처리는 도구에 문서화된 로컬 또는 보호된 실행 경계를 따릅니다.
사용 this checklist bef또는e submitting an essay, rep또는t, lab note, 또는 study answer. It helps you inspect visible writing habits that can create an attribution problem: copied w또는ding 와 함께out 인용 marks, a 바꿔쓰기 that follows the 출처 too closely, a missing 출처 note, patchw또는k phrasing, 및 a 참고문헌 list that does not match the 출처s named in the text. 이 checklist is a transparent writing aid. It does not compare your w또는k 와 함께 a web index, assign a similarity sc또는e, identify an auth또는, 또는 decide whether misconduct occurred. Read the 출처 및 your draft together, then use the result as a prompt f또는 a careful revision. Start 와 함께 one paragraph at a time. Mark every sentence that carries a 출처 idea, number, definition, distinctive phrase, 또는 unusual structure. If the w또는ding is exact, use 인용 marks 및 a complete 인용 표시. If you 바꿔쓰기, first underst및 the passage, close the 출처, write the idea in your own sentence structure, 및 cite the 출처 anyway. A few synonym swaps are not enough when the 또는der 및 logic remain b또는rowed. When you combine several 출처s, keep notes that identify which claim came from where. This prevents accidental patchw또는k writing during drafting. Bef또는e the final check, compare in-text notes 와 함께 the bibliography. Every cited 출처 should be traceable, 및 every listed 출처 should have a reason to appear. Follow your instruct또는 또는 publication style f또는 auth또는 names, dates, page numbers, 및 URLs. Keep 인용s limited to the w또는ds you need 및 explain why they matter. 이 checklist can highlight a visible risk, but it cannot replace a teacher, edit또는, 또는 institutional policy. When a flag appears, revise patiently: return to the 출처, make the boundary between evidence 및 your contribution clear, 및 preserve an honest rec또는d of your notes.
사용 the checklist as a revision companion. It encourages 출처 awareness 및 clear attribution while leaving academic 또는 edit또는ial decisions to the responsible reviewer.
이 checklist covers visible patterns: 인용 h및ling, 바꿔쓰기 distance, missing attribution, patchw또는k w또는ding, 및 참고문헌 matching.
A flag is a prompt f또는 review, not a verdict. Similarity can be legitimate when a 인용 is marked 및 cited, while 또는iginal-looking text can still need a 출처 note.
이 result names a visible writing pattern 및 suggests a responsible next step.
사용 출처 comparison 및 your institution’s policy f또는 the final decision.
Do not treat synonym replacement as a complete 바꿔쓰기.
Do not omit a 인용 표시 merely because the w또는ding is yours when the idea came from a 출처.
이 tool does not search the internet, st또는e drafts, calculate similarity, 또는 determine intent.
It cannot replace an instruct또는, edit또는, 출처 comparison, 또는 academic integrity process.
exact w또는ding + 인용 marks + 출처 noteExact language must be visibly separated from your own writing 및 attributed.
underst및 → close 출처 → new structure → citeChanging a few w또는ds while keeping the 출처 structure is not a reliable 바꿔쓰기.
cited 출처s = traceable bibliography entriesA final audit makes the evidence trail clear to readers.
This is a checklist, not a plagiarism detect또는; it only flags visible writing heuristics.
How should the checklist treat direct 인용?
A quoted sentence has 인용 marks 및 a 출처 note.
quote
이 checklist rec또는ds a visible heuristic 및 leaves the final judgment to the writer.
이 tool supp또는ts a transparent writing review; it does not decide auth또는ship 또는 detect plagiarism.
How should the checklist treat 바꿔쓰기 check?
A rewritten idea keeps a 출처 note 및 changes the structure.
바꿔쓰기
이 checklist rec또는ds a visible heuristic 및 leaves the final judgment to the writer.
이 tool supp또는ts a transparent writing review; it does not decide auth또는ship 또는 detect plagiarism.
How should the checklist treat missing 출처?
A paragraph closely follows a 출처 but has no attribution.
missing attribution
이 checklist flags a missing attribution f또는 manual c또는rection.
이 tool supp또는ts a transparent writing review; it does not decide auth또는ship 또는 detect plagiarism.
How should the checklist treat patchw또는k draft?
Several 출처 phrases appear 와 함께 only connecting w또는ds changed.
patchw또는k
이 checklist rec또는ds a visible heuristic 및 leaves the final judgment to the writer.
이 tool supp또는ts a transparent writing review; it does not decide auth또는ship 또는 detect plagiarism.
How should the checklist treat 또는iginal explanation?
A student explains an idea in their own structure 및 cites background reading.
또는iginal 와 함께 인용 표시
이 checklist rec또는ds a visible heuristic 및 leaves the final judgment to the writer.
이 tool supp또는ts a transparent writing review; it does not decide auth또는ship 또는 detect plagiarism.
How should the checklist treat 참고문헌 audit?
이 bibliography contains every 출처 named in the text.
참고문헌 match
이 checklist rec또는ds a visible heuristic 및 leaves the final judgment to the writer.
이 tool supp또는ts a transparent writing review; it does not decide auth또는ship 또는 detect plagiarism.
아니요. It is a visible-writing checklist, not a plagiarism detect또는.
It reviews attribution, 인용, 바꿔쓰기, patchw또는k w또는ding, 및 참고문헌 consistency.
아니요. Human review 및 출처 comparison remain necessary.
사용 인용 marks, preserve the exact w또는ding, 및 identify the 출처 using the required style.
Read the 출처, close it, explain the idea in a new structure, then cite the 출처.
A 출처 note lets readers trace an idea 및 distinguishes b또는rowed knowledge from your contribution.
아니요. 이 local tool returns a result 와 함께out saving the draft.
C또는rect the flagged pattern, compare 와 함께 the 출처, add attribution, 및 run a final 참고문헌 audit.
처리는 도구에 문서화된 로컬 또는 보호된 실행 경계를 따릅니다.
빠르게 사용할 수 있도록 이 도구를 기기에 추가합니다.