or journal response window
Turnaround depends on
- Receiving the full report rather than just the score
- Access to the key sources you paraphrased
- How many passages need detailed comparison against originals
Every project is quoted individually. How we price our work.
Questions people ask before starting
What similarity percentage is acceptable?
There is no universal figure. Some programs mention a threshold for triggering a closer look, but the decision rests on what the matches are. A 20% made of cited quotations and references can be fine; a 6% made of one uncited paragraph is not. We help you understand your specific report and the policy that applies to you.
Can you make my score lower?
We can help you fix the passages that are genuinely problematic, which often lowers the score as a side effect. We do not reword text to evade the checker. That approach hides a source rather than crediting it, and many institutions treat it as misconduct in its own right.
Will your check give the same result as my university's Turnitin?
Probably not exactly. Each tool and each institution's configuration searches different databases, including the institution's own store of previously submitted papers, which outside checkers cannot access. Any check we run is indicative only; your institution's report is the one that counts.
Will uploading my thesis to a checker store it in a database?
Some tools keep submitted papers in a repository used for future comparisons. Before running any check we confirm the tool is set so your document is not stored, and we never upload your work to a student repository. If you prefer, we can work only from the report you already have.
My supervisor says my paraphrasing is too close even though the score is low. Why?
Software detects matching strings. A paraphrase that changes many words but keeps the original's structure and sequence of ideas may not match at all while still being too close. We compare those passages with the sources and show you how to write a genuine summary.
Is this confidential?
Yes. Your document and report are used only for the review, not shared, and not added to any comparison database.