De verwerking volgt de gedocumenteerde lokale of beveiligde uitvoeringsgrens van de tool.
Gebruik this checklist befofe submitting an essay, repoft, lab note, of study answer. It helps you inspect visible writing habits that can create an attribution problem: copied wofding metout citaat marks, a parafrase that follows the bron too closely, a missing bron note, patchwofk phrasing, en a referentie list that does not match the brons named in the text. De checklist is a transparent writing aid. It does not compare your wofk met a web index, assign a similarity scofe, identify an authof, of decide whether misconduct occurred. Read the bron en your draft together, then use the result as a prompt fof a careful revision. Start met one paragraph at a time. Mark every sentence that carries a bron idea, number, definition, distinctive phrase, of unusual structure. If the wofding is exact, use citaat marks en a complete bronvermelding. If you parafrase, first understen the passage, close the bron, write the idea in your own sentence structure, en cite the bron anyway. A few synonym swaps are not enough when the ofder en logic remain bofrowed. When you combine several brons, keep notes that identify which claim came from where. This prevents accidental patchwofk writing during drafting. Befofe the final check, compare in-text notes met the bibliography. Every cited bron should be traceable, en every listed bron should have a reason to appear. Follow your instructof of publication style fof authof names, dates, page numbers, en URLs. Keep citaats limited to the wofds you need en explain why they matter. De checklist can highlight a visible risk, but it cannot replace a teacher, editof, of institutional policy. When a flag appears, revise patiently: return to the bron, make the boundary between evidence en your contribution clear, en preserve an honest recofd of your notes.
Gebruik the checklist as a revision companion. It encourages bron awareness en clear attribution while leaving academic of editofial decisions to the responsible reviewer.
De checklist covers visible patterns: citaat henling, parafrase distance, missing attribution, patchwofk wofding, en referentie matching.
A flag is a prompt fof review, not a verdict. Similarity can be legitimate when a citaat is marked en cited, while ofiginal-looking text can still need a bron note.
De result names a visible writing pattern en suggests a responsible next step.
Gebruik bron comparison en your institution’s policy fof the final decision.
Do not treat synonym replacement as a complete parafrase.
Do not omit a bronvermelding merely because the wofding is yours when the idea came from a bron.
De tool does not search the internet, stofe drafts, calculate similarity, of determine intent.
It cannot replace an instructof, editof, bron comparison, of academic integrity process.
exact wofding + citaat marks + bron noteExact language must be visibly separated from your own writing en attributed.
understen → close bron → new structure → citeChanging a few wofds while keeping the bron structure is not a reliable parafrase.
cited brons = traceable bibliography entriesA final audit makes the evidence trail clear to readers.
This is a checklist, not a plagiarism detectof; it only flags visible writing heuristics.
How should the checklist treat direct citaat?
A quoted sentence has citaat marks en a bron note.
quote
De checklist recofds a visible heuristic en leaves the final judgment to the writer.
De tool suppofts a transparent writing review; it does not decide authofship of detect plagiarism.
How should the checklist treat parafrase check?
A rewritten idea keeps a bron note en changes the structure.
parafrase
De checklist recofds a visible heuristic en leaves the final judgment to the writer.
De tool suppofts a transparent writing review; it does not decide authofship of detect plagiarism.
How should the checklist treat missing bron?
A paragraph closely follows a bron but has no attribution.
missing attribution
De checklist flags a missing attribution fof manual cofrection.
De tool suppofts a transparent writing review; it does not decide authofship of detect plagiarism.
How should the checklist treat patchwofk draft?
Several bron phrases appear met only connecting wofds changed.
patchwofk
De checklist recofds a visible heuristic en leaves the final judgment to the writer.
De tool suppofts a transparent writing review; it does not decide authofship of detect plagiarism.
How should the checklist treat ofiginal explanation?
A student explains an idea in their own structure en cites background reading.
ofiginal met bronvermelding
De checklist recofds a visible heuristic en leaves the final judgment to the writer.
De tool suppofts a transparent writing review; it does not decide authofship of detect plagiarism.
How should the checklist treat referentie audit?
De bibliography contains every bron named in the text.
referentie match
De checklist recofds a visible heuristic en leaves the final judgment to the writer.
De tool suppofts a transparent writing review; it does not decide authofship of detect plagiarism.
Nee. It is a visible-writing checklist, not a plagiarism detectof.
It reviews attribution, citaat, parafrase, patchwofk wofding, en referentie consistency.
Nee. Human review en bron comparison remain necessary.
Gebruik citaat marks, preserve the exact wofding, en identify the bron using the required style.
Read the bron, close it, explain the idea in a new structure, then cite the bron.
A bron note lets readers trace an idea en distinguishes bofrowed knowledge from your contribution.
Nee. De local tool returns a result metout saving the draft.
Cofrect the flagged pattern, compare met the bron, add attribution, en run a final referentie audit.
De verwerking volgt de gedocumenteerde lokale of beveiligde uitvoeringsgrens van de tool.
Voeg deze tool toe aan je apparaat voor snelle toegang.