Independent means intellectually accountable
Academic writing connects existing knowledge to a question, selection, analysis and conclusion for which you take responsibility. Defining a problem carefully can be an original contribution, as can comparing positions systematically, applying a method or interpreting a finding. Prior work does not diminish that contribution when its role remains visible. Unclear provenance, by contrast, can undermine an otherwise thoughtful piece of work.
The DFG Code of Conduct links authorship to a genuine, identifiable contribution and requires other people’s contributions to be acknowledged appropriately. For students, this obligation extends beyond direct quotations. Borrowed concepts, lines of argument, data, figures and distinctive interpretations may require attribution too. Common knowledge normally does not need an individual citation, although the boundary varies with discipline, audience and context.
Source-safe notes prevent later detective work
Keep four layers distinct in every extract: verbatim quotation, summary, your response and an open question. Add quotation marks when copying and record the page immediately. Link paraphrase notes to a precise location as well. Label your analysis explicitly so it cannot later be mistaken for the source’s conclusion. This modest discipline preserves ownership when notes are rearranged into a draft.
Build paragraphs around the job your argument needs them to do. State the point, then bring in relevant evidence, rather than producing a sequence of source summaries. By the end of a paragraph, a reader should know what the evidence reports and where your comparison or inference begins. A cluster of references at the final full stop can be ambiguous if it is unclear which source supports which sentence.
Paraphrasing demonstrates understanding
A responsible paraphrase preserves meaning while changing perspective and structure to serve your argument. Read the passage, set it aside, explain the relevant idea from understanding, then check scope and technical terms against the original. Cite it. Replacing words with synonyms, translating the sentence or reversing clauses is neither a secure paraphrase nor a reliable way to preserve meaning.
A concise direct quotation may be more appropriate for definitions, striking language or wording that is itself being analysed. Mark omissions and insertions according to the chosen citation style. Avoid citing a source second-hand where the original is accessible and material to the claim. Where only a secondary account can be checked, make the chain explicit instead of implying first-hand verification.
Editing help without concealed rewriting
Feedback is an ordinary part of scholarship. Ask readers to identify unclear reasoning, structural problems or errors rather than invisibly rewriting the submission. Decide which suggestions to accept and verify them. A substantial intellectual contribution may justify acknowledgement or another disclosure; no universal threshold can be inferred from this page. The assessment regulations and supervisory agreement take priority.
Digital support ranges from spelling correction to generative rewriting. Record tool, purpose, affected stages and your verification in the manner local guidance requires. Never cite a reference merely because a system proposed it. Open the source, check that it exists and confirm it supports the sentence. Responsibility for evidence, citations, reasoning and the submitted text remains with the person named on the work.
A reverse audit before submission
- Label each paragraph by its main function: reporting, comparison, method, analysis or conclusion.
- Check every specific borrowed claim against a relevant, accessible source location.
- Reconcile in-text references and bibliography in both directions.
- Review figures, tables, data and translated passages for provenance and rights.
- Compare the contribution matrix with the methods, acknowledgements and tools declaration.
- Read conclusions against the actual results and remove certainty the evidence cannot carry.
A similarity check can identify textual overlaps during this review, but it cannot reliably infer intellectual provenance, determine whether a paraphrase is adequate or judge independent work. Every match needs human examination in the context of the source, attribution and assignment.